Not so Iron Asp...

[MattBlaK]

Hiya, Now I know that the Asp weakness threads are overdone, I've read enough of them, but I'm a little surprised...

I just repaired my Asp, headed to Har Itari (460,000 trip from sun to station) and then back to Esmundii and it cost me 42,000 cr...

What are the influencing factors in the "running costs"? I mean, I didn't fire a shot, I had no hull damage, or any noticeable module damage to report. It was a straight flight out and back with two jumps involved. I had repaired prior to heading out on the trip. I did fuel scoop but never went over 100% or had any warnings.

I just need to know if this is really worth keeping up or if I should just T-7 it and grind to something else I like the Asp.

Here is my outfitting loadout.

Thanks,

MB

View attachment 15436

 

[Ravenov]

What are the influencing factors in the "running costs"?

It seems to be high speed supercruise, so long trips will do it. Not sure if it takes into account the value of your upgrades when calculating wear and tear, but i agree that it's a bit steep right now.

 

[MattBlaK]

Thanks, I just had to check that it wasn't just me or something stupid. I can accommodate for high speed cruises if needs be.

It's a little off the chart seeing as there are not alternatives in a reachable price range at the moment.

I mean, how do you reach a Python by bounty hunting (not trade grinding) using only a Cobra if it's the last 'economic' ship before that one?

 

[MarcusReed]

I have just recently purchased a ASP and the cost to operate it is just too high. I am considering parting it and get a T7 myself. Great ship but as it stands right now the cost to fly bigger ships does not increase income, only cost to operate it.

 

[BishopC]

 

[MattBlaK]

I can only hope in April that the tax on Asp's is reduced to become in line with the cost of living...

Just got my ass handed to me by a particularly persistent python and Asp 35 km away from a high conflict zone and that cost me 100k... I understnad that was my piloting skills, but...

I got a 4k in return

 

[Loskene]

Rebuy cost, repairs and wear and tear all seem to be tied to the total value of your ship and installed modules at the price you paid for them. Discounted modules = cheaper rebuy and presumably cheaper maintenance costs. Wear and tear only builds up when your ship is in supercruise, so don't idle faster than light too often, and avoid destinations more than 100k lightseconds from the jump point, time is money here.

 

[MattBlaK]

OK, thanks. Those are some great tips actually Manily because I heard that the exploring asp is very light on the cost to get launched due to the low cost modules. Otherwise it becomes stupid and not worth the price.

 

[Chris M Fortune]

To OP: What would your target ship be? the wear and tear just gets higher and higher.

I was foolish (mad / determined / out right bonkers ) to take a run out to Hutton Orbital in my Python, Hull Integrity repair bill was 684,580 cr.

No interdiction, a low temperature fuel scoop (below 90) and 65cr other repairs

 

[xondk]

Hiya, Now I know that the Asp weakness threads are overdone, I've read enough of them, but I'm a little surprised...

I just repaired my Asp, headed to Har Itari (460,000 trip from sun to station) and then back to Esmundii and it cost me 42,000 cr...

What are the influencing factors in the "running costs"? I mean, I didn't fire a shot, I had no hull damage, or any noticeable module damage to report. It was a straight flight out and back with two jumps involved. I had repaired prior to heading out on the trip. I did fuel scoop but never went over 100% or had any warnings.

I just need to know if this is really worth keeping up or if I should just T-7 it and grind to something else I like the Asp.

Here is my outfitting loadout.

Thanks,

MB

I'm still checking things, but it seems if you stay within the sweet spot (blue bar), which generally means not going beyond 75% in supercruise, wear and tear is quite less?

 

[adoredtv]

It's an awful mechanic though (supercruise wear and tear) and one that needs fixing. The repair and wear costs are keeping people in Vipers, well that and the ships clearly superior price/performance ratio. On top of that you have the improved AI making it harder to avoid damage on larger ships. They need a balance pass on stuff like the cost of shields also.

I actually went back into an Eagle for some conflict zones because the Asp could be too easily lost with being rammed or a single mistake costing at least half a million. If I lose an Eagle or Viper, so what?

 

[xondk]

I actually went back into an Eagle for some conflict zones because the Asp could be too easily lost with being rammed or a single mistake costing at least half a million. If I lose an Eagle or Viper, so what?

Wasn't that fixed with 1.1? that said maybe bigger ships should not gain wear and tear at the same rate as small ships, should scale with ship mass perhaps?

 

[Nauht]

SC wear and tear is so stupid an idea. Ships capable of interplanetary flight can't even go round the block.

I can understand scooping next to a blazing sun and you go over 100%. Definitely can see W&T in combat. Can see W&T in collisions. But W&T just for running your ship in the most passive of activities? Dumb and just seems put in to spite players.

 

[Chris M Fortune]

To OP: What would your target ship be? the wear and tear just gets higher and higher.

I was foolish (mad / determined / out right bonkers ) to take a run out to Hutton Orbital in my Python, Hull Integrity repair bill was 684,580 cr.

No interdiction, a low temperature fuel scoop (below 90) and 65cr other repairs

This was done today (post 1.1) so I surely hope that isn't the rebalanced cost :O

 

[adoredtv]

Wasn't that fixed with 1.1? that said maybe bigger ships should not gain wear and tear at the same rate as small ships, should scale with ship mass perhaps?

I'm not actually sure on the Wear and Tear point now - thought that was one of the main issues with the larger ships, at least past the Cobra.

I lost an Eagle and an Asp in my last video (didn't show the Asp loss but I got rammed by an Anaconda) and the rebuy costs were 72K for the Eagle and 470K for the Asp. That's an Asp that is about half as geared as it could be. If the Asp was 7x more potent than the Eagle then I'd maybe see the point but it's not. The scaling is really whacked - all ships are underperforming unless in mostly "A" spec equipment so something like an A-spec Viper is vastly superior to say a D-spec Asp even though the Asp costs 2x to 3x more at that point.

This is keeping people in smaller ships instead of progressing to the larger ones as you'd expect. Even Cobras are too far - too many people are staying with the Viper because it gives them everything needed in the game currently (in combat) at very low risk.

 

[Don_Von_Hulio]

I have just recently purchased a ASP and the cost to operate it is just too high. I am considering parting it and get a T7 myself. Great ship but as it stands right now the cost to fly bigger ships does not increase income, only cost to operate it.

You lose 600k on the trade in of a stock ASP. Food for thought.

 

[CMDR Beltane]

You don't need to be on SC to get W&T damage, someone tested that already. And even if annoying, the idea behind it is quite easy to understand. Those ships fly, even below SC speed very fast and all the time that funny little stretches you see out of your cockpit impact on your hull, space dust. And over time, that simply weakens your structure and with that your structural integrity. Someone who has ever seen what happens to metal that was grit blasted might now what i mean.

Should this be change? Imho, only to some degree. What i wouldn't like to see it that costs are simply cut down by half. My personal favourite would be an aditional armor plating specifically designed for long space travels. It will weigh, yes - so you would have to choose between maximum possible jump range, but in exchange you would get a 75% slower degrading effect of those long SC travels. Or maybe 2 / 3 version with different costs / weight / "damage" reduction.

 

[Valethar]

Asps are where you really start to get punished with the repair mechanic. It only gets worse from there. Merely scratching the hull on a Python will cost you tens of thousands, I don't even want to think what it costs for an Anaconda or T9.

Wear and tear also seems to be double dipping, ripping off the pilot. If you select 'repair all', 'all' would seem to imply everything gets fixed. Unfortunately 'repair all' seems to really mean 'repair hull' in FDSpeak, and in addition to the huge bill for repairing 'all', you're going to get fleeced again by paying the wear and tear bill.

To take Beltane's idea a step further, add in a new module. Navigational Deflectors (think Star Trek). They would take up an additional internal slot, in much the same way the discovery scanners, etc.. do, and that would mitigate the W&T damage to the hull.

One would think that having shields now would mitigate that to some degree already, so they also have an avenue there as well. Better rated shields reduce W&T damage to the hull. Those who choose to run without shields suffer a penalty by incurring more W&T, because there's nothing there to absorb the impact of particulates, etc....

There are ways to make it work better than it does now, they just need to take a closer look at things. Punitive game mechanics, especially those with no sound logic behind them, tend to discourage people from playing.

 

[Goilveig]

Wasn't that fixed with 1.1? that said maybe bigger ships should not gain wear and tear at the same rate as small ships, should scale with ship mass perhaps?

The odd thing is, my small ships basically never accumulate wear & tear. Unless they changed it so that W&T can be seen and repaired on the primary station services screen (rather than the repair menu I never open), neither of my ships has accumulated more than a percent or two W&T. The Viper is newer since I often sell and later rebuy them versus moving two ships to a new 'home base', but my cobra has been around the block and back many a time, and still no problems with W&T.

 

[Nauht]

You don't need to be on SC to get W&T damage, someone tested that already. And even if annoying, the idea behind it is quite easy to understand. Those ships fly, even below SC speed very fast and all the time that funny little stretches you see out of your cockpit impact on your hull, space dust. And over time, that simply weakens your structure and with that your structural integrity. Someone who has ever seen what happens to metal that was grit blasted might now what i mean..

Hogwash. Our ships are plated with armor to withstand high energy laser blasts and explosive bullets. Some even upgrade to "military" grade armor - and that's when you get past the shields. If you're gonna go down that path of logic how does space dust penetrate shields?

The W&T logic put in place is like everything else in this game - inconsistent and without direction. It seems to be put in arbitrarily as a credit sink.