[Obsidian Ant] Elite Dangerous - The Credits Problem: A Case of Feeling Unrewarded?

[Jamey]

I'm a casual PS4 player. I have a full-time job and a family (one baby, one on the way). It took me roughly 125 hours of gameplay to get my first Anaconda - not A-rated but I didn't just buy it as soon as I had the bare min credits either.

That feels about right to me, so I think that all moneymaking activities ought to be able to generate credits at a rate which, on average, allows most players to get to an Anaconda somewhere between 100 - 150 hours for playing. I mostly got there through bounty hunting (early on) and passenger missions (later on). If I'd been focusing on other things (mining, piracy, scavenging, mission boards, etc) I don't feel like I would have gotten here as quickly, so I don't feel like those are balanced.

What would also feel right to me, personally, is to be able to get enough naval rank for one (not both) of the big ships in about double that amount of time - so 200 - 300 hours. However I have very little rank at the moment despite grinding data missions on the side while doing passengers so I think that really ought to be considerably faster.

I'm sure lots of people will disagree.

 

[BDelacroix]

I am in the money as a means to an end corner.

In my observation, as has been stated previously, pay does not scale well after a certain point. The example given, you make the same in a vulture as in a corvette. Up to a point, it did scale.

 

[RidingTheFlow]

I am in the money as a means to an end corner.

In my observation, as has been stated previously, pay does not scale well after a certain point. The example given, you make the same in a vulture as in a corvette. Up to a point, it did scale.

You not supposed to make more in corvette because there is not much past it anyway Congrats, you've reached your endgame!

 

[Krieger]

The real taboo in this area is letting the players decide on the value of things, i.e. a player-driven economy.

TBH I wouldn't do it if I were FDEV because it requires torough economical knowledge and experience. Letting a game dev read a book on economics and then making him/her head of in-game economics probably isn't going to work.

 

[Conch]

You not supposed to make more in corvette because there is not much past it anyway Congrats, you've reached your endgame!

nonono, the challange needs to go up.

a corvette can handle allot more trouble than a vulture. but that trouble is nowwhere to be seen.
we need the bigger wings back in RESites, the SSS with wings of 10 etc etc..

cause atm its more waiting for ships to jump in, than shooting them..

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

I don't think that cr/h is the main reason why players are annoyed about the way earning credits in Elite Dangerous works.

It's not primarily the amount that causes problems, it's the difference between the rewards. I think it boils down to perceived fairness. Players see credits as a reward and validation of their actions. Credits are a measurement of the worth of an activity.

Getting less credits for something that looks like the same is therefore devaluating the activities of the player. That player feels treated unfairly and gets annoyed.

It doesn't matter if it doesn't matter how much credits an other player has. What matters is that the first player gets the feeling that what he/she does is considered less valuable than what somebody else does.

As a result we get endless forum threads about earning credits that are nothing more than players wanting to feel treated fairly by the game.

The problem is, ED doesn't treat players fair or equal nor does it consider all activities equal or of the same value. There isn't even something like risk vs. reward in this game.

The same mission will have a higher reward for an Elite player who is allied to the faction giving that mission than for a Harmless player who is neutral to the faction.
Passenger missions have much higher rewards than seemingly identical cargo missions.
Spending 1 hour in a RES bounty hunting will result in a much higher reward than spending the same amount of time in that RES mining.
…

In my opinion FD needs to solve this problem first. Allowing players to choose what ever they want to do without feeling that what they do isn't worth doing.
Then they can adjust the amount of credits players earn depending on how fast FD wants the players to access certain ships/modules.

 

[RidingTheFlow]

nonono, the challange needs to go up.

a corvette can handle allot more trouble than a vulture. but that trouble is nowwhere to be seen.
we need the bigger wings back in RESites, the SSS with wings of 10 etc etc..

cause atm its more waiting for ships to jump in, than shooting them..

Why do you need it - as I mentioned you won't get anything to spend this money on anyway.
When they extend the mechanics, e.g. add more even more expensive stuff to let you actually to sink this money into - then they will add more to the income ladder.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I'm a casual PS4 player. I have a full-time job and a family (one baby, one on the way). It took me roughly 125 hours of gameplay to get my first Anaconda - not A-rated but I didn't just buy it as soon as I had the bare min credits either.

That feels about right to me, so I think that all moneymaking activities ought to be able to generate credits at a rate which, on average, allows most players to get to an Anaconda somewhere between 100 - 150 hours for playing. I mostly got there through bounty hunting (early on) and passenger missions (later on). If I'd been focusing on other things (mining, piracy, scavenging, mission boards, etc) I don't feel like I would have gotten here as quickly, so I don't feel like those are balanced.

What would also feel right to me, personally, is to be able to get enough naval rank for one (not both) of the big ships in about double that amount of time - so 200 - 300 hours. However I have very little rank at the moment despite grinding data missions on the side while doing passengers so I think that really ought to be considerably faster.

I'm sure lots of people will disagree.

Agreed, and that would be about 1mil cr/hr on average. Pretty much every profession offers that, and more.

Why do you need it - as I mentioned you won't get anything to spend this money on anyway.
When they extend the mechanics, e.g. add more even more expensive stuff to let you actually to sink this money into - then they will add more to the income ladder.

Because we have toys that serve no purpose. When you can do high-end PvE in a 5mil ship, the 500 mil ships become pointless. Its boring as heck, so we need a challenge. That challenge needs to pay a lot more as well, and the operating costs of huge ships need to go up. At that point we have different tools for different jobs, where there is a purpose and a point to all of them.

 

[RidingTheFlow]

s like the same is therefore devaluating the activities of the player. That player feels treated unfairly and gets annoyed.

When you come to discussing "fairness", eventually you get "I am a family man with a job, its unfair that some kid with lot of free time has so much advantage over me!". But the kid gets his advantage as actual accomplishment. Game can't know you are a family men - so can't perceive what "fair" for you. Eliminate that disparity - and you will be eliminating sense of accomplishment. I don't think anyone resolving this paradox any time soon.

Because we have toys that serve no purpose. When you can do high-end PvE in a 5mil ship, the 500 mil ships become pointless. Its boring as heck, so we need a challenge. That challenge needs to pay a lot more as well, and the operating costs of huge ships need to go up. At that point we have different tools for different jobs, where there is a purpose and a point to all of them.

Sorry to disappoint you, but largest class was kind of pointless from the start. FDev just rushed them a bit because so many people begged for them - but they released just ships, without anything useful for them to do. This will come, but later - now just enjoy your ship.

 

[Conch]

Why do you need it - as I mentioned you won't get anything to spend this money on anyway.
When they extend the mechanics, e.g. add more even more expensive stuff to let you actually to sink this money into - then they will add more to the income ladder.

it has to do with rewarding gameplay. credits is the reward in this case.

its not even that i need the credits, ive got 3.5b assets.. but that doesnt mean i dont want more.

 

[cheesenbiscuits]

The pay outs need to be in clearly defined tiers imo.
Whatever activity,you should be able to level up to the top tier payouts.
Quince,Robigo type gold rushes should continue to be a thing,but more short lived and because of reasons.
Top tier miners for example could get tip offs for a way to make silly levels of credits,but the game credit pot would eventually run dry.
The key to this whole thing is,what are the correct tier levels.
What is an acceptable credit per hour?

 

[RidingTheFlow]

it has to do with rewarding gameplay. credits is the reward in this case.

its not even that i need the credits, ive got 3.5b assets.. but that doesnt mean i dont want more.

Umm, just number on screen is some kind of "reward" for you? Ok, I won't discuss it more because it beyond my ability to feel for

 

[Apos]

The real problem seems to be that FD is incapable of nerfing the upper tier of the game being broken through extreme values (Sothis, Robigo, etc) without also affecting the lower and middle tier and rendering them beyond terrible.

Which is weird when you take into account that they have been able to introduce diminishing returns in pretty much anything else, but missions apparently are too elusive for that and get nerfed throughout the curve.

 

[Ian Skippy]

Sorry to disappoint you, but largest class was kind of pointless from the start. FDev just rushed them a bit because so many people begged for them - but they released just ships, without anything useful for them to do. This will come, but later - now just enjoy your ship.

No offense, but that is a rather weak argument. This is the discussion so far:

"Big ships need appropriate conent!"
"Why?"
"Because all content can already be easily done with a small ship, so large ships serve no purpose."
"That is okay, big ships will get content later."

Well, that kinda proves the original point you disagreed with. Big ships need content.

 

[Dan Diplo]

The assumption that every "profession" should be able to earn the same amount of credits is a little bizarre. This isn't how the world works. Reward should be based on risk and skill. A risky endeavour like, say, piracy or smuggling should have the potential to award much higher credits than something more pedestrian, such as basic trading. But the potential reward should be balanced against the risk - such as bounties, wanted status and potential death. This can be applied to all professions - so mining in a haz rez should be the most profitable, but at the risk of encountering pirates. Delivery a huge amount of rare cargo or top-secret intelligence a long distance should warrant a large reward, but the risk of being interdicted by pirates/assassins should be commensurate to distance and value. It can work for exploration, too - finding "virgin" undiscovered systems should pay a lot more, but those systems could have some risk, such as random encounters with malevolent forces (be it pirates, thargoids, black holes with inescapable mass etc).

 

[RidingTheFlow]

Well, that kinda proves the original point you disagreed with. Big ships need content.

This really up to game owner to decide. Either they will extend ladder endlessly or just decide that there will be hard ceiling at some point ("congrats, you've finished the game!").

 

[CMDR Zadian Lichtfrost]

When you come to discussing "fairness", eventually you get "I am a family man with a job, its unfair that some kid with lot of free time has so much advantage over me!". But the kid gets his advantage as actual accomplishment. Game can't know you are a family men - so can't perceive what "fair" for you. Eliminate that disparity - and you will be eliminating sense of accomplishment. I don't think anyone resolving this paradox any time soon.

I'm not talking about what amount of credits/h is fair. What I meant is the balance and therefore perceived fairness between two activities.
This "unfairness" has nothing to do with other players. The sense of reward and achievement is solely based on the perceived value of the activity and credits are used as a way to determine the value of an activity.
Activity X gets more credits as a reward, therefore this activity is more important, more valuable, more worthy of doing, more respected, of higher quality.
Now if a player enjoys activity Y, that player will always feel treated unfairly by the game because activity X is more valuable.

Players getting annoyed by how much other players earn is just the next step.

 

[Conch]

Umm, just number on screen is some kind of "reward" for you? Ok, I won't discuss it more because it beyond my ability to feel for

Yes it is.

just like a job in real life.. if they dont pay enough, why accept the job?

 

[RidingTheFlow]

Yes it is.

just like a job in real life.. if they dont pay enough, why accept the job?

Indeed? Why the game is a job for you and why you accept it?

 

[RidingTheFlow]

Activity X gets more credits as a reward, therefore this activity is more important, more valuable, more worthy of doing, more respected, of higher quality.
Now if a player enjoys activity Y, that player will always feel treated unfairly by the game because activity X is more valuable.

From my experience everybody has different perception what is more valuable, at least half because they outright not very good in some of them and don't know tricks of the particular trade (or for whatever beliefs that "game should not be played this way" or "I can do it this way but its hard/boring/annoying/etc"). Should they also release "an official guide how to play activity X right way so you get the balanced amount of income we've intended"? But this will eliminate joy of figuring better tactics yourself and joy of discovery, and so on.