It's also interesting to see that the commodity market is the least interesting feature for the basic carrier and the most required features were not considered by fdev (personal shipyard and module storage)
Unofficial Post-Beta1 Fleet Carrier Survey
- Thread starter 100.rub
- Start date
-
- Tags
- feedback fleet carrier survey
Nothing too surprising there - perhaps worth noting that despite people wanting carriers to do more and cheaper on average, about 40% of respondents are still happy enough with them to want to buy one and about 30% think they'll be definitely useful (which would be an incredibly high usage rate for an in-game feature, though the survey sample obviously skews towards regular players)
Question 40 is an interesting one: to avoid a fast and indefinitely macroable infinite money pump [1] that doesn't even require leaving the deck, carriers can't get a purchase discount on ships or outfitting that's larger than the hit an individual player takes for selling a module or ship (so currently 0% for modules and 10% for ships [2])
It'd be interesting to see the opinions on a variant of that question that set the loss from buying then selling a module to whatever the maximum carrier bulk discount was (so e.g. if the carrier could buy at 70%, either always or with the highest bulk purchase, then players would only get 70% back from selling any modules)
How much would people be willing to lose on sale of their own modules, even if they never interact with a carrier, for carrier shipyard/outfitting services to be more interesting and useful?
[1] Carrier buys module at a discount, sells it full price, difference goes to carrier funds. Player buys module from carrier at full price, sells it at full price, doesn't lose any money. Repeat until the carrier funds are in the high billions, then use the commodity market to transfer those funds to personal accounts as required. To avoid this just creating money, the player can't be allowed to sell the module for more than the carrier paid for it.
[2] Actually slightly less than 10% because you can sell off some of the ship's stock modules for full price before selling the hull, but even with a macro running overnight you wouldn't get rich off that difference.
Question 40 is an interesting one: to avoid a fast and indefinitely macroable infinite money pump [1] that doesn't even require leaving the deck, carriers can't get a purchase discount on ships or outfitting that's larger than the hit an individual player takes for selling a module or ship (so currently 0% for modules and 10% for ships [2])
It'd be interesting to see the opinions on a variant of that question that set the loss from buying then selling a module to whatever the maximum carrier bulk discount was (so e.g. if the carrier could buy at 70%, either always or with the highest bulk purchase, then players would only get 70% back from selling any modules)
How much would people be willing to lose on sale of their own modules, even if they never interact with a carrier, for carrier shipyard/outfitting services to be more interesting and useful?
[1] Carrier buys module at a discount, sells it full price, difference goes to carrier funds. Player buys module from carrier at full price, sells it at full price, doesn't lose any money. Repeat until the carrier funds are in the high billions, then use the commodity market to transfer those funds to personal accounts as required. To avoid this just creating money, the player can't be allowed to sell the module for more than the carrier paid for it.
[2] Actually slightly less than 10% because you can sell off some of the ship's stock modules for full price before selling the hull, but even with a macro running overnight you wouldn't get rich off that difference.
I think they just gave up with the complete carrier story when the saw the upkeep price
There already is one, similar to what you described, and it doesn't need discounts to function. The whole ship/module selling system is woefully underdeveloped and ill-thought-out in how it interacts with other systems.
Yeah, in many ways for me the most telling result is that 54.7% of the 3055 people surveyed consided they'd reached the "endgame" of Elite. So right off the bat we get a sense of the subset of the Elite: Dangerous player base that tends to respond to this kind of survey. Given that, I then find it less surprising that around 75% had more credits than me (i.e. more than 2 billion). I am quite surprised that so many were happy for the FC to stock unlockable ships and modules and go to permit locked systems tho. I might have have imagined that "endgame" players would have more sympathy with the immersion perspective rather than the "give me it all" perspective. I guess I'd quite liked to have known how long people had been playing. Are these commanders who've been playing since 3301 (and know the pleasure of working towards that first Cobra) or are these get-rich-quick billionaires who've rushed to the "endgame", missed the journey and now want more to consume?
The only thing that was surprising to me, was how many people are ok with how current redemption office functions, but I attribute it to lack of information. It required some testing to figure out that you lose 12.5% of your cash to the void and only 12.5% go to the carrier owner. I find that unacceptable because it monetarily punishes all combat players (which already have very low income) for absolutely no reason, for just wanting to use their "investment" for their preferred playstyle.
That would be a valuable question next time around
The redemption office is useless for me if I can't pay off fines and bounties. I heard that worked for some players in Beta 1, but not for me.
Yeah, I did find it interesting (and somewhat heartening if I'm honest) that in the majority people were happy with the jump range and also with UC and the redemption office both taking their cut.
Lack of those features ruins the entire point of ship/module selling for most combat players, as rank-locked ships are generally more suite to combat. AX modules are also unlockable and are essential to doing AX. What would miners say if carriers were not able to sell refineries or any mining ships?
I agree that surprised me too. I was not in favor of selling unlocked ships and modules but for example I'm also against the very popular wing missions that allow a new cmdr to sit in a sidewinder and get milion credits because other people play the mission for him
51,2% of players are not happy with RO taking a cut from bonds/bounties and only 39.9% are.
There is not good argument for it to do that, as the owner already pays upkeep for the feature. To be clear I'm not talking about the cut that goes to the owner (they are entitled to it) but about the cash that just vanishes into the void.
They'd probably be quite annoyed ... but then again refineries and mining ships aren't unlockable so luckily I don't have to try and worm myself out of that one!
Apologies, my mistake (I was simply looking at the biggest slice of pie rather than adding up all the negative slices).
See, that first graph, if you labelled that "How do you intend to earn credits to get an FC"... that's how I'd expect it to look. A little over half of respondents going to the basic "Explore/Combat/Trade/Mine", criminal activity to be considerably lower (because if you do crime in a game, clearly you burn puppies IRL), Passenger transport and AX fighting are a little more bespoke so they'd come in lower than the standards, and PvP is generally never rewarding. (EDIT: Oh, and RIP Search and Rescue)
If you ignore mining in that second graph, the figures are actually kinda proportionate and in similar positions. But then yeah, throw mining into that, roughly 80% of respondents are ditching their preferred gameplay to go farm the golden bile-fountain that is LTDs. That simply shouldn't happen.
Nah... it's just a problem with mining. But hey, if you want my High-intensity CZs to earn me 150m/h, I'm down with that.
I don't think many would be up for that, but I can include it in the next one.