Page 59 of 128 FirstFirst ... 4955565758596061626369 ... LastLast
Results 871 to 885 of 1915

Thread: 10% module sell penalty?!

  1. #871
    Originally Posted by Renegade Roach View Post (Source)
    Again you are missing the point here. This change will increase the tendency for people to min/max a ship setup. Changing, experimenting, finding their own personal way will be punitively taxed. Thus people will go to the internets, find the 'uber best Python/Vulture/Cobra for RES/Trade/CZ' and spec into that. And that will be that. Surely this is obvious as a consequence?
    I agree completely with this.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Originally Posted by Renegade Roach View Post (Source)
    I absolutely agree, but again it's a tendency of certain long term members when they feel their 'superior' knowledge of 'what the game is meant to be' is not being respected. They pull the dad move and start using phrases like 'end of discussion'
    There's always the "This conversation dramatically illustrates how unpopular my opinion is, better shut it down" option also.

  2. #872
    ok - assuming most are of the NO campaign - whats the best way to communicate this to FD?

  3. #873
    Originally Posted by lovely lovely View Post (Source)
    ok - assuming most are of the NO campaign - whats the best way to communicate this to FD?
    This near 1000 post thread ?

  4. #874
    Originally Posted by lovely lovely View Post (Source)
    ok - assuming most are of the NO campaign - whats the best way to communicate this to FD?
    I thought this was the best way to communicate it to FD. Is there a more direct channel they haven't told us about?

  5. #875
    Originally Posted by lovely lovely View Post (Source)
    ok - assuming most are of the NO campaign - whats the best way to communicate this to FD?
    I assume this thread, and others like it are sufficient.

    However, if this goes live, I propose torches and pitchforks as we chase Frontier to the windmill on the outskirts of town.

  6. #876
    This change makes sense but what doesn't make sense is the tiny one liner used to communicate it at the bottom of a massive change log.

    As a guy that flies an Anaconda with 460 million worth held in internals 10% sell loss is a BIG DEAL to me. Thankfully I've now been made aware, many people will miss that change completely.

    The scroll of changes needs to be broken up into something more meaningful and readable. Consider laying out your change log in a more readable manner please.

    EDIT - Also consider implementing a storage function BEFORE you make this 10% loss change so that we can outfit our multi-purpose ships however we need without constantly losing out. If it stands as it does now you know it would be cheaper for me to own 2 separate Anacondas, one for trade and one for combat. That really does not make sense.

    Also consider that this change forces players to be conservative with their outfitting and not test various options, if they know they are losing out.

  7. #877
    Originally Posted by Skuli View Post (Source)
    I assume this thread, and others like it are sufficient.

    However, if this goes live, I propose torches and pitchforks as we chase Frontier to the windmill on the outskirts of town.

    I will dispatch Murray, my battle cat to Cambridge. Murray is a trained killer or mice and other small prey, he will convince them of the error of their way!!!!!!

  8. #878
    Originally Posted by Renegade Roach View Post (Source)
    Again you are missing the point here. This change will increase the tendency for people to min/max a ship setup. Changing, experimenting, finding their own personal way will be punitively taxed. Thus people will go to the internets, find the 'uber best Python/Vulture/Cobra for RES/Trade/CZ' and spec into that. And that will be that. Surely this is obvious as a consequence?
    No, I don't miss your point here. Goal of effortless experimenting is to find min/max. No, this will increase people trying to understand their choices and pick and choose what they have at this point, not aimlessly look around for next best setup.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Originally Posted by Skuli View Post (Source)
    I assume this thread, and others like it are sufficient.

    However, if this goes live, I propose torches and pitchforks as we chase Frontier to the windmill on the outskirts of town.
    I will sound as broken record, but this won't change.

  9. #879
    Originally Posted by {SAS}Stalker View Post (Source)
    Where has any of this been stated?

    Not having a go but I have an RSS feed of Dev posts and not once have I seen this stated.
    Originally Posted by Loskene View Post (Source)
    I haven't seen the first-hand info either but I do recall someone saying they don't want people to be able to stockpile commodities in ships or stations for later use. Whether this extends to ship equipment too only frontier can tell us.
    It was repeatedly stated during the DDF (check the Multiple ships threads) that storage would not be an option due to the possibility of bypassing events (like say a fuel shortage) - however by the end of the threads we (DDF) pretty much argued the case for a small amount of storage for components and FD said they would consider it. Now admittedly that was 2 years ago and FD may well have changed their minds but I have not seen anything to the contrary - ergo it's still a possibility, perhaps just something they have not got round to yet

  10. #880
    Originally Posted by Pecisk View Post (Source)
    I will sound as broken record, but this won't change.

    This may be true.

  11. #881
    Originally Posted by andrak View Post (Source)
    This change makes sense but what doesn't make sense is the tiny one liner used to communicate it at the bottom of a massive change log.

    As a guy that flies an Anaconda with 460 million worth held in internals 10% sell loss is a BIG DEAL to me. Thankfully I've now been made aware, many people will miss that change completely.

    The scroll of changes needs to be broken up into something more meaningful and readable. Consider laying out your change log in a more readable manner please.
    There is a bit of past form in the matter of dropping potentially unpopular news in such a way as to hopefully be missed by most people.

  12. #882
    Originally Posted by bossbrigand View Post (Source)
    Then we can both agree the issue you should be complaining about is that you have to "grind" to get money. Prices shouldn't be balanced around flawed gameplay, they should be balanced around ideal gameplay.

    Heh, well yes, but that's a whole different discussion.

    This one is about the 10% tax on module replacements. And as it is right now, in 1.3, without the ability to store your hard-earned modules, takes out certain parts of the fun from the game. With the serious nerfing of the RES bounty hunting (which really makes sense as it was too good compared to anything and everything else) you can not possible cover for these costs without having to sacrifice serious (several days for a python) amounts of real time whatever you were doing. Effectively encouraging sticking to a single role in the game. And using external sites and spreadsheets instead of experimentation inside the game itself. I don't want to fly spreadsheets (again). I like to experiment and figure out what works for me, however this is seriously hindered (as it is now in 1.3)

  13. #883
    Originally Posted by Pecisk View Post (Source)
    I will sound as broken record, but this won't change.
    It might given the sentiment, especially when even the "no's" aren't against the 10% just they way its been dropped in, in contrast to the ship buy/sell mechanic. It happened with the pricing of the vulture and FDL and stranger things have happened (like that horse becoming pope for one!)

  14. #884
    Originally Posted by Pecisk View Post (Source)
    No, I don't miss your point here. Goal of effortless experimenting is to find min/max.
    For some, perhaps, but certainly not for all. Sometimes I outfit a ship in weird ways just because it seems funny, or doesn't follow a traditional minmax approach to success. I honestly don't know why they're disincentivising loadout experimentation, since that was one of the major selling points of the game, in that you never know what another ship might be outfitted for. Is it a war vessel? Is it a trader with teeth? Is it a pirate disguised as a bounty hunter? That'll be gone if the only options are cookie cutter or bankruptcy.

  15. #885
    Originally Posted by Pecisk View Post (Source)
    No, I don't miss your point here. Goal of effortless experimenting is to find min/max. No, this will increase people trying to understand their choices and pick and choose what they have at this point, not aimlessly look around for next best setup.
    You are absolutely wrong on this. That is only your narrow and very biased interpretation of the situation. The goal of my experimentation is, actually, to find what I most enjoy, as well as to see what works well in different situations. You also seem to labour under the misapprehension that people can make meaningful and well understood choices based on information which they can only gain after the fact. I admire your ability to see into the future and envy how awesome it must be to know how a ship will perform before you have tried it.

    For mere mortals this adds nothing except a greater reliance on 3rd party fitting tools (because mistakes = lost play time), less variety in ship setups.. run into a Cobra.. well you know what they have fitted because most people will go the same min/max route. Most importantly it makes the game less interesting while adding no value. Meaningful choices and risk = good. This change does not fall into that category.

    Good to see your prescience at work telling us that it won't change though. Do you work for Frontier?

Page 59 of 128 FirstFirst ... 4955565758596061626369 ... LastLast