Need the 10% loss during sell back on outfitting

bamber

B
when 1.3 beta was in place there was a 10% loss on selling modules - because so many complained about it being "unfair" it was dropped
.
So how am I playing at the moment? well I consider carefully buying ships do I go to the clipper direct from an ASP or via a type 7 well if I go via the type 7 I need to make an extra 1.7m because of the 10% cost on sale, so I have to engage that thing between my ears and make a choice of how to play
.
But when it comes to outfitting I don't care I don't need to think do I spend 5 million on a New FSD that will let me jump an extra 1.5LY because I know I will get the whole 5M back when I upgrade if I only got 4.5m back I would think more carefully about what I am doing. At the moment I don't care about outfitting I can just get the whole lot back so I don't have to balance at all - do I buy a C power distributer now or wait another day or two to get a B? who cares I get all the money back for my C anyway so I can slowly go up the outfitting
.
Hopefully the 10% will come in soon make me think about what I am doing in outfitting instead of just point and click
 

newman1702

newman1702
I think reselling at a loss would be ok, certainly feel more realistic, but if this is implemented I also want to be able to rent some storage space at starbases and be able to pay to have my stuff transferred between bases. This way I could already own all the equipment for different roles I want my ship to undertake. Leave the weapons at a storage locker before that big expedition out into the black :)
 
Last edited:

Flavourless

Flavourless
I wish it wasn't a set rate.
Buying and selling both ships and equipment should be subject to local variations so pilots could shop around for the best deals, and maybe even make a loss.

A guaranteed 90% return is just as purile as a a 100% one.
 

Porina

Porina
I think all the arguments for and against were hashed out already... it was recognised implementing it, as it was, wasn't perfect so it was delayed to allow further thought. So while I generally agree there should be some loss on sell, it also needs some extra tools in game to help with decision making to offset that.
 

highpsiturbo

highpsiturbo
You could just pretend that you were making a loss to force yourself into a better decision?
I would hang out for the clipper if I were you.....at least you can shoot back with some force. I had the T7 for 2 trips then went back to an asp till I could get the clipper.
 

Vandaahl

Vandaahl
Because of the modular character of outfitting a ship, it seems kind of unfair to lose cash while doing so. If you want to outfit your Asp for exploring you have to buy A and sell B. When you come back and want to do some mining you have to sell B and buy C. When trading etceteraahh, when doing combat etceteraaahh etceteraaahh...

If you sell modules that are 100% in working condition, then someone else buys them in 100% working condition. I look at it as just exchanging stuff.
 

AnnuverScotinExile

AnnuverScotinExile
FD have pretty much painted themselves into a corner.

It seems clear that they did not intend the current behaviour by many players where they have one big ship (a python, say) and completely change how it is specified to support a role change. Their expectation was that players would either have a series of ships: a fighting specialist, a trading specialist, and explorer, etc., and would swap ships, or would have a multipurpose ship (like an Asp or a Python) and set it up to be 'good enough' for each role without major change.

They always intended, they say, to have the loss on selling modules, but it was not in the game on day 1. Big mistake.

So now we are where we are. How they move forward is not obvious. Storage is, or was, one of their red lines. Yet they have already broken that once, to allow multiple ships and, of course, people are now using ships as storage mechanisms - indeed people are buying ships just to be used as module storage.

I suspect that they will eventually evolve towards a reasonably sensible 'real world' way of working. Storage will be allowed, but at a cost (rent for a hangar, or whatever). Ships and modules will depreciate in value over time, based mainly on their use, condition and repair level. Shipyards will make a profit, so when you buy something back you just sold it will cost you money. And so on.

And there will be whinging all the way as they introduce those features.
 

bamber

B
Carro said:
That would be a "find the massive thread that discussed all the pros and cons and continue there."
Click to expand...

When various things in 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 were introduced people had lots of opinions about them some negative some positive at the time there were very heated discussions

The reduction in cost of the vulture, the changes to fuel costs and repair costs, the ability of the Docking computer the effectiveness of the AI

There is nothing wrong at all with revisiting a subject once the initial "anger" has died down
 

deMangler

deMangler
Agree. FD shouldn't have backtracked on the 10%. They should be making the game they want to make. Even if that isnt perfect for me. Rather that than a hodgepodge of mob inspired kludges. DB said they would later implement something along those lines like the 10% but they were being cautious because of the backlash. It is needed. Maybe a variable markdown for used goods depending on system economy and tech level or something. Having stations buy modules for the same price they sell them at just shouts "wrong!" Into my game experience every time.
 
Last edited:

Porina

Porina
A lot of ideas have already been thrown around so unless anyone really has something new to contribute, I'm not sure we're going to add much by continuing here.
 

Cmdr Ultra

Cmdr Ultra
I use a Diamondback Explorer as a storage closet. Two Imperial Hammer railguns, C3 Gimballed Beam laser and an A5 FSD that I bought for a 20% discount.

I have an alternate weapon load out on my Python and swap them around sometimes.
 
Last edited:

Nitek [pl]

Banned
N
As I said to everyone that needs credit loss on modules. Disable shields and crash into station every time you dock. You will have your credit sinks and other players will be able to still enjoy garage time :]]]]
 

Vandaahl

Vandaahl
Where it eventually boils down to, is that we have to know how the world works in 3300. Without it, the 10% loss is as arbitrary as the way it is now, and labeling things as good or bad doesn't make any sense.
 

furrycat

furrycat
I don't tend to hang around on the forums for any but the games I really really enjoy so maybe this phenomenon exists elsewhere but for me it's unique to this game to see so many people clamouring to make everyone's lives worse.

Higher insurance! Lower loans! Lower discounts! Higher rebuy tax! Higher merit decay! Lower rewards!

So people think it will enrich their game experience to have all these punishments in place. OK, fine, I can believe that. Some people like a challenge. Gotcha.

But will it really devalue your game experience all that much if the rest of us catch a break?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom