[video] Is making 100 mil/h unreasonable ?!

[El_Hefe]

The thing about opposing arbitrary number of millions per hour at this stage is the cat is out of the bag.

Theres players out there that made their billions through various means while other players have struggled to make decent money playing the way frontier seem to want them to play.

This has already created a huge imbalance in the in game economy so why even bother opposing 100mil/hr anymore when a lot of players have made multiple billions off unintended gameplay already.

Exercise in futility imo. Let them eat cake,they enjoy it,in fact i might want some cake too every now and then.

 

[Yamiks]

No, no, no, no, no.

Sorry.

I was kind of with you right up to the point where you tried to argue that Cr100/h is okay because young people are too busy to play ED for as long as old farts do.

Utter cobblers.
Seriously, I can't stress this enough. That is complete balls.

Go look at any thread where people are discussing what they earned from gold-rushes and you'll see that the sums are gigantic - even by ED standards.
Clearly some people - of all ages - are prepared to grind the living shizzle out of gold-rushes.

And that, in lieu of a better solution (such as regulating gold-rushes properly), is why FDev have to shut them down.

For the gazillionth time, the ideal situation (IMO) would be for the game to deliberately spawn gold-rushes which either last for an arbitrary period or last until some parameter is reached.
That'd allow people to search for them and exploit them when they need credits and it's likely to provide a reason to participate in squadron-based stuff when that appears.

I'm not talking by some edge cases... i'm talking about an average joe that just likes to play the gmae his way... not go for the rushes!

 

[EUS]

NO!
YES!

/end thread

 

[Stealthie]

I'm not talking by some edge cases... i'm talking about an average joe that just likes to play the gmae his way... not go for the rushes!

It's not really an "edge case" when there's so much of it going on that it's causing connection errors and frying the mission-generator.

Don't get me wrong. I really think gold-rushes should be a proper part of ED for exactly the reasons you mention - so people can go look for one when they need credits and do a bit of grinding.
The trick, though, is for FDev to decide how big they should be.

As things currently stand, however, I can't really blame FDev for shutting them down because they would, if left unchecked, just allow those who were inclined to make insane amounts of credits and that IS going to have an effect on other people's game.

 

[CMDR Cknarf]

You could have a maxed out Anaconda in less than a day of gameplay. Sounds a little off to me, to be honest.

I'm not going to lie, easy money is very welcome in this point in my Elite career. PvP can be very expensive, should things go wrong. But when you get new players going from Sidewinder to Anaconda in their first week? They're missing out on so many steps along the way.

Working your way up from nothing is part of the fun.

 

[Navigare Necesse Est]

I don't mind. Balance is out the window anyway with engineers and the former gold rushes and you can't buy rng modules. Can as well leave some shortcut in so people don't need to grind all the stuff at the same time, rep, rank, credits, mats, kakineer unlocks and whathaveyou.

 

[Pville_Piper]

The trick, though, is for FDev to decide how big they should be.

I don't have any confidence in the ability of FD to do this... Especially when you look wing missions that pay 2 to 3 times more than solo missions and yet require as much as ten times the work, even for a wing of 4, to complete. Mission payouts are borked and missions rarely reflect the state of the system. Donate some coffee or transport data to "relieve the famine"... I like doing missions, it fits my casual style of play. But it feels like you don't make progress unless you're in some cherry picked system or stuck in the same area.

 

[Stealthie]

I don't have any confidence in the ability of FD to do this... Especially when you look wing missions that pay 2 to 3 times more than solo missions and yet require as much as ten times the work, even for a wing of 4, to complete. Mission payouts are borked and missions rarely reflect the state of the system. Donate some coffee or transport data to "relieve the famine"... I like doing missions, it fits my casual style of play. But it feels like you don't make progress unless you're in some cherry picked system or stuck in the same area.

Same here.

Fundamentally (with the current system) an "average" play-session should yield whatever FDev assumes is an "average" rate of reward.

If that's currently the case the we must assume FDev actually want players to earn much less for doing hazardous missions such as assassinations than they earn from doing run-of-the-mill cargo missions and they're okay with the idea of 2 hour's play in one random system yielding only 10% of what 2 hour's play in another (apparently similar) system can generate.
Which is bonkers.

I'm not at all keen on the current "meta", which seems to consist of checking the forums, Reddit or Youtube to find the latest "gold rush" and then, after deciding whether or not I consider it an "exploit", taking a ship there and spanking the poop out of it for a couple of days before going back to doing stuff I enjoy but which provides almost zero credits.

I'd much rather there were legitimate gold-rushes in-game so that a player would know, for certain, that there were ways of making a lot of credits available somewhere and knowing that they are a legitimate, intentional thing.

Course, there's also the issue of that undermining missions even further so that needs looking at too.
It'd be nice if they could boost the payments for missions by, say, 50% but as long as there's still the possibility of systems generating unintentional gold-rushes, that's probably not going to happen cos it'd just increase the earnings from those aberrations.

 

[Sylveria]

Same here.

Fundamentally (with the current system) an "average" play-session should yield whatever FDev assumes is an "average" rate of reward.

If that's currently the case the we must assume FDev actually want players to earn much less for doing hazardous missions such as assassinations than they earn from doing run-of-the-mill cargo missions and they're okay with the idea of 2 hour's play in one random system yielding only 10% of what 2 hour's play in another (apparently similar) system can generate.
Which is bonkers.

I'm not at all keen on the current "meta", which seems to consist of checking the forums, Reddit or Youtube to find the latest "gold rush" and then, after deciding whether or not I consider it an "exploit", taking a ship there and spanking the poop out of it for a couple of days before going back to doing stuff I enjoy but which provides almost zero credits.

I'd much rather there were legitimate gold-rushes in-game so that a player would know, for certain, that there were ways of making a lot of credits available somewhere and knowing that they are a legitimate, intentional thing.

Course, there's also the issue of that undermining missions even further so that needs looking at too.
It'd be nice if they could boost the payments for missions by, say, 50% but as long as there's still the possibility of systems generating unintentional gold-rushes, that's probably not going to happen cos it'd just increase the earnings from those aberrations.

I'd actually agree to the "legitimate gold rush" idea as a random bonus applied that moves around the galaxy, IF the rank requirements were re-instituted so that there's actually "meaning" given back to them in the first place. This would give those who want a little "ooomph" a motivation to actually seek such without hindering the basis for why rank experience should be required.

As it stands, ranking means absolutely diddly. It's just a flashy bling in the sidebar with no reason to exist. IMO, Time Played actually has more "meaning and value" at this point.

 

[Schmack]

Tired of reading the rebuttal to money hunting... "why do you need so much money?"

I don't need it. I've tried to do things other than hunt money, like travelling to distant planets, scanning them and looking for things on the surface, but that's broken too. So making money and things that result in making money is one of the very few activities I can enjoy in the game. We all like the flight model, but you need something to do as a pilot, something that works. I can see the numbers add up in my bank account. I cannot see jack on the planet surfaces... nada.

If you feel that doing things that result in making Cr is more about doing things than about Cr, good for you. I can have the same outlook but there's no reason to think you cannot still feel that way and have the maximum return for doing that thing.

I used to like attacking planetary bases. Now I don't. That's not even about the money, per se, but about the C&P system and the tediousness of the missions. I don't mind C&P, but the game seems to lure you to break the law then treat you like a POS for doing it.

 

[VR Jay Le Chardon]

I'm also one of these content parrot monkeys - the hyperinflation is cheapening gameplay making it pointless, if you want a quick pick up and play space shooter, try everspace.

 

[Pville_Piper]

If that's currently the case the we must assume FDev actually want players to earn much less for doing hazardous missions such as assassinations than they earn from doing run-of-the-mill cargo missions and they're okay with the idea of 2 hour's play in one random system yielding only 10% of what 2 hour's play in another (apparently similar) system can generate.
Which is bonkers.

Not mention that you can go to a boom system that you're allied with most of the factions and not find a single cargo mission without a re-log/refresh of the mission board and then fly to a system that you've rep with one faction and there are tons of missions even though you don't have rep with any others.

Tired of reading the rebuttal to money hunting... "why do you need so much money?"

I don't need it. I've tried to do things other than hunt money, like travelling to distant planets, scanning them and looking for things on the surface, but that's broken too. So making money and things that result in making money is one of the very few activities I can enjoy in the game. We all like the flight model, but you need something to do as a pilot, something that works. I can see the numbers add up in my bank account. I cannot see jack on the planet surfaces... nada.

If you feel that doing things that result in making Cr is more about doing things than about Cr, good for you. I can have the same outlook but there's no reason to think you cannot still feel that way and have the maximum return for doing that thing.

I used to like attacking planetary bases. Now I don't. That's not even about the money, per se, but about the C&P system and the tediousness of the missions. I don't mind C&P, but the game seems to lure you to break the law then treat you like a POS for doing it.

Yes, I agree 100%.

I'm also one of these content parrot monkeys - the hyperinflation is cheapening gameplay making it pointless, if you want a quick pick up and play space shooter, try everspace.

I don't really care about 100 million an hour, just keep this past weekends payouts and I'll play more because I can see my bank account accrue faster and it feels like I'm making progress. I think Yamiks made a very good point and that is if you've got actual gameplay, you likely do that over the incessant grind and play the game more and credits per hour will be less of an issue.

 

[El_Hefe]

I'd actually agree to the "legitimate gold rush" idea as a random bonus applied that moves around the galaxy, IF the rank requirements were re-instituted so that there's actually "meaning" given back to them in the first place. This would give those who want a little "ooomph" a motivation to actually seek such without hindering the basis for why rank experience should be required.

As it stands, ranking means absolutely diddly. It's just a flashy bling in the sidebar with no reason to exist. IMO, Time Played actually has more "meaning and value" at this point.

What ranks are we talking here?

Rank certainly does matter when doing missions,trade rank specifically for credits.

Not sure suggesting the way to reduce credit grind is to have more rank grind os the way to go. Being top rank should count for something alright but elongating the progress through ranks is not a good idea imo. There long enough as is imo.

 

[Sylveria]

What ranks are we talking here?

Rank certainly does matter when doing missions,trade rank specifically for credits.

Not sure suggesting the way to reduce credit grind is to have more rank grind os the way to go. Being top rank should count for something alright but elongating the progress through ranks is not a good idea imo. There long enough as is imo.

You may be right- but the multiplier applied to missions is based on said ranks. Right now, Trade is the absolute "easiest" to rank out of the three simply for that reason.

I'm not advocating "grind", which is what people always seem to use as a trope when any sort of challenge is presented to them, I'm simply saying giving the ranks their meaning back would go a long way to reduce the amount of noobs-in-condas complaining because they can't earn enough to justify rebuys when they shouldn't even be flying them in the first place if they can't afford to keep them up.

When you can pick an Elite trade mission as a Harmless CMDR and make oodles more than you could with a Harmless requirement- why in space would you ever pick anything less?

 

[BL1P]

Whilst the game is all modes are equal then the amount a player can exploit in credits makes no difference ingame.

If any content becomes forced into player vrs player then exploited credits then become a problem of imbalance because of re-buys.
For that reason exploits (gold rush) are bad.

As to your question on :-
Is making 100mil an hour unreasonable ?

I would answer that if its an exploit, then yes.
Otherwise no as its part of the intended game design.

 

[Pville_Piper]

You may be right- but the multiplier applied to missions is based on said ranks. Right now, Trade is the absolute "easiest" to rank out of the three simply for that reason.

I'm not advocating "grind", which is what people always seem to use as a trope when any sort of challenge is presented to them, I'm simply saying giving the ranks their meaning back would go a long way to reduce the amount of noobs-in-condas complaining because they can't earn enough to justify rebuys when they shouldn't even be flying them in the first place if they can't afford to keep them up.

When you can pick an Elite trade mission as a Harmless CMDR and make oodles more than you could with a Harmless requirement- why in space would you ever pick anything less?

So, you mean that my first account with a elite status in trade and many factions that I'm allied/friendly with should make more money and get better missions that my second account that is maybe broker and rarely stays in one system long enough to get beyond cordial? That would be nice if that was true, but I usually have an easier time getting good missions with my second account. My first has a T9, but I rarely use it as I can never find enough missions to fill it with.

 

[Sylveria]

Whilst the game is all modes are equal then the amount a player can exploit in credits makes no difference ingame.

If any content becomes forced into player vrs player then exploited credits then become a problem of imbalance because of re-buys.
For that reason exploits (gold rush) are bad.

As to your question on :-
Is making 100mil an hour unreasonable ?

I would answer that if its an exploit, then yes.
Otherwise no as its part of the intended game design.

I firmly agree that exploits are not intended game design, whatever mode one chooses to play in.

 

[BDelacroix]

I am of the camp that I make the money so I can play the game. As expressed in Yamiks et. al. round table they recently did.

It has been my experience that the money flow from just playing the game was about right up until you get to the larger ships. The scaling doesn't seem to work at that level. With the exception of outliers.

 

[Apollo Cochrane]

I don't think that 100-mill is unreasonable AT ALL when you ALREADY have a big ship and have earned the appropriate Elite rank. So how about FDev make it a requirement of the kinds of missions that make you 100-mill an hour, that you REQUIRE a certain Elite rank and also that you REQUIRE a certain ship (or larger) to do that mission? So like the NPC posting the mission is "Looking for a Commander from the Pilot's Federation with an Anaconda or larger ship to remove 50 skimmers from our enemy's base, and we'll pay you 20-million credits to do it. Be aware that this is considered illegal in the target system and you will incur bounties and be attacked by local authorities." I mean how hard can it be to implement something like that?

I personally think it's hilarious that FDev will without hesitation nerf the skimmer missions because people are "making too much money" off it, and then turn around and PURPOSELY BUFF trading and engineering for a few days just so that they can try and attract more people back or whatever, and thus produce the same results as the skimmer missions such as people saying "Thanks FDev! Now I was able to get my Cutter!" etc etc and it's like "well why the fudge did they nerf skimmer missions then?!" It's double standards! Maybe instead of nerfing money-makers they should use them in advertisements to get people playing? lol Sheeeet just give me a "Skimmer Killer Weekend"! lol. I'm kidding but this is just so dumb and hypocritical.

 

[El_Hefe]

You may be right- but the multiplier applied to missions is based on said ranks. Right now, Trade is the absolute "easiest" to rank out of the three simply for that reason.

I'm not advocating "grind", which is what people always seem to use as a trope when any sort of challenge is presented to them, I'm simply saying giving the ranks their meaning back would go a long way to reduce the amount of noobs-in-condas complaining because they can't earn enough to justify rebuys when they shouldn't even be flying them in the first place if they can't afford to keep them up.

When you can pick an Elite trade mission as a Harmless CMDR and make oodles more than you could with a Harmless requirement- why in space would you ever pick anything less?

I dont think rank has anything to do with it. Its the balance of the mission board that causes the problems imo. A small mutiplier based on rank is fine imo as long as the base pay on the mission board was balanced.

Are there really that many players that get a conda when harmless but then cant get a rebuy? How are they getting the conda in the first place?

Agreed about the elite trade missions,if they are there,there isnt any point in taking lower ranked ones at all. That could use some work. Problem is the frontier solution would probably be to male the lower rank ones very low pay and leave the elite ones where they are now!!