who else is selling/downgrading all their components to avoid the 10% penalty?
- Thread starter jmg
- Start date
Well waddah yah know, my procrastinating ways have actually worked to my benefit,,,,,
For a change.
yup, you won on this one.
Please start new threads on difficulty of getting modules back
Cheers Cmdr's
lol - anyone know where I can find A7 thrusters and an A7 power plant
(only joking, I'm docked at Shinrarta Dezhra)
Nothing daft about it, but if that's the best argument you can muster, is it any wonder FD listened to those who complained about the 10% penalty over those who wanted to keep it? The former side had decent arguments, the latter didn't.
Storing modules will not be the free-ride you think it is. Its going to take a player a reasonable amount of effort to get the majority of their modules stored in one place because, with the exception of founders world, no one place sells all the modules. There's no way to transport modules outside of fitting them to a ship. So its a fairly involved logistical exercise to get them all into one place. Or even within a few jumps.
And who says storing modules should be free? I think there should be a modest charge for ships and modules for storage. Nowhere near the 10% value of the component, because that's ludicrously overpriced, but a few hundred credits per module and vessel would make sense.
TheLoneTrucker
Banned
knee jerk reactions and now you have to go module shopping again
Yes, it was quite horrible having to find all the modules again for my Anaconda. I mean, scrolling through the long lists at Jameson Memorial was such a hassle.
Distance was talking about parity with ship storage.
So far as I am aware, ship storage is FREE! [AND unlimited!]
Therefore Distance IS talking about free module storage. [which, as I said, is DAFT!]
.
Personally, I am not that worried about a reduction in how much you get for selling modules. You get it for ships, why not modules? I also believe you should get storage, both for ships AND modules, but should have to pay for both. After all, how 'realistic is it that you can buy a module, use it for what could be months/10's to 1,000's of Kylies, and sell it again FOR EXACTLY WHAT YOU PAID FOR IT! [something which, if you had read my previous posts, is stated more than once!]. It also cannot be viable for a station to store A WHOLE SHIP for free, no matter how long for, but as they don't charge a basic Docking Fee, the stations themselves must be making enough from the comoddities markets that they don't need to bother.
Last edited:
no 10% penalty now - latest beta 8 patch has it removed.
can close thread now.
can close thread now.
We would appear to be in violent agreement about this.
I like your rationale that the station must be taking a cut from the commodities market, and probably from bounties as well, to cover the costs of storing ships and probably modules as well.
This said, having a nominal charge for storage of ships or modules does make sense to me. I'm less sure about a docking fee, if only for those unfortunate players who lose everything and could find themselves in a situation of being unable to afford to dock.
I don't think the idea was to punish multirole like that. It looked more to be creating a system where you had to compromise on your loadout - after all, it is a multi-role ship, surely that means it should be kitted out for multiple roles, not completely reconfigured every time the whim takes you to try something else. It might have brought a bit of skill and judgement to the game instead of having everyone running the same top-end loadout on the same ships doing the same things. It was a big part of the earlier games, deciding on the trade-off between money, weight and effectiveness on any given module, and having to live with your choice or lose money exchanging the parts later.
But it's all moot now anyway. More to the point, it now looks like if you whine enough about anything, the devs will let you have your way. Shame really.
Yes, the 10% 'fee' has been removed - from 1.3. I haven't heard that FD have promised not to put it in at a later date.
.
I personally would like something similar to be implimented. With perhaps a sliding scaled dependant on time the module has been owned, so that if you return it within a day, you get penalised less than if you had it for 6 months.
.
I would also agree to storage fees - if they could be worked out fairly. FD would need to consider several points.
1) how/when are the storage fees paid? What happens to modules stored because the owner has gone exploring for 4 months? At what point does it become cheaper to sell a module and take the (proposed) 10% hit on the selling price? Will it be a 'Pay up front' system where the owner risks losing the module if he doesn't get back in time, or is it a 'subscription' based service where the money is automatically removed from your balance at regular intervals?
2) how are they (FD) going to deal with all the extra data this will generate? They will have to keep who paid for storage, where the item is stored, and when the storage runs out on what could be multiple items over multiple locations for each and every commander in the game.
3) Is it a flat fee or a 'tiered' system? Obviously a larger module will take up more space in the station, which means the station would be entitled to ask for more money to store it. How much more? What about module quality? Surely better modules would need to be insured (by the station) and that will increase their costs. What happens when you combine those factors? A E1 module will certainly be cheaper to store than an E6 one, and an E1 module will also be cheaper to store than an A1 module, but what difference in cost to store an E6 compared to an A1? The A1 is smaller, so the station can collect more fees in a given space, but it is more valuable so may need secure storage and possibly guards on it.
.
Also I would not have a flat rate docking fee, but have it based on pad size so small pads are less expensive to land at than medium pads, which are less expensive than large ones. Fees could also be collected at the end of your stay, prior to releasing the clamps. This way you have had your chance to sell your cargo/hand in your bounties or exploration data, and mostly they should be CHEAP! You don't want to price beginners out of the game because they are bankrupt before they have got the hang of the game, and again, you don't want players to think that you are just adding to the 'grind' of the game for the sake of it.
.
I personally would like something similar to be implimented. With perhaps a sliding scaled dependant on time the module has been owned, so that if you return it within a day, you get penalised less than if you had it for 6 months.
.
I would also agree to storage fees - if they could be worked out fairly. FD would need to consider several points.
1) how/when are the storage fees paid? What happens to modules stored because the owner has gone exploring for 4 months? At what point does it become cheaper to sell a module and take the (proposed) 10% hit on the selling price? Will it be a 'Pay up front' system where the owner risks losing the module if he doesn't get back in time, or is it a 'subscription' based service where the money is automatically removed from your balance at regular intervals?
2) how are they (FD) going to deal with all the extra data this will generate? They will have to keep who paid for storage, where the item is stored, and when the storage runs out on what could be multiple items over multiple locations for each and every commander in the game.
3) Is it a flat fee or a 'tiered' system? Obviously a larger module will take up more space in the station, which means the station would be entitled to ask for more money to store it. How much more? What about module quality? Surely better modules would need to be insured (by the station) and that will increase their costs. What happens when you combine those factors? A E1 module will certainly be cheaper to store than an E6 one, and an E1 module will also be cheaper to store than an A1 module, but what difference in cost to store an E6 compared to an A1? The A1 is smaller, so the station can collect more fees in a given space, but it is more valuable so may need secure storage and possibly guards on it.
.
Also I would not have a flat rate docking fee, but have it based on pad size so small pads are less expensive to land at than medium pads, which are less expensive than large ones. Fees could also be collected at the end of your stay, prior to releasing the clamps. This way you have had your chance to sell your cargo/hand in your bounties or exploration data, and mostly they should be CHEAP! You don't want to price beginners out of the game because they are bankrupt before they have got the hang of the game, and again, you don't want players to think that you are just adding to the 'grind' of the game for the sake of it.
my bad, sorry. i assumed you had it and traded it for the asp.
yeah, well, the tithe has been lifted, good for you ;-)
Deleted member 38366
D
--- Deleted ---
Last edited by a moderator:
amazing how many people are so upset over a change that , even if implemented, would never have had any positive impact, only negative impact.
Put down the stick.
.
And mods, for the love of god, close this thread.
And as I have said on more than one occasion, I wasn't actually against it. It, or at least a variation of it, made the game that little bit more realistic. I have made suggestions on how to improve it and indeed expand it, but I have never actually been against it.
And please enlighten me. That was a reply to my quoted post how?
I am, at least, trying to come up with suggestions on how the game MAY be improved. I know that I have no actual influence on whether FD actually use any of these suggestions - they are welcome to if they believe they can work - and I'm not going to trow a hissy fit if they don't appear in the game. But if we don't make suggestions, they may never really know what we want. Either way, I don't see how you equate what I said to a lack of trust in FD. (Or is that just because I haven't put in big, bold capitals that I do indeed trust them as they have made an incredible game up to now and I don't see them making it any worse than it curently is - EVER! Of course they want to improve it. Some of those improvements I'll agree with, some I maybe won't. Either way, I know that they'll do what they believe is the best for the most players.
(But if we do things like not complaining about rammers outside of stations, or not vocally agreeing with things we see as improvements, then they are not going to do anything about ramming as it is "All part of the game, and no-one is complaining so they must like the opportunity to do it" and they may have second thoughts about adding in improvements to the game.
But you know what?
It's true what they say. "The squeeky wheel gets the most grease!"
Sorry but it not being implemented does not detract from the fact that a % cost of changing a loadout will cost you millions at some point in the future. All this talk of realism and immersion is just hogwash with zero depth to the argument. There is nothing wrong with the current system. It allows you to "cut your own path" on a whim which is absolutely brilliant.
The issue is still there and i will not give my time to a game that forces me to grind any % of credit to respec. Before you bleat on about storage its just a really bad inventory system that again is just a sticky plaster on a cut that is not even a cut.
The issue is still there and i will not give my time to a game that forces me to grind any % of credit to respec. Before you bleat on about storage its just a really bad inventory system that again is just a sticky plaster on a cut that is not even a cut.
When you see Anaconda configuration with most modules slots reserved to shield cells bank, you know something is wrong.
Being able to go from one over-specialized configuration to another over-specialized configuration for no cost is a huge gameplay mistake.
All this "fun" talk is only "hogwash with zero depth" to please power players who don't care about immersion, peoples who don't want choices with consequences.
First the fuel cost and repair cost became obsolete. They said they will adjust, we know they will never do it.
Now the module change will cost nothing. Never.
Tomorrow they will allow to skip landing cause you know, it's to hard.
And allow micro-jumps in system cause it's to long.
Hope you like arcade games.
Last edited: