and anyone who's done even a little colonisation will know how important that is!
I love E:D But really?
- Thread starter GraXXoR
- Start date
Me looking through my comment history for any reference to the Cutter and T9….
Like I said.. in the Beta they already abandoned it.
I'm sorry what? If you could afford the T-7 at any point you could literally afford to subject yourself to anything else. Even it's price point doesn't make any logical sense anymore.
The Cutter is awesome. It's really fast for a large ship, it can outrun any NPC pirate. The catch is you need imperial rank to be able to buy it.
Purchased a Cobra MK V today to be used as a commando/traveling ship (commando = using it to insert myself for those “on foot missions”).
Without trying to hard (components are engineered and I mounted a 4A FSD (SCO) pre-engineered & 5H Guardian FSD booster) it has a jump range of 50.86-55.68 LY, it does 457 cruise and 646 m/s boost speed while being quite nimble. But best of all: it can run SCO as long as there is fuel without overheating, reaching SCO speeds of roundabout 7,000c. The only other SCO optimized ship I own is a Type-8 and I don’t remember it running on SCO “indefinitely” because it’ll overheat eventually.
I’m happy with the purchase and it’s the 1st ship I bought with ARX. I confess I’m a new player but also own an imperial cutter and a federal corvette (plus a couple of other ships) which I purchased with credits - so I won’t totally agree with some saying it’s a “new-player-only-ship”.
For me it's meant to be a traveling-ship for when I don’t need to haul a lot of cargo (preferably none) to get around in the bubble and can also land on small pads. I don't own a fleet carrier yet, so I might play a bit different than the long-time players
Without trying to hard (components are engineered and I mounted a 4A FSD (SCO) pre-engineered & 5H Guardian FSD booster) it has a jump range of 50.86-55.68 LY, it does 457 cruise and 646 m/s boost speed while being quite nimble. But best of all: it can run SCO as long as there is fuel without overheating, reaching SCO speeds of roundabout 7,000c. The only other SCO optimized ship I own is a Type-8 and I don’t remember it running on SCO “indefinitely” because it’ll overheat eventually.
I’m happy with the purchase and it’s the 1st ship I bought with ARX. I confess I’m a new player but also own an imperial cutter and a federal corvette (plus a couple of other ships) which I purchased with credits - so I won’t totally agree with some saying it’s a “new-player-only-ship”.
For me it's meant to be a traveling-ship for when I don’t need to haul a lot of cargo (preferably none) to get around in the bubble and can also land on small pads. I don't own a fleet carrier yet, so I might play a bit different than the long-time players
To start off IDC about this topic at all.
But...
There are several definitions to p2w. Just to say "it isn't" is ignorant imho.
It's far from the free-to-play browser type p2w and the golden horse armor.
But there are certainly things you "win" it just depends on the definitions you choose and willingness to be critical about it.
Both of those you seem to be evading.
There are pro's and cons like everything.
Like the literal distinct advantages one brand new player can acquire over another brand new player by swiping a credit card then literally having jump range better than the pre-engineering, fully stripped down, armorless, shieldless, grade D'd anaconda? Something that would of originally taken 50-100+ hours originally.
I think with a C-graded SCO the T-8 can do this, at the expense of some range.
Okay so this is definitely true. Depending on someone's definition of P2W a game could be P2W and not predatory/unhealthy/exploitative/etc.
On the other hand some people perceive any and all definitions of P2W as predatory/unhealthy/exploitative/etc. Even if it has no real world negative impact on the game. Even if the game is single player. One justification for this is that P2W is a slippery slope and it'll eventually metastasize into something that does have negative real world aspects.
I don't think I've ever seen a P2W accusation that also clearly explains specifically why that particular definition applied to this particular game is particularly bad. People just throw the term around as though P2W=bad and anyone who doesn't care is contributing to the eventual doom of the game.
In this case: a Cobra MK V is straight up better than a Cobra MK IV. It's faster, has more hardpoints, more utility slots, more crew seats, better optional modules, and a better power distributor. It's also optimized for SCO drives which allows you to travel for much longer distances in the supercruise boost mode thing. And it's (currently) only available to buy with real world money. In the future it'll be available to buy with in-game credits.
But what are the real world implications? None. There are better combat ships, hauling ships, and exploration ships. If someone's goal is to make progress efficiently (eg: "winning") then the Cobra MK V is not the ship of choice. And it has no impact on PvP balance.
Anyway that's my opinion on the matter. If your position is that denying P2W is a lazy response then my counterpoint is that accusations of P2W without detail are also equally lazy.
No, not at all... But you've been around a long time and know the routine... First, there is the open letter to FDev, followed by several final appeals, which grow increasingly demanding and desperate, threatening to quit. Right before you grow silent and continue playing like nothing happened...
Really commander, I expected more from a veteran like you. I'm so disappointed.
A typical fleet of the average cmdr would include a type 8, which renders the type 7 and python utterly redundant in terms of cargo.
The new corsair is an odd one. Doent quite push the Lance or mamba or even the cobra V out of the park. In well oiled hands that is.
The python ll is a beast. Combat ship extreme. But has any new metas been set? No, not in terms of combat in an experienced cmdrs hands.
Same with cargo. The type 8 is fab honestly it is.
But It doesn't hold a candle to the Cutter or type 9 for capacity and in the Cutters case, unshielded speed.
Most colonists will have access to a shielded type 9.
None of the new ships push out the old in normal space. Sco use yes definitely.
Course I'm just an average combat pilot. And for me all the new combat ships are good. And l cannot say which is best cos I'm not competent enough to commit myself.
But having the new ships behind a pay wall puts money in fdevs pockets thus allowing them to develop a game that's over 10 years old! That in itself is a +.
So yup I'm buying bucket loads of arx and being suckered into renaming colony assets etc. Cos l know I'm at least contributing to the games future.
But I'm not saying I like p2w. I don't.
That other game takes it to a whole new level.
And a billion dollars speaks volumes about players wanting ships, and more and more.
So if it's going to futureproof elite. Perhaps even lead to elite ll. I'm all for it albeit begrudgingly.
The new corsair is an odd one. Doent quite push the Lance or mamba or even the cobra V out of the park. In well oiled hands that is.
The python ll is a beast. Combat ship extreme. But has any new metas been set? No, not in terms of combat in an experienced cmdrs hands.
Same with cargo. The type 8 is fab honestly it is.
But It doesn't hold a candle to the Cutter or type 9 for capacity and in the Cutters case, unshielded speed.
Most colonists will have access to a shielded type 9.
None of the new ships push out the old in normal space. Sco use yes definitely.
Course I'm just an average combat pilot. And for me all the new combat ships are good. And l cannot say which is best cos I'm not competent enough to commit myself.
But having the new ships behind a pay wall puts money in fdevs pockets thus allowing them to develop a game that's over 10 years old! That in itself is a +.
So yup I'm buying bucket loads of arx and being suckered into renaming colony assets etc. Cos l know I'm at least contributing to the games future.
But I'm not saying I like p2w. I don't.
That other game takes it to a whole new level.
And a billion dollars speaks volumes about players wanting ships, and more and more.
So if it's going to futureproof elite. Perhaps even lead to elite ll. I'm all for it albeit begrudgingly.
FDev should be careful of the 'slippery slope' - but as far as the Mk5 goes...
It isn't
I don't know why people defend paid access ships so much. Do a little thinking and you will realize how bad they are for the game in terms of new ships. My points are:
There are many ways to introduce paid stuff and ships is not the way to do it.
Btw, as a side note - with the looming ban on how virtual currencies work, did fdev mention how they will tackle this problem?
- we will likely only get medium sized ships - they are in that spot where they rake in good amount of money for decent amount of time and work put into making them. Releasing small ships has to be made attractive. This can be done via overpowered ships or making them cheaper in terms of ARX. The first is bad for the game balance, the second is pointless as financial gain for the company. Same goes for the large ships, but from other perspective - large ships will likely be much more expensive and, to justify the higher cost - need to topple off the current top dogs in terms of power and usage. Which bring me to the next point.
- new ships need to be overpowered - this one is easy. If you are buying a paid ship, you want it to be stronger and faster than the others. Will you buy something with the stats of a keelback or t7? Will you buy something that doesn't have the native SCO support?
- we won't be getting free from the get go ships, nor locked behind specific conditions ones. This includes not only locked behind ranks ships, but it kills any possibility for ships born from player activity and events. Imagine the thargoid war concluded with the engineers asking us to bring stuff to them so they can make a new ship that incorporates heavily the thargoid tech. Huge CG event, massive player activity. Then the event ends with fdev going how players worked tirelessly on this event, how absent cmdrs returned for it and the efforts culminated in a success and are now proud to introduce the new ship. Just give us 15 bucks, thats all.
There are many ways to introduce paid stuff and ships is not the way to do it.
Btw, as a side note - with the looming ban on how virtual currencies work, did fdev mention how they will tackle this problem?
Is this a known fact or is it hopeful speculation? Are the new ships worse than the old ships, so the philanthropy is obvious?
This is more pay now for benefits that may or may not come later. No thanks
Only 9 out of 43 ships are Large. We'll see how the releases go in the future. But your point would be instantly invalidated as soon a large ship is released for ARX.
So it's more of a prediction than showing why selling ships for ARX is inherently bad.
Let's say they didn't sell ships for ARX.
Why would they release a new underpowered ship? Like... ever?
This argument is recursive. It's bad because it's bad.
If you believe (as I do) that there's nothing wrong with selling ships for ARX (as long as it's released for credits later) then the 15 bucks player driven ship is not a problem.
Selling credits and materials would be way worse. Selling ships the way they have been hasn't caused any problems.
My question would be how sure are folk that your Arx is being used just for Elite if it is at all or is it like a tip system and it all gets mixed up for any of the games in Fdev ? I'm doing to support Elite may well be a misnomer , whilst the thought is admirable.
It has brought them in money and I'm afraid it will carry on as folk have bought into it I'm afraid .
It has brought them in money and I'm afraid it will carry on as folk have bought into it I'm afraid .
Wait, what? You're complaining about choices made in the first beta in 2014? It's an open forum and all, but don't you think that ship sailed?