How much money (credits) should players be allowed to earn/have in game?

it's Frontier complete lack of consistency, or a wholistic approach to the various experiences available, and any credit value associated.

I agree with the lack of consistency, who doesn't...but a holistic approach? That's exactly what FD don't do, and it's a huge problem.

There is zero systemic consideration for the linkages between pretty much everything outside of BGS playability, Moreover, similar issues are created when they mess with the BGS. It's one in one out when picking things off the backlog, no holistic thought what-so-ever. If the design team ever thought holistically we'd be getting a decent Engineers system the first time around, not on the third try or Beyond.
 
Last edited:
I agree with the lack of consistency, who doesn't...but a holistic approach? That's exactly what FD don't do, and it's a huge problem.

That's why I said, there is neither consistency or a holistic approach. Mechanics exist in a vacuum; it's a bit evident that development is a bit siloed still. It has to be due to the lack of connectivity between mechanics.

There is zero systemic consideration for the linkages between pretty much everything outside of BGS playability, Moreover, similar issues are created when they mess with the BGS. It's one in one out when picking things off the backlog, no holistic thought what-so-ever. If the design team ever thought holistically we'd be getting a decent Engineers system the first time around, not on the third try or Beyond.

Yes.
 
It was a simple question I asked elsewhere but didn't get an answer so I'm throwing it out there:

How much credits per hour or day should a player be allowed to earn?

How much cash reserves should a player be allowed to have?

I'm only asking because apparently this concerns quite a lot of the player base.

Genuinely I am interested because there is definitely a "too much", allowing some players to proceed at an insane rate, but logically if you decide there is a "too much" then you also need to define what is "enough"?



how about 30 billions before players get out and pvp mmmmmh ?
 
Doesn't fit with the idea of blaze your own trail,
Instead of restricting or putting arbitrary caps how about you add money sink for the late game, ask any successful game designer, going against the very human nature is a recipe of disaster.
 
Doesn't fit with the idea of blaze your own trail,
Instead of restricting or putting arbitrary caps how about you add money sink for the late game, ask any successful game designer, going against the very human nature is a recipe of disaster.

Trouble is, it's easy to control that in a linear game 'cos you simply don't make the high-level stuff available until late-game.

It's not so easy in a sandbox game, where a determined player is likely to be able to get whatever they want.
 
Not fussed about a actual nmber. It will not be a concept that FD use to model in the game, it is just a simplification, that works on the forum. It is also a lousy measurement of progression. I use combat rank, ship, and loadout to decide progress when in an instance with players ... particularly FDLs (although a gunship surprised me by interdicting me in my Viper IV the other day). Net worth is not relevent, a nasty FDL is a nasty FDL whether player has 100s millions or 10s of billions.

I also think their is a relationship between net worth and income per hour, in that sense missions should scale with credit progression, in the same way it scales with rep and rank. The relationship is not linear though, otherwise progression early on would be too slow, and later on too fast.

I do not think FD want to design the game taking board hopping into account. I suspect the current calculations for mission rewards work without board hopping, where rarity is a tool for balance. Whilst Board Hopping is not an exploit, It does make balancing harder, as scarcity of mission is no longer a balancing tool, as it does not matter how many ultra-rare missions you generate per mission generation, the player board hopping will just generate new missions.

I think we can only balance when board hopping is removed from the game, if that ever occurs.

Thanks
Simon
 
Last edited:
Oooh, i did a thread a long time ago like this, probably after a previous get-rich-quick scheme was nerfed.

If i remember correctly, average/consensus was in the low 10s of millions per hour, depending on risk.

However, those were different times, when getting money was harder in general. These days getting money is so damn easy it might be expectations have changed.
 
I agree with the lack of consistency, who doesn't...but a holistic approach? That's exactly what FD don't do, and it's a huge problem.

There is zero systemic consideration for the linkages between pretty much everything outside of BGS playability, Moreover, similar issues are created when they mess with the BGS. It's one in one out when picking things off the backlog, no holistic thought what-so-ever. If the design team ever thought holistically we'd be getting a decent Engineers system the first time around, not on the third try or Beyond.

One central problem is Elite doesn't treat its own currency with any sort of logic or consistency...

- A Sidewinder costs 32,000 cr.
- 15 Refugee Passengers would pay 17,422,810 CR to travel from one station to a station a single jump and 40 minutes away
- That's 1,161,521 CR per passenger
- With that price, each passenger could buy their OWN Type-6 and fly it over there themselves

That's just one example... Elite's credit scale in general is arbitrary and makes no sense/isn't analogous to any real-world economy.

So if the BGS/Dev's don't take the economy seriously... why should players? None of the prices/values for things are correlative to each other... it's all just arbitrary numbers to the game, so why can't it be arbitrary numbers to the players? Can anyone explain why better hulls cost 2-3x the value of a ship itself, or why a Type-10 Hull costs less than an Anaconda, even though the Type-10 is larger and thicker?

It's just video-game-numbers... we need to stop worshiping the BGS... it's arbitrary, disconnected from itself, especially when it comes to economic value... and that's OKAY... but it should also be OKAY for US to be JUST AS disconnected from the that same concept of economic value.

In good narrative fiction, the universe has to at least play by its own rules the author establishes... people call this a "Sim" and it doesn't even do that much.
 
Trouble is, it's easy to control that in a linear game 'cos you simply don't make the high-level stuff available until late-game.

It's not so easy in a sandbox game, where a determined player is likely to be able to get whatever they want.

You didn't get the point, nothing stops a newbie to sink credit in those things. game should allow players to make good for bad choices.
anyways peace out.
 
You didn't get the point, nothing stops a newbie to sink credit in those things.

Course it does.

In a linear game it doesn't matter what you want. If it isn't available until late-game, you ain't going to get it.
It's the easiest thing in the world to design a linear game in a way that ensures people abide by whatever the dev's think is appropriate.

It's not so easy in a sandbox game.
 
That's just one example... Elite's credit scale in general is arbitrary and makes no sense/isn't analogous to any real-world economy.

The entire BGS, all missions, all commodities, all values expressed - it's all made up. There's never been a holistic consideration; because this simply doesn't matter, to the developer. There wasn't ever going to be a player economy, so arguably it never had to matter.

Frontier never intended Elite to be pure simulation; however the popular consensus is that it's supposed to be a sim. This leads to the natural collision between ideal, and actual. Neither the game, or the developer operate within a consistent rule set. There's no cohesiveness because it's never been required. It is required in a pure simulation. Elite isn't, ergo the laxidasical approach to consistency.

The game was designed to simulate a universe, but have a traditional mmo approach to mechanics. That "time" is now considered the challenge, and that investment is lauded as the primary goal, is pretty much just the logical conclusion to how Frontier has staged the various elements. It should perhaps present a set of cohesive elements, with a sliding scale of challenge. It doesn't; and so folks have gravitated to "it must take n time to achieve y" as the defacto challenge instead.

That frontier want people to spend time in game, doesn't mean that's supposed to be the core challenge.

Simplistically, like anything, when there is a vacuum of a required component, something with be co-opted to fill the void. In elite? It's now time. Anything challenging the relative time spent, will therefore cause conflict. The solution, therefore (again simplistically) is introducing scaling mechanics that present consistent, cohesive mechanics, with a scaling curve of difficulty and a set of stepped challenges. This then allows a degree of scale where commanders can progress in experience and capability, with remuneration essentially scaling in sympathy.

This is not a simple task. It's also not a task that I believe the developer yet considers important. In fact; I am concerned they are now shifting entire mechanics to be time investment; that is, increasingly shifting mechanics to a time based methodology. Which suggests that's what they now think we want. In a weird twist, we've co-opted time as the single challenge, the developer sees this, assumes this is the direction the player base wants, and shifts mechanics to it. Feeding the cycle.

Instead of multiple layers and ways to engage and consistent mechanics, that scale with experience (ie your wealth scales over time as you achieve various goals) it'll all devolve to everything literally being various takes of "x time doing y thing". Which, to be fair, depresses me considerably. I really hope not; there is considerable potential within Elite, still.

To think it could literally become just endless timers and eternal waiting, with mechanics that have zero cohesion or sense of merit, gives me the shivers.
 
Last edited:
Simple answer is no earnings limit and no capital limit. The only limits should be those imposed by the physical coding of the software (in the X games I believe there was a limit on the total player funds).

As a relatively new player who has been spending a bit of time exploring I've "only" got around 40mil in the bank. However I'm going to need many times that to afford and cover at least one bigger/better ship.

There is already some control over the amount of earnings in restricting the number of missions to 20. When I was doing the Ceos/Sothis run a couple of days ago that meant I was averaging about 2 million per round trip on courier/freight which took around 20 minutes. The only thing they might think about "nerfing" is the disproportionate bonus whereby you can receive a 100k credit bonus for a 14k job!

So long as "rebuy" remains a core function and no proper single player mode exists within the game, preventing players correcting an expensive mistake, then we need the means to make it (relatively) easy to have spare funds on hand.
 
Instead of multiple layers and ways to engage and consistent mechanics, that scale with experience (ie your wealth scales over time as you achieve various goals) it'll all devolve to everything literally being various takes of "x time doing y thing". Which, to be fair, depresses me considerably. I really hope not; there is considerable potential within Elite, still.

To think it could literally become just endless timers and eternal waiting, with mechanics that have zero cohesion or sense of merit, gives me the shivers.

I posted a ton of ideas for good gameplay loops at all levels of engagement... (considering my day job, I was literally working for free here) and crickets...

(example)
 
I posted a ton of ideas for good gameplay loops at all levels of engagement... (considering my day job, I was literally working for free here) and crickets...

(example)

Frontier is still ostensibly building Elite - for Frontier. We're just enabling them by buying the game and cosmetics. If you look at how Braben initially laid out the game and mechanics, the entire thing can play itself without any player engagement. Systems will change state occasionally, BGS trucks along and everything can just rock on, without any player engagement; everything reverts to self-driving if we simply stop.

The entire thing just plays itself. We're simply along for the ride; anything we do is temporary. If you have that as your basis, then player engagement hasn't ever being a key priority. Which is why, as much as sometimes I really wonder what's going on in Sandy's head, I don't blame him. He's doing what he can, with what he's got. He's saddled with trying to inject player engagement into a game, that Braben honestly didn't seem to think was relevant.

We're simply an inconvenience. It's hard to do that, inject a set of player driven mechanics, when the game was never really designed to facilitate it.
 
Last edited:
So if the BGS/Dev's don't take the economy seriously... why should players? None of the prices/values for things are correlative to each other... it's all just arbitrary numbers to the game, so why can't it be arbitrary numbers to the players? Can anyone explain why better hulls cost 2-3x the value of a ship itself, or why a Type-10 Hull costs less than an Anaconda, even though the Type-10 is larger and thicker?

In the case of the Type 10, I imagine the reason for this is rooted in the fact that, in universe, Lakon Spaceways had very heavy financial backing and assistance from the Alliance in the creation and manufacture of such a ship. At the same time, the barebones hardware is the same as the existing Type 9 with additional tech added to it.

The Anaconda is Faulcon DeLacy's prime product and has all original hardware. The Anaconda is actually modular enough that it can do basically everything you can think of that would require a ship of its size. Not to mention it can be fitted in such a way that it rivals or even outperforms specialized ships for the role it's performing:


  • The Federal Corvette is the big ship for combat. The Anaconda can very nearly match it, and choosing between them is largely a matter of preference.
  • The Asp X and DBX are the ships for long distance exploration. The Anaconda beats them in sheer capacity for jump range, and can sustain itself longer because its internals allow for a large number of maintenance units. It's major flaw here is its poor Supercruise handling.
  • Passenger running is a sore topic ATM, but the Anaconda's internals made it one of the best suited for such a thing; it was better even than the Beluga Liner, a ship designed as a ferry.
  • And last, while it doesn't match the other big ships for cargo capacity (and is woefully inadequate compared to the Imperial Cutter), the Anaconda is still capable of huge haulage.

The Anaconda has some justification for its price. At the same time, it probably comes down to the manufacturer. The Imperial Cutter is an absurdly expensive ship all around, and the only reason I can think of for why is the sheer size and complexity of its core internals. It's actually pretty scary fast for such a huge and heavy ship as well.

- A Sidewinder costs 32,000 cr.
- 15 Refugee Passengers would pay 17,422,810 CR to travel from one station to a station a single jump and 40 minutes away
- That's 1,161,521 CR per passenger
- With that price, each passenger could buy their OWN Type-6 and fly it over there themselves

Faulcon DeLacy would be advertising their Cobra MK III pretty hard to those folks, i think. Much more useful ship for them, too, unless they themselves wanted to be space ferries.
 
As much or as little as you like. Play how you want and let those people worrying about "how much cash" others have fester in their own filth ranting about how others should play the game.
 
It was a simple question I asked elsewhere but didn't get an answer so I'm throwing it out there:

How much credits per hour or day should a player be allowed to earn?

How much cash reserves should a player be allowed to have?

I'm only asking because apparently this concerns quite a lot of the player base.

Genuinely I am interested because there is definitely a "too much", allowing some players to proceed at an insane rate, but logically if you decide there is a "too much" then you also need to define what is "enough"?


Sounds like communism to me.....are you a red?
 
Back
Top Bottom