Fleet Carrier and Cartography Data. Reasoning for higher payouts...

Flimley

Flimley
As fleet carriers are effectively mobile travelling stations, and to aid their future navigation. It’s in the best interests of that fleet carrier and its crew to amass as much cartography data as possible. (For realistic pretend gameplay reasons)
Isn’t it a good idea for the FC’s cartography office to pay out higher amounts compared to fixed orbit stations. ?

This would create another very good reason for Cmdrs to seek out fleet carriers over fixed stations. Increase the player interaction and fund the carriers more effectively.

Flimley
 

Wendake

Wendake
Flimley said:
As fleet carriers are effectively mobile travelling stations, and to aid their future navigation. It’s in the best interests of that fleet carrier and its crew to amass as much cartography data as possible. (For realistic pretend gameplay reasons)
Isn’t it a good idea for the FC’s cartography office to pay out higher amounts compared to fixed in orbit stations. ?

This would create another very good reason for Cmdrs to seek out fleet carriers over fixed stations. Increase the player interaction and fund the carriers more effectively.

Flimley
Click to expand...

I'm 100% with you on this but I'm afraid that since it's not involving mining FDev won't bother considering it.
 

Crank Larson

Crank Larson
But if that were the case, it would be the FC owners that should pay more, rather than earning more from Universal Cartographics. Explorers are likely to use UC on FCs, but that is the only case that makes sense to me - and the rewards aren't going to be the reason. :)
 

jacozilla

jacozilla
DrewCarnegie said:
You think you should get paid more for the reduced risk and increased convenience of handing UC data in to an FC?

That's an interesting point of view.
Click to expand...

you have one flawed assumption that many seem to use as basis for replies like this - e.g. that more risk ought to increase pay, while less risk means less.

two comments - from a personal game enjoyment pov, i very much would prefer this to be true (e.g. have bounty, cz, combat in general pay lot more than now and more than low risk occupations)

however, that said - reason i say your assumption is flawed because there are so many examples historically and currently where the safest, least risk professions offer far higher reward than dangerous professions.

ex) surgeon vs coal miner, hedge fund trader vs firefighter, etc

we have jobs where routine risk of death is low paid vs jobs where a paper cut is the hazard. So while I 100% agree I would like ED to follow your assumption, it’s not grounded in fact to use that reasoning as the basis why it makes sense, because it doesn’t
 

[Diplomacy] Carnegie

[Diplomacy] Carnegie
jacozilla said:
you have one flawed assumption that many seem to use as basis for replies like this - e.g. that more risk ought to increase pay, while less risk means less.

two comments - from a personal game enjoyment pov, i very much would prefer this to be true (e.g. have bounty, cz, combat in general pay lot more than now and more than low risk occupations)

however, that said - reason i say your assumption is flawed because there are so many examples historically and currently where the safest, least risk professions offer far higher reward than dangerous professions.

ex) surgeon vs coal miner, hedge fund trader vs firefighter, etc

we have jobs where routine risk of death is low paid vs jobs where a paper cut is the hazard. So while I 100% agree I would like ED to follow your assumption, it’s not grounded in fact to use that reasoning as the basis why it makes sense, because it doesn’t
Click to expand...

And the massive flaw in your argument is that you're comparing different professions.

Combat against harmless Sidewinders doesn't pay more than combat against elite Anacondas now does it?
So why should low risk exploration pay higher than (nominally) high risk exploration?
 

jacozilla

jacozilla
DrewCarnegie said:
And the massive flaw in your argument is that you're comparing different professions.

Combat against harmless Sidewinders doesn't pay more than combat against elite Anacondas now does it?
So why should low risk exploration pay higher than (nominally) high risk exploration?
Click to expand...

those were only some of my examples - which Isn’t a flaw as you suggest because the very core of your argument was risk = higher pay. However, go with your restriction of only being able to use the risk rationale when it is comparing within a profession and not between disparate professions.

Examine it when you see what you are saying - according to your restriction on my ’flawed argument’
a) when comparing completely separate professions, it makes sense that low risk job like hedge fund manager is much higher paid than routine risk of injury or death firefighter

b) but somehow when comparing intra-profession, suddenly the risk reward system reversed and now the higher risk sub category is higher paid?

sorry, doesnt work that way - one or the other risk system is true or false, it can’t just reverse in one and not the other. But ok, say for devils advocate we go with you restriction of ignoring between professions and only compare within the same general profession.

Military - a General is much higher paid than a Private. Who is much more likely to die in combat and routinely takes more risk?

Fire Dept - the guys who actually run into the burning buildings make less than the safer, cushier desk or light field guys - arson investigator, etc

Oil industry - both the blue collar and white collar jobs on a rig, where regardless of sub-job you have risk of explosion or fire, are paid far less than the even cushier zero risk job of reading data and calculating where the rigs ought to be setup

List goes on and on - even with the nonsensical restriction of comparing within same profession, while ignoring between professions, there are plenty of examples that dont correlate to risk must equal greater pay.
 

[Diplomacy] Carnegie

[Diplomacy] Carnegie
jacozilla said:
those were only some of my examples - which Isn’t a flaw as you suggest because the very core of your argument was risk = higher pay. However, go with your restriction of only being able to use the risk rationale when it is comparing within a profession and not between disparate professions.

Examine it when you see what you are saying - according to your restriction on my ’flawed argument’
a) when comparing completely separate professions, it makes sense that low risk job like hedge fund manager is much higher paid than routine risk of injury or death firefighter

b) but somehow when comparing intra-profession, suddenly the risk reward system reversed and now the higher risk sub category is higher paid?

sorry, doesnt work that way - one or the other risk system is true or false, it can’t just reverse in one and not the other. But ok, say for devils advocate we go with you restriction of ignoring between professions and only compare within the same general profession.

Military - a General is much higher paid than a Private. Who is much more likely to die in combat and routinely takes more risk?

Fire Dept - the guys who actually run into the burning buildings make less than the safer, cushier desk or light field guys - arson investigator, etc

Oil industry - both the blue collar and white collar jobs on a rig, where regardless of sub-job you have risk of explosion or fire, are paid far less than the even cushier zero risk job of reading data and calculating where the rigs ought to be setup

List goes on and on - even with the nonsensical restriction of comparing within same profession, while ignoring between professions, there are plenty of examples that dont correlate to risk must equal greater pay.
Click to expand...

So by your logic it would be perfectly fine to earn more money by staying safely inside the station, rather than actually going out and exploring at all.

All of this 'real world comparison' stuff is irrelevant anyway, since we're talking about a game.
 

Riverside

Riverside
I don't think it really matters that UC pays broadly the same at a Carrier compared with a station, but reading the comments so far Askavir's comparison to an Interstellar Factor makes intuitive sense.

Different Faction types pay different amounts though, some give a bonus (a Powerplay perk I assume) so the value on a carrier certainly could be adjusted either way in-lore :)

I quite like the idea that data sold to a carrier is converted into large & small data cache cannisters which can be sold at a station. That way the tags are claimed at the carrier but there is still some challenge if the Cmdr wants to get the money for their data too. It could even be pirated (only the cash value, not the tags), it could even be worth above market rate Flimley :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom