I do like strawberry flavor, I'd try it.
SC community freak out over warbond perks (video)
- Thread starter Montoya
- Start date
I think it boils down to the insane abuse of the melting system people were doing.
CIG didn't intend for people to have LTI "tokens." Ever. People found they could abuse the grey area though, and did so en masse.
Now CIG has cleared it up. You can't do it anymore. The new packages make it abundantly clear.
You like a ship, you want it? Buy it with new money. You don't? Keep your old ship.
You don't want to put in new money? Fine, don't. It's a video game and you already have the best ship in the game, the Aurora. You don't need anything else.
You think you're owed the ability to have unlimited LTI tokens for every ship? You're wrong. CR has spoken, and it's 100% consistent with what he has said before. That you chose to willfully ignore him before is your problem, not ours.
CIG didn't intend for people to have LTI "tokens." Ever. People found they could abuse the grey area though, and did so en masse.
Now CIG has cleared it up. You can't do it anymore. The new packages make it abundantly clear.
You like a ship, you want it? Buy it with new money. You don't? Keep your old ship.
You don't want to put in new money? Fine, don't. It's a video game and you already have the best ship in the game, the Aurora. You don't need anything else.
You think you're owed the ability to have unlimited LTI tokens for every ship? You're wrong. CR has spoken, and it's 100% consistent with what he has said before. That you chose to willfully ignore him before is your problem, not ours.
Amen! I have no regrets in what i have bought. I may want the A2 but that's not happening for a while i can accept that and if i miss this sale then Oh well i'll survive not the end of the world or makes me hate SC for it. There will be more ships in the future i can go blow my money on when i have that money to blow.
Stands to reason that the funds you / I / they spent on a Herald way-back-when went into making it the Herald... Melting what can be upwards of 7 year old ships back into credit doesn't seem to be a viable way of continuing the project when the money that paid for that ship was spent 7 years ago... The amount of dollars that must have been recycled... if they had all been cash pledges... I really, really wonder how much the development fund would be up by? Millions and millions I would not mind guessing.
I can't deny I have not melted, a few things a Herald here a Cyclone there... I'll try not to do that again i'll focus on getting my buy-backs back now - I only have a couple but I have an Aurora LX which I should name "The Wicked Witch Of The West", it's been melted and un-melted a couple of times now.
DragonHeart
Space Marshal
CIG needs to sell Pink coloured ones as special edition, with Hello Kitty faced Bombs.
The forums would explode.
The forums would explode.
Waa waa waa life isn't fair. Who knew.
I sort of feel sorry for CIG they have promised loads of ships (some like the Starliner never even get mentioned) the backlog is huge they need more cash to send their kids to private school or is it development its hard to know and they have to keep finding even more ideas for ships that people want, when a lot of backers already have all they need (and for me probably more than that). If only such creativity could be expanding missions.
I sort of feel sorry for CIG they have promised loads of ships (some like the Starliner never even get mentioned) the backlog is huge they need more cash to send their kids to private school or is it development its hard to know and they have to keep finding even more ideas for ships that people want, when a lot of backers already have all they need (and for me probably more than that). If only such creativity could be expanding missions.
If "LTI" is not an important perk, then what does it matter if people collect "LTI tokens"? I believe the LTI tokens would generate new money when bought back, especially if the ship is going to be used in a grey market sale. The LTI token mechanic is still there, only each one now requires an imput of fresh cash. In order to stop the LTI token scheme from happening, CIG would need to change how the CCU mechanic works,, ie the end ship inherits the insurance from the final ship rather than the beginning one.
I have squirreled away a few "LTI tokens" myself but have ALWAYS reclaimed them with fresh money, and in all but 1 or 2 instances CCU'd the tokens with fresh cash CCUs.
If on the other hand "LTI" is a valuable commodity (even if it is only perceived to be valuable by the market), then rewarding new cash input is appropriate, but CIG should stop telling us it is an unimportant feature. (this is the message I get from the new system).
As for what CIG intended or did not intend, the situation is ENTIRELY the responsibility of CIG.. it's their system and they put it in place. Do you really think CIG was naive as to what people would do when the system was put into effect?
Personally I have no problem with the new system and I would encourage anyone who is interested in the game to fund its development.
The only thing that bothers me about the new system is the "gift card" mechanic. If I want to give a gift to someone, I spend real cash money on a gift card and transfer it to the intended recipient.. who uses the card towards the purchase of a ship of their choice... but, because the gift card is not considered "new money", the recipient of the gift card can not use the card towards the purchase of a ship with LTI or get the lower priced "Warbond" edition of said ship. I really hope CIG fixes this because as it works now I would never buy a gift card for anyone. It makes a lot more sense to buy an LTI token and gift that to a friend.
GrumpyCat
Space Marshal
My issue is simply that a lot of us who spent a LOT of money near the beginning ... did so on the ships that were available at the time. So the simple fact is some of these newer ships fit our playstyle better and we would like to switch to them, but now we cant keep our LTI when doing so because credits /-/ lti
Radegast74
Space Marshal
I agree. As you know there are "work-arounds" so I won't bore you with that discussion.
What I think your point also gets to is something more along the lines of "ship inflation / game inflation" where we as backers in 2012 or 2013 were lead to believe that Ship A was the pinnacle of dogfighting or exploration, or what not, and we paid money, and now 5 years on, the ground has *completely shifted* to the point where you might not even bother to blow your nose on board Ship A based on what is currently available. But, Ship A has LTI and the new ship doesn't, if you bought it with credits.
In a way, we are victims of our own success, and I don't begrudge CIG for the success. We are all getting a better game for it.
I just wish they would make it up to us in some way, like, before beta, have a 1 month window where people with pledges before a certain date could switch things around, based on the later facts on the ground. Yeah, having a gold monocle is ... a nice touch ... but something more substantial would be nice for the earlier backers.
However, I also can see that, if CIG announced that, ship sales might flatten (why buy now if I know I can get what I want right before the game launches?). And of course, the whining on Reddit would be even worse...everybody would think they deserved it, and if they didn't get it, it wouldn't be "fair" lol.
2024 - LOL! Point is the funds are finite... if CIG is not managing its money correctly and people do not feel the investment is worth $400 then they have a reason to vote with their checkbooks. 400 employees/people is a subjective number... are you talking about 400 Eisensteins or 400 Billy Madisons? My guess is that it is something in between. If this project fails, there will be law suites up the butt and I'd hate to be Chris Roberts. Although I think it will "eventually" succeed, time is running out for marketing. This is a market place, we have invested in a game/idea... its not a given this is going to succeed, it is a gamble. CIG can ride the wave as long as they have money but it will not last forever, because in the end, people are paying $400 for a internet picture, nothing more, nothing less.
So, lets hope this is not a scam, but at some point, they really need to start producing.
So, lets hope this is not a scam, but at some point, they really need to start producing.
Could always CCU your LTI ship
AntiSqueaker
Space Marshal
Someone mentioned a "Warbond CCU" that I thought was a novel solution to the problem.
A Cash-only CCU that would get you the warbond price discount + goodies.
Example: You have ship A which you've had for a while. You love ship A, but Ship B just had a concept sale and it's more appealing to you. Ship A has a melt value of 300 dollars, Ship B has a credit upgrade cost of 500 dollars, but is on Warbond for for 450 and comes with some shiny shit that you want too.
As is you can either shell out 450 bucks for it, or pay 200 to upgrade. With a Warbond CCU you would drop 150 dollars in cash and get the warbond price.
I think it's a pretty good compromise- older backers (who pledged when the need for funding was the highest and the likelihood of the game was the most volatile) can upgrade ships without paying a "credit tax" for having a smaller selection of ships pre-2015, CIG gets a new source of income that isn't mass melting of LTI tokens and re-buying, etc etc etc.
This might even end up getting a whole new slew of sales from people that would have ordinarily not gotten even a partial credit CCU because of the "inflated" cost compared to a Warbond (e.g. "I don't want to pay an extra 50 dollars for the ship to upgrade it, oh well guess I'll keep my old ship"), but could now get a CCU for the same discount and keep their old package or whatever.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, I'm happy with my ships and I'm not going to be throwing CIG any more money regardless, but I also love to throw my 2 UEC in.
A Cash-only CCU that would get you the warbond price discount + goodies.
Example: You have ship A which you've had for a while. You love ship A, but Ship B just had a concept sale and it's more appealing to you. Ship A has a melt value of 300 dollars, Ship B has a credit upgrade cost of 500 dollars, but is on Warbond for for 450 and comes with some shiny shit that you want too.
As is you can either shell out 450 bucks for it, or pay 200 to upgrade. With a Warbond CCU you would drop 150 dollars in cash and get the warbond price.
I think it's a pretty good compromise- older backers (who pledged when the need for funding was the highest and the likelihood of the game was the most volatile) can upgrade ships without paying a "credit tax" for having a smaller selection of ships pre-2015, CIG gets a new source of income that isn't mass melting of LTI tokens and re-buying, etc etc etc.
This might even end up getting a whole new slew of sales from people that would have ordinarily not gotten even a partial credit CCU because of the "inflated" cost compared to a Warbond (e.g. "I don't want to pay an extra 50 dollars for the ship to upgrade it, oh well guess I'll keep my old ship"), but could now get a CCU for the same discount and keep their old package or whatever.
I don't really have a dog in this fight, I'm happy with my ships and I'm not going to be throwing CIG any more money regardless, but I also love to throw my 2 UEC in.
I like the idea of compromise.
To cash CCU to the warbond price and include LTI would make most backers happy, but I'd leave the free tonk/jeep for outright buyers. I think even the most verdant of complainers sees validity to letting someone dropping $700 in one shot on the game have a little bit more of a thank-you than their $37 CCU :)
The caterpillar is a good example of this. It is very similar to the civilian Hercules but its cargo bays are separated by bulkheads and has no way currently to deploy anything more than bikes. Sadly with none of the flexibility that was in the concept for the caterpillar it is not looking as good a prospect as the current latest shiny thing (Nevermind that I own only bikes (I know I can buy tanks in the verse!)).
A lot of the early ships were all multifunction for the simple reason CIG thought there would be less ships and it would be easier to cover the roles this way. I can see problems with the BMM similar to the caterpillar for this reason.
Last edited:
Clearly Intel is a scam. This is why we need game studios like EA to keep them honest!
Seung gets it. #IntelScam
To completely and intentionally misdirect this conversations, any word on the Buy back system going poof? might CCU the Hercules into my Armada Package at the cost of re-buying a ship later.
Shadow Reaper
Space Marshal
It really is important to remember that no one is really buying ships. They're supporting a game. There is no contract to deliver any ship at any given time. The ship is merely a benefit of early support and needs to be viewed that way to make any sense at all.
You understand, none of us have anything like the information to know if CIG is managing it's money correctly, and even if we had that sort of information, we would all have different notions of what "correctly" is. It's a fools game to even ask the question. Instead, try to fathom the complexity of the task Chris has, and enjoy that he has produced such an abundance of service to others though what are only tiny bits of the games to come. Asking what you would do in his place, when you can't even imagine how multifaceted and complex his job is, really won't ever lead to any useful thoughts on the subject.
Thats almost Zen, dude. Kudos.
Ah, sorry I missed that.. the whole thing with offering extras for new money is fine with me, but if your going to do that then the price of the ship should be the price of the ship. I would have thrown in a couple hundred on top of a melt to get it but they devalued it too much for me with the big price difference and the tank.. which in my mind puts them valuing the ship itself at $500.. sooo.. cant justify paying $700 for it and especially putting in an extra $200 cash to do it on top of a melt like I was thinking about. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on this.. and in how they want to look at it.. doesnt make anyone wrong.. but this is the reason I am skipping this one. :)