You want a link to somewhere where someone didn't say something... good post!Link to where it says we don't.
You want a link to somewhere where someone didn't say something... good post!Link to where it says we don't.
You're speculating that there might not be much left of 5 BILLION credits? Hahaha!It would be reasonably expected that any debt would be deducted from any return due to Carrier decommissioning - however, Stephen's tweet indicated that the debt required was "huge" - so there might not be that much left....
I don't subscribe to the notion that Frontier would choose to punish players as severely as to impose a total loss on decommissiooning.
No mention of return on decommissioning has been made that I have found.Link to where it says we don't.
Link to where we have been told that we'll receive 90% of the Carrier (and upgrades) cost on decommissioning?
Depends on what one interprets "huge" and "might not be that much left" to mean.You're speculating that there might not be much left of 5 BILLION credits? Hahaha!
No mention of return on decommissioning has been made that I have found.
Exactly - those expecting 90% are speculating just as much as those expecting total loss.Which is the point. No-one knows. Except FD, of course.
But if it's not being used there is no wear and tear!There'll still be "wear and tear", I expect.
.... because it's persistent and does not leave the game when the owner does, I expect.But if it's not being used there is no wear and tear!
I don't have to pay wear and tear for a ship parked up next to a sun for 8 months while I'm not playing why would it be different for a Carrier?
I don't see the relevance!.... because it's persistent and does not leave the game when the owner does, I expect.
Exactly - those expecting 90% are speculating just as much as those expecting total loss.
This CMDR gets itMost of the posts I've seen where people are pointing out that it could be 90% are to emphasise that we could assume anything, rather than stating they actually expect it to be 90%.
I suspect FD deliberately drip-feed information now so that they can sit back and watch the griping. And if they did, I certainly wouldn't blame them.
"FDev, we want info on the next update, some small details will do"
"Here you go, and the full details will come next week"
"OMG if i interpret these small details in the worst possible way, the outcome is terrible. I can't wait until next week for the full info, i need it now"
There is no mention either way. So both are a possibility wouldn't you say?No mention of return on decommissioning has been made that I have found.
I'm just doing what everyone else is. Thought I'd jump on the bandwagon.You want a link to somewhere where someone didn't say something... good post!
Don't worry, my life isn't real either.It eventually goes there. Jesus. I guess that's that then.
But if it's persistent, then it may be used by other commanders, so therefore there is a possibility it may be used.But if it's not being used there is no wear and tear!
I don't have to pay wear and tear for a ship parked up next to a sun for 8 months while I'm not playing why would it be different for a Carrier?
All players have real lifeSo no FC for casual players that have real life ☹