My argument against upkeep

[Sensei Jacksama]

The argument most people make for upkeep is usually that there needs to be a way to clean up the servers so that there aren't unused fleet carriers lying around everywhere. This is a fair point and I agree with that; but upkeep costs arent the way to effectively deal with this problem. There are two different ways to handle this problem. 1 Have the upkeep so excessively high that barely anyone can afford one or 2 have it very low. The problem with having a low upkeep is that it defeats the purpose. Say someone buys a fleet carrier, then drops enough money to keep it running for the next few months. When the time limit is almost up they can come back do a quick mining run to get the upkeep back up then take off again for a few months. The carrier is still just sitting there unused taking up server resources. Even though the owner isn't doing anything. Likewise there is the possibility that a random Cmdr could drop by and redeem some bounty vouches or cartography data thereby extending the deadline potentially another few months while the owner isnt even there anymore.

I would propose that upkeep costs be removed and a timer be placed on each carrier that starts every time a player logs out. When it reaches 0 taking say 2 or 3 weeks at which point the carrier deactivates and becomes a signal source that only appears for the owner until they can log in and reactivate it. Furthermore in place of the upkeep a percentage of all profits from the carrier should be deducted to compensate the crew in the same way we compensate the SLF crew. Also the price of maintenance could be increased.
I realize Fdev are wanting to increase player activity and if the upkeep was meant to accomplish that then I would suggest doing that with ARX. There are many ways to so this such as increasing the weekly cap or offering ARX as prizes for community goals to name a few.

 

[Darth Wonko]

I'm only starting to come back after several months off, myself. So, I'm not very plugged into the FC expansion; I don't even know if it's happened already or when it will.

However, unless things have changed pretty drastically over the last few months with ARX, I don't see that as being a huge incentive for engaging player activity. I don't recall the weekly cap, but when it takes a lot of time investment to unlock something so simple as a paint job, I can't imagine what the time commitment would be for upkeep on a carrier.

 

[Sensei Jacksama]

I'm only starting to come back after several months off, myself. So, I'm not very plugged into the FC expansion; I don't even know if it's happened already or when it will.

However, unless things have changed pretty drastically over the last few months with ARX, I don't see that as being a huge incentive for engaging player activity. I don't recall the weekly cap, but when it takes a lot of time investment to unlock something so simple as a paint job, I can't imagine what the time commitment would be for upkeep on a carrier.

The short version is fleet carriers accumulate debt while you are offline and if that debt reaches a certain amount they will "repossess" it and refund you 30% of the total value of it. They are in beta at the moment so it's not out yet but it's easier to fix a problem now then wait till later.

I offered ARX mostly as an example of something they could do. I dont think it will fix their problem but it wont alienate the playerbase or cause animosity either. The real fix is to add meaningful content.

 

[Ganogati]

Honestly, I like the idea of the upkeep. It will seem silly if everyone and their brother has and holds an FC, to the point where it's basically as common as a Conda. These things are capital ships, and capital ships cost money to run. It's an amazing credit sink for high rollers to finally have a way to spend all the excess cash they have laying around, while creating a nice limiter on long term ownership of a capital ship from most folks.

 

[Exeider]

I'm only starting to come back after several months off, myself. So, I'm not very plugged into the FC expansion; I don't even know if it's happened already or when it will.

However, unless things have changed pretty drastically over the last few months with ARX, I don't see that as being a huge incentive for engaging player activity. I don't recall the weekly cap, but when it takes a lot of time investment to unlock something so simple as a paint job, I can't imagine what the time commitment would be for upkeep on a carrier.

Lol, I know it's unintentional but your AV is very apropos for this post. I can just picture Farnsworth standing up and saying this.

 

[Darth Wonko]

Damn. And it's a 5B credit price tag, right? So, you could lose 3.5B if you're not logged in for an extended period.

I play this game non-stop for months on end and then have to take a break to clear my head. So, that debt is a big concern.

Of course, the fix for player engagement and involvement has always been meaningful content and compelling lore, which is sorely lacking.

To your point, Ganogati, I do agree the mechanic itself isn't a bad idea; I don't think these things should be very common.

 

[Sensei Jacksama]

Honestly, I like the idea of the upkeep. It will seem silly if everyone and their brother has and holds an FC, to the point where it's basically as common as a Conda. These things are capital ships, and capital ships cost money to run. It's an amazing credit sink for high rollers to finally have a way to spend all the excess cash they have laying around, while creating a nice limiter on long term ownership of a capital ship from most folks.

Again to my original point. What good does upkeep do if it's so insanely high none can afford it or if it's so low you can load it up and keep it there for years.

 

[Ganogati]

Again to my original point. What good does upkeep do if it's so insanely high nome can afford it or if it's so low you can load it up and keep it there for years.

They nerfed it down to more appropriate levels just recently, so it shouldn't be insanely high. It could now be too low, but it's better than nothing.

 

[Sensei Jacksama]

Damn. And it's a 5B credit price tag, right? So, you could lose 3.5B if you're not logged in for an extended period.

I play this game non-stop for months on end and then have to take a break to clear my head. So, that debt is a big concern.

Youd loose more than that depending on how many modules you have equipped on it. They are about 7 billion fully upgraded not counting if you bought anything to stock your onboard store. Which is actually far more costly than the carrier itself.

 

[Sensei Jacksama]

They nerfed it down to more appropriate levels just recently, so it shouldn't be insanely high. It could now be too low, but it's better than nothing.

The problem isnt the price tag, it's the psychological effect of having to keep thinking in the back of your head if you need to check on your carrier or not.

 

[Crank Larson]

With upkeep there are reasonable arguments both to keep it and to get rid of it, so it simply becomes a design choice by the developers. Some players want upkeep. Some don't. I suspect there is a larger group of players that aren't really bothered (I'd fall into that group).

 

[Ganogati]

I play this game non-stop for months on end and then have to take a break to clear my head. So, that debt is a big concern.

Someone had recommended having the ability to "turn off" the carrier for this reason, which would be great. Empty it out, plop it somewhere and just shut it down so it doesn't accumulate debt.

On the upside, they set the debt accumulation period in the latest beta patch to 10 weeks, so at least there's 2.5 months to be able to pop back in and get it set up. And with the 85% reductions in pricing, it could be as little as 10 mil a week, which is 100 mil over that 10 weeks. The total cost for a year would be about 500 mil

 

[Codger]

Wait until they add upkeep to all the new ships or SRVs or whatever, in New Era. This is just the beginning.

 

[Pat Healy]

I would propose that upkeep costs be removed and a timer be placed on each carrier that starts every time a player logs out. When it reaches 0 taking say 2 or 3 weeks at which point the carrier deactivates and becomes a signal source that only appears for the owner until they can log in and reactivate it.

This. I've proposed a version of this (automatic deep storage/mothballs) and so far no one has been able to tell my why it would be a bad idea. The only reason NOT to implement a simple fix like this (AFAIK) would be a strategic decision by Frontier to migrate to an upkeep model.

 

[Sensei Jacksama]

This. I've proposed a version of this (automatic deep storage/mothballs) and so far no one has been able to tell my why it would be a bad idea. The only reason NOT to implement a simple fix like this (AFAIK) would be a strategic decision by Frontier to migrate to an upkeep model.

That is littleraly my worst fear. If we set a precidence for this they may start implementing it in other aspects of the game. SLF pilots operate on a % of all profits so why cant FC's do the same? If for some stupid reason they do repo your ship why not make you pay back 5% like what happens with every other ship? I dont understand why we have to break every other rule in the game for these stupid things.

 

[Crank Larson]

Wait until they add upkeep to all the new ships or SRVs or whatever, in New Era. This is just the beginning.

Many players wanted this. I assume that you're happy that FD didn't listen to them?

It is extremely unlikely that FD will introduce this on ships this far down the line. The game already has it in place, I believe, but it's inactive.

 

[metatheurgist]

Wait until they add upkeep to all the new ships or SRVs or whatever, in New Era. This is just the beginning.

Ah, reductio ad absurdum, my favourite logical fallacy.

 

[dreampage]

The worst aspect of all this?

Frontier designed a piece of content that the game can't handle. Imagine a racing game having a car that actually breaks the game, so they have to price it so high that barely anyone can use it. Why introduce content to a game that breaks said game if too many people want it?

So Frontier's solution is to make it temporary for everyone. They stick with the upkeep to firstly discourage players to consider buying Carriers, secondly to force those who buy them to either keep playing (and paying) or take it away from them. Essentially, you can pay all your money for a Carrier + upkeep and still get it taken from you in time, all because the game's system can't handle if too many are around. No matter how rich you are or how much you plan to play, a Carrier can never be truly yours, you can only rent it for a fortune.

This is how real life works. Your car, your house, your apartment. You can buy them but if you don't pay the costs afterwards they will be taken away from you. However, Elite is (or should be) a game. The reason is not infrastructure costs here, the reason Carriers can only be temporary is because Elite's network or backend can't handle them in the first place. A piece of content that, for technical reasons, shouldn't even really be in the game. This is what's disappointing.

Following this logic, our very accounts could be subject to such a timer. Pay a rent for your Commander or else, if you don't play for a few weeks, everything gets deleted for server reasons. My opinion is either introduce content to a game that actually can be in there without causing issues, or if it causes issues then don't introduce it in the first place.

 

[Sensei Jacksama]

The worst aspect of all this?

Frontier designed a piece of content that the game can't handle. Imagine a racing game having a car that actually breaks the game, so they have to price it so high that barely anyone can use it. Why introduce content to a game that breaks said game if too many people want it?

So Frontier's solution is to make it temporary for everyone. They stick with the upkeep to firstly discourage players to consider buying Carriers, secondly to force those who buy them to either keep playing (and paying) or take it away from them. Essentially, you can pay all your money for a Carrier + upkeep and still get it taken from you in time, all because the game's system can't handle if too many are around. No matter how rich you are or how much you plan to play, a Carrier can never be truly yours, you can only rent it for a fortune.

This is how real life works. Your car, your house, your apartment. You can buy them but if you don't pay the costs afterwards they will be taken away from you. However, Elite is (or should be) a game. The reason is not infrastructure costs here, the reason Carriers can only be temporary is because Elite's network or backend can't handle them in the first place. A piece of content that, for technical reasons, shouldn't even really be in the game. This is what's disappointing.

Following this logic, our very accounts could be subject to such a timer. Pay a rent for your Commander or else, if you don't play for a few weeks, everything gets deleted for server reasons. My opinion is either introduce content to a game that actually can be in there without causing issues, or if it causes issues then don't introduce it in the first place.

Yeah I agree. If the game cant handle it they should account for this. FC's are the end game and they need to account for the possibility that litterly thousands of players will try to buy one. As I said earlier upkeep wont even solve that problem as someone will just load up their carrier with enough upkeep to keep it in game for a long time. I think the best solution is to take them from being persistent. Honestly I wouldn't have minded actually paying for them in DLC form if they used the money to upgrade their server.

 

[Stealthie]

Honestly, I like the idea of the upkeep. It will seem silly if everyone and their brother has and holds an FC, to the point where it's basically as common as a Conda.

Just as well the same thing doesn't go for Anacondas, right?