Oops, forgot one word in my sentence... I meant "to have the resell penalty removed".
Need the 10% loss during sell back on outfitting
- Thread starter bamber
- Start date
That's just silly.
I'd prefer module-sensitive wear and tear. A multicannon should wear and become less valuable differently from a shield generator or something that's relatively solid state as opposed to subject to mechanical wear and tear. Computer modules ought to sell for nearly what you paid for them, but a refinery or a cannon? No way.
NO, there's an option to store ships. If you could store modus then maybe 10% would be ok. But you can't.
Last edited:
Yep, that's my point, if ship transfer or storage for modules would be implemented, then 10% penalty on outfitting would be fine...
That's what we've said both in this thread and the other threads spawned out of this discussion....
The solution is super easy. If you want the penalty, then go jettison the equivalent value in cargo in LHS 3447 every time you swap modules. There you've paid your penalty and helped out one of the new players at the same time. Then you can come back and brag how awesome you are for doing so.
Why... Technology in a thousand year is repaired to 100% perfection. When you buy a module it's not new, it's someone else's previously owned unit repaired to 100%... As it looks the same, behaves the same, it cost the same. Can you buy a second hand unit? Why not? Because there are none!
More importantly... Ignoring all handwavium, WHY introduce this 10% cost? Why encumber people will another unnecessary needless cost just for enjoying the game and playing around with different modules? WHY? It truly adds nothing to the game... only detracts.
...awaits pointless ships comparison argument...
Last edited:
So you play so much you need punitive damages to keep the game interesting?
Do you really need someone to legislate you into thinking about your choices? I'd prefer the modules remain as they are. I don't need to be forced into enjoying the game.
By that argument why have ship damage at all ? Nanotech will most likely be the technology employed to repair modules to 100% at the molecular level so why not on the fly - why even wait until you dock ?
- FD stated during the DDF that there would be passenger transport missions which is why we have the Orca ship - are there any passengers ? Not yet.
- FD stated during the DDF that there would be a genuine piracy role complete with ratings - is there one ? Not yet.
- FD also stated during the DDF that there would be 2nd hand ships and components that would not be pristine grade quality - are they here yet ? Not yet.
Point being - whilst not everything in the DDF is gospel and a given to appear one can assume that at some point they will - adding depth to the game (wear and tear) will introduce some new game mechanics to open up play.
The resale value of an item should be less over time - that's common sense - the 10% used by FD now is but a blunt implementation of a W&T Tax that could be introduced with better finesse in the future.
IMO wait off on said tax until FD introduce a more comprehensive, engaging and indepth wear and tear mechanism.
Last edited:
I'm of two opinions ... I want wear & tear, depreciating value, 2nd hand ships and modules, I want that ... but I have also been convinced that storing of said modules is also something that should be in the game.By that argument why have ship damage at all ? Nanotech will most likely be the technology employed to repair modules to 100% at the molecular level so why not on the fly - why even wait until you dock ?
- FD stated during the DDF that there would be passenger transport missions which is why we have the Orca ship - are there any passengers ? Not yet.
- FD stated during the DDF that there would be a genuine piracy role complete with ratings - is there one ? Not yet.
- FD also stated during the DDF that there would be 2nd hand ships and components that would not be pristine grade quality - are they here yet ? Not yet.
Point being - whilst not everything in the DDF is gospel and a given to appear one can assume that at some point they will - adding depth to the game (wear and tear) will introduce some new game mechanics to open up play.
The resale value of an item should be less over time - that's common sense - the 10% used by FD now is but a blunt implementation of a W&T Tax that could be introduced with better finesse in the future.
IMO wait off on said tax until FD introduce a more comprehensive, engaging and indepth wear and tear mechanism.
By that argument why have ship damage at all ? Nanotech will most likely be the technology employed to repair modules to 100% at the molecular level so why not on the fly - why even wait until you dock ?
So you're questioning my suggestion for the mechanics for good gameplay, with nanotech handwavium?
ie: I suggest introducing a 10% hit went selling is pointless and will just needlessly spoil part of the game for players, and your rebuttle is nano-techonology. Cumon
Can't argue with the fact FD haven't seemingly introduce any noticable improvement in occupations/missions/mechanics etc since release, with with exception being Wings IMHO.
Is it? Does it improve the gameplay?
Using handwavium, there are no second hand units in the game, because they are all second hand in effect. When you sell one, it's available to buy again... If you still need to apply some sort of real life logic (to a game) the manufacturers make their profit on ammo/repairs.
Wait off until they can think of better things to add to the game than more needless CR/money sinks?
Even if the module is 100% perfect, for me, who's going to fit it? 10% seems steep for class A modules, but even with module storage I'd suggest you would have to pay the garage, even for a straight swap on stored modules. While you can argue to do it yourself (maybe you need to rent some very big car jacks) no actual tip cost in outfitting and it just means a real investment in the kit; Swap this swap that, means no strategic thinking or forward planning, a bit lightweight for the game imo. Suggest that if the argument is, "I only wanted to try (mining or whatever)" it's poss do that with a low end module to start and even if you lose 500k on your previous loadout, you can soon make that up again. It's only a cost to moving from your professional career in game, and is much more realistic, much less science fantasy, in that sense.
If they put in not quite as good second hand modules and a 10% resell tax, who on earth would buy a broken A module when they could just buy a fully functional C especially as they'd later make another loss reselling it later? Doubly with no clear stats in the game showing you how it compares to both a 100% A or C.
I think the point was made with gameplay in mind.
Having the 10% rebuy cost detracts from gameplay since it takes away flexibility in outfitting. No longer will players try different settings on their vessel when modules are expensive. In return you get a little bit of gameplay back in the form of cost management. I rank trying out different setups a lot higher in enjoyable gameplay than an added cost management feature.
Exactly...
TBH, I'm surprised folks wanting 10% module costs haven't been asking for (needless) mooring costs too given their desperation to find CR sinks to improve the game.
So everyday each of your ships accrues a cost for sitting in a station. And the bigger the ship, the bigger the cost of course - Can't miss that opportunity!
This could add to gameplay too surely?
Exactly.
Right now there is no need for the 10% tax on resale as it's not logical - handwavium states that all items are magically reset to brand new upon repair so it would be illogical to tax them during a sale.
However, introduce some depth and flavour to ED - the ship is after all an extension of yourself - create a 2nd hand market of dodgy ships & components and a mechanism for new items to degrade over time and that is the time to introduce a resale tax - it's logical at that point to compliment the game play that is 2nd hand goods. I am sure most players would understand it at that point (as it's consistent with reality)
As it stands right now I 100% agree (please read what I wrote
)The way in which FD implemented the 10% tax now is premature.
However ... consider the following:
- Introduce a robust wear and tear mechanism
- Introduce a 2nd hand market
- Age items over time (but slow enough so you can outfit to your hearts content)
- Sale price & reliability dependent upon age
That is what I am suggesting - it's logical, adds depth to gameplay, consistent with reality & adds in a gold sink that makes sense.
Last edited:
As it stands right now I 100% agree (please read what I wrote
The way in which FD implemented the 10% tax now is premature.
However ... consider the following:
- Introduce a robust wear and tear mechanism
- Introduce a 2nd hand market
- Age items over time (but slow enough so you can outfit to your hearts content)
- Sale price & reliability dependent upon age
That is what I am suggesting - it's logical, adds depth to gameplay, consistent with reality & adds in a gold sink that makes sense.
Agreed... But, given the near minimal movement forwards since release on any mechanic in ED, I wouldn't hold your breath, and clearly there's loads of things I think we all agree should come first in the list:-
- Missions depth/variety.
- Occupation improvement.
- NPC persistence/depth.
- Space content depth/variety.
- Exploration content depth/variety.
- Anything to make the game more engaging.
...we've had little/no movement towards addressing any of those since release... So it could be sometime before second hand markets appear etc
Last edited: