Can't see the cryptocurrency Ponzi hustle lasting into the 35th century. Might as well have a tulip locker.I would be happy if the game had even more fees - docking fees, realistic repair fees, pirates who hack my bitcoin locker
Can't see the cryptocurrency Ponzi hustle lasting into the 35th century. Might as well have a tulip locker.I would be happy if the game had even more fees - docking fees, realistic repair fees, pirates who hack my bitcoin locker
? Are you using Inara correctly? I've been docking at various FCs and it's been at least 90% correct in its docking permissions and service availability statuses. Maybe it is different in the Bubble than in Colonia and in the Black. I look for how recently Inara updated the details, which gives me a clue not to rely on one that are days or weeks old since the last update. Same applies for stations' outfitting etc.Inara isn't a very complete picture, tbh. It only includes details from carriers that have been docked at by someone who has updates enabled, and there are huge numbers of carriers where docking isn't even possible due to restrictions. I'd be surprised if even half of all existing fleet carriers have valid info on there. Heck, even a quarter; even if someone did dock at one, there's a very high probability the owner has since sold off or suspended their services. My carrier's info hasn't been updated since 2021, and it actually allows docking and has active services!
Help me understand the logic, here: The purpose of upkeep is to keep down Fleet Carrier clutter, right? Abandoned and useless carriers will be removed from the game.
Only, because upkeep exists, players disable their services. This reduces the upkeep down to trivial levels, becoming more of an annoyance to other players than to the owner.
? Are you using Inara correctly? I've been docking at various FCs and it's been at least 90% correct in its docking permissions and service availability statuses. Maybe it is different in the Bubble than in Colonia and in the Black. I look for how recently Inara updated the details, which gives me a clue not to rely on one that are days or weeks old since the last update. Same applies for stations' outfitting etc.
View attachment 308483
I think the issue is that upkeep doesn't do what was intended, namely remove inactive carriers. I can easily load up my carrier with credits for ten years. And yet it's an irritating credit drain. Well actually it's not that irritating; I can easily ignore it and I wouldn't have thought of making a thread about it. It's just another half-baked game feature which doesn't achieve the intended result.What is wrong with you people?
You've got Frontier to make earning cash so easy that it's almost pointless;
You've got fleet carriers available for single player ownership rather than something a squadron needs to work together to get and maintain;
You've got the cost for ownership reduced after they were introduced and now you want to dumb down the cost of ownership completely.
I really wish this game had the ability to add mods so you'll all get everything in one go, get bored and get lost.
Yes, you and the grindlords in this forum. Not so much for the average player. It may sound odd around here but it is not normal or trivial to have dozens of billions of credits.I can easily ignore it and I wouldn't have thought of making a thread about it.
Sustaining a carrier really isn't that much effort. You can buy Agronomic Treatment for 300 and sell it for 30k one system over, with maybe 10 minutes per run. In a Cutter, that's ~25m in 10 minutes, and enough to upkeep your carrier for 5 weeks. I don't think 2 minutes a week is exactly 'grindlord' status.Yes, you and the grindlords in this forum. Not so much for the average player. It may sound odd around here but it is not normal or trivial to have dozens of billions of credits.
I'm not sure what prompted that, maybe I'm being mixed up with someone else? I never grind in any game.Yes, you and the grindlords in this forum. Not so much for the average player. It may sound odd around here but it is not normal or trivial to have dozens of billions of credits.
Just responding to what you said. To the average player credits are not pointless, and people cannot ignore upkeep if they can even think about carriers at all. It's an extremely skewed perspective on what the majority of the players experience when playing the game.I'm not sure what prompted that, maybe I'm being mixed up with someone else? I never grind in any game.
I've been playing MMOs, and before that MUDs, since the early 90's. I remember well the hordes of people who waited in UO for a house to "decay," deeds at the ready, only for the home owner to log in and refresh the house on the last day. And this was a subscription service.I think the issue is that upkeep doesn't do what was intended, namely remove inactive carriers. I can easily load up my carrier with credits for ten years. And yet it's an irritating credit drain. Well actually it's not that irritating; I can easily ignore it and I wouldn't have thought of making a thread about it. It's just another half-baked game feature which doesn't achieve the intended result.
I'd prefer a feature whereby if you don't log in for a month, your carrier vanishes from the galaxy. Anyone else aboard has all assets moved to the nearest available shipyard with a large pad. After that, if you log in again your carrier reappears in the nearest available place to where it was.
2) Make them cost prohibitive for a single player to maintain, without doing one of the following:a) have them be maintained by a sizable squadronb) becoming a profitable in-game business, at which point they stop becoming a problem for other players, and become content for other players instead.
Well, when looking at missions I don't check how many credits they pay, I check how many million credits. I can earn enough for several weeks' carrier upkeep in one jump with a few stacked deliveries. I wouldn't call that grinding.Just responding to what you said. To the average player credits are not pointless, and people cannot ignore upkeep if they can even think about carriers at all. It's an extremely skewed perspective on what the majority of the players experience when playing the game.
Sure. It's the "after months I finally can afford a Python!" versus "Huh, I earn two pythons per hour?" perspective. Neither is factually wrong, but it's good to be aware of both.Well, when looking at missions I don't check how many credits they pay, I check how many million credits. I can earn enough for several weeks' carrier upkeep in one jump with a few stacked deliveries. I wouldn't call that grinding.
Well, whatever you think of them, one thing is obvious: they're popular. I think in niche respects they're a great QoL improvement (I run one for that reason). Just having commodity storage is great. My on-board market makes a steady profit so I must assume other players are finding it useful. I can make things like Painite, Modular Terminals etc. available for engineer unlocks. I can carry small stocks of meta-alloys, Thargoid materials etc. in case they're useful for anyone. And of course I can hop out of one ship and into another.We could make them... not in the game. That way they would work as they do and not be a pile of annoying code making issues for the game in general, as well as be something that clogs up the system map.
I've said that from the time we "beta tested" them, and these kind of threads make me realise they still haven't gotten to the point where they have any positive impact on the game. Shame really, so much potential.
S
Agreed. They need a lot of fleshing out though, not just been made easier to ignore.Well, whatever you think of them, one thing is obvious: they're popular. I think in niche respects they're a great QoL improvement (I run one for that reason). Just having commodity storage is great. My on-board market makes a steady profit so I must assume other players are finding it useful. I can make things like Painite, Modular Terminals etc. available for engineer unlocks. I can carry small stocks of meta-alloys, Thargoid materials etc. in case they're useful for anyone. And of course I can hop out of one ship and into another.
I hope FD wouldn't take away a game feature that's so well used. What I do think they need is better ways to filter them from the system map and broadcast what facilities and commodities they offer before a player drops into their instance.
Do you usually argue in circles like this?Only, because upkeep exists, players disable their services. This reduces the upkeep down to trivial levels, becoming more of an annoyance to other players than to the owner.
Do you usually argue in circles like this?
You want to remove upkeep costs because you claim they are just a trivial annoyance, then turn around and claim players disable them to reduce costs.
You want decluttering of useless carriers in systems, yet your OP calls for reducing their cost so more players that are on the edge of affording one can. Curently the upkeep costs are the only nechanism that auto-removes carriers. (other ideas on how to decultter systems are made, but that is not your OP). And upkeep costs reduce carrier purchases from those that can't afford extra billions of Cr and aren't certain if they can commit to logging in regularly.
You just keep going in these circles. And making a lot of unfounded statistical claims regarding the carriers and the player/owners based on a small sample you visit. Do you actually know the thoughts and reasons of fleet carrier owners that only purchase the minimalist of services? Are you certain that "98%" of them can easily afford upkeep costs but choose not to? The "vast majority" of fleet carrier owners don't want these services even if given to them free of upkeep cost?
Edit: added quotes to emphazise your claims, not mine.
Please post you spreadsheet of sampled carrier data. Data must include the owner's current Cr wealth, and average monthly Cr income. I expect this to be a minimum 0f 2% of all carriers (2% is just 600 carriers). If you are unable to present this data then you are making up crap out of your head.As for 'unfounded claims', I recently did a survey of fleet carriers in another thread. 66% had an upkeep at the minimum level. 100% had it at or below half.
So yes, I'd say that 98% is a pretty reasonable figure. If anything, that's an overstatement.
After that, I'm sure that system would not be a representative sample, so I'd have to do a second one, and if I'm doing a second one, I really should do every carrier in the bubble.Please post you spreadsheet of sampled carrier data. Data must include the owner's current Cr wealth, and average monthly Cr income. I expect this to be a minimum 0f 2% of all carriers (2% is just 600 carriers). If you are unable to present this data then you are making up crap out of your head.
Data must also include the carrier owner's reasoning for minimalist services. If costs is a factor it must be noted.
Edit: Data must also include if the owner plays EDO or just Horizons. This being a major factor. Also if the carrier was purchased prior to an EDO purchase, and the carrier is now unreasonably far away from an administration system for the purpose of adding new services.
Nope, just need a representative sample of actual data to back-up your numerical claims.After that, I'm sure that system would not be a representative sample