I see a lot of people talking about the Vulture's price, and how a reduction in price would make the ship 'overpowered'. I'll go out and say that this shows a lack of insight into game design, and here's why:
When considering the impact of credit cost on player behavior, there are 2 primary effects. I will go into detail on why each of these aren't great choices for balance tuning parameters.
1. High initial cost limits ship access to only players who have enough to cover the buy-in.
You can argue that as long as only a players who have worked really hard for it are able to access the ship, then it isn't a problem if the ship is very strong. Let's consider this.
There are 2 very negative effects of this strategy.
The first is that PvP interactions between veteran players and new players are made very one sided. If the ship is truly completely outclasses less expensive ships, then not only are these new players going to be at a disadvantage because of skill, they will also be at a fundamental disadvantage due to ship disparity. Some people might argue that this is a good thing. But PvP interactions are intended to be about interesting interactions with another player. Setting up one-sided situations undermines these interesting interactions, and puts players in situations where they feel like they can't control the outcome.
The second is that this has poor repercussions on the end-game outlook for veteran players. If the Vulture truly completely outclasses other similar ships, then there isn't any incentive to use any of these other ships. This means that the end-game ship choice lacks variety.
This is not what you want for your end-game.
Your end-game needs to have the most variety. The end-game player needs an abundance of competitive choices and playstyles in order to sustain long-term interest in the game. Limiting the competitive fighter choices to Vulture, Vulture or Vulture does not make for an interesting end-game experience.
2. High re-buy cost creates an incentive to be risk averse with the ship.
There's a certain amount of validity to this point. Having a variety of risk/reward ratios among your ship options can make for some interesting choices.
One huge problem with this is that the implied 'risk' is drastically different for different players. For a player who just got enough credits to afford his shiny new Vulture, losing one is going to be a gigantic deal. For a veteran player with an Anaconda, Python, and 100m in the bank, this risk will be a drop in the bucket. Even worse, with Trading being the dominant money-making strategy at the moment, the 'risk' for Traders is much smaller than it is for people who specialize in combat, since it takes them significantly less time to recoup the lost credits.
This 'risk'-value distortion is also compounded by players who have alpha or beta insurance (to give you an idea, an alpha player pays about 1/2 the re-buy cost on a stock Vulture as a regular player).
This distortion makes re-buy cost a poor balancing parameter - not one you want to emphasize in your design.
But let's assume we still want to use re-buy cost as a balancing parameter. The only way re-buy cost can even factor into balance if it is a practical and active deterrent to people using it PvP situations. This means that people actually use the ship less in practice.
What you get in this situation are several negative effects.
One is that even if it is very expensive to replace, you will still come across opponent players who use this ship. When the battle starts, the fact of the matter is that you're at a disadvantage. Sure, if you did manage to kill them, they would have to pay more to replace it. But the satisfaction gained by that knowledge is significantly less than the satisfaction gained by a more even fight - whether you win or lose.
The second is that you've created anxiety over the ship's use. If the risk and cost of replacement is actually an issue, then this will hang on player's minds. Imagine borrowing a Bugatti that you can afford, and taking it around a race track. Not going to be much fun, is it? This anxiety will exist any time there is real and practical cost and risk.
The last thing is that the Vulture is a fighter. As a designer, you want this ship to be prevalent in combat. It shouldn't stifle the other options, but you want it to be a go-to solution for a fighter. Limiting access to usage of this ship with either buy-in or re-buy is counter productive to this goal.
Progression should be about opening up new playstyles and more options, not invalidating existing choices with strictly superior ones.
If the Vulture would be 'overpowered' by reducing its cost, then it's already a balance problem. The solution isn't to keep the unreasonable price - the solution is to nerf the ship. As far as I can tell from having tested it on the BETA, my most likely candidate would be a nerf to its shields. It's other out-standing trait is its firepower, but the 2 large hardpoints are pretty core to its identity. I also think that extreme defensive capabilities are better reserved for the 'gunboat' style ships.
When considering the impact of credit cost on player behavior, there are 2 primary effects. I will go into detail on why each of these aren't great choices for balance tuning parameters.
1. High initial cost limits ship access to only players who have enough to cover the buy-in.
You can argue that as long as only a players who have worked really hard for it are able to access the ship, then it isn't a problem if the ship is very strong. Let's consider this.
There are 2 very negative effects of this strategy.
The first is that PvP interactions between veteran players and new players are made very one sided. If the ship is truly completely outclasses less expensive ships, then not only are these new players going to be at a disadvantage because of skill, they will also be at a fundamental disadvantage due to ship disparity. Some people might argue that this is a good thing. But PvP interactions are intended to be about interesting interactions with another player. Setting up one-sided situations undermines these interesting interactions, and puts players in situations where they feel like they can't control the outcome.
The second is that this has poor repercussions on the end-game outlook for veteran players. If the Vulture truly completely outclasses other similar ships, then there isn't any incentive to use any of these other ships. This means that the end-game ship choice lacks variety.
This is not what you want for your end-game.
Your end-game needs to have the most variety. The end-game player needs an abundance of competitive choices and playstyles in order to sustain long-term interest in the game. Limiting the competitive fighter choices to Vulture, Vulture or Vulture does not make for an interesting end-game experience.
2. High re-buy cost creates an incentive to be risk averse with the ship.
There's a certain amount of validity to this point. Having a variety of risk/reward ratios among your ship options can make for some interesting choices.
One huge problem with this is that the implied 'risk' is drastically different for different players. For a player who just got enough credits to afford his shiny new Vulture, losing one is going to be a gigantic deal. For a veteran player with an Anaconda, Python, and 100m in the bank, this risk will be a drop in the bucket. Even worse, with Trading being the dominant money-making strategy at the moment, the 'risk' for Traders is much smaller than it is for people who specialize in combat, since it takes them significantly less time to recoup the lost credits.
This 'risk'-value distortion is also compounded by players who have alpha or beta insurance (to give you an idea, an alpha player pays about 1/2 the re-buy cost on a stock Vulture as a regular player).
This distortion makes re-buy cost a poor balancing parameter - not one you want to emphasize in your design.
But let's assume we still want to use re-buy cost as a balancing parameter. The only way re-buy cost can even factor into balance if it is a practical and active deterrent to people using it PvP situations. This means that people actually use the ship less in practice.
What you get in this situation are several negative effects.
One is that even if it is very expensive to replace, you will still come across opponent players who use this ship. When the battle starts, the fact of the matter is that you're at a disadvantage. Sure, if you did manage to kill them, they would have to pay more to replace it. But the satisfaction gained by that knowledge is significantly less than the satisfaction gained by a more even fight - whether you win or lose.
The second is that you've created anxiety over the ship's use. If the risk and cost of replacement is actually an issue, then this will hang on player's minds. Imagine borrowing a Bugatti that you can afford, and taking it around a race track. Not going to be much fun, is it? This anxiety will exist any time there is real and practical cost and risk.
The last thing is that the Vulture is a fighter. As a designer, you want this ship to be prevalent in combat. It shouldn't stifle the other options, but you want it to be a go-to solution for a fighter. Limiting access to usage of this ship with either buy-in or re-buy is counter productive to this goal.
Progression should be about opening up new playstyles and more options, not invalidating existing choices with strictly superior ones.
If the Vulture would be 'overpowered' by reducing its cost, then it's already a balance problem. The solution isn't to keep the unreasonable price - the solution is to nerf the ship. As far as I can tell from having tested it on the BETA, my most likely candidate would be a nerf to its shields. It's other out-standing trait is its firepower, but the 2 large hardpoints are pretty core to its identity. I also think that extreme defensive capabilities are better reserved for the 'gunboat' style ships.
