My view on Carriers so far.

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?
Don't forget to mine for an extra billion in order to full the carrier with tritium if you don't want to mine it :ROFLMAO:.
Seriously, i agree with you, i'm against the upkeep too but i can deal with it having lot of credits and paying it in advance for years.
But pls, don't forget that joke of 40k/t that can lead to around 1B to full a carrier with tritium. For 1 trip, i'm ok that we can travel veryyyyyyy far; but in long term, for people like me that never want to go back again in the bubble and make some nebulae tours or more things, FC have absolutly NO POINT to be bought (Fdev said FC can be also for "explorers") as you will spend too much time mining to the next nebulae.
if only our crew (that are paid, included the guy in tritium depot) could be USEFUL and go mine some tritium IF we are in a system that have tritium hotspot. Even if it's loooong to full the FC, druing this time we could for example, explore ;) .
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A moderator in this forum mocking a user that disagree with them, why I am not surprised?
Anyway, to answer to you OP, unkeep is one of the main problems people complain about. You can see discussions about that here for example.

In summary, the situation is as follows:
  1. According to FD unkeep and decommission system are here to solve the parking space problem. Namely there is only a finite number of parking lanes around an orbital body, so they need a way to remove unused carriers.
  2. If the use of a weekly unkeep is a good solution or not to solve this problem is debatable. For instance one can dump 5b of credits on their FC and probably making it last longer than ED itself. A last-logged-in timer on them would be (for instance) more effective to solve the problem.
  3. The idea of unkeep that forces you to log in and mine something every week to not lose your assets is, unsurprisingly, wildly unpopular. According this pool more than 80% of the players are against any form of passive (offline) unkeep. It's worth noting that a reduction of unkeep doesn't address the core problem, since those people are against any form of credit-based unkeep. The reduction of the unkeep we had in the second beta addressed the concerns of some of the remaining ~20% people.
  4. Sensing a disturbance in their favourite echo chamber many of the regulars in this forum (and apparently even some moderators) decided to dismiss the problem entirely, proclaiming that the problem is now magically solved and everybody is happy about the current implementation of the unkeep. If anything they are doing a disservice to FD in their effort of covering what many people feels like a deal breaker mechanic.
  5. Alternative solutions to solve the same problem have been proposed. From making the "permanency" part of the FC optional, to tie the decommission to your last login time, to commuting the unkeep to a parking fee, where the first FC in a system pay no unkeep, the second one a little and so on. All these solutions are better in addressing the cluttering problem and would give the option to pay no unkeep to those who, understandably, don't want it.

Aside from the facts stated so far, it is also worth mentioning that if the new era includes any kind of permanent asset like FC (e.g. base building) it is worth discussing alternative solutions to unkeep now unless you want to have to pay 4-6 unkeeps at time for all your assets. So basically, if you don't like an unkeep slapped to your FC be prepared to face the same mechanic on steroid when the new era drops.
 
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.
I think FD putting upkeep in the game will absolutely make players walk away from the game or a the very least rage quitting over it will be a thing.
I guess the bottom line is will this system work as intended,which is to encourage regular player interaction.
Its good for investors to see improved figures i guess. And i'm confident it will do that.
IMO it makes the game worse and on a certain level it's insulting,i know when i'm being manipulated and i can't say i like it.
Thankfully they've implemented it in such a way as you can completely bypass the problem with a bit more mining.
Ignoring the fact that it is the very definition of a pointless grind,they seem to be aiming to take advantage of the uninformed or stupid players.
Not a particularly nice way to treat your customers.
If this isn't the case and FD have some grand plans that makes all of this make sense i'd encourage them to spill the beans because i'm getting that Bethusda feeling again.
 
Last edited:
A moderator in this forum mocking a user that disagree with them, why I am not surprised?
Anyway, to answer to you OP, unkeep is one of the main problems people complain about. You can see discussions about that here for example.

In summary, the situation is as follows:
  1. According to FD unkeep and decommission system are here to solve the parking space problem. Namely there is only a finite number of parking lanes around an orbital body, so they need a way to remove unused carriers.
  2. If the use of a weekly unkeep is a good solution or not to solve this problem is debatable. For instance one can dump 5b of credits on their FC and probably making it last longer than ED itself. A last-logged-in timer on them would be (for instance) more effective to solve the problem.
  3. The idea of unkeep that forces you to log in and mine something every week to not lose your assets is, unsurprisingly, wildly unpopular. According this pool more than 80% of the players are against any form of passive (offline) unkeep. It's worth noting that a reduction of unkeep doesn't address the core problem, since those people are against any form of credit-based unkeep. The reduction of the unkeep we had in the second beta addressed the concerns of some of the remaining ~20% people.
  4. Sensing a disturbance in their favourite echo chamber many of the regulars in this forum (and apparently even some moderators) decided to dismiss the problem entirely, proclaiming that the problem is now magically solved and everybody is happy about the current implementation of the unkeep. If anything they are doing a disservice to FD in their effort of covering what many people feels like a deal breaker mechanic.
  5. Alternative solutions to solve the same problem have been proposed. From making the "permanency" part of the FC optional, to tie the decommission to your last login time, to commuting the unkeep to a parking fee, where the first FC in a system pay no unkeep, the second one a little and so on. All these solutions are better in addressing the cluttering problem and would give the option to pay no unkeep to those who, understandably, don't want it.

Aside from the facts stated so far, it is also worth mentioning that if the new era includes any kind of permanent asset like FC (e.g. base building) it is worth discussing alternative solutions to unkeep now unless you want to have to pay 4-6 unkeeps at time for all your assets. So basically, if you don't like an unkeep slapped to your FC be prepared to face the same mechanic on steroid when the new era drops.
You have stated opinions not facts

3. is a moot point. A biased pool has no value.
Ask in Moebius PG who thinks that pvp is useless and you will get 90% votes "yes it's useless" if not more.

4. upkeep is so low that i do feel the carriers are rather trivialized - especially in the context of free shipyard/outfitting for owners.

5. yea sure, every solution except FDev's solution is better.
You should listen the Lave radio interview with FD team regarding carriers.
 
You have stated opinions not facts

3. is a moot point. A biased pool has no value.
Ask in Moebius PG who thinks that pvp is useless and you will get 90% votes "yes it's useless" if not more.

4. upkeep is so low that i do feel the carriers are rather trivialized - especially in the context of free shipyard/outfitting for owners.

5. yea sure, every solution except FDev's solution is better.
You should listen the Lave radio interview with FD team regarding carriers.
Those are opinions not facts,at least stick to your own rules.
 
What is an opinion precisely? That FD stated that unkeep and decom is here to solve the cluttering problem (point 1)(? That one can dump 5b in the FC and make it clutter the galaxy anyway (point 2)? That people are trying to dismiss the unkeep problem despite the overwhelming opinion against it, even surgically avoiding to including it in wall-of-text posts of current FC issues?

Not that I expect any solid argument from white knights at this point, but I'd appreciate at least an effort in making one.
3. is a moot point. A biased pool has no value.
Of course, its results are not what you want to see so we must discard it entirely.

4. upkeep is so low that i do feel the carriers are rather trivialized - especially in the context of free shipyard/outfitting for owners.
This is the fun thing about the FD solution to the cluttering problem.
Either the unkeep is so low to defies its purpose or it is so high that even the whitest of the knights here may find it hard to justify.

The fact that it is inherently a bad solution for the problem is not even in the universe of possibilities for some.
5. yea sure, every solution except FDev's solution is better.
Unless a valid argument is formulated against those solutions they are valid and better than the one provided by FD, yes.
 
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?
I think you at least get the 5 billion back, so you will lose a few million when you sell your services back. If you let it decommission, I think you get the 5 billion minus your services and any upkeep you owe so you might come back to an account with 4.9 billion,or something like that, from the carrier automatically decommissioning.

edit: Also, I would add that I wouldn't buy the fleet carrier if you are just playing the game very casually. These particular fleet carriers are not a casual item to own. These are very expensive and they have to be maintained and they are a pain to move around. Perhaps they will come out with a different class of fleet carrier in the future that carries a handful of ships with it but you scoop from stars and have a 20 LY jump range with a class 8 FSD with max range. Lol
 
Last edited:
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?
The upkeep mechanic does not force you to play the game. It forces you to manage your assets correctly and gives you the options to do so. If you screw that up then you loose it. Considering that it cannot be destroyed otherwise it seems to be a fitting mechanic. This is still a game that kills you for not refueling your ship in time and it punishes you even more if you don´t have a the rebuy for that ship. Stupid decissions have consequnces in this game. Why should endgame content be free of that?
And yeah, buying a carrier if you can´t make the upkeep with your usually playstyle could turn out to be stupid.
 
Of course, its results are not what you want to see so we must discard it entirely.
No, it not about the results. It's about the participants.
If you make a pool with your supporters, they will support your view. Simple as that

What is an opinion precisely?
That i'm thrilled enough about them... (that's an opinion)
...to buy 1 for my xb account and 1 for my pc account (that's a fact)

Another fact is this: everything in ED except the starter Sidewinder is optional content.
You dont have to enjoy any part of that optional content - there are other players that will.

And really, listen that Lave Radio interview with Dav Stott
 
No, it not about the results. It's about the participants.
If you make a pool with your supporters, they will support your view. Simple as that
That poll was open and has been advertised here, on reddit and several other places.
What makes you think that the participants were selected in a certain way?
That i'm thrilled enough about them... (that's an opinion)
...to buy 1 for my xb account and 1 for my pc account (that's a fact)
Could you make an extra effort today and stop being condescending and disingenuous for the couple of minutes required to tell me exactly which part of those points listed by me aren't facts to you?
Another fact is this: everything in ED except the starter Sidewinder is optional content.
You dont have to enjoy any part of that optional content - there are other players that will.
This is a subforum specifically made to discuss the upcoming feature that is the FC.
Telling people to not use such feature if they find a problem in that, is not constructive and neither fitting with the purpose of this subforum.

But I understand that hoping that white knights discuss alternative solutions to unkeep in the merit of those is just wishful thinking at this point.
 
That poll was open and has been advertised here, on reddit and several other places.
What makes you think that the participants were selected in a certain way?
It's statistically irrelevant.
And clinging onto it won't change that.

Could you make an extra effort today and stop being condescending and disingenuous for the couple of minutes required to tell me exactly which part of those points listed by me aren't facts to you?
I thought i already did that.

This is a subforum specifically made to discuss the upcoming feature that is the FC.
Telling people to not use such feature if they find a problem in that, is not constructive and neither fitting with the purpose of this subforum.
I'm just pointing up that if they dont like a feature, there are other that are liking it - and they won't like it changed.

For example i think the FC are ok now, maybe too ok tbh - i would not like carriers with no upkeep, non-persistent, being able to circumvent the galaxy 2 times on a single load of tritium, trivialized like a random Anaconda, and so on

And i really hope they will reduce the decommission time - there is simple no point for 10 weeks decommission time when the owner gets almost a full refund.
 
Hello. I am new to these Fleet Carries. I just arrived at Alcor, where apparently I can buy one today for $1 Million credits. No problem there, but how much IS the "upkeep" charge, when do have to pay it, can you pay in advance?? I like the idea of having my own station I can take anywhere, along with all my stuff, but not if I am in for a grind just to keep and use it? Thanks!
 
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?
Kind of defeats the purpose given from FDev for upkeep, don’t you think?

FDev doesn’t want a bunch of abandoned fleet carriers sitting out there clogging up systems, but if everyone funds 2+ years worth of upkeep, then the problem remains for two years anyways. Upkeep has nothing to do with abandoned carriers, it’s a slimy mechanic implemented for all the wrong reasons.
 
Kind of defeats the purpose given from FDev for upkeep, don’t you think?

FDev doesn’t want a bunch of abandoned fleet carriers sitting out there clogging up systems, but if everyone funds 2+ years worth of upkeep, then the problem remains for two years anyways. Upkeep has nothing to do with abandoned carriers, it’s a slimy mechanic implemented for all the wrong reasons.
Yeah, sure, of course... How could I be so stupid as to reply to another comment by another player willing to 'grind' 5 billion then worry about not playing for a long time after...

Some folks 'slimy mechanics' are others 'common sense', isn't it great that we can all think independently of the herd if we so wish?
 
I'm dropping 10 billion into my carriers upkeep. By my calculations, with my selected services enabled, that will afford me 14.5 years of upkeep. I can almost guarantee that in 14.5 years I will have far more then 10 more billion to throw my carriers way. Not worried, concerned or bothered.
 
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



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.
Yeah the upkeep costs are too low now.

:D S
 
Top Bottom