Lorry toll, car toll.
ED game mechanics that are now pointless :(
- Thread starter SentineI
- Start date
Lorry toll, car toll.
You're talking about toll roads, not filling up with petrol. At least, I've never heard of that in the UK if you aren't talking about toll roads...
Saw the other response saying the same thing first. You're comparing apples and oranges.
Tolls are higher for lorries because they cause more wear and tear on the road/bridge. Completely different scenario.
Last edited:
You wanted an example of two vehicles being charged different prices for the same thing.
Not sure how tolls are any different.
During beta (maybe even in gamma, not sure), you really had an edge by going cold, flying toward the slot from 7.5km and going FA OFF. The momentum alone would make you pass the coppers undetected. This was very hardcore, very Han Solo, very leet and quiet frankly not that hard to achieve so even me could do it.
Then it became useless : security would never spot you unless you made a (very stupid) mistake. Man, I miss that
No, I wanted an example of different types of vehicle being charged a different price for the same fuel (though yes, I said thing - I presumed people would realise that I was talking about the subject we were discussing
). Taking a car over a bridge and a lorry over the bridge are not the same thing anyway - one creates more wear and tear.Yes, I am aware of the punitive running costs of aircraft, but that doesn't mean they should find their way into a video game about flying spaceships. If the game was called NASA: Space Program Management Simulation, fair enough, but it's not.
To be honest, I didn't even know/remember that ship "integrity" existed as something that needed to be repaired separately. I just checked my Vulture, and it's integrity is at 96% (and paint at 93%!). Now maybe I did happen to notice this was not 100% at sometime in the past, and then forgot I repaired it (*), and yes I don't engage in combat much at the moment, but still Integrity doesn't seem to drop enough to be a concern.
(* or maybe a bug caused it to get repaired, like how Repair All sometimes used to repair your paint as well, even thought it was not supposed to.)
If you are doing this for a CG, then the most likely explanation is that other players have depleted the station's stocks! (But I haven't tried trading outside of CGs anytime recently, so you might still be right?)
I thought this was still the case??? But I don't do combat much, so maybe it changed & didn't notice?!? Or maybe you mean in PvP (which I don't do)?
Really? My ship is fitted with a large Beam Laser & a large Cannon. The BL seems to work well against NPCs, but I had been wondering if the Cannon was doing it's job now, maybe I should try a MC again.
Do you mean Cannon or Multi-Cannon? In any case, any *large* weapon will pown smaller ships, due to how ED calculates damage.
Last edited:
I don't think being charged more money for mundane things or having to spend more time in a menu to repair our ships are mechanics that I would want in the game. I see your point I think there is more a problem with being able to make millions of credits in a matter of hours. To a lot of players credits in general are meaningless because there are so many ways be to get super rich really quick. Even if you charged people more money for things it wouldn't change the way people play the game, but would just slightly inconvenience those who haven't done any big money schemes. And even then I don't think that is a game mechanic, I just think it's a blatant inconvenience.
I do agree partly on silent running though in that I wish it had more uses. But it does have an audible effect when you turn it on and is a different mechanic than "going cold." Its an effective and fool proof way to sneak into stations, and it is also useful for sneaking out of stations to try and sneak by any potential griefers. Pretty much all the times I've used it it's for escaping attackers and sneaking into stations. Aside from that you need a tough and cool running ship to be able to use it effectively in combat.
I just finished reading Premonition and one thing (of many!) that I want from that book is the kill switch that luko has in his Cobra. It would be so cool to be able to shut off all systems with the flick of a switch as opposed to flicking about fifteen switches until everything is off.
I do agree partly on silent running though in that I wish it had more uses. But it does have an audible effect when you turn it on and is a different mechanic than "going cold." Its an effective and fool proof way to sneak into stations, and it is also useful for sneaking out of stations to try and sneak by any potential griefers. Pretty much all the times I've used it it's for escaping attackers and sneaking into stations. Aside from that you need a tough and cool running ship to be able to use it effectively in combat.
I just finished reading Premonition and one thing (of many!) that I want from that book is the kill switch that luko has in his Cobra. It would be so cool to be able to shut off all systems with the flick of a switch as opposed to flicking about fifteen switches until everything is off.
Makes much more sense than a silly analogy of buying a car regarding operating costs.
Last edited:
+Rep. Agree with you OP, but every time I've mentioned berthing costs, or increased fuel and wear-and-tear costs, or heck, lack of wear-and-tear-related module and ship depreciation costs, on, or off these forums, someone always says "God! I play games to be entertained! And to shoot things! I don't want tax simulator 2018!". What's even worse is that someone now appears to be me, I'm so used to us not being able to have "nice"/non-combat-related/"immersive" things.
*Edit* on closer inspection of the thread I see DefiledDragon did get in there before me with the "It's not a NASA simulator" argument. <Sigh>
*Edit 2* Lol - just looked. I've spent less on fuel, and ammo in the past 2 years, than I've made just today in-game. If you include rebuys and fines, one week's play covers those.
What's even worse is that someone now appears to be me, I'm so used to us not being able to have "nice"/non-combat-related/"immersive" things.*Edit* on closer inspection of the thread I see DefiledDragon did get in there before me with the "It's not a NASA simulator" argument. <Sigh>
*Edit 2* Lol - just looked. I've spent less on fuel, and ammo in the past 2 years, than I've made just today in-game. If you include rebuys and fines, one week's play covers those.
Last edited:
I have to agree with the OP.
Especially with fuel costs. They're currently such an insignificant amount.
They should be something that traders have to consider in part of the equation on trade runs. Plus the costs should vary greatly based on the type of economy. So you can have the occasional "holy cow! how much for fuel???" reaction, then actually make use of the 10% refill, and head elsewhere for the full refill.
Heck, you could even make it a way to make money. Fit a ship with a bunch of extra fuel tanks and a fuel scoop, and then sell it back to that high-demand tourism economy.
Unfortunately, since these changes were the result of public outcry, I feel it's unlikely they'll change back.
But who knows... maybe FD will surprise us with some of the 2.5 core updates.
Especially with fuel costs. They're currently such an insignificant amount.
They should be something that traders have to consider in part of the equation on trade runs. Plus the costs should vary greatly based on the type of economy. So you can have the occasional "holy cow! how much for fuel???" reaction, then actually make use of the 10% refill, and head elsewhere for the full refill.
Heck, you could even make it a way to make money. Fit a ship with a bunch of extra fuel tanks and a fuel scoop, and then sell it back to that high-demand tourism economy.
Unfortunately, since these changes were the result of public outcry, I feel it's unlikely they'll change back.
But who knows... maybe FD will surprise us with some of the 2.5 core updates.
Last edited:
IMHO gameplay trumps realism (and David Braben claims to agree). If a change will benefit gameplay, then you can think of any ad-hoc explanation you want. And Elite Dangerous is already chock full of such explanations.
Last edited:
FWIW, despite asking for these extra costs, I have specifically avoided most "get rich quick" schemes, either because they are abusing game mechanics (sometimes so much that FDev classify them as cheating) or because they still require a lot of "grinding" (and I have zero interest in any kind of grinding, even if the credits are fairly good).
You are entitled to your opinion
. You probably do not like survival games like "The Long Dark" I guess? (Which is one of my most favourite games ever. I'd be quite happy for ED to become a struggle for financial survival, somewhat like The Long Dark is a struggle for physical survival...)
Last edited:
Got 84k on fuel costs.
I reset my account sometime during may.
Half a billion in assets.
Go figure.
That is how supercruise used to work. It wasn't harsh unless you're measuring your game in pure cr/hr or you're one of those players that thinks moving a spaceship in a spaceship-moving game is a waste of time somehow. There was a topography to a system, and good routing DID reduce your approach times; or you could just arrow to the location and not realize you're taking waay longer than a smart approach. Now it's totally irrelevant to system travel except for destination-zone gravity braking.
OP I haven't been around as long as many of you so I came in after the changes. But while I find your comments interesting, I would be more interested in FDevs comments to them. Player demands aside, there had to be a good reason for the changes.
You see the problem or challenge in any game mechanics is to make it interesting while not making it too hard to play. At least for some like myself I guess. I've more unfinished games on my shelves mostly because, "I" am not good enough to beat a BOSS character. Of course those are single player and are certainly not ED.
The point I'm trying to get at is the difficulty that game developers must go through to find "game balance". I would guess that it isn't easy. I mean if they make it to real or difficult they drive away many. Where as they make it too easy they also risk loosing players also. Looking through the forums you see suggestions and demands for game changes by the tons. We only hope that the FDevs at least read them.
But we have to realize and understand that most will never be acted upon. Not because they do not consider many of them to have merit. But simply because they have to try for balance. I realize most my comment has nothing to do with nurfing things so I hope you'll forgive me if I'm too far off base here.
Chief
You see the problem or challenge in any game mechanics is to make it interesting while not making it too hard to play. At least for some like myself I guess. I've more unfinished games on my shelves mostly because, "I" am not good enough to beat a BOSS character. Of course those are single player and are certainly not ED.
The point I'm trying to get at is the difficulty that game developers must go through to find "game balance". I would guess that it isn't easy. I mean if they make it to real or difficult they drive away many. Where as they make it too easy they also risk loosing players also. Looking through the forums you see suggestions and demands for game changes by the tons. We only hope that the FDevs at least read them.
But we have to realize and understand that most will never be acted upon. Not because they do not consider many of them to have merit. But simply because they have to try for balance. I realize most my comment has nothing to do with nurfing things so I hope you'll forgive me if I'm too far off base here.
Chief
Last edited:
And your point is?
I agree, but only if it's good gameplay. I just don't see what adding, or increasing these costs would bring to the game at this point other than giving new players a harder journey than the established millionaires who are all arguing in favour.