Why do the devs keep destroying every form of making income?

[Lobstris]

That's fine. if the game is sold and advertised as such.

It is not. In fact, the game isn't even marked as Early Access on Steam anymore, even though it is decidedly an early access level of quality. And being sold at full AAA-game level prices, and then some when the optional-but-not-really-because-the-game-is-balanced-around-them expansions are added.

Selling a game at $60US + DLC carries certain reasonable expectations.

But you can't judge all games/software by the same price metrics can you? I'd rather pay $300 for a decent simulation, that may only sell small volumes, but I'll play for years, than $60 for a triple-A game that's entertaining, but over in a few, scripted, but very pretty and entertaining, hours.

I'd say expecting the same level of content for your $60 between a huge studio, and an SME like Frontier, was where the argument breaks down. Economies of scale and all that...

I'll agree that Frontier haven't done a stellar job of keeping content balanced for engineers and non-engineers users.

 

[Karunamon]

One thing though, single player games/sims have pretty much always offered time acceleration as a feature - that was lost with the evil of multiplayer.

Something I just realized that's missing is any kind of meaningful interaction. EVE carries some interminable grind with it, but some of that is mitigated when you can go into local chat with your friends and tell yo mamma jokes to pass the time (yo momma so fat I can FSD to her... never mind).

In fact, I'd say that being in a player corporation in that game is key to enjoying EVE, and mostly because of the social aspects.

There's a fear around here of turning into EVE v2, and I'd argue that most of that is unfounded because A, this is a different type of game entirely, and B, are we going to ignore all lessons and innovations of the past 12 years just because someone else did it first?

There's always gonna be grind, but the problem here is that it's naked grind. Even the worst of the worst MMOs put something resembling a story around it. So I can at least pretend I'm helping out by searching for those crispy basilisk urethras that drop 5% of the time. Here, there's not even a story. There's a "background sim", but it's not a reason. Sure, I'm "helping Aisling with (mumble mumble)", but those mumbles are never qualified.

I'll agree that 'honk and jump' exploration isn't great, but I don't agree that the system is limited in what it can generate, just that it's hampered by that 'realism' thing in what it does generate. For every '18 star, 100 body system, with three terraformables' system, there are 100 'M-class star with 9 icy body' systems out there. Blame our own galaxy (or Froniter's understanding of our own galaxy) for that.

It wouldn't be the first time we sacrificed realism on the altar of Fun

I've eventually got into Engineers. Just by playing I'd easily collected 1000 materials and 500 data items, which gave me a large pool to play with to get what I wanted - I didn't feel that I'd ground... EXCEPT... I will say that shifting 50 tonnes off Lavian Brandy for a certain engineer was the most tedious couple of hours I've spent in any game I profess to like.

And now we're in a catch 22. I like combat. But combat is balanced around having engineered gear. Engineered gear requires collecting materials. Collecting materials involves, sometimes, engaging in combat.

 

[Jmanis]

"Why do the devs keep destroying every form of making income?"

Because people keep asking the devs to.

Nerflist:
- Seeking Luxuries (Yes that's right. 8m an hour using an anaconda or T9 was considered "too much profit")
- Archon/Torval slave runs (again 8-10m per hour with an Anaconda or T9 was "too much profit")
- Mission cap of 20 (I don't actually think anyone asked for this, but it only came in because of people stacking skimmer missions, but it hurts everyone)
- Now all this stuff going on (which knocks-on to hurt missions everywhere, but the profit margins are way larger)

I doing all the link-searching, but the same arguments against the Seeking Luxuries runs and Archon/Torval slave runs are present in the arguments against sothis/ceos/robigo etc.

How about for once we leave alone. Lets put Seeking Luxuries back in (because lets face it, seeking goods/weapons/whatever are synonymous anyway), rebuff torval/archon back to the way they were, buff the *other* powers (yes, there are other powers out there) and give them decent economic boosts to create diverse, complex markets.

There's one reason opposition to robigo etc. exists. Because there's nothing else like it that earns that level of credits (because *we* asked for that stuff to be nerfed,, good going everyone), they feel like outliers when everything else doesn't return nearly as much, and so "oh my, lets nerf it".

Lets buff everything else instead. When I read that Mahon control systems give a price reduction to agricultural food and equipment, and a price increase in independent control systems, I expect that to actually turn a good profit that actually beats "picking system x, shipping to system y" by a significant amount. It doesn't. It's not these outliers that need to be nerfed, it's everything else that needs a buff.

 

[DefiledDragon]

That's again, oddly cynical and not really what we're seeing. Game development of this scale isn't an exact science, it's not an easy science either.

I'm curious. Where is this grand scale that you're referring to? If you're talking about the galaxy itself and the procedural generation then yes, it's impressive, but it's done and it works. In terms of the actual game itself, it couldn't really be much simpler.

Shoot ship, ship goes bang, you get money + rep.
Shoot asteroid, stuff falls out, pick up stuff and sell it for money (+ rep?).
Fill ship with stuff, fly elsewhere, sell stuff, get money (+ rep?).
Fly from one system to another and scan things, return to civilization and sell scan data, get money + rep.

What's "grand" about that?

If you want to see a space game where the actual gameplay itself is truly complex and could even be referred to as gameplay on a "grand scale", fire up X3 TC/AP. You don't even have to play the game to form an impression of the scale and complexity of the game, just spend 10 minutes playing with the UI and you will see just how simple ED's gameplay actually is by comparison.

The really funny thing is that they've pretty much nailed the procedural generation of our own galaxy from release day 1 but it took them months thereafter to get the mission board to work and one could argue that it still doesn't work properly today. As for scaling the rewards to account for player experience, status, (in game) skill and risk taken during mission, they don't have even the most basic, embryonic beginnings of a clue.

It smacks to me of some extremely talented developers building a product designed by game designers who have no idea how to craft a rewarding, engaging experience.

 

[Sans Daring]

That's fine. if the game is sold and advertised as such.

It is not. In fact, the game isn't even marked as Early Access on Steam anymore, even though it is decidedly an early access level of quality. And being sold at full AAA-game level prices, and then some when the optional-but-not-really-because-the-game-is-balanced-around-them expansions are added.

Selling a game at $40US + DLC carries certain reasonable expectations.

That's because it's not early access. It's a full game that is running through an X year development cycle. You can't pigeon hole this sort of model as "early access", it's not. It's a long term development model, and those work like a building - you structure ground up. They were clear this was long term development from the get go, but the game has been very playable and for a server based game, relatively bug free to play. From my experience, yes there are bugs, but nothing that suggests an early access state.

I'm curious. Where is this grand scale that you're referring to? If you're talking about the galaxy itself and the procedural generation then yes, it's impressive, but it's done and it works. In terms of the actual game itself, it couldn't really be much simpler.

Shoot ship, ship goes bang, you get money + rep.
Shoot asteroid, stuff falls out, pick up stuff and sell it for money (+ rep?).
Fill ship with stuff, fly elsewhere, sell stuff, get money (+ rep?).
Fly from one system to another and scan things, return to civilization and sell scan data, get money + rep.

What's "grand" about that?

If you want to see a space game where the actual gameplay itself is truly complex and could even be referred to as gameplay on a "grand scale", fire up X3 TC/AP. You don't even have to play the game to form an impression of the scale and complexity of the game, just spend 10 minutes playing with the UI and you will see just how simple ED's gameplay actually is by comparison.

The really funny thing is that they've pretty much nailed the procedural generation of our own galaxy from release day 1 but it took them months thereafter to get the mission board to work and one could argue that it still doesn't work properly today. As for scaling the rewards to account for player experience, status, (in game) skill and risk taken during mission, they don't have even the most basic, embryonic beginnings of a clue.

It smacks to me of some extremely talented developers building a product designed by game designers who have no idea how to craft a rewarding, engaging experience.

As I said in the previous quote, this is a structural development, which is where it differs to SC. We're not talking about building pretty much full fledged game mechanic from the get-go. We're systematically laying the infrastructure and building upwards, adding new systems carefully as we go. You've got a 10ish year plan. We're on what? Year 2ish? You're going to see a lot of the infrastructure through this development process. You're going to get barebones, and if you look in the past year with missions in particular, you're seeing gradual "meat" on those bones. The missions are slowly, carefully becoming more complex. Everything is being gradually tweaked.

That is not to say there's nothing to criticise, certainly a load to feedback on. These sort of threads are useful IMO because that balance is a concern for payouts. I just think we need to be a little more mindful how long term development operates, especially in areas that aren't over-funded by big names, and are pretty much new territory. And yes, developers will be fighting to balance out keeping stuff there for people to complete at a certain pace while they add more material, get that wrong, and there are issues. I would think they really need, IMO, some new ships again, other ships for people to reach for, or aspire to. Those are goals people enjoy while they prep next-stage content.

I'm just saying I don't think this is about cynical economics, I don't think they are pandering. They have a long term dev plan which has a massive concern: how do you keep the core mechanics interesting year after year? How do you keep people playing without it being too easy or too grinding? I think they're navigating through this as blind as we are.

 

[Karunamon]

You're going to get barebones, and if you look in the past year with missions in particular, you're seeing gradual "meat" on those bones. The missions are slowly, carefully becoming more complex. Everything is being gradually tweaked.

We are? It seems like you may be wearing some rose tinted glasses here, because all I see are missions being dumbed down and complexity removed.

Remember when occasionally, a delivery mission would wind up with an NPC in space trying to get you to deliver your goods elsewhere?

Remember when missions existed that failed (or got worse) if you got scanned?

Remember when there were traders in space looking for (weapons/luxury goods/etc)?

I've been doing boom data deliveries, assassinations, find-the-commodity, and so on for a good long while now. Aside from passengers and the same stuff, but on planets, what's actually new?

 

[Oddisee]

Left after they nerfed smuggling and not coming back til it is buffed either.

Bye.

We don't need anymore entitlement, there's plenty already.

 

[dynamicbob]

passanger missions have been rebuffed a bit, its 17 draconis and the skimmer breach that need fixing now, with what ive seen u can make 500 mill credits per hour

 

[DefiledDragon]

That's because it's not early access. It's a full game that is running through an X year development cycle. You can't pigeon hole this sort of model as "early access", it's not. It's a long term development model, and those work like a building - you structure ground up. They were clear this was long term development from the get go, but the game has been very playable and for a server based game, relatively bug free to play. From my experience, yes there are bugs, but nothing that suggests an early access state.



As I said in the previous quote, this is a structural development, which is where it differs to SC. We're not talking about building pretty much full fledged game mechanic from the get-go. We're systematically laying the infrastructure and building upwards, adding new systems carefully as we go. You've got a 10ish year plan. We're on what? Year 2ish? You're going to see a lot of the infrastructure through this development process. You're going to get barebones, and if you look in the past year with missions in particular, you're seeing gradual "meat" on those bones. The missions are slowly, carefully becoming more complex. Everything is being gradually tweaked.

That is not to say there's nothing to criticise, certainly a load to feedback on. These sort of threads are useful IMO because that balance is a concern for payouts. I just think we need to be a little more mindful how long term development operates, especially in areas that aren't over-funded by big names, and are pretty much new territory. And yes, developers will be fighting to balance out keeping stuff there for people to complete at a certain pace while they add more material, get that wrong, and there are issues. I would think they really need, IMO, some new ships again, other ships for people to reach for, or aspire to. Those are goals people enjoy while they prep next-stage content.

I'm just saying I don't think this is about cynical economics, I don't think they are pandering. They have a long term dev plan which has a massive concern: how do you keep the core mechanics interesting year after year? How do you keep people playing without it being too easy or too grinding? I think they're navigating through this as blind as we are.

But they don't seem able to balance payouts at even the most basic level. There would be a lot less complaining on these forums about mission rewards etc... if they were to implement a rewards scaling system. Even something as mind bogglingly simple as making the reward for a mission equal to one fifth the rebuy cost of the ship the player is currently sat in. At least that way, when I rock up in my python and I'm asked to deliver 70 units of tea to a station a couple of jumps away I'm not going to be offered an insulting 16k credits reward. That's 1/375 of the rebuy cost of my python and probably wouldn't even cover the cost of the multicannon ammunition I would use dispatching the inevitable interdictors. Why would I even think about accepting a mission like that?

I'm a combat oriented player at heart. I started my ED career as a bounty hunter, I've even lost a fair few ships in CZ's and the like. The idea of losing a ship is a lot less appealing when I would have to run over 300 missions in order to earn enough credits to cover my insurance. The net result of this situation is that I no longer play the game and nor will I until the games designers stop treating us like slaves with spaceships and start paying us an actual fair price for the work we do.

 

[Fuglydog53]

Yea I uninstalled Edh because of the nerfing now play Star Citizen/ Eve Online

 

[ArchEmperor]

Nerfers never played ED ( or did but are now angry and want revenge for something ). They play Star Citizen/ Eve online and are just trying to destroy ED momentum in the gaming scene.

 

[DefiledDragon]

Nerfers never played ED ( or did but are now angry and want revenge for something ). They play Star Citizen/ Eve online and are just trying to destroy ED momentum in the gaming scene.

In my opinion, it's the game designers who are doing their level best to destroy ED's "momentum" in the gaming scene. I've never known a game (other than perhaps The Division) where the reward system has been so unstable. They just can't stop messing with it and every change they make seems to break it with either ludicrous exploits or punitive nerfs. They just don't seem to have the ability to get it right. This has been going on over the entire lifecycle of the game so far and I see no end to it.

 

[Dominatus01]

I'd say expecting the same level of content for your $60 between a huge studio, and an SME like Frontier, was where the argument breaks down. Economies of scale and all that...

What an insane statement. Try thinking with logic, not as a blinkered fan. $60 is $60 regardless of the producer. If a product offers less, then it should be priced lower - simple economics. If you want your product to compete at a certain price tier, then you have to match the offerings of other products in that tier.

passanger missions have been rebuffed a bit, its 17 draconis and the skimmer breach that need fixing now, with what ive seen u can make 500 mill credits per hour

Here we go. It's this type of attitude that is killing this game. Why does it absolutely NEED fixing in your opinion? Is it affecting your game playing? Do these players doing their thing over at 17 Draconis directly reduce your enjoyment of what you are doing in game? So what if some of those players are making whatever per hour. How does that detrimentally affect your playing of the same game? You have the option of doing it yourself, or simply not doing it.

For the record, I also noted this whole skimmer thing with interest, but I don't partake myself as it doesn't appeal to me and I am doing other GOM related stuff atm. However, like a normal and reasonable player I simply noted it with interest. I didn't immediately think omg omg I must make a nerf post and get FD to nerf it simply because other people might be making credits and I'm not. In ED it doesn't matter one tiny bit how much other players make. We don't have a persistent economy per se, there is no auction house or player crafted objects subject to market forces. There's not even any real multiplaying aspect to the game as you can simply play in Solo, so why do we have so many "nerf" mad fun police here in these forums contributing to FD killing the game all the time? IMHO, it's a cancer and this segment of the "community" are going to kill this game faster than anything else.

 

[Ezren]

Nerfers never played ED ( or did but are now angry and want revenge for something ). They play Star Citizen/ Eve online and are just trying to destroy ED momentum in the gaming scene.

Thank you for your terrible, shortsighted, ignorant opinion that is just random words.

Bad players who need a shortcut for credits will say anything to justify their entitlement.

 

[Necronaught]

Thank you for your terrible, shortsighted, ignorant opinion that is just random words.

Bad players who need a shortcut for credits will say anything to justify their entitlement.

Credit farming is fun. If I wasn't donating 700 tons of medical doobies at the CG to random Asps and Cobras I probably would be looking to increase my wallet. Some of us like the credit per hour buzz.

 

[Ezren]

Credit farming is fun. If I wasn't donating 700 tons of medical doobies at the CG to random Asps and Cobras I probably would be looking to increase my wallet. Some of us like the credit per hour buzz.

And these shortcuts lead to players with no idea how to do basic things, fumbling around in a Corvette they got through bought rank, whining that there's nothing to do.

Credits aren't hard to make with a little application of one's brain. This seems an impossible exertion for people who want instant gratification.

 

[_Fissure]

Thank you for your terrible, shortsighted, ignorant opinion that is just random words.

Bad players who need a shortcut for credits will say anything to justify their entitlement... And these shortcuts lead to players with no idea how to do basic things, fumbling around in a Corvette they got through bought rank, whining that there's nothing to do.

Credits aren't hard to make with a little application of one's brain. This seems an impossible exertion for people who want instant gratification.

If I can borrow your own words:

"Thank you for your terrible, shortsighted, ignorant opinion that is just random words."

Stop telling people how they need to play and enjoy the game. It has no impact on you in any way, shape, or form. Your smugness and inflated sense of self is astounding.

 

[imski]

But they don't seem able to balance payouts at even the most basic level. There would be a lot less complaining on these forums about mission rewards etc... if they were to implement a rewards scaling system. Even something as mind bogglingly simple as making the reward for a mission equal to one fifth the rebuy cost of the ship the player is currently sat in. At least that way, when I rock up in my python and I'm asked to deliver 70 units of tea to a station a couple of jumps away I'm not going to be offered an insulting 16k credits reward. That's 1/375 of the rebuy cost of my python and probably wouldn't even cover the cost of the multicannon ammunition I would use dispatching the inevitable interdictors. Why would I even think about accepting a mission like that?

I'm a combat oriented player at heart. I started my ED career as a bounty hunter, I've even lost a fair few ships in CZ's and the like. The idea of losing a ship is a lot less appealing when I would have to run over 300 missions in order to earn enough credits to cover my insurance. The net result of this situation is that I no longer play the game and nor will I until the games designers stop treating us like slaves with spaceships and start paying us an actual fair price for the work we do.

That can't work in a multiplayer game though. Missions aren't tailored to players, they're generated procedurally by the BGS. If it's scaled to your rebuy, then for someone in a T6 suddenly it's worth a lot more.

17 Draconis (Just like, Robigo , Sothis and Ceos before it) proves there are places where big money can be made. I'm willing to bet there are a bunch of other places in the bubble where similar amounts can be made. They're either being used quietly or have yet to be found.

 

[CAPT. Ho Chi Minge]

And these shortcuts lead to players with no idea how to do basic things, fumbling around in a Corvette they got through bought rank, whining that there's nothing to do.

Credits aren't hard to make with a little application of one's brain. This seems an impossible exertion for people who want instant gratification.

I see this statement quite a lot and its nothing but pure hogwash and hyperbole, corvettes and cutters take massive amounts of time to acquire (credits and rank) even more so if you want it fully A rated. Making money from low pay missions for months or a few weeks with high paying missions makes not a single bit of difference except time, it has no impact on skill whatsoever (There is 0 skill in mission running).

 

[CptSiddy]

Credits aren't hard to make with a little application of one's brain. This seems an impossible exertion for people who want instant gratification.

Average, over 1000h playtime character in ED do not have enough total assets to get A kitted Anacondoma. And by average, i mean someone who is not powerplayer, who is not exploiting loopholes and only participates in intended FD activities.

I don't call that "instant gratification" in a single player game with fancy IRC client.

I think you just confuse "application of one's brain" with "not being gainfully employed or/and no family and kids".