[Wall of Text] FC Beta 2 - final feedback and thoughts

I wouldn't be so sure about that. I didn't check the journal files and I've not seen any documentation for the new journal, but maybe those transactions are logged in it. And if that's the case, then you can send that data to EDDB, just as any other market data.
Failing that I imagine Inara will also have a registry for them.
 

rootsrat

Volunteer Moderator
Think Private Jet or Luxury Yacht. Total money-sinks, outward displays of wealth and status, and can (mostly) be liquidated at any time for most of the initial outlay.

edit: typo
@Robbie - I didn't want to derail the other thread, as your comment is related to this one, so replying here. Just as per my comment in the OP: I simply don't understand the whole premise of designing an economy, where one of the design principals is not to make profit within that economy. It's mindboggling.

Fleet Carriers could easily be a money sinks within a different framework - BGS for example, rather than trying to make profit within an economy desgined NOT to make one.

What FDEV did in that context just doesn't make any sense to me, regardless how I try to look at it.
 
8. Inconsistent fundamental assumptions for design of player economy?

This is something that is really bothering me and however I try to look at it - I just don't get it.

What is the point of economy? To make profit, right? Frontier did say in the Lave Radio interview - and they said it straight - that the Fleet Carriers were basically "designed as money sink" and were "NOT designed to make profit". What is the point of introducing a whole new layer of economy, give exclusive control over it to players - and yet also have a fundamental rule of not making a profit within that economy?

I honestly tried to look at it from various angles and I just don't understand how is that supposed to work. What is the player economy for then? Only for players to pump the exploited money into it for no apparent reason? Only because the BGS economy is broken due to lack of attention to money making exploits? Then I think I would prefer for the Fleet Carriers to be something else entirely and instead of wasting time for introducing the player economy (which in the context of what I've said above seems a bit like a waste of time and effort to me), for FC to for example have an impact on BGS. This would at least make it useful in many more ways than now.

It would also gave it an actual purpose that wouldn't be seemingly contradicting with the fundamental design assumptions.
"designed as money sink" and were "NOT designed to make profit"

Well, that explains a lot for me...

This external review is also dead on IMHO: Elite Dangerous needs to make its fleet carriers worthwhile

That review points out two glaring issues for Fleet Carriers that I have observed:

1) Tritium -- an expensive contrivance for sucking up money and time. For that it works. Both as a "money sink" and as a "time sink" it functions exceedingly well. It is a contrivance. Heck, they won't add grav plates to ships as being an impossible tech, but they will add an element that can't exist in significant quantities to mine? Deuterium will exist, maybe even in somewhat enriched amounts. Tritium can be Manufactured, but not mined. No way! They add fusion of normal hydrogen as the primary fuel source, but require only Tritium for the big boys? I just don't get this. None of the convoluted logic I have seen so far allows me to even begin to wrap my head around such an obvious pseudo scientific foul up! In a word this just plain sucks! (and apparently, that is just what is was designed to do: suck up time and money...)

2) A Market that is unworkable. Well, first of all, it is set up to require micro managing it. BIG "time sink" that really "sucks" up time and generates no cash flow. From a business perspective, this would be a "do not buy" investment advice. It is doomed to fail. Secondly, it does not have the ability to buy and sell at the same time. Of course, if this was "designed as money sink" this is perfectly correct; it will do that very well. My opinion is that you are better off buying a time share in the real world than buying this "money sink!"

That review is spot on in another respect that is not just a reflection of Fleet Carriers per se:

There is very little interaction between players in "Open Play" Open Play, when you do run into a lot of other players is more like "Open Season" for those players I will always call "Gankers" and that severely perverts this game and its community, IMHO. I will not address that fully here, but will address it in part. Fleet Carriers, if done right, will be able to address this in part, but certainly not completely adequately.

Let me first address my proposed solution for Tritium.

a) Make the fuel "enriched hydrogen fuel" that is available at specific stations. Refineries is a fine choice. Lets stay with that.

b) Make what is mined "deuterium rich water" instead. It can be found in ice rings around Class Y stars, or some other locations, even if not very common. Use some imagination. I am sure adequate sources that could be expected to be found out in the black with some consistency can be come up with without even as much contrivance as this Tritium fiasco requires. Absent that, Fleet Carriers for exploration is a crippled idea, or an absolute no-go, as it currently is for me.

c) Make fuel that is scooped up (where deuterium will exist in measurable quantities) something that can be sold directly out of the player's fuel tanks. Certainly, some players will sell too much and strand themselves, but you want a "money sink" that will work? Well, it is probably less effective than players that forget to have enough for a rebuy before upgrading, only to lose their ship, but I think it will do just fine in draining some player cash reserves.

d) Give the Fleet Carrier a limited ability to "refine" those two items into "enriched hydrogen fuel" with the buyproduct of "depleted hydrogen fuel" (which will work just fine for most ships) It could be set up to where it would take a week for the "enriched hydrogen fuel" fully replenished, and may even require the automatic jettisoning of "depleted hydrogen fuel" but it would give deep exploration groups a chance to be viable.

e) Let the owner of a Fleet Carrier contribute ships to an "auxiliary wing" that can be used in several ways. It requires the ships be fully kitted out and they cannot be upgraded after assignment. It requires a crew member to be sacrificed for each ship. If a ship has a fighter bay, it requires two crew members be sacrificed for that ship. The ships and crew members so dedicated are gone forever from the standpoint of the player. What this "auxiliary wing" can do is up to the Fleet Carrier owner. They can change tasks for the "auxiliary wing" and in one case, the mode in which it is done. The first thing they can do is scoop fuel. Simple and easy. They fly out, scoop fuel, and bring it back. They are experienced enough to do without risking running out of fuel, so their efficiency level is lower because their caution is high and they reserve at least double the fuel they will need to go back out again. They do not sell the fuel, they donate it. They are presumed to be paid out of the proceeds of their endeavors. No profit is made. They are in all instances, and can be attacked and even lost. If lost, their rebuy cost must be in the Fleet Carrier's account or they are not rebought. Their crew members are lost if the ship is not rebought. No alternate ship is given. If they kill a player with a bounty, that bounty is given to the Fleet Carrier, less the normal percentages for the crew. No wing bonuses. The second thing they can do is mine. Specify target to mine. Specify priorities to mine for, which could be only one thing or a list of variable size. Out they go. It takes a while for them to mine, and they must be rigged correctly. Correctly rigging them means they work faster. Poor rigging means you get less, it comes slower, and you may not even get what you want. This rigging is set when the ship is donated, so the Fleet Carrier owner must account for this when making an auxiliary wing and donating ships to it. A stalled mission is possible. In such a case, they will return empty handed after a certain time has expired. The are also in all instances, and the same holds true with attack risks. The third thing they can do is provide system security. They act like other system security ships. If in a system with security already, they can still respond. If Player is on at least cordial terms with the controlling faction, there is never a problem between them. If neutral or lower, there is a risk that that they will fight system security, after the primary threat is eliminated. If unfriendly, that risk is high. The forth thing they can do is trade support. This is automatic and uncontrolled. They will randomly make "trade runs" to other ports. They will not be effective, efficient, or profitable. They will not, however, be unprofitable per se. Their effect is to increase the availability of some goods on the Fleet Carrier that are low, and decrease those that are high. They are presumed to only make profits enough to cover expenses. In this case, they are not actually present in any instance. They are just running out and getting what is needed or selling what you have too much of. Prices are at galactic average for buying and selling. This only works if there is a true station that all ships in the wing can dock at within their range, or half that range if they have no way to refuel. Only one "auxiliary wing" exists per Fleet Carrier. It operates independently at all times, except in the case of mining. In that case, they can join a wing with the Fleet Owner, and possibly other players, as long as other wing rules are not violated. They will still try to mine according to their priorities, but their priorities can be changed on the fly to match the current mining circumstances. A ship can be "released" from the "auxiliary wing" and it and the crew members with it are lost. No compensation. The effective trade rates for a wing of six type 9 ships can be so low that it will never pay for the upkeep of the Fleet Carrier. I have not run the numbers, but I would guess that if they traded 1 ton per hour for every 1,000 they could potentially carry, they would not pay of half of the upkeep. Don't get me wrong, this can be a BIG money sink, even more than the Fleet Carrier itself. But it does make deep exploration viable, and that is what I (and I suspect many others) desire. It could easily double the cost to 10 billion or more to rig out fully such an "auxiliary wing", and take time to do it as well...

Now these changes are not the only way to solve the problem, but I think they are viable and do make the number of people that will get Fleet Carriers decline a bit. From the comments that have been made about server load caused by Fleet Carriers, I would think this might be considered a good thing, all around. Those that can still afford to rig out a Fleet Carrier will have more reason to feel a sense of accomplishment. I am sorry to go against the grain, but 5 Billion is dirt cheap IMHO...

Making the Market usable is much easier:

a) Make it possible to buy and sell goods. Set maximum number to buy and minimum number to retain. If you don't have above the minimum to retain, then for everyone else, you have none to sell. Fleet Carrier owners should be able to ignore these limits on the buy and sell side, but at their peril. Fleet Carrier owners can access the market normally, and at that point the limits do apply, even to them. But they can directly transfer to and from the market.

b) Make maximum that can be bought independent of total amount dedicated to Commodities Market with the caveat that no one item can exceed the maximum that the Commodities Market can hold. Have the credits for buying everything, even if you have say three items that could all be bought to Commodities Market max capacity. Read: BIG money sink!!! But, this introduces some actual real life business planning to running a Fleet Carrier Market. You may find yourself buying way too much of one item and then be unable to buy something you really want because you no longer have the space needed. Market conditions will prevail and can be unpredictable. Caveat Emptor!

c) Put Secure Warehouse under Commodities Market using the same storage space. However, has own max for each item and even min to keep. Purchase credits add up on top of those in Commodities Market, even if the combination between the two actually exceeds the Commodities Market max capacity. It would be nice to be able to "clean" fenced goods, but that is not really needed IMHO. As owner of the Fleet Carrier, you better know how to deal with stolen and/or illegal goods if you are going to take them.

d) If "auxiliary wing" is put on Trade Runs, they will first try to dispose of goods in the Secure Warehouse, whether they can be "cleaned" or not. This can be overridden by directing them to ignore goods in Secure Warehouse.

It takes way more credits to set up, but gives the market flexibility that it is otherwise sorely lacking.

These two do supply a limited answer to "Gankers" if "auxiliary wings" are implemented. A good Market is a solid reason to set up good system security. If set for system security, the "auxiliary wing" could always respond to Player versus Player violent encounters and do so rapidly. If multiple Fleet Carriers are in a system and they are all supplying an "auxiliary wing" for system security, the response could be like what you can build up in High RES zones, only almost instantaneously. The "Ganker Support Group" part of our community is always telling everyone else to "git gud" and I am so sick of hearing that that I want to tell them to "git gud" because they are not as good as they think they are. They will have to be much more careful about where they want to hunt. If they really are good, they can't object to this. BUT I have a feeling that they will scream bloody murder! And I will laugh at them and tell them that unless they can rack up 50,000 bounties like I have, their crys mean nothing to me. THEY need to "git gud" or quit their whining.

Now another thing I have noticed is the sheer number of unrenamed Fleet Carriers. This can make it hard to find yours. Yes, there is an option to rename your ship when you first get it, but no prompting to do so. It is a small thing I realize, but I think it would be nice to make a popup that has a blurb about wanting to christen major new ships as is customary and either rename the ship or decline to rename it affirmatively. Whatever the case, they should still be able to rename it later, and be told of that ability. This is not make or break, but a nice touch, I would think...
 
Last edited:

rootsrat

Volunteer Moderator
"designed as money sink" and were "NOT designed to make profit"

Well, that explains a lot for me...

This external review is also dead on IMHO: Elite Dangerous needs to make its fleet carriers worthwhile

That review points out two glaring issues for Fleet Carriers that I have observed:

1) Tritium -- an expensive contrivance for sucking up money and time. For that it works. Both as a "money sink" and as a "time sink" it functions exceedingly well. It is a contrivance. Heck, they won't add grav plates to ships as being an impossible tech, but they will add an element that can't exist in significant quantities to mine? Deuterium will exist, maybe even in somewhat enriched amounts. Tritium can be Manufactured, but not mined. No way! They add fusion of normal hydrogen as the primary fuel source, but require only Tritium for the big boys? I just don't get this. None of the convoluted logic I have seen so far allows me to even begin to wrap my head around such an obvious pseudo scientific foul up! In a word this just plain sucks! (and apparently, that is just what is was designed to do: suck up time and money...)
I don't know how it works from proper scientific point of view. I personally don't mind stuff like that sacrificed for gameplay, as I my knowledge in that area is well limited anyway. I don't mind Tritium as introduced in Beta 2 really. It will require strategic long-term placement of FC, unless you're filthy rich or have a lot of time on your hands. Quite realistic when it comes to flying cities, if you ask me ;)
 
I don't know how it works from proper scientific point of view. I personally don't mind stuff like that sacrificed for gameplay, as I my knowledge in that area is well limited anyway. I don't mind Tritium as introduced in Beta 2 really. It will require strategic long-term placement of FC, unless you're filthy rich or have a lot of time on your hands. Quite realistic when it comes to flying cities, if you ask me ;)
True enough. However, I object to pseudo science when it goes against real known science without adequate explanation. Warp Drive in Star Trek is pseudo science. I can accept it without explanation. So is Frame Shift Drive in Elite Dangerous. Same same. But the use of Tritium is contrary to known science, and worse, there is no explanation. Were it another material, like MetaAlloys, I could accept that, but they screwed the Pooch by using a known material improperly like that without so much as even a cursory pseudo scientific explanation that feels right. I, like you, want a consistent canon of the game. That is not consistent.

;'{P~~~

BTW, where is that interview about the Money Pit that Fleet Carriers were designed to be? I have not found yet. I designed solutions that could still function as money pits for those who have no business skills, especially. But I'd like to see if there is more reasoning behind that so I could fully understand what they are trying to accomplish. I don't want this game to tarnish and fade away...
 

rootsrat

Volunteer Moderator
True enough. However, I object to pseudo science when it goes against real known science without adequate explanation. Warp Drive in Star Trek is pseudo science. I can accept it without explanation. So is Frame Shift Drive in Elite Dangerous. Same same. But the use of Tritium is contrary to known science, and worse, there is no explanation. Were it another material, like MetaAlloys, I could accept that, but they screwed the Pooch by using a known material improperly like that without so much as even a cursory pseudo scientific explanation that feels right. I, like you, want a consistent canon of the game. That is not consistent.

;'{P~~~

BTW, where is that interview about the Money Pit that Fleet Carriers were designed to be? I have not found yet. I designed solutions that could still function as money pits for those who have no business skills, especially. But I'd like to see if there is more reasoning behind that so I could fully understand what they are trying to accomplish. I don't want this game to tarnish and fade away...
Here you go http://laveradio.com/lave-radio-episode-287/
 
Rare goods can be stored, but not traded :(

I forgot to mention that in the Cons actually.
Well, designed as a money pit, trading rares and jumping 150 Ly to buy another rare in bulk while selling the first set, is kinda not going to be a real pit. Hmmm. But you can store them? Hmmm. I may be able to screw up the planned money pit and make the money tree out of it...

Not like it is something I need. I have over 20 Billion... LOL!!!

;'{P~~~
 
You don't count expenses for crew members too, it is loss by default. As 1 takes around 15%. So in total every activity goes close to zero or negative. With 2 members that will be pure negative. As I already mentioned elsewhere, currently, if you have 3 crew members and sell data for other carrier you do 100% of work and get some like 40% of payment :D The dream job.
 
You don't count expenses for crew members too, it is loss by default. As 1 takes around 15%. So in total every activity goes close to zero or negative. With 2 members that will be pure negative. As I already mentioned elsewhere, currently, if you have 3 crew members and sell data for other carrier you do 100% of work and get some like 40% of payment :D The dream job.
Well, I have three Elite Crew right now. I raised them to that level from harmless. So 10% each. However, if I get your drift, I think you misinterpret what I am saying, although I was ambiguous. When you lose the crew member, you are no longer on the hook to pay them that percentage. It is thought to be as part of what they make as duties on the FC. From your (the player/owner) standpoint, the cost goes to zero. There is no bookkeeping on what they make. Good point, however...

;'{P~~~
 
Well, I have three Elite Crew right now. I raised them to that level from harmless. So 10% each. However, if I get your drift, I think you misinterpret what I am saying, although I was ambiguous. When you lose the crew member, you are no longer on the hook to pay them that percentage. It is thought to be as part of what they make as duties on the FC. From your (the player/owner) standpoint, the cost goes to zero. There is no bookkeeping on what they make. Good point, however...

;'{P~~~
Finally I see a man, who has 3 :D On beta FC threads people ensured me it is most unlikely :D

So if you ever use other man FC you get at most 45% for 100% work.
 
LOL! I don't have a cash flow problem. So having three is my way of insuring I always had a pilot waiting. Don't need three now, but what the hey, I can afford them, and I kind of like them. I switch them now and again. Used to be when you lost a ship, you lost your crew. Getting crew is not hard. Getting good crew, now that is another matter entirely. I generally fly with fighter cover, Condor Ageis-F. Pilots with the wrong skills (read their bios to figure this out) don't do so well. I am sure that other pilots would be better for other fighters. I just like the Condor as it fits my fighting style best. Yeah, I'd probably be at closer to 30 Billion Cr instead of 21.7 if I only carried one crew. Paid out over 8.5 Billion to crew. Collectively, my crew (current and past combined) could probably buy a FC...

;'{P~~~
 
Well, my single pilot is Deadly yet since last update when they got immortal. She took 600 mils already.
...didn't know their bio matter ... mine was racer, and she does extremely super cool with guardian fighter with plasmas. She can shutdown anaconda elite alone.
 
about how long does it take your guardian fighter to take down an Elite Conda?
Alone takes long. But I feel like faster then I had fixed lasers fighter.
Just had fight VS wing-3, elite courier + 2xdeadly cobras I think .. Lost 2 guardian fighters but eventually we killed that wing.
I want to test plasma fighters on thargoids too, once will get FC ... it was a bit tricky to change fighters there. Lance fighters were near useless. Launch & die :D
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom