Forums » Suggestions
Capship replacement mission changes (insurance mission))
Currently the insurance mission has no rate limit and only sets the pilot back 500k which is... absurdly low given the utility player capships have. (particularly the trident which can make 2m+ credits in a single trip between dau/odia)
Goliaths should set back a pilot 1mill for replacement and the dent 2.5m (could even be higher but I don't want to piss all the capship pilots off too much)
With this change implemented the having the same mission across capitol systems so capships can be replaced in Sol II/Itan for twice as much (unless the player in question has the military flag for their respective nation in which case the price oughta be the same as the M7 price since it's probably getting exploded in Deneb anyway)
Doesn't make sense to me to implement the same mission in Dau for UIT players since latos is a mere two systems away capship pilots tend to know what they're doing and the itani/serco have to suffer twice as many jumps to bring their capship back into whatever action caused it to blow up in the first place.
As far as the livery insurance missions are concerned they can stay confined to m7 but bumping up the credit deductible is definitely in order for those too.
Goliaths should set back a pilot 1mill for replacement and the dent 2.5m (could even be higher but I don't want to piss all the capship pilots off too much)
With this change implemented the having the same mission across capitol systems so capships can be replaced in Sol II/Itan for twice as much (unless the player in question has the military flag for their respective nation in which case the price oughta be the same as the M7 price since it's probably getting exploded in Deneb anyway)
Doesn't make sense to me to implement the same mission in Dau for UIT players since latos is a mere two systems away capship pilots tend to know what they're doing and the itani/serco have to suffer twice as many jumps to bring their capship back into whatever action caused it to blow up in the first place.
As far as the livery insurance missions are concerned they can stay confined to m7 but bumping up the credit deductible is definitely in order for those too.
The original "plan" was to have the cost of replacement escalate with usage, and then drop off over time. So kind of a rolling average thing. Thus, if you wanted to swap out 4 ships in one week, or something relatively brief, the price would escalate drastically. But, if you waited a few weeks, it would drop back down to a lower number (although the starting point would still be much higher than the current 500k).
So, basically, replacement of capships would continue to be possible, but the cost would spike drastically if you were trying to do a lot of it in a relatively short period of time.
But, then I obviously ended up leaving it "cheap" to allow people to use the capships more freely and get more feedback from their usage.
I don't have any problem with bumping the replacement price, although I will say that I have other things in the works in terms of PvE gameplay and adversary changes, and I wouldn't mind having people using their capships actively to see how all of that works (replacement cost increases will inevitably have some impact on usage).
I did intentionally leave the replacement in M7 as it adds some arduousness to the process of replacement, which is a bit of a "cost" even if it's not monetary. But, again, I have no problem with broadening replacement availability, although as you say.. increasing costs in different regions is likely, or there may be some standing requirements.
So, basically, replacement of capships would continue to be possible, but the cost would spike drastically if you were trying to do a lot of it in a relatively short period of time.
But, then I obviously ended up leaving it "cheap" to allow people to use the capships more freely and get more feedback from their usage.
I don't have any problem with bumping the replacement price, although I will say that I have other things in the works in terms of PvE gameplay and adversary changes, and I wouldn't mind having people using their capships actively to see how all of that works (replacement cost increases will inevitably have some impact on usage).
I did intentionally leave the replacement in M7 as it adds some arduousness to the process of replacement, which is a bit of a "cost" even if it's not monetary. But, again, I have no problem with broadening replacement availability, although as you say.. increasing costs in different regions is likely, or there may be some standing requirements.
Don't worry if you 2x the price of the Goliath and 5x the price of the dent people are still going to use them it won't dissuade folks from using the wrecks to draw dicks'n'swastikas but hey at least it'll make it a bit more expensive!
1m and 2.5m is still inexpensive (but somewhat less ridiculous) given how they can be used to make credits and doesn't preclude your original implementation idea in the slightest. (those that are already flying capships will still be flying capships despite the price increase).
Saving a capship is relatively easy thanks to capship commands now I wouldn't mind seeing a steep incremental price increase "rate limit" to capship to further differentiate them from all the other subcaps (currently outside of the fact that they're extremely slow and a pain in the ass to move out from M7 capships are more or less treated as disposable outside of PVP encounters that record kills to titles anyway).
Beyond that a week is a bit long of a time period for the price to normalize 24~72h makes way more sense to me (I explode a lot).
That said I know for a fact such a change will probably draw out ire and won't be great for the sake of testing.
Another thing to consider is the fact that there's probably going to be a non-trivial number of serco/itani/UIT players that are going to home and set up shop in SolII/Itan instead of Dau/Latos thanks to being able to replace their spaceboat there without taking 30 minutes to bring it back from M7 which will probably go a long way to help serco/itani space feel less dead for all the mobile newbs that spawn there.
1m and 2.5m is still inexpensive (but somewhat less ridiculous) given how they can be used to make credits and doesn't preclude your original implementation idea in the slightest. (those that are already flying capships will still be flying capships despite the price increase).
Saving a capship is relatively easy thanks to capship commands now I wouldn't mind seeing a steep incremental price increase "rate limit" to capship to further differentiate them from all the other subcaps (currently outside of the fact that they're extremely slow and a pain in the ass to move out from M7 capships are more or less treated as disposable outside of PVP encounters that record kills to titles anyway).
Beyond that a week is a bit long of a time period for the price to normalize 24~72h makes way more sense to me (I explode a lot).
That said I know for a fact such a change will probably draw out ire and won't be great for the sake of testing.
Another thing to consider is the fact that there's probably going to be a non-trivial number of serco/itani/UIT players that are going to home and set up shop in SolII/Itan instead of Dau/Latos thanks to being able to replace their spaceboat there without taking 30 minutes to bring it back from M7 which will probably go a long way to help serco/itani space feel less dead for all the mobile newbs that spawn there.
You mentioned one extreme only. Another perspective ...
Trident + TU + 2 * caprail + 2 * capswarm ≈ 25M.
Trident + TU + 2 * caprail + 2 * capswarm ≈ 25M.
Well considering roughly 50% of that loadout's price is the TU mine I fail to see why increasing the dent/goliaths price suddenly makes the loadout in question unaffordable?
Capships have a shitload of utility and it should be reflected in the replacement cost no?
Capships have a shitload of utility and it should be reflected in the replacement cost no?
I agree that it should cost more in general to replace capships. I like the idea of cost ramping with repeated replacements and de-ramping over time. I think replacement should still be specifically at M7 only though.
I think replacement should still be specifically at M7 only though.
Interesting. Can you expand more on why you think that should be maintained?
Interesting. Can you expand more on why you think that should be maintained?
I did not say what you are implying, so I am not going to answer your questions. I only wanted to point out that, in reality, the replacement price is usually way higher than you have stated. I am not against increasing the price. I just prefer fair and valid arguments before any judgement is made.
The negative to having the replacement mission only in M7 is if a fight gets really nasty the agressors can camp you and prevent you from getting a replacement capship back in the fight or out at all. There have even been anti-capship guilds in the past to where this was the idea. Same reason we tell new players to never home in Corvus stations. A group of players could easily keep you pinned in M7 to where you have to wait until they disperse to get your capship out.
Granted its been awhile since that level of agressiveness has been around but its still possible. I like the idea of being able to bring out capships in Sol and Itan, but kinda goes against the lore of Corvus making caps available for individuals.
Granted its been awhile since that level of agressiveness has been around but its still possible. I like the idea of being able to bring out capships in Sol and Itan, but kinda goes against the lore of Corvus making caps available for individuals.
In that case the next "obvious" solution would be putting another "m7" on the Serco/Itani border in B12 without the fog/asteroids; The price increases are a given though. Capship hulls should be quite a bit more expensive than they currently are.
As far as your concern towards a fair argument Infinitis if we factor in the turrets Capships set the player back 1.5m and 2.5m respectively which is still absurd given their utility, assuming the price changes come in that'll become 2m and 4.5m which is still pretty damn inexpensive given how stupidly "awesome" capships are, and yeah if you're using TU mines you're no stranger to burning credits for the sake of blowing shit up! :P
Throwing a capship station in B12 (pirates would have a great spot to set up a nice camp for their pirate-y shenanigans there's a distinct lack of piracy up there at the moment) would probably incentivize player trade somewhat since all the useful cap turrets are "confined" to greyspace, that said most of the folks who bother to take caps up there probably already have stashes of turrets in their respective home stations - I'd prefer seeing the cap replacements come from SolII/Itan due to the simple fact that the biggest pain in the ass to losing a capship up in deneb is the time it takes to bring a new one in - Beyond that the Serco would maintain their small advantage in that regard.
Beyond that I'll stick by the price increase that bit's a given the rest is just a bonus! (Speaking of bonuses giving us the TU mine mission in the Deneb capship station would be pretty neat and would also probably generate some explosions - I'm pushin' the envelope here I guess but hell it's... tentatively related to the original suggestion!)
Furthermore the Senate is too paranoid about granting licensed particulars with Tridents/Goliaths due to the negative impact it has on inter-corporate trade inside union territory: hence why you filthy neutrals should have to brave the H2 wormhole to get your mobile space station fix!
As far as your concern towards a fair argument Infinitis if we factor in the turrets Capships set the player back 1.5m and 2.5m respectively which is still absurd given their utility, assuming the price changes come in that'll become 2m and 4.5m which is still pretty damn inexpensive given how stupidly "awesome" capships are, and yeah if you're using TU mines you're no stranger to burning credits for the sake of blowing shit up! :P
Throwing a capship station in B12 (pirates would have a great spot to set up a nice camp for their pirate-y shenanigans there's a distinct lack of piracy up there at the moment) would probably incentivize player trade somewhat since all the useful cap turrets are "confined" to greyspace, that said most of the folks who bother to take caps up there probably already have stashes of turrets in their respective home stations - I'd prefer seeing the cap replacements come from SolII/Itan due to the simple fact that the biggest pain in the ass to losing a capship up in deneb is the time it takes to bring a new one in - Beyond that the Serco would maintain their small advantage in that regard.
Beyond that I'll stick by the price increase that bit's a given the rest is just a bonus! (Speaking of bonuses giving us the TU mine mission in the Deneb capship station would be pretty neat and would also probably generate some explosions - I'm pushin' the envelope here I guess but hell it's... tentatively related to the original suggestion!)
Furthermore the Senate is too paranoid about granting licensed particulars with Tridents/Goliaths due to the negative impact it has on inter-corporate trade inside union territory: hence why you filthy neutrals should have to brave the H2 wormhole to get your mobile space station fix!
What about an artificial manufacturing time-delay as an additional factor?
I've received considerable feedback in the past about the feeling of "futility" of attempting to reduce the presence of a particular guild or powerful / wealthy individual, only to have them semi-instantly replace anything they wanted (obviously, transit time being a factor, although perhaps less-so if we make M7 not a requirement). Taking down a capship can be a considerable effort; and then seeing them instantly replace it can, I imagine, feel a bit demoralizing.
In addition to the cost increase for insurance missions on a rolling average, I had also considered relative "delays" in replacement ship manufacturing. So, maybe an hour or so for the first one, but then scaling up over time based on the number replaced per-unit-time (so, scaling with frequency of requested replacement).
This has several impacts, not all of which are certain to be "good", but it depends on the goals and the gameplay involved:
- Attacks on capships controlled by specific individuals or guilds will result in a reduction of tactical or strategic capacity for a known period of time (beyond, say, transit time). This could become relevant in station conquest or other scenarios.
- Increased sense of loss associated with capship destruction. Of course, there's already some less due to the M7 station factor and associated time to re-acquire a capship, which is why that was left in place. It raises the question of whether the "convenience" of more distributed options for replacement offsets the degree of "loss" associated with replacement. Some capship owners don't care if the replacement is 1M credits or 10M credits.
- An obvious downside would be a degree of disengagement by the player, as they would know it would be infeasible to immediately replace their ship. This could lead some people to end the given play-session (once they "restarted manufacturing"), who otherwise might continue playing.
- Conversely, it would also give us something to individually message out to people, "your capship construction has completed" or something along those lines, which could be helpful for bringing people back in (similar to station attack messages, etc). This is all kind of "aggregate activity" type stuff, so I'm just thinking out loud, but there can be value to these kinds of things for keeping game populations interested.
I've received considerable feedback in the past about the feeling of "futility" of attempting to reduce the presence of a particular guild or powerful / wealthy individual, only to have them semi-instantly replace anything they wanted (obviously, transit time being a factor, although perhaps less-so if we make M7 not a requirement). Taking down a capship can be a considerable effort; and then seeing them instantly replace it can, I imagine, feel a bit demoralizing.
In addition to the cost increase for insurance missions on a rolling average, I had also considered relative "delays" in replacement ship manufacturing. So, maybe an hour or so for the first one, but then scaling up over time based on the number replaced per-unit-time (so, scaling with frequency of requested replacement).
This has several impacts, not all of which are certain to be "good", but it depends on the goals and the gameplay involved:
- Attacks on capships controlled by specific individuals or guilds will result in a reduction of tactical or strategic capacity for a known period of time (beyond, say, transit time). This could become relevant in station conquest or other scenarios.
- Increased sense of loss associated with capship destruction. Of course, there's already some less due to the M7 station factor and associated time to re-acquire a capship, which is why that was left in place. It raises the question of whether the "convenience" of more distributed options for replacement offsets the degree of "loss" associated with replacement. Some capship owners don't care if the replacement is 1M credits or 10M credits.
- An obvious downside would be a degree of disengagement by the player, as they would know it would be infeasible to immediately replace their ship. This could lead some people to end the given play-session (once they "restarted manufacturing"), who otherwise might continue playing.
- Conversely, it would also give us something to individually message out to people, "your capship construction has completed" or something along those lines, which could be helpful for bringing people back in (similar to station attack messages, etc). This is all kind of "aggregate activity" type stuff, so I'm just thinking out loud, but there can be value to these kinds of things for keeping game populations interested.
Compounding time/credit with additional deaths makes plenty of sense to me but you're probably going to get some pushback for that one.
I'm all for it.
On the subject of adding the replacement mission in itani/serco space I don't forsee it reducing M7 traffic much, specially if the replacement is cheaper there but that's definitely something to consider; on the other hand it also makes it easier for those damn boring pacifists from having to deal with greyspace for their capship replacement if they want to play carebear online (that said having more knowledgeable capship pilots in serco/itani space really wouldn't hurt the newb population).
Beyond that losing capships in deneb is particularly easy, specially when I do something stupid like log out mid mission and don't pay attention right away when I log back into a skirm sector only to get murderized by the exploit mitigating unrats!
Pretty sure the folks that like to run the leviathan won't mind that idea one bit either.
I'm all for it.
On the subject of adding the replacement mission in itani/serco space I don't forsee it reducing M7 traffic much, specially if the replacement is cheaper there but that's definitely something to consider; on the other hand it also makes it easier for those damn boring pacifists from having to deal with greyspace for their capship replacement if they want to play carebear online (that said having more knowledgeable capship pilots in serco/itani space really wouldn't hurt the newb population).
Beyond that losing capships in deneb is particularly easy, specially when I do something stupid like log out mid mission and don't pay attention right away when I log back into a skirm sector only to get murderized by the exploit mitigating unrats!
Pretty sure the folks that like to run the leviathan won't mind that idea one bit either.
My thoughts on this from 2019 are still the same: https://www.vendetta-online.com/x/msgboard/3/36278
im with we all float on this. escalating cooldowns and cost. though id want the lowest tiers to be higher time than 2 minutes..
there is absolutely no incentive to kill someones ship if they can just make another one instantly and since many of us have entire fleets of capships.. im going to have to knock out two or three or six of them. in that time the others could be available again. the cooldowns need to matter.
thats why everyone runs and just carries on with their day. if i knew i could put a pirate down for six to eight hours it might be in my interest to do so. in fact it might be in the interest of a group to farm them a few times to knock them out of play for the entire day.. or vice versa. we gain nothing by engaging currently, other than locking ourself into neverending battle when there is things to be done.
there is absolutely no incentive to kill someones ship if they can just make another one instantly and since many of us have entire fleets of capships.. im going to have to knock out two or three or six of them. in that time the others could be available again. the cooldowns need to matter.
thats why everyone runs and just carries on with their day. if i knew i could put a pirate down for six to eight hours it might be in my interest to do so. in fact it might be in the interest of a group to farm them a few times to knock them out of play for the entire day.. or vice versa. we gain nothing by engaging currently, other than locking ourself into neverending battle when there is things to be done.