General Why I think Fleet carrier upkeep should be removed.
- Thread starter DemiserofD
- Start date
A signal source is a marker, not an asset, Carriers have signal sources too, pretty much like anything else you can low wake into
Last edited:
Because some player suggestions are dumb enough to miff me off... and because FDev need to know (im pretty sure they are already, but extra assurance cant hurt) that there are people that do not agree with certain suggestions that might change the game in an undesirable way (undesirable for me ofc)
...And? I mean, if you have knowledge of the game code that conclusively tells you that it's impossible to code fleet carriers in a similar manner, that's one thing. But you can't just say that without any knowledge of the code base and have it mean or prove anything.
Right, but if all you're saying is that you dislike change in general, that's just going to be disregarded by default in regards to any suggestion in particular. After all, changes do happen, and some of them may be inspired by the suggestions forum, so general dislike for change is essentially pointless. If you had any concrete reasons for disliking this suggestion in particular, that might be another matter, but from what I've read so far, that isn't the case.
Help me out, here.
Last edited:
Nope, i dont say that. In this particular case, i'd suggest to increase the upkeep, not remove/decrease it
Check this
Nope, i dont say that. In this particular case, i'd suggest to increase the upkeep, not remove/decrease it
Check this
Fair enough!
Honestly, I'd support that suggestion as well; just make upkeep meaningful. I'd love it if they made upkeep increase specifically in high-traffic systems, to keep the fleet carriers moving and not just abandoned in inconvenient locations. Heck, add passage fees when you enter or leave Federation or Imperial space, to make their territory feel more meaningful. All sorts of changes like that could be really neat.
Well, that's the design choice FDev made to work within the limitations of the game.
They wanted Carriers to allow holding modules and ships and cargo. Allow player ships to dock with them. Have a market and be mobile.
So we got a Station, more specifically something that's more of a dockable megaship - that is a galactic asset, persistent and visible in all modes and platforms
And this is the only choice.
They couldnt go for a ship type asset since that is not persistent (no possible interaction with other players while the owner is logged off)
Now the problem with Carriers clogging nav panels and/or system maps is only a filtering and/or display option that could probably be solved if they wanted to.
We can already filter out carriers from the nav panel, but that means filtering all carriers including own and bookmarked carriers, which is not convenient
Certain display options can also be employed for the system map - either a on/off toggle for displaying carriers or a stacked option (a single carrier displayed, hover the mouse over it and you get the full list - this can also be a toggle) which would greatly improve the aesthetics of the system map
The OP stated a player "has no choice"
A player has a choice on:
a) Whether to purchase a carrier.
b) What carrier options to include effecting price and upkeep fee.
c) Whether to pay maintenance fee in lump sums or weekly installments.
d) The activities to raise the funds for a whatever purchases the player want to make.
These are choices that every player has. Maybe more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The premise of the OP is that Upkeep costs are trivial AND just and annoyance and should therefore be removed.
- How are upkeep costs an an annoyance if they are paid for upfront?
- How are upkeep costs trivial if a player can't afford it upfront?
Edit: was missing part of the quote.
Last edited:
Don't wanna pay for maintaining it, don't buy it.
Like owning a car.
Like owning a car.
Because the game continues to remind you every week that you're paying it.
Just because something is 99% insignificant doesn't mean it can't be annoying. Like the bug with Odyssey right now, where it blackscreens when you exit and you need to force close. It's not horrible, or a major problem, but that doesn't mean it isn't annoying or that it shouldn't be fixed.
This is a video game, not real life. The objective should be player enjoyment; if realism can serve that goal, then great! But if many players are complaining about it, then perhaps alternative methods of achieving realism can be used, instead.
I'm fine with paying for it. And I own two!
My version of the game doesn't. [edit: or maybe it does and i don't notice? Idc] I dump a bunch of credits into my carrier and it magically takes care of itself. For years. FDev did an awesome job with this. We can even adjust what services are active. Zero complaints from me.
Maybe the OP would prefer a simplified game where the upkeep costs are buried in a fixed 30% increase in the initial purchase?
I didn't get those weekly e-mails for months, from shortly after the Odyssey release to maybe update 10 or so when they started to appear again.
I didn't miss them, and I didn't think about the maintenance fee at all without that reminder. I don't think having the game just not tell players about the cost is a good solution for all, but if there were an option to not receive it (unless funds are low maybe) I'd make use of it.
Oh its in the form of emails. FDev has my junk email address so I would never have known.
The messages go into your in-game inbox (after the Thursday morning server restart) not IRL e-mails. Same as the ones you used to get before you stopped receiving them.
That was basically my thought, too. Just removing the messages would 'fix' the problem, but you can't really do that. Players need to know they're being charged, in the odd occasion that they didn't leave any money in their FC for some reason. It's a niche case, but a valid one.
Which is why I came to the conclusion that just removing it would be the best option. It's just as easy as adding some sort of filter or shutoff switch for messages, but without the rare downsides.
But...
As we've seen in this thread there is a desire for there to be some sort of 'cost' to carrier ownership, perhaps even some way in which carrier ownership must somehow be frustrating (so that those who do not themselves care, or who do not have a carrier themselves can laud it over those that do and are frustrated to some extent by it).
And if we are to have some sort of slightly frustrating cost, I think it may as well have a benefit that can run concurrently with that mild frustration for those so inclined to make a bigger deal than is absolutely necessary out of. Hence my suggestion of parking fees. Kills two birds with one stone, and is completely independent of the current maintenance charge so FDev could implement both if they didn't want to remove the weekly maintenance.
Or do nothing of course, which is most likely. Interesting thought experiment all the same though
There will always be people frustrated with top tier items in video games that they can't easily have. Some people just want things to be easier.
I disagree with making redesign changes for the bottom percent of players that want games to be made easier. Have I been frustrated with games that I can't get or maintain top tier stuff? Yes! That's why people play challenging games. In the case of fleet carriers the upkeep cost is part of the cost/challenge/hurdle of having one. Just like any other top tier accomplishment in any other game. "Oh but you need to keep revisiting the accomplishment to maintain the reward" some might claim. So what? That is part of the baked-in challenge/requirement that the bottom percent of players might not be able to handle.