I think higher fuel prices only make sense if they fluctuate with demand thus allowing traders to ship fuel between stations as a viable way to make some aUEC
I flew my prospector into a station at near full speed and it bounced off and took another run to destroy it. Yet my vulture barely bumped into a panel and completely disintegrates😂
Yep, totally agree, fuel is a joke right now and I don't understand how Hydrogen, literally the most common element in the universe is more expensinve thant quantum fuel, that derives from a resource that degrades over time.
Hydrogen should be cheaper near Crusader and that should be the ONLY place in Stanton where it can be extracted. Starfarers (and other freighters) could buy it cheap and travel to the stations for reliable, steady trade which becomes more profitable the further they go from the gas giant. The best return should be planetside and the cost to consumers should match it. Refuelling on a planet (except at Orison or a fuel barge terminal) would be expensive and something to be avoided wherever possible … even to the point of buying just enough hydrogen to get into space. Starfarers would keep busy with stranded ships, pilots would plan routes to make a fuel stop at Seraphim (second cheapest fuel stop in the system) and people would be incentivised to crew up rather than solo.
oh that old excuse.. i would bet anything you dont "crash" or hit "bugs" that often at all. its the same lazy excuse you all use when the game moves towards being a real MMO. dont require me to have a crew... teh bugs! dont require me to load my cargo manually.... teh bugs! no long travel times... teh bugs! funny these bugs dont come up when jumptown is running or some new money glitch is found..
@@VenEm "glitch" with no "bugs" you understand those are the same right and jumptown bugs out and crash's all the time LOL. I'm talking about putting a shitload of time into doing any one thing then as soon as you are ready boom crash or dam just fell through the floor well shit got to do all that work over or hell all this ore i just took hr's to mine just poof into thin air or the ooo so many other time sinks from "bugs" and "crashing" that shit all over your game play soooo yea with out all that other shit sure it would be fun to add more complexity and time sinks into the game :) but how about just fixing what is wrong right now then move to the next thing :) not sure what you mean by a real MMO? working for something and taking time to do it is fine hell I love just chilling and farming shit or long missions or whatever but I sure as hell dont like doing the things that take a lot of time then just wast all that effort to a "glitch" or "bug" nope not fun at all .. but I guss some people like it ..
I agree for the most part with you. Another idea that would go along with your idea of spawning with an empty fuel tank is to have each personal hangar have a (possibly upgradeable) personal fuel tank that you can fill with fuel yourself from possibly cheaper areas. Would give a better reason to transport fuel for plywrs
Honestly, this. I wish we had more 'planetside' missions for delivery, where hydrogen flight, via not burning through atmo but steady cruised cargo flight, conserved hydrogen enough to really make it worth while flying in atmo. Right now, it's crazy that if I choose to spend 'time' to hydrogen flight around the planet (I like flying) I am actually punished. The 'quicker' route of quantum not only generates more money through quicker delivery, but also, for a bizarre reason, conserves cost. You literally save time, and save money, as opposed to conducting an actual thought out process in this current fuel economy.
I would also say that fuel cost is way to low. BUT since its an Alpha and balancing usually happens in beta, fuel tank sizes and components resource consumption rate is only a rough placeholder, and the fact that CIG wants players to playtest more to deliver on important data, i think that it will change for the release version of the game, for sure. 😉
5:51 : Imo there's no need for that 3rd "type" of drive that would use less fuel. Logically, if we look at the physics of current engines, it's (basically) the faster you go, the more fuel you use. Current jump drives already work like this.
I think you are right but its not only fuel this is technically applicable on everything we buy and sell in the game. a simple solution for cash sink to support the economy is to add tax% for every transaction in-game, the % value will vary from one system to another.
Agreed, however, don't expect the detail that has been considered for Quantum (Star Sim) has not included fuel - and that is also the incorporation of the refining of fuel. All features in this alpha have been awaiting their refactor and it is clear the team have decided to not waste time making intermediary systems when the next tier is in development (the map is a good example - we had the awful map for years!). With the alpha clearly presenting new features and game loops as profitable and then 'nerfing' them back into a more balanced environment - I would say this is to encourage test data to keep flowing. I suspect fuel pricing is the same. While the Sim model is in development they have just essentially given us fuel to be a side thought - one that can create work for the player if ignored, but also one that is not restricting the testing (sorry playing) environment. And also one that tests the fuel game systems ensuring the ships are bug free in regards to this feature. I would say be patient and wait for the economy refactor - and potentially not the first tier of it either, but a pass nearer release to see any really significant changes to fuel pricing. But I am certain this is not missing in their design plans.
You are absolutely correct on everything, including insurance claims! Problem is that this will conflict with the sort that has no patience and wants more of an action shooter than a space sim. This is a struggle within the community about what the game will be. Also, I really want a fresh start server at release, only 1 starter ship package at the start, per account... so you have to play, not pay!
I agree with you about fuel in general, but I don’t think it’s the answer to multicrew. No amount of “fuel is expensive” will overcome the negative feeling of manning 2 badly placed S2 guns on a Corsair while the pilot controls more than 10x the dps. They must fundamentally reconsider the human experience of the turret/multicrew player (and no, clicking fuses, isn’t enough). I really think almost every manned turret in the game needs to go up at least 1 size, or gain a significant function in addition to its current weapons (emp, interdiction, etc). They also need to add flak to provide a real tool for large ships to contest lone fighters. Unless they nerf speeds down to like, 100ms, it’ll never be possible to hit a competent fighter that’s at the edge of its cannon range with a bigger ship turreted precision weapon-and frankly it shouldn’t be. That’s why WW2 featured flak, and that’s what we need. Create the ability to zone out fighters and poof, the entire game opens. Make flak exclusive to *manned* turrets and that’s a real reason to want to use them. Meanwhile I’d say the Warden is a clear example of needing to go up 2 sizes, to have a manned 2x S4. The Sentinel’s turret can stay S2, but should gain a QED. Similarly, the Scorp’s turret should go up 1 size to 4x S4, and the Scorp A gain the current 4x S3 in addition to its current tools. Manned turrets are meant to be the primary play loop for a human being, competitive with the level of engagement flying the ship gives. Historically, the balance was… questionable but largely fine. Manning the turret on a Scorpius really was a worthwhile experience compared to personally piloting an Arrow or Gladius. But, the F7 Mk II’s and the Corsair *exist.* If that’s the quantity of firepower we think a single pilot player should have, then we have to radically improve turrets. Ships like the Corsair, Connie, and Redeemer should be able to slave multiple manned turrets to a single manned one by default, and some of those will still need size upgrades. Other ships like the Hammerhead and Tali need burst dps buffs, either by adding 2 more hard points to each turret, or via size upgrades. No amount of “but engineering” in the future changes the fundamental combat design. It simply cannot be someone’s gameplay to have literally only the emp and QED of the Scorp A, or a single 2x S2 Corsair turret with terrible sight lines.
Hydrogen double or triple prices and raise quant way up. Can't got for distance much in a Vulture, but then its like 35 credits to refuel the quant tank from empty.
As someone who heads up the logistics for their old, if I could upvote your video twice I would. Choices should matter. Be that components ships or how you fly them.
Refueling is too rare, maybe my play sessions aren't long enough? Why don't quantum jumps use a base amount of fuel per jump? Should I really be able to make near limitless small jumps? Why don't ships auto recall to hangars?if it's not blown up, it should be able to fly back to base on its own right? The reclaim time being travel time to reach your station makes sense. Should a perfectly good ship really be as easy/difficult to replace as a blown up ship?
Great idea 👍 but you forgot about some ship have working fuel scoops. 100i picies Carrack 890 jump and some others. It's gonna make most ship unwilling to own because of fuel costs. Example why is no one flying the Nomad? Coz it runs out of fuel so damn fast it's useless
I personally think the whole claim thing should be tiered. Basic insurance gets you an empty base hip and every thing like fuel, ammo, modules should cost you. People would claim less for convenience if they had to pay 80% of the module price for a claim. ^^ That being said... I'd love to see an alternative to claiming for non destroyed/lost ships. If I want my Vulture that's docked in Orison, but I'm in MT, I should be able to request a costly transfer of the ship, so I can pick it up in half an hour or so, depending on how much of an express-fee I paid for the transfer.
Perhaps fuel could be included with LTI 🤣 I agree on the transfer though! Elite Dangerous has that, and sometimes it took days depending on how far you'd travelled (many many more systems in that game though)
Ship deliveries could even be a player to player mission … 5k to 10k depending on distance. Chained together we could do a loop around Stanton and NPC missions could be generated to fill in the gaps.
Fuel in pyro will likely be expensive. Also, maybe Q fuel cost more but I am not sure hydrogen should be. With the bugs in place, I can die in an elevator or walking down a ramp. This, coupled with AI and griefer, pop out of nowhere to blast you for no reason; the strange way my ship guns fail to fire from time to time, and I blow way more money / time on armor and gear and getting back to my ship. An empty ship replacement...that is some such ass customer service. Maybe fix the game first then work out where its reasonable to have higher prices, maybe even get ship armor working first. This is kind of like how I believe the ship should have a bathroom, and it impacts long trips but should not be a managed aspect of the game.
If CIG values our time at least half as much as they attempt to value our money, then increasing the cost of fuel for "immersion" could be ok. With so many easy ways to die due to desync, bugs and errors counting as timesinks already, the only effect raising fuels prices would have is costing people more time. BUT, the bigger picture issues with SC is that the general immersion level of the game is going down as a result of the push to 4.0/1.0 (Master Modes, combat changes for both ships and FPS, fewer unique stations, less reason to go to planets that aren't just literal timesinks, and using time as a primary sink due to their marketing model of FOMO & convenience). Because of this, how much would an increase to fuel pricing benefit the game? None, as starter to medium ships should still be cheap upkeep, and if you can afford a large ship but aren't concierge or close with lots of ship options you won't care. Until they make an actual economy, or use a combination of the commodity tracker and starsim/quantum/whatever to make a tier 0-0.5 placeholder for one, I don't think much of anything in game will make financial sense. Once ship progression is not the only major focus, and refueling is relevant to some degree, AND they make it so there is some real risk of running out of hydrogen in Pyro w/o proper planning, then making fuel a part of it can make sense.
You're attacking the problem from one angle: the cost of supplies like quant fuel and hydrogen. CIG are attacking it from another angle: reducing mssion payouts. According to discord, in a recent SCL the devs said they want to structure missions so that on average players are making 20K aUEC per hour. So if both of these proposals are adopted (assuming discord is correct about the SCL dev talk) then players who haven't bought UEC will be locked in their habs, selling med gowns until they have enough to fuel their Cutter. And once they have scrounged up enough gowns to afford fuel (most players start with 10K aUEC after a wipe, iirc, so they'd only have to find enough gowns at 45 aUEC per to cover the other 16K fuel cost) then they could start their 20K per hour missions and perhaps make enough to break even
Maybe we can get transports to the Hurston Mines so people can earn some money 😅 In all seriousness, though, I get what you mean. It would be easier to facilitate if there were landing zone based missions for those players that have hit rock bottom.
@@BeardofOz Long term I think I've heard that they plan on having missions available in the landing zones. I heard an old school streamer say that there _used_ to be missions in the landing zones, sth like delivering boxes to the gates in Lorville?
20k an hour??? Do they plan on at least reducing the prices of ships and gear proportionally? To get a cutlass black, starting from zero aeuc it will take you 70 hours of grinding not including fuel/gear/repair costs
@@thecrab2791 they said "on average" on ISC or SCL, whichever podcast it was. This makes me assume there will be missions that pay more and missions that pay less, and the ones that average more than 20K per hour will (I also assume) require more effort and/or a group. But if the goal is for most people to make 20K per hour I have to assume there will be a way around that. Like maybe they will buff what you can get from non-mission sources? I dunno, this is speculation on my part based on plans the devs could maybe possibly change. Anyway I hope this helps. Cheers!
The only problem with having the ships come with no fuel is there is no way to make money locally. Like let's say you are a boob, and spent every last cent on whatever. Now what? It isn't that I disagree with all of this. But the current system is a bit broken if you keep in mind someone can be trapped at a location since there is no way of making money locally and there is no easy way to get hired or hire someone.
You aren't wrong, it could 'landlock' someone pretty badly. If landing zones were a bit more robust, they could have mailman jobs to earn credits, though that's a LOT of packages to afford fuel 🤣
Maybe that scenario would mean that a broke-ass spacer would have to take a job as crew on whatever ship was at their location. A rework of the ‘job board’ would be needed, as well as standard crew contracts (separate from being in a group), with pay calculated on reputation, experience in the position and whether a pick up was needed from another location.
@@Glathgrundel I'm not saying a person shouldn't need to take a job. I'm saying if added right now people would get trapped at given locations. Yes if we had a system to support you to be hired by a crew, do local jobs, or something other than being trap or depend on luck. Then yes. But until then, no
I agree with your points, but the problem is that Star Citizen is not a game yet. It is an alpha. You seem to be wanted to play as a game when realistically we are all just testers.
Quantum fuel needs a big increase. You can get rich mining it but it costs nothing to buy the fuel, it seems like it is cheaper than hydrogen. Hydrogen would not need as much of an increase being the most common chemical element in the universe and all that. Plus some ships are good at scooping it and keeping their own tanks full. So high hydrogen prices would drive people to buy better scooping ships and fuel producers sell less and it hurts them more than just keeping it cheap. I see that IRL around me. Gas prices doubled in a short time and hybrid and EV cars on the road also did.
It's a shame that those ships don't see any use currently. Besides their scooping, they didn't seem to have any other features that set them above other vessels.
@@BeardofOz I use my Avenger Titan all the time. They did a tweak so it is not as good as it was. It used to keep its hydrogen full, never had to buy it. Now it does go down slowly. But so slow you probably lose and have to claim the ship before ever needing to buy it. Now the Cutlass on the other hand..... Can barely get off the surface of a planet without burning half a tank.
It feels (to me) like it has gotten better in general when it comes to issues like that, but it certainly doesn't never happen so I can understand the sentiment.
Pretty sure it has always been the intention to rise fuel prices. As well as tune every ship fuel capacity and consumption. Current values make no sense.
So you want to make the game harder and less attractive for newer players while being a minor annoyance to more seasoned ones? Think of this from a new player perspective, who would want to sit down with their new starter ship, fly around for a bit and take on some starter missions and LOSE money from doing that mission just because they had the audacity to want to learn how to fly first? I agree maybe with making quantum fuel more expensive, but hydrogen fuel should be cheaper than sea water. Hell, they should bring back hydrogen fuel scoops at least on civilian ships/mid size and bigger ships, snubs and light military fighters that are supposed to be stationed around a planet/ on a carrier should be the only ships really missing them.
This and Elite dangerous do this. Fuel is like nothing. Now Truck sim games got this right. When fuel prices went up in real life they made the game reflect that. So now I plan my routes with fuel on my mind because certain states are dirt cheap and others are way expensive. Makes for some interesting game play. If they did this in Elite and Star citizen you would have more players at certain points for cheaper fuel leading to more player to player interactions.
How about we start with having reliable game loops that are meaningful? Take package from a to b, get 3k credits......ground breaking game development.
Id be ok addressing this AFTER no more bugs, clipping through worlds, spontaneous death, spontaneous explosions, way less time sinks in favor of "gold" sinks, Desync a thing of the past, far less time consuming to meet up with friends. Time alone slows down the ability to make $$$.
I 100% plus I wish fuel was extremely expensive and I wish some ships were more efficient than others. So more efficient quantum drive and just more efficient ships in general matter more. I just could NOT agree more with you. And it would be so huge for encouraging multi crewing a ship. I’m mean, CIG hire this man! Us players of hardcore/ survival games just can not wait for choices to matter and for there to be consequences!
Fair point, small ships would be good daily driver rater then watching everyone running around in a C2. I still think Auroras and similar sized ships should have negligible fuel costs as people just starting with the game tend to crash a lot and would go bankrupt too fast for their own good. Flying a 890j should be proibitive for the average schmuck
Nothing in SC makes sense right now due to a complete lack of economy. For the starfarer to be useful they would have to fix it first.... been waiting for several patches now.
Yes they need to raise the price on gas and maybe even food and drink look how well that is working in America where half your salary goes to just those two thing repairs and such take up even more -- which is why Americans need to have a spouse to help out. So since you are going to raise taxes on gas then i should be a shareholder and get 15% on the rise of it thank you.
My ships costs a lot more refueling than this 16K. Die you ever lost all your money in SC with nothing left than one small ship. I Had that from millions to nothing because of server crashes bugs or the next Patch having all your money vanished because you Had it in Form of goods which no one wanted during that time. I say let the Game evolve to a release Version and than think of adjustments. Also it is a Game around space traveling it should be possible to everyone to get and stay into the game without having too many obstacles. Currently the game is frustrating enough already.
I can certainly see why the pricing has remained low (and ammo and fuel provided) with how unstable the game was for so long. In general I believe it's getting better but I can see how being broke would 'cripple' a players ability to get around.
wow real life fuel prices are already a struggle yet here are ppl that want u to have the same feeling in a game were u want to unwind and forget about the real stuff ....just stupid
Flying around in space and killing swathes of people wasn't escapist enough for you? Man, wait til you have to poop in game, you're really going to have a rough time 🤣
Completely understand, but not all games are 100% casual. I don't think SC is going to be pure arcade nor hardcore, but a mix. I'm just saying this idea has merits that expand gameplay.
Yes and no. I can see this farther down the road as it is just Alpha and other changes need to happen first. Maybe when we get bases we can refine our own fuel? Who knows but let’s fix what is broken rather than adding more lines of code to mess up more things.
Longevity comes from the yet to be implement systems and gameplay, there can be loads of diferent money sinks. Having to worry about the price of fuel everytime you want to do a mission is just bad gameplay and not fun. Claiming ships wih no fuel on top of that? 😂. So let me get this straight. You're in crusader, accept a 9k bounty in hurston, 10+ min to get to your destination, and then a bug happens, or a player kills you, or an npc, or you run into an asteroid, whatever... Wakeup at the hospital in crudader again, have to wait 5 or more mins for the claim, and on top of that have to pay 15k fueling, just for trying to do a bounty thst would pay 9k. 😂 Imagine little timmy tring SC for the first time 1 - after a good while finally figuring out how to leave loreville 2 - goes on first far away mission 3 - fails 4 - wakes up at loreville 5 - repeat 6 - gets stuck in loreville forever cus he has no money to pay for fuel Kind of big flaw there 😂
Fair points regarding newer players, though eventually the game does need to let them go and learn. The game crashes aren't as frequent as they used to be so the perpetual training wheels don't need to be there as often.
@@BeardofOz I think you should look at the state of gameplay from a future perspective, the game as it stands is just a very small percentage of what the game will be, the growth is exponential, once the core game systems are implemented adding content will be faster and easier, with server meshing and x times more players the gameplay will change a lot. I think what you should be scared about when cargo trading and long distance travel is players or pirate NPCs intercepting you, and make risk assessments based on that, kinda like old-schooll freelancer. I think this fuel pricing solution only solves the problem for the state of game as it is right now, which imo should be irrelevant
Fuel economy won't 'seem' as important until we have a lot more systems, true, but I don't think that means it shouldn't be a factor now. At the moment the only consideration it creates is jump distance (for smaller vessels) and as a side effect the choice in particular drives. Ultimately, it's more an opinion, but something I personally think warrants thought.
Principil i like the suggestion here, but I have to disagree for one reason. This would discourage any new player with a 45$ starter pack to play the game and would even soft lock them after the 2nd crash into the space station. Their entire starting stash would go into refueling and most likely they would quit and be done in less than 2 hours.
That is a very fair point. While it would be a great situation to get players to join a crew, nobody wants to be forced into group play. Perhaps when landing zones are more robust content wise there could be janitorial jobs available 😅
@@BeardofOz All you need is to have some way of income at any given landing zone via mission or otherwise to give players the option to earn credits to buy fuel. Howerver if the fuelprice is high than those missions need to pay somewhat good but if thats the case than other mission ... you get the point and we can only hope the econemy team has some answers to all of this.
I'm not even sure if avoiding higher prices is possible. I think this is what turns me away from SC sometimes, I spend hours doing missions and mining/salvaging without having to really consider anything. Gear I loot, fuel and food are dirt cheap and until I have enough for a new ship I will never worry about money, and I think that's what get's a little boring. Just making fuel more expensive adds so much more you have to consider. Right now you pick your drive by tank size, never worrying how much fuel that XL-1 guzzles. I'll probably be even more controversial and say I'd want mission rewards to go down a little as well.
I'm much of the same mind. Personally I enjoy the hard yards to earn something, and having small factors that eat into your wallet like this (and yes, lower payouts too) will make those purchases all the sweeter.
you want even more time sinks and even more money to spend after the mission? i do a bounty hunt mission for 11k and if the server sucks like most of the time i have to pay 18k to repair the ship. for that you would have to lower the other prices first. and yes that's because of the live servers in arena commander i have no problems even in pvp
@@LunaMoon0Soo... as a space Andy in 1-2h you want to gain as much as someone who played 8 h right? Its such a greate idea man. 😂 Bro, from what i herd there are still some ingame exploits for ppl like you. You would buy every ship you imagine. But question is, what would you do with them as there is nothing except of grind right now.
Seriously bro, stop making sense. I'd stop playing if your suggestions were implemented. I already have kids, a wife and a Mortgage. Where is the escapism in true to life gas prices? We are already looking down the barrel of the new inventory system. I don't mind putting on my shoes, but I don't want to tie the laces. and now you are saying gas should cost more! no offense to they guy who invented ratting bunkers, but GFYS. This is the last thing we need.
Uh, no. Have you experienced how much fuel the Cuttlass ships use? At your rate, they'd be permanently grounded. With the latest rounds of mission nerfs, increasing fuel costs greatly will kill the incentive to complete missions. Come 3.24, even looting will be greatly nerfed. Big no in my opinion.
seriously you people discussing this really think that 2 to 300 years in the future mankind would not have a found a better fuel source like safer nuclear? seriously ?
I think higher fuel prices only make sense if they fluctuate with demand thus allowing traders to ship fuel between stations as a viable way to make some aUEC
On a 20k repair bill, I fly it into the station
😅
Yep anything more than 10k bill is a reclaim for me
I flew my prospector into a station at near full speed and it bounced off and took another run to destroy it. Yet my vulture barely bumped into a panel and completely disintegrates😂
Yep, totally agree, fuel is a joke right now and I don't understand how Hydrogen, literally the most common element in the universe is more expensinve thant quantum fuel, that derives from a resource that degrades over time.
Yeah I couldn't figure that either, and the quantity needed for refuelling was in the SCU for Hydrogen and a fraction comparatively for Quant.
Hydrogen should be cheaper near Crusader and that should be the ONLY place in Stanton where it can be extracted.
Starfarers (and other freighters) could buy it cheap and travel to the stations for reliable, steady trade which becomes more profitable the further they go from the gas giant.
The best return should be planetside and the cost to consumers should match it.
Refuelling on a planet (except at Orison or a fuel barge terminal) would be expensive and something to be avoided wherever possible … even to the point of buying just enough hydrogen to get into space.
Starfarers would keep busy with stranded ships, pilots would plan routes to make a fuel stop at Seraphim (second cheapest fuel stop in the system) and people would be incentivised to crew up rather than solo.
Get the fuel refineries / scoops for STARFARER gameplay to fix this
I would agree with all of this if not for all the crashing and bugs
Hopefully we'll actually see less crashing soon, but then again...
Exactly why grind if we still losing everything almost everyday
oh that old excuse.. i would bet anything you dont "crash" or hit "bugs" that often at all. its the same lazy excuse you all use when the game moves towards being a real MMO. dont require me to have a crew... teh bugs! dont require me to load my cargo manually.... teh bugs! no long travel times... teh bugs! funny these bugs dont come up when jumptown is running or some new money glitch is found..
@@VenEm "glitch" with no "bugs" you understand those are the same right and jumptown bugs out and crash's all the time LOL. I'm talking about putting a shitload of time into doing any one thing then as soon as you are ready boom crash or dam just fell through the floor well shit got to do all that work over or hell all this ore i just took hr's to mine just poof into thin air or the ooo so many other time sinks from "bugs" and "crashing" that shit all over your game play soooo yea with out all that other shit sure it would be fun to add more complexity and time sinks into the game :) but how about just fixing what is wrong right now then move to the next thing :) not sure what you mean by a real MMO? working for something and taking time to do it is fine hell I love just chilling and farming shit or long missions or whatever but I sure as hell dont like doing the things that take a lot of time then just wast all that effort to a "glitch" or "bug" nope not fun at all .. but I guss some people like it ..
I just want the desync to be fixed man
We all do man … but that’s irrelevant to the topic.
I agree for the most part with you. Another idea that would go along with your idea of spawning with an empty fuel tank is to have each personal hangar have a (possibly upgradeable) personal fuel tank that you can fill with fuel yourself from possibly cheaper areas. Would give a better reason to transport fuel for plywrs
100% agree
Think game is stable enough now to add a zero to the price of both fuel types!
We also need fuel missions.
Agreed. More Industrialist Missions.
Honestly, this. I wish we had more 'planetside' missions for delivery, where hydrogen flight, via not burning through atmo but steady cruised cargo flight, conserved hydrogen enough to really make it worth while flying in atmo. Right now, it's crazy that if I choose to spend 'time' to hydrogen flight around the planet (I like flying) I am actually punished. The 'quicker' route of quantum not only generates more money through quicker delivery, but also, for a bizarre reason, conserves cost. You literally save time, and save money, as opposed to conducting an actual thought out process in this current fuel economy.
I think its a good point, those decision factors make sense
I would also say that fuel cost is way to low. BUT since its an Alpha and balancing usually happens in beta, fuel tank sizes and components resource consumption rate is only a rough placeholder, and the fact that CIG wants players to playtest more to deliver on important data, i think that it will change for the release version of the game, for sure. 😉
5:51 : Imo there's no need for that 3rd "type" of drive that would use less fuel. Logically, if we look at the physics of current engines, it's (basically) the faster you go, the more fuel you use. Current jump drives already work like this.
I think you are right but its not only fuel this is technically applicable on everything we buy and sell in the game. a simple solution for cash sink to support the economy is to add tax% for every transaction in-game, the % value will vary from one system to another.
Agreed, however, don't expect the detail that has been considered for Quantum (Star Sim) has not included fuel - and that is also the incorporation of the refining of fuel. All features in this alpha have been awaiting their refactor and it is clear the team have decided to not waste time making intermediary systems when the next tier is in development (the map is a good example - we had the awful map for years!). With the alpha clearly presenting new features and game loops as profitable and then 'nerfing' them back into a more balanced environment - I would say this is to encourage test data to keep flowing. I suspect fuel pricing is the same. While the Sim model is in development they have just essentially given us fuel to be a side thought - one that can create work for the player if ignored, but also one that is not restricting the testing (sorry playing) environment. And also one that tests the fuel game systems ensuring the ships are bug free in regards to this feature.
I would say be patient and wait for the economy refactor - and potentially not the first tier of it either, but a pass nearer release to see any really significant changes to fuel pricing. But I am certain this is not missing in their design plans.
You are absolutely correct on everything, including insurance claims!
Problem is that this will conflict with the sort that has no patience and wants more of an action shooter than a space sim. This is a struggle within the community about what the game will be.
Also, I really want a fresh start server at release, only 1 starter ship package at the start, per account... so you have to play, not pay!
I agree with you about fuel in general, but I don’t think it’s the answer to multicrew.
No amount of “fuel is expensive” will overcome the negative feeling of manning 2 badly placed S2 guns on a Corsair while the pilot controls more than 10x the dps. They must fundamentally reconsider the human experience of the turret/multicrew player (and no, clicking fuses, isn’t enough).
I really think almost every manned turret in the game needs to go up at least 1 size, or gain a significant function in addition to its current weapons (emp, interdiction, etc).
They also need to add flak to provide a real tool for large ships to contest lone fighters. Unless they nerf speeds down to like, 100ms, it’ll never be possible to hit a competent fighter that’s at the edge of its cannon range with a bigger ship turreted precision weapon-and frankly it shouldn’t be. That’s why WW2 featured flak, and that’s what we need. Create the ability to zone out fighters and poof, the entire game opens. Make flak exclusive to *manned* turrets and that’s a real reason to want to use them.
Meanwhile I’d say the Warden is a clear example of needing to go up 2 sizes, to have a manned 2x S4. The Sentinel’s turret can stay S2, but should gain a QED. Similarly, the Scorp’s turret should go up 1 size to 4x S4, and the Scorp A gain the current 4x S3 in addition to its current tools.
Manned turrets are meant to be the primary play loop for a human being, competitive with the level of engagement flying the ship gives.
Historically, the balance was… questionable but largely fine. Manning the turret on a Scorpius really was a worthwhile experience compared to personally piloting an Arrow or Gladius.
But, the F7 Mk II’s and the Corsair *exist.* If that’s the quantity of firepower we think a single pilot player should have, then we have to radically improve turrets.
Ships like the Corsair, Connie, and Redeemer should be able to slave multiple manned turrets to a single manned one by default, and some of those will still need size upgrades.
Other ships like the Hammerhead and Tali need burst dps buffs, either by adding 2 more hard points to each turret, or via size upgrades.
No amount of “but engineering” in the future changes the fundamental combat design. It simply cannot be someone’s gameplay to have literally only the emp and QED of the Scorp A, or a single 2x S2 Corsair turret with terrible sight lines.
Hydrogen double or triple prices and raise quant way up. Can't got for distance much in a Vulture, but then its like 35 credits to refuel the quant tank from empty.
As someone who heads up the logistics for their old, if I could upvote your video twice I would.
Choices should matter. Be that components ships or how you fly them.
Refueling is too rare, maybe my play sessions aren't long enough?
Why don't quantum jumps use a base amount of fuel per jump? Should I really be able to make near limitless small jumps?
Why don't ships auto recall to hangars?if it's not blown up, it should be able to fly back to base on its own right? The reclaim time being travel time to reach your station makes sense.
Should a perfectly good ship really be as easy/difficult to replace as a blown up ship?
Great idea 👍 but you forgot about some ship have working fuel scoops. 100i picies Carrack 890 jump and some others. It's gonna make most ship unwilling to own because of fuel costs. Example why is no one flying the Nomad? Coz it runs out of fuel so damn fast it's useless
I mention the 100i in the video
I personally think the whole claim thing should be tiered.
Basic insurance gets you an empty base hip and every thing like fuel, ammo, modules should cost you.
People would claim less for convenience if they had to pay 80% of the module price for a claim. ^^
That being said... I'd love to see an alternative to claiming for non destroyed/lost ships. If I want my Vulture that's docked in Orison, but I'm in MT, I should be able to request a costly transfer of the ship, so I can pick it up in half an hour or so, depending on how much of an express-fee I paid for the transfer.
Perhaps fuel could be included with LTI 🤣
I agree on the transfer though! Elite Dangerous has that, and sometimes it took days depending on how far you'd travelled (many many more systems in that game though)
Ship deliveries could even be a player to player mission … 5k to 10k depending on distance.
Chained together we could do a loop around Stanton and NPC missions could be generated to fill in the gaps.
I would say that economy is not implemented yet... Agree on everything you said nevertheless
They're slowly starting to tweak aspects of the economy lately, so hopefully it starts happening more frequently to 'balance' things out.
to create an economy .. you should have a plan !
Fuel in pyro will likely be expensive. Also, maybe Q fuel cost more but I am not sure hydrogen should be. With the bugs in place, I can die in an elevator or walking down a ramp. This, coupled with AI and griefer, pop out of nowhere to blast you for no reason; the strange way my ship guns fail to fire from time to time, and I blow way more money / time on armor and gear and getting back to my ship. An empty ship replacement...that is some such ass customer service. Maybe fix the game first then work out where its reasonable to have higher prices, maybe even get ship armor working first. This is kind of like how I believe the ship should have a bathroom, and it impacts long trips but should not be a managed aspect of the game.
If CIG values our time at least half as much as they attempt to value our money, then increasing the cost of fuel for "immersion" could be ok. With so many easy ways to die due to desync, bugs and errors counting as timesinks already, the only effect raising fuels prices would have is costing people more time.
BUT, the bigger picture issues with SC is that the general immersion level of the game is going down as a result of the push to 4.0/1.0 (Master Modes, combat changes for both ships and FPS, fewer unique stations, less reason to go to planets that aren't just literal timesinks, and using time as a primary sink due to their marketing model of FOMO & convenience). Because of this, how much would an increase to fuel pricing benefit the game? None, as starter to medium ships should still be cheap upkeep, and if you can afford a large ship but aren't concierge or close with lots of ship options you won't care.
Until they make an actual economy, or use a combination of the commodity tracker and starsim/quantum/whatever to make a tier 0-0.5 placeholder for one, I don't think much of anything in game will make financial sense. Once ship progression is not the only major focus, and refueling is relevant to some degree, AND they make it so there is some real risk of running out of hydrogen in Pyro w/o proper planning, then making fuel a part of it can make sense.
I agree entirely. Side note: why no ships in the verse with solar sails?
You're attacking the problem from one angle: the cost of supplies like quant fuel and hydrogen. CIG are attacking it from another angle: reducing mssion payouts. According to discord, in a recent SCL the devs said they want to structure missions so that on average players are making 20K aUEC per hour.
So if both of these proposals are adopted (assuming discord is correct about the SCL dev talk) then players who haven't bought UEC will be locked in their habs, selling med gowns until they have enough to fuel their Cutter.
And once they have scrounged up enough gowns to afford fuel (most players start with 10K aUEC after a wipe, iirc, so they'd only have to find enough gowns at 45 aUEC per to cover the other 16K fuel cost) then they could start their 20K per hour missions and perhaps make enough to break even
Maybe we can get transports to the Hurston Mines so people can earn some money 😅
In all seriousness, though, I get what you mean. It would be easier to facilitate if there were landing zone based missions for those players that have hit rock bottom.
@@BeardofOz Long term I think I've heard that they plan on having missions available in the landing zones. I heard an old school streamer say that there _used_ to be missions in the landing zones, sth like delivering boxes to the gates in Lorville?
That would be awesome to have. Pizza Delivery on your Mule (so we would have a use for it 🤣)
20k an hour??? Do they plan on at least reducing the prices of ships and gear proportionally? To get a cutlass black, starting from zero aeuc it will take you 70 hours of grinding not including fuel/gear/repair costs
@@thecrab2791 they said "on average" on ISC or SCL, whichever podcast it was. This makes me assume there will be missions that pay more and missions that pay less, and the ones that average more than 20K per hour will (I also assume) require more effort and/or a group.
But if the goal is for most people to make 20K per hour I have to assume there will be a way around that. Like maybe they will buff what you can get from non-mission sources?
I dunno, this is speculation on my part based on plans the devs could maybe possibly change.
Anyway I hope this helps. Cheers!
Sick thumbnail
The only problem with having the ships come with no fuel is there is no way to make money locally. Like let's say you are a boob, and spent every last cent on whatever. Now what?
It isn't that I disagree with all of this. But the current system is a bit broken if you keep in mind someone can be trapped at a location since there is no way of making money locally and there is no easy way to get hired or hire someone.
You aren't wrong, it could 'landlock' someone pretty badly. If landing zones were a bit more robust, they could have mailman jobs to earn credits, though that's a LOT of packages to afford fuel 🤣
Maybe that scenario would mean that a broke-ass spacer would have to take a job as crew on whatever ship was at their location.
A rework of the ‘job board’ would be needed, as well as standard crew contracts (separate from being in a group), with pay calculated on reputation, experience in the position and whether a pick up was needed from another location.
@@Glathgrundel I'm not saying a person shouldn't need to take a job. I'm saying if added right now people would get trapped at given locations. Yes if we had a system to support you to be hired by a crew, do local jobs, or something other than being trap or depend on luck. Then yes. But until then, no
I agree with your points, but the problem is that Star Citizen is not a game yet. It is an alpha. You seem to be wanted to play as a game when realistically we are all just testers.
Quantum fuel needs a big increase. You can get rich mining it but it costs nothing to buy the fuel, it seems like it is cheaper than hydrogen. Hydrogen would not need as much of an increase being the most common chemical element in the universe and all that. Plus some ships are good at scooping it and keeping their own tanks full. So high hydrogen prices would drive people to buy better scooping ships and fuel producers sell less and it hurts them more than just keeping it cheap.
I see that IRL around me. Gas prices doubled in a short time and hybrid and EV cars on the road also did.
It's a shame that those ships don't see any use currently. Besides their scooping, they didn't seem to have any other features that set them above other vessels.
@@BeardofOz I use my Avenger Titan all the time. They did a tweak so it is not as good as it was. It used to keep its hydrogen full, never had to buy it. Now it does go down slowly. But so slow you probably lose and have to claim the ship before ever needing to buy it. Now the Cutlass on the other hand..... Can barely get off the surface of a planet without burning half a tank.
I’m tired of reclaiming my ship when a glitch or bug happens.
Should be no such thing.
It feels (to me) like it has gotten better in general when it comes to issues like that, but it certainly doesn't never happen so I can understand the sentiment.
Pretty sure it has always been the intention to rise fuel prices. As well as tune every ship fuel capacity and consumption. Current values make no sense.
So you want to make the game harder and less attractive for newer players while being a minor annoyance to more seasoned ones? Think of this from a new player perspective, who would want to sit down with their new starter ship, fly around for a bit and take on some starter missions and LOSE money from doing that mission just because they had the audacity to want to learn how to fly first? I agree maybe with making quantum fuel more expensive, but hydrogen fuel should be cheaper than sea water. Hell, they should bring back hydrogen fuel scoops at least on civilian ships/mid size and bigger ships, snubs and light military fighters that are supposed to be stationed around a planet/ on a carrier should be the only ships really missing them.
I dunno it also has to be fun at the end of the day
This and Elite dangerous do this. Fuel is like nothing. Now Truck sim games got this right. When fuel prices went up in real life they made the game reflect that. So now I plan my routes with fuel on my mind because certain states are dirt cheap and others are way expensive. Makes for some interesting game play. If they did this in Elite and Star citizen you would have more players at certain points for cheaper fuel leading to more player to player interactions.
How about we start with having reliable game loops that are meaningful? Take package from a to b, get 3k credits......ground breaking game development.
Dont forget, that 3k wouldnt even cover the fuel cost with the ridiculous fuel prices suggested
Also ships should not be claimed via insurance and get new missiles and torpedoes.
Id be ok addressing this AFTER no more bugs, clipping through worlds, spontaneous death, spontaneous explosions, way less time sinks in favor of "gold" sinks, Desync a thing of the past, far less time consuming to meet up with friends. Time alone slows down the ability to make $$$.
I 100% plus I wish fuel was extremely expensive and I wish some ships were more efficient than others. So more efficient quantum drive and just more efficient ships in general matter more.
I just could NOT agree more with you. And it would be so huge for encouraging multi crewing a ship.
I’m mean, CIG hire this man! Us players of hardcore/ survival games just can not wait for choices to matter and for there to be consequences!
Fair point, small ships would be good daily driver rater then watching everyone running around in a C2.
I still think Auroras and similar sized ships should have negligible fuel costs as people just starting with the game tend to crash a lot and would go bankrupt too fast for their own good.
Flying a 890j should be proibitive for the average schmuck
It could be something that is a Perk for 'starter' designated ships perhaps, reduced fuel cost on claimed starters.
Nothing in SC makes sense right now due to a complete lack of economy. For the starfarer to be useful they would have to fix it first.... been waiting for several patches now.
The refuelling still isn't working? Damn, I wish I could say that shocks me...😞
Yes they need to raise the price on gas and maybe even food and drink look how well that is working in America where half your salary goes to just those two thing repairs and such take up even more -- which is why Americans need to have a spouse to help out. So since you are going to raise taxes on gas then i should be a shareholder and get 15% on the rise of it thank you.
i understand your points and i like your video but i think SC wastes enough time with no gameplay, gameplay like slow doors etc
My ships costs a lot more refueling than this 16K.
Die you ever lost all your money in SC with nothing left than one small ship.
I Had that from millions to nothing because of server crashes bugs or the next Patch having all your money vanished because you Had it in Form of goods which no one wanted during that time.
I say let the Game evolve to a release Version and than think of adjustments.
Also it is a Game around space traveling it should be possible to everyone to get and stay into the game without having too many obstacles. Currently the game is frustrating enough already.
I can certainly see why the pricing has remained low (and ammo and fuel provided) with how unstable the game was for so long. In general I believe it's getting better but I can see how being broke would 'cripple' a players ability to get around.
@@BeardofOz I think you should be able to go to bed anywhere and not die. You shouldn’t have to bed log
I remember hearing at one point that logging out anywhere was intended. I'm not sure where the devs sit on that plan now...
3:04 yes if you buy a recalmer for 400 euro real money and someone tells me it's not pay to win
There's no denying the distinct advantages of pledging ships, but I'm still talking about the regular build up through in game currency.
does buying it with money mean you know how to fly it? Use it? make ingame money with it? does paying that much crew all the turrets for you? NO
wow real life fuel prices are already a struggle yet here are ppl that want u to have the same feeling in a game were u want to unwind and forget about the real stuff ....just stupid
Flying around in space and killing swathes of people wasn't escapist enough for you? Man, wait til you have to poop in game, you're really going to have a rough time 🤣
Dude people play games to escape reality. Just sayin.
Completely understand, but not all games are 100% casual. I don't think SC is going to be pure arcade nor hardcore, but a mix. I'm just saying this idea has merits that expand gameplay.
Yes and no. I can see this farther down the road as it is just Alpha and other changes need to happen first. Maybe when we get bases we can refine our own fuel? Who knows but let’s fix what is broken rather than adding more lines of code to mess up more things.
As much as I agree with this sentiment, we know CIG ain't gonna stop churning out changes 😅
they also have many teams of many people, bugs can be and are fixed in parrallel with creation
see recent hotfix and evo runs
Longevity comes from the yet to be implement systems and gameplay, there can be loads of diferent money sinks. Having to worry about the price of fuel everytime you want to do a mission is just bad gameplay and not fun. Claiming ships wih no fuel on top of that? 😂. So let me get this straight.
You're in crusader, accept a 9k bounty in hurston, 10+ min to get to your destination, and then a bug happens, or a player kills you, or an npc, or you run into an asteroid, whatever...
Wakeup at the hospital in crudader again, have to wait 5 or more mins for the claim, and on top of that have to pay 15k fueling, just for trying to do a bounty thst would pay 9k. 😂 Imagine little timmy tring SC for the first time
1 - after a good while finally figuring out how to leave loreville
2 - goes on first far away mission
3 - fails
4 - wakes up at loreville
5 - repeat
6 - gets stuck in loreville forever cus he has no money to pay for fuel
Kind of big flaw there 😂
Fair points regarding newer players, though eventually the game does need to let them go and learn. The game crashes aren't as frequent as they used to be so the perpetual training wheels don't need to be there as often.
@@BeardofOz I think you should look at the state of gameplay from a future perspective, the game as it stands is just a very small percentage of what the game will be, the growth is exponential, once the core game systems are implemented adding content will be faster and easier, with server meshing and x times more players the gameplay will change a lot. I think what you should be scared about when cargo trading and long distance travel is players or pirate NPCs intercepting you, and make risk assessments based on that, kinda like old-schooll freelancer. I think this fuel pricing solution only solves the problem for the state of game as it is right now, which imo should be irrelevant
Fuel economy won't 'seem' as important until we have a lot more systems, true, but I don't think that means it shouldn't be a factor now. At the moment the only consideration it creates is jump distance (for smaller vessels) and as a side effect the choice in particular drives.
Ultimately, it's more an opinion, but something I personally think warrants thought.
Principil i like the suggestion here, but I have to disagree for one reason.
This would discourage any new player with a 45$ starter pack to play the game and would even soft lock them after the 2nd crash into the space station. Their entire starting stash would go into refueling and most likely they would quit and be done in less than 2 hours.
That is a very fair point. While it would be a great situation to get players to join a crew, nobody wants to be forced into group play. Perhaps when landing zones are more robust content wise there could be janitorial jobs available 😅
@@BeardofOz All you need is to have some way of income at any given landing zone via mission or otherwise to give players the option to earn credits to buy fuel.
Howerver if the fuelprice is high than those missions need to pay somewhat good but if thats the case than other mission ... you get the point and we can only hope the econemy team has some answers to all of this.
Here's hoping!
I'm not even sure if avoiding higher prices is possible. I think this is what turns me away from SC sometimes, I spend hours doing missions and mining/salvaging without having to really consider anything. Gear I loot, fuel and food are dirt cheap and until I have enough for a new ship I will never worry about money, and I think that's what get's a little boring.
Just making fuel more expensive adds so much more you have to consider. Right now you pick your drive by tank size, never worrying how much fuel that XL-1 guzzles.
I'll probably be even more controversial and say I'd want mission rewards to go down a little as well.
I'm much of the same mind. Personally I enjoy the hard yards to earn something, and having small factors that eat into your wallet like this (and yes, lower payouts too) will make those purchases all the sweeter.
Stop requesting to increase the price of everything, not everybody is rich, there are casuals too. kthxbye
they need to do a game ...
you want even more time sinks and even more money to spend after the mission? i do a bounty hunt mission for 11k and if the server sucks like most of the time i have to pay 18k to repair the ship. for that you would have to lower the other prices first. and yes that's because of the live servers in arena commander i have no problems even in pvp
I do want more time and money sinks to be honest. It's not for everybody, but it's what I enjoy.
@@BeardofOz i dont want to need to Play 8 hours a day Just to be on a normal Level. Doctors say that you should only play 1-2 hours a day
You'd best listen to your Doctor then 🤣
@@BeardofOz ya 1-2 hours per day is Normal. All Above is Bad
@@LunaMoon0Soo... as a space Andy in 1-2h you want to gain as much as someone who played 8 h right? Its such a greate idea man. 😂 Bro, from what i herd there are still some ingame exploits for ppl like you. You would buy every ship you imagine. But question is, what would you do with them as there is nothing except of grind right now.
Seriously bro, stop making sense. I'd stop playing if your suggestions were implemented. I already have kids, a wife and a Mortgage. Where is the escapism in true to life gas prices? We are already looking down the barrel of the new inventory system. I don't mind putting on my shoes, but I don't want to tie the laces. and now you are saying gas should cost more! no offense to they guy who invented ratting bunkers, but GFYS. This is the last thing we need.
Damn son, that was so politely aggressive 🤣
I feel your pain, however, I must stand my ground. Gib more Immershun.
I can almost guarantee you that fuel will cost more and the future.
Uh, no. Have you experienced how much fuel the Cuttlass ships use? At your rate, they'd be permanently grounded. With the latest rounds of mission nerfs, increasing fuel costs greatly will kill the incentive to complete missions. Come 3.24, even looting will be greatly nerfed. Big no in my opinion.
No one cares what you think
I do.
seriously you people discussing this really think that 2 to 300 years in the future mankind would not have a found a better fuel source like safer nuclear? seriously ?
Star Citizen's society doesn't have a functioning communication system (in games comms are cooked) so who even knows 😅