Why is Combat still a Low Paying High-Risk activity?

sollisb

Banned
Did you expect to be paid more for the same job simply because you happened to use a more expensive tool? Is there some sort of style bonus in the army for killing people with pencils rather than bullets? Do you offer to make watches work again for one price, then offer to make them work exactly the same, but while using an antique magnifying glass and silver tweezers for twice the fee?

This is what most complaints regarding combat risk vs. reward sound like to me. Many people want to be paid based on how they chose to do something rather than on what they actually achieved...and the game already caters to this overly much, IMO.

There is an expectation that RESes and CZs should just provide an endless stream of victims, irrespective of what would logically be present. Some want to be ensured enough to cover the rebuy of a Cutter in x amount of time, even if the job they are doing could be done at the same pace with an FDL. Wing missions already multiply payments based on the number of laborers, for the same total work.

NPCs and factions should appear to be making the same efforts to maximize the value of their credits and efforts that you are. They should not pay more than they need to for the satisfactory completion of a given task. For payments to scale, the difficulty of the task must scale to exclude those willing to work for less.

Other in-game jobs should work the same way and if the game tried to make sense rather than trying to be balanced, it would be better balanced. This is why I don't argue for payout changes based on role or occupation, but what I see as logical supply and demand, like the plausible facsimile of an economy Elite always should have had, but never has.


I want to be paid on the time it takes me to do something (bearing in mind risk) in comparison to doing another facet for the same time.

If I can make 1bn mining in 90 minutes, then I should be able to make the same trading, or combat or exploring. It just doesn't make any kind of sense to allow players to mine for those kind of credits if other facets are paying way way less.

And there's the problem. If I don't like mining, then I have to do whatever it is I do like doing. But in FDevs eyes I'm allowed kind of Commander and should be paid less, because some 'designer' in Frontier thinks 'well if you don't play our way we won't pay you'..

And none of that has to do with risk!

And yes, you very much so get style points for pencil over bullet :). Not to mention not waking the entire compound with gunfire. NO, I don't use silver tweezers, I use copper. It doesn't mark the surrounding metal and devalue the watch :). Do I charge more for doing that? You bet I do.

And your 'payment for what was is achieved' is nonsense. The end result always dictates the cost. I also write game add-ons. I always charge for them. Some take an evening, some take days, some weeks. The costs reflects the usefulness of the add-on, the time taken, the skill required, but ultimately what the market will pay. So I have to be very careful to ensure I'm earning above the cost. I can write add-on A for 99 euro and take 2 weeks, or write add-on B in 3 hours and charge 9.99 euro.

It's all balance.

Something Elite is sadly lacking.
 
I do feel for the new player. Seeing ships with massive price tags, so they go about the most efficient way of earning credits. Then they come on here and see people complaining about harmless commanders in Anacondas or making them targets in game (fly whatever you like as far as I'm concerned- not that it's even any of my business).

I'm not saying anyone on this thread does that, but it does happen. Then the harmless pilot has a look at what they can do to improve their combat rank and get disappointed with the game since it's peanuts compared to the trade runs.

Obviously my experience with combat missions is all pre- 3.3. Things have likely changed with the reduced massacre kill requirements, so it would be interesting to have an opinion from someone who has not long being doing combat.
 
And your 'payment for what was is achieved' is nonsense. The end result always dictates the cost.

The end result is what was achieved. These are synonymous.

The costs reflects the usefulness of the add-on, the time taken, the skill required, but ultimately what the market will pay.

The market generally pays as little as it has to. If I cannot find someone who does an equivalent or better job for less, then I'm going with you, but it doesn't matter one whit what your costs are, if I can still get the same quality of work for less from someone else.

It's all balance.

Something Elite is sadly lacking.

That we agree on.

I just think the best path to balance is a system where the pieces fall into place on their own. Imbalance is symptomatic of holes in underlying mechanisms. If Elite had plausible demographic and economic models, an equilibrium would quickly be reached, where the toughest tasks, requiring the most skill and best tools, would pay accordingly.
 
I don't see any combat veterans disagreeing with him. I don't think a combat veteran ever would. I do however see a lot of can't-think veterans and insecurities. Not sure what the point is. Why not wait till actually knowing about something before talking about it? What is there to be so afraid of that one would come in here and foolishly play make-believe?

And honestly, who's going to take you seriously if you're not even paying attention to context? What makes you think anyone cares who you're taking seriously?

The argument that difficult tasks should pay slightly more than less difficult tasks always comes from those who want to get paid more for challenges. It's that simple. They want motivation to step up their game. If one disagrees, they simply want the opposite.

Doesn't matter to me if anyone takes me seriously or not. Up to them. In a game that showers you in credits for nearly everything you do why the hell should we lift them up as some kind of high tier reward? Like I've been saying, pay for combat seems fine to me but that's because for me the thing itself is the reward. Credits are a bonus, at best.

But hey, you do you.
 
OP: Combat reward isn't worth the risk compared to the other jobs which are all easier

Other people: But I can earn twice as much in the same time and never be in much danger

OP: Apart from that
 
That is entirely untrue. Exploration is the safest in the game, Heck you can explore without shields and a lot of peeps do. That you elect to stay away form cash-in for weeks on end is a choice.

Which imbecile stays away for years?

Costs? How much is an Explorconda? How much is an Anaconda combat platform?

Combat pays well if you're good at it and do it often/long enough. It in no way is comparable to Exploration. If you are trying to insinuate that every jump you make in Exploration is a risk, then I'll just laugh. Yet every time you engage in combat is a ship risk.

I know I am not saying they should post the same, which is why, the player paying most and thereby risking the most, should get rewarded the most.

Jumping around like fly and pressing your honk button is not risk.

''Which imbecile stays away for years'' braking distance records or out there for filming

'' If you are trying to insinuate that every jump you make in Exploration is a risk, then I'll just laugh'' Not all jumps, but if your after the fast cash,in the danger zones... after flying out a long way, it can get very dicey

video
[video=youtube;Zx05AI3FlXQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zx05AI3FlXQ&feature=youtu.be[/video]

just clearing up on expo stuff. i don't know personally what the payout balance are like yet. I'm still finishing up a exploration run .. yet to really test combat and mining in 3.3
 
Just no, OP. Trolling or not, pls can we not give FD the idea they can fix combat by multiplying the payout and running. Or that combat is "high risk" for that matter. Hell noooo.

aid492800-v4-728px-Cope-With-a-Bad-Dog-Step-5-Version-2.jpg.webp

Because you can't find Raxxla with combat, it's boring and stupid

Everything but combat is boring and stupid.

There, I win. W00t!
 
Last edited:
Here's a quick breakdown of my earnings in various activities, this is mostly from memory, so may be wrong. Lol
My SLF pilots probably stole most of this too.
Most of this was done in various Anaconda's, except exploration.

Core Mining:
5 hours - 160~mil, or 32~mil an hour.
But very unpredictable.
Risk can be high depending on outfitting, mostly while traveling to sell cargo, or when dropping in to new hotspot.

Exploration (Short trip, no new discoveries):
1 Hour - 11~mil
No risk.

Bounty farming (No KWS):
1 Hour - 7~mil
Very low risk

Conflict Zone (High):
1 Hour - 1-2mil. (Rearm every 20 minutes).
Moderate to high risk.

Pirate Massacre Mission (Some stacking):
2 Hours - 26mil (not including bounties). 13m/hr.
Risk is low (targets are often weak)

I haven't done any actual trading for some time, and no mission, other than massacre, since 3.3.

As you can see, from my experience, CZ pay is pants. Lol
 
Here's a quick breakdown of my earnings in various activities, this is mostly from memory, so may be wrong. Lol
My SLF pilots probably stole most of this too.
Most of this was done in various Anaconda's, except exploration.

Core Mining:
5 hours - 160~mil, or 32~mil an hour.
But very unpredictable.
Risk can be high depending on outfitting, mostly while traveling to sell cargo, or when dropping in to new hotspot.

Exploration (Short trip, no new discoveries):
1 Hour - 11~mil
No risk.

Bounty farming (No KWS):
1 Hour - 7~mil
Very low risk

Conflict Zone (High):
1 Hour - 1-2mil. (Rearm every 20 minutes).
Moderate to high risk.

Pirate Massacre Mission (Some stacking):
2 Hours - 26mil (not including bounties). 13m/hr.
Risk is low (targets are often weak)

I haven't done any actual trading for some time, and no mission, other than massacre, since 3.3.

As you can see, from my experience, CZ pay is pants. Lol

With your payout, and rearm issue, I suspect you are not using an optimum load out for the task in a CZ. I am very suspect in that you don't mention the issue with Bounty Farming, in that they are virtually identical activities. Though, I will grant that targets in CZ's are more durable, but not harder to defeat.
 
Last edited:
With your payout, and rearm issue, I suspect you are not using an optimum load out for the task in a CZ. I am very suspect in that you don't mention the issue with Bounty Farming, in that they are virtually identical activities. Though, I will grant that targets in CZ's are more durable, but not harder to defeat.
I basically use the same ship for both bounty farming and CZs.

My trusty Anaconda. Lol
Uses beams and multies. Doesn't even have armour. Lol

Not the most efficient, I admit. But I hate re-outfitting. Lol

Bounty farming is quite different, you can pick every target, never get in over your head. And everything dies relatively quickly.
And pays more for the privilege!

CZs can sometimes go horribly wrong, unless you're in a god ship. Lol
But mostly the pay is low because TTK is high.
 
There are a number of things being considered facts in this thread that just aren't true.

Combat is not the activity that carries the most risk in this game - that crown belongs to long voyage Exploration. At no time in Combat or Trade are you risking days/weeks/months of time and progress every single time you log in. Unless, of course, you are the imbecile that only turns in vouchers every few months, or the other imbecile that flies a ship with a rebuy in the tens of millions on an income of 2 million credits per session. Even then, a death in Combat or Trade costs you minutes, but a death in Exploration can cost you weeks, months, or even years. It's not even close, man.

The Outfitting cost for taking part in any of the three pillars at a meaningful level is similar enough that it's not worth griping about. The gap widens as you get towards the higher end of whichever pillar you are pursuing, which is as it should be. Unless you are suggesting that the cost to Outfit a flying gas can for maximum Exploration and an Ultimate Death Machine for Combat should be the same? I hope you aren't suggesting that.

Combat does pay well if you are good at it. This includes knowing what ship(s) to use, what to do, and where/how to do it, just like the other two pillars. You seem to lack this knowledge despite playing the game for as long as you claim, and I would submit that perhaps this is coloring your perception.

I'm not sure that I've ever met a Commander who likes every single facet of this game. As such, I would say that every single Commander has to do things they don't really want to do, and jump through some hoops to achieve whatever goals they have set for themselves. Combat pilots are not unique in this regard. That said, Combat pilots do indeed get the shaft when it comes to Engineering as a whole, especially in terms of needed materials.

Riôt

I see what you mean. Long Exploration does sound like you lose more when exploring, I'm not going to argue that but I never said that Combat was the Highest risk activity either. I said "High-Risk". But Long exploration and short exploration are two different beasts.


Also Combat isn't just a "few minutes" of lost progress. Combat pilots don't sit in HAZ REZ for a few minutes, neither do ones in CZ's. I'd say the closes is Assassination Missions but with that being said, Assassin's get paid dirt compared to the other missions and activites and have to rely on RNG to give them the missions on top of that.


I disagree that outfitting, across all activites, is on the same level because combat focused internals and weapons in the game are the most expensive. This I know is true.
When I say "outfitting costs are high for combat" I'm speaking in the most general terms of the items in the game, not the "popular build", as Frontier put high costing items like Mirrored Surface Armor because they expect players to buy them (and armor can be more expensive then the ship they're for).


Combat doesn't pay well compared to the other, lower risk activites. I know this because all of the "Gold Rushes" have been passenger and trade focused. Then for explorations, we have the "road to riches" and the new modes for exploration only make it easier to grab money quick.

When I say "jump through hoops" don't mean in it the general terms, I mean it as
"Find system in war."
"Raise your rep with them (which can take a good while depending on RNG)
"Do the Combat focused missions"
Combat players shouldn't force themselves to a loop in order to make decent pay compared to the other activites, they should make good pay in general when compared. You see what I'm saying?


But then on the other hand, Once outfitted properly: Trade missions pay more for less effort and surface scan missions pay the same amount as an assassination missions for less effort. that's my issue.

If you're an explorer, you're doing what you want.
If you're trading, you're doing what you want.
If you're a Passenger Liner, you're doing what you want.
But with combat, you're "jumping through hoops" like the mission boards, other systems and minor factions to make "decent pay" that doesn't compare to the others, even if done properly. and don't get me started on piracy, PVP or Thargoid Hunting.
 
Last edited:
OP: Combat reward isn't worth the risk compared to the other jobs which are all easier

Other people: But I can earn twice as much in the same time and never be in much danger

OP: Apart from that

Well I guess I'm kind of playing favorites then if that's what I've sounded like.

but I'm not taking a singular experience to fact. I can't.
This is because another person could come in and refute your experience and who do I believe then?
I'm trying to looking at numbers and facts to support my claim as this is harder to refute.

Thargoid Hunting
CZ
Super-Cruise Bounty Hunting
Assassination missions
HAZ REZ
Wing Missions
Piracy

These are all "situational" combat activities, they take time and effort, in the general sense , to find and do.
If you can make decent money doing these then that's fine. but in the most Raw Form, and we're talking the common Combat pilot, these Combat activites does not stack up with the rest of the lower-risk Activites. These are not as predicatble to rely on as the other activites either. Does that makes sense or am I still talking for the sake of talking? I need to know where I lose you so we can have a decent discussion.
 
I see what you mean. Long Exploration does sound like you lose more when exploring, I'm not going to argue that but I never said that Combat was the Highest risk activity either. I said "High-Risk". But Long exploration and short exploration are two different beasts.


Also Combat isn't just a "few minutes" of lost progress. Combat pilots don't sit in HAZ REZ for a few minutes, neither do ones in CZ's. I'd say the closes is Assassination Missions but with that being said, Assassin's get paid dirt compared to the other missions and activites and have to rely on RNG to give them the missions on top of that.


I disagree that outfitting, across all activites, is on the same level because combat focused internals and weapons in the game are the most expensive. This I know is true.
When I say "outfitting costs are high for combat" I'm speaking in the most general terms of the items in the game, not the "popular build", as Frontier put high costing items like Mirrored Surface Armor because they expect players to buy them (and armor can be more expensive then the ship they're for).


Combat doesn't pay well compared to the other, lower risk activites. I know this because all of the "Gold Rushes" have been passenger and trade focused. Then for explorations, we have the "road to riches" and the new modes for exploration only make it easier to grab money quick.

When I say "jump through hoops" don't mean in it the general terms, I mean it as
"Find system in war."
"Raise your rep with them (which can take a good while depending on RNG)
"Do the Combat focused missions"
Combat players shouldn't force themselves to a loop in order to make decent pay compared to the other activites, they should make good pay in general when compared. You see what I'm saying?


But then on the other hand, Once outfitted properly: Trade missions pay more for less effort and surface scan missions pay the same amount as an assassination missions for less effort. that's my issue.

If you're an explorer, you're doing what you want.
If you're trading, you're doing what you want.
If you're a Passenger Liner, you're doing what you want.
But with combat, you're "jumping through hoops" like the mission boards, other systems and minor factions to make "decent pay" that doesn't compare to the others, even if done properly. and don't get me started on piracy, PVP or Thargoid Hunting.

This all seems like scatter-shot logic. Combat ships have the lowest hull costs, and outfitting costs the same for all endeavors. An A rated Distributor cost the same for all. Running around in an under-rated explorer just ups the risks of being caught out by a threat, which brings balance to the 'risk v reward' maths. This goes for hull upgrades too. A trader or bus driver running around with base armor, only adds to their risk, by choosing jump range over hull points. This all goes to the 'risk v reward' calculations that you insist on ignoring.

My cargo carrying K-MkII, a medium pad ship costs about 40% more in re-buy than my combat aChief another medium pad ship. And, that's with the K-MkII largely filled with cargo bins. The hull cost for a K-MkII is 42 mil while the aChief's cost is 18 mil. Less than half the cost. That is on purpose.

Those hoops you mention have to be jumped through by traders, passenger haulers, and miners as well. Any activity rewarded through missions face the exact same obstacles to get the best paying offers. Exploration is a different animal in this light, but the point stands.

Once again, the risk to a combat pilot is pretty low. An inexperienced trader has the same increase in risk as an inexperienced fighter. I really don't see a material issue with the balance of pay, although getting more per sorte never hurt any one. But, the argument offered here is pretty weak.
 
Last edited:
Doesn't matter to me if anyone takes me seriously or not. Up to them. In a game that showers you in credits for nearly everything you do why the hell should we lift them up as some kind of high tier reward? Like I've been saying, pay for combat seems fine to me but that's because for me the thing itself is the reward. Credits are a bonus, at best.

But hey, you do you.

You play and see things differently, so differently than I, that you're willing to admit that my definition of balanced pay isn't something that should be added to Elite.

But because you say "credits are a bonus" this also makes me believe that Combat Pay could be whatever and you wouldn't care, higher or lower. Is this true?

So if had to start over from the beginning of Elite Dangerous and the pay for combat were to be super buffed, or super nerfed, would you still stand where you stand and not really care? Just curious as I don't know where you are exactly.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom