Need the 10% loss during sell back on outfitting
- Thread starter bamber
- Start date
I like to experiment with different layouts. The 10% would only mean less flexibility in outfitting.
One of the first things I commented on to a mate of mine is how brilliant the no-loss module replacement was. It gives players ultimate freedom to go experimenting with layouts without it costing them a ton. If there was a 10% on module resell I would have never taken the chance of refitting my Bounty Hunty Python into an Exploratory Python. And I'm having acres of fun in my exploratory Python. Fun which I wouldn't have had because I would have been losing 10 mil in refitting.
No. Thanks.
One of the first things I commented on to a mate of mine is how brilliant the no-loss module replacement was. It gives players ultimate freedom to go experimenting with layouts without it costing them a ton. If there was a 10% on module resell I would have never taken the chance of refitting my Bounty Hunty Python into an Exploratory Python. And I'm having acres of fun in my exploratory Python. Fun which I wouldn't have had because I would have been losing 10 mil in refitting.
No. Thanks.
It doesn't help gameplay in any way at all.
I have two modules valued at over 50 million each. The A7 shield on my Clipper and the A7 powerplant on my Python. If I had to face a 5 million credit loss on each I would never have bought them in the first place.
I can't think of a better way of discouraging people from experimenting with different loadouts than to impose a financial penalty for doing so. What we would end up with is one or two favoured builds for each ship and nobody would deviate from them.
It may not be realistic to get back what you paid for something when you sell it but what some people fail to comprehend is that too much realism rarely makes for a fun game and if you aren't playing for fun then I would wonder why you are playing at all.
I have two modules valued at over 50 million each. The A7 shield on my Clipper and the A7 powerplant on my Python. If I had to face a 5 million credit loss on each I would never have bought them in the first place.
I can't think of a better way of discouraging people from experimenting with different loadouts than to impose a financial penalty for doing so. What we would end up with is one or two favoured builds for each ship and nobody would deviate from them.
It may not be realistic to get back what you paid for something when you sell it but what some people fail to comprehend is that too much realism rarely makes for a fun game and if you aren't playing for fun then I would wonder why you are playing at all.
Yeah.....let's not and say we did! Even better, how about, uhmmmm, no.
it depends on where you go for exploring, but once you get out there, most stars are only 4 or 5 light years apart, jump range isn't necessary.
We had 100+ pages of debate with a plethora of good reasons as to why it was badly implemented. Perhaps the fact that you can't be bothered to read and understand that bears some relation to your lack of care when it comes to outfitting.
Over 100pages, one side repeatedly made the argument that "10% loss on modules without ability to store modules is a stupid idea" whilst the other side ignored them and complained that they were "whining."
It was not a worthwhile discussion.
Reselling is how people change certain modules from one ship to a stored ship at a station
25 lightyears, so plenty
I felt the same way you do. Only by not having a 10% penalty I figured out I could whip it to 25 Ly.
25 lightyears, so plenty
I felt the same way you do. Only by not having a 10% penalty I figured out I could whip it to 25 Ly.
I dropped a lot of modules including power plant, power dist, and thrusters in cio, got it to about 30. But for the amount of money for the fsd why not just fit an asp for it? Being cool?
I think my favorite realistic reason (in favor of no 10% loss) would be you're buying a license to use the module (so you can't replicate and sell it) and using materials to create it from a highly advanced 3D printer. Once you are done with the module you lose the license and you sell back the module which is broken back down into base components for the next 3D printer.
Or something like that.
Are people really asking FD for a credit sink now?
I've made my point very clear during the 1.3 beta, in my opinion loadout experimentation is one of the key elements to prevent boredom for a good portion of players. Not to forget that the stats in the outfitting windows are still intransparent at best, sometimes borderline misleading at worst. So just as a band-aid the full resale value is still needed.
Considerning realism or "immersion".
Well, if we think this one a bit further, if there was value degradation for modules, why can't i buy all those second hand modules for cheap then? Because of current game mechanics (no quality degradation) they would be 100% as functional as new ones.
Or does the galactic economy dismantle and dump them as soon there is the tiniest scratch on the finish?
With enough creativity you could argue for or against anything lorewise, at the end of the day gameplay is the one thing that holds it all together.
In the current state of the game just slapping a 10% penalty on it and be done with it would just be nonsensical.
I could accept said penalty, but only if at least one of the following things would be implemented at the same time:
*Storage facitlites for equipment
*The ability to buy all those discarded second hand wares for less money paired with a item degradation mechanic. This would be the most labour-intensive implementation for FD and another decay factor for players (besides rep, power play and who knows what else in the future ;-)) Unfun but at least a bit more fair.
*Axe the cost of higher class modules by at least 50%. The full resale value and the resulting ability to cannibalise old ships to equip a new one was another band-aid to camouflage the insane price inflation that happened somewhere between the later beta stages. If i have had to equip my Python, my Clipper, Vulture and Asp seperately (and maybe even multiple versions of the same ship for different roles), i would have quit the game a long time ago without many regrets.
But i still don't see the point in jumping through all these hoops, just because ships lose resale values and modules don't. Especially if the alleged normalisation would hinder some well established playstyles without returning any tangible benefit for the players.
I've made my point very clear during the 1.3 beta, in my opinion loadout experimentation is one of the key elements to prevent boredom for a good portion of players. Not to forget that the stats in the outfitting windows are still intransparent at best, sometimes borderline misleading at worst. So just as a band-aid the full resale value is still needed.
Considerning realism or "immersion".
Well, if we think this one a bit further, if there was value degradation for modules, why can't i buy all those second hand modules for cheap then? Because of current game mechanics (no quality degradation) they would be 100% as functional as new ones.
Or does the galactic economy dismantle and dump them as soon there is the tiniest scratch on the finish?
With enough creativity you could argue for or against anything lorewise, at the end of the day gameplay is the one thing that holds it all together.
In the current state of the game just slapping a 10% penalty on it and be done with it would just be nonsensical.
I could accept said penalty, but only if at least one of the following things would be implemented at the same time:
*Storage facitlites for equipment
*The ability to buy all those discarded second hand wares for less money paired with a item degradation mechanic. This would be the most labour-intensive implementation for FD and another decay factor for players (besides rep, power play and who knows what else in the future ;-)) Unfun but at least a bit more fair.
*Axe the cost of higher class modules by at least 50%. The full resale value and the resulting ability to cannibalise old ships to equip a new one was another band-aid to camouflage the insane price inflation that happened somewhere between the later beta stages. If i have had to equip my Python, my Clipper, Vulture and Asp seperately (and maybe even multiple versions of the same ship for different roles), i would have quit the game a long time ago without many regrets.
But i still don't see the point in jumping through all these hoops, just because ships lose resale values and modules don't. Especially if the alleged normalisation would hinder some well established playstyles without returning any tangible benefit for the players.
You say: being cool as if that's a bad thing.
Indeed for selfies. The Asp isn't as pretty so I never included her in screenies. And to see if it would do. And it does. It more than does. It's actually a great explorer.
I think re-outfitting your ship should cost something. Probably 10% loss is too much, but it should cost something. Say 2%.
I'll give two reasons:
1) A cost forces the player to make hard and interesting choices. Should I upgrade to Class B as soon as I can afford it, and lose money when I upgrade to A later, or should I suffer with class E until I can afford the best? That's a nice dilemma and the game should encourage it.
2) The game needs more money sinks, particularly at the top end. What's the point of getting 100s of millions of credits? What can you buy with that money past the Anaconda? Adding a cost to outfitting should help add a bit of economic friction for players in the big ships. If they add storage for ship parts, I think that should cost money too.
I'd also add immersion, but apparently that's not allowed. I think forcing players to think carefully about what they're doing at the outfitting screen is a good thing.
I'll give two reasons:
1) A cost forces the player to make hard and interesting choices. Should I upgrade to Class B as soon as I can afford it, and lose money when I upgrade to A later, or should I suffer with class E until I can afford the best? That's a nice dilemma and the game should encourage it.
2) The game needs more money sinks, particularly at the top end. What's the point of getting 100s of millions of credits? What can you buy with that money past the Anaconda? Adding a cost to outfitting should help add a bit of economic friction for players in the big ships. If they add storage for ship parts, I think that should cost money too.
I'd also add immersion, but apparently that's not allowed.
I think forcing players to think carefully about what they're doing at the outfitting screen is a good thing.I think re-outfitting your ship should cost something. Probably 10% loss is too much, but it should cost something. Say 2%.
I'll give two reasons:
1) A cost forces the player to make hard and interesting choices. Should I upgrade to Class B as soon as I can afford it, and lose money when I upgrade to A later, or should I suffer with class E until I can afford the best? That's a nice dilemma and the game should encourage it.
2) The game needs more money sinks, particularly at the top end. What's the point of getting 100s of millions of credits? What can you buy with that money past the Anaconda? Adding a cost to outfitting should help add a bit of economic friction for players in the big ships. If they add storage for ship parts, I think that should cost money too.
I'd also add immersion, but apparently that's not allowed.
What's there to think about though? All that module info that doesn't exist?
The dilemma is a bit more meaningful with ships because what you see is what you get. You don't have that luxury with modules.
- - - Updated - - -
You say: being cool as if that's a bad thing.
Indeed for selfies. The Asp isn't as pretty so I never included her in screenies. And to see if it would do. And it does. It more than does. It's actually a great explorer.
Baller. I can't wait until I get a conda so I can deep space delve in style.
Last edited: