Need the 10% loss during sell back on outfitting

[Winterwalker]

Having the 10% rebuy cost detracts from gameplay since it takes away flexibility in outfitting. No longer will players try different settings on their vessel when modules are expensive. In return you get a little bit of gameplay back in the form of cost management. I rank trying out different setups a lot higher in enjoyable gameplay than an added cost management feature.

Have to disagree there. Swapping modules is very different from gameplay in the Elite: Dangerous sense of the word. The game is about mining / trading / exploring, as it is obviously not a "swap my modules game". If ppl want to experiment with modules, the best thing, is to do so with low end modules, there's a small cost (with the 10%) but it's small on low values. If you like the module .. upgrade it to an A5.

Yes, it's fun to experiment with and work module performances out but that's only fun the once. Longevity type fun only really happens once you take a risk with the credits it took you effort to earn, apply it to modules with a now inherent value, and take your ship out into the galaxy at large no? (hoping you don't run out of jump range with a pirate on your tail for eg.) The alternative, allowing you to test drive, permanently, is a bit dull imo.

 

[RustyLeg]

Have to disagree there. Swapping modules is very different from gameplay in the Elite: Dangerous sense of the word. The game is about mining / trading / exploring, as it is obviously not a "swap my modules game". If ppl want to experiment with modules, the best thing, is to do so with low end modules, there's a small cost (with the 10%) but it's small on low values. If you like the module .. upgrade it to an A5.

Yes, it's fun to experiment with and work module performances out but that's only fun the once. Longevity type fun only really happens once you take a risk with the credits it took you effort to earn, apply it to modules with a now inherent value, and take your ship out into the galaxy at large no? (hoping you don't run out of jump range with a pirate on your tail for eg.) The alternative, allowing you to test drive, permanently, is a bit dull imo.

Id say it's more fun to experiment with different setups than mindlessly grind the same stuff over and over. Its about the only thing in the game with any personalisation/variety. Don't pigeon hole everyone with your idea of fun.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

As it stands right now I 100% agree (please read what I wrote )

The way in which FD implemented the 10% tax now is premature.

However ... consider the following:

- Introduce a robust wear and tear mechanism
- Introduce a 2nd hand market
- Age items over time (but slow enough so you can outfit to your hearts content)
- Sale price & reliability dependent upon age

That is what I am suggesting - it's logical, adds depth to gameplay, consistent with reality & adds in a gold sink that makes sense.

I did read what you wrote. And I did consider your suggestion.

Age items over time ... what kind of timeperiod are you thinking about?

Now realise you're talking to an explorer trying out a setting as I am doing now means going to Eagle, Eta Carinea and back, which takes about 3 weeks. I love my new setup, but let's imagine I didn't.

10% of the modules I sold to get to this setup: 10 mil
10% of the modules I would have to sell to revert: 5 mil

So, before I hand in any data, I'm 15 mil in the red. That's about 50% of my expected income. Do you think I would have done this with a 10% penalty? No way. Your suggestion would have prevented me from finding my current setup which I surprisingly like (I thought I'd hate it)

Have to disagree there. Swapping modules is very different from gameplay in the Elite: Dangerous sense of the word. The game is about mining / trading / exploring, as it is obviously not a "swap my modules game". If ppl want to experiment with modules, the best thing, is to do so with low end modules, there's a small cost (with the 10%) but it's small on low values. If you like the module .. upgrade it to an A5.

Explain how I can use low end FSD drives & low end fuel scoop to see if an Explorer Python is viable.

edit: also keeping in mind I have to sell modules that have been on my boat for months to make it light enough for a reasonable test flight.

 

[NeilF]

The alternative, allowing you to test drive, permanently, is a bit dull imo.

Fine... But I'd say throwing CRs needlessly away just trying/playing/enjoying modules is bit dull. Especially if you want to try a number of different modules to work out what FD are not telling you.

For example, I spent a couple of hours kitting our a Vulture in different ways to see how different thruster modules changed performance. Why needlessly make me throw millions of CR away to do that? How does it help me enjoy the game more? What experience/mechanic does it improve?

 

[ChaosCloud]

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

The loss can come back when they managed to make stuff storable in ships and stations. As in, I leave my Python's mining equipment in the system where I mine and when I go there I can swap it out because it's there, go mining, swap it back, and bug off to sell it.

If they make THAT possible I wouldn't NEED to constantly change my loadout.

But since that's not doable and I constantly have to buy sell buy sell etc to change loadouts am I VERY glad that the loss is not a thing, because I spent 1.25 Anacondas on equipment by now, mostly swapping A3 refineries for ADS (I never run around without one simply to get my exploration up a little when passing by minor systems)


And if they ever make it possible to store modules in stations and ALSO possible to put them in your cargobay for relocation, then the loss can come as much as it wants, I don't care then.

Fine... But I'd say throwing CRs needlessly away just trying/playing/enjoying modules is bit dull. Especially if you want to try a number of different modules to work out what FD are not telling you.

For example, I spent a couple of hours kitting our a Vulture in different ways to see how different thruster modules changed performance. Why needlessly make me throw millions of CR away to do that? How does it help me enjoy the game more? What experience/mechanic does it improve?

That's a PITA even without losing the money, I've been there sooo often...
Also I just got my Vulture A thrusters too and I can't say I noticed a big change aside of more power being gone ._. though, it felt a bit more nimble with 4 ENG but I rarely have that much there as it needs 4 WPN or it can only shoot for 2 sec xD

 

[Quineloe]

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

It was explained over and over again, but here we go...

Most of the time I'm selling outfittings, I don't sell them because I don't want them anymore, but because I want something else in my Ship for the time being. If I didn't have to sell them but could rather store them, I'd be perfectly fine with a sale penalty of 10% right away.

 

[Morbad]

All modules, hell even the ships themselves, should be treated like commodities, and be subject to the forces of supply and demand.

Modules should also fit in cargo holds and stations should rent out storage space.

 

[Ghostickles]

WTB used Modules. 10% off. Paying Top Canister. PM me.

 

[NeilF]

Most of the time I'm selling outfittings, I don't sell them because I don't want them anymore, but because I want something else in my Ship for the time being. If I didn't have to sell them but could rather store them, I'd be perfectly fine with a sale penalty of 10% right away.

Still not sure... Don't really see how storing modules you no longer want helps with the fact losing 10% on all module sales will just create a needless CR sink. If you're switching a ship between purposes, fine... But I'd suggest that's not the more common purpose for seeing module so it will simply needlessly put a burden (cost) on fun! And due to the games poor information, a cost on necessary experimentation.

Why should one of the more fun & interesting things in the game - playing around with different modules - bleed you CR? What depth does it bring? Why penalise people for that enjoyment? It will only detract from the game while really adding nothing.

God forbid I suggest depth is introduced into the game by actually introducing things to do involving more variety, logic and interest, rather than introducing more cheap CR/time sinks.

 

[Quineloe]

Still not sure... Don't really see how storing modules you no longer want helps with the fact losing 10% on all module sales will just create a needless CR sink. If you're switching a ship between purposes, fine... But I'd suggest that's not the more common purpose for seeing module so it will simply needlessly put a burden (cost) on fun! And due to the games poor information, a cost on necessary experimentation.

Why should one of the more fun & interesting things in the game - playing around with different modules - bleed you CR? What depth does it bring? Why penalise people for that enjoyment? It will only detract from the game while really adding nothing.

God forbid I suggest depth is introduced into the game by actually introducing things to do involving more variety, logic and interest, rather than introducing more cheap CR/time sinks.

FD are apparently hell bent on putting this in, so we might as well go in a way that hurts at least as few people as possible. Ever since 1.1, it's obvious they're after that One Cashsink To Drain Them All.

 

[Spider95]

Over 100pages, one side repeatedly made the argument that "10% loss on modules without ability to store modules is a stupid idea" whilst the other side ignored them and complained that they were "whining."

It was not a worthwhile discussion.

Storage was only ONE of the many points made, there is far more to it than that.

And it was a worthwhile discussion IMO - got frontier to go away and think again before implementing a badly thought out idea.

So in response to the OP: No, no, no. A million times no. Having this on it's own is an unbalanced stupid restriction. For ALL the reasons already hashed to death on the +1000 post thread we had a couple of months back.

(\(\;;/)/)

 

[MrReynolds]

No. NO we don't.

 

[NeilF]

FD are apparently hell bent on putting this in, so we might as well go in a way that hurts at least as few people as possible. Ever since 1.1, it's obvious they're after that One Cashsink To Drain Them All.

Well, maybe if enough people state why they think it's an issue, FD might change their minds.

* People enjoy experimenting with different modules.
* People need to experiment with different module as their specification/details are so thin on the ground.
* People may need to change (repeatedly) modules simply to change the purpose of their ship.

So why frustrate people by incurring a needless, quite possibly significant, cost. Add to this the fact a second hand unit is actually no different to a supposed new one, then again, why do it? ie: A 6 month old unit is no different to a freshly bought one.


It's not by chance so many players in the community cried out when they learned about this 10% cost was being put in place. It's because they believe it's a bad/poor choice. Please spend the effort putting more gameplay/depth in, not taxing existing fun.