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

[CMDR Carbo]

Not a very good idea, IMO.

Especially at the beginning when you are upgrading to a new bigger ship you want to try different modules and different combinations.

Punishing players that just invested most of their money into a bigger ship seems a bit harsh.

 

[Vorxian]

What a horrible direction to go.

10% loss on module sell? Why? you could end up with losses of millions for swapping out and playing with modules? That's bad, really bad. How is that game improving?

That's imposing punishments on players for absolutely no reason, it's not immersive at all.

Cannot understand anyone in their right mind would *want* to add this to a game. It breaks outfitting ship experimentation completely.

 

[[DOOK] Droogie]

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.

Basically this. The game should encourage you to try different setups to find something you like. This penalizes you for it. If module transfer is anything but free, it's a double penalty. I'm also site there will be a limit to what can be stored.

 

[CMDR Darkler]

I don't mind the 10% loss, however, I would prefer it to only apply once the module has been flown

 

[Retrograde]

Yup, I support reinstating the 10% resale cost as well. And add repair costs.

I think it should kick in as soon as you leave the shipyard, so you can try loadouts until then. Apart from adding realism, it would get rid of the cheesy sell-your-modules-first when selling you ship. Here's my (closed) thread suggesting the same thing: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/285818-Selling-modules-cost-revisited

And I don't see how it reduces experimentation. The buying cost is still the same, and with module storage coming in 2.2, you just store the item rather than selling it and having to rebuy it the next time you need it. If anything, the ability to own lots of modules now would encourage experimentation, I'd think.

 

[charognard]

And what about making, like good old days, fuel price consistant again ?

 

[edgar]

In principle I agree with having some sort of cost to resale, but what if there was a sliding scale of resale costs, that are determined by how long you've actually used the module, instead of a fixed 10% "tax"?

People who want to experiment with builds then still could, as the resale cost would only begin to kick in after X number of lightyears of use, or X number of hours of continuous use of the module.

 

[S.H.A.D.O]

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.

I agree, its time to bring it back. 10% is no big deal anyway, but as it stands, its just dumb.. buy a module, use it for 2 months and then sell it back for 100% cost? just stupid.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

What was the point of having modules deprecate in worth again?

 

[Ian Phillips]

Second hand/used goods lose value.

 

[Weps]

I don't mind the 10% loss, however, I would prefer it to only apply once the module has been flown

They could add some sort of "durability" statistic to modules to track their usage. It would not affect the module in any way, except its resale value. So if you equip that 7A frameshift drive and give it a spin to see how it jumps a couple of times, its durability is still at 100% and you can resell it without any penalty.

But if you took that baby to Beagle point, or if you are in the habit of getting into fights and letting that FSD get blow out repeatedly, you might expect the durability to go down and the resell price accordingly. You might opt then to keep it in your module storage if for whatever reason you decide to swap it out. It would still function just like the day you bought it, any time you put it back on your ship.

 

[S.H.A.D.O]

Second hand/used goods lose value.

This^^

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Second hand/used goods lose value.

That is usually more than just 10% in deprecation. With the game mechanics being that obscure and reworks of how weapons and equipment works I don't really think it's going to add to the gameplay.

 

[CMDR Dumbfries]

How about no.

 

[Artemis Zodiac]

hmm I understand OP...were selling back used parts so to speak...so we shouldn't get full price back.
its nice to get the dosh back on modules...but in terms of gameplay realism its a good idea..

its a Elite players idea and I like it.

 

[Cosmos]

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.

Strikes me as an unnecessary pentalty for altering specs of ships. I didn't realise that its in effect re ship sales either. Wanted to try out a ship, bought it, sold it.. lost 10 mil.. wat?

 

[[DOOK] Droogie]

Yup, I support reinstating the 10% resale cost as well. And add repair costs.

I think it should kick in as soon as you leave the shipyard, so you can try loadouts until then. Apart from adding realism, it would get rid of the cheesy sell-your-modules-first when selling you ship. Here's my (closed) thread suggesting the same thing: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/285818-Selling-modules-cost-revisited

And I don't see how it reduces experimentation. The buying cost is still the same, and with module storage coming in 2.2, you just store the item rather than selling it and having to rebuy it the next time you need it. If anything, the ability to own lots of modules now would encourage experimentation, I'd think.

Because the cost is cumulative, I assume storage isn't unlimited, and transfer isn't free.

It would cost me a lot more than the cost of my Cutter alone to change its loadout. No thank you. This would be a deal breaker.

 

[Kayweg]

hmm I understand OP...were selling back used parts so to speak...so we shouldn't get full price back.
its nice to get the dosh back on modules...but in terms of gameplay realism its a good idea..

its a Elite players idea and I like it.

It's not.
It's an FD idea from a few month' back, and it got shot down because you couldn't store items, and were basically forced to sell them when experimenting with builds, or reconfiguring for a different role.
Strictly speaking it's not an FD idea either, loss on item selling has been common in games for years of course.
Again, i don't mind if they put it in now, once we have storage. (depending on HOW storage is implemented, i'm afraid they'll find an awkward way again.)
Why anyone would actively request it remains beyond me though.

 

[[DOOK] Droogie]

I'm all for money sinks, but not in terms of core aspects. Unfortunately, most of what could have been a money sink went into the online cash shop. Having them as quality of life and cosmetic features would be great.

This is far too penalizing.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I'm all for money sinks, but not in terms of core aspects. Unfortunately, most of what could have been a money sink went into the online cash shop. Having them as quality of life and cosmetic features would be great.

This is far too penalizing.

^^This here.