General Why I think Fleet carrier upkeep should be removed.

[Riverside]

And that is rejoicing?

Oh...

Rejoicing?

That there is a weekly maintenance fee is frustrating to some players.
That some players are frustrated by this is a reason why some (other) players want it to remain.
The parking change I propose would accommodate this desire for schadenfreude. It would (I believe) also motivate Carrier pilots to consider where & for how long they park in popular systems.

Even without any desire for a deliberately frustrating mechanism (which may well be the case) the parking charge still offers a solid QoL benefit over the current maintenance fee, and does not require that the maintenance fee be removed (the wear & tear charge for travel seems fair enough for example).

 

[Rat Catcher]

Rejoicing?

That there is a weekly maintenance fee is frustrating to some players.
That some players are frustrated by this is a reason why some (other) players want it to remain.
The parking change I propose would accommodate this desire for schadenfreude. It would (I believe) also motivate Carrier pilots to consider where & for how long they park in popular systems.

Even without any desire for a deliberately frustrating mechanism (which may well be the case) the parking charge still offers a solid QoL benefit over the current maintenance fee, and does not require that the maintenance fee be removed (the wear & tear charge for travel seems fair enough for example).

Players have always been frustrated by game mechanics they don't wish to interact with, look at the fuss over the ADS introduction, that was a doozy!

What is strange is that an argument is being made over a game mechanic that is explicitly highlighted prior to engaging with it. It was already significantly reduced after FCs were introduced into the game.

I wouldn't mind parking charges in the least - nor landing / take off charges from any station, outpost, settlement or port - I play for a couple of hours every now and then to just make credits, so 500-800 million goes into the FC banks (I have 3 currently, with a 4th planned) so if charges rise it might just mean I have to devote another 3 or 6 hours each year to just topping up the FC bank - assuming I didn't play at all in the interim, naturally.

As I don't tend to park in popular systems (bar Carcosa, of course) punitive charges for doing so would be inconsequential, had I chosen Colonia or Ratraii, naturally I'd expect to pay a hefty fee for the duration.

 

[Riverside]

Players have always been frustrated by game mechanics they don't wish to interact with, look at the fuss over the ADS introduction, that was a doozy!

What is strange is that an argument is being made over a game mechanic that is explicitly highlighted prior to engaging with it. It was already significantly reduced after FCs were introduced into the game.

I wouldn't mind parking charges in the least - nor landing / take off charges from any station, outpost, settlement or port - I play for a couple of hours every now and then to just make credits, so 500-800 million goes into the FC banks (I have 3 currently, with a 4th planned) so if charges rise it might just mean I have to devote another 3 or 6 hours each year to just topping up the FC bank - assuming I didn't play at all in the interim, naturally.

As I don't tend to park in popular systems (bar Carcosa, of course) punitive charges for doing so would be inconsequential, had I chosen Colonia or Ratraii, naturally I'd expect to pay a hefty fee for the duration.

You miss my point. There is the capacity for my proposal (parking fees) to accommodate the desire for Carriers to have a frustrating downside, while (unlike the maintenance fee) having a solution (parking in a quieter system) to mitigate that frustration. Everybody wins, carrier owners are motivated to move on or not park in popular systems while still being able to if they really want to.

Nobody actually has to have that desire to see others frustrated for it to offer that benefit (matching the current maintenance fee mechanism. It may be that those stating they are happy to see others being frustrated are not serious for example.

It seems petty to me but if it is important to others, well the proposal accommodates them. And if nobody actually meets this criteria it doesn't matter.

 

[Rat Catcher]

You miss my point

No, I didn't miss that point - I even acknowledged it here:

As I don't tend to park in popular systems (bar Carcosa, of course) punitive charges for doing so would be inconsequential, had I chosen Colonia or Ratraii, naturally I'd expect to pay a hefty fee for the duration.

Perhaps it was unclear?

ETA: I do have one of my FCs in Leesti currently, while some members of my squadron are 'playing' in the system - it'll be gone in a couple of days, but I'd have been quite happy to have paid a punitive 'parking fee' during the 2 week stay, credits have been rolling in from mission payouts and BH revenue. (and I'm sure my playmates would have traded some of their profits on the FC had such fees existed)

 

[Riverside]

No, I didn't miss that point - I even acknowledged it here:

Perhaps it was unclear?

ETA: I do have one of my FCs in Leesti currently, while some members of my squadron are 'playing' in the system - it'll be gone in a couple of days, but I'd have been quite happy to have paid a punitive 'parking fee' during the 2 week stay, credits have been rolling in from mission payouts and BH revenue. (and I'm sure my playmates would have traded some of their profits on the FC had such fees existed)

You miss my point Rat Catcher. It's okay, my proposal is not contingent on your confirming your understanding that part. Good to know you like the parking fee idea

 

[Rat Catcher]

You miss my point Rat Catcher. It's okay, my proposal is not contingent on your confirming your understanding that part. Good to know you like the parking fee idea

No, I don't think I do... But never mind, we'd never agree on anything anyway, my sense of the ridiculous gets in the way.

 

[Northpin]

@Riverside #100 - how is that rejoicing - it was a mere observation (also a bit of tongue-in-cheek)

And if you want me to put it in other words - people that can spend 20-30h per week in the game should have something over the people that can barely spend 2h
Carrier(including upkeep) can be that "something" or at least one of the "somethings"

So yea, i still think carrier's upkeep is a bit on the low side (all my 3 carriers are topped up, running the max upkeep)

 

[Riverside]

@Riverside #100 - how is that rejoicing - it was a mere observation (also a bit of tongue-in-cheek)

And if you want me to put it in other words - people that can spend 20-30h per week in the game should have something over the people that can barely spend 2h
Carrier(including upkeep) can be that "something" or at least one of the "somethings"

So yea, i still think carrier's upkeep is a bit on the low side (all my 3 carriers are topped up, running the max upkeep)

Rejoicing isn't my word, it's Greasetrap's, and they used it in the negative term. I didn't set boundaries on the amount of frustration or glee derived.

I also already answered a pretty similar line of enquiry just a few posts above. My interpretation of your post was that you wished to 'laud it over others'. This is a viable stance.

 

[Greasetrap42]

Rejoicing isn't my word, it's Greasetrap's, and they used it in the negative term.

No, please do not make statements and then attribute them to others. @Riverside I had the greatest respect for you on this forum, and it has suddenly dropped. If you don't know what words mean then don't use them, and don' be twisting what others say. An making statements attributing them to others.

Read you own statement which I had then responded with in disagreement. because I have seen no evidence of anybody including myself (who you had been quoting) of rejoicing in other's misery.

\/ \/ \/

I think you have the wrong end of the stick here Greasetrap. My proposal would be to add an additional parking fee, independent of whether the maintenance fee is changed, in every respect carrier ownership would the the same as or more expensive than it currently is so I am not proposing something to make this top tier asset more easily obtained.

Schadenfreude is a legitimate motivation for game design - there are plenty of examples in this thread of a desire for others to 'suffer'.

 

[Riverside]

No, please do not make statements and then attribute them to others. @Riverside I had the greatest respect for you on this forum, and it has suddenly dropped. If you don't know what words mean then don't use them, and don' be twisting what others say. An making statements attributing them to others.

Read you own statement which I had then responded with in disagreement. because I have seen no evidence of anybody including myself (who you had been quoting) of rejoicing in other's misery.

\/ \/ \/

Schadenfreude - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I didn't use the word rejoice Greasetrap. I also didn't attribute this trait to you.

 

[Greasetrap42]

Rejoicing isn't my word, it's Greasetrap's, and they used it in the negative term.

If you can find any example in this thread or any other thread in any forum on the internet where I expressed or advocating rejoicing in others misery please post it.

This is simply not something that I have said.

 

[Riverside]

If you can find any example in this thread or any other thread in any forum on the internet where I expressed or advocating rejoicing in others misery please post it.

This is simply not something that I have said.

I have made absolutely no comments about rejoicing in other player's misery, so I don't see the relevance to any of my posts that you have quoted.

All of my comments are regarding the ability of a player to achieve and/or maintain top tier items in a video game. Some players can do it, others can't or don't want to. Pointing out that an idea is focused on making a game easier for the lower percent players is simply stating a fact, not making fun of people.

Rejoicing isn't my word, it's Greasetrap's, and they used it in the negative term.

 

[Greasetrap42]

What the what @Riverside? Defending myself saying I didn't say something does not mean I made a statement advocating something.

expressed or advocating rejoicing in others misery

Please, quote me where I "expressed or advocating rejoicing in others misery". Where anywhere have I advocated this? Edit: or participated in this? Anywhere on any forum on the internet?

Schadenfreude​

I didn't use the word rejoice Greasetrap.

Saying something in a different language is the same thing as saying it.

 

[Riverside]

What the what @Riverside? Defending myself saying I didn't say something does not mean I made a statement advocating something.

Please, quote me where I "expressed or advocating rejoicing in others misery". Where anywhere have I advocated this?




Saying something in a different language is the same thing as saying it.

I know Greasetrap, I didn't attribute this trait to you, only the use of the word 'rejoice', which you used in the negative (ie that you didn't rejoice).

 

[Greasetrap42]

I know Greasetrap, I didn't attribute this trait to you, only the use of the word 'rejoice', which you used in the negative (ie that you didn't rejoice).

I take offense to you latest posts, where yu said things that simply where not true. As said earlier I had much respect for you on this forum. It is gone.

 

[LumpTheNoLeggedDog]

how someone can own more then one FC ?
is this another one of those employee or share holders privileges ?
just like cheating (God mode) is a privilege employees and share holders are allowed to use.

 

[Riverside]

how someone can own more then one FC ?
is this another one of those employee or share holders privileges ?
just like cheating (God mode) is a privilege employees and share holders are allowed to use.

It's one per copy of the game so if you have more than one copy you can have more than one carrier.

 

[Greasetrap42]

1-2 billion per year is not a trivial annoyance for many players such as myself.

First off, 2 billion is a dramatic over-exaggeration. More practically, the vast majority of carriers run with around 10m/week upkeep(or less), or closer to 500m/year.

As you can see, without all services selected it can easily be over 1 billion per year. All services selected is 1.8 billion.

Edit: The main reason players like myself don't get the full list of services is because of the upkeep cost. Which is not just a trivial annoyance, it is a substantial cost to owning a carrier. It is a cost to having a top tier item. The OP says lets just get rid of this because its just trivial.

 

[Riverside]

As you can see, without all services selected it can easily be over 1 billion per year. All services selected is 1.8 billion.

View attachment 308253

Yes that's about what mine is. Not only do I regularly earn more than that from exploration data alone, last time I was in a populated system (in Colonia while waiting for an extra week for the delayed update 11) I earned 1.3b in 3 days (around 12-15hrs of play) from laser mining Platinum in a metallic ring & selling it to a tourist ground base.

If the current maintenance fee mechanism were replaced by a parking fee mechanism and the carrier were put in a quiet system potentially the running cost would be zero. If left idle the carrier would then never run out of cash but because it's not clogging up a popular system it wouldn't be a problem to any other player that it remains there indefinitely.

 

[DemiserofD]

As you can see, without all services selected it can easily be over 1 billion per year. All services selected is 1.8 billion.

View attachment 308253

That doesn't look like 2 billion to me? Claiming 1-2b while barely scraping over 1b/year, and carrying a host of useless services, including outfitting and secure warehouse(neither of which I've seen on more than 1-2 carriers, having docked at hundreds), is a dramatical misrepresentation of reality.

Anyone going over 1b/year is dramatically above average.

---

That said, you do make a decent point; In retrospect, I don't see the additional services upkeep as being trivial. If you run full services, your carrier absolutely can cost a significant amount. Not a gamebreaking amount, but it edges above what I would call 'trivial'.

But this, too, is a problem. Why? Because those are the carriers you don't want gone!

The Carriers that people want gone are the ones cluttering up the galaxy and giving nothing in return. In many systems, 90%-100% of carriers have all services disabled, and are doing absolutely nothing helpful. But it's these carriers that will last the longest! Meanwhile, the actually useful carriers will eat up multiple times as much income, punishing helpful players while rewarding the worst carrier owners.

In my ideal world, not only would there be parking fees, those parking fees would be adjusted by how much traffic the carrier in question gets. If a carrier is supporting dozens to hundreds of players a day, that owner should not be encouraged to move their carrier, because it's clearly being a service to the community. By contrast, if someone has a disabled carrier blocking slots and offering nothing, they should immediately face full penalties for stealing what could be a valuable parking spot.