To be honest its a chicken and egg situation brought about by releasing a half complete game. Either it stays the way it is (i.e. inflation with little to spend it on) or you have ways to spend it logically and establish a proper background 'loop'.
Fuel and repairs more expensive based on ship type, engineering / manufacturer + other ideas
- Thread starter Rubbernuke
- Start date
To be honest its a chicken and egg situation brought about by releasing a half complete game. Either it stays the way it is (i.e. inflation with little to spend it on) or you have ways to spend it logically and establish a proper background 'loop'.
You made a lot of good points there. Would it have been split up, you could've farmed a dozen likes from me. Only a few things i disagree with, and they are minor things. The one part i quote i find most valuable. As long as the player is limited to always flying one ship and one ship only, which is the very core of the game, he will gravitate towards the best ship he can afford. So the whole "viable or not" is the only relevant question here.
If sustaining the best option would require people to spend hours of VO mining, then they will do that. They will grumble and complain, but they won't downgrade or switch away from their best ship. Instead they either begrudgingly invest the hated grind time to sustain their ship, or dispose of this game and play something else instead. Either is much more likely than people switching away from their ship of choice.
The first will result in a lot of complaining, in this forum and on many other places, giving the game an even worse reputation of a grindy time killer than it already has. So surprisingly the second one, a good part of the games playerbase simply leaving, will actually be the -better- possible outcome. But neither of them really sounds like a good choice.
True. But you try to put back another genie into a bottle now, which is out here for much longer. Mind you, a lot of your ideas would've been very valuable for the game. Would they have been implemented when the corresponding features were new. But they now all are out for many years. No matter which term you use, be it genie and bottle or toothpaste and tube, it expresses the same thing: it's too late. While the suggested things would've been awesome at the right time, by now they'd be seen as drastic and unjustified nerfs. Reactions would be very negative and, due to how long the game ran fine on the current state, understandably so.
Here i have to ask: do you really think that the FDL is the best choice for a bounty hunter? I mean, i do like my late night HAZRes tours. And i do own a fully engineered FDL. Who doesn't? But i don't use my FDL for that. (I think i haven't used my FDL for well over a year. ) I rather use my Krait MK II. I find the way it handles more fun and more enjoyable. It has adequate firepower and sufficient defense. Indeed my FDL has much better shields than my Krait MK II, but i don't need more of protection than my Krait offers. Sure, when fighting a wing of an two FGS and a FAS and both FGS did launch a fighter, my shields went down during the fight, but that still didn't trouble me too much. The limiting factor for my RES tours always is ammo.
You are right that the FDL is above and beyond many other ships in terms of defense. But you don't need that insane defense for any PvE activity. It's only PvP where it's superior defense still matters.
Your suggestion of higher operative costs aims at dethroning it on the PvE side. But here it's the first among several good options. Higher operation costs would remove it from the picture. But there'd be not much gain for the game this way, while having the risk of frustrating long time FLD pilots, resulting in the negatives stated above. Those who enjoy other ships already use them for good effect.
At the same time higher operative costs do not impact how the FLD is seen from the PvP side. If this is the ship which allow you to win, while others would be destroyed, people will pick it, no matter the costs. Even if that would mean VO grinding for hours to keep it running, people will either do that or quit PvP or even the whole game. They definitely would not switch to an inferior ship.
So if you actually want to do something about the FLD, you would have to dethrone it on the PvP side. But no operative costs can ever affect that. It would just be the "stored for PvP use" ship. Still the undisputed king, just now with more grind attached.
Like I said earlier- FD needs to really decide what ED is- slow burner (old school ED) or point to point (i.e. rapid progress). I'd say that FD are edging towards the latter, but the playerbase are risk adverse which is an amusing paradox so making the game flush with money is (to me) silly if its not being spent somehow.
FdL can mow down ships for hours with its stopping power, has the legs to be all over the place (locally, not FSD wise). But its a personal thing, but there is a reason the FdL is so common in that its the best overall combat ship.
The problem is, the other option is to reverse the FdL buffs (heat and power gen) which also would annoy.
The other issue is that what is ED? My suggestions are from my viewpoint and how I play- there are so many ways to play its hard to get an effective answer for everyone.
Again it depends- as I'm told often, PvP is not a massive thing in ED. If ED is more a PvE game (which it seems to be based on its structure) it makes sense (to me at least) to make the overall progression PvE like and more old school. Only FD have the answers to who plays and how.
Overall, I quite agree with the general idea posted in the thread, but with a few alterations and recommendations:
Firstly, I don't think that engineering cost increases should be based entirely on what sort of grade they are. This is because hull tanking is almost guaranteed to involve hull damage and is already pretty underpowered compared to relying on strong shields, so the last thing it needs is a further economic hit in the form of increased repair costs. The reinforced blueprints should therefore cause only modest increases to repair costs for the applicable modules to prevent hull tankers being too far out of pocket compared to their shield-based cousins. They should also have a combination of fixed and multiplicative increases to price to prevent undersized or lower-grade modules reigning supreme for economic reasons, it would have to ensure that all aspects of price/performance balance out nicely.
Hull repair costs are already kind of factored in just by the costs of the hulls themselves. We all know the FDL is overpowered (particularly for its price), but it already has the signs of basically what you are asking for as the majority of its cost is tied up in the hull itself. Comparing the FDL to the Krait Phantom, the FDL has much cheaper outfitting while the Krait has the cheaper hull. The hull can't be made cheaper, but the modules can be skimped on. If repair costs in general were to go up relative to income (probably involving a rebalance to income and other expenses), taking hull damage in a FDL would result in a hefty bill even if no modules were damaged. Similarly, a Corvette has 2.5x the base hull cost of a T-9, which will automatically be represented in its hull repair bills.
Fuel is a difficult one, as any attempts in its current state to make fuel prices meaningful through simple economics will just push people to use fuel scoops all the time. It's already not worth the time to stop by a station mid-route to refuel rather than just installing a fuel scoop, this would be doubly so if the fuel itself were to be expensive. Some kind of limitation would have to be added to the fuel scoops, such as them only harvesting ultra-terrible quality fuel that eats your FSD alive every jump (overall causing more costs in repair bills than you save in fuel), but this would incur the ire of some explorers that intensely dislike challenge.
In terms of BGS mechanics, I'd go further than simply superpower affiliation, but also include power, economy and government type into the equation. Repairing or rearming your powerplay modules beyond the borders of your power's space should be difficult and costly as parts have to be ordered in via clandestine channels. Tech Broker modules should be difficult to work with outside of systems that contain the appropriate tech broker. Most economies would struggle to perform maintenance on A-grade modules (2x for most economies, 1.5x for industrial?), while B-grades don't quite require the same tech (1.5x for most economies, slight discount in industrial and military?) while C or below can be worked on fine no matter where you are (possibly with discount in industrial). Booming economies would demand more for their services due to high local labour costs, while poorer economies would offer work for less. Current station stockpiles of raw materials and components (which could be abstracted into a simple "Bulk Maintenance Block" commodity) could provide minor cost changes beyond that. Ship maintenance has potential for a full integration into the economy, becoming a microeconomy unto itself for those that want to optimise things and a financial hit on the chin for those that don't rise to the challenge.
The AFMU is a difficult one to work with, as it runs a similar risk to what fuel scoops already do for fuel - if repair costs become meaningful then players will just slap an AFMU into a smallish slot on their ships and never have to repair anything other than the powerplant on their ship at a station ever again. The AFMU is already useful for convenience and the ability to resupply out in the field, it doesn't need to have an economic advantage added to it. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the AFMU's repair capability should be based on the cost of what it is repairing, rather than the integrity of what it is repairing. This would both keep AFMUs being a matter of convenience rather than economics as well as making B-grade modules and MRPs much more efficient to repair than A-grades due to their much better cost to integrity ratio. This would also prevent the rather counterintuitive strategy of a player AFKing outside a station to repair their ship.
I'd also go as far as to say that the T-series, Asps and Diamondbacks should be treated as aligned to the Alliance to a certain degree (possibly half effects?), just like how the Eagle and Vulture should be treated as Federal. Lakon have clearly thrown their lot in with the Alliance, so it is understandable that the other superpowers would consider Lakon ships with suspicion even if they aren't explicitly Alliance due to the association.
Firstly, I don't think that engineering cost increases should be based entirely on what sort of grade they are. This is because hull tanking is almost guaranteed to involve hull damage and is already pretty underpowered compared to relying on strong shields, so the last thing it needs is a further economic hit in the form of increased repair costs. The reinforced blueprints should therefore cause only modest increases to repair costs for the applicable modules to prevent hull tankers being too far out of pocket compared to their shield-based cousins. They should also have a combination of fixed and multiplicative increases to price to prevent undersized or lower-grade modules reigning supreme for economic reasons, it would have to ensure that all aspects of price/performance balance out nicely.
Hull repair costs are already kind of factored in just by the costs of the hulls themselves. We all know the FDL is overpowered (particularly for its price), but it already has the signs of basically what you are asking for as the majority of its cost is tied up in the hull itself. Comparing the FDL to the Krait Phantom, the FDL has much cheaper outfitting while the Krait has the cheaper hull. The hull can't be made cheaper, but the modules can be skimped on. If repair costs in general were to go up relative to income (probably involving a rebalance to income and other expenses), taking hull damage in a FDL would result in a hefty bill even if no modules were damaged. Similarly, a Corvette has 2.5x the base hull cost of a T-9, which will automatically be represented in its hull repair bills.
Fuel is a difficult one, as any attempts in its current state to make fuel prices meaningful through simple economics will just push people to use fuel scoops all the time. It's already not worth the time to stop by a station mid-route to refuel rather than just installing a fuel scoop, this would be doubly so if the fuel itself were to be expensive. Some kind of limitation would have to be added to the fuel scoops, such as them only harvesting ultra-terrible quality fuel that eats your FSD alive every jump (overall causing more costs in repair bills than you save in fuel), but this would incur the ire of some explorers that intensely dislike challenge.
In terms of BGS mechanics, I'd go further than simply superpower affiliation, but also include power, economy and government type into the equation. Repairing or rearming your powerplay modules beyond the borders of your power's space should be difficult and costly as parts have to be ordered in via clandestine channels. Tech Broker modules should be difficult to work with outside of systems that contain the appropriate tech broker. Most economies would struggle to perform maintenance on A-grade modules (2x for most economies, 1.5x for industrial?), while B-grades don't quite require the same tech (1.5x for most economies, slight discount in industrial and military?) while C or below can be worked on fine no matter where you are (possibly with discount in industrial). Booming economies would demand more for their services due to high local labour costs, while poorer economies would offer work for less. Current station stockpiles of raw materials and components (which could be abstracted into a simple "Bulk Maintenance Block" commodity) could provide minor cost changes beyond that. Ship maintenance has potential for a full integration into the economy, becoming a microeconomy unto itself for those that want to optimise things and a financial hit on the chin for those that don't rise to the challenge.
The AFMU is a difficult one to work with, as it runs a similar risk to what fuel scoops already do for fuel - if repair costs become meaningful then players will just slap an AFMU into a smallish slot on their ships and never have to repair anything other than the powerplant on their ship at a station ever again. The AFMU is already useful for convenience and the ability to resupply out in the field, it doesn't need to have an economic advantage added to it. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the AFMU's repair capability should be based on the cost of what it is repairing, rather than the integrity of what it is repairing. This would both keep AFMUs being a matter of convenience rather than economics as well as making B-grade modules and MRPs much more efficient to repair than A-grades due to their much better cost to integrity ratio. This would also prevent the rather counterintuitive strategy of a player AFKing outside a station to repair their ship.
I'd also go as far as to say that the T-series, Asps and Diamondbacks should be treated as aligned to the Alliance to a certain degree (possibly half effects?), just like how the Eagle and Vulture should be treated as Federal. Lakon have clearly thrown their lot in with the Alliance, so it is understandable that the other superpowers would consider Lakon ships with suspicion even if they aren't explicitly Alliance due to the association.
Dear Rubbernuke, don't you remember the howling on the forums whenever FD, through accident or design, actually increased costs.
Players only like it when they can stockpile billions for no reason, they hate it when the devs try and actually implement any sort of money sink.
Players only like it when they can stockpile billions for no reason, they hate it when the devs try and actually implement any sort of money sink.
And this is EDs ultimate problem: what is it? It can't be everything to all people, so it has to be something. As this thread has gone on, I think FD have to split things logically and try to stop making everything try to work everywhere.
One consequence of my suggestion would be that the main game would become more PvE, while Powerplay would become the more knockabout PvE/PvP mashup (since the repair costs are wavered).
Indeed, and it looks like after years of resisting the forum demands for easy credits and easy progression, FD have given up and said, to hell with it, let people have easy credits.
So, i think they have decided.
Which is a shame, because thats not Elite.
I would like that and repairs used to be expensive. But it ended up being cheaper to self destruct then to repair. The best way to stop that is that engineered modules are destroyed on ship destruction and you would need to remake them. But I can imagine the salt if that was implemented.
Are you surprised? That's what happens when you design your game like a FTP loot grinder. At some point ppl wonder when they'll get to the content they paid for.
Rapair costs are related to insurance, increasing rapair cost would mean new insurence formula, I m ok with it, another credit sink i would like to see is crew requirement, one of things il iked in old elite games was that we need crew to operate. In ED we need only SLF pilots, i would like it to see change here, also singing crew on set amount of time.
Are you awere that Elite for some number of players is arena like pvp game, but without arena pvp mode? If we get this I m fine with your suggestion.
Yeah, well if they want zero risk arena pvp, they can play CQC.
In more detail, they have decided that credits are a lost cause. Just like the main currency in many games out there, it just lost its value in the run of time. The mere fact that the term for it is "MUDflation" can tell you, how long the problem already exists. And FD decided for the same solution you see in many other games out there: giving up on the old currently. People can have piles of it. They secretly created a new currency instead. Just like many MMOs out there have a plethora of tokens, we have crafting materials. And apparently FDs plan works perfectly fine. The "crafting materials" disguise seems to fool most players around, so they don't even realize that this is the new pool of currencies. Would at least most of the long time players here have understood what FD did here, we wouldn't be discussing credits any more.
But don't forget, in CQC you play on equal footing. Skill decides the fight, not how long you have grinded for your ship. It seems like for a significant part of our playerbase that's bad game design and totally unacceptable.
Last edited:
without substantial changes to engineering, I would quit the gameif I had to re engineer every time.
CQC is very limited, if only FD allow ship customization with all ships allowed in g5 mods, it would be fine, flying at 500+m/s is diffrent from 300, same with almost unlimited boost and sustained firepower. New maps for CQC would be nice too like ateroids, as well as more realistic model, no boosts and other arcade trash. Some rank system, just add reasonable multiplayer options, in return make base game more sirious, increased operating cost, and C&P, i can't RP in current Elite world, too many things make 0 sense, game economy doesn't exist at all.
Would it though. Or could it be instead of running a G5 on every module Uber ship, you run what you are more acceptable to lose. It could make what engineered modules you fit a more thoughtful and tactical process instead of it being a no brainer.
People would just be more averse to risk than ever at that point. Casual players would have a rough time, some lunatics would have multiple engineered ships, newbies would suffer.
Some people have been playing this game so long that there's no real effective way to "balance" their wealth out. Maybe the best solution would be money-sinks for vanity - we'll see if something comes along, base-building or station investments.
Or you could actually play the game and find out how expensive repairs really are. Fly a real ship and not a cobra and see the cost difference.
Since you can't figure out the reason for changes. The increase in money in a few areas was to literally make it easier to pay for these very things and buy the top ships. This whole idea is pointless. It was probably a ramp up to carriers and bigger ships being added. There is no need nor a reason to do this at all. Not without some very complicated real world engineering and material science behind the game that adds enough depth to justify a very realistically founded change. Which would be a really good idea. It also simplifies design changes as they are not going to vary as much in the future unless you really oops somewhere.
Old cost and money making made it unreasonable already as a lazy balance mechanic. New changes make it reasonable because they were or are about to be dwarfed and they want to make them more common or more easily used. Hopefully adding some combat zones with more big ships to go with it at some point. I was very shocked that the biggest combat stuff in the game had 1 or two large ships and all medium to small ships... I fugired they had full blown large scale combat representing full military stuff like the big areas you see with a thargoid going over the corpses of a carrier and lots of cutters/clippers. They haven't even fully filled out that part of the game yet. It's kind of sad.
Real fixes would require real changes. As in real realism in enough areas to guide the changes and cost by a few layers of extra stuff dictating it realistically. Preferably as many layers as possible.
And yea, stations would be a great money sink. So would generation ships and other megaships on top of the carriers we havn't gotten yet. There were early game ships that I think I read those are based on that had like 5k-60k cargo and were pure haulers. I bet those cost a pretty penny. And we have resources to trade that can fill that in one go. Just a matter of finding it. It would improve trade a lot. Like getting those mega traders in eve. This game definitely needs to be filled out. You never want the low end put in place with forceed simple mechanics. You want added depth to remake a living world to put them in and naturally do it via raw complexity.
Out of morbid curiosity, have you seen the repair bill on a cutter or corvette with good hull amounts? It can add up to the cost of the entire ship very fast.
Since you can't figure out the reason for changes. The increase in money in a few areas was to literally make it easier to pay for these very things and buy the top ships. This whole idea is pointless. It was probably a ramp up to carriers and bigger ships being added. There is no need nor a reason to do this at all. Not without some very complicated real world engineering and material science behind the game that adds enough depth to justify a very realistically founded change. Which would be a really good idea. It also simplifies design changes as they are not going to vary as much in the future unless you really oops somewhere.
Old cost and money making made it unreasonable already as a lazy balance mechanic. New changes make it reasonable because they were or are about to be dwarfed and they want to make them more common or more easily used. Hopefully adding some combat zones with more big ships to go with it at some point. I was very shocked that the biggest combat stuff in the game had 1 or two large ships and all medium to small ships... I fugired they had full blown large scale combat representing full military stuff like the big areas you see with a thargoid going over the corpses of a carrier and lots of cutters/clippers. They haven't even fully filled out that part of the game yet. It's kind of sad.
Real fixes would require real changes. As in real realism in enough areas to guide the changes and cost by a few layers of extra stuff dictating it realistically. Preferably as many layers as possible.
And yea, stations would be a great money sink. So would generation ships and other megaships on top of the carriers we havn't gotten yet. There were early game ships that I think I read those are based on that had like 5k-60k cargo and were pure haulers. I bet those cost a pretty penny. And we have resources to trade that can fill that in one go. Just a matter of finding it. It would improve trade a lot. Like getting those mega traders in eve. This game definitely needs to be filled out. You never want the low end put in place with forceed simple mechanics. You want added depth to remake a living world to put them in and naturally do it via raw complexity.
Out of morbid curiosity, have you seen the repair bill on a cutter or corvette with good hull amounts? It can add up to the cost of the entire ship very fast.
Last edited: