So you mean just like modules work anyway.
Unofficial Post-Beta1 Fleet Carrier Survey
- Thread starter 100.rub
- Start date
-
- Tags
- feedback fleet carrier survey
Nah, it makes it more complicated. Well, unless you want to prevent people from stockpiling rares
Edit: scratch the second part, you wouldn’t be able to buy that stuff unless you have unlocked it anyway. And you can already pile rares, but you need at least 1 other player to help you.
Lets just hope FD does something with this instead of ignoring it.
Keeping my expectations at 0 for now, though.
Keeping my expectations at 0 for now, though.
That's an excellent visual portrayal of the data
If you look at the demographics, it might be reasonable to conclude that about half of the respondents were well able to afford a carrier or were almost there ....
View attachment 172100
OMG. I just realised.....in Elite I AM the 1%.
Tens of thousands of people doing the same activity per day to achieve purchasing a product is not evidence of a balanced economy.
The fact the mechanics to get 1-1.6m for an LTD can support tens of thousands of players doing that singular activity shows these aren't "gold rushes" but rather the market status-quo. Does anyone even do a mission to get 45t of Osmium for 8m credits? Why would you when you could get 45m for the same effort on LTDs? Funnily enough, 10m for 45t of osmium feels about where the rewards vs effort should be at.
And as I mentioned, the fact at least 80% of surveyed players who'd rather do something else have ditched that in order to get the requisite credits.
Even if Mining is fine, and it's everything else that needs a buff to bring it inline, where does that leave the rest of the game's economy? In all the various "Fix the Clipper" threads roaming around (not getting onto that topic), I get told one of the "advantages" of the clipper is it's price point; 20m for a Large ship. Who cares when you're earning 100m an hour? It ruins any sense of cost-balance in the game. Of course, someone might say "But credits are meaningless anyway", and that's just burying your head in the sand to the problem.
When FD put out FCs base-20m a week upkeep (up to 100m fully fitted, iirc?), that's just based on cold hard facts. We've got 20% of the survey participants able to set up an FC and fund it for over a year already, and I'll bet if FD looked closely at those earning rates, they'd see that rough 100m/h income rate I quoted, so 100m/week makes sense, except for one big, blaring reason. It's not fun.
Everyone who tries to convince me that 5b for FC's is hunky-dory says things like "Why shouldn't there be big goals to work towards?", "Why shouldn't i be rewarded for the work I put in?", "It's just complaints from people who don't want to work".... work work work. If the economy were balanced, there'd be no such thing as "work"... you'd play the game doing what you enjoy and that money would come in without you noticing.
Instead, there's a small % of players who lucked-out with their favourite thing also being the best means of getting credits for the next piece of content (in a content-starved game). The rest are just suffering FOMO and jumping on the treadmill because they recognise it's 10-20 times less effort to earn that 5b pricetag by mining, but then they want to get back to whatever they were doing that wasn't mining, because they don't enjoy that. But of course, every other playstyle couldn't sustain that up-to 100m a week requirement, which is why even now, you've got people asking for upkeep to be removed entirely; because any "weekly upkeep" hurts the bottom line of those activities so badly.
I mean, you could buff all other activities to be inline with mining to fix that; some things sure as hell could do with it, but it'd trash any sense of value in the economy having 100m/h be easy come, easy go. Or, you could fix that one, broken income source, and then reprice the asset based off it accordingly. I know which one is way less effort for FD to make the correction.
Last edited:
Except I'm pretty sure you can multicrew into any ship regardless of what system it is in, so you can just ask someone to show you around, no carriers required.
Great work!
These ones definitely stood out like sore thumbs
These ones definitely stood out like sore thumbs
Sidenote: Prefered vs Actually Used credit-making methods
17. Would you prefer a mothball mechanic (or something else) over decommissioning?
![[VR] Dr Gentech](https://d2aefvhu2f0gi9.cloudfront.net/data/avatars/m/175/175740.jpg?1623198898){kind=avatar}
I think it's a realistic, good and reasonable idea for some professions to pay much more than others, I just don't think it should be solely mining. Here is my dumb idea for what the ranking should be:
1. Core mining missions (which I think should exist).
2. Trading with decent missions.
3. Trading without missions.
4. Core mining. Good as is.
5. Laser mining, if it's not removed.
These are the economic backbone of the galaxy and should be the most profitable activities "per repeatable hour" imo. I think it's reasonable and realistic for someone to say "I'm a miner/trader, the hours are long and you have to amuse yourself when things are quiet, but the pay is great". Just like real life miners and traders, with a lot more harassment by evil pirates instead of evil bosses. Admittedly in the real world the people who earn the most money aren't the people hauling cargo or mining it's the people who own the mining/manufacturing/transport/electronics equipment, but I think implementing that in a realistic way would suck. Pirates are a better source of "baddies who wanna take your hard earned labour", because you can kill them without anyone complaining. I do think these economic jobs should get harassed more by pirates.
For exploration, I think in general the payout is pretty good, although I would prefer if it peaked higher for special things.
For combat, I think the spread of bounties and combat vouchers needs to increase dramatically at the high end. There are reasonably hard assassinate pirate lord wing missions that could be made harder (e.g. Corvette with 3 FDLs, all maximally engineered) and special targets in CZs for the same. Then you increase the bounty/bond payout on high-end targets dramatically to bring combat up to being comparable to the low economic activities. Just as an example, maybe a rare combat encounter you'll only realistically find once every three or more hours could have a main ship with a bounty of 200m and three wingmates with 25m each. This would mean the most fiscally rewarding combat gameplay is hunting high-value targets rather than slaughtering one million soldiers after stacking missions, and you have a lot of incentive to use frame shift wake scanners to follow them if they try to run. Maybe you're only able to get to that ultra-high value combat encounter by shooting your way through their organisational structure until you can locate them, a chain that starts from a mission, RES, or CZ. Hell, pie in the sky here but maybe the highest bounties come from your "nemesis" that has previously killed you or who you previously "killed" (escape pod and they show up in a better ship), like in Shadow of War/Shadow of Mordor, with associated events, communications, and flavour.
For CQC I think there should be a similar increase in reward spread, but that would have to go along with other changes to CQC to make it make sense.
What i can extrapolate from this data is this.
People buying carries mostly want it to be able to store their crap, and the only way they really see getting the ability to store said crap is to do mining despite the majority wanting to make it from combat or exploration.
Honestly seems like these are just glorified u-hauls.
People buying carries mostly want it to be able to store their crap, and the only way they really see getting the ability to store said crap is to do mining despite the majority wanting to make it from combat or exploration.
Honestly seems like these are just glorified u-hauls.
21. Put all of it in, every single one is a good idea. especialy selling custom engineered ships, engineered modules and trading materials. please, those 3 would make the game so much more alive and player driven.
That does stand out. I'm having trouble believing those responses really though. All those people who say they're mining even though they'd rather do something else. Haven't they realised this is a game; in fact a sandbox game, and they can do whatever they like? Can that many players really be that daft, or are they just using the survey to "have a say"?Great work!
These ones definitely stood out like sore thumbs
I mean, I quite like mining so I do a bit occasionally. I'd get bored with it very quickly if I felt it was like a job, to get billions of credits. I wouldn't do that or anything else I didn't want to do in a game.
Modules would be effective on this exploit even with only a 5% bulk purchase discount for carriers, because they resell for the full price paid.
But you can't just buy and sell modules to have infinite money without leaving the deck at the moment, or people wouldn't be messing around with mining.
LoL I'm in the top 15%... Which makes us both idiots for the accumulation of credits we'll never need or probably be able to spend ...
On minute... If I have two accounts which are both in the 15% bracket, does that mean I'm really in the 5% bracket?
I'm even more stupid than I thought I was!
Speaking for myself, I don't see the option to sell unlockable modules/ships as a "give me it all" option to players. On the contrary I think its just the option of convenience that a 5b credit station can optionally provide to other cmdrs who have also done the requisite grind/gameplay for said bit of module/ship. That is how I personally interpreted the question where a carrier acts as an additional merchant to these unlockable items, but still requiring the commander to qualify to purchase said items - any non-elligable commander would still be able to see the item listed on the carrier menu but would not be able to otherwise purchase it.
I'm not going to try to convince you of anything, that would be a waste of time. I simply disagree with your opinion.
Oh the irony, you did exactly the same as the poster you are criticising.
I don't know the answer, but can you use multiplayer to jump into a ship as crew in a system that you don't have a permit for?
Yeah - I kinda regret the rather pompous stance I took on this in my initial post. I stand by the fact that I don't think carriers should be able to jump into permit locked systems and I can also see why they might not stock rare goods (due to complexities in the rare good stock and pricing model) but if a player has earned the right buy unlockable ships and modules then they probably should also have the right to stock them on their own FC and to sell them elsewhere (either back to themselves or to others who also have them unlocked). Both of these actually seem trivial for FD to change and it's surely only really a matter of principle which is stopping them from doing so. On reflection I hope FD have the same change of heart that I did.