Credits come to easy? Small ships redundant?

[CMDR Hagglebeard]

That's not to say that I think making money is easier or hard per say, its pretty much the same as it has been, except a bit more made in combat these days.

The fundamental flaw in your question though, is that it suggests that your playstyle i.e "try everything/every ship/every trade" is more valid than a "grind for the Annie" playstyle.

So, No! You enjoy it your way and let others enjoy it their way, if they become an Annie owner with no insurance (which I'm guessing you would never be , that's their choice.

It isn't to try everything, it's to actually enjoy at least some aspects of the early gameplay. A lot of work went into the development of the early ships, and they're some fun beasts to fly. We don't ever want to encourage anyone ever to grind for any ship. The journey and the learning is the best part of Elite, and we want players to enjoy everything as much as possible. The struggle is what defines Elite, what makes it a challenge, and what makes it fun. Putting every player in an Anaconda after a month takes away all of that struggle.

I mean, come on, people making 15 million credits in an hour? that's ridiculous! Bounty hunting should really be much tougher in RES sites, and a good fix to that would be to allow police to steal your bounties. Also, it really should make -poor money until you find that big bounty, the same as pirates find that big haul. It creates suspense and emergent gameplay when players risk everything to get that deadly, ferocious pinata.

And, trading making 10 million credits per hour? Say what now? Currently, trading is a bit weird. There's no extra profit in trading with fringe and low-sec systems, as there is a min/max value on each commodity. Bah.

 

[Samosa]

And, trading making 10 million credits per hour? Say what now? Currently, trading is a bit weird. There's no extra profit in trading with fringe and low-sec systems, as there is a min/max value on each commodity. Bah.

I would argue that trading isn't profitable enough on the high end - I want it to scale beyond how much I can haul in an Anaconda. A stock market would be a nice mini-game that'd solve that for me.

 

[CMDR Hagglebeard]

Same here, cleared when 1.3 was released. I have around 55 million in total assets, 98% of which were made from combat earnings. I didn't even farm that hard.

I agree on the price suggestions.

The price of those ships don't take into account the new money making possibilities offered by missions. In ONE mission in a Sidewinder you can get enough money to buy an Eagle right away.
Back in Gamma, you had to do 5 - 6 message delivery missions to get the same amount.

The reward increase is a good thing, but the price of the ships should evolve as well. It is probably too late unfortunately.

I never did like any courier/hauling/trading missions, or trading itself back in Beta/Gamma, and so I went full bounty-hunter. Took me a bit to make the 16,000 Cr to get an Eagle, and a much longer time to get a Cobra. And at that time, Cobras weren't run of the mill to me, they were the shiny jewel of the galaxy that I strived for. After getting it, it was a fuel-hungry beast. I miss that.

 

[trollson]

This wouldn't be the first game to encounter snowballing wealth.

If this adversly affects the game economy, then the usual response is to introduce money-sinks - hopefully without being punitive or adversly affect non-wealthy players.

One simple (small) hit would be to charge a docking fee for non-small vessels, except where allied with the controlling minor faction. This doesn't affect the small fry, and can be seen as a "rational" charge.

A more comprehensive approach would be purchases not (directly) relate to wealth-gain - implying other forms of game play than we already have.

 

[Brujah]

I honestly don't find earning credits particularly easy. I'm still in an Asp, despite having been playing (admittedly intermittently) since Gamma.

I feel the work I've put in probably justifies the craft I have. Although that said, I may have been earning money a lot more quickly recently than I did in earlier releases, it's difficult to quantify.

 

[Lord Momo]

I wouldn't say it is too easy overall, but at the beginning, yes, the biggest problem is there is no profession that has any sort of experience scaling at all only profession kinda scales is trading, but not with how good you are at it, it is just a linear ship progression, there should be much more of a curve based on how good you are at the game, so if you know what you are doing then it is possible to make the current profits, but it shouldn't be so easy.

 

[Crash1099]

Once i get a trade conda i am going to get all the small ships and have fun doing stupid stuff with them. Small ships have a role. Cheap insurance.

 

[Bertrand Du Guesclin]

A more comprehensive approach would be purchases not (directly) relate to wealth-gain - implying other forms of game play than we already have.

No please don't, not another hidden-secret-'reputation'-stat-nobody-knows-about.

It is already the case with "faction experience" being the only factor taken into account for Navy ranks, and is completely separated from faction reputation, doesn't appear anywhere ingame, and increases only when you spam hundreds of missions.
We only know about it thanks to the support guys, and I don't want to send a ticket to support to know how much I need to grind to be able to have the right to purchase my next ship.

 

[CMDR Hagglebeard]

Once i get a trade conda i am going to get all the small ships and have fun doing stupid stuff with them. Small ships have a role. Cheap insurance.

I often buy an Eagle along with a friend and we have torpedo-ram duels. Quite fun.

 

[Darrett]

The current balance issues between large/small ships is a big one for me. I've always thought they need to do a balancing pass between ship types as well as weapons, not just for combat roles but for other roles as well.

For instance; a logical combat model is one in which a small ship is fragile (similar to the current model), and a large ship is tough (similar to the current model, except with subsystems protected by armor and the upcoming PP change). With that being the case, the advantage a small ship should have is the ability to avoid being hit. That's already the case with fixed weaponry, but with gimbals and turrets it still needs to be tweaked some. The solution I'd take here is to make each increase of weapon size decrease the precision (not accuracy) of the weapon. This means that using a Class 3 Beam Turret is great, but it will have difficulty hitting smaller ships. This purpose-builds weapon classes for a different purpose, by making larger weapon classes more effective on larger ships, and smaller weapon classes more effective on smaller ships.

The next step here is to make it so attaching a smaller weapon to a larger hardpoint increases the ammunition of that weapon by 50% for each hardpoint increase. So putting a class 1 Multicannon on a Medium hardpoint gives you 3150 ammunition for it. This gives the advantage to larger ships in longevity and ammunition storage if they choose to downsize weapons to give themselves more effectiveness against smaller attackers.

The goal wouldn't be to make a small ship equal to a large ship, but it should be set up in such a way that small ships are able to harass a larger one that doesn't have escorts or fit itself entirely to fight larger vessels. Balance to me would be that three Eagles are roughly equal to a single Anaconda if the Anaconda: A. Stays and fights, B. Isn't set up to deal with small ships by downsizing gimbals/turrets, and C. Doesn't have any wingmates to help out.

As far as non-combat operations go, I think a smuggling fix would help here some. If smuggling was made to be more profitable per ton than regular trading (between commodity and rare trading), and detection rates increased for larger ships, then small ships would become a viable smuggling platform. After all, a standard Sidewinder would raise less suspicion than a Type-9, I'd think.

 

[Renegade Roach]

Part of the problem is that people made so much fuss about the methods FD used to try to balance ship selection (not performance) that they got nerfed into irrelevance. I bang on about it, but repair costs and wear and tear, not to mention fuel, used to be balancing factors. Look at how many people posted that they would be 'forced' to leave their Conda/Python/Clipper in the hanger when the recent repair bug popped up. It's a real shame because the smaller ships are some of the most enjoyable to pilot, I've gone from a Conda > Python > FDL > now back in Viper and Scout, seems I'm regressing

As for actually answering your question, yeah it's a bit easy now but I'd rather see ways of making those smaller ships more attractive for people to use rather than making credits scarce. If people are constantly worried about their rebuys it will tend to push them to solo/private and this is already one of the most risk adverse game communities I've encountered.

- - - Updated - - -

For instance; a logical combat model is one in which a small ship is fragile (similar to the current model), and a large ship is tough (similar to the current model, except with subsystems protected by armor and the upcoming PP change). With that being the case, the advantage a small ship should have is the ability to avoid being hit. That's already the case with fixed weaponry, but with gimbals and turrets it still needs to be tweaked some. The solution I'd take here is to make each increase of weapon size decrease the precision (not accuracy) of the weapon. This means that using a Class 3 Beam Turret is great, but it will have difficulty hitting smaller ships. This purpose-builds weapon classes for a different purpose, by making larger weapon classes more effective on larger ships, and smaller weapon classes more effective on smaller ships.

This kind of thing really is needed. Smaller weapons suffer against large targets, but we really need a penalty on gimbals/turrets vs smaller targets. That and how shields work probably needs some kind of rethink.

 

[CMDR Hagglebeard]

The current balance issues between large/small ships is a big one for me. I've always thought they need to do a balancing pass between ship types as well as weapons, not just for combat roles but for other roles as well.

For instance; a logical combat model is one in which a small ship is fragile (similar to the current model), and a large ship is tough (similar to the current model, except with subsystems protected by armor and the upcoming PP change). With that being the case, the advantage a small ship should have is the ability to avoid being hit. That's already the case with fixed weaponry, but with gimbals and turrets it still needs to be tweaked some. The solution I'd take here is to make each increase of weapon size decrease the precision (not accuracy) of the weapon. This means that using a Class 3 Beam Turret is great, but it will have difficulty hitting smaller ships. This purpose-builds weapon classes for a different purpose, by making larger weapon classes more effective on larger ships, and smaller weapon classes more effective on smaller ships.

The next step here is to make it so attaching a smaller weapon to a larger hardpoint increases the ammunition of that weapon by 50% for each hardpoint increase. So putting a class 1 Multicannon on a Medium hardpoint gives you 3150 ammunition for it. This gives the advantage to larger ships in longevity and ammunition storage if they choose to downsize weapons to give themselves more effectiveness against smaller attackers.

The goal wouldn't be to make a small ship equal to a large ship, but it should be set up in such a way that small ships are able to harass a larger one that doesn't have escorts or fit itself entirely to fight larger vessels. Balance to me would be that three Eagles are roughly equal to a single Anaconda if the Anaconda: A. Stays and fights, B. Isn't set up to deal with small ships by downsizing gimbals/turrets, and C. Doesn't have any wingmates to help out.

As far as non-combat operations go, I think a smuggling fix would help here some. If smuggling was made to be more profitable per ton than regular trading (between commodity and rare trading), and detection rates increased for larger ships, then small ships would become a viable smuggling platform. After all, a standard Sidewinder would raise less suspicion than a Type-9, I'd think.

I can't rep you again.

 

[Lord Momo]

Seems most people are agreeing that instead of nerfing credit earnings, making the small ships fill special roles to make them less pointless is the answer

Edit: also when multi crew ships come out, maybe the turrets will have to be manned, making it much harder for a lone pilot in a conda to kill smaller ships.

 

[Tarman]

I can't rep you again.

Did it for you; there are some great concepts in that post.

 

[Muetdhiver]

Balance to me would be that three Eagles are roughly equal to a single Anaconda if the Anaconda: A. Stays and fights, B. Isn't set up to deal with small ships by downsizing gimbals/turrets, and C. Doesn't have any wingmates to help out.

So we also make the anaconda cost 3*50K = 150K credits ?

Trolling a bit here , but one have to consider the very large imbalance in costs.

Other than that, I would love to see some large/huge anti-fighter weapons such as autocanons and flack cannons (like cannon, but frag shell with proxi fuse)

 

[Darrett]

So we also make the anaconda cost 3*50K = 150K credits ?

Trolling a bit here , but one have to consider the very large imbalance in costs.

Other than that, I would love to see some large/huge anti-fighter weapons such as autocanons and flack cannons (like cannon, but frag shell with proxi fuse)

I would say the trade off there would be that the Anaconda allows one player to be as powerful as three. And if that Anaconda pilot came with a setup that prioritizes killing small ships, more than three.

 

[Evil]

IMO the uniqueness of ships shouldn't be based off combat or weapon types, that's combat balance, they need some external uniqueness, smuggling compartments, super low signature, increased mining capability, advanced super cruise etc.. etc...

 

[Soliluna]

Hi Chaps,

I've been playing since Alpha and I'm wondering if any one else thinks that it is too easy to make credits now?

This is where I'm coming from.

I spent a very very long time in small craft and got to experience each of them for days and days and weeks of solid gaming.

Now it seems that players an quickly hop from a sidewinder to a cobra in a handfull or two sessions, Making small craft redundant. It seems that it's now a game of cobra's and clippers with a brief spell in a trade ship before moving on to a python or Annaconda.

For instance, I havent seen a single thread in ages relating to the humble but amazing Hauler.

So that's I mean about credits coming to easy.

1 million credits per hour for combat used to be unheard of and now it seems pretty low end.
1 million credits per hour for trading used to be a bit of an eye opener. Now it seems no issue.

So are all the little ships just a relatively meaningless quick stop on the way to a a clipper, python, Annaconda?

People who have been playing for a few months are probably best suited to answer this as they may have observed the same thing.

How many hours play does it take to get from a side winder to a Cobra these days?

What really got me thinking was the Clippers on sale to every Surf and how many I see flying around these days.

Just pondering while I have a cuppa.

It took me about 35 hours to get to a Cobra but admittedly I was playing with Oculus and trying to trade and spending far too long doing it because of not recording trade data. Once I switched to combat and combat zones my income and interest peaked and piqued.

Do I think it is too short? No because I don't play enough... do I think that the game would be better with some more varied reward structures sitting outside of just ships and rank? Yes. Currently the gauge of progression for most is upgrading your ship or rank, except in RP terms (which you cannot really gauge objectively). I think if you were to fit more tangible benefits to credits and therefore more credit sinks, the game would be more entertaining and the longevity would benefit.

Their idea to include procedurally generated weapons and modules and then hopefully ships would be adequate for this I think. (When they spoke of this I imagined that it would be procedural based on factions.. therefore the willingness to participate in minor factions struggles would also be heightened).

 

[JesusOnEez]

I understand where you're coming from, and completely agree. It IS easier to gain main early game. Smuggling missions are forking out anything between 30K and 150K. In theory, you could do 3 of these and have enough for a base Cobra within half an hour of play.

But...

It depends how you play. From a purely selfish perspective, I get to play 8 hours a week absolute tops. I don't want it to take me forever to get a new ship. Then it's just a grind...8 hours play is still a week as far as I'm concerned!

Having said that though, I also not in it for the money...it's just a means to do what I want. I upgraded my Sidey to A grade all around and flew it for quite some time as a bounty hunter. Then I got a Hauler. Traded rares until I had the money for an ADS and SS, plus a A graded FSD and FS, and went exploring out to about 1,000Ly (plenty enough for a first jaunt). That obviously got me some more money, so I got an Adder, hated it, did some more rare runs in the Hauler, bought a Viper, kitted out, bounty hunting...and so on. This is all since February and I'm currently rocking around in a decently kitted out Cobra with no final plans to change yet.

I'm missioning around Sol so I can get the permit and visit Voyager and Pluto, then I'll likely save and get a kitted out DBE for a bigger exlporing run.

I don't know why getting a bigger ship (I'm talking Python, Anaconda and FDL) has to be a goal...it's not for me. I'm more about exploring the ships capabilities, kitting them out and keeping them. Eventually I might want one of everything, but it's not a goal in and of itself. If money and bigger ships is the goal, then a brick wall is going to get hit sooner or later where neither matter.

 

[Kobune]

I always felt the same. During the first couple of days since I got the game, Cobra was the ship I dreamed of, although it didn't take me more than that couple of days to buy one. Seeing Asp with a price tag of several million CR (and tens of million more to outfit) as a natural next upgrade, I thought I would spend quite a long period in my Cobra, so I even bought a paint job pack for it. Unfortunately my enjoyment of my painted Cobra didn't last very long before I could afford an A-rated Vulture... I also bought a Viper and an Adder along the way, but they were only stepstones for no more than a day.

So far the ship progression hierarchy has too many small ships but not enough options at higher price range, yet the 1.3 update added more cheap ships when people like me were stuck within the price range between Vulture and Python. I think this "mid-range" is where players would spend the most game time in and thus should have more ship options.