My view on Carriers so far.

I love the idea, and it's something I want.

I don't like the upkeep, and while I understand it's a money sink I have different issues with it.
I'd like a carrier for my own personal use, because I mostly play solo. So being able to have something to store ships and have access to services is amazing! But I absolutely HATE being forced to play a game. I pick up and put down games faster than most, and what that means for me is I actually can't play ANYTHING that makes players obligated to play. The upkeep system is just that, because if I'm going to mine my way to 5bil for something then pay for extra services, then pay for upkeep on top of it every week I can't do it. It means I can't stop playing the game unless I have the credits to keep the carrier going. And after farming credits to buy it, I'd rather not do it again.

I'm super happy they lowered the upkeep costs, don't get me wrong. I just don't like feeling like I can't put a game down for 3-12 months without losing my stuff.

What are everyone else's thoughts?
 
Just mine for an extra billion or three and throw it in the FC kitty. Upkeep for a couple of years dealt with immediately. If you are are prepared to mine for 5 billion for something you want, adding a little more time to 'keep' it for literally years without returning to the game makes some sense, don't you agree?
 

rootsrat

Volunteer Moderator
Just mine for an extra billion or three and throw it in the FC kitty. Upkeep for a couple of years dealt with immediately. If you are are prepared to mine for 5 billion for something you want, adding a little more time to 'keep' it for literally years without returning to the game makes some sense, don't you agree?
Agreed. The cost is really low after the changes. With the current money making options you can easily make enough to make it operational for at least 1 year. Very easy.
 
Agreed. The cost is really low after the changes. With the current money making options you can easily make enough to make it operational for at least 1 year. Very easy.
Even I, who 'lost interest' in FC's initially, am now actively interested and hope to have one by the end of Summer! Only differing to the OP in that even when I'm away playing something else, it rarely is more than a couple of weeks before ED is back on the menu :)
 
Agreed. The cost is really low after the changes. With the current money making options you can easily make enough to make it operational for at least 1 year. Very easy.
If the cost of upkeep is so low as to have no meaning, then why have it at all? just get rid of it entirely

If you can walk away from the game for 3 to 12 months, why would you care if you lose your stuff?
I have many games I havent played for 2 years, in fact this idiocy of putting upkeep on carriers has led me back to playing one of them after 2 years and guess what, all my stuff was still there. and guess what, I felt a lot more welcomed in that game because of that - if I had of lost items I wouldnt be still playing it.
 
I take your no and reject it.

Things that have no effect on gameplay ie upkeep having no meaning as it is now such a low cost have no use as a gameplay mechanic except to annoy players, just as having a high cost had no other use but to punish players. Getting rid of the upkeep mechanic now has the same impact on gameplay that a low cost has with the benefit of soothing the storm that having high upkeep created in the first place
 

rootsrat

Volunteer Moderator
I take your no and reject it.

Things that have no effect on gameplay ie upkeep having no meaning as it is now such a low cost have no use as a gameplay mechanic except to annoy players, just as having a high cost had no other use but to punish players. Getting rid of the upkeep mechanic now has the same impact on gameplay that a low cost has with the benefit of soothing the storm that having high upkeep created in the first place
Thanks, that's much more constructive.

I disagree. Simulating upkeep is realistic. Nobody is going to work for free. You have to pay your SLF pilot as well. And pay for your ship upkeep (integrity). So it's consistent with what we already have in the game.

I am ignoring the "it will only annoy players" comment, as that's generalising and I can't accept that as an argument. Upkeep does not annoy me and many other people I spoke to, so your statement is invalid. It's not punishing either - to me personally. It's an opinion, not a fact.

We'll just have to agree to disagree I guess. I am 100% in favour of upkeep. No so keen of completely losing your FC, but you get a full refund now, so it's not a biggie either IMO, especially if it's a technical limitation, which I think FDEV said was the reason.
 
There are those that for what ever reason dislike and avoid a Python for instance. Spend year's playing on a regular or extremely part time schedule, never utilizing one. There are those like me that own more than one and also play on a regular or extremely part time schedule and utilize one constantly.

Point being, buy what you want, fly what you want, it's no one's else's business. If the criteria for the purchasing, load outs and general maintenance isn't conducive to one's own personal agenda or play style. One isn't mandated to purchase one.

Though I've got sufficient funds to purchase and upgrade an FC, and I play religiously every day. Though I'll purchase one via the blowout last days of the beta 2. My reason's based on the current criteria of ownership is such that I won't buy one. Just because one can, doesn't mean one should!
 
if simulating upkeep is realistc, then restore it to the original levels, see how that goes.

The technical limitation only applies to high population systems or as a system of mass griefing (players occupying all spots in a system with similar effects as UA bombing) with the effect that it also punishes players who do not do such things.

You talk about paying the crew like a SLF pilot, but they only get paid from profits, and I would be perfectly fine with them taking a cut the same way for transactions on the carrier. but profits from carriers are going to be in short supply for most players, especially after the honeymoon period and they see how badly implemented carrier systems are for making money.

In fact, I can only see my preferred way of playing (exploring out in deep space) as being realistically more profitable than ignoring carriers altogether.

All of the other methods will be (imo) short lived and given up as too much hassle.

Parking a carrier near a combat zone - why? most CZ's are near enough to a friendly station to rearm / sell bounties at full price.

Selling LTD's to a carrier? unless the price is 95% or more of what I can make selling to a station then why bother?
* landing on a carrier to reload limpets would be useful but good luck making even low upkeep payments with that service

Selling ships and components? ahahahahahahahaahahahaahahahahahahahahahjahaha cough

Selling on the black market? I dont see that being viable long term but I dont have the numbers FDev would on that

One other edge case I can see carriers being useful (not profitable, just useful) is for BGS on outlying systems where 1 faction owns all the bases so you cant land there when you lose rep, but really how many systems is that going to be?


So, imo, carriers are not a tool to profit, simply a tool that can be used or not with little impact one way or the other meaning they have little useful value - adding upkeep to that just makes them even less value.
 
...just as having a high cost had no other use but to punish players.
I don't fully understand the point you are trying to make with this comment.. Should a Megaship cost a little more than say, an Anaconda or Cutter? Or should the purchase price reflect the behometh you will have in your inventory?
Granted, one will not make 5 billion in normal gameplay in a couple of days (unless residence is taken in the triple hotspot in Borann) but is attainable if the player wishes it to be so...
Is this a case that you, like me, do not have anywhere near 5 billion today, have no wish to mine for billions, yet still want a shiny new toy?
I don't know about you, but I already plan to own one, without mining, just won't be able to be a 'Day1' purchaser...
 
I don't fully understand the point you are trying to make with this comment.. Should a Megaship cost a little more than say, an Anaconda or Cutter? Or should the purchase price reflect the behometh you will have in your inventory?
Granted, one will not make 5 billion in normal gameplay in a couple of days (unless residence is taken in the triple hotspot in Borann) but is attainable if the player wishes it to be so...
Is this a case that you, like me, do not have anywhere near 5 billion today, have no wish to mine for billions, yet still want a shiny new toy?
I don't know about you, but I already plan to own one, without mining, just won't be able to be a 'Day1' purchaser...
I have way more money than I need and could buy a carrier whenever I wanted to, the problem isnt the cost but the upkeep mechanic that is designed to constantly punish players for not playing. Others can explain the psychology behind this mechanic better than me, but it is designed to have a constant worry about "will I lose this if I play another game" that should have no place in entertainment.

Worry is not entertainment. Fdev should worry more about putting in place fully fleshed out systems to encourage people to play, instead of threatening them with loss of items. They have spent over 2 years on these carriers and they are so badly planned that they feel punishment is better than reward. To me, that is more of a worry.
 
I take your no and reject it.

Things that have no effect on gameplay ie upkeep having no meaning as it is now such a low cost have no use as a gameplay mechanic except to annoy players, just as having a high cost had no other use but to punish players. Getting rid of the upkeep mechanic now has the same impact on gameplay that a low cost has with the benefit of soothing the storm that having high upkeep created in the first place
I think that you may have missed the point of the upkeep mechanic.
As well as adding a credit sink into the game to stop elder commanders having too much money, and thereby not valuing the game in the correct way (I think it now fails at this but wouldn't have it the original costs had been kept).
The upkeep mechanic allows Frontier to keep a vague tether on the number of Carriers that they will need to maintain within the game simulation. The game wont get filled up with 'dead' fleet carriers as people move onto other games, making the game engine have to do more and more for no reason. (not sure it will do that, but it's the best solution that they have)

The upkeep mechanic isn't to penalise you as a commander, it is to protect the game from other people unneccessarily borking it for it up.
 

rootsrat

Volunteer Moderator
if simulating upkeep is realistc, then restore it to the original levels, see how that goes.
That would be pointless, the community already lashed back at the devs. There has to be a balance between fun and realism when it comes to simulation type games. Judging by the comments, a lot of the players (I don't want to say majority, as I simply don't know that) seems to be OK with the changes and accepts the lower upkeep.

The technical limitation only applies to high population systems or as a system of mass griefing (players occupying all spots in a system with similar effects as UA bombing) with the effect that it also punishes players who do not do such things.
Perhaps, but if there is no way around it then it is what it is. I don't think FDEV have a magic wand or a genie in a bottle to wave/command it to bypass the technical limitation ;)

You talk about paying the crew like a SLF pilot, but they only get paid from profits, and I would be perfectly fine with them taking a cut the same way for transactions on the carrier. but profits from carriers are going to be in short supply for most players, especially after the honeymoon period and they see how badly implemented carrier systems are for making money.
While it's valid point about wages, there is still the ship integrity that just keeps going down if you use your ship regardless of profit. So the consistency is still there.

In fact, I can only see my preferred way of playing (exploring out in deep space) as being realistically more profitable than ignoring carriers altogether.

All of the other methods will be (imo) short lived and given up as too much hassle.
Fair enough if that's your opinion. (Un?)fortunately Elite is a MASSIVE game and it will NEVER be liked in 100% by everybody. There will always be an aspect of a game that player A will love and player B will hate, and another aspect will be reversed.

Some love CQC coz it's nice, fast paced combat, but hate AX, because it requires spending time and effort to get some AX modules. Someone will love the AX, as it's a challenging end game activity, but they will hate CQC, coz they aren't keen on flying tiny fighter ship.

That's just how games are. I don't like quite a few aspects of Elite and yet I'm still here with almost 3.5 k hours and counting :)

As for the profits - FDEV themselves said FC's are NOT designed for making profit, but more to be money-sinks. I for one just can't understand that logic (see here), but - again - it is what it is.
 
...As for the profits - FDEV themselves said FC's are NOT designed for making profit, but more to be money-sinks. I for one just can't understand that logic (see here), but - again - it is what it is....
Think Private Jet or Luxury Yacht. Total money-sinks, outward displays of wealth and status, and can (mostly) be liquidated at any time for most of the initial outlay.

edit: typo
 
Top Bottom