Fleet Carriers - Beta 1 - Feedback Changes

[VR StarLightPL]

First half of this rant can be summed up as "Hel-lo! You forgot SOLO and PG exists! "

The second part contains ill-thought and half-bottomed crime and punishment system for whatever reason, and a punishment system for preferred gameplay, plus a system which would promote guild play (squadrons), plus a system which introduces collective accountability like in concentration camps, plus a negative incentive system for playing the game not your way.

Great, just great. So many sticks, nay a carrot in sight.

You go out and attack other players, you can begin to loose points

This makes completely no sense. Why it should behave like that? Because you want to impose your way of playing on others? Sorry, no. What should get fleshed out is player to player interactions other than guns and chat. But it has been discussed over and over again so I won't go there.

Also there is the mining, where people keep mining only one thing (such as low temp diamonds) and ignoring the fact that there are other need ores

There's no such thing as needed ores, because if they were needed they wouldn't pay peanuts. Also what you're saying is basically: "I think you had enough [insert your preferred activity], now go do some [insert hated activity]", e.g. "you have done enough seal clubbing for the day griefer, now do 5000 Ly exploration trip because I say so". Wait, what lol?

Meaning that if they were to try to use the carrier as a full fledged weapon that I described in the beginning all of you would be punished

And that's because you say so? Who are you to tell me how to use a carrier? What's next, no BGS warfare? We should all held hands and sing Kumbaya? Feds with Imps in particular? ROTFL.

In the merit system I would also suggest that the rate of demerits be four times what it is to gain them, and for there squad mates, they gain demerits at a rate of one quarter of the rate of the perpetrator.

Because it's either play my way or take the highway. You seem to like punishments, do you? Why should the game punish you for playing it your way, blazing your trail and all that yadda-yadda? It's bad enough that criminal missions pay peanuts, and criminal activities in the game are frankly not lucrative (while they should be both highly lucrative and highly dangerous).

potential to completely break the game

You forgot solo and pg. Also ROTFL.

create a method for players to wage all out war on not only other players, but the Elite Dangerous universe, and Frontiers themselves

Stop with the onionhead.

PS: it's "grIEfing" not greifing.
PS: PS: I've only killed other commander once, in open powerplay, legally, so don't accuse me of "greifing" But your post can be summed up as one big correction facility without any upsides, for no good reason either. And it irks me personally because it tries to take away player's freedom.

 

[CMDR Yates]

That was in at the start and not an add on

"First discovered" was added in the first update, it wasn't there at launch.

 

[Leper Messiah]

"First discovered" was added in the first update, it wasn't there at launch.

Seriously? Crap, I had it a couple of weeks after launch (Jan 2015) I would swear blind first discovered was in at that point. Is my memory that bad?

 

[FalconFly]

Seriously? Crap, I had it a couple of weeks after launch (Jan 2015) I would swear blind first discovered was in at that point. Is my memory that bad?

Back in those days, 1st Discoveries existed - but only in the form of some (~150MB ? forgot) internal Database.

FDev on one occasion offered it for Download, so CMDRs could check if they actually had some 1st Discoveries.
(I believe someone back then even put up a basic Website, where you could filter with your CMDR Name and get an overview list for your personal discoveries)

 

[VR StarLightPL]

Back in those days, 1st Discoveries existed - but only in the form of some (~150MB ? forgot) internal Database.

FDev on one occasion offered it for Download, so CMDRs could check if they actually had some 1st Discoveries.

Noice, didn't know that

 

[Leper Messiah]

Back in those days, 1st Discoveries existed - but only in the form of some (~150MB ? forgot) internal Database.

FDev on one occasion offered it for Download, so CMDRs could check if they actually had some 1st Discoveries.
(I believe someone back then even put up a basic Website, where you could filter with your CMDR Name and get an overview list for your personal discoveries)

So yup my memory IS that bad!

 

[Qohen Leth]

First half of this rant can be summed up as "Hel-lo! You forgot SOLO and PG exists! "

The second part contains ill-thought and half-bottomed crime and punishment system for whatever reason, and a punishment system for preferred gameplay, plus a system which would promote guild play (squadrons), plus a system which introduces collective accountability like in concentration camps, plus a negative incentive system for playing the game not your way.

Thanks for the summary, spared me a lengthy read.

 

[Suthrnsun]

Greetings Commanders!


Thank you for testing the prototype Drake-Class Fleet Carriers brought to you by the Brewer Corporation. Since the beta's launch, we've been carefully reading and discussing your feedback and are ready to share the upcoming changes. We look forward to hearing more of what you think for the remainder of Beta 1 and in Beta 2 coming next month. All changes are subject to further balancing based on future feedback.


Here are the changes coming this week:

• The upkeep cost for all additional services will be reduced by 80-90%.
• Core running costs will be reduced by 50%

Fleet Carriers represent a big investment, with a lot of crew and resources involved. After hearing your concerns, we've reduced the upkeep to a more sustainable level. The total running costs for a Fleet Carrier with all services active will be reduced by a total of 85.5%.

• The debt threshold has been updated in line with the upkeep changes. This means with all services installed, a carrier can go 10 weeks (up from 4) without paying upkeep before being issued a final warning.

This is designed to relieve the pressure of carrier management, leaving more time for focus on other activities. While the debt threshold will be lower, Fleet Carrier owners will have more time to maintain the upkeep costs.

• The total upfront activation costs of some of the more expensive services will be reduced by 35-45%.

Along with the upkeep changes, this reduces the overall outfitting and maintenance costs of Fleet Carriers.

• The time between jumps will be dramatically decreased by only requiring 15 minutes for jump preparation and 5 minutes to cool-down.

More frequent jumps will increase the utility of Fleet Carriers overall, allowing them to enhance the owner and visitors' game-play more easily.


The two changes below will come in the second beta. Additional changes can be expected as more feedback comes in:

• Universal Cartographics will become available as an optional service.

Similar to Bounty Vouchers, a cut of 25% which will be split 50/50 between the Fleet Carrier's bank and the service, will be taken from any data sold on the Fleet Carrier. This means owners will effectively only be charged a fee of 12.5% on their own Fleet Carrier. This service will otherwise be the same as Universal Cartographics services found on stations.

• Tritium will be made at least 2x more effective as a fuel.

In combination with a reduced preparation and cool-down time, this should improve long distance Fleet Carrier travel.


We're excited to hear what you think of these changes and seeing them in action for the remainder of Beta 1. Thank you for all of your valuable feedback which has helped shape these changes and will drive the rest of the changes made throughout the rest of the beta period. As mentioned above, this next beta will take place in May, and will be available to Xbox and PlayStation as well as PC players.


Thanks again, Commanders!

o7

Thanks for the update!
Just a thought on the upkeep costs...

I wonder if they implemented a “distance from the bubble tax (upkeep) break” for FC. Essentially, the closer to the center of the major(populated) hubs would require the standard upkeep. But, as a commander pushes the boundaries of known space, the upkeep drops more and more. This way there is insentives to keeping FC numbers low in densely populated areas and promotes exploration and populating the 99% of the generated galaxy that no one has seen yet.

I feel there is such a massive portion of this universe that is untapped and barely any insentives to tap into it. This way people can utilize their investment to promote the expansion of civilization across the galaxy.

Win/win. Devs get to keep a mechanic to minimize people overloading a few select systems, and they give players a reason and the means to push the boundaries of the galaxy.

 

[Astrometer]

I wonder if they implemented a “distance from the bubble tax (upkeep) break” for FC. Essentially, the closer to the center of the major(populated) hubs would require the standard upkeep. But, as a commander pushes the boundaries of known space, the upkeep drops more and more. This way there is insentives to keeping FC numbers low in densely populated areas and promotes exploration and populating the 99% of the generated galaxy that no one has seen yet.

I think it's reasonable to have an extra fee to park in a populated system. Maybe vary it by population, traffic or security level. I think they will have to do something to stop the bubble being overrun with FCs.

 

[harder mob]

Such wonderful news... you really listened to your fans! This also really amps up the excitement for what is to come with the DLC!!

 

[Cosmo]

Passive upkeep must be removed. Also the lack of options to sit inside the bridge and watch the FC travel through hyperspace is very disappointing. It should add additional gameplay for Squadrons.


You should make major improvements to the FC, more than tweaking some stats. Or this will be another failed, half-baked update like multicrew.

 

[Touken8]

You don't have to fly the Fleet Carrier to LOSE the Fleet Carrier. Time does that all by itself. All you have to do to lose your fleet carrier is get a fleet carrier. It will then automatically be taken away from you unless you take ongoing nonstop continuous regular steps to prevent this. Also, the longer you delay the loss of your carrier, the more money you lose.

So, Updating your corny adage:

Never buy without a rebuy.

One of the most coherrent statements I've found. I've played many MMOs and various online games, but never have I played a game where I'm punished for not playing (i.e. losing levels or equipment for not continously grinding). There's only one game that comes to mind, you might've heard of it, EVE Online. From how these carriers have been released it seems like the Devs are fans of EVE Online. I quit before I made it to super late game but there were Capital ships and even stations that were player owned for the purpose of enhancing the game but at the end of the day it just turned into a second job where I had to mine 500+m each week to help the Corp keep the station afloat. Ultimately, I had disagreements with the CEOs of the Corp on fundamentals about what makes a game enjoyable, and I quit.

Many formerly successful games started toward this "grindyness" which turned off a lot of seasoned players, who stopped inviting their friends and newer players, and eventually the game was an empty husk of what it used to be. FDev would be wise to listen to the players they have currently, because they are free advertising for the game, and if they encourage their friends to play then the player base will explode. I can't encourage anyone to play currently because I'm not even satisfied completely with the game. It reminds me a lot of EVE in both the good ways and especially the bad ways.

If you're going to create something that has upkeep, it should be Squadron owned, not player owned, that way everyone can contribute to it. But since them game also relishes in Solo play, I doubt they would do that. Hence, Upkeep MUST be abolished.

P.S. - the addage "never buy without a rebuy" originated in EVE with "Don't fly what you can't afford to lose." There was no rebuying ships with insurance, once it popped, it was gone! Had to buy a new one. (Yes that includes all the upgrades [what we call Engineered parts in ED]). I can't imagine FDevs hate their players that much, so hopefully they listen with an acute ear, there's a lot of good solutions here, implement the right ones and this game has some serious potential to be the BEST Space MMO on the market currently.

 

[Touken8]

Chin up, buddy. With a bit of knowledge the price isn't too much trouble - I took advantage of the long weekend and ground out the purchase price in four days.
I think the starting process made sense - they need to test the balance, so throw in high numbers to begin and work down from there.
If they'd made them almost nothing, they would have received the same amount of whining from people who want it handed to them for free. At least this way they can 'respond to the community' by lowering the prices. OMG can you imagine the tantrums if they'd started low and RAISED the costs?
All most would have been worth it for the hysterics!

I think it was mentioned earlier, but this is a common car salesman tactic. Throw out some ridiculous number the people will definitely protest, then go to something more reasonable until the buyer is convinced they are getting a deal. But this isn't a car that I will have to literally work at a full time job to pay off sometime in the future. This is an in-game feature with NO END! At least with my car payments, they will end eventually and I can permanently own the vehicle. Same cannot be said for this "Fleet Carrier." I would be more accepting of the upkeep costs if they provided real Macroscopic means for me to utilize my carrier to make money besides the ridiculous 'unnegotiable' tariffs for Exploration Data and Bounties. Having a FC should be like owning a station, after all that's what it's trying to emulate. Give us FULL CONTROL of market transaction values, outfitting modules, ships available, etc. Anything less is like saying "Yea you can 'Lease' that car, but you'll never truly OWN it." I know I'm not dumb enough to permanently rent a car for the rest of my life, why would you be dumb enough to fall for the same trap in an online game that is meant to provide you with NOTHING except satisfaction and entertainment.

That said, I'm starting up a new business leasing cars. Would you like to lease one? You never have to worry about owning it EVER, anything happens just trade it in for a new lease! Of course there will be upfront costs, and if you don't pay your monthly dues on it we'll reposses it. Naturally if something breaks you'll have to pay for that too. But you have the freedom to take it anywhere you want! What do you think? Oh and the contract never expires, so you'll never have to sign any paperwork again! Until you total it or it gets repossesed and you have to Lease a new one. <-- Still sound like a good idea? If so, you have a very low bar my friend and you're not safeguarding your time very well.

 

[Kaocraft]

I've played many MMOs and various online games, but never have I played a game where I'm punished for not playing (i.e. losing levels or equipment for not continously grinding).

Same. And I would bet this is the case for a substantial number of their playerbase, maybe even the majority. I wonder if it would be giving Frontier too much credit to ask if they have considered this? My working assumption is that they know this kind of system is divisive and obnoxious to a lot of people, but they're willing to soldier forward and lose X number of players, because the types of players that are willing to put up with this kind of thing are predicted to be so much more lucrative.

It's telling that in all the back and forths between the players and the devs, all the compromises and "listening to feedback," it's all been changes around the margins, reduction of costs, addition of requested functionality like stellar cartographics, etc; but not even the faintest acknowledgement of the main issue, which is passive upkeep culminating in ship destruction. It's interesting to note that all discussion of this, the central issue, is COMPLETELY off the table and there is no acknowledgement from the devs that this way of doing things is unacceptable to the player base.

So, why is passive-drain-of-resources-culminating-in-ship-destruction-while-offline such an ironclad, untouchable aspect of their design? I don't think it's a critical issue at all for making carriers into a fun, functional useful part of the game. What I think is going on is that this type of mechanism is the future of Elite, and Frontier is going to be leaning hard on these types of systems in the future. It probably makes up the foundation for their upcoming New Era expansions, it's probably something their board members have demanded they implement, and as such cannot be altered.

Is the tradeoff worth it? For me, right now, it doesn't seem like it's going to be worth it. But for Frontier and for other players, and especially for the new players Frontier seems to be banking on showing up, maybe it'll add up to something better than what it costs.

 

[Kryxix]

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/...ck-hole-to-earth-found-hiding-in-plain-sight/

HR 6819 needs an update