Ship Transfer Costs - These Prices are Nutty!

[[VR] Mad Mike]

All I can say is: thank you, 70%... NOT.

For gods sake what has the price of transfer got to do with that. What we have is CHEAPER than if it had been instant. The level of sour grapes is pathetic. Maybe you can blame the 70% for everything else you dislike too....... game not using full servers blame the 70%. And as for the dig at ye "old guard" ie the ones who backed the game and paid a sickening amount of money to get the ddf made, which stated timed transfers for a fee....... well without those people there would not be a game for you to moan about.

 

[Crusina Luachra]

Well as a major contributor in the thread in question and the debate I would call it a half truth, there were many varied reasons for folks wanting a delay, to pretend it was nearly all about immersion is disingenuous at best. But I'll tell you what, lets pretend for a second that it was 'all about immersion', can you remind me why that is a dirty word in gaming now please?

But does anyone here actually believe it was the only reason anyone ever had?

Sure some people generalize to make a point but do you honestly think they don't know it was not the only reason?

As for pretending, do it by yourself. I don't need to pretend, I just need to look at the thread in question and know the truth for myself.

And it's not a dirty word, now who's exaggerating? People just sometimes want gameplay over realism.

For gods sake what has the price of transfer got to do with that. What we have is CHEAPER than if it had been instant. The level of sour grapes is pathetic. Maybe you can blame the 70% for everything else you dislike too....... game not using full servers blame the 70%. And as for the dig at ye "old guard" ie the ones who backed the game and paid a sickening amount of money to get the ddf made, which stated timed transfers for a fee....... well without those people there would not be a game for you to moan about.

Yeah but then it would have made sense for it to be expensive if it was instant. The point we are making is that we have your "realism" and it's still over priced for many people.

 

[Weps]

I'm ok with the prices. Just entered the game, I have only a little over 500mil in assets, and the total cost to transfer all my ships ranging from 18 to 22 mins does not get higher than 4 million. For a random relocation project I find that acceptable. My cheap ships don't seem to be able to generate ludicrous transfer costs. Also I don't plan to move them around every play session.

I think people have remained hung up on the original example of flying a Type-9 and encountering a CZ. That's no longer the case. FDEV's stance on things has changed. At least that's how I interpret them having the poll and sticking to its results. The feature is no longer intended to allow players to haul around their A-rated Cutter, Corvette and Anaconda preventively, "just in case the situation arises".

 

[Deadspin]

And as for the dig at ye "old guard" ie the ones who backed the game and paid a sickening amount of money to get the ddf made, which stated timed transfers for a fee....... well without those people there would not be a game for you to moan about.

The DDF, you mean that document which has been pretty much thrown to the side?

Yeah, there'd still be a game, with or without the old guard. The hype behind Star Citizen saw to that.

 

[Martian Successor]

There's 'niche', then there's 'accessible' and then there's 'pandering to the masses'. I'd prefer to be at the left-ish of that sentence.

Ship transfer should never be an 'accessible' mechanic, rather being a QoL feature when you absolutely need to have a ship somewhere, and don't have the inclination (for whatever reason) to get it yourself. Definitely shouldn't be a 'I'll move everything, everywhere, all the time' feature.

I don't necessarily disagree with that to be honest. I just don't like it when we can't just have a fun gameplay mechanic without it being crippled in some way by either of these two: 'credit grind' or 'time sink'. Having one of them is perfectly reasonable (if you're going to build on that and ultimately give us more gameplay as a result). Having both of them attached to the same QoL feature? Yowza. I can understand why many people find that as a bit overkill.

 

[Siranui]

I must have missed FD's vote on the costs where the majority voted for these costs.

The only vote on costs I saw showed a majority felt they need to be lower.

/shrug

Of course they did. I think taxes should be lower too. Doesn't mean they should be.

 

[Theodrid]

Please, define where I've used "outright baloney" in any of my posts.

Okay, outright baloney as follows :-

There's a theme that crops up every time Frontier threatens the immersion or senseless grind that's seemingly favored by the old guard.

That is outright baloney, right there.

Reading ComprehensionI'm sorry that the immersion meme (essentially the truth) hurts you so.

This too.

There aren't many forums out there that don't joke about this forum.

I think that the only one worse (and only marginally) is the SC forums. They are a special kind of people over there.

Baloney sandwich right there.

This is something that the majority of people on this forum can't seem to comprehend.

This here ignores what the majority voted for in relation to this debate.

From my point of view and my point of view only (though it may be shared):

1. Any money making loophole in this game has been decried as an affront to immersion at least once on this forum.

2. Any QOL feature that takes away from player work load (Not that there is much of one to begin with) has been decried as something foul by the immersion crowd. The best part though is that all of the proposed features were entirely optional and did not negatively effect gameplay for anyone not using them.

3. The "Instant -vs- Delay" debate, where immersion was pretty much championed by the echo chamber as the prime reason for why "Instant" could not exist in the universe. Examples included everything from exploration being degraded / the scale of the galaxy being degraded (even though you could only transfer a ship to a station, at cost, in the tiny little pinprick of the galaxy that is currently populated), to theories of mass murder outside of CGs, mass exploitation of CGs using the transfer mechanic, to simple trade routes being tainted by such an immersion breaking mechanic.

All from people who didn't even have the slightest clue as to how Frontier planned to implement the mechanic outside of a vague statement about pricing being looked into. People who created such an uproar that Frontier had to backpedal on plans they had already developed over a feature that hadn't even seen a public test build. All for the sake of "immersion".

This forum has made "immersion" a bad word. There's no other game out there where that happens because 99% of those other communities understand that a game is a game, not a reenactment of real life. Hell, even the people who cried immersion over the realistic portrayal of The Division got over their gameplay woes (bullet sponge enemies) and learned to enjoy the game (at least until end-game content was reached).

Some of us looked at instant transfers as a good thing for legit reasons, like only having a limited amount of time to play, which would make pairing up with friends easier to accomplish. Some of us shrugged at the feature as an "Oh, that's nice.. I might use it once" kind of deal because not everyone chooses to have a stable of ships that need to be moved from place to place. Then the old guard reared its collective head and cried foul.

As for this lot, okay,

1. Simply not true
2. Again, not true
3. Not all of those are about immersion, apart from that, many of them are perfectly valid

Let me ask you this, if instant was going to be such a great feature, such a game changer for those of us, (me included), with not much time to play that was not going to harm the game in any way, shape or form then why did Frontier even put it to a vote? And before you cry 'whining masses', there have been literally 10's if not 100's of issues where Frontier have ignored the masses and done what they feel is right for their game. Has it even occurred to you that maybe, after some deliberation in the office that even Frontier thought it was a bad idea?, or are you suggesting that they would deliberately nerf their game because of the unofficial polls?

Some of us wanted a delayed ship transfer for legit reasons too, it is still an improvement on no ship transfer and still a QOL feature that has been added. Some of you guys are acting as if you have lost something, look at what you have been given instead of not being able to see past a word you heard a dev say in a stream. Nobody, and I mean nobody was even mentioning let alone contemplating an 'instant' ship transfer before the livestream, but once heard, apparently it was a 'can't live without' feature.

 

[Siranui]

Why did FD reduce the costs following monitoring its usage, then say they'd continue to monitor its usage with a view to tweak them again if needed, if they wanted it to be niche and rarely used?

Because the sensible thing to do with any new features is make it expensive and then reduce the price if needed, rather than drive players into a rage by starting too cheap and then hiking the price up, perhaps?

 

[Mark Lock]

I think ships transfer prices are fair and they reflect the value of the ship and distance from station, that's fine to me

 

[Martian Successor]

/shrug

Of course they did. I think taxes should be lower too. Doesn't mean they should be.

They made Taxes: The Video Game? Cool! Ima get me a copy right now to simulate paying taxes while I pay taxes

 

[Jens Vedfolne]

Delete

 

[Deadspin]

Let me ask you this, if instant was going to be such a great feature, such a game changer for those of us, (me included), with not much time to play that was not going to harm the game in any way, shape or form then why did Frontier even put it to a vote? And before you cry 'whining masses', there have been literally 10's if not 100's of issues where Frontier have ignored the masses and done what they feel is right for their game. Has it even occurred to you that maybe, after some deliberation in the office that even Frontier thought it was a bad idea?, or are you suggesting that they would deliberately nerf their game because of the unofficial polls?

Some of us wanted a delayed ship transfer for legit reasons too, it is still an improvement on no ship transfer and still a QOL feature that has been added. Some of you guys are acting as if you have lost something, look at what you have been given instead of not being able to see past a word you heard a dev say in a stream. Nobody, and I mean nobody was even mentioning let alone contemplating an 'instant' ship transfer before the livestream, but once heard, apparently it was a 'can't live without' feature.

I guess it was too much of me to expect you to explain your assertions. I mean, hell, I took the time to explain the majority of mine.

1. Plenty of people were contemplating and discussing ship transfer mechanics based around those offered by EVE Online in the form of ships capable of hauling other ships. This conversation was not unknown or unheard of and ideas ranged from instant to player piloted massive transport ships to move other ships around as part of the economy.

2. The outcry against "instant" transfers eclipsed any other moment in this forums history by a large margin and of the hundreds of pages of comments, there were maybe 3 valid reasons cast against instant transfers that weren't based in theorycrafting with inadequate information. Frontier couldn't have ignored it if they wanted to. Comparing that to the push of maybe 2 dozen people to have some feature altered at various points over the past two years isn't the same.

I didn't lose anything in the vote. I was merely perturbed by the complete lack of rational thought that accompanied the vast majority of "reasons" about why some feature shouldn't be implemented in such a way. To be completely honest, most of my       twisting originates in the PvP/PvE threads over the absolutely asinine reasoning I've seen people pull out of their britches to explain why so-and-so type players should be punished in the most ludicrous ways possible for destroying another player ship. Watching that convoluted nonsense make its way into feature talk and actually influence feature mechanics is quite upsetting for me and makes me fear for the long run plans of ED if the development team is so easily influenced by this echo chamber.

 

[Siranui]

batsh*t crazy 'transfer prices' have nothing to do with immersion.

it actually breaks immersion: in a universe in which you can make 70% of the value of a ship just by driving it from place to place, no one would be doing smuggling, bounty hunting, trading - anything else. everyone would haul ships.

I think you may be tainting rationale a bit with your opinion there. by your logic, every NPC up until last week should have been poop-hauling. there would need to be sufficient demand.

I don't see where you're pulling the 70% number from, either, based on the numbers we were given:

Viper 4 - 122k
Cobra III - 138k
Vulture - 340k
AspX - 500k
Orca - 1.1m
FDS - 1.1m
FAS - 1.3m
FDL #2 - 1.3m
FGS - 1.9m
Python - 1.9m
FDL #1 - 2.1m


I don't have the patch downloaded yet to check for myself, but these prices are not 70% of purchase price, by a long margin.

People ship cars around the world. It is very expensive to have them shipped. It is cheaper to have someone drive them for you, but then they might crash it into a tree while putting the 5000 miles on the clock. It is usually more convenient to self-drive, but some people just cannot be bothered. If you want your car somewhere in about the same time that you could drive there, then it will need putting on a plane. This can cost more than the car.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

The DDF, you mean that document which has been pretty much thrown to the side?

Yeah, there'd still be a game, with or without the old guard. The hype behind Star Citizen saw to that.

Do you know how close the ks came to failing? Arguably without the added late promise of offline the ks would not have passed the finishing line!. Maybe FD would have made the game regardless of the KSer but if so why bother doing it?. And as for FD tbrowing their own DDF documents to one side......... that IS one possibility tho a dev recently confirmed to me they still follow it where they can.... but personally i try to nudge FD in the direction of all their DDF design choices . I think most would agree that on the whole that would steer the game in the right direction.

 

[Privata]

You're right, it should always take a minimum of 2 months and the prices should always be no lower than 500 million.

#sarcasm

Did I ever say I wanted it to be months?
I like the time we have , its actualy a good ballance between realism and arcade.

However making it lower will damage ballance and just make the game go far away from its roots.

Remember that elite invented immersion in games and did everything it could to remove silly game elements such as ''points'' and ''lives''
Fast and cheap transfer is a step back in that direction.

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

I guess it was too much of me to expect you to explain your assertions. I mean, hell, I took the time to explain the majority of mine.

1. Plenty of people were contemplating and discussing ship transfer mechanics based around those offered by EVE Online in the form of ships capable of hauling other ships. This conversation was not unknown or unheard of and ideas ranged from instant to player piloted massive transport ships to move other ships around as part of the economy.

2. The outcry against "instant" transfers eclipsed any other moment in this forums history by a large margin and of the hundreds of pages of comments, there were maybe 3 valid reasons cast against instant transfers that weren't based in theorycrafting with inadequate information. Frontier couldn't have ignored it if they wanted to. Comparing that to the push of maybe 2 dozen people to have some feature altered at various points over the past two years isn't the same.

I didn't lose anything in the vote. I was merely perturbed by the complete lack of rational thought that accompanied the vast majority of "reasons" about why some feature shouldn't be implemented in such a way. To be completely honest, most of my twisting originates in the PvP/PvE threads over the absolutely asinine reasoning I've seen people pull out of their britches to explain why so-and-so type players should be punished in the most ludicrous ways possible for destroying another player ship. Watching that convoluted nonsense make its way into feature talk and actually influence feature mechanics is quite upsetting for me and makes me fear for the long run plans of ED if the development team is so easily influenced by this echo chamber.

The DDF docs are not ignored , as they are just high level suggestions.
In the end its FD vision and the DDF did help focus on some aspects.

To me , most of the DDF is content for later down the line.
A lot of it has to do with advanced interactions and walking. stuff that is yet to come.

 

[Deadspin]

Do you know how close the ks came to failing? Arguably without the added late promise of offline the ks would not have passed the finishing line!. Maybe FD would have made the game regardless of the KSer but if so why bother it?. And as for FD tbrowing their own DDF documents to one side......... that IS one possibility tho a dev recently confirmed to me they still follow it where they can.... but personally i try to nudge FD in the direction of all their DDF design choices . I think most would agree that on the whole that would steer the game in the right direction.

Even I agree there.

And yes, I know how close the KS came to failing. SC had all the hype and it (the ED KS) was poorly timed and viewed as a bandwagon attempt by a lot people, myself included.

In the end, I'm glad I bought into the game before release though, if only because it's allowed me to watch it grow (with the downside of watching this forum become more and more toxic).

 

[Siranui]

I was merely perturbed by the complete lack of rational thought that accompanied the vast majority of "reasons" about why some feature shouldn't be implemented in such a way. To be completely honest, most of my twisting originates in the PvP/PvE threads

To be fair, PvP absolutely needed to be considered as part of the discussion. No other area of any game ever pushes builds, balance and mechanics as hard as PvP. Features should be built to withstand PvP optimisation, because if they can stand up to that, they can stand up to anything.

I don't think that every mention of PvP in the discussion was PvP vs. PvE axes being ground, merely that PvP pushes the envelope more.

Likewise, the exploiters also need to be considered whenever a new feature is added.

Absolutely the first thing I do when an idea is raised is to think 'What is the most absurd case and how can it be exploited. How can this break things when abused to the maximum?'

With instant ship transfers I could see the negative impacts of it being a tactical choice rather than strategic, both in terms of specific instances and general cases. Personally, I did not lose any sleep thinking what price or time would be right, rather trusting FD to think of that, rather than expecting them to read my forum post and think 'this random user has the numbers right: we'll use these!'. I got broadly what I believed was best the precise number is somewhat semantic. It's just a shame this thread got off to a bad start due to poor example data.

 

[Privata]

Even I agree there.

And yes, I know how close the KS came to failing. SC had all the hype and it (the ED KS) was poorly timed and viewed as a bandwagon attempt by a lot people, myself included.

In the end, I'm glad I bought into the game before release though, if only because it's allowed me to watch it grow (with the downside of watching this forum become more and more toxic).

I backed SC , but... I dont trust them.
I mean we are talking about the next ''freelancer'' that promised us a universe full of interactions , dynamic factions , real economics , and open world gameplay... and what we got was a very short starlancer played by a mouse set in a semi-open universe.

The fact that many saw elite as a copy was sad as elite is the one who started it all , not just the space sim thing but the proper open-world and trading based game

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

To be fair, PvP absolutely needed to be considered as part of the discussion. No other area of any game ever pushes builds, balance and mechanics as hard as PvP. Features should be built to withstand PvP optimisation, because if they can stand up to that, they can stand up to anything.

I don't think that every mention of PvP in the discussion was PvP vs. PvE axes being ground, merely that PvP pushes the envelope more.

Likewise, the exploiters also need to be considered whenever a new feature is added.

Absolutely the first thing I do when an idea is raised is to think 'What is the most absurd case and how can it be exploited. How can this break things when abused to the maximum?'

With instant ship transfers I could see the negative impacts of it being a tactical choice rather than strategic, both in terms of specific instances and general cases. Personally, I did not lose any sleep thinking what price or time would be right, rather trusting FD to think of that, rather than expecting them to read my forum post and think 'this random user has the numbers right: we'll use these!'. I got broadly what I believed was best the precise number is somewhat semantic. It's just a shame this thread got off to a bad start due to poor example data.

Even if I have spent thousands of euros , got all the books and played more elite than any other game...
I would have 100% ditched elite if it went down instant magic transfer. It would have killed the game and any credibility to its universe and gameplay in my eyes

 

[Theodrid]

I guess it was too much of me to expect you to explain your assertions. I mean, hell, I took the time to explain the majority of mine.

1. Plenty of people were contemplating and discussing ship transfer mechanics based around those offered by EVE Online in the form of ships capable of hauling other ships. This conversation was not unknown or unheard of and ideas ranged from instant to player piloted massive transport ships to move other ships around as part of the economy.

2. The outcry against "instant" transfers eclipsed any other moment in this forums history by a large margin and of the hundreds of pages of comments, there were maybe 3 valid reasons cast against instant transfers that weren't based in theorycrafting with inadequate information. Frontier couldn't have ignored it if they wanted to. Comparing that to the push of maybe 2 dozen people to have some feature altered at various points over the past two years isn't the same.

I didn't lose anything in the vote. I was merely perturbed by the complete lack of rational thought that accompanied the vast majority of "reasons" about why some feature shouldn't be implemented in such a way. To be completely honest, most of my       twisting originates in the PvP/PvE threads over the absolutely asinine reasoning I've seen people pull out of their britches to explain why so-and-so type players should be punished in the most ludicrous ways possible for destroying another player ship. Watching that convoluted nonsense make its way into feature talk and actually influence feature mechanics is quite upsetting for me and makes me fear for the long run plans of ED if the development team is so easily influenced by this echo chamber.

I did explain myself, if you want me to go into more depth over anything ask away, be clear what point you want explained.

in reply :-

1. Please provide me links to these threads on here or reddit, threads that predate the livestream where 'instant' was even a thing on peoples minds, be sure they contain more that 5 posts please.

2. I guess you missed 'offlinegate' then, or the mega threads regarding modes, or PVP, I could go on.

Listen, I am not going to accuse you of irrational thought and the like, you wanted instant ship transfer, that's okay, please pay those of us that wanted a delay the same courtesy. I can agree wholeheartedly regarding the PVP threads, here's a confession, I've gone way over the top sometimes in speaking out against some 'PVP' incidents, I regret some of my part in it. But please, don't let your angst over that trickle into this. One swallow does not make a summer, just because Frontier felt this feature needed a vote does not automatically mean the game design is being decided using a forum committee, I'll say it again, if Frontier were 100% sure that instant transfer was only a positive, we would not have got a vote and they would not have changed direction.

 

[Siranui]

They made Taxes: The Video Game? Cool! Ima get me a copy right now to simulate paying taxes while I pay taxes

They sure did: https://www.gov.uk/log-in-file-self-assessment-tax-return

When you complete it, you are allowed to go to the pub and have a well deserved beer. [yesnod]