2.2 - time to bring back 10% loss on module sale

Tell that to the cash-poor players with only 1 ship who like to swap things about depending upon mood.

(Think outside your box ... not everyone has millions of credits and/or a fleet of ships)

You will be able to do that in 2.2. Just keep any module you have used instead of selling it, if you want to save the transfer cost you fly to the place where you stored the module and can swap them out for free.
 
You will be able to do that in 2.2. Just keep any module you have used instead of selling it, if you want to save the transfer cost you fly to the place where you stored the module and can swap them out for free.

Storing a 2nd set of modules isn't possible for everyone ... so what game play value does it bring to the table other than to tax players (to which only the poor commanders are affected) ? Remember - rich players wouldn't give a damn.
 
Last edited:
Your jumping the gun here OP, we don't yet know what the cost of transfer will be, or if there will be limits placed on what items can be stored or quantities. Lets wait and see how this storage pans out first eh!.
 
Yep, the only reason I thougt it was ridiculous was the lack of storage. If we can store everything then no drama on the 10%
 
Last edited:
With being able to store our own custom modules, have them transferred, and whatnot, I'm cool with there being a buying/selling overhead. [up]
 
Storing a 2nd set of modules isn't possible for everyone ... so what game play value does it bring to the table other than to tax players (to which only the poor commanders are affected) ? Remember - rich players wouldn't give a damn.

Exactly. In addition to my Combat Vette and Trade Conda, I also keep a mining python around. I dont even know why. I stopped mining after I unlocked Selene Jean.
 
Remember - rich players wouldn't give a damn.

Liqua said:
Tell that to the cash-poor players with only 1 ship who like to swap things about depending upon mood.

Neither are good arguments against adding more cash sinks in, or making the initial game more difficult, IMHO. Wasn't the whole point of the Elite games struggling to upgrade your ship in the face of a hostile universe? And the second argument leads to further creep along the path to justifying things like SpaceMagic™. It's not as if money isn't hard to come by...
 
The primary argument against the 10% loss when selling a module was that it would punish experimentation and adjusting your loadout to various situations. With module storage and delivery in 2.2, this will become a moot point - not only can you keep your (potentially modified) modules, you can also have them delivered to you even when you are in some backwater system that does not sell that type of module. I think it is only fair then that the 10% loss is reinstated in 2.2.

Yep,they should depreciate just like ships. Now that the major obstacle is being removed,this makes sense again.

It was planned all along anyway...wasn't it?
 
Large accounts make that more common. When I was flush with cash (before buying cutter) I'd just sell a ship with all the modules on it out of laziness. Now I wish I really didn't do that b/c I'm scraping up every credit I can find to pay for the desired modules on the Cutter.

Means that the best way to sell a ship is selling first all the modules , and later the empty ship?
 
Last edited:
Lets make it 90% like a certain video game store does when you sell back your video games.

When you drive your brand new car off the forecourt, how much value does it instantly lose?

Frontier need to turn over equipment depreciation modelling to the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. Misery mod team. ;)
 
The primary argument against the 10% loss when selling a module was that it would punish experimentation and adjusting your loadout to various situations. With module storage and delivery in 2.2, this will become a moot point - not only can you keep your (potentially modified) modules, you can also have them delivered to you even when you are in some backwater system that does not sell that type of module. I think it is only fair then that the 10% loss is reinstated in 2.2.

Fine if they give us proper wear & tear.
 
With module storage available, i won't complain about the 10% loss, fair 'nuff.
On the other hand, i'm not gonna raise my arm and actually ask for it.
 
A lot less than 10% or whatever number you have been led to believe by people who don't know anything about selling cars.

Average depreciation in the UK is 15 - 30% over the first year, and ~50% over 3 years, so you're right that the 'instant' loss is less than 10%. However, I could certainly live with a value up to a 90% loss as you originally suggested, depending on the wear and tear/age of the module.

This is one of the things I find irritiating about Elite being multiplayer. If it was single player and mod friendly we could tweak these things ourselves, but that's not possible... :(
 
With module storage available, i won't complain about the 10% loss, fair 'nuff.
On the other hand, i'm not gonna raise my arm and actually ask for it.

I think it's fair from a game design perspective now with module storage. Of course we don't tend to want hurtles and consequences in the games we play, though they would make for rather poor games if we were to get everything we wanted without repercussions, at least for this kind of game.

It's a balancing act of game design.
 
Means that the best way to sell a ship is selling first all the modules , and later the empty ship?
Correct. The 10% loss applies to total ship value when you sell it...since the 10% penalty doesn't apply to module sales you can save a pretty penny by selling your 8A power plant and 8A thrusters, first. That is a savings of 15 million for each.
 
Back
Top Bottom