2.2 - time to bring back 10% loss on module sale
- Thread starter Mephane
- Start date
Yes please at least 10% loss on module selling.
Also please bring back high cost ship maintenance and the g-force blackout and redouts.
Not even kidding.
Also please bring back high cost ship maintenance and the g-force blackout and redouts.
Not even kidding.
So long as module storage is free and instant. Otherwise you're basically being forced either to lose money when changing outfits, OR if you already own the modules you now have to pay and/or wait for shipping if the particular module you want to use it not already owned by you and in your current station.
Otherwise, we have in effect the very reason 100% resale was needed: losing money if you want to change loadouts.
I assume there is a reason why ironman or close to ironman mode was taken out. I suppose it had to do with making the game accessible to the non-forum goer, "casual" player, for whom high ship maintenance costs was/is a prohibitive factor.
And the poor reasoing of spending 10mins in a CG to earn millions and therefore everyone and their dog is a billionaire does not cut it. And I assume probably only bandied about by those still sore about missing that particular Imperial CG.
I don't really care either way. I was pleasantly surprised that modules could be sold back for full price. Previous MMOs I've played had item deterioration upon death or after a few hours (real-time) of wear. If you sold your equipment the price would reflect that deterioration. But in those games if your equipment deteriorated there were consequences, they would be less effective than if they were 100%.
Based on past experience with ED and "fixes/refinements", I have only 1 thing to say:
"For the love of God, FD, please NO!!! Don't try to fix something that's not broken!!!"
Have fun, fly safe. o7
And the poor reasoing of spending 10mins in a CG to earn millions and therefore everyone and their dog is a billionaire does not cut it. And I assume probably only bandied about by those still sore about missing that particular Imperial CG.
I don't really care either way. I was pleasantly surprised that modules could be sold back for full price. Previous MMOs I've played had item deterioration upon death or after a few hours (real-time) of wear. If you sold your equipment the price would reflect that deterioration. But in those games if your equipment deteriorated there were consequences, they would be less effective than if they were 100%.
Based on past experience with ED and "fixes/refinements", I have only 1 thing to say:
"For the love of God, FD, please NO!!! Don't try to fix something that's not broken!!!"
Have fun, fly safe. o7
Let's punish new players for trying something new in the game. Great idea.
Whoa, this is damn quickly going overboard. Punitive repair and refueling costs again ? For the love of god no. Those were gamebreaking at one point and are fine where they are now.
Last edited:
I used to be ok with the idea of module depreciation even when others are annoyed by it but recent changes since it was last suggested (1.4?) have made me change my mind.
I own many ships, pretty much all of them bar the Cutter/Vette actually. Most are in specific loadouts, combat, exploration etc. Then came 2.0 and 2.1. Balance on its head, silent running is all but gone, railguns are no longer as viable, SCB's are no longer the way forward, other weapons got nerfed and buffed and I'm sat there with 25 odd ships that I need to re-configure to use.
Thats kind of a massive expense especially when we consider ships like the Corvette which prior to the SCB change could have been stacked with 2x 7A SCB's, thats 2mil in losses right there on one ship with one module change. This potentially massive expense every single update which is completely out of my control and could be as often as 4 times a year isn't something I really can agree with.
This is compounded now with Engineers as anything that gets modified like weapons can be nerfed meaning not only do you need the money to cover the 10% loss but you need time and materials to re-engineer the new module/weapon. As such I think having standard modules have a 10% depreciation is a bad thing unless there's an amnesty after updates or something to help us when FDev change the balance as dramatically as they have in the past..
I own many ships, pretty much all of them bar the Cutter/Vette actually. Most are in specific loadouts, combat, exploration etc. Then came 2.0 and 2.1. Balance on its head, silent running is all but gone, railguns are no longer as viable, SCB's are no longer the way forward, other weapons got nerfed and buffed and I'm sat there with 25 odd ships that I need to re-configure to use.
Thats kind of a massive expense especially when we consider ships like the Corvette which prior to the SCB change could have been stacked with 2x 7A SCB's, thats 2mil in losses right there on one ship with one module change. This potentially massive expense every single update which is completely out of my control and could be as often as 4 times a year isn't something I really can agree with.
This is compounded now with Engineers as anything that gets modified like weapons can be nerfed meaning not only do you need the money to cover the 10% loss but you need time and materials to re-engineer the new module/weapon. As such I think having standard modules have a 10% depreciation is a bad thing unless there's an amnesty after updates or something to help us when FDev change the balance as dramatically as they have in the past..
Yeah, I don't understand why that was brought up, I am very much against that. Please don't interpret into my OP a wish for the game to be more punishing.
For me, the meaning behind the 10% loss on ship sale (and likewise on module sale) is that you don't just buy and sell your equipment on a whim in reality, either. It's not so much about punishment but about introducing a better sense of ownership. "This is mine and I am not giving it back" as opposed to "I temporarily deposited 10000cr to borrow it". Well, I have to admit engineer mods already do that, so there's that.
(By the way, 10% loss is very light. Usual figures for that in many games are more like a 50%-80% loss.)
Now for experimentation, I am in favour of a time window during which you can return any item for free, let's say 2 hours actual ingame time, enough to go out and seek (for example) a couple of fights to get a feeling for how a particular loadout plays.
My idea is that with module storage, when you replace a loadout for any reason, you don't just typically sell it again. You put it into storage for later use. Of course this requires said storage to be generously large, which I kind of silently assumed in the OP. When changing a loadout, unless you absolutely never ever want to use an item again, it should become a no-brainer to keep the equipment in the bank.
Especially with engineer mods, storage will probably be the norm, not selling. Just this week I switched out 3 guns on my Python, I moved them over to a different ship as storage (yes, a very clumsy and risky workaround), because I don't want to lose the mods (Phasing Sequence, I like my lasers blue) on them.
Last edited:
Yeah, I agree this is going to hit new players again. The experienced ones know what to buy and keep things as they are, and if not, they are going to buy a second ship with a second type load out. They have money enough not to care about ship deprecation, so module deprecation, pfff...
I wouldn't fiddle with it and keep things are they are.
+1 I agree with Mephanes reasoning. The only reason why the 10% value loss was removed was because of the lack of a way to store modules. If this mechanic is added in 2.2, it makes a lot of sense to reactivate the value loss of modules when selling them, like nearly any game does - even low barrier games like WoW don't let you sell items for the same price you bought them.
Last edited:
Well how about an exponential function to describe resale penalty? FDEV love implementing exponential functions, from ship prices to rare goods trading.
So the penalty for reselling modules for small ships would be something menial, maybe a thousand or so, while reselling those A-grade class 8 equipment pieces would approach the 10% value and the tens of millions that represents.
So the penalty for reselling modules for small ships would be something menial, maybe a thousand or so, while reselling those A-grade class 8 equipment pieces would approach the 10% value and the tens of millions that represents.
Last edited:
![[VR] Mad Mike](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/27/27910.jpg?1553527108){kind=avatar}
I guess it depends on the country but in the UK it's at least 20% if talking about trading in to a dealer for cash. Selling to private buyer helps but we can't do that in ED.
Unless you get lucky of course (my mate was offered £20K and deposits refund to give up his car on collection day)
Even then tho that would have been brand new. This could add interesting stuff to the game tho only works if higher demand ships have construction time added .... which would then allow stuff like doing missions etc to queue jump.
Perhaps modules could sell better or worse depending on demand. So long as the margins are not huge this could even open up trading modules for a profit if in pristine condition.... esp engineered ones as they are rare
Last edited:
Agreed, Also I would assume the 10% would only come on a ship that has left dock, rather than during outfitting, as people will not want to Pee 10% of a module up the wall to find their ship won't work when the build is finished ( ie power issues)
You see that's a perfectly reasonable idea to counter the "module tax" argument and incorporate depth into the game.
(a) Currently modules have "condition" that under 100% need repairing as the chance to malfunction increases the lower it is
(b) Include a "durability" factor. Starts off at 100% .. the more you repair it the lower this number drops. At 0% you have to replace the module.
(c) Introduces new game mechanics & events: 2nd hand sales. Promotes careful piloting.
(d) Allows people to swap modules about ad-infinitum and they only pay if they are "used" (ie condition / durability is no longer 100%)
Now your ship is no longer just a "dock - click some buttons* - exit" as it becomes a living, breathing entity that you care about.
Wasn't this the dream of FD to begin with ? Give a damn about your ship ?!
*For example:
- Refuel.
- Repair.
Once you reach a certain wealth status you no longer care about this. How many people mindlessly dock and click "refuel all // repair all" without actually looking at the cost ?!
Last edited:
Once you guys get this game to a certain sim level, which it never set out to be, I won't care about it either.
It will cost me 14 million, and way more, to tinker with my cutter with this fun addition to the game, just for swapping out one module. Customising a ship is fun for me. This isn't.
So, I will immediately stop doing something I enjoyed and sell my big ships. When you guys "fix" the rest of the game until it has truly become a Space Misery Sim , I will have loads of fun keeping my money in my bank account and not put any more into FD's. So will many other people.
I pay my money to FD to escape the drudgery of the real world, not get thrown into the drudgery of the future, where everything is just as crap.
Elite is not an arcade game, it is also not a sim. It has always sat between the two worlds. Please keep it that way.
What is with some players who want to impose their sense of fun and realism to everybody else?
For me I much prefer to play WITHOUT this 10% loss.
For me I much prefer to play WITHOUT this 10% loss.
