Would you...? Fiscal experiment.

[Shiro Akai]

Credits. Income. Wealth. A slightly bit different approach to discuss.

Recently I've been thinking about wealth in general. How wealthy we, as CMDRs, are. There was already few attempts of doing so, so i wouldn't be doing it again. While thinking about it I got a thought. Quite revolutionary.

One say that credits are easy to get and therefore meaningless. Other see it as a hindrance since missions in general pay too little while demanding too much. So to quote:

"What would be so terrible if I had a small fortune?"

And then it struck me - credits are now easy to come by, cash flowing with wide stream. Missions now pay at least 3 times it used to, millions per single mission is now pretty common sight.

But.

- Every docking falls under standard handling fee. This include tower guidance, ground service. Refuelling, repairs are paid separately. Landing fee depends on pad size (smaller pad - smaller fee), station type (outpost has lower fees than coriolis or orbis), system type (different for extraction, higher for tourism) and system size (small backwater be cheap, main hub with lot of traffic - expensive).


- Each outfitting usage falls under service fee. No one works for free, uninstalling old modules, installing new ones, swapping, connecting, etc. requires qualified work force. Service fee would depend on module size and type (not module value). Standardized fees. Power plants are expensive due to risk, small modules are lower costs, big modules are higher cost due to size.

Generally, at every step you face a credit drain. You land on a station, pay a handling and pad fee. Want to swap modules for you unlocked guardian tech - pay service fee. All those fees are a counter to massively increased credit availability. Few random missions is enough to get few millions but those millions are drained from you by daily activities.

And so my question: would you like to have such system in ED or would you opt to stay with things like are today?

I think above could implement more depth into credit system. Instead of "farming" credits, saving for future upgrades and purchases one could more manage their money. Under constant drainage finding lucrative routes and activities would have more impact.

Share your thoughts, feel free to agree, disagree and totally dump the idea if you find it bad.

 

[Watcher]

I think something like this could work but along side it you would want to add some important QoL improvements and options for opting out (or at least reducing) the credit drain.
So things like you can do a complete module set up, swapping things as you want even buying in new modules - you don't pay anything until you hit a final 'confirm' button on a invoice screen. Perhaps have a 'quick' mode that operates like now with instant payment for all changes as you make them for power users..
For landing fees and so on I'm not sure how you would do this, perhaps have prioritised landing? (that would get annoying real quick) Maybe increase repair costs but at the same time introduce ways of doing this yourself?
I think just flat out adding costs without adding game choices around it would just be annoying really but with some option, sure, that could work.

 

[Stealthie]

I haven't done the math's but I suspect it wouldn't really work.

Basically, any fees would either be so trivial as to be unnoticeable (such as the current costs for fuel, ammo and repairs) or, if they were significant enough to notice, they'd probably be higher than the profit-margin for a lot of activities.

Might be nice if the costs were dynamic so that, for example, buying fuel and ammo in a system at war was more expensive or getting a ship repaired in a high-tech system was cheaper etc.

 

[[VR] Frank_G]

Totally... Make it hard to keep the bird in the void. This would make every upgrade something special and every trip something to think about up front. Awesome. +1 OP

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Basically, any fees would either be so trivial as to be unnoticeable (such as the current costs for fuel, ammo and repairs) or, if they were significant enough to notice, they'd probably be higher than the profit-margin for a lot of activities.

This. My average earning rate is well under 1MCr/hour. I know how to earn 100MCr/hour but I'd find it extremely boring to actually do it for more than about ten minutes. Introducing fees which were noticeable to someone who earns a lot of money would just force me into doing things I don't enjoy to stay afloat.

 

[Dommarraa]

I haven't done the math's but I suspect it wouldn't really work.

Basically, any fees would either be so trivial as to be unnoticeable (such as the current costs for fuel, ammo and repairs) or, if they were significant enough to notice, they'd probably be higher than the profit-margin for a lot of activities.

Might be nice if the costs were dynamic so that, for example, buying fuel and ammo in a system at war was more expensive or getting a ship repaired in a high-tech system was cheaper etc.

Agreed. Without a full Market Economy applying to everything we do, FD would never be able to balance it well enough. Manually set charges would either be insignificant or game breaking for too many people.
You see missions paying millions ? I see them too, but never take the cash option, the Rep/Inf options are normally 1/10 of the headline figure or less.

 

[Valorin]

Credits. Income. Wealth. A slightly bit different approach to discuss.

Recently I've been thinking about wealth in general. How wealthy we, as CMDRs, are. There was already few attempts of doing so, so i wouldn't be doing it again. While thinking about it I got a thought. Quite revolutionary.

One say that credits are easy to get and therefore meaningless. Other see it as a hindrance since missions in general pay too little while demanding too much. So to quote:

"What would be so terrible if I had a small fortune?"

And then it struck me - credits are now easy to come by, cash flowing with wide stream. Missions now pay at least 3 times it used to, millions per single mission is now pretty common sight.

But.

- Every docking falls under standard handling fee. This include tower guidance, ground service. Refuelling, repairs are paid separately. Landing fee depends on pad size (smaller pad - smaller fee), station type (outpost has lower fees than coriolis or orbis), system type (different for extraction, higher for tourism) and system size (small backwater be cheap, main hub with lot of traffic - expensive).


- Each outfitting usage falls under service fee. No one works for free, uninstalling old modules, installing new ones, swapping, connecting, etc. requires qualified work force. Service fee would depend on module size and type (not module value). Standardized fees. Power plants are expensive due to risk, small modules are lower costs, big modules are higher cost due to size.

Generally, at every step you face a credit drain. You land on a station, pay a handling and pad fee. Want to swap modules for you unlocked guardian tech - pay service fee. All those fees are a counter to massively increased credit availability. Few random missions is enough to get few millions but those millions are drained from you by daily activities.

And so my question: would you like to have such system in ED or would you opt to stay with things like are today?

I think above could implement more depth into credit system. Instead of "farming" credits, saving for future upgrades and purchases one could more manage their money. Under constant drainage finding lucrative routes and activities would have more impact.

Share your thoughts, feel free to agree, disagree and totally dump the idea if you find it bad.

But... people want everything fast! It's absolutely important to own at least three big ships after one week of playing, Cutter and Corvette included, and fully G5 engineered... Can't take away any of the credits! Outrageous!

Actually I wouldn't mind paying for service.

 

[Bigmaec]

No.
I play to have fun, I work to be able to afford that.
I don't want a second work, thanks.

 

[Watcher]

I haven't done the math's but I suspect it wouldn't really work.

Basically, any fees would either be so trivial as to be unnoticeable (such as the current costs for fuel, ammo and repairs) or, if they were significant enough to notice, they'd probably be higher than the profit-margin for a lot of activities.

Might be nice if the costs were dynamic so that, for example, buying fuel and ammo in a system at war was more expensive or getting a ship repaired in a high-tech system was cheaper etc.

Quite, it would be difficult to balance that out sensibly. The system/station state based dynamic fees thing could be an interesting way of doing something there. Perhaps add in things around the type of station and population levels too. So fuel, ammo and repairs are much more expensive in small outlying places but cheap in large developed core worlds that are doing well. Certain repairs are a bit cheaper in industrial worlds, others are cheaper at tech worlds and so on.
Still, even then, unless the range of costs is large and meaningful it is just going to be annoying for the most part.
I think it could add something but difficult to do well and you'll definitely annoy a lot of people along the way.

 

[Dommarraa]

Agreed. Without a full Market Economy applying to everything we do, FD would never be able to balance it well enough. Manually set charges would either be insignificant or game breaking for too many people.
You see missions paying millions ? I see them too, but never take the cash option, the Rep/Inf options are normally 1/10 of the headline figure or less.

Just to add some statistics from someone who does not work specifically for Credits (I have plenty), I work for Inf or Rep, Inara tells me that at my recent rate, it will take 310 days to make 1 Billion Cr.
That seems a reasonable rate to me. If that rate was applied to people who ARE working for Credits, I would probably be penniless in a similar time frame, or have to spend considerable time engaged in activities that I dont want to do.

 

[Dirtbird]

I've got one and a quarter billion credits from just playing the game (for almost 2 years now), doing BGS work for my favourite factions and generally bumbling around the galaxy. I didn't need any exploits to earn that money and frankly if they brought in extra fees and stuff, that would add a new dimension to the game instead of the brainless make-a-buck runs we get to do now.

 

[Vasious]

Due to the exponentially higher costs for ships and modules I think it would just add to the poor return on investment for big ships


For example

I see people complain about the low payment for Thargoid Scouts vs their repair bills fighting them, but if you are using a Sidewinder each one pays for 3 or 4 repair and rearms.

Same for say deep space salvage missions might pay 2 million so would pay for a Sidewinder full out fitted twice over so any % fee on modules to refit and dock would be ignorable but a Python doing the same mission for the same pay would have to pay far more a premium on the same %

 

[CMDR Karrde Sun]

Depends on who's the master. At some point, elite was balanced so that the rate of credits took you through all the ships and all the sandbox pillars.

At some point, this was changed to more align with people who didn't want this progression and be allowed straight utility.

Given the state of how it is they might as well remove credits from the game.. engineering materials are more meaningful than credits as a currency with value. The steam reviews have changed in nature so they definitely achieved something by it.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

No.

 

[Kayweg]

First off, i never found the need to even give that a thought when playing a computer game.
Secondly, since you brought it up, if i were to give it a thought, i'd consider every payout having all taxes and fees already deducted.
Done....for me anyway.

 

[Stealthie]

Just to throw it out there...

If FDev decided to, perhaps, turn the Guardian Beacons into some kind of "stargate" which could zip you around the galaxy and then an evil corporation like Sirius took control of them, I wouldn't mind paying to use them.

In my head, they wouldn't be able to just send your ship anywhere.
We'd have to find them and then they'd be incorporated into the "gate network" and you'd then be able to travel between them.

So, a beacon might be found 500Ly from Colonia and then you could pay, say, Cr50m to jump between the bubble and Colonia.
I wouldn't mind that.

 

[moorison]

Too bad for the Sidewinder that got the last free docking bay assigned, a large one.

I can imagine a landing tax for certain systems or stations in tourism economies, obviously paid by the passenger that wants to go there.
Come to think of it, less a tax and more a one time permit only given to VIPs that need to travel to remote bases for some clandestine meetings. There will be some unique missions available to allies, the hand-in destination being a different station obviously.

 

[jasonbirder]

Great idea...no fictional universe paints a picture of a lone struggling trader...who never has to worry about money, to whom authority taxes repairs fuel and docking are so insignificant as to not be worth thinking about...to whom any setback is trivial and paid out of pocket change...who almost instantly acquires a supra-powerful pseudo-military ship does it?

Make Insurance, fuel, repairs, upgrades expensive...make actually merely RUNNING a ship an income drain...such that breaking even is quite an effort...and see how much fun the game becomes again!

 

[VR Jay Le Chardon]

I like Shiro Akai's suggestions. +1 rep.

 

[Morbad]

Frankly, I think all prices should scale roughly with the total circulating money supply.

In the ED universe, money keeps being created out of thin air, but prices are fixed. This is absurd. Even in the real-world's ridiculous, funny money, debt-backed economy (which is not sustainable and is subject to devastating corrections), there are limits.

Just looking at the difference in rough figures between 1.0 and now, prices should have risen a solid ten fold.