Decent credit buff in all areas

[Mephane]

Right now we have commanders who own the largest ships in the game, who have billions in cash, and no way to spend it.

That wouldn't change if you had your way. They'd still sit on billions and just do a couple more highly optimized trade runs or whatever to offset the running cost.

Meanwhile, the player in their newly bought Python, their first large ship, is struggling to even make ends meet with the income from transport missions.

One week later, the first threads appear called "I couldn't afford maintenance, now my ship exploded and I have no money for rebuy either".

Here's a few counter-proposals how to allow new players a bigger ship earlier without a penalty for veterans:
- Used ships - they are the same ship but have (at purchase randomly selected) lower capabilities (shields, hull, speed etc.), and are much cheaper. Some 3D model, sounds etc.
- Ship leasing. What it says on the tin.

 

[DragoonKnight]

The purpose is to facilitate bigger ships to newer players without necessarily forcing them through a specific grind or a profitable profession which they don't want to engage into (I'm mainly thinking about LRS). A reduction in prices coupled with a proportionate reduction in earnings brings us nowhere - it will take just as long to grind for a Type 9 for example.

If you bring prices down alone, that will just shorten the game and cheapen the experience, like many have said in this thread. Adding running costs gives meaning to credit acquisition, which is central to the game at the moment.



Not necessarily. Smaller ships could have really low running costs (and prices closer to what they are now, no need to cheapen the 32k Sidewinder). Big ships on the other hand should have their captains worry about income. If you earn less than what you big ship is capable of earning, then you need to put that big ship to work, or you have the option to switch to a smaller ship.

There is also the scenario where someone uses a small ship in a very profitable activity (like LRS), then uses the cash to fund his big ship operation costs in a fruitless activity, for a while. Nothing wrong with that, eventually they will either have to park that ship or use it productively. Right now we have commanders who own the largest ships in the game, who have billions in cash, and no way to spend it.

Why do you care if I use an Anaconda or a Sidey for sightseeing? It has absolutely no affect on your own gameplay.
If there are going to be running costs then Income from everything needs to go up across the board. Otherwise it is just another barrier that prevents people from enjoying the game how they want.

 

[Jabezz]

No. If anything its too easy to make money. Way too easy, personally id like to see it be harder. The last HAZ RES i ran i pulled out 55 million credits in about 90 mins. It doesnt take long to buy anything, other than rep requirements.

Totally agree. It's one of the reasons why balancing is over the top in some parts of the game because items and ships are just so easy to obtain.

 

[goemon]

- Ship leasing. What it says on the tin.

like it. maybe in some connection to minor faction reputation or navy ranks (for navy ships)

 

[Weps]

That wouldn't change if you had your way. They'd still sit on billions and just do a couple more highly optimized trade runs or whatever to offset the running cost.

That is a contradiction. They would not be able to "sit" on billions if they would have to to optimized trade runs. I'd rather have players think about making money and getting involved than "sitting", getting bored, blowing up newbs and complaining that there is no end game.

One week later, the first threads appear called "I couldn't afford maintenance, now my ship exploded and I have no money for rebuy either".

That's just assuming the worst. I'd never support a mechanic where your ship blows up if you don't have money to pay the crew for example. How about: "I couldn't afford maintenance on my FSD, now my jump range has been reduced to half".

Why do you care if I use an Anaconda or a Sidey for sightseeing? It has absolutely no affect on your own gameplay.
If there are going to be running costs then Income from everything needs to go up across the board. Otherwise it is just another barrier that prevents people from enjoying the game how they want.

I don't. In fact I want you to be able to do the sightseeing in any ship that you like, as soon as you like. That's what my proposition is about, cheaper ships.

The problem is that the game says: "If you want to do sightseeing in an Anaconda, you have to work to get one". That's the game's premise, not mine.

What I offer as an alternative is: "If you want to do sightseeing in an Anaconda, you have to work to maintain one".

 

[Mephane]

That is a contradiction. They would not be able to "sit" on billions if they would have to to optimized trade runs. I'd rather have players think about making money and getting involved than "sitting", getting bored, blowing up newbs and complaining that there is no end game.

Well you can't make maintenance too expensive, otherwise only those with the billions and completely cr/h optimized* playstyle can afford anything large (unless that is your intention after all, which I don't think it is). So any ongoing cost that is meaningful but not prohibitive to the very player your idea is meant for - newer players who are still working towards their first large ship - would be mostly irrelevant. Heck, the game could drain 1 million credits per day from their account even when you don't play (credit decay? lol...), and a billion credits has you covered for 3 years. So a multi-billionaire would still have their billions for a long, long time even if they stopped earning any money.

Plus, I am of the opinion that it is totally valid to eventually reach a point where you have all the ships you want and enough money to cover all kinds of accidents, that you can stop caring about earning money every day.

Also, personally, I simply don't find it fun when what I do in a game merely serves to uphold the status quo, which is what running cost boils down to. And for the record, for the same reasons I have always been an opponent of reputation decay, and I find wear&tear also unnecessary but, in its current implementation, its effects are very limited so I can play without thinking about it all the time (it was horrible when w&t was so high that you'd run loss on missions to stations that were further than a few thousand lightseconds from the system entry point).

That's just assuming the worst. I'd never support a mechanic where your ship blows up if you don't have money to pay the crew for example. How about: "I couldn't afford maintenance on my FSD, now my jump range has been reduced to half".

Jump range reduced by half? I suppose this was just an ad hoc idea because if you'd think it through, that would kill long distance exploration unless AFMU could also do this type of maintenance.

 

[andrak]

Other than doing Robigo runs, nothing really changed about making money. It is still a very long grind to a Conda.

I take it you weren't here before 1.2 then. Before they more than doubled bounty handouts in RES, doubled conflict zone payouts, doubled exploration payouts. You have no idea how easy it is to make credits today compared to when this game released.

A week is a long grind to a Conda?... I really don't think so.

 

[MyNamesLawless]

I dont think anyone will believe that for a second...but im willing to test that. Which system and RES was it?

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

Still takes a long time to get a big ship. Consider that a Decent Corvette is 400 Million and flying my Anaconda while making more than 6 Mil / hour is hard, and it is a very long grind to a corvette. Almost 70 hours worth of making credits. I have to say I am a bit burnout and just waiting for patch 2.1 to hit.

I see from your profile that you joined the forums late last year, and now your in a Conda. Not a problem with that, well done, however you do also say that you feel a bit burnt out from doing this.

I started playing in June of last year, my biggest ship is an Asp, granted I have a nice collection of ships all kitted out as I want them and I have around 14 million credits - but I have no feeling of burn out or of having to grind to get what I have.

The point? The credits are there for those who want to make them fast, takes a little work and may leave you feeling as if the game is a grind... You chose to grind, the game did not make you do it.

OP, Ship running costs - fantastic idea, could lead to ship condition being a factor in mission's offered. Would a passenger really want to travel in a beat up bucket of bolts for full price or even at all?

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

I take it you weren't here before 1.2 then. Before they more than doubled bounty handouts in RES, doubled conflict zone payouts, doubled exploration payouts. You have no idea how easy it is to make credits today compared to when this game released.

A week is a long grind to a Conda?... I really don't think so.

indeed... and i will be the 1st to admit on launch things needed tweaking, but i think the baby went out with the bath water TBH. fuel and maintenence costs went from a bit too high to why even bother with them at all.

bounties for killing high level ships went from, barely able to pay repair and reload costs to, 2 or 3 kills of low level ships get you in a cobra!.

money is not going to go backwards, however we need other walls in place other than pure wealth to keep us flying the cheaper ships...... imo this is what some people forget...... every increase in profit to make getting to the bigger flashier ships is a nail in the coffin of the eagle and the sidewinders of this world. I cant remember the last time i saw a player in an eagle or sidewinder (other than the group i play in in a wing sometimes).. and this is sad imo. they are great little ships but now without a role. Even the Viper, once the jewel in the crown of the policeforce striking fear into the pilot who accidentally hit the space station with a few stray shots, is now just a stepping stone for a few hrs towards a vulture for many pilots,

PS and yes i think FD got the vulture pricing right the 1st time

 

[Boomer Kay]

OP, Ship running costs - fantastic idea, could lead to ship condition being a factor in mission's offered. Would a passenger really want to travel in a beat up bucket of bolts for full price or even at all?

Upkeep is a very cheesy mechanic as "moneysink" in a game. It's realistic, but there's little fun in buying new toilet paper every week.

Generically speaking, a moneysink should allow you to trade in-game currency for in-game time savings, so you can spend the wealth you aquired in one part of the game to speed up parts you don't like.
Powerplay is something like that. You can do 7 "distribution runs" a week, one a day or something, or you can also speed it up with faster refreshes bought with in-game currency.

I don't believe any of the "extremely high payouts" per hour to be achieved either without sheer luck or without blatant exploiting.
Even the "sidey to conda" video. I've personally NEVER seen a Res like that. Several authority ships and a constant stream of high value targets?
It exists, but finding it might take a lot more than "5 minutes modeswitching".

 

[MyNamesLawless]

No...simply put, this game isnt a 'sprint'.
That type of playing isnt whats going on here.
This is gaming on an epic scale...very refreshing, here, on Xbox
Even with the descovery of high paying missions, this game requires that you commit time and efforts. Thats cool - it encouraged me to venture outside, and past the normal everyday 'bubble' routines....and while on that new routine, it encouraged me to exlore even further, etc.

This journey i had, knowing i turned down other players who'd offered me a lot of money to bypass trading up out of my sidewinder grind...but im glad i didn't take it. Its been a rich experience i would've missed. Well i know it would for many, if, it were so easy to make money...no need to plan wisely or worry about failures. They'd stop playing before the next expansion.

 

[Weps]

Upkeep is a very cheesy mechanic as "moneysink" in a game.

Remember, upkeep is only suggested as an alternative to the current price mechanic where you have to work significantly to obtain larger ships. It can also be flexible, reduce the prices a little - increase running costs a little, reduce prices a lot - increase running costs a lot.

Depending on how much you shift spending from initial spending to continuous spending, you may be helping new players a lot (they get their desired ships faster) and hurt old players (they have to start working to keep using their big ship) or viceversa. However old players can have at leas one advantage, in the form of refunds for credits they already worked for. And you can always park a large ship to stop paying it's running costs.

Jump range reduced by half? I suppose this was just an ad hoc idea because if you'd think it through, that would kill long distance exploration unless AFMU could also do this type of maintenance.

Yeah, I completely pulled that one out of my... hat. But it could still be done, for example if you have to bring a drive engineer on your ship to keep your big ship's FSD in working order, and pay him a cut of your exploration profits.

Anyway, this discussion is all very theoretical, I don't see FDEV making any changes to the wealth system in the next 2-3 seasons.

 

[Jukelo]

How about we cut the most profitable occupations tenfold instead to bring them back to reasonable levels.

Some guy on reddit was recently asking what was the next step up from his Python.
He had been playing for one week.

 

[Boomer Kay]

Remember, upkeep is only suggested as an alternative to the current price mechanic where you have to work significantly to obtain larger ships. It can also be flexible, reduce the prices a little - increase running costs a little, reduce prices a lot - increase running costs a lot.

Depending on how much you shift spending from initial spending to continuous spending, you may be helping new players a lot (they get their desired ships faster) and hurt old players (they have to start working to keep using their big ship) or viceversa. However old players can have at leas one advantage, in the form of refunds for credits they already worked for. And you can always park a large ship to stop paying it's running costs.

Tweaking it does not remove the "cheese". It's not really a new game mechanic, either, so I've seen several implementations of it and none of them were really "enticing".

Money sinks mechanics should provide you with actual, tangible advantages (but never "gamebreaking" or "unbalanceable" .. see PowerPlay example above).

There was the "jumprange" discussion some time ago, where we had a pretty nice idea for "fleet management" and "ship moving".
Adding the possibility to have your ship moved by some "moving" company to the station you want it with a -imo- well thought out pricing.
far as I remember:
- slow moving of only your ship for a relatively low amount of money (pilot still needs to fly to the new station somehow)
- slow moving of ship and pilot for a bit higher amount of money (tied to ship value/distance, whatever .. this can be tweaked)
- "instant travel" by basically using the current rebuy functionality (and the refund price, too) in the station you want to have your ship (or actually a "copy" of it, that the station has stored )

It's totally optional as mechanic, you can still travel as you do now (trading in-game time spent "unproductively" for saving that money).
It gets more compelling, the more money you have, since the single transaction is taking a relatively small toll. (the more ships you have, the more "assets", the more likely you'd use the mechanic instead of spending hours shutteling your ships around the bubble - unless of course you enjoy shutteling - see sentence above)
It allows for instant "emergency" travel (spontanously meeting up with some friends somewhere was brought up frequently and the tedium and timeconsumingness of some of the combatships), at a relatively high cost - kinda the "premium" idea.

 

[Bran Tse Mallory]

Tweaking it does not remove the "cheese". It's not really a new game mechanic, either, so I've seen several implementations of it and none of them were really "enticing".

Money sinks mechanics should provide you with actual, tangible advantages.

Glasses slipped of so I didn't read the rest

Lets have a look at what possible tangible advantages could be had then...

Ship upkeep = Ship condition = Possible modifier for mission rewards of a few %

This could be expanded to take into account local faction reputation as well as PP faction standing. A pilot who takes good care of their ship would be more appealing to hire for certain missions than say an Adder with bits hanging off. With the new faction avatars coming they could even remark on the condition of the ship and let you know they could get you a better contract if only you fixed the problems or that you only got this job offer due to the great shape of the ship.

I agree with you its a mechanic that has been used but if implemented correctly it could become an interesting side of running missions. People say the game is wide but not deep, to me this adds at least 1mm to the depth

EDIT: I've read the rest now and I agree even more with you!

 

[Boomer Kay]

Glasses slipped of so I didn't read the rest

Lets have a look at what possible tangible advantages could be had then...

Ship upkeep = Ship condition = Possible modifier for mission rewards of a few %

This could be expanded to take into account local faction reputation as well as PP faction standing. A pilot who takes good care of their ship would be more appealing to hire for certain missions than say an Adder with bits hanging off. With the new faction avatars coming they could even remark on the condition of the ship and let you know they could get you a better contract if only you fixed the problems or that you only got this job offer due to the great shape of the ship.

I agree with you its a mechanic that has been used but if implemented correctly it could become an interesting side of running missions. People say the game is wide but not deep, to me this adds at least 1mm to the depth

EDIT: I've read the rest now and I agree even more with you!

The problem is really more a psychological one.
Giving a player a status quo that can deteriorate and needs upkeep vs. giving him a status quo that he can build upon.
See PowerPlay merit decay complaints. Or reputation decay

Effort or money involved can be exactly the same, but the second does "feel" more "rewarding".
Both are just a threadmill, if you look at them too closely

More generally speaking, I'd rather have some of those moneysink ideas implemented than seeing a cut in income.
A cut still does not provide a "ceiling" and you can become a multi billionaire .. it just takes longer.
A moneysink that's nicely tweaked can provide you percieved "well paying" activities .. almost limitless high, while giving you an ever-increasing outlet for that money, too.

 

[MyNamesLawless]

If i had a trillion tomorrow, it wouldnt make me into a troll. Neither would i be getting bored. I seem to just love being in a sandbox game, exploring possibilities.
.... i know however, this aint the way of the griefer personality...they need to be broke. All the time.

 

[Salami]

Yeah so when I am currently in my Python I have maintain a credits/hour ratio in order not to constantly lose money, just for using the ship (not dying or getting severely damaged)? And the only alternative is go back and switch to a cheaper ship? No thank you.

Running cost on a Python?
Please enlighten me?

On a different note: What will you do once you have your ship, and enough to repay it few times, maintain it (Having a Vulture, I was not aware big dippers had such a cost)?
Or when you have a version of each ship?
What will your next goal be?
Boredom in extremis?

As I said afore, buffing income just works further to the already VERY short lifespan, jobs are either not there (Navy ones), or are so boring that even my senile granny would die from it, were she still alive.
ED is as exiting (to me, note) as a pebble laying wherever.
And from what I've seen, I am not the only one seeing it as such.

Buffing incomes will just add to this, in a much faster rate.

I stand by what I said: Lower ALL incomes (Yes, combat as well), and trading in such a way that in comparison combat becomes a lucrative business.
After all, only combatants get real costs such as repair and the likes.
Not counting running costs on a Python, whatever this may be.

 

[Boomer Kay]

After all, only combatants get real costs such as repair and the likes.

Well.. nope. In case it's not an ironic post: try "max profit" trading.
Big pot (T7 or T9), no shields, no weapons, no fuelscoop, Dgrade everything but FSD.