What would you pay for ship interiors?

[R-Irish]

Anything over 20 euro would be pushing it, but i could see myself paying 30 euro in a moment of madness on steam (which happens alot ).

I think if they were going to do it, they would save it for a major DLC because it would be a huge selling point especially when coupled with other features.

They seem completely disinterested in doing it though and sadly i don't think it will happen

 

[Rat Catcher]

I totally agree that my opinion would be more valid if I'd actually played SC (but I did confess that I hadn't right at the start so full disclosure) - besides, am I wrong about SC?

I do have both, and, unless one is solely interested in PvP play (which the poster may have been referring to, indirectly) SC is still a buggy, poorly performing, and not terribly engrossing, tech demo.

Are you having a laugh? SC isn't even close to ED, its a buggy mess and no closer to being a finished game now to when i backed it at the start.

I didn't back it from the start, but did give them money... And am in total agrement with your observation.

 

[CMDR 1936]

I know this is beating a very dead horse and may earn me some vitriol but I'm curious as to how badly people out there still want ship interiors. One of Yamiks' recent shorts points out how much waiting there is in Star Citizen because of all this "immersion" - waking up, walking to the train station, riding the train, waiting for your ship to be delivered, etc. So Fdev's point about running through a ship becoming boring if there's no gameplay to be had does make some sense, especially given the costly nature of implementing so many interiors, dealing with the headache of collision detection and zero-g weirdness, debugging doors, etc. Personally, I don't hang around in stations much once I've seen all there is to see.

Nevertheless, I'd still like ship interiors and would be willing to pay for them each individually, as cosmetics, just like paint jobs. I'd be willing to cough up about $13 USD per ship I want an interior for - ie. somewhere around the 16800 ARX that would cover a ship kit plus a bit more. How much would you pay, if any?

View attachment 342946

Frontier should propose big things as DLC: do you want "x", so we open a pre-purchase program, if we reach a certain treshold then we start production. That way the game would not propose things players don't care about and Frontier would have the ressources beforehand to develop the game further. After all, ED was a kickstarter project. Why not continue that way?

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Anything over 20 euro would be pushing it, but i could see myself paying 30 euro in a moment of madness on steam (which happens alot ).

I think if they were going to do it, they would save it for a major DLC because it would be a huge selling point especially when coupled with other features.

They seem completely disinterested in doing it though and sadly i don't think it will happen

I think it'd be a janky bolt on if they did interiors. Imo, you need to build and design such gameplay systems from the groundup as integral part of the game. You can't really do it as an add-on.
Just like SC can't add on new networking and database systems. You need to design that upfront for the purpose you aim for and not implement it when the game is already in operation. That's why SC is the Lands of Jankia and Crashistan united.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

Frontier should propose big things as DLC: do you want "x", so we open a pre-purchase program, if we reach a certain treshold then we start production. That way the game would not propose things players don't care about and Frontier would have the ressources beforehand to develop the game further. After all, ED was a kickstarter project. Why not continue that way?

You go right on the list.

 

[DjVortex]

Nothing per se against cosmetics for interiors, but spending a lot of time doing? Go to store, choose it, apply it, job done. Unless you want a kind of Sims in space thing? I'd argue that is not the sort of thing most of us want to be spending out time doing in game, and if ship interiors are to be something to add content, then it needs to be more than just playing spaceship barbie.

Just because you wouldn't spend time and money on it doesn't mean nobody else would either. Not everybody is like you.

Just look at how much people buy cosmetics for their ship cockpits. Imagine if they could decorate their captain's quarters with furniture, trophies, paintings...

And if this brings the devs money, that benefits you. Money for the devs = more stuff in the future for you in the game.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Frontier should propose big things as DLC: do you want "x", so we open a pre-purchase program, if we reach a certain treshold then we start production. That way the game would not propose things players don't care about and Frontier would have the ressources beforehand to develop the game further. After all, ED was a kickstarter project. Why not continue that way?

Frontier already have the resources if they need them - they have tens of millions in cash reserves and are profitable as a company. Shortage of funds is not in itself a problem - lack of guarantee of a long-term profit on the development is.

Speculative pre-orders wouldn't really help that:
- they couldn't possibly get enough pre-orders (hundreds of thousands for an Odyssey-sized piece of work) at the concept stage to actually fund the development and guarantee profitability even if it only sold the pre-orders. ED's Kickstarter - one of the highest ever at the time - raised only a small part of the actual cost of developing ED 1.0.
- it'd be very difficult to tell if a few thousand pre-orders meant "there's a market for a few thousand super-fans and not much more" or "there's a market for several hundred thousand but obviously only a few thousand super-fans are going to pay up-front on a vague outline of features and no fixed timescale especially after Odyssey's rocky launch"
- if they could be confident that there was a several-hundred-thousand market, they don't need to do speculative pre-orders because they have the cash reserves to develop it and then sell it in a conventional fashion.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Or in most professions, sub-linear.

Exploration doesn't pay any more after the Sidewinder, though something like a Cobra III or T-6 or DBX can hold more conveniences.
Combat payouts are to a large extent limited by being able to find the targets; for a skilled pilot a lightweight medium is almost as effective as a full-cost battleship.

Exponential cost for linear gains isn't necessarily a problem and is fairly normal in a lot of games - though I certainly agree that a lot of specific things in ED have a much steeper exponential curve than they should. The bigger problem for making balance impossible I think is that the different professions have completely different cost-benefit curves.

If exploration pays enough to be worth anything when flying an Anaconda, it'll be ridiculously overpowered when flying a small ship. If balanced to be similar to trade in small ships, it'll be bringing in nothing worth mentioning towards the Anaconda's running costs. Making ship costs closer to linear with respect to their cargo capacities wouldn't really do much to help with that.

it is why different ships (note just takiing hypothetical now, this is not going to change, its far to long down the road at least until ED2) but it is why different ships should inhernatly be better at some things than others, and jack of all trade ships should not really out do specific role ships.

The Anaconda makes no sense to me. it should be the asp explorer, the krait phantom and the DBX which are the better exploration ships.

having the ships repairable indefinitely by a 1 button click and the anacondas magic lightweight hull kind of makes this impossible however... the anaconda will always trump other ships because its so amazingly flexible, with inexplicably low hull mass and with no issues repairing it.

its a shame really..... i tend to try to forget about that ship to be honest, then things make a little more sense.

if we were still in beta or close to the release window i would be hoping for a complete balance pass and a rethink to the endless customisation of every ship..... but like i said we are probably 9 years past the possibility of that happening. FD even bought in military slots........... a great time to do this..... they could have also added fixed cargo slots (or added a say 25% bonus if used for cargo) and fixed exploration gear slots -and again added a bonus if the slots were used for that purpose - and then balanced the stand out ships that way.... that for me was the last chance FD really had to rebalancing the ships.

and back on topic....... limiting the options on some of the areas in a ship would make creating full ship internals far easier.

 

[CMDR 1936]

You go right on the list.

Of course I do: I've played ED for more than 6000 hours and I paid basically 100 Euros. I would be happy to pay 100 Euros every month for more content!

Frontier already have the resources if they need them - they have tens of millions in cash reserves and are profitable as a company. Shortage of funds is not in itself a problem - lack of guarantee of a long-term profit on the development is.

Speculative pre-orders wouldn't really help that:

• they couldn't possibly get enough pre-orders (hundreds of thousands for an Odyssey-sized piece of work) at the concept stage to actually fund the development and guarantee profitability even if it only sold the pre-orders. ED's Kickstarter - one of the highest ever at the time - raised only a small part of the actual cost of developing ED 1.0.
• it'd be very difficult to tell if a few thousand pre-orders meant "there's a market for a few thousand super-fans and not much more" or "there's a market for several hundred thousand but obviously only a few thousand super-fans are going to pay up-front on a vague outline of features and no fixed timescale especially after Odyssey's rocky launch"
• if they could be confident that there was a several-hundred-thousand market, they don't need to do speculative pre-orders because they have the cash reserves to develop it and then sell it in a conventional fashion.

We're talking DLC, not a new game entirely. Frontier would need to come up with a specific plan, not a vague assessement. If you read Frontier posts, you will probably notice that they always mention "resources" as the main issue, which suggests they are not as awash with them as you might think (hiring a new dev costs real money). But my point is more to say that Frontier should get us to pay more: the fact that all updates except EDH and EDO were for free clearly is a limitation to growth, as they can't spend more than what micro-transaction gets them (I'm simplifying of course, but that's the idea).

 

[IstvaanDCIV]

it is why different ships (note just takiing hypothetical now, this is not going to change, its far to long down the road at least until ED2) but it is why different ships should inhernatly be better at some things than others, and jack of all trade ships should not really out do specific role ships.

Isn't this the case already? For example, the three largest player-flyable ships in the game are clearly geared towards specific roles while being able to retain some flexibility. The Anaconda is an excellent exploration ship, and while it can be a perfectly fine ship for combat or trading/mining, it will never be able to outmatch the Corvette and the Cutter in those roles respectively (assuming equal piloting skill in all cases, of course).

I don't think the freedom to customise one's ship outfitting without being overly restricted by compartment usage is a liability. On the contrary, it's a strength which gives CMDRs room to experiment with their ship builds, adding longevity to the game.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Isn't this the case already? For example, the three largest player-flyable ships in the game are clearly geared towards specific roles while being able to retain some flexibility. The Anaconda is an excellent exploration ship, and while it can be a perfectly fine ship for combat or trading/mining, it will never be able to outmatch the Corvette and the Cutter in those roles respectively (assuming equal piloting skill in all cases, of course).

I don't think the freedom to customise one's ship outfitting without being overly restricted by compartment usage is a liability. On the contrary, it's a strength which gives CMDRs room to experiment with their ship builds, adding longevity to the game.

i must admit i have not flown a cutter or a corvette out side of beta.

but doesnt the anaconda have better weapon convergence than those ships? and also the cutter definitely out trades the T9 and i dare say is better at out combatting it at the same time..... cant comment on jump range but its also significantly faster as well.

but unless i missed something, lore wise the anaconda isnt an exploration ship

 

[Ian Doncaster]

The Anaconda makes no sense to me. it should be the asp explorer, the krait phantom and the DBX which are the better exploration ships.

With exobiology included, they probably are - all three of the others have comparable jump range, ability to carry all required and vaguely-useful optional equipment, but are much easier to land in semi-rough terrain (especially the DBX) and have much better supercruise agility.

If you're not purely optimising for jump range - and the difference between 50 LY and 70 LY really isn't that significant even for fast honk-jump travel in normal density areas - then plenty of other smaller ships can do better than the Anaconda too.

and also the cutter definitely out trades the T9

By 4 tonnes for almost three times the price and a rank requirement, so I don't think that's a big deal

 

[Northpin]

y 4 tonnes for almost three times the price and a rank requirement, so I don't think that's a big deal

Cutter's main advantage is not those 4t... but the fact that it can outrun anything that can pose a threat to it (NPC) or easily survive long enough to escape from any dangers (pvp). Hence the price and the rank lock.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

that is a very good point about the exobiology and indeed i dusted off my DBX for that reason..... so i will defo concede a point there

but as northpin just ninja'd me, the cutter is more than just the 4 tons. and yes the cutter is way more expensive... but its still only 1 decent session in a dbx doing some exo biology to afford one... (i will grant you the rank lock however)

 

[Darkfyre99]

The bigger problem for making balance impossible I think is that the different professions have completely different cost-benefit curves.

If exploration pays enough to be worth anything when flying an Anaconda, it'll be ridiculously overpowered when flying a small ship. If balanced to be similar to trade in small ships, it'll be bringing in nothing worth mentioning towards the Anaconda's running costs. Making ship costs closer to linear with respect to their cargo capacities wouldn't really do much to help with that.

I would argue that this is the case already, for exploration and a lot of other activities. It’s the ridiculously high ship and component costs, and balancing rewards to match those costs, that’s made the world of ED so nonsensical these days. It's also closed the door on some old existing gameplay that I enjoyed, and prevents some potential for worldbuilding that would lead to interesting in-game decisions.

Let me give you three examples:

Since I'm eating breakfast....

1) In the world of ED, a family of four can eat "healthy foods," for about 4000 credits at the galactic average. That same family can survive on food capsules for about 1000 credits. Taking a quick look at the commodities board on the station I'm currently docked at, I see that the station is currently desperate for food, any kind of food. In the original Alpha, the profits of food canisters alone would've been considered good, at 550 credits/ton. Natural foods? Animal meat would've been close to the "ideal" profit margin, at 920 credits/ton. Since the introduction of high-margin commodities, even these commodities aren't worth the time to trade, and trading in general isn't worth doing, compared to mission rewards, core mining, and even combat.

Incidentally, if one uses the "corn price index" as a guide for real-world to credit conversion (on the basis that everyone needs to eat), I usually put the conversion rate at $4 USD/credit. So a minimum wage job in ED would pay about 4000 credits/year.

Dashes across a docking bay completely devoid of any gameplay activity, just to look at the on-foot boards

2) In the world of ED, a commander buy a ton of personal weapons for about 4750 credits. The Pilots' Federation concourse is currently gouging Commanders for pistols for 50,000 credits, or more than the cost of a Sidewinder. These prices are necessary due to reward inflation.

3) In the world of ED, a simple in-system on-foot courier mission, threat zero, is paying about 75,000 credits. The cost of an in-system Apex taxi, round-trip, costs about 200 credits. This level of reward was deemed necessary by Frontier to compete with ship-based rewards at the time.

If Frontier had fixed ship and module costs during the Alpha, rather than inflating rewards, we wouldn't have such nonsensical prices and rewards these days, and commodity trading would still be considered the baseline activity to balance out other activities with.

As for the "a Sidewinder is as good as an Anaconda for exploration" phenomenon? That's because there's only two ship-based activities to do in ED, combined with one SRV activity. More, and larger sized, exploration modules (with properly scaled rewards) would go a long way towards making larger ships something other than a status symbol for exploration. And to tie it to ship interiors... imagine several of those exploration modules being in-game labs where you take biological (and geological) samples for analysis.

 

[IstvaanDCIV]

i must admit i have not flown a cutter or a corvette out side of beta.

but doesnt the anaconda have better weapon convergence than those ships? and also the cutter definitely out trades the T9 and i dare say is better at out combatting it at the same time..... cant comment on jump range but its also significantly faster as well.

but unless i missed something, lore wise the anaconda isnt an exploration ship

I don't know about the weapon convergences personally, haven't flown either the Anaconda or the Corvette myself. But in my own plans to get into PVE combat upon returning to the bubble, the Corvette instead of the Anaconda is my personal choice of endgame ship because of it's two Huge hardpoints and better manoeuvrability. I'd have to check to be sure, but I also think the Corvette has a tougher hull.

The Anaconda is described in the lore as a multi-purpose vessel. Which certainly tracks with how it's actually used by both CMDRs and NPCs.

 

[Northpin]

but doesnt the anaconda have better weapon convergence than those ships? and also the cutter definitely out trades the T9 and i dare say is better at out combatting it at the same time..... cant comment on jump range but its also significantly faster as well.

I don't know about the weapon convergences personally, haven't flown either the Anaconda or the Corvette myself. But in my own plans to get into PVE combat upon returning to the bubble, the Corvette instead of the Anaconda is my personal choice of endgame ship because of it's two Huge hardpoints and better manoeuvrability. I'd have to check to be sure, but I also think the Corvette has a tougher hull.

The Anaconda is described in the lore as a multi-purpose vessel. Which certainly tracks with how it's actually used by both CMDRs and NPCs.

Anaconda has the best damage output and best weapon convergence out of them all. Worse internals than the Vette (in terms of size not numbers), Better Hull, Lesser shields, bit lesser maneuverability (in combat)
Vette has very good convergence on huge and smalls, but the mediums and the large are a bit too spaced out. However, it has better shield and better internals to support those shields
Cutter has rather good convergence on the hull weapons, but the 2 mediums in the nacelles are hopelessly too spaced out to be used by fixed weapons. It's also rather slugysh compared to the vette or conda, but it can potentially have the best shields out there - so quite defensive.

I also prefer the Vette for PVE combat, the Cutter gets used as hauler/trader, large capacity miner and lately as AX vessel, Conda gets used as medium capacity miner, explorer/traveler and lately as AX vessel (sporting names like 6-pack or CondaGib, abusing the size 5 stabilizer)

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Just because you wouldn't spend time and money on it doesn't mean nobody else would either. Not everybody is like you.

Just look at how much people buy cosmetics for their ship cockpits. Imagine if they could decorate their captain's quarters with furniture, trophies, paintings...

And if this brings the devs money, that benefits you. Money for the devs = more stuff in the future for you in the game.

Of course, and if wanted FD to spend time putting farming in the game, FD should do it, because I want it, and others will likely want it, and maybe you don't, but not everyone is like you.

Note: I never said i was against cosmetics for ship interiors, should FD ever add them. But i don't want them to spend time making The Sims inside spaceships to the point it becomes a major activity that you might spend ages doing, like was originally suggested. I think FD have much more important things they could spend those resources on, including older content that could do with improving or moving forward with opening up more planet types, flora, and fauna.

 

[CMDR Sheehy]

With exobiology included, they probably are - all three of the others have comparable jump range, ability to carry all required and vaguely-useful optional equipment, but are much easier to land in semi-rough terrain (especially the DBX) and have much better supercruise agility.

If you're not purely optimising for jump range - and the difference between 50 LY and 70 LY really isn't that significant even for fast honk-jump travel in normal density areas - then plenty of other smaller ships can do better than the Anaconda too.


By 4 tonnes for almost three times the price and a rank requirement, so I don't think that's a big deal

53ly Dolphin Cough Cough

 

[Marvin the Martian]

But in my own plans to get into PVE combat upon returning to the bubble, the Corvette instead of the Anaconda is my personal choice of endgame ship

Don't waste you money and materials.

Use a Chieftain, Challenger, FDL or Krait Mk II.

The big land barges are fun for about 10 minutes, then they get very boring. And for the money and materials they take to outfit and engineer, you can easily have two of any of the ships I listed and have a great deal more fun.