I think I know what the problem might be...

[zarking]

Tl:dr, the gold rushes are actually a good thing, stop the nerfs.


People don't play ED like other games.
Most games, you play for the challenge, difficulty, tiny incremental improvements. Look at any moba, platformer or fps, it's all skill based on reflexes, quick decision making. Even the big rpg's and mmo's demand a decent chunk of your time, most of which will be purely grinding for unlocks, but needs constant skill improvement.

ED has created something different. Granted, The pvp element does fit in with the common, skill based, gameplay ideals above, but even then, it requires you to do the ED thing, which is......
Repetitive simplicity based on commitment of time.

We don't want missions that are incredibly difficult to do, we don't want virtually unbeatable enemies (for the most part), we don't want crazy complex methods that you have to go through in order to complete something for money.
It took us ages to figure out the base mechanics of the game, the dozens of controls and odd little nuances that you need to learn just to take part, now what we want is to casually fly from one place to the next, make a shed load of money, then casually fly around some more, buying or upgrading, smiling all the way. Then maybe we'll take a week out just to explore, or mess around with the bgs for little monetary reward or searching for mats.

We don't know that's what we want, we think we want intricate in depth, difficult things, but we actually don't (for science puzzles yes, for money no).
It could be because of the "real time" aspect, the fact that doing anything takes hours, the travel time, the repetitive nature of just wandering about. It's created an almost unique sense of "ok, I've put the effort in, in time alone, now I want the reward please".

This is why high payout gold rush opportunities "make people play".

I don't want to do challenging things, I've already accepted that "time" is the commodity that I'm investing, I want suitable rewards for that time, so if I'm doing something that involves me flying in a straight line for several hours (smeaton), repeatedly, I better get 100 million at the end of it. Especially given that to get the point I can make 100 million for that one hour I have to devote more time just getting allied, building the correct ship, maybe board hopping etc... So it's more like 6 or 8 hours to get that first "100 million per hour".

I'm not sure I'm making sense lol, it's like, ED front loads the skill requirement, just getting into the game is a challenge. Soon after that we realise that nothing happens quickly, and that's fine, we accept that no matter what play style we choose, it's going to take several hours just to do anything, but whereas most games can give us "rewards" based on skill progress over 5 minutes, 10 minutes, an hour, ED can't, so we are comfortable that easy (albeit repetitive) rewards should be available after the commitment of time.
It's why the gold rush rewards make us all feel better for a while, it's why we then don't mind doing the more difficult, unrewarding things, as we can still at any time, just commit the time sink to get big rewards when we need to. We don't mind doing things in game that have virtually no monetary reward just for the fun of it, but we expect there to be a big payout ticket in there somewhere which needs me to go spend several hours doing it, that's the balance.

It's why nerfs frustrate the community so much. We're left with the huge time commitment but without the payout at the end.
Some will disagree, and that's fine, but maybe both fdev and ourselves need to agree that there should always be a very high payout reward in the game based on the time sink and nothing else (making it interesting would be nice of course). We've spent the last year clamping down on everything (mission stacking, long range hauling, ceos, rhea, 17 draconis, skimmers, surface scanning, palin, smuggling, etc etc) and sure, some of those were ridiculously broken, but you can't have the situation where "last week I could spend 4 hours in game and make 200 million, this week for the same effort I can only make 20 million", it just frustrates people too much. So let's embrace the gold rush this isn't an "I win" button, it's making us feel rewarded for the most precious thing we can commit into a game, time.

 

[Shadowdancer]

It's not "gold rushes", it's "bugs". Bugs get fixed, suck it up and be glad you don't get punished for bug abuse like you would be in other online games.

 

[Aashenfox]

I see your point, but nah. There must be a balance. On Smeaton, I actually agree, if someone wants to spend 90mins in SC, they are entitled to whatever they want (I wouldn't do it for less than a billion a run, my time is simply too important to me to sit and do nothing with it). More often though, the gold rushes are insanely OTT and so are the nerfs. What they need to find is the right middle ground.

Take the skimmer problem. The problem was that you could be sent to bases with no security where it was then like fish in a barrel and got massive rewards for almost no effort.

Two fundamental and inextricably interrelated problems...low effort, too high a payout. So what's the solution that FD came up with? To stop skimmers spawning unless you're in an SRV? That solves NEITHER of the fundamental problems.

The correct thing to do would have been to ensure that skimmer kill missions are not generated to bases with no security, and secondly, nerf the payout a little.

What was difficult about that?

 

[Shiro Akai]

I don't want to do challenging things, I've already accepted that "time" is the commodity that I'm investing, I want suitable rewards for that time, so if I'm doing something that involves me flying in a straight line for several hours (smeaton), repeatedly, I better get 100 million at the end of it.

And what if FDEVs decided that low pay you get after flying straight for several hours is a suitable one?



I think that the problem with ED we, as a players, have is much deeper and complex.

We are spoiled by the games we played for the past 10 years and by times we are living in.

Think of it. I'm a gamer since late '80s, started with Amiga 500, seen first personal IBMs and gaming rise to power on the PCs. I remember how games looked like in the late '90s, I remember graphic accelerators (3DFx) rise and fall (incorporation into gfx cards), I remember visually stunning games emerging. And I remember how much time games required to beat them in the pre-internet times.

Hours upon hours, days upon days we played single game and we didn't finish it. I still remember 2 month long session with Transport Tycoon. For 2 months I've been playing that single game, developing my trade empire, connecting more of industry with my transportation network. I remember weeks spent with X-Wing / Tie Fighter (various titles). One evening = one or two missions. And we had 20-40 mission long campaigns. Sure, some had tricks that made them last longer (survive for 10 minutes, etc.) but back then game lasted.

With time, when game turned more into visuals, development time was consumed by engine and visuals. Less time went into story. Games started to look amazing but at a time they took less and less to complete. As a result, what took days weeks was compressed into hours / days. And finally, into hours. Sometimes so low that you can count it with one hand.

Full enjoyment was turned from long banquet into pure essence, highly condensated.

And we, as players, changed as well. 10, 15 or 20 years ago we had far more time at our disposal. Today (av ED players is what? 25-35 yo?) we have other duties. School/studies, work, family, other hobbies. Relatively our time shortened. With shorter time we have less time for gaming. Hence we "demand" that our time spent into gaming provided maximized effect. Game developers somewhat catered toward that style.

Instead long RPG games we get MOBAs. Instead intriguing story we get fast shooters. Instead of stationary gaming we get mobile gaming. Quicker, faster and more intensive consuming. If the game won't sate my hunger from the first minutes I drop it and move to the other title. We have way too much options to pick from. We drown in options, and like addicted ones seek things that provide the strongest kick.

And at that point game like ED comes (and it's not solitary in that, look at Torment reboot and earlier Pillars of Eternity - total opposite to world trends). A game that requires time, dedication and lots of effort with postponed reward. It's almost a shock. No addicted one would try new stuff when that stuff would give minor kick 2 weeks later. And ED is such stuff.

I'm not advocating for ED, this game surely has flaws that could be changed/fixed/altered. I'm just wondering if the "problems" we, as a players, have with ED, aren't in part in us ourselves? We are spoiled by world we are living in - world that provides us quick and fast entertainment. Highly caloric, dense and sense kicking. And we get used to that high intensity. And when faced with anything less intensive we are not content.

So what is true? FDEVs being totally out of touch with reality? We, having too high demands and cannot cope with slower pace?

Both?

 

[zarking]

All the above replies I can agree with, and I'm not suggesting bugs don't get fixed, I'm saying that we deliberately put very high payout missions into the game, but we gate them behind a big time investment.

The ceos/sothis thing is a good example. It was far enough out the bubble that it took time to get there and back, you needed to spend time getting allied before the big payout came along, you needed to have a ship with decent cargo space, there was always the danger of pirates, and the best rewards involved smuggling. It's not something you could do if you just had an hour to play that day, but if you were prepared to put 4 or 5 hours into it, you knew you'd walk away with a worthwhile reward maybe it was a little too high, I'd have been ok with it being reduced, but it got hammered to about 20% of what it was, which just killed it completely

 

[Ian Doncaster]

We don't know that's what we want, we think we want intricate in depth, difficult things, but we actually don't

I think this is important. Big complaint about ED: it's grindy routine stuff, mile-wide, inch-deep, blah, blah, blah.

So, what does FDev do? It listens.
- missions start to get "wrinkles" where interesting things can happen - diversions, attacks, counter-offers, passenger demands. The basic components, indeed, of missions in every other game (remember that Tie Fighter mission where you were on patrol and no rebels attacked and it was completely straightforward? No, neither do I [1]). The players complain that these cut into their Cr/Hr simplicity.

- places start to get more distinguished, so rather than one system cloned 20,000 times, there are reasons to visit a range of systems and travel about the bubble. The players complain that the engineers should all have material traders on-site (to take the most recent example) for convenience, and they complain that Colonia is too far away, and that CGs at Outposts don't let them use their Cutter.

- the crime system has basically no consequences for offences which can't be trivially avoided. Frontier add some to make the criminal lifestyle actually distinct from the legal lifestyle, while buffing payouts and other effects of many criminal missions. Players complain that they can no longer do surface scan missions because the inconvenience of dealing with the consequences is too much.

- certain engineering options are only available at top grades from particular engineers or with materials from particular sources (or an expensive material trade). Players complain that they can't play "their" way and still get everything ... while also complaining that it's absurd that someone can be King-Admiral (good luck when you only have at most one superpower's engineers available, then?)

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying that everything Frontier has done in these directions has been right (the recent outfitting lockout for hot ships remains a terrible mistake, for example) - but the pattern is clear: there are a lot of players who are happiest when they *can* play the game in the most routine manner possible with 99% of their time spent watching Netflix and 1% issuing new ship commands.

The low-end 50-100 MCr/hour payouts people were getting from Smeaton are still possible today - no mode-switching, no cheating, no getting massively lucky - by several other means. The difference is that the remaining methods require some preparation and planning work, significant skill, some in-depth knowledge of game mechanics, etc. Obviously this is a major imposition - those are payouts that should be available to all by flying in a straight line for 40 minutes, not requiring things such as competence, initiative, or paying attention - and Frontier are the nerfiest nerfers ever to nerf a nerfable.

Essentially Frontier has an awkward balancing act when it comes to mile-wide, inch-deep, because there are two types of players:
- the ones who think "inch-deep" is the problem
- the ones who think "mile-wide" is the problem

Bonus prediction: the exploration overhaul planned in Q4 will, if it adds any depth to exploration, cause major conflicts between the people who would happily spend weeks exploring a single system if there was enough content to justify it and the people who like honk-jumping.


[1] There *is* an example of this working in a Freespace 2 fan-made campaign. But it works there because the experience is much more linear than ED allows for, it's part of planned changes of pace and activity level as the story unfolds, and it's one mission out of about thirty rather than the normal case.

 

[[VR] Mad Mike]

Tl:dr, the gold rushes are actually a good thing, stop the nerfs.


People don't play ED like other games.
Most games, you play for the challenge, difficulty, tiny incremental improvements. Look at any moba, platformer or fps, it's all skill based on reflexes, quick decision making. Even the big rpg's and mmo's demand a decent chunk of your time, most of which will be purely grinding for unlocks, but needs constant skill improvement.

ED has created something different. Granted, The pvp element does fit in with the common, skill based, gameplay ideals above, but even then, it requires you to do the ED thing, which is......
Repetitive simplicity based on commitment of time.

We don't want missions that are incredibly difficult to do, we don't want virtually unbeatable enemies (for the most part), we don't want crazy complex methods that you have to go through in order to complete something for money.
It took us ages to figure out the base mechanics of the game, the dozens of controls and odd little nuances that you need to learn just to take part, now what we want is to casually fly from one place to the next, make a shed load of money, then casually fly around some more, buying or upgrading, smiling all the way. Then maybe we'll take a week out just to explore, or mess around with the bgs for little monetary reward or searching for mats.

We don't know that's what we want, we think we want intricate in depth, difficult things, but we actually don't (for science puzzles yes, for money no).
It could be because of the "real time" aspect, the fact that doing anything takes hours, the travel time, the repetitive nature of just wandering about. It's created an almost unique sense of "ok, I've put the effort in, in time alone, now I want the reward please".

This is why high payout gold rush opportunities "make people play".

I don't want to do challenging things, I've already accepted that "time" is the commodity that I'm investing, I want suitable rewards for that time, so if I'm doing something that involves me flying in a straight line for several hours (smeaton), repeatedly, I better get 100 million at the end of it. Especially given that to get the point I can make 100 million for that one hour I have to devote more time just getting allied, building the correct ship, maybe board hopping etc... So it's more like 6 or 8 hours to get that first "100 million per hour".

I'm not sure I'm making sense lol, it's like, ED front loads the skill requirement, just getting into the game is a challenge. Soon after that we realise that nothing happens quickly, and that's fine, we accept that no matter what play style we choose, it's going to take several hours just to do anything, but whereas most games can give us "rewards" based on skill progress over 5 minutes, 10 minutes, an hour, ED can't, so we are comfortable that easy (albeit repetitive) rewards should be available after the commitment of time.
It's why the gold rush rewards make us all feel better for a while, it's why we then don't mind doing the more difficult, unrewarding things, as we can still at any time, just commit the time sink to get big rewards when we need to. We don't mind doing things in game that have virtually no monetary reward just for the fun of it, but we expect there to be a big payout ticket in there somewhere which needs me to go spend several hours doing it, that's the balance.

It's why nerfs frustrate the community so much. We're left with the huge time commitment but without the payout at the end.
Some will disagree, and that's fine, but maybe both fdev and ourselves need to agree that there should always be a very high payout reward in the game based on the time sink and nothing else (making it interesting would be nice of course). We've spent the last year clamping down on everything (mission stacking, long range hauling, ceos, rhea, 17 draconis, skimmers, surface scanning, palin, smuggling, etc etc) and sure, some of those were ridiculously broken, but you can't have the situation where "last week I could spend 4 hours in game and make 200 million, this week for the same effort I can only make 20 million", it just frustrates people too much. So let's embrace the gold rush this isn't an "I win" button, it's making us feel rewarded for the most precious thing we can commit into a game, time.

#i think every time i see a post saying what "we" want i should link this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AB2_1Fc6cbk

 

[CMDR Decus Crux]

And what if FDEVs decided that low pay you get after flying straight for several hours is a suitable one?



I think that the problem with ED we, as a players, have is much deeper and complex.

We are spoiled by the games we played for the past 10 years and by times we are living in.

Think of it. I'm a gamer since late '80s, started with Amiga 500, seen first personal IBMs and gaming rise to power on the PCs. I remember how games looked like in the late '90s, I remember graphic accelerators (3DFx) rise and fall (incorporation into gfx cards), I remember visually stunning games emerging. And I remember how much time games required to beat them in the pre-internet times.

Hours upon hours, days upon days we played single game and we didn't finish it. I still remember 2 month long session with Transport Tycoon. For 2 months I've been playing that single game, developing my trade empire, connecting more of industry with my transportation network. I remember weeks spent with X-Wing / Tie Fighter (various titles). One evening = one or two missions. And we had 20-40 mission long campaigns. Sure, some had tricks that made them last longer (survive for 10 minutes, etc.) but back then game lasted.

With time, when game turned more into visuals, development time was consumed by engine and visuals. Less time went into story. Games started to look amazing but at a time they took less and less to complete. As a result, what took days weeks was compressed into hours / days. And finally, into hours. Sometimes so low that you can count it with one hand.

Full enjoyment was turned from long banquet into pure essence, highly condensated.

And we, as players, changed as well. 10, 15 or 20 years ago we had far more time at our disposal. Today (av ED players is what? 25-35 yo?) we have other duties. School/studies, work, family, other hobbies. Relatively our time shortened. With shorter time we have less time for gaming. Hence we "demand" that our time spent into gaming provided maximized effect. Game developers somewhat catered toward that style.

Instead long RPG games we get MOBAs. Instead intriguing story we get fast shooters. Instead of stationary gaming we get mobile gaming. Quicker, faster and more intensive consuming. If the game won't sate my hunger from the first minutes I drop it and move to the other title. We have way too much options to pick from. We drown in options, and like addicted ones seek things that provide the strongest kick.

And at that point game like ED comes (and it's not solitary in that, look at Torment reboot and earlier Pillars of Eternity - total opposite to world trends). A game that requires time, dedication and lots of effort with postponed reward. It's almost a shock. No addicted one would try new stuff when that stuff would give minor kick 2 weeks later. And ED is such stuff.

I'm not advocating for ED, this game surely has flaws that could be changed/fixed/altered. I'm just wondering if the "problems" we, as a players, have with ED, aren't in part in us ourselves? We are spoiled by world we are living in - world that provides us quick and fast entertainment. Highly caloric, dense and sense kicking. And we get used to that high intensity. And when faced with anything less intensive we are not content.

So what is true? FDEVs being totally out of touch with reality? We, having too high demands and cannot cope with slower pace?

Both?

You are speaking totally out of my mind...

repped

 

[Finn638]

We are spoiled by the games we played for the past 10 years and by times we are living in.

Ok that's your point of view and that's fine. To me though that sounds like "people in the 20th century are spoiled compared to stone age. In stone age people had fun banging rocks together". The whole point of progress - technology, software development, games development - is to make things better than they were. So yes, we are living in the age where games can have a large volume of content without having to rely on grind. I don't think such expectation is unrealistic in the slightest. It is what you would expect from a game these days, unlike in 1980's and 90's.

And what if FDEVs decided that low pay you get after flying straight for several hours is a suitable one?

That is my main gripe with FDev. They are trying to put their own cost on a person's time. More than that, they are attempting to de-value it with low rewards per time spent. A person would often know what their time is worth (not always, especially when it comes to gamers, but often), therefore delivering content that would satisfy a player that their time was well-spent is in their interests. I may be completely missing FDev's thought process here but that's what it looks like.

Yes, I appreciate the awesome sandbox simulation they have created, and there are many aspects of it I enjoy - which is why I still play it. But when they're trying to de-value my time it feels like an insult.

 

[Doomydeth]

just came back a week ago, to the wing missions it took 3-4 missions to figure out how the system worked and the best way to get things done and it was worth it in a small ship to make 10 runs for a 10-30mil payout, why bother when the payout is .5-3mil for 10 runs of 4 players in mid tier ships, they need to scale with the size of the wing we did most of them as a 2 man team and even then we'd solo them so we didn't have to both be on at the same time until turnins
and the dam things expire why or it you need them to fine but let it be a week not 2 days

lucky enough the buddy who was playing was already in a type 9 or i wouldn't have my own for another month
they could have been toned down and not nerfed into nothing
it was almost self regulated there is no bulk palladium within 60ly of lft 37 or insulating membrane
was looking for a less popular station and wondering why every other stations missions where worthless before we found out it was nerfed

 

[andrak]

OP lay off the "we". You don't speak for most let alone everyone.

I do want challenging missions, encounters, situations. It is the thing this game lacks the most. No challenge or consequences. Everything seems balanced around "can it be done in a half built, half engineered cobra mkiii, if not, make it easier". There's no challenge, you can fall asleep (I have) while playing even in the placeholder conflict zones.

 

[Jukelo]

That is my main gripe with FDev. They are trying to put their own cost on a person's time. More than that, they are attempting to de-value it with low rewards per time spent. A person would often know what their time is worth (not always, especially when it comes to gamers, but often), therefore delivering content that would satisfy a player that their time was well-spent is in their interests. I may be completely missing FDev's thought process here but that's what it looks like.

Yes, I appreciate the awesome sandbox simulation they have created, and there are many aspects of it I enjoy - which is why I still play it. But when they're trying to de-value my time it feels like an insult.

It's not Frontier's job to value your time. Frontier should make the game they set out to make and described in the kickstarter, and then it should be your job as the customer to decide whether that's the game for you and whether it's worth your time.
Granted the game as it stands is very different now, mainly because Frontier has listened too much and veered way off course. The pace of progression has skyrocketed to ridiculous extents, to the point any sense of believability is gone, and believability was the biggest selling point for me.

 

[Finn638]

It's not Frontier's job to value your time. Frontier should make the game they set out to make and described in the kickstarter, and then it should be your job as the customer to decide whether that's the game for you and whether it's worth your time.

I don't have a job as a customer. And yes, being a customer I decide what's worth my time and what isn't. Right now 60-70% of the game activities are not worth my time, I'm just sticking with the other 30-40% until that wears off too, or something new comes along. And it's not a good thing for a company to not care for their customers' time (not to say FDev doesn't, though it often seems like they got it backwards, I'm just responding to the proposition above) - it's one of the most basic concepts of dealing with any customer.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

I don't have a job as a customer. And yes, being a customer I decide what's worth my time and what isn't. Right now 60-70% of the game activities are not worth my time, I'm just sticking with the other 30-40% until that wears off too, or something new comes along. And it's not a good thing for a company to not care for their customers' time (not to say FDev doesn't, though it often seems like they got it backwards, I'm just responding to the proposition above) - it's one of the most basic concepts of dealing with any customer.

Whilst what you say has some merit for games with a scripted story/campaign, it doesn't really work with sandbox games.

Sure, for a story-based game, charging £50 for a game that's completed in 10 hours is going to negatively impact your reputation.
But for a sandbox where you can play for literally thousands of hours, then the equation is very different. In that case a developer should be actively trying to introduce longevity and that absolutely SHOULD mean that players shouldn't be able to get the biggest/best things within 20 hours. Respecting a players time in a sandbox game means giving them long-term goals, not instant gratification.

 

[Wyaston Hypatia]

… Deleted

 

[Finn638]

Whilst what you say has some merit for games with a scripted story/campaign, it doesn't really work with sandbox games.

Sure, for a story-based game, charging £50 for a game that's completed in 10 hours is going to negatively impact your reputation.
But for a sandbox where you can play for literally thousands of hours, then the equation is very different. In that case a developer should be actively trying to introduce longevity and that absolutely SHOULD mean that players shouldn't be able to get the biggest/best things within 20 hours. Respecting a players time in a sandbox game means giving them long-term goals, not instant gratification.

I understand a developer having the need to seek a solution to game's longevity, as well as adding grind to dilute the content - almost every game I played does that. But you can only dilute content so far before it is no longer visible. Why does FDev keep nerfing all the credit goldmines so fast? Because they're bugs? No, there are plenty of bugs in the game that existed for weeks, months and years without having been addressed. And Smeaton run was rather a consequence of BGS than a bug/exploit. In so jealously nerfing anything that has anything to do with credits FDev are basically admitting that the credits are more important than everything else in the game. I'm perfectly ok with doing something other than finding best ways to make credits, but FDev themselves want the game to revolve around credit grind (or engineer materials). So now that's practically most of the game's content. All of those long-term goals just depend on how many credits you have.

I did the Smeaton runs, got about 8 billion from it and bought all the ships I ever wanted. Suddenly I had all my "long-term goals" realized, but I didn't stop playing the game. Instead I started enjoying it more since I didn't have to worry about grinding credits anymore. I'm not saying everyone should get a Conda within 20 hours, but the mission payouts as they are now are a really bad deal per time spent in the game.

Would be better if they didn't rely on grind so much to keep the players engaged, and focused on inventing new content that would keep people genuinely interested in the game. They did a good job with the whole galaxy simulation and flight model thing, now they just need to fill it with something.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

I understand a developer having the need to seek a solution to game's longevity, as well as adding grind to dilute the content - almost every game I played does that. But you can only dilute content so far before it is no longer visible. Why does FDev keep nerfing all the credit goldmines so fast? Because they're bugs? No, there are plenty of bugs in the game that existed for weeks, months and years without having been addressed. And Smeaton run was rather a consequence of BGS than a bug/exploit. In so jealously nerfing anything that has anything to do with credits FDev are basically admitting that the credits are more important than everything else in the game. I'm perfectly ok with doing something other than finding best ways to make credits, but FDev themselves want the game to revolve around credit grind (or engineer materials). So now that's practically most of the game's content. All of those long-term goals just depend on how many credits you have.

I did the Smeaton runs, got about 8 billion from it and bought all the ships I ever wanted. Suddenly I had all my "long-term goals" realized, but I didn't stop playing the game. Instead I started enjoying it more since I didn't have to worry about grinding credits anymore. I'm not saying everyone should get a Conda within 20 hours, but the mission payouts as they are now are a really bad deal per time spent in the game.

Would be better if they didn't rely on grind so much to keep the players engaged, and focused on inventing new content that would keep people genuinely interested in the game. They did a good job with the whole galaxy simulation and flight model thing, now they just need to fill it with something.

I'd say that allowing players to spend a week earning enough credits to remove financial considerations from the game is the exact OPPOSITE of respecting their time.

Personally, I feel the game IS filled with 'something', it's just that you skipped past a whole lot of it by focusing solely on one aspect of the gameplay.

 

[Jex =TE=]

I see your point, but nah. There must be a balance. On Smeaton, I actually agree, if someone wants to spend 90mins in SC, they are entitled to whatever they want (I wouldn't do it for less than a billion a run, my time is simply too important to me to sit and do nothing with it). More often though, the gold rushes are insanely OTT and so are the nerfs. What they need to find is the right middle ground.

Take the skimmer problem. The problem was that you could be sent to bases with no security where it was then like fish in a barrel and got massive rewards for almost no effort.

Two fundamental and inextricably interrelated problems...low effort, too high a payout. So what's the solution that FD came up with? To stop skimmers spawning unless you're in an SRV? That solves NEITHER of the fundamental problems.

The correct thing to do would have been to ensure that skimmer kill missions are not generated to bases with no security, and secondly, nerf the payout a little.

What was difficult about that?

I think it's clear by now isn't it? The entire missions system is so intertwined with itself they simply cannot make a change here without it messing up something over there. Even the devs have said the mission maker they use is limited and can't really do anything that complex iirc - so this could literally be all that you'll see from it. It's been nerf here breaks payouts there since launch and 3 years later - not fixed so they can't fix it. You can't bug fix for 3 years and not fix the bugs - that's how long it took to code the entire game!

 

[Finn638]

I'd say that allowing players to spend a week earning enough credits to remove financial considerations from the game is the exact OPPOSITE of respecting their time.

Personally, I feel the game IS filled with 'something', it's just that you skipped past a whole lot of it by focusing solely on one aspect of the gameplay.

Care to tell me what that something is? I was about 800 hours into the game when I first started doing the Smeaton runs, and the activities available to me up to that point were limited by the ships I could afford, which in turn were limited by credits I could make. But I did every type of mission that was available to me until then, so what did I miss?

 

[CMDR Carbo]

I have no problem with credit balancing fixes, the missions system needs balancing.

I however really despise the nerf-to-the-ground approach that Fdev applies most of the time.

Balancing is a delicate task, not something that needs whacked with a sledge hammer.