who else is selling/downgrading all their components to avoid the 10% penalty?
- Thread starter jmg
- Start date
I applaud this last bit. Indeed. We are going to need to learn to maximise the capabilities of what we build, get every last .0% of performance out of them, make compromises etc
If we had never known any different (10% had always been there) maybe we would see more organic and varied player choices in ships, rather than the throwaway approach.
Cheers
I've done about the same, minus the combat ship.
This Thread:
Cheers Cmdr's
Cheers Cmdr's
Ah, yes there are other ways. But without this penalty we have two options (actually many options). With it, there is only one option. I cannot see why you are pleased that FD wants to take something away from others that doesn't affect you either way, since you don't switch roles. I really don't understand the propensity to force others to be like themselves. This reduces choice, plain and simple.
YES! finally, one of the "multi-ship" proponents gets it! bravo, and plus rep!
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah, it's really an amazing feeling when one of the "multi-ship" phan boys see that there are other ways of playing ED
Obviously you haven't played many games where the same "non-scarceness" of items exists and yet those items are used to balance gameplay and hoarding becomes a very real activity that basically nullifies the balance. We are seeing this already with credits (Which is currently the only item you can store). It'll happen with any item you allow the player to store and use for balance purposes.
The only way allowing "storage" of items is make the items scarce. Otherwise they just get stockpiled for the purpose of circumvention.
So that's how such a feature would create a hoarding problem.
Deleted member 38366
D
--- Deleted ---
Last edited by a moderator:
I do find this amusing. Then again, I have had to purchase and sell my python about 8 times now. I am surprised there hasn't been more moaning about losing the 10% on the resell of ship.
Then again, if you have a dedicated trading ship, you can make up that amount in several hours. But that would require many of the complainers to fly in a method they would be unused to... Honest, combat free, PVP free work. But oh well. It is their choice to play that way.
I am an advocate for the 10%, and would suggest the take it further if any of the modules in question have ever been damaged. Historical damage should further reduce the resale price of any said modues.
People will always find something to complain about. Even if they aren't interested in it in the slightest. (take me for example, with this thread)
Then again, if you have a dedicated trading ship, you can make up that amount in several hours. But that would require many of the complainers to fly in a method they would be unused to... Honest, combat free, PVP free work. But oh well. It is their choice to play that way.
I am an advocate for the 10%, and would suggest the take it further if any of the modules in question have ever been damaged. Historical damage should further reduce the resale price of any said modues.
People will always find something to complain about. Even if they aren't interested in it in the slightest. (take me for example, with this thread)
*Ahem.* Gameplay time is a limited resource...
I'm very aware of my time being one, but notice I said "in the game".
But there is no in-game scarcity for elite dangerous. no matter if I have 1 ship or 1000 ships, I'm not reducing any other player's ability to buy a ship.
Same with modules, or rep, or commodities. Everything in game is either available at any time, or refreshed constantly, so I'm at a loss as to how you see this affecting balance.
The only things that affects balance is: the pilots' ability in combat, and the time a person can spend generating credits to buy non-scarce game assets. Neither of which is controlled by FD, nor can they be.
Last edited:
Hu? Why did you sell your Python that often? Undecided about it?
i see that as a different problem. i would like to have detailed module information in-game at the outfitting dock so i can make an informed decision w/o resorting to any wiki or advices on the forum. that said, experimenting is a nice part of the game, and i personally have no problem if it comes at a cost.
apart from experimenting, this only affects players who use one ship for everything. well, that strategy was their decision, and it has its upsides. now it has also a downside and it's an opportunity to reconsider it or else live with it and cough up 10% of every refit. not a drama, if you ask me. who said you can always do anything you want w/o consequences?
obligatory rl reference in the form of an enlightening car analogy: would you have your car repurposed as a 4x4 every weekend? what would that cost you?
but, hey, you can't just sit idle while someone is being wrong on the internets!!
And so what about people like me, working our way up in the galaxy?
I haven't been playing enough to get further than an Asp. Had just tried to make it to Sag A*, failed due to connection issues, and was forced to re-spec to trader to get enough money together to afford the better scoop. so now it seems I need to rush to T7 to get a better chance of being able to do something like that again. And to ensure I have the money to do it properly - not skimp on the insurance, have enough to replace the cargo, etc. I will probably have to sell the Asp as well. OK, as long as I do it before 1.3, I can do so with minimal losses.
.
But ALL this will do is force people to make trading their primary income [it is, after all, the quickest non-combat money-maker in the game. Don't even talk about mining or exploration, they don't even come close.] and they will go from trade ship to trade ship until they can afford the best outfitting for the ship they want. Yes, I will rush my T7. Then I will work on getting enough from trading to buy a new Asp with that A6 scoop I wanted, and the best FSD (again), and the DSS and ADS (again) and I'll lose money on replacing the stock tank with a smaller one to reduce mass.
.
All of which is removing me from the thing I want to play E: D for - the exploration - and making me go through the tedium of 'take comoddity 'A' to station 2, sell it, buy comoddity 'B', and return to station 1, sell it, rinse and repeat, Ad Nausium. When you have enough for a bigger ship, don't forget that you might as well now sell it with the modules attached as you can't get more for them by selling them sepperately [which, let's face it, is why this is being brought in. FD never intended people to get the modules for free, and we have been lucky to have got them that way up to now.] The increased profit from using a bigger ship will probably mean that it's still well worth going through the upgrades.
.
Don't forget, Znort, that everyone starts as a player who uses one ship for everything. [How many sidey's do you think EVER went through this game purely as a trading vessel? Or purely as an exploration craft? or a fighter?] All this seems to me to be doing is prolonging the 'noob' section of the game where people figure out exactly what role they actually want to play in the galaxy. [which will put more people firmly in the combat camp. It's certainly more exiting than trading or exploring for most people.]
.
Also why bother classing anything as "Multi-role" if you are then going to make re-fitting it too expensive? [not that I think 10% IS too expensive, just that I wouldn't want it to go up from there.] If everyone is that bothered about this, then the 'multi-role' ships will become less popular as everyone gets what is considered "the best craft for the role". Some players may well end up with a 'trading 'conda', an 'exploration 'conda', and a 'fightin' 'conda', but I bet they get the trader first!
I haven't been playing enough to get further than an Asp. Had just tried to make it to Sag A*, failed due to connection issues, and was forced to re-spec to trader to get enough money together to afford the better scoop. so now it seems I need to rush to T7 to get a better chance of being able to do something like that again. And to ensure I have the money to do it properly - not skimp on the insurance, have enough to replace the cargo, etc. I will probably have to sell the Asp as well. OK, as long as I do it before 1.3, I can do so with minimal losses.
.
But ALL this will do is force people to make trading their primary income [it is, after all, the quickest non-combat money-maker in the game. Don't even talk about mining or exploration, they don't even come close.] and they will go from trade ship to trade ship until they can afford the best outfitting for the ship they want. Yes, I will rush my T7. Then I will work on getting enough from trading to buy a new Asp with that A6 scoop I wanted, and the best FSD (again), and the DSS and ADS (again) and I'll lose money on replacing the stock tank with a smaller one to reduce mass.
.
All of which is removing me from the thing I want to play E: D for - the exploration - and making me go through the tedium of 'take comoddity 'A' to station 2, sell it, buy comoddity 'B', and return to station 1, sell it, rinse and repeat, Ad Nausium. When you have enough for a bigger ship, don't forget that you might as well now sell it with the modules attached as you can't get more for them by selling them sepperately [which, let's face it, is why this is being brought in. FD never intended people to get the modules for free, and we have been lucky to have got them that way up to now.] The increased profit from using a bigger ship will probably mean that it's still well worth going through the upgrades.
.
Don't forget, Znort, that everyone starts as a player who uses one ship for everything. [How many sidey's do you think EVER went through this game purely as a trading vessel? Or purely as an exploration craft? or a fighter?] All this seems to me to be doing is prolonging the 'noob' section of the game where people figure out exactly what role they actually want to play in the galaxy. [which will put more people firmly in the combat camp. It's certainly more exiting than trading or exploring for most people.]
.
Also why bother classing anything as "Multi-role" if you are then going to make re-fitting it too expensive? [not that I think 10% IS too expensive, just that I wouldn't want it to go up from there.] If everyone is that bothered about this, then the 'multi-role' ships will become less popular as everyone gets what is considered "the best craft for the role". Some players may well end up with a 'trading 'conda', an 'exploration 'conda', and a 'fightin' 'conda', but I bet they get the trader first!
I sold my stuff.
I rarely have a set plan both in game and real life. I tend to just go with whatever I think would be fun at that time.
The 10% thing basically means I can't really play ED since I would need to play for hours just to be able to go with what seemed like fun a few hours before.
Also, I am not likely to ever try the more expensive weapons, because that would cost me a LOT of money. Money that I can't just pick up unless I start Pirating the harsh way.
10% on modules sounds logical, but it's also bullcrap because there are no clear try-before-you-buy/storage options.
Or I should be allowed to have multiple Commanders on one account, so I can just switch to the trader or the pirate when I feel like it.
There are three kinds of people that agree with the 10% thing:
1. People with plenty of experience and money that they don't know how to spend;
2. People that have not owned ships like the ASP or better;
3. Trolls.
I rarely have a set plan both in game and real life. I tend to just go with whatever I think would be fun at that time.
The 10% thing basically means I can't really play ED since I would need to play for hours just to be able to go with what seemed like fun a few hours before.
Also, I am not likely to ever try the more expensive weapons, because that would cost me a LOT of money. Money that I can't just pick up unless I start Pirating the harsh way.
10% on modules sounds logical, but it's also bullcrap because there are no clear try-before-you-buy/storage options.
Or I should be allowed to have multiple Commanders on one account, so I can just switch to the trader or the pirate when I feel like it.
There are three kinds of people that agree with the 10% thing:
1. People with plenty of experience and money that they don't know how to spend;
2. People that have not owned ships like the ASP or better;
3. Trolls.
Yeah, there's a MASSIVE hoarding problem with ships, right? LOGIC, GIVE IT A TRY!!!
NEXT!!!!
- - - Updated - - -
Ultimatly, I'll probably end up getting at least another conda for trading. most likely keeping my current conda for exploration. Haven't decided yet what I'm going to do for a combat ship. Maybe just ignore combat.
Well, it seems the overwhelming majority are doing what I'm doing .. heading back and reselling everything in preparation for the imposition of the penalty.
Last edited:
Yeah, it's just like in RL. Instead of working harder, people with less hold it against people who have more.
good post by the way.
In reply to the OP, nope, leaving my ships as they are. My Anaconda is set as I want it for trading, my Python is slowly building back up to full combat spec (sacrificed a lot of A rated components to speed up the replacement of my T9 with the Conda).
Personally, whilst I understand why the 10% is happening, I don't feel it is a good thing, as it just adds to the overall grind of the game. For those that have "been there, seen it, got the huge pile of filthy lucre", the option is there to liquidate some assets and see how the dust settles. For those on the grind, it will just spin it out a lot longer, as each hard-earned upgrade will require just that bit more money to keep them safe and insured.
It means I will no longer switch a multi-role ship between roles, which somewhat defeats the purpose of them, if it will cost me millions of credits to do so. Shame really, I was looking forward to taking Lady Eleanor for another long trip. I'll probably end up buying an Asp. Nevermind.
Fly safe (and insured) Commanders.
Personally, whilst I understand why the 10% is happening, I don't feel it is a good thing, as it just adds to the overall grind of the game. For those that have "been there, seen it, got the huge pile of filthy lucre", the option is there to liquidate some assets and see how the dust settles. For those on the grind, it will just spin it out a lot longer, as each hard-earned upgrade will require just that bit more money to keep them safe and insured.
It means I will no longer switch a multi-role ship between roles, which somewhat defeats the purpose of them, if it will cost me millions of credits to do so. Shame really, I was looking forward to taking Lady Eleanor for another long trip. I'll probably end up buying an Asp. Nevermind.
Fly safe (and insured) Commanders.
Just curious. What if there was an option in game to store ship modules that have been purchased and then pay a small fee to retrofit your ship when you want to set it up for a new role. They could make it a faction reward where you need to grind up faction at that station to gain a new "garage" or storage feature. It seems like that option would make a lot of people happy.