Crew member taking 54% of profits instead of 12%

[gooddoc]

But you haven't signed the NPC up on a profit share only contract. The NPC is providing his/her services for a % of your INCOME.

Whatever your outlay is, it's not he's problem...it's yours!

Though I do think that when a NPC is not in your ship, there should be a 'shore leave' clause, paying maybe a 1/4 of the contracted income.

Iv had my pilot since the fighters were introduced, I look at him as 'insurance' should I need him when in my larger ships. He takes 5% of my income, I used him for a while, when the fighters first came into the game.
Now he just sits in his cabin getting hammered all the time, as I haven't used him in ages. Hes probably earned around 150mil from me, though I don't care, like I said he's there IF I need him & he goes on all my expedition trips.

Players can't keep blaming FD's poor game design, when they're not planning ahead & wanting to make a quick few million. As others have said, fire the NPC before you 'cash in' then they get diddley squat!

 

[Aashenfox]

But you haven't signed the NPC up on a profit share only contract. The NPC is providing his/her services for a % of your INCOME.

Whatever your outlay is, it's not he's problem...it's yours!

Though I do think that when a NPC is not in your ship, there should be a 'shore leave' clause, paying maybe a 1/4 of the contracted income.

Iv had my pilot since the fighters were introduced, I look at him as 'insurance' should I need him when in my larger ships. He takes 5% of my income, I used him for a while, when the fighters first came into the game.
Now he just sits in his cabin getting hammered all the time, as I haven't used him in ages. Hes probably earned around 150mil from me, though I don't care, like I said he's there IF I need him & he goes on all my expedition trips.

Players can't keep blaming FD's poor game design, when they're not planning ahead & wanting to make a quick few million. As others have said, fire the NPC before you 'cash in' then they get diddley squat!

So wait, you think its fine, if someone wants to do these missions, that they have to fire their crew first, that they've trained to Elite. That it's their fault they played the game with two crew members, tough crap, you can never do these missions cos the way the game is designed you can't make a profit? Really?

When the only simple change that's needed is to have them share post purchase profit? Wow, some of you like to keep the game crap, I can't understand why though...?

If thats not what you're saying, please clarify where you think it's the player's fault that FD failed to consider that someone might play with crew members, since ya know, it's in the game and its a fun thing to do...

This is another one of those times that I am utterly DUMBSTRUCK (not literally, thankfully, lol) that anyone can defend such a crap lack of thought process in design.

 

[gooddoc]

So wait, you think its fine, if someone wants to do these missions, that they have to fire their crew first, that they've trained to Elite. That it's their fault they played the game with two crew members, tough crap, you can never do these missions cos the way the game is designed you can't make a profit? Really?

When the only simple change that's needed is to have them share post purchase profit? Wow, some of you like to keep the game crap, I can't understand why though...?

If thats not what you're saying, please clarify where you think it's the player's fault that FD failed to consider that someone might play with crew members, since ya know, it's in the game and its a fun thing to do...

This is another one of those times that I am utterly DUMBSTRUCK (not literally, thankfully, lol) that anyone can defend such a crap lack of thought process in design.

Yeah! I think it's fine. If players want to hire two NPC's it's up to them, players should be accountable for their actions in the game. If by taking these mission types they run up minimal profit or even loss, then so be it. It's not hard to quickly calculate an estimated profit before taking on any mission.
After all a player wouldn't buy Palladium at 18k & then sell it for 12K.....would they? Do the FDevs have to re-design this part of the game design to stop that from occurring.


Only change I would like to see is more interaction with the cmdrs, maybe along the lines:-

"...I feel like a spare part on this ship, you're not using me I'm off!"

There seems to be a theme developing on this forum lately, were cmdr's should take NO responsibility in their actions. They expect FD to wrap them up in cotton wool!

What game crap that would be!

 

[[VR] Goooost]

Hah, if I ran the mission I'd LOSE money.

 

[sedilbur]

Therefore the profit on the run is 4,441,280 CR.

The crew screen says "Profit Share" of 12%, so at the most, my crew member should get paid 532,954 CR.

However, my crew member got paid 2,402,213, which is a 54% profit share!! That's more than half my take!!

Indeed,with 2 crew members. They would take 4,800,000. And you would loose around 400,000 credit lol

I never liked those kind of mission, and this will not help my mind.

 

[Salem Jansen]

What I'm seeing here is people who literally do not understand what "income" means-- and apparently FDev doesn't, either. Income = revenue - expenses. If the cmdr was getting billed a percentage on his income then OP's transaction would have netted their crew member around 500k. Instead, NPC crews bill on flat revenue. Even in a video game world contracts like that would indicate either a stupid contractee, or a stupid contractor.

It doesn't matter what way you slice it with the Knife Of Rationalization; This is stupid.

 

[Deep Thought 42]

Crew should get a cut of the profits only and should only get full pay when working

 

[the source 0179]

I guess it might be argued that it's a "booby trap" but it's not especially harsh.

If the mission pays Cr20m and an NPC gets 12% then I'd expect that they'd get Cr2.4m.
That's not "harsh". It's just business as usual in ED.

Personally, I tend to avoid "fetch" missions at the best of times 'cos you never know how much of a faff they're going to be.
Taking on a wing mission to fetch Palladium seems like a bad-idea sandwich with extra bad-idea and bad-idea sauce.

I've never hired crew members purely because the eat your profits even when sitting on their asp. I believe it should be set up that when they're not on the ship they should only be paid a standby fee. Say a few thousand cr. Rather than percentage of everything.

 

[Aashenfox]

There seems to be a theme developing on this forum lately, were cmdr's should take NO responsibility in their actions. They expect FD to wrap them up in cotton wool!

Ah, yes, that old china, people who want to change the game want less consequences, uh huh, ok. lol.

I don't see that at all. What I see is people wishing the game would make sense, nothing whatsoever to do with consequences.

 

[Stealthie]

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!

I just spent 3 months helping to repair Obsidian Orbital by shipping Emergency Power Cells from the bubble to Maia, making Cr2,560 in profit on each run and incurring roughly Cr300,000 in damage to my Cutter's integrity at the same time.

Same thing applies to long-distance passenger missions and to Assassination missions etc.

Pretty much every mission has the potential to generate a loss if you plan it wrong, use the wrong strategy, do it poorly or simply take the wrong mission. That's just the nature of the game.

What we're talking about, here, is an edge-case where a player has chosen to take on a daft mission and is then moaning that it didn't go well for him.

It's like taking on one of those data-delivery missions to Colonia and then moaning that it wasn't profitable.

The smartest course of action is to simply ignore such a mission.

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>"

You realise this is almost exactly the sort of thing that happens all the time in real business, right?

A company takes on a project which doesn't pay a sensible amount and then, when they realise their mistake, they try and screw their own employees to recover some of the loss.
And then the employees will (if they're smart) draw attention to the company's contractual obligations and the company will be forced to comply with them.

In real-life, as in ED, it's the responsibility of the company (or, in ED, the player) to ensure they don't take on a project that they can't make a profit on.

Let's face it, the problem here isn't the number of NPCs a player has, or the payments they receive.
The real problem is simply that "fetch" missions have the potential to incur substantial expenses and it's up to the player to either find ways to mitigate that problem (via mining or piracy) or to choose different missions instead.

 

[Aashenfox]

I just spent 3 months helping to repair Obsidian Orbital by shipping Emergency Power Cells from the bubble to Maia, making Cr2,560 in profit on each run and incurring roughly Cr300,000 in damage to my Cutter's integrity at the same time.

Same thing applies to long-distance passenger missions and to Assassination missions etc.

Pretty much every mission has the potential to generate a loss if you plan it wrong, use the wrong strategy, do it poorly or simply take the wrong mission. That's just the nature of the game.

What we're talking about, here, is an edge-case where a player has chosen to take on a daft mission and is then moaning that it didn't go well for him.

It's like taking on one of those data-delivery missions to Colonia and then moaning that it wasn't profitable.

The smartest course of action is to simply ignore such a mission.



You realise this is almost exactly the sort of thing that happens all the time in real business, right?

A company takes on a project which doesn't pay a sensible amount and then, when they realise their mistake, they try and screw their own employees to recover some of the loss.
And then the employees will (if they're smart) draw attention to the company's contractual obligations and the company will be forced to comply with them.

In real-life, as in ED, it's the responsibility of the company (or, in ED, the player) to ensure they don't take on a project that they can't make a profit on.

Let's face it, the problem here isn't the number of NPCs a player has, or the payments they receive.
The real problem is simply that "fetch" missions have the potential to incur substantial expenses and it's up to the player to either find ways to mitigate that problem (via mining or piracy) or to choose different missions instead.

I can see how you stretch the fabric of the universe to make it fit, but that isn't needed. Honestly. The game needs changing.

It also never happens in real business. Hm, shall I take a contract which doesn't even cover the staff? Er, NO! lol

 

[Stealthie]

I can see how you stretch the fabric of the universe to make it fit, but that isn't needed. Honestly. The game needs changing.

Go ahead and explain how saying that all missions pay the same way is "stretching the fabric of the universe to make it fit".

Sure, maybe the game does need changing but it DOESN'T need for one type of mission to be treated differently to all the others.

If we go down the road of trying to deduct "expenses" from profit before allocating payments to NPCs then it's opening a giant can of worms - and one which would be almost impossible to calculate properly without having the player complete some kind of "tax return" for every mission they complete.
And, in doing so, you create the risk of legitimising other complaints from players who think other missions don't calculate "profit" reasonably.

Which is why the simplest solution would be simply to create some kind of "standby payment" for off-duty NPCs instead.

It also never happens in real business. Hm, shall I take a contract which doesn't even cover the staff? Er, NO! lol

EXACTLY!

You've just proven my point.
The correct course of action is to avoid contracts which don't cover the cost of your contractual obligations to staff.
You don't take them and then moan about it after being shocked to learn of your mistake.

Glad we're finally on the same page. [up]

 

[Aashenfox]

Go ahead and explain how saying that all missions pay the same way is "stretching the fabric of the universe to make it fit".

Sure, maybe the game does need changing but it DOESN'T need for one type of mission to be treated differently to all the others.

If we go down the road of trying to deduct "expenses" from profit before allocating payments to NPCs then it's opening a giant can of worms - and one which would be almost impossible to calculate properly without having the player complete some kind of "tax return" for every mission they complete.
And, in doing so, you create the risk of legitimising other complaints from players who think other missions don't calculate "profit" reasonably.

Which is why the simplest solution would be simply to create some kind of "standby payment" for off-duty NPCs instead.




EXACTLY!

You've just proven my point.
The correct course of action is to avoid contracts which don't cover the cost of your contractual obligations to staff.
You don't take them and then moan about it after being shocked to learn of your mistake.

Glad we're finally on the same page. [up]

We are not on the same page, we are not even reading from the same book. Or even in the same universe.

I cannot believe you think the solution to this is to make people go to EDDB, figure out where they're going to purchase the stuff, get the caluclator out, refer to their two crew members percenatges, jot down the numbers, perform the necessary calculation (totally beyond most Elite plyaers, believe me), then decide whether that contract is worth doing or not? Rather than fixing something that's completely idiotic in the game? think you've lost the plot mate, honestly, how can you defend this total ? It';s a total failure of consideration, it's not something they did on purpose to make the game more 'consequential'...

 

[Stealthie]

I cannot believe you think the solution to this is to make people go to EDDB, figure out where they're going to purchase the stuff, get the caluclator out, refer to their two crew members percenatges, jot down the numbers, perform the necessary calculation (totally beyond most Elite plyaers, believe me), then decide whether that contract is worth doing or not? Rather than fixing something that's completely idiotic in the game? think you've lost the plot mate, honestly, how can you defend this total ? It';s a total failure of consideration, it's not something they did on purpose to make the game more 'consequential'...

You shouldn't need EDDB to realise that trying to solo a wing mission which requires you to source 1,200t of Palladium and pays Cr20m might not be the best use of the player's time, regardless of payments to NPCs.

For a minute, there, it seemed like you were willing to concede that.

Ah well. [sad]

 

[Aashenfox]

You shouldn't need EDDB to realise that trying to solo a wing mission which requires you to source 1,200t of Palladium and pays Cr20m might not be the best use of the player's time, regardless of payments to NPCs.

For a minute, there, it seemed like you were willing to concede that.

Ah well. [sad]

I concede that, the solution is where we differ.

 

[John Xenir]

This thread wouldn't be a problem if a wing missions was done - you know - in a wing in the first place.
This way, the cost of buying 1208 tons of palladium is spread across all wing members, and profit margin greatly increased, even when NPC's cut is taken into the equation.

I still don't understand where this notion of wing missions being done solo as a better alternative to solo mission was born.

 

[d8veh]

I'll just leave this here...

https://farm1.staticflickr.com/892/40458144804_6e9322457d_b.jpg

I think you need to give her a bit more training. Mine was very good at protecting me during passenger missions from Smeaton.

As already said, there's nothing wrong with a crew that's taken billions from you in earnings because it's a bit like income tax: The more you pay, the more you get to keep for yourself. I trained mine up from harmless, so she only takes 10%. She looks a bit weird, but she's got a heart of gold.

 

[gooddoc]

The current NPC 'credits paid' whilst doing missions, or anything else, has been the case since the fighters were first introduced. The only thing that has changed now is the fact that FD have buffed up (by quite a large amount), the apparent 'potential' rewards for these multi 'fetch me' missions.

The players themselves will decide if it's personally worth their time & effort to do these missions, depending on what they are doing & what ships/build/fighter crew/credits etc at the time.

The OP didn't pay attention to detail & has been 'stung' by HIS CHOICE of the mission. I bet that they will consider the next mission very carefully, before committing or steering away from this type of mission.

Whether it's time for FD to look again at the way in which NPC's take their 'cut', that's only upon them, we can only voice our opinions.

Clearly I take a different approach to other players, who seem quick to see the mega millon rewards for these missions.

 

[gooddoc]

This thread wouldn't be a problem if a wing missions was done - you know - in a wing in the first place.
This way, the cost of buying 1208 tons of palladium is spread across all wing members, and profit margin greatly increased, even when NPC's cut is taken into the equation.

I still don't understand where this notion of wing missions being done solo as a better alternative to solo mission was born.

& that is a fair point, these types of mission were introduced as 'wing missions', do them as solo at your own risk.

 

[Stealthie]

I still don't understand where this notion of wing missions being done solo as a better alternative to solo mission was born.

'Cos people see a really big number at the bottom of the mission description and can't resist clicking "accept" without considering what they're taking on.

Cr20m might seem like an attractive payment but when it might cost you Cr18m to source the required commodity and then you've got the hassle of transporting 1,200t of it from A to B in return for between Cr2m and Cr5m profit, that just flat-out ain't a smart contract to take regardless of payments to NPCs.