Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
Denunciar esta mensagem
A base model carrier should be revenue neutral at minimum. Without the owner having to do squat. Adding services it should start making a profit. Not costing us more. It’s just idiotic how they have rolled this out.
No one is going to buy a ship that can’t make a profit or has to be constantly babysat just to break even.
At least I’m not wasting my time or credits without drastic changes.
The Carrier should have their own group of npcs crew members which look in the deep dark for ressources (remembers me on Babylon 5 ^^ ) .
That´s the reason why i don´t buy it currently.
If I buy a ship I expect that ship to be able to earn money all by itself. I don’t leave my Cutter and fly my Sidewinder to pay for bills for the Cutter. My Cutter can pay for itself.
Carriers should be able to earn their keep without constant babysitting and definitely without leaving the carrier in another ship.
Do you get it?
If you want to have one as your own personal solo pimpmobile to show off to newbies, you can still mine a little every week and do it anyway.
Surely you mean "over 100 millions a week", right ?
Also, that's nothing if you enjoy the most boring of all activities in the game, mining.
It's almost as if some people don't understand that they are SOLO OWNED. Not a common property of a group, but only the single property of a single player.
It's also almost as if some people don't understand that something called "fleet carrier" should at the very least be able to, well, carry a fleet, without additional modules to fit that would further increase the upkeep ; or shouldn't punish you for using the main feature of a somthing that calls itself a carrier : moving.
It's also also as if some people don't understant that the way the carriers work, they are going to be entirely useless to several playstyle, most notably exploration. Despite the carrier's previously unseen jump range, which would open access to new systems, it's impossible to make money out there in the dark, and the journeys would take months, meaning an upkeep + repairs of several billions would have to be anticipated prior to leaving. Yes, several billions for only a few months, I've made the calculations.
It's also also also as if some people don't understand that a ball and a chain are not welcome mechanics in a game, and some people would rather play as they see fit than spend part of their game time using forced mechanics so they are then able to spend the rest of their game time as they see fit.
So, basically, it's exactly as if some people were completely missing each and every reason why some people dislike the idea of an upkeep no matter how much, and even more so if it's stupidly high.
If you like asian-MMO-level of grind, go play Black Desert Online. People with a life would rather play games as sensible human beings.
I don’t want my own solo pimpmobile. I want a ship that can earn its own keep. As I said earlier I don’t jump in my Sidewinder to earn money to support my Cutter. My Cutter can earn its own money. Do you have a single valid reason that a carrier can’t pay its own way?
What is it you, and a lot of other people don’t understand about this? Adding services should make money not add additional expenses.
Say you add a shipyard say. You have your initial cost for that. Then you buy your first block of ships. Do you get a discount for buying in bulk? No. You pay full price. Then you have to sell at the same price. Does that make any sense?
Does your commodities market automatically restock when supply is running low? No. If you want to make money from commodities you have to manually do everything. So a babysitting job just to have commodities. Why did I have to hire a crew member for this? He doesn’t do anything.
Plus since NPC’s can’t trade with you you’re stuck depending on other players to trade at your carrier. Not a very stable market there.
No you got a big essentially useless ship that not only can’t earn money it also requires you to leave it and earn money by mining or other nonsense.
Sheesh! Why are people having trouble understanding this?
I wouldn't mind a job on a player's carrier. Being paid millions for doing nothing at all sounds like something I could do for a year or two, then retire.
And the worst part is, the trade feature of the carriers is their most developped aspect yet. Everything else comes second to it, or way behind (I'm looking at you, exploration). And yet, carrier trading is a dumpster fire.
When you leave something in the oven for over a year, it's not supposed to be half-baked.
There is no worse idiot than he who doesn't want to understand. If it doesn't bother them then it has no reason to bother anyone, of course.
Same kind of people who, in other games, other situations, would rant endlessly to nerf X, because obviously X is OP and that's why they always lose in PvP or whatever the rant will be about. And X gets nerfed, other players get screwed, and they rub it to their face.
Also commonly called "self-righteousness" or "entitlement". I call that "utter lack of empathy".
It's a bit out of context, but I think this guy says it better than I ever could, about how people only care for their own immediate interest and don't give a damn about others until it's too late for them too :
Basically, so long as something doesn't bother people directly, they don't give a rat's bottom.
Before FCs the anaconda was endgame, and took some grinding to get to. Once you had it, aside from keeping enough in the bank for repair costs if you got shot down, you didnt lose it if you took a break and played something else for a while. You could leave it sit in the hangar as a trophy while you went and mined in a T9 or bounty hunted in a FDL and you couldnt lose it. Consider the amount of grind needed to even afford a base FC, the ship is reward for that effort and gameplay time. By setting it up so you lose that ship if you dont keep grinding, it stops being a reward and holds your playtime as a gamer hostage or you lose all the work youve put in to even get it. Thats taking a positive reward and turning it into a negative penalty. That is not an acceptable move. Especially when its compounded by nerfing the way people made the money to begin with, multiplying the grind needed to keep what they already earned.
Insurance for a year doesnt cost more than the sticker price of a car, and you dont lose the car if you stop paying insurance. Cel carriers cant hold your phone hostage to their network once you pay off the phone itself and want to take your business and device to a competing service. Club stores dont cancel your membership if you dont buy a certain amount of their products per month.
No other game or MMO I am aware of has content you can earn but then lose if you choose to spend your playtime on something else for a while.
Come on mate, you should know by now that you can easily make 5 billions in 2 days of game time. It's not me saying it, it's all the rich kids who brag about how millions are so easy to get and we're morons because we don't want to make easy money, so that must be true !
In all seriousness though, I believe that Fdev expects us to fall deep in the "sunken cost fallacy". Basically, the idea is that the more you invested into something, the more you should keep investing, else everything before would have been lost for nothing. It is a fallacy because, in fact, the best way to cut your losses is to stop investing right away the moment you realise it is never going to work... But between the emotionnal attachment to the project / work / whatever and the peculiar mindset of people with too much money, power, or both, it's easier to keep investing than admit you've been wrong and drop it. That's also the reason you keep buying loot crates with a 0.2% chance to get what you want, because if you stop all the money previously spent will be lost for nothing.
That's exactly what the fleet carriers are : a sunken cost fallacy turned ship. Buy one, lose money, keep investing money to keep it, pretend everything is fine.
There are some. I've played some of those, and that mechanics was usually one of the reasons I dropped them.
Anarchy Online, back in the early 2000's, implemented player-owned cities. The game really had no money sink, so inflation was quite bad, and new players simply couldn't make enough money to buy stuff at market price. So the player cities were designed as a money sink. Buy the land, build the city, and then pay the upkeep, or functions get disabled and ultimately you lose the land and everything on it. It wasn't as outrageously expensive as the fleet carriers are, but it was quite a drain, and caused much drama in many modest guilds that could afford it, but not without much help from all the members. I know, I was guild leader back then. A few months later, I handed the position to someone else and gifted my account with all my advanced character to a friend.
Everquest 2 had an upkeep mechanics on housing, but if you didn't pay the rent, you simply couldn't access your home anymore, you didn't lose it. Same mechanics for housing in Lord of the Rings Online. Generally speaking, lots of MMO have upkeep on housing, but it's generally fairly low, and certainly not quite as punishing as losing everything if you don't pay. Usually you are only locked out until you pay the bill. I was a beta player in LOTRO, still ended up ditching it, because upkeep felt like a ball and a chain (and they were trying way too hard to be WoW in Middle Earth, but that's unrelated to our current discussion).
Also worth noting, most MMO pay as you go. I mean, kill a rat, loot it, then die ? You still have loot to sell. Elite is a win all / lose all game. If a pirate kills you while mining, if you die while exploring... You gain nothing and have to pay the rebuy. So upkeep in a typical MMO is much less of an issue because you simply can't play and not make money, even if you are terrible at it, even if you die all the time. And even with that factored, it's still good enough a reason not to use mechanics that require upkeep.
Today, my "end game" in Elder Scrolls Online is housing. Much better than raiding. And guess what ? Houses don't have upkeep. The game itself isn't as good as it could be, but I keep playing it for two simple reasons : there isn't anything much better on the market yet, and it doesn't punish me for not playing if I take a break for a few weeks. Just saying.
Yachts in GTA online
Stupidly expensive (comparable in the time to grind I think)
Has upkeep (granted you don't pay when offline, you can learn FROM ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ ROCKSTAR frontier)
Almost completely pointless, both have some money making potential and entertainment value but not much
Neither can store my federal corvette while I fly my krait by default... i.e. Carry a fleet
You need to pay to move them because pointless money sink
Getting either to beagle point is something I'm never going to do
I can't park either in space above earth
They're ships that I can't personally control
Don't forget the 66% devaluation after them 3 months of ownership.
And repair costs every time you move them. Like I'm gonna bust a tire every time I drive to the supermarket.