Fuel and repairs more expensive based on ship type, engineering / manufacturer + other ideas

[Rubbernuke]

Since money flows like a river, how about making ship ownership a bit more interesting?

Firstly, raise the base repair cost by x10, and maintenance by x5.

Repair costs are then based on:

Tier of ship- basic generic ships are massively inexpensive to repair. So workhorse freighters are cheap, but advanced vessels (like Corvette, Cutter) or luxury vessels like the FdL, Mamba or passenger ships need lots of high quality repairs that cost much more. As an example the FdL shipyard description mentions its higher grade materials and armour- that should be reflected in its repair price. This might give underused ships an edge- the T-7 might be almost free to repair while the Python is much more- not a huge benefit, but if price becomes more of a factor it will provide more considerations and complications.

Superpower- how is it Fed ships are repairable in Imperial stations (and Imp in Fed space) so easily? So, if a station you dock at is an opposing superpower your base repair cost is doubled. However, if you are docked at a station that aligns with your ship (i.e. Fed / Fed, Imp / Imp, Alliance , Alliance) the cost is halved. Neutral indie ports are unchanged. This then gives the BGS a bit of a role, allowing local politics to shape things.

Modules: A grade modules are much more expensive to fix than E grade- maybe x5 the cost. Engineering boosts and grade add cost (since you are adding even more complexity to fix).

Wanted ships and hot modules: can only be fixed if the station has a black market and is x2 the cost perhaps. This replaces the current C + P way and makes Powerplay bonuses and faction types actually mean something (naughty ships can't easily get repaired in Pranavs space who bans black markets, while its a snap in Archon Delaines territory which opens them). It also draws a clearer line between lawful space and areas where illegals can go (leading to a natural segregation during play).

Certain engineering should lead to the wear and tear being faster (i.e. the maintenance cost). Extreme lightweight builds, drag drives, nutty overcharged powerplants / certain FSD effects should all put more strain on the ship and wear quicker. But, clean drives, sturdy (double braced), armoured enhance reliability and efficiency. This would be a tradeoff of range/ speed etc v reliability.

If repairs are more expensive or difficult, it then gives the AMFU a much bigger role as it then provides a DIY way to repair most of your ship and keep costs down (since you can synth AMFU 'ammo'). An AMFU would be able to perform maintenance to keep integrity high, but you'd still need to drydock to repair a powerplant (making the base reliability more important).

Fuel:

(The ideas here are a bit more hazy since you have FSD and real-space engines, and that FSD tavel burns the most).

A to E grades also make things more expensive. Engineered drives should be analogous to the military drives from previous Elites: drag should cost more (much more) since it requires exotic tuning and balance out its overuse. But, clean drive fuel is incredibly cheap and its drives very reliable.

Base cost is increased by x5, with the same BGS faction / superpower considerations- i.e. Fed Imp or Alliance branded ships cost less to fuel in matching ports, while costing more in opposing places (either because they dislike your ship, or that it requires more complex / incompatible handling).

Other:

You are scanned more if your ship is of an enemy superpower- this is a bonus modifier on top of the paint wear / ship type 'conspicuousness' value. For example a Cutter docking in Sol would elicit more attention than a Corvette (which is almost common in the heart of Fed space). This would make generic ships lower profile in more places and that superpower manufacturer also plays a role in your choice.

Black market engineering: much lower cost, but half as reliable (i.e. wear is twice as fast, requires black market to buy / fix). Would making an 8A powerplant half the cost drive players to change the BGS more to make life easier in places? Some ports or areas might then naturally become proper hives of villainy, Tortuga style- as well as creating a 'shadow' network of outfitting and repair.

-----

Taken together it makes repairs scale to your ship, Imperial / Fed / Alliance ship in another superpowers territory more involving (as you then are subject to discrimination)- it also makes common ships with no allegiance (Krait, Asp, T series bar the T -10) blend in more and universally accepted (for smuggling). It also makes the AMFU more widely useful, and makes more risky engineering more of a problem while making 'rugged' blueprints have hidden (but logical) benefits.

EDIT: One additional clause: Powerplay pledges are exempt from maintenance fees in home territory. It gives a reason to pledge (and exposes them to risk for doing so) but fits since they are fighting a guerilla war. It also sorts out an issue where Fed or Allaince players use Imperial Cutters (which make the best fortifiers).

Also, please take into account that the above needs to be seen as part of a general rebalance of careers / roles (i.e. mining is not the sole fountain of money). Please refer to
DiabolusUrsus and others for detailed counterpoints.

 

[MDHansen]

Long and good read. Can't find anything really to put my finger on. I'll read it again, but would be really nice if owning property would actually matter, the daily upkeep, repairs, where you do it in terms of the supoerpowers as you say.
One can dream...

 

[Sylow]

This suggestion would've made sense several years ago. But by now it feels like you want to press the toothpaste back into the tube.

The game has massive mudflation and it's not new. We had that already before launch and never really was addressed. We should've had fixes before launch. I do remember that even during the beta the problem was visible and people pointed it out.

By now we have plenty of people sitting on piles of credits. We have people who oppose any nerf, no matter how reasonable and necessary it would be. (See several failed attempts of FD to ever so slightly nerf engineering. ) But most of all, this change would so very much feel like building a castle for us old veterans. I mean, we already have all the ships we wanted and more money than we have use for. Even a drastic increase prices would not really affect us. But for the normal new player, who didn't look for the newest get-credits-fast scheme, is not looking for exploits and is does not yet have all the knowledge we do, things would be more grim.

Mind you, it still wouldn't be impossible for somebody to start new, but do you know of any game out there, which hit the news of "now it became much harder for the new player to get in and it'll take them much longer than ever before to be able to compete with the veterans" and saw positive development of sales in return.

Luckily, when you look at the details, we already have a limiting factor here. FD did the same as many other MMOs out there, when the main currency just got out of control and mudflation struck: creating additional currencies. In many MMOs out there, you get new tokens to collect in each new zone. Our tokens are engineering materials. They also gradually become easier to collect, but at least in my eyes they are not out of control yet. And i very much guess that when the carriers and other new content come around, there'll again be new things to collect.

So really, just accept that credits are the peasants currency here and have very little meaning by now for any halfway experienced player. It's the only way to go. It's the only successful solution other MMOs ever found to mudflation and i would be very surprised if FD would have such a strike of genius and find a better fix for it.

The part of the OP which i like would be the thing with the 'conspicuousness' factor. But as that one already now is so hard to confirm, would we really notice a change there?

 

[JetsonRING]

IMO fuel should not cost more depending on fitted modules. If a "premium" fuel were to be implemented it should be a preference, not a requirement, the same way premium automobile fuel is a preference. Sure, some manufacturers "require" premium fuel for their high-performance cars that came built that way from the factory but since ED ships are not built that way, premium fuel might be more acceptable if it simply offered a small (very small!) boost in a ship's performance like a 5% boost to speed in normal space or boost, or a 1-2 LY jump-range boost.

Since a module switching fee is already implemented in the game (albeit at "zero" cost) maybe it is time to implement a very small cost for switching modules, maybe along the lines (to make it fair for newer players) of 5 credits to switch a single module into a small ship, 10 credits (per module switched) for medium ships and 20 credits for large ships. The fee would not apply to new module purchases but only to modules moved from a player's module storage. o7

 

[Sylow]

The problem about premium fuel: does a star give regular or premium fuel? If premium fuel requires a more expencive fuel scoop, everybody would just just buy that one and be done for. (We veterans don't know where to put our credits, anyway. So why not buy more expencive fuel scoops? )

If you buy premium fuel, will your ship still be on premium when you scoop the first time? Will you loose premium when you had 98% of premum left buy your fuel scoop will activate for just half a second? If that doesn't switch you to normal, will you still have premium fuel if you jump 15 times in a row, each time refueling from 70% to full again? Should the game internally calculate a mix? So many questions, so much complexity, so many possible loopholes, for such small gain.

In my eyes the implementation effort by far outweights the advantages.

 

[Rubbernuke]

This suggestion would've made sense several years ago. But by now it feels like you want to press the toothpaste back into the tube.

The game has massive mudflation and it's not new. We had that already before launch and never really was addressed. We should've had fixes before launch. I do remember that even during the beta the problem was visible and people pointed it out.

By now we have plenty of people sitting on piles of credits. We have people who oppose any nerf, no matter how reasonable and necessary it would be. (See several failed attempts of FD to ever so slightly nerf engineering. ) But most of all, this change would so very much feel like building a castle for us old veterans. I mean, we already have all the ships we wanted and more money than we have use for. Even a drastic increase prices would not really affect us. But for the normal new player, who didn't look for the newest get-credits-fast scheme, is not looking for exploits and is does not yet have all the knowledge we do, things would be more grim.

Mind you, it still wouldn't be impossible for somebody to start new, but do you know of any game out there, which hit the news of "now it became much harder for the new player to get in and it'll take them much longer than ever before to be able to compete with the veterans" and saw positive development of sales in return.

Luckily, when you look at the details, we already have a limiting factor here. FD did the same as many other MMOs out there, when the main currency just got out of control and mudflation struck: creating additional currencies. In many MMOs out there, you get new tokens to collect in each new zone. Our tokens are engineering materials. They also gradually become easier to collect, but at least in my eyes they are not out of control yet. And i very much guess that when the carriers and other new content come around, there'll again be new things to collect.

So really, just accept that credits are the peasants currency here and have very little meaning by now for any halfway experienced player. It's the only way to go. It's the only successful solution other MMOs ever found to mudflation and i would be very surprised if FD would have such a strike of genius and find a better fix for it.

The part of the OP which i like would be the thing with the 'conspicuousness' factor. But as that one already now is so hard to confirm, would we really notice a change there?

I get what you say, but FD are seemingly keen on smoothing out the kinks and making a more cohesive 'whole' game for incoming players who themselves will want progression. Plus, even with the limited amount of veterans it would still make sense because it can join up a great deal of desperate background detail that links normally isolated features.

I suppose the main question comes down to how punitive this is for a new player- take the Cutter / Corvettes or advanced ships: how long do they take to get with the rank locks/ earning? By the time the average player gets them have they enough money anyway? Up until that point they would be using 'neutral' ships with low repair costs. As an example I half wiped out my Corvette and the repair was 500K on an almost billion credit ship. Under these rules that cost would be 5 million to repair 60% damage to everything.

The other way is to keep costs roughly the same for small to medium ships and drastically increase them the higher and more specialised they become (so superpower ships, high end ships etc are costlier to maintain, while middle and 'starter' / small ships are the low cost we have now.

 

[TiberiusDuval]

Nah, money earning is mostly repetitive and dull at least such money that is already needed for maintaining bigger ships, and their rebuys. That would mean MORE mining time, and I don't think it is exactly very much quality time. (Too much like work to me...). About fuel, maybe involve some kind of "premium fuel" and little performance boost. Otherwise, well people would just scoop for free. I do it already, I rarely buy fuel at all.

 

[Sylow]

[...]

I really, really like the idea. It would have been absolutely awesome to have that at launch. I just can't agree to it any more now, that long after launch.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I really, really like the idea. It would have been absolutely awesome to have that at launch. I just can't agree to it any more now, that long after launch.

It is true that these things should have been in at launch, but seeing how FD have retrofitted systems I find it hard to shut the door on such ideas in my head when the 2020 mega update might upend everything again.

 

[Sylow]

It is true that these things should have been in at launch, but seeing how FD have retrofitted systems I find it hard to shut the door on such ideas in my head when the 2020 mega update might upend everything again.

The problem is the picture the suggested change would give to new players. In my eyes it would so much look like protecting the oldtimers advantage by making things more complicated for the new player. I mean yes, the new player could stick to "neutral" ships. But this still would effectively limit his options, compared to what we had when we started out.

According to my perception it just would not project a positive image, so it wouldn't be a great idea any more by now.

 

[CMDR Big Mike]

A lot of good stuff in the OP. I like the idea of more variation between ships and companies. This past weekend I actually went through and changed the COVAS for most of my ships to be the same across each ship brand (e.g. Delacy gets Victor, Gutamya gets Archer).

It would make total sense if there were other differences as well. I would love for each company to have different HUDs or something. Make it similar to the gun brands for borderlands. A Jakobs looks and shoots differently from a Maliwan, and it adds depth and character to the guns and game at large

Making superpowers have more influence on the day to day adds a nice bit of immersion too.

 

[Rubbernuke]

The problem is the picture the suggested change would give to new players. In my eyes it would so much look like protecting the oldtimers advantage by making things more complicated for the new player. I mean yes, the new player could stick to "neutral" ships. But this still would effectively limit his options, compared to what we had when we started out.

According to my perception it just would not project a positive image, so it wouldn't be a great idea any more by now.

The problem then lies in making a barebones game and adding stuff in- its impossible to make everything 'fair' after really.

The main change for new players v old ones would be (short term) in module repair prices, with advanced veteran players paying much more as they have advanced edge case builds that wear out faster (and thus cost more long term) along with higher end ships.

The balancing act would be making early game management risky but not impossible if you are sensible- we already see now new players overreaching with large ships- if there was an underpinning reason to be more cautious it might limit people jumping ahead too far.

 

[Sylow]

[...]

Guess here we have to agree to disagree then. We both actually think that the idea would've been great when the game was new. But while you think that it would still make sense to introduce it now, i believe that it would have a negative impact and thus is not adviseable.

There's no way to know without FD actually taking the risk of testing it, despite it likely being bad for the games community. Considering that they didn't dare to do changes which most of the community actually approved (e.g. nerfs to engineering blueprints), i don't think this will happen.

 

[Rubbernuke]

Guess here we have to agree to disagree then. We both actually think that the idea would've been great when the game was new. But while you think that it would still make sense to introduce it now, i believe that it would have a negative impact and thus is not adviseable.

There's no way to know without FD actually taking the risk of testing it, despite it likely being bad for the games community. Considering that they didn't dare to do changes which most of the community actually approved (e.g. nerfs to engineering blueprints), i don't think this will happen.

Very true.

The reaction depends on what direction FD want to go though: initially ED was far tougher with credit scarcity and high prices. Ever since then inflation has made a players path through the game flat with everything coming at once with issues like fuel / repair / reaming being trivialised to the point of uselessness. Credit abundance has made ship choice meaningless as we can have huge fleets with A grade modules and weapons almost right away- engineering has then made module grade meaningless itself with nothing to really balance it or make the top end a risk rather than the norm.

In the end ED is a big unplanned mess in this regard- FD really need to get ideas in the pipeline to bring the game together and make it flow from start to finish.

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

I really like the spirit of the proposed changes, but we would need TONS of additional changes to the rest of the game to make them anything more than a menial chore in practice.

"Upkeep" makes plenty of logical sense, and it's certainly appealing from an "immersion" perspective. That said, I've only ever seen it work well in the real-time strategy or management sim genres. Elsewhere it typically flip-flops between "so trivial it may as well not exist" and "so obtrusive that certain items aren't worth using."

For example, the proposed superpower prejudices will likely just translate to "don't fly X/Y/Z ships in opposing systems," which would be a particularly bitter pill when these ships require players unlocking them in the first place... And the differences between superpower systems are mostly cosmetic anyway. To mitigate this, you could try extending the mechanic through reputation - a CMDR trusted by the local superpower/faction might be given more leeway than an unknown or openly hostile individual.

You'd also need to better differentiate the superpowers in terms of alignment gameplay, though I don't really have any ideas for that at the moment.

In other words, if we're gonna do this... let's please make sure it amounts to more than clicking into the "Advanced Maintenance" sub-menu more often and occasionally going on mining runs to cover operating costs.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I really like the spirit of the proposed changes, but we would need TONS of additional changes to the rest of the game to make them anything more than a menial chore in practice.

"Upkeep" makes plenty of logical sense, and it's certainly appealing from an "immersion" perspective. That said, I've only ever seen it work well in the real-time strategy or management sim genres. Elsewhere it typically flip-flops between "so trivial it may as well not exist" and "so obtrusive that certain items aren't worth using."

For example, the proposed superpower prejudices will likely just translate to "don't fly X/Y/Z ships in opposing systems," which would be a particularly bitter pill when these ships require players unlocking them in the first place... And the differences between superpower systems are mostly cosmetic anyway. To mitigate this, you could try extending the mechanic through reputation - a CMDR trusted by the local superpower/faction might be given more leeway than an unknown or openly hostile individual.

You'd also need to better differentiate the superpowers in terms of alignment gameplay, though I don't really have any ideas for that at the moment.

In other words, if we're gonna do this... let's please make sure it amounts to more than clicking into the "Advanced Maintenance" sub-menu more often and occasionally going on mining runs to cover operating costs.

At the minute superpowers don't really act any different to each other, and needs to have much more wide ranging consequences otherwise it hammers home that ED has hundreds of thousands of systems which all act the same. What is needed is little twists that all add up, adding subtle differences that weave together. In all my recent posts I've tried to do this, building coherent layers of C + P, travel and here repairs and upkeep.

Right now owning one ship is identical across the board with no considerations required. Each is repaired the same, refueled the same, engineered the same, bought the same- all being a monumental waste of potential when you could inject so much flavour into things.

Really this thread is part 3 of these:

Revert no fire zone / drop distances to stations to pre gamma(?) distances and other C + P tweaks

Currently its far too easy to never see an NPC opponent from missions. Commanders drop far too close to stations and enter the no fire zone (NFZ) almost instantly, making any NPC bounty hunter or pirate instantly fly off (making them redundant). A distance like 20Km (or perhaps shrink the NFZ...

forums.frontier.co.uk

Some C + P suggestions, tweaks and ideas (part 2)

Some ideas: Security response times are based on the attack position in that system. So, security response in close proximity to stations, traffic corridors etc are much quicker (and practically instantaneous in high sec close to traffic lanes) than in deep space. This logically simulates how...

forums.frontier.co.uk

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

Snip

I don't really agree with the drop distance increase - that just sounds like a PITA time sink for players who aren't being pursued.

I largely agree with the other thread.

However, I still think more sweeping changes like a full career rebalance (rein in mining a bit and buff combat/exploration some), module/Engineering rebalance (you and Old Duck mentioned such a thing in my thread), CZ revamp (hide the on-demand spawns; jeez), better in-game search tools, etc. would be needed before implementing more extensive upkeep.

It certainly has immersion value, but for that to matter the game needs to go "all-in" on immersion. I don't think added inconveniences for the sake of immersion would make all that much of a positive difference to me when I'm constantly using an overlay to browse third-party databases for galaxy information on half the stuff I happen to be doing.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I don't really agree with the drop distance increase - that just sounds like a PITA time sink for players who aren't being pursued.

I largely agree with the other thread.

However, I still think more sweeping changes like a full career rebalance (rein in mining a bit and buff combat/exploration some), module/Engineering rebalance (you and Old Duck mentioned such a thing in my thread), CZ revamp (hide the on-demand spawns; jeez), better in-game search tools, etc. would be needed before implementing more extensive upkeep.

It certainly has immersion value, but for that to matter the game needs to go "all-in" on immersion. I don't think added inconveniences for the sake of immersion would make all that much of a positive difference to me when I'm constantly using an overlay to browse third-party databases for galaxy information on half the stuff I happen to be doing.

On a functional level most of these ideas are simply binary- Fed ships with Fed territory, black markets are keys for criminals in a system and so on.

The other is that without complications to vary how we see systems, there is no point to having so many of them as they all behave identically. Tying more outcomes to the BGS then allows pilots to carve out what they want to a greater degree, and amplify aspects like superpowers that are currently irrelevant.

 

[DiabolusUrsus]

On a functional level most of these ideas are simply binary- Fed ships with Fed territory, black markets are keys for criminals in a system and so on.

I understand; I'm saying that I don't think that's going far enough. At the end of the day, upkeep is an inconvenience. Its main appeal is getting the player immersed in the game world (e.g., repairing and sharpening swords in an RPG)... but that means jack-squat when the game constantly breaks immersion elsewhere. The bar for transforming that upkeep from a menial burden into a positive experience is typically pretty high.

The other is that without complications to vary how we see systems, there is no point to having so many of them as they all behave identically.

Yes, agreed. However, this really needs to go beyond the faction/station menus. Having Feds be hostile to Imperials and vice-versa makes plenty of sense, but then both superpowers are largely indistinguishable outside the established lore. They offer the same services, the same types of activities, etc. From a gameplay perspective, Imperial Slaves are identical to Biowaste or any other commodity.

Tying more outcomes to the BGS then allows pilots to carve out what they want to a greater degree, and amplify aspects like superpowers that are currently irrelevant.

As a lone pilot, I find it hard to buy into the idea that I can change the BGS. The last time I tried, finishing 2 INF+++++ missions increased a minor faction's influence by <1%! I don't have the time or patience for that, especially if it is seriously affecting my options. Thus, simply amplifying the consequences of the BGS really just translates into soft-locking players out of specific systems based on their fluff (Imp/Fed/Criminal, etc.) playstyle.

That certainly reduces how many systems players need to concern themselves with, but it doesn't really do anything to address how homogeneous the remaining systems are.

 

[Rubbernuke]

I understand; I'm saying that I don't think that's going far enough. At the end of the day, upkeep is an inconvenience. Its main appeal is getting the player immersed in the game world (e.g., repairing and sharpening swords in an RPG)... but that means jack-squat when the game constantly breaks immersion elsewhere. The bar for transforming that upkeep from a menial burden into a positive experience is typically pretty high.

Its an inconvenience now because its literally pointless- it is click to heal and that click costs nothing. Its become a vestigial afterthought because it( repairing) is done at the end of a task. If ships had stark repair costs that varied logically, it would frame a lot of choices. Doing the same for modules and especially engineered modules would make you think twice about putting something lightweight in a combat build. In short people are thinking about the effects of durability before they even hit repair.

This in turn actually makes outfitting much more involved as you then are not designing for G5 (which today is always better) but seeing holistically how that G5 specialisation might be a drawback. It is true that the game breaks immersion several times- however IMO outfitting is pretty solid; its just underdeveloped and needs rounding out in a way thats not about blunt nerfs or buffs.

Yes, agreed. However, this really needs to go beyond the faction/station menus. Having Feds be hostile to Imperials and vice-versa makes plenty of sense, but then both superpowers are largely indistinguishable outside the established lore. They offer the same services, the same types of activities, etc. From a gameplay perspective, Imperial Slaves are identical to Biowaste or any other commodity.

Really its about making subtle choices more obvious, and this is a small part of that. Its crazy that Feds would be able to service or want to service Imperial ships. If superpower ranked ships were harder to maintain in the idea, it makes your choice much more important- it then becomes an outward expression of your support and your ideals within the game to a lesser extent. If you are a dyed blue Imperial you should face adversity in Fed space- this idea won't cure it all (my other idea threads have more on how that might work) but it does make it more relevant. It also makes a choice of a neutral manufacturer valid too, as they can be fixed universally (but not fixed cheaply like an aligned superpower ship would).

As a lone pilot, I find it hard to buy into the idea that I can change the BGS. The last time I tried, finishing 2 INF+++++ missions increased a minor faction's influence by <1%! I don't have the time or patience for that, especially if it is seriously affecting my options. Thus, simply amplifying the consequences of the BGS really just translates into soft-locking players out of specific systems based on their fluff (Imp/Fed/Criminal, etc.) playstyle.

That certainly reduces how many systems players need to concern themselves with, but it doesn't really do anything to address how homogeneous the remaining systems are.

The BGS is easy to manipulate on your own if you pick the right places and learn how the BGS works. It only becomes a question of numbers if a group is opposing you and even then its possible to fight back asymmetrically. These ideas are not locking anyone out any more than what happens today- what they are attempting to do is actually make systems be able to reflect groups even better in a way that can be done via the BGS and general play (as well as dovetailling Powers).