Na, after we bought the raider kit for 500k Arx it can stay unrepaired for immersionPlus per jump repair costs
_edith
Sry for slightly derailing the thread, btw
Na, after we bought the raider kit for 500k Arx it can stay unrepaired for immersionPlus per jump repair costs
If you do have to end up withdrawing from this, I'll cover your spot in Tenebrae. I've respected your work for years now and you're way more valuable to the game as a whole when you're out there actually playing it instead of having to excessively mine.This is not very attractive to me so far. The upkeep cost for a fully upgraded carrier is extreme (I can afford a carrier, but I cannot afford dozens of MCr week-1 in upkeep) and the time taken to mine enough tritium for the jump is worrying - particularly as a hardcore mining ship is not necessarily one I'd want to explore in, meaning a shipyard is essential, meaning ludicrous upkeep... ugh. This is priced - in both credits and time - so that effective carriers are the preserve either of Bubble-bound players or of large groups. I am neither, so unless things change significantly I'll have to withdraw from this.
The more I've looked at the costs, the more I realize that it's untenable in its current state. If they take the advice of cutting the upkeep costs down by 80-90%, then it might work.
That's what amazes me, I feel like an upkeep cost cut of 80-90% is what's needed too.
How did anyone at FDev ever think this was a reasonable starting point?
It is for testing purposes. Someone explained it pretty good: When you need to balance something and don't really know yet what's good, start with ridicously high numbers and wait for feedback. The devs and community managers that have been to a couple of streams (including Lave Radio) said that the current numbers are just placeholders. Also goes for services, their answer to the question why no UC was: "Everything costs time to develop and we wanted to bring the beta as soon as possible to get feedback in. So we are listening to you."I have to wonder if it wasn't just a decimal point put in the wrong spot? That is the only thing that makes any sense to me. I just cannot envision anyone signing off on this on purpose.
Given the current running costs from the beta, and in the event that they stay where they are, I have a feeling this map is going to get a bit thinner on participants.
Well, if prices do go live the way they are now, then I won't be buying a fleet carrier, which means I'll be pulling out of this. I recommend others do the same: that might put some more pressure on Frontier.
Might have already been mentioned, but the galactic centre and Explorers Anchorage don't have a shipyard and quite limited outfitting services. Wouldn't it be good if a carrier were positioned there as a complement?
It is for testing purposes. Someone explained it pretty good: When you need to balance something and don't really know yet what's good, start with ridicously high numbers and wait for feedback. The devs and community managers that have been to a couple of streams (including Lave Radio) said that the current numbers are just placeholders. Also goes for services, their answer to the question why no UC was: "Everything costs time to develop and we wanted to bring the beta as soon as possible to get feedback in. So we are listening to you."
Lave Radio had a podcast with Frontier devs talking about Fleet Carriers:
If you skip to 1:06 minutes in, it appears like they never considered making carriers useful for exploration, and it does not sound likely UC will be added for release. They might consider it for some future release though.