Crew member taking 54% of profits instead of 12%

[concentric]

*lol* now imagine someone had hired 3 Expert NPCs and trained them up to ELITE. 15% Payroll per NPC. 45% total.

16% actually

Only goes to show that the NPC Crew passive income doesn't really work well. When not onboard, their pay cuts should be significantly lower. Always should have been that way...

Exactly. Makes no sense that they receive the same share regardless of them being active or idle. Doesn't really encourage people to train more than one pilot, either.

My Daleysa has received 1.3 billion already for mostly doing nothing. I kind of expect her to bunk off with a shiny new A-rated Cutter any minute but she's not stupid and remains faithful. I hired her as an expert, so she takes 16%. Therefore I recently hired Issac, a harmless Pilot who is now dangerous. I'm afraid I'm inclined to dump Daleysa as soon as he reaches Elite. Would be a shame though, as she's one of the few crew pilots that don't look like a potato with a wig...

 

[Gédéon_Lecanard]

I "got rid" of my last crew member long ago and never looked for a replacement. They are way too expensive compared to their relative usefulness (playing decoy, essentialy).

Besides, I was fed up of seeing the same pale skinned zombies with too much night sleep to catch up (along with black grannies with straight pink hair and 20 years old girls boasting their life long career in the military) digging in my fridge and taking bank bills showers while I was doing 99,9% of everything.

Shoo! To the job office with you, ladies and gents! And leave those beers where you found them!

 

[El_Hefe]

I find that actually hilarious. What a total boob from the design boys again.

/shakesheadindisbelief

Id agree with this. It should take from profit and thats it. Fetch missions are the only miasions this will happen. Every other mission takes only from profit. Outlier,unintended behaviour etc take your pick.

If it is intended its just another bad decision from FDev IMO

 

[Oopsie Daisy]

Other than full time merc work, I don't see any reason for the crew member.

After seeing that mine took a share of any and all profit (a total of 100m CR), not just combat-related profit as that is what I hired her for (fighter pilot), I fired her.

 

[CMDR _BigJay_]

I'll just leave this here...

 

[Jmanis]

Short version... there needs to be some sort of mechanic to use wages earned by NPCs, whether that's boosting elite rank or some new mechanic is anyone's guess. Also needs an exponential increase on top, so progression is permanent, but slower later on.

Oh, and yes, pilot is earning the correct amount (2.4m) as it's a 12% cut of the 20m Mission Reward. No other maths matters.

 

[metatheurgist]

Surely they get paid 12% of the Cr20,018,440 which the mission pays?

Which equates to.... Cr2,402,213


The fact that the NPC doesn't have the expense of buyng their share of Palladium is just tough cookies.

Hmm, I wonder if the OP would be one of those shady bosses that underpays their staff with spurious logic.

 

[Stealthie]

Id agree with this. It should take from profit and thats it. Fetch missions are the only miasions this will happen. Every other mission takes only from profit. Outlier,unintended behaviour etc take your pick.

Quite the opposite.

Every other mission works in exactly the same way; you cover all the expenses and your NPC takes a slice of the payment.
You buy the fuel, ammo, modules and ship required to complete every mission.
Your NPC stakes nothing and takes their percentage of the payment.
This should come as a surprise to nobody who has an NPC.

Changing that would open up a gigantic can of worms with regard to what might be considered "expenses" during a mission.
It'd end up changing the game from Elite: dangerous into Elite: Tax Returns.

Seems far simpler, to me, for players to just be aware that taking on a Wing Mission to fetch a mega-high-value commodity is probably not the smartest thing to do if you're looking to maximise profits.

 

[Stealthie]

Hmm, I wonder if the OP would be one of those shady bosses that underpays their staff with spurious logic.

Oh, I can see it now.

"I'd love to pay you more but those new Beam-Lasers were bought as an expense for this mission and they pretty-much negated all the profit we made"

 

[El_Hefe]

Quite the opposite.

Every other mission works in exactly the same way; you cover all the expenses and your NPC takes a slice of the payment.
You buy the fuel, ammo, modules and ship required to complete every mission.
Your NPC stakes nothing and takes their percentage of the payment.
This should come as a surprise to nobody who has an NPC.

Changing that would open up a gigantic can of worms with regard to what might be considered "expenses" during a mission.
It'd end up changing the game from Elite: dangerous into Elite: Tax Returns.

Seems far simpler, to me, for players to just be aware that taking on a Wing Mission to fetch a mega-high-value commodity is probably not the smartest thing to do if you're looking to maximise profits.

Running expense is a different expense to cargo expense. Simple

 

[Stealthie]

Running expense is a different expense to cargo expense. Simple

Why should cargo missions be treated differently to any other type?

Why should (for example) a bounty hunter have a different burden of expenses compared to a cargo hauler?

 

[Red Martian]

Sorry that happened to you, OP. When it gets you, it gets you hard. I do agree there needs to be some changes. For example, the crew should only make full pay when they're not idle. Otherwise, maybe 1% or 2% tops while in the crew lounge (I pretend they're in *my* crew lounge). Also, while we're discussing NPC crew, I'd like to see at least one of them on my bridge with me. It gets so alone up there.

 

[Stealthie]

Sorry that happened to you, OP. When it gets you, it gets you hard. I do agree there needs to be some changes. For example, the crew should only make full pay when they're not idle. Otherwise, maybe 1% or 2% tops while in the crew lounge (I pretend they're in *my* crew lounge). Also, while we're discussing NPC crew, I'd like to see at least one of them on my bridge with me. It gets so alone up there.

TBH, this would be a lot more straightforward than trying to monkey around with individual mission payments.

And, as you say, given that an NPC can cost upwards of a billion credits, it might be nice if they could sit their butt in the copilot's seat and replace things like the docking computer at the very least.

 

[El_Hefe]

Why should cargo missions be treated differently to any other type?

Why should (for example) a bounty hunter have a different burden of expenses compared to a cargo hauler?

How is it different? Every mission involves running costs,which we all pay.

Every mission taxes the profit except the fetch mission,which taxes your costs and your profit.

 

[Stealthie]

How is it different? Every mission involves running costs,which we all pay.

Every mission taxes the profit except the fetch mission,which taxes your costs and your profit.

You seem to be considering all this stuff in a very selective way.

You pay for ALL the expenses incurred in the game.
The SLF pilot takes the same cut of ALL payments you receive in the game.

The problem is, not all missions have equal expenses and this is most apparent with "fetch" missions.
If that's a problem, the simplest solution is to avoid them.

As has been said, the simplest solution would be to pay NPCs a reduced rate when they're benched rather than attempting to monkey around with the way payments work for specific missions.

 

[Abil Midena]

I also see no reason to use crew members. Their expense, right from the start, was simply not worth their impact.

OP, ignore those trolling in here saying this is working right. Just leave the bug report and let FD respond.

I'd recommend not taking that mission type if you insist on keeping NPC crew.

 

[concentric]

Imho crew pilots should be assignable to specific ships and stay on the ship unless you transfer them. Just like modules.
This way it actually makes sense to train more than one and you don't have to set them active every time you change the ship.
The pilot active in the ship you're making profit with gets the same share he does now. Pilots sitting idle in your other ships get a share of 2-3%.
Furthermore, as requested by others already, crew pilots shouldn't die when your ship blows up, because it makes no sense given that you, who's actually present on the ship, respawn in a station the next instant. Others argue that there should be consequences for losing your pilot and I agree. A crew pilot assigned to a ship should add to the ship's insurance proportional to his profit share. Significantly so, for all I care.

 

[El_Hefe]

You seem to be considering all this stuff in a very selective way.

You pay for ALL the expenses incurred in the game.
The SLF pilot takes the same cut of ALL payments you receive in the game.

The problem is, not all missions have equal expenses and this is most apparent with "fetch" missions.
If that's a problem, the simplest solution is to avoid them.

As has been said, the simplest solution would be to pay NPCs a reduced rate when they're benched rather than attempting to monkey around with the way payments work for specific missions.

I dont feel im being select. No other mission type i know of requires an outlay by the commander. Only fetch missions. Every other mission either provides the cargo to deliver or a task to complete.

When said cargo is delivered or task completed,a reward is givin,which is all profit,and is taxed based on crew. Yet the one mission where the commander has an outlay it also gets taxed which to me males no sense in the game. Yes its following the current system but not right imo.

I underatand your point,i just disagree.

 

[space voyager]

IMO we should be able to put crew members on hold and have started a suggestion thread on it. This is all we need really, a 'cold storage' for crew, so that when they are not needed they are also not leeching on income.

This may seem weird as you can't just lay off people at your liking IRL, but you also can't switch professions as you can in Elite. Game world, game rules. One day you're an assassin, next day you're a deep space explorer, and third one you're saving people from stations under attack.

 

[Aashenfox]

Quite the opposite.

Every other mission works in exactly the same way; you cover all the expenses and your NPC takes a slice of the payment.
You buy the fuel, ammo, modules and ship required to complete every mission.
Your NPC stakes nothing and takes their percentage of the payment.
This should come as a surprise to nobody who has an NPC.

Changing that would open up a gigantic can of worms with regard to what might be considered "expenses" during a mission.
It'd end up changing the game from Elite: dangerous into Elite: Tax Returns.

Seems far simpler, to me, for players to just be aware that taking on a Wing Mission to fetch a mega-high-value commodity is probably not the smartest thing to do if you're looking to maximise profits.

Wait, wait, wait...This makes me think you haven't realised the issue. If the player has TWO crew members, he'll make a LOSS. Did you realise that? There is no universe in which this makes sense. It is completely idiotic. Mind numbingly stupid, and completely inexcusible. It got forgotten, simple as that!

Imagine the conversation on the flight deck...

"So, 20m yeh?"
"Yep"
"So, I'm getting 20%?"
"Yep"
"4m then??"
"Don't be an idiot, we haven't bought the goods yet"
"but you said 20%, so I get 4m"
"<silence><blaster fires><body thuds>"

FD simply forgot that you have to buy the goods from these missions. They'll fix it soon (tm).