General Why I think Fleet carrier upkeep should be removed.

[DemiserofD]

Well, true, it is a good example of self-inflicted discomfort.

"Duh! I bought this thing that I know makes a squeal, and it squeals and annoys me..."

A pretty poor example, but top marks for trying.

Unfortunately, players have no choice. Either they buy the fleet carrier and deal with the discomfort(which, again, is completely unnecessary), or they don't buy a fleet carrier and deal with the discomfort of not having one.

You might as well say, "Well, they don't have to play the game."

Of course, that means people quit, the game doesn't get purchased as much, dev time gets allocated elsewhere, and you get less content in the long run. So I don't exactly think that's an ideal solution.

 

[Rat Catcher]

Unfortunately, players have no choice. Either they buy the fleet carrier and deal with the discomfort(which, again, is completely unnecessary), or they don't buy a fleet carrier and deal with the discomfort of not having one.

Absolutely correct!

You might as well say, "Well, they don't have to play the game."

No, I'll leave that to others.
Although, obviously, if I am playing a game it is for entertainment, so I won't make myself miserable doing something I don't wish to do, you, naturally, may choose otherwise.

Of course, that means people quit,

People here tell us they are quitting over something that isn't in their dream of what the game should be fairly often. People quit the game, it is their choice.

the game doesn't get purchased as much, dev time gets allocated elsewhere, and you get less content in the long run.

That is the developer's issue - the game will die, sooner or later, it has had a long run already! - Frontier know precisely how much revenue they are getting from each of their titles, and would make a decision based on those facts.

So I don't exactly think that's an ideal solution.

Apparently, much of the game isn't ideal and needs to change, the crazy thing is that if every change was implemented, I doubt it would 'improve' the game for everyone, quite the opposite.

The ideal solution is for Frontier to continue to make decision about their game. If players want to have a hissy fit and leave because their pet ideas are not implemented, the game will either keep going or not, so no great shakes.

ETA: It is a purely selfish attitude to the many suggestions mooted by players who wish for this to be their "ideal" game, as 99% of the stuff I read suggested would not improve the game for me, quite the opposite.

 

[Misty_Dark]

It doesnt work like that.
The game has 2 type of assets - bases and ships
Bases (orbital outposts/starports/asteroids, planetary outposts/starports, megaships, carriers) are persistent and visible in all instances/platforms
Ships are platform specific, are transient and each commander can have only one active at a time and, being transient, they disappear from the galaxy once the commander logs off

And, once again, carriers are not ship.

There is nothing stopping FDev from also allowing Fleet Carriers to act as a "Signal sources", and thus only visible to a select number of players. and thus not taking up any system identifiers. you know, thinking outside the box in having assets NOT globally visible...

 

[DemiserofD]

Absolutely correct!

I'm not sure what further discussion we can have if that's your take. "Yes, their gameplay experience sucks, but screw them," is not exactly conducive to further discussion.

Especially since

the game will die, sooner or later, it has had a long run already!

Is your viewpoint on change in general. If that's your viewpoint, I think your views are not only wrong, but actively harmful, and should be completely ignored. Frankly, I'm not sure why you bother posting here if all you want is for the game to remain the same.

Anyway, given that I think your views are silly and not worth indulging, you won't be offended if I don't reply to you further.

There is nothing stopping FDev from also allowing Fleet Carriers to act as a "Signal sources", and thus only visible to a select number of players. and thus not taking up any system identifiers. you know, thinking outside the box in having assets NOT globally visible...

This is a great idea, and the way I've felt for a long time. There's no reason fleet carriers NEED to be visible to anyone but their owner, and the methods clearly already exist to accomplish that. Not to mention it would vastly reduce system clutter. It sounds like a massive win/win to me.

 

[Greasetrap42]

Unfortunately, players have no choice. Either they buy the fleet carrier and deal with the discomfort(which, again, is completely unnecessary), or they don't buy a fleet carrier and deal with the discomfort of not having one.

Players have no choice?

I have a FC and I am definitely not experiencing any discomfort. I like it.

On another thread someone said over 30k carriers have been sold. I think that suggests many players like having one. Assuming everybody else is having discomfort owning one is quite presumtuous.

 

[DemiserofD]

Players have no choice?

I have a FC and I am definitely not experiencing any discomfort. I like it.

On another thread someone said over 30k carriers have been sold. I think that suggests many players like having one. Assuming everybody else is having discomfort owning one is quite presumtuous.

I've never said everyone is uncomfortable. But it's no stretch to say that SOME players are uncomfortable. And they're a significant portion of the playerbase.

Carrier upkeep. Why?!

Source: https://youtu.be/JUieLnDjaKk Some very good and valid points are made by Yamiks.......

forums.frontier.co.uk

Carrier upkeep

Carrier upkeep needs to be completely removed. I have life outside the game and don't want to be held hostage.

forums.frontier.co.uk

Ditch weekly upkeep, and...

... replace it with a material or mineable mineral upkeep. Instead of just having credits go into the aether of some arbitrary sink, FC owners can either deal with the maintenance by gathering all the requisite stuff themselves, or they can post competitive orders to get it from other...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Lore based way to remove upkeep easily

We have human meat sacks to keep employed- however in the ED universe we also have low level robotics : It would be entirely consistent to remove humans totally from fleet carriers and have them run with such robots, and at the same time remove most, if not all overheads. For consistency you...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Remove UPKEEP, but make carriers destructible

Since its being end game content, and Frontier really wants it to mean something, let it really mean something then. Remove upkeep, make them 1 billion a peace, keep the guns, but remove the not-destructible flag. Let pilots clean up the 'sleeping' carriers. Anyone game?

forums.frontier.co.uk

Swap Offline Upkeep for Triple Elite

If Fdev want carriers difficult to own, instead of deleting player progress and assets. How about making them a reward for Triple Elite, I've always said carriers should be rank locked anyway. Thoughts?

forums.frontier.co.uk

An option to FC upkeep

I understand the FD's issue about "eternal fleet carriers". I strongly believe that it is a real issue that needs to be resolved in one way or another. It is my opinion though that upkeep is one of the least desirable ways from a point of player's view. We (as a community+developer) need to...

forums.frontier.co.uk

My argument against upkeep

The argument most people make for upkeep is usually that there needs to be a way to clean up the servers so that there aren't unused fleet carriers lying around everywhere. This is a fair point and I agree with that; but upkeep costs arent the way to effectively deal with this problem. There...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Carrier upkeep

Carrier upkeep needs to be completely removed. I have life outside the game and don't want to be held hostage.

forums.frontier.co.uk

And that's like 2 minutes of looking.

Ultimately, since removing upkeep hurts nobody(not even the game in general, since at best a tiny fraction of FCs have been removed due to fund loss), and benefits this significant portion of the playerbase, it seems reasonable to just get rid of it.

And this is bearing in mind that I personally have enough money to keep my FC funded for 12+ years, even assuming I never play the game again, so this would have zero impact on me, personally.

 

[Greasetrap42]

You quite literally just said players have "no choice" and must deal with "discomfort".

You didn't say "many" or "some" or "a few". You said, implying all those players that purchase carriers...

... they buy the fleet carrier and deal with the discomfort(which, again, is completely unnecessary)

EDIT: PLAYERS HAVE CHOICE.
- nobody is being forced to purchase a carrier.

• ED can be played just fine without owning a fleet carrier.
• people can pay 10yrs of upkeep in advance if they want.
• people do NOT need to log on weekly to make more credits or make payments.
• people who can't afford to purchase a carrier shouldn't.
• people who don't want a carrier shouldn't.

(items relating directly to the OPs stance on FC upkeep costs)

 

[DemiserofD]

You quite literally just said players have "no choice" and must deal with "discomfort".

You didn't say "many" or "some" or "a few". You said, implying all those players that purchase carriers...

The distinguishing feature is being uncomfortable; the players who are uncomfortable in regards to fleet carriers are also the ones uncomfortable in my example.

I apologize if this meaning was unclear.

 

[DemiserofD]

EDIT: PLAYERS HAVE CHOICE.
- nobody is being forced to purchase a carrier.

• ED can be played just fine without owning a fleet carrier.
• people can pay 10yrs of upkeep in advance if they want.
• people do NOT need to log on weekly to make more credits or make payments.
• people who can't afford to purchase a carrier shouldn't.
• people who don't want a carrier shouldn't.

(items relating directly to the OPs stance on FC upkeep costs)

Sorry I didn't reply to this immediately, you edited it after I replied.

The problem with this viewpoint is, it's essentially telling these players to play another game. Imagine if, for example, Counterstrike or Minecraft periodically gave you a little electric shock. Regardless of whether it was still playable, having that electric shock will make the game ever so slightly worse for a significant part of the playerbase, and on the statistical level, will result in more players leaving the game.

Sometimes that's intrinsic to the game; Dark Souls wouldn't be Dark Souls without being hard, for example, and ultimately brings more players than it drives away. But fleet carrier upkeep is not intrinsic to Elite Dangerous; nobody joins Elite to pay Carrier upkeep. It can be removed at zero cost and nonzero benefit. And if that's the case, given that it costs nothing and pays something, it should be removed.

 

[Greasetrap42]

The problem with this viewpoint is, it's essentially telling these players to play another game

No. I am not. I am saying you are 100% wrong when posting "players have no choice".

In a game full of choices.

 

[Riverside]

No. I am not. I am saying you are 100% wrong when posting "players have no choice".

In a game full of choices.

I don't think this point is central to the proposal. If a player wants to have a carrier they must pay the maintenance fee. This is what I interpreted Demi's meaning to be.

 

[DemiserofD]

No. I am not. I am saying you are 100% wrong when posting "players have no choice".

In a game full of choices.

'Accept or leave' is not a choice, it's an ultimatum. And if given that ultimatum, players are as likely to play an entirely different game as do something as labor-intensive as buy a fleet carrier.

Seriously, why are you defending this? Will it in any way hurt your gameplay experience if upkeep is removed?

 

[Rat Catcher]

Is your viewpoint on change in general.

You really have no idea, never mind...

Added:

If I was so averse to change I'd still be playing the original base game, not exclusively Odyssey on 4 accounts.

It is some of the old school who throw tantrums when things are changed, do you remember the toys being thrown out of the pram by a few (one, supposedly important, player even quit over it) over the ADS? There were months of pearl clutching by a few forumites.

Every change that has been introduced has been complained about... It hasn't been me complaining. I've embraced every 'new' addition to the game quite happily.

I, particularly, don't need an armchair developer suggesting all kinds of tat to improve the game for them, I prefer to leave it to the game designers, they have not let me down in the last 5 years of play, funny that, isn't it?

 

[Rat Catcher]

Anyway, given that I think your views are silly and not worth indulging, you won't be offended if I don't reply to you further.

You think my views are silly? Ok

Thanks for not replying, it would only be the same canned responses given to any who disagree with you. Offended I certainly won't be, but thanks for the kind consideration.

 

[DemiserofD]

Every change that has been introduced has been complained about... It hasn't been me complaining. I've embraced every 'new' addition to the game quite happily.

That's great! That means that if and when this change gets implemented, you'll be happy with it, too.

Seriously though, if that's your basis for liking or disliking change, then why even bother posting in the suggestions forum? "I don't like this proposal because it's not made by a game developer. But if a game dev decides they like it and implements it, then I do like it because it was liked by a game developer."

After all, this is the suggestions forum. The whole point is suggesting things. Following your logic, you will 100% hate every suggestion here, right up until it gets put into the game, at which point you will retroactively love it. So why should anyone bother discussing anything with you? You're just wasting everyone's time.

 

[Northpin]

What about Signal Sources?

There is nothing stopping FDev from also allowing Fleet Carriers to act as a "Signal sources", and thus only visible to a select number of players. and thus not taking up any system identifiers. you know, thinking outside the box in having assets NOT globally visible...

Signal sources? What's that having to do with Stations and/or Ships?
What about Black Holes, Icy Planets or Raxxla? Can you dock with them, can you refuel after docking or maybe can you fly them? Can you store your ships in a Signal Source? Can you trade with it can you pay your fines or sell your data there?

A Fleet Carrier is a Station or a Dockable Megaship depending how you look at it.
Signal Source?

Unfortunately, players have no choice. Either they buy the fleet carrier and deal with the discomfort(which, again, is completely unnecessary), or they don't buy a fleet carrier and deal with the discomfort of not having one.

You might as well say, "Well, they don't have to play the game."

Of course, that means people quit, the game doesn't get purchased as much, dev time gets allocated elsewhere, and you get less content in the long run. So I don't exactly think that's an ideal solution.

Ofc players have no choice.
And it's better like this because players should be playing the game designed by the game designer.
And i love to play Elite as designed by FDev and not by a player's committee

 

[Rat Catcher]

You lied! You promised to stop responding to me!

That's great! That means that if and when this change gets implemented, you'll be happy with it, too.

If Frontier introduced it, just like when they reduced upkeep to peanuts, that's fine, their decision.

Seriously though, if that's your basis for liking or disliking change, then why even bother posting in the suggestions forum?

Are you a Moderator now?

"I don't like this proposal because it's not made by a game developer. But if a game dev decides they like it and implements it, then I do like it because it was liked by a game developer."

No, the same 'suggestion' has been aired many times, it reminds me of the "give everyone a CM4" topic, it pops up when there is nothing better to discuss.

After all, this is the suggestions forum.

Yes, yes, it is...

The whole point is suggesting things.

Isn't it...

Following your logic, you will 100% hate every suggestion here, right up until it gets put into the game, at which point you will retroactively love it.

Really, ok...

So should anyone bother discussing anything with you?

You did promise you wouldn't.

You're just wasting everyone's time.

No, only yours apparently.

Are you going to tell everyone who disagrees with you that they are wasting everyone's time and to stop posting?

 

[DemiserofD]

Signal sources? What's that having to do with Stations and/or Ships?
What about Black Holes, Icy Planets or Raxxla? Can you dock with them, can you refuel after docking or maybe can you fly them? Can you store your ships in a Signal Source? Can you trade with it can you pay your fines or sell your data there?

A Fleet Carrier is a Station or a Dockable Megaship depending how you look at it.
Signal Source?

You claimed that there were only two types of objects: Player ships, which are only visible to only player and vanish when they log off, and permanent objects, like fleet carriers and stations, which remain even after the player logs off.

But Signal Sources disprove this claim. Signal Sources are unique to individual players and can only be seen by them, but are also persistent, and other players continue to see them even after that player has logged off, assuming they winglock dropped into them before they logged off.

It seems reasonable that Fleet Carriers could be made to function in a similar way, being visible to only one player but persistent and visitable by other players. Do you have any reason this couldn't be the case?

Ofc players have no choice.
And it's better like this because players should be playing the game designed by the game designer.
And i love to play Elite as designed by FDev and not by a player's committee

I mean, this is the suggestions forum. If you don't like player suggestions, why are you here at all?

 

[DemiserofD]

If Frontier introduced it, just like when they reduced upkeep to peanuts, that's fine, their decision.

Awesome, that's all I really needed to hear. Combined with your earlier statement:

I've embraced every 'new' addition to the game quite happily.

I will happily take this as your full support. Any Fdev developers reading, please make a note that this change would make @Rat Catcher happy if it were implemented.

 

[Northpin]

And, therein lies the problem for some people, including myself lately.

It turns into a job, not a game. This mindset is the bane of gaming.

It's a career game, not an instant gratification game like... lets say... Fun Run.

Can you explain how this manifests/should manifest itself in the gameworld, for what purpose? Are your multiplayer interactions in elite often enhanced by wallet imbalance?

I'm unsure as to whether you're being satirical or not.

I'm being satirical and at the same time i'm not

If i spend my ingame time pursuing credit generating activities, i get to get a carrier
Someone that is spending time in game pursuing a BGS career, might see their supported faction ruling an impressive amount of systems. They might not have 40bn in cash, but they might not be pursuing that goal (not like im pursuing the goal of making credits, just that im a bit more conscious regarding credits)