I don't think they understand the concept of incentive and reward. FD designs around huge carrots hiding behind walls of punishment and frustration. And the carrots are questionable improvements at best when I look at engineers.
Not a good move Frontier - Fleet Carrier upkeep
- Thread starter killerofstars
- Start date
That makes me sad too.
Newbies show up and suggest that FDev should implement "docking fees" to create a credit-sink.
People point out how that could never happen 'cos it'd create the possibility that somebody with a lot of ships could take time out, come back and find they're bankrupt.
It seemed like FDev knew this, and understood it.
Now it seems like they didn't understand it after all.
As long as there is fair balance in the mechanic, we have two beta's to try it out. We feed back and im sure Frontier will adjust as needed.
It's not an argument, it's just common sense.
I have no issues with people complaining, I've done it myself, but I doubt they are going to change it.
We have no idea how this all works yet, so I'm waiting for the first beta and as there is a few months till release, hopefully they can make some meaningful changes.
Last edited:
Stealthie
Banned
Well, fundamenally I'm opposed to any "carrot on a stick" mechanics, just as I am fundamentally opposed to monthly subscriptions.
I would simply never buy a game that made use of either of those mechanics so I'm always going to be disappointed if they're introduced to a game that I already own.
The only change that could be made, which would satisfy me, would be to remove the "carrot on a stick" mechanic entirely.
You're laying it on a bit thick, there. It may have been mildly disappointing, but tbh, the initial cost will put more people off than the upkeep.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
.... and, when combined, even fewer players are likely to buy one than might have done.
Perfect. Let's make this the ultimate show of ostentatious wealth. I want to come into a system and have everyone know that their total assets value is pocket change to me.
This will result in being ganked mercilessly, but it'll be worth it.
Stealthie
Banned
I can only speak for myself but I don't consider it an exaggeration.
I decided to move out to Colonia two years ago.
With the idea of FC's in mind, I moved back to the bubble and spent almost a year rebuilding a fleet of ships which I planned to transport to Colonia on my FC and then taking my FC (with an exploration ship and a mining ship aboard) and heading out into deep space long-term.
Basically, the latest news is likely to make that untenable so it removes any immediate incentive to play the game further.
Added to which, the introduction of a "carrot on a stick" mechanic suggests that FDev have adopted a strategy that I find fundamentally distasteful, and I would never willingly buy a game that used it.
And now I find that a game that didn't use it has now decided to.
Both of those things are pretty serious, IMO.
Personally, I doubt it. Fleet carriers are essentially being set up as player managed stations by the looks of it. They should require significant cost and upkeep - and in my view it is perfectly reasonable that a single commander could not do so without help (or a lot of effort).
We've got two betas to come yet, though, so we'll find out if they're worth it then. If we get the option to try them out cheap, then I'll certainly take it. I am not planning on having one otherwise.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Which is rather at odds with the previously advertised personal fleet carrier - which, to some, was expected to be a mobile garage for one's ships.
Why has no-one asked if you earn Arx from all of the FC trade yet?
The forum is going downhill rapidly
The forum is going downhill rapidly
As we have no idea how this works, we don't know if it's carrot on a stick, but having something that needs maintaining is not necessarily a bad thing in a game.
We as most games have those mechanics, your games list must be rather small.
So I take it you have experienced this update already then to know exactly what's it's like and how it all works.
Let's see the reveal and try the beta first yes. Don't you think that's the wisest course of action instead of jumping to conclusions.
Stealthie
Banned
You're asking questions to which the answers are already provided in the comments you quoted.
Seeing the statements that they'll never use fleet carriers because they morally object to them since its catering to only the "elite"... Forget these will be (from what i gather) open to the public to dock at and use their services. While you may never own one that doesn't mean you'll never benefit from one.
Why has no-one asked if you earn Arx from all of the FC trade yet?
The forum is going downhill rapidly
That....is a good point. FC are going to be Jeff Bezos paintjob printers.
This really is Elite Dangerous' first step into base building and business management, only the most entrepreneurial should invest in one.
"If owners consistently fall behind on their payments, the fleet carriers might, ultimately, be decommissioned and sold for parts."
The key word is "MIGHT".
I'm curious as to if one doesn't play for an extended period of time for what ever reason, will they loose it.
I mean, some player's don't actually play every hour of the day, let alone every day of a week.
If there is a timer, I would hope it only applies to actual game time.
Stealthie
Banned
Weird how all those abandoned megaships have survived for centuries without being stripped for parts, amirite?
The crucial part is that it'll happen based on real time. You don't play, you still have to pay the in-game costs. And don't you dare to get ill or some other unforeseen things happening to you and you are off for a longer time. The game is ready to punish you for that.
Because never has it ever happened to a game that somebody returned, found that he lost stuff and rather left the game and moved somewhere else.
Mind you, "never" doesn't include games like a MUD of old times, SWG or UO, where you also had to pay for upkeep. Or also AO for guild cities. But in those games the upkeep had some gameplay reason: areas to place houses or cities was limited. Houses of players who already left the game cluttered the landscape, blocking it for newer players. Upkeep was a way to fix that: if you didn't play for too long, the game cleared the space for actually active players.
There was an actual reason for having that. And still, at least in SWG and UO there were people returning to the game, finding that their houses and stuff were removed and immediately left again, never to return. That's the price these games had to pay for having such a system in place: drastically reducing the number of former players (so those who might actually have fond memories of the game and are likely to return and pay again), by punishing them for their absence. That's why later games switched the housing system to instanced versions. Instanced housing doesn't have the high cost of in-game real estate limitation.
In ED we are in space. For reasons unknown, there's plenty of space in space, so it's not like we're running out of space quickly. And if you still worry about places being crowded, just don't spawn a carrier any more when the owner wasn't online for a week. The reason why those games needed such a mechanic doesn't exist here. So I really don't get it, why we need all the disadvantages of such a mechanic, without even having the benefits?
If the goal is to have running costs on these carriers then rather demand docking fees, make jumping very expensive, stuff like that. That's costs added to players normal activities. They play, they do stuff, they can also stem the burden. But implementing costs for people being offline is just a bad concept. I hope FD reconsiders.
There's a limit to how personal a "ship" that can dock Cutters and Anacondas can actually be. It's truly massive. Seems to me like people were making assumptions again.