C'mon, this is faintly ridiculous.

This is how out of touch you are with the average player experience in Elite, especially for new players. This isn't even remotely accurate, it's just not.

I remember my new player experience and I know how much faster credit acquisition has become.

In the game setting of Elite, ships would be as easy to acquire and move about as motor vehicles are today.

They were considerably easier than this even before ship transfers.

They would have to be, or else there's no way you could hold all these systems together with any kind of viable Government or economy.

Earth has had examples of continent spanning governments for upwards two-thousand years and intercontinental trade considerably longer. Trade and governments do not require instantaneous communication or transportation, though more rapid logistics has certainly transformed them. Before the modern era it wasn't unusual for the frontiers or colonies of larger nations/empires to be out of touch with central authorities for months or years at a time.

If it tooks days or weeks to cross the bubble and months or years to reach Colonia, it would be more than fast enough for the sort of goverments we have in ED. Indeed, in the setting's own lore the first thousand years of FTL travel, when most of these polities were established, had travel significantly slower than this.

having to log on regularly to dump credits in your carrier is STILL A chore

Can't this be paid in advance?

I completely understand that feeling but how would someone like you get it back? Bullets would go up in price progressively based on your income? Serious question.

Expenses could have made it difficult to consistently accrue vast surpluses in the first place and any rational economy would feature inflation vaguely proportional to money supply, barring some paradigm shift in manufacturing costs.

In game terms, they could abstract things by looking at average number of credits per CMDR and base prices off that. Wouldn't be anywhere near ideal, but it would be far more believable than having the equivalent of every loaf of bread cost a dollar when the minimum wage is twenty-thousand dollars an hour.
 

Deleted member 182079

D
So one, if it decommissions due to neglect it minimum takes out the negative balance in the bank which I believe is 250 million credits. Not sure how that effects carrier upgrades, fi they're just lost or not.

The missions thing is just an illustration that nothing is guaranteed and things change. Yeah, I need to find some new payday now.

Last thing on your mind, aye it would have been mine too. But it still is poopooty that it would happen and something you'd want to avoid. Doesn't matter if you're okay with a negative thing in the game, that doesn't stop it from being a negative thing. And in the case of upkeep? A totally unnecessary negative thing.
250m credits isn't a big deal to be fair and can be made back in a few hours easily even if you play casually - however what I just thought about that could hurt is if your carrier is filled to the brim with high value and/or rare items (I have a selection of relatively rare Thargoid items and about 100t of Hutton Mugs in my hold currently - still, neither are irrelplacable). There's an easy solution though - I could (if this was important to me) set aside a few hundred million credits now, and put those aside for a rainy day - there's functionality in the FC menu that allows you to ring fence part or all of your FC credit balance for this reason, and many FC owners are likely sitting on several years worth of upkeep in credits already...

I currently only have 90m cash in my FC's bank, but I could easily disable most services to incur only a fraction of the weekly cost, and strip my carrier of modules, services, Tritium reserves, heck even ships, and would be swimming in the billions again. Most of my liquid credits (beyond ships/modules) are tied up in FC assets and outfitting options because I don't see the point of having a huge credit balance, and keeping it low makes it still mean something to me (and makes the weekly upkeep more visible again).

As for upkeep itself, unlike you I do believe it's a good thing to have, as it motivates me to actually still make credits (beyond covering frankly miniscule rebuy cost, and I don't lose ships all that often, certainly not the more expensive ones). That's simply a difference in gameplay preference so will have to agree to disagree on that one.

Edit: On the carrier upgrades (and any outfitting & ship stock) this works like regular ship outfitting - you can add/remove as you please without losing any credits at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
250m credits isn't a big deal to be fair and can be made back in a few hours easily even if you play casually - however what I just thought about that could hurt is if your carrier is filled to the brim with high value and/or rare items (I have a selection of relatively rare Thargoid items and about 100t of Hutton Mugs in my hold currently - still, neither are irrelplacable). There's an easy solution though - I could (if this was important to me) set aside a few hundred million credits now, and put those aside for a rainy day - there's functionality in the FC menu that allows you to ring fence part or all of your FC credit balance for this reason, and many FC owners are likely sitting on several years worth of upkeep in credits already...

I currently only have 90m cash in my FC's bank, but I could easily strip my carrier of modules, services, Tritium reserves, heck even ships, and would be swimming in the billions again. All my credits are tied up in FC assets and outfitting options because I don't see the point of having a huge credit balance, and keeping it low makes it still mean something to me (and makes the weekly upkeep more visible again).

As for upkeep itself, unlike you I do believe it's a good thing to have, as it motivates me to actually still make credits (beyond covering frankly miniscule rebuy cost, and I don't lose ships all that often, certainly not the more expensive ones). That's simply a difference in gameplay preference so will have to agree to disagree on that one.

Total aside to the conversation: Wow my very mild G rated (here in america) word that refers to the undesirableness of the situation was edited or swapped by a filter. Which is...fine. I guess I'll try to avoid euphemisms all together.

Sir. Your argument boils down to exactly what I said it did: that you're okay with the negative. That doesn't stop it from being a negative. Look, I'm okay with jump fees (even though I think that's annoying/redundant considering the carrier ALSO requires fuel. Expensive fuel.) I would rather money goes into making money, restocking goods for the carrier or something. If you have an active market, I'm fine with that active market requiring upkeep as long as you can flip a switch and turn your market on/off as needed. If you just have a shipyard that you use to ferry your fleet/squadron/modules around, I think it should be free.

Credit motivations should come from gaining something, not having an economy credit sink that forces you to regularly log in in real time.
 
I completely understand that feeling but how would someone like you get it back? Bullets would go up in price progressively based on your income? Serious question.


Just to chime in on this subject: rearming/refueling fees being high is pointless especially in the current game. You can manufacture bullets, and you've always been able to scoop off a star. Fuel/bullets are low value commodities. IF bullets got too expensive, everybody would just switch to lasers.

Also this is a fruitless discussion riverside. These kinds of trivialities are a big deal when you're in your starting sidewinder or eagle. By the time you are a KING in the imperial reserve and cruising around in a cutter like a one percenter fuel and ammo costs SHOULD be totally negligible. That's REALISTIC.

In new york, rich people park their cars illegally and just pay the parking ticket, which is to them trivial, as a kind of expensive version of a parking fee. Once you reach the top, no, you don't struggle to eat and refuel your car everyday.
 

Deleted member 182079

D
I'm not disputing that it's a negative for you, but that doesn't make it objectively negative (apart from its effect on your credit balance) for everyone else. Some don't mind it, others hate it, while some actively love it.

And you can argue that FCs in themselves were specifically designed to be a credit sink (because that's what they are, and I'm sure this was no accident by Frontier). I don't believe Frontier ever intended them to be a profit centre, even though it's possible to run one as such (I never bothered).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not disputing that it's a negative for you, but that doesn't make it objectively negative (apart from its effect on your credit balance) for everyone else. Some don't mind it, others hate it, while some actively love it.

And you can argue that FCs in themselves were specifically designed to be a credit sink (because that's what they are, and I'm sure this was no accident by Frontier). I don't believe Frontier ever intended them to be a profit centre, even though it's possible to run one as such (I never bothered).

No, it's a negative. It is objectively a negative by definition. It does not reward you, it doesn't create a meaningful gameplay experience, it takes something away from you and gives you nothing in return. I mean, you can argue that you enjoy desert bus if you want, but that doesn't make it a good game.

I never expected fleet carriers to be flying stores. I wanted a thing to schlep my ships around and haul my squadron mates too. That's it. I'm fine with it being a huge expensive thing too, that was fine. I just don't want an active credit suck that happens in real time even when I'm not playing. Because...JOB.
 

Deleted member 182079

D
No, it's a negative. It is objectively a negative by definition. It does not reward you, it doesn't create a meaningful gameplay experience, it takes something away from you and gives you nothing in return. I mean, you can argue that you enjoy desert bus if you want, but that doesn't make it a good game.

I never expected fleet carriers to be flying stores. I wanted a thing to schlep my ships around and haul my squadron mates too. That's it. I'm fine with it being a huge expensive thing too, that was fine. I just don't want an active credit suck that happens in real time even when I'm not playing. Because...JOB.
I just told you that it does give me something, the motivation to earn more credits. You might not appreciate that, but that is a tangible benefit for players like myself.

I'm sorry, but I feel I've given you sufficient rope in my responses to have a meaningful discussion, but if you're now just telling me that what I experience as a positive gameplay addition is de facto negative, then there's nothing else I can say to you, other than that you're wrong if you believe you are the authority on what people can consider positive or negative gameplay elements in Elite.

I really don't understand people who are fine with the 5bn tag (which does take a while to accumulate) but take issue with the peanuts in weekly cost i.e. 20 minutes of credit 'grind' (like running a handful of missions, at worst) to cover for 7 days. Well, the option then is not to buy a FC and wait until Frontier program your a-la-carte version of it instead. Good luck with that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just told you that it does give me something, the motivation to earn more credits. You might not appreciate that, but that is a tangible benefit for players like myself.

I'm sorry, but I feel I've given you sufficient rope in my responses to have a meaningful discussion, but if you're now just telling me that what I experience as a positive gameplay addition is de facto negative, then there's nothing else I can say to you, other than that you're wrong if you believe you are the authority on what people can consider positive or negative gameplay elements in Elite.

I really don't understand people who are fine with the 5bn tag (which does take a while to accumulate) but take issue with the peanuts in weekly cost i.e. 20 minutes of credit 'grind' (like running a handful of missions, at worst) to cover for 7 days. Well, the option then is not to buy a FC and wait until Frontier program your a-la-carte version of it instead. Good luck with that.

ObiW Listen, I enjoy some bad movies. Like the phantom menace! I enjoy the phantom menace. But I'm not going to try to argue that it's a good movie. There's a difference between enjoying something and accepting that it's a good gameplay design.

I get that this gives you a reason to earn credits. Basically, this is makework, and you like having makework to do. Accepted. I understand, nor do I say you're wrong for enjoying such a thing. But do you understand my argument, using the above movie, that it's not objectively good gameplay design? It's not. Good gameplay design would reward you for makework. Like say destiny, rewarding you with cosmetics for completing bounties. Its make work, but you get something for it, AND the game doesn't threaten to take something away from you if you don't log in to do it every week.

So you can like a thing. Doesn't mean it's a positive thing for players, a good thing for the community, or especially the overall health of the game. And that's what I'm arguing. It should go. Maybe the carrier could get a data delivery mission board or something that requires credit upkeep but doesn't inconvenience anybody else. Or the current trade system requires upkeep. Doesn't take anything away from you or anybody else, but for someone who just wants a fleet carrier it provides that. Everybody wins, everything's basically already coded in the game.
 

Deleted member 182079

D
ObiW Listen, I enjoy some bad movies. Like the phantom menace! I enjoy the phantom menace. But I'm not going to try to argue that it's a good movie. There's a difference between enjoying something and accepting that it's a good gameplay design.

I get that this gives you a reason to earn credits. Basically, this is makework, and you like having makework to do. Accepted. I understand, nor do I say you're wrong for enjoying such a thing. But do you understand my argument, using the above movie, that it's not objectively good gameplay design? It's not. Good gameplay design would reward you for makework. Like say destiny, rewarding you with cosmetics for completing bounties. Its make work, but you get something for it, AND the game doesn't threaten to take something away from you if you don't log in to do it every week.

So you can like a thing. Doesn't mean it's a positive thing for players, a good thing for the community, or especially the overall health of the game. And that's what I'm arguing. It should go. Maybe the carrier could get a data delivery mission board or something that requires credit upkeep but doesn't inconvenience anybody else. Or the current trade system requires upkeep. Doesn't take anything away from you or anybody else, but for someone who just wants a fleet carrier it provides that. Everybody wins, everything's basically already coded in the game.
But that's just, like, your opinion man!

Just like mine is mine fwiw.

Honestly, what do you think gives you the right to say "it should go", are you DBOBE?

I'm saying "it shouldn't". Who is right? Neither of us. You've got to accept that your opinion is not the only valid one, which is what keep trying to explain to you.
 
Anyone can get there doesn't mean they can use it now. It's gameplay that is potentially unlockable, mostly after a serious time investment.
Isn't that par for the course for MOST games?.

IF I start diablo 3 it is going to take some proper time investment to get a top level legendary gear set.
If I start ghost recon breakpoint equally I am not getting top level yellow gear any time soon, same with division 2...
This is a good thing for me admit givese.long term goals.
 
It's not me who designed this game to take place in a galaxy. Naturally you'd assume there'd be some way to actually visit the galaxy - what's the point of it when it's actually unachievable for most players. Yes, you can go to Beagle Point for a challenge. I liked reading about it. Would I go there myself? No. For me a much smaller world would be completely sufficient. ED is oversized for my taste. Call it a challenge if you will. Actually it's better to call it like that rather than make believe running around in FCs and max engineered ships is the new normal. Because the normal is still pressing the "J" key countless times until you go sick seeing the same loading screen again.
If it is oversized for your tastes that is fine...... But FD were clear on their marketing of it so it's not like you were ignorant. But demanding it to be shrunk down to your tastes is always going to get resistance from those who LIKE the size of it. Objectively most systems in ED are the same.... What made the distant systems special was precisely BECAUSE of the investment needed to get there. Now they are just like any other system imo.
 
Hey, it's not me who dumped more and more grind into the game until they realised it simple isn't doable and makes players give up. The credit inflation is just the bandaid to fix the insane amount of busywork required to play even basic gameplay loops like combat because no matter what, the stupid engineers is FD's measure of progression now.
I have 2 engineered ships in the game. The rest are largely untouched but I still play them. G1-G3 gear is trivial to get. Outside of PvP G4 and G5 is unnecessary and worse still arguably breaks the PvE game in some cases.
 
I completely understand that feeling but how would someone like you get it back? Bullets would go up in price progressively based on your income? Serious question.

Credit sinks & dilemmas.

Fuelling a Python being more expensive per tonne for the same fuel as a Sidewinder takes was daft, that's why it was removed. But it worked to force the player into a dilemma. Now the Python is just the go-to ship for mission running because it has no downside, and the T-7 is obsolete because it being cheap to run & maintain has no value to the player in the modern game & it's only remaining strength is interdiction evasion.

One of the things I do is take every donation mission I see, unless I have good reason not to (ie that faction is my enemy). It costs a lot, millions every day, millions almost every time I dock in fact, my credit value stays relatively stable for days, then a war comes up & the massacre missions (that I do for the BGS inf, not for the money) bump it up. If there were more ways to donate, to bribe officials, to generally use my hard earned wealth to influence factions, supporting a faction or cause would once again become a credit sink while allowing players who are interested only in earning credits to continue as they currently do.

Then I'd have some reason to try to earn cash efficiently - something to spend it on that wasn't just the accumulation of personal assets.
 
One of the things I do is take every donation mission I see, unless I have good reason not to (ie that faction is my enemy)...
(for me) ... and even if they are my enemy but not in a system I have interest in... Most of my enemies, most of the time, treat me, if not with outright hostility, with considerable loathing!

But, like you, every faction in the locations I visit, who are asking for donations (and I'm not already allied) get them. Just in case ;)
 
I am the opposite. Note I am not asking them to be removed from the game but not doing donation missions is one of my rules.......I like to earn my rep by doing jobs not by buying their rep.it is one of the ways I try to slow progression.
 
Credit sinks & dilemmas.
If there were more ways to donate, to bribe officials, to generally use my hard earned wealth to influence factions, supporting a faction or cause would once again become a credit sink while allowing players who are interested only in earning credits to continue as they currently do.

Then I'd have some reason to try to earn cash efficiently - something to spend it on that wasn't just the accumulation of personal assets.

Yeah I get that and I have already said there should be more content released. I completely understand what you are saying on this but I'm not sure how you and others ever feel credits will be an effective balancing measure for achieving that goal.

You're space Bill Gates. If the game is balanced so it's creating monetary delimas for you, it would be an oppressive proposition for others.
 
But that's just, like, your opinion man!

Just like mine is mine fwiw.

Honestly, what do you think gives you the right to say "it should go", are you DBOBE?

I'm saying "it shouldn't". Who is right? Neither of us. You've got to accept that your opinion is not the only valid one, which is what keep trying to explain to you.

Games are like any art form. There's good technique, and bad technique. Just like in film, or photography, or music. Anybody can point a camera, but only a talented film maker understands staging, lighting, lens choice, visual storytelling, ect. Those things are objective. A film that fails to grab an audience can be beautifully made, and a film everybody loves can have a host of technical errors. But generally, technique produces a better result. Bad technique or UI Design principles or whatever isn't an opinion.

And I've extensively laid out why I think real time upkeep is a bad design choice, objectively.
 
Yeah I get that and I have already said there should be more content released. I completely understand what you are saying on this but I'm not sure how you and others ever feel credits will be an effective balancing measure for achieving that goal.

You're space Bill Gates. If the game is balanced so it's creating monetary delimas for you, it would be an oppressive proposition for others.

It wouldn't be oppressive, you just wouldn't take (as many) donation missions or offer as many bribes. If you support a faction you would be less effective if you don't & therefore motivated to earn more money, if you don't care about the BGS you'd just find the best selling price for your mined goods or whatever the current money making meta is.

I can certainly understand the desire to make reasonable progress, but it is a matter of scale; if you play an hour a day & I play 5 hours a day I'm going to progress quicker than you no matter how hard or easy it is.
 

Deleted member 182079

D
Games are like any art form. There's good technique, and bad technique. Just like in film, or photography, or music. Anybody can point a camera, but only a talented film maker understands staging, lighting, lens choice, visual storytelling, ect. Those things are objective. A film that fails to grab an audience can be beautifully made, and a film everybody loves can have a host of technical errors. But generally, technique produces a better result. Bad technique or UI Design principles or whatever isn't an opinion.

And I've extensively laid out why I think real time upkeep is a bad design choice, objectively.
And I disagree with your opinion that upkeep is bad game design. Now what? We'll just go around in circles at this stage.
 
Back
Top Bottom