Feedback Changes Announced Next Week!

Bruce Garrido

Community Manager
Frontier
Greetings Commanders!

We'd like to take this chance to thank all of you who have already helped test Fleet Carriers in the beta. Your suggestions and feedback will be critical in ensuring they're the best possible version upon release.

After the two days, we have received lots of feedback on various features and been given a clear indication of which aspects are a priority. In response, we'll be making changes which will be listed in an announcement post next week.

We hope you enjoy your weekend (a long one for our UK based Commanders!) and continue to push Fleet Carriers to their limits.

o7
 
To be able to deliver in bulk to the main station a shipment full of merchandise without having to unload the carrie on trips of small ships (type 9 Cutter etc etc). Buy in bulk
Limitation cannot be sold in bulk compared to any material in bulk.

More elaborate would be to use spacial ports for carries with a 24-hour berthing request in advance. and the graphic part would be the same that is used for shipyards of capital ships.

Would give great option to merchants and miners
 
I know a lot of people are kinda freaking out over this comment from Stephen, I was wondering if we could get a quick clarification - does this mean that Fleet Carrier costs can be considered to be final? Or would that be something considered for the 2nd beta?
No, it does not mean that. It means that they priced it at 5b because when the beta went live they considered 5b the 'real cost'. What he says is that they did not artificially inflate the cost to prevent technical issues from too many owners, no more no less. The price can change, but may not change. We will hear more about this per OP.
 
Thanks for the heads-up! It makes sense that you wouldn't want to rush an announcement. In the meantime, could you clarify if "The cost of the Fleet Carriers in the beta is to reflect the actual cost of a Fleet Carriers when they go into the live game in June." means that the upkeep costs of them are final, or just the prices of purchasing the carrier itself, and the modules?
Because if the upkeep costs are final as well, then I can only echo what @Heavy Johnson said.
 
"Priority" better be "reducing costs by 10x across the board" or the entire thing is dead on arrival
I cannot stress this enough:
Costs aren't (the only) problem. Passive credit drain has to go.
How about something where we're billed at the end of the week depending on how much we've used the carrier?
Don't want to pay upkeep? Lock down your pads and don't use you carrier. Then we won't have that subconscious nagging in the back of our heads.
 
I like the original revised idea of specialized carriers for different game play styles. This configuration does not allow any specialization flexibility from what I can tell. Fleet carriers seem to be geared for one thing and one thing only - being a mobile space station.

As a miner, I would want utility that is specifically focused on helping me mine.
As an explorer, I would want want utility that is specifically focused on helping me explore.
As a bounty hunter... you get the idea.

The current state of fleet carriers is akin to owning a gas station convenience store where all you do is lose money... who in their right minds thought this was going to be fun game play for a starved community?
 
How about something where we're billed at the end of the week depending on how much we've used the carrier?
I would even be ok with a reasonable upkeep cost if you’ve played that week. Not 146MCr. But 10MCr/week IF I played the game. I could live with something like that. Cost of usage would be even better. It’s a good idea.
 
I know a lot of people are kinda freaking out over this comment from Stephen, I was wondering if we could get a quick clarification - does this mean that Fleet Carrier costs can be considered to be final? Or would that be something considered for the 2nd beta?
What Stephen said is that contrary to previous betas, they didn't lower the prices for the beta: typically new stuff in the beta costs only a tenth of the live costs so as to facilitate testing. This time they wanted the proper costs (understandable considering they are a little on the high side) so as to gauge how it really goes.
Also that the prices weren't decided based on a technical need to limit the number of FCs. It doesn't mean they can't change, with every update Frontier typically reduces costs and increases payouts as a result of community whinge, usually by crazy amounts making you question who really is in control of the whole thing, David or the Yamiks and co.
 
No, it does not mean that. It means that they priced it at 5b because when the beta went live they considered 5b the 'real cost'. What he says is that they did not artificially inflate the cost to prevent technical issues from too many owners, no more no less. The price can change, but may not change. We will hear more about this per OP.
No, it's not saying "at the time of the beta going live, we consider 5 billion to be the price and this may change" it's saying "5 billion is the price it will be on release" and then they also say that this beta is not for looking into the costs and whatnot. So what I'm asking is, considering how it sounds like the price on release is already decided, will the 2nd beta be used to reevaluate that decision?
 
What Stephen said is that contrary to previous betas, they didn't lower the prices for the beta: typically new stuff in the beta costs only a tenth of the live costs so as to facilitate testing. This time they wanted the proper costs (understandable considering they are a little on the high side) so as to gauge how it really goes.
Also that the prices weren't decided based on a technical need to limit the number of FCs. It doesn't mean they can't change, with every update Frontier typically reduces costs and increases payouts as a result of community whinge, usually by crazy amounts making you question who really is in control of the whole thing, David or the Yamiks and co.
Yes, I understand that. I'm asking about their ambiguous wording that could imply the costs are final. For example, I'd be worried to hear that was the case because it means that a Carrier can be decommissioned after two or three weeks of debt, at the current values.
 
Top Bottom