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

[Sterling MH]

You only make those mistakes once or twice.

though in my case I won't go further than 3-5000 LY. Some ships are nice to get back into after a long absence. Just got back into my cobra3 after playing in the python for flipping AGES. The feel, though not as different as in X4, is still very evident, even if it doesn't appear to be THAT different according to the stats. But that ship won't fit an AFMU and about 10,000LY is as far as I can be bothered going if my FSD will start malfunctioning.

I did also find out the actual tip for minimising damage: go out of the end of the cone. Me I'd worked out the damage was least when I exited gently out along the edge of the cone, obliquely.

I disagree. I spent 12 months exploring. Doing 400 kly roundtrip of the galaxy in the DECE. A few times I could have been screwed, but it was mostly when I didn't plan refuel. Didn't die a single time.

Disagree about what? I already said 1% chance. You have only demonstrated less than 100%. What was at stake was 100x as much as a combat pilot or trader. Miners spend a couple of hours at a time, so they risk 3-5x as much as combat/trade.

However, I did get killed yesterday in a conflict zone. I didn't pay attention to how bad my damage was. It could've been avoided, but I most definitely a better explorer than combat pilot.

Target fixation. Try to dislocate yourself from the target and stop directing your gaze and you'll find you can now see it all. Old martial technique.

I do too. But not because exploration is dangerous, but because it's just too much work going back. It does take a couple of days usually. Even so, I've done some thousand hours exploring. Didn't die once.

So? 1%, remember. And I've been out and earned nearly dangerous rank combat and I usually drive a trader-optimised multirole, most of that unengineered or G3 at best. And still despite a few hundred sorties only died three times. I'd posited 10% chance.

Not sure what your point is.

That those who want to proclaim combat the proof of size of their swing only take the %chance part of the risk equation, not the value lost. Because once presented with that they don't WANT to know. It ruins their self perception and/or their argument.

And for pointing out the other half of the risk equation I get told I'm talking or "Not sure what your point is".
Yet I've never said that the value at risk is the only important thing. Despite this, I get treated like I have. Kinda hypocritical.

I think arguing risk/reward is useless, because traders and miners are the ones to risk losing the most without proper defense, unless they trade/mine using a combat ship.

Well sorta. They have a lot to lose and are nearby to lose it all for a longer proportion. But still only 20 minutes work or a couple of hours risked, compared to 40-60 hours. If you're going to ignore half of the risk equation, so will I.

Exploration is one of the most risk free things you can do in Elite

Nope. Explorers even on the R2R risk 10-20 hours of play and 15 million credits. Combat pilots risk 20 minutes and a million credits. Traders risk several million and 20 minutes, whilst miners risk several million and around 2 hours.

Explorers have the riskiest job.

If you're going to ignore half of the risk equation, so will I.

 

[Havvk]

You will only know this for certain if you kill all the NPCs and none of them have notes detailing Raxxla's location in any of their orifices when you examine the remains.

What good is that when there's nobody left to share the news with so I can have the glory of finding the greatest mystery since 1984?

 

[Han Zulu]

Nope. Explorers even on the R2R risk 10-20 hours of play and 15 million credits. Combat pilots risk 20 minutes and a million credits. Traders risk several million and 20 minutes, whilst miners risk several million and around 2 hours.

Explorers have the riskiest job.

I think this is what's confusing between us. Work, to me, isn't the same as "risk". I don't call effort, work, job, doing things being something risky. Risk is the probability or chance of losing something valuable. I guess you consider your time spent in the game as valuable, and therefore playing (doing that time) is then losing that time and therefore you "risked" it. But to me, that's a extreme stretch of the definition and use of the word. But, fair enough, that's how you see it. I won't argue with you. We just disagree.

 

[Sterling MH]

I think this is what's confusing between us. Work, to me, isn't the same as "risk"

Not to me either. But when you risk LOSING work, THEN risk becomes a thing that exists. 100% chance of losing nothing? No risk. Correct? And you can put your life on a bet on how many sides a square has on the "it has 4" number, and again, there is no risk. 100% of everything 0% chance of losing it. No risk.

So when you say explorers have the least risk, you're ignoring the "work". You know, the stuff you actually lose IF something bad happens.

If you're going to ignore the work as it "doesn't count", then I will ignore the chances, as they don't count.

What's confusing?

That I'm using your method but applying it where you do not, therefore you realise the method is wrong but not when you do it?

 

[Han Zulu]

Not to me either. But when you risk LOSING work, THEN risk becomes a thing that exists. 100% chance of losing nothing? No risk. Correct? And you can put your life on a bet on how many sides a square has on the "it has 4" number, and again, there is no risk. 100% of everything 0% chance of losing it. No risk.

So when you say explorers have the least risk, you're ignoring the "work". You know, the stuff you actually lose IF something bad happens.

If you're going to ignore the work as it "doesn't count", then I will ignore the chances, as they don't count.

What's confusing?

That I'm using your method but applying it where you do not, therefore you realise the method is wrong but not when you do it?

I left the keyboard for a bit and had a think about it, and I think I know what it is that you're trying to tell me.

Let me rephrase it in my words. The explorer, especially the one who goes for a longer expedition (like I've done), will gather a lot of scan data that is valuable because it reflect his/her effort and time spent on gathering it. This is at risk when they jump through neutron stars etc (which can be avoided easily), and can encounter other dangers that could risk the data he/she has. I can agree on that, however, neutron star isn't the best example. Some better examples would be landing on high-g planets, or even worse... coming back, ready to check in your data, but you're flying in Open and a griefer interdicts you and takes you out and all that data is lost. All that time for nothing. Now... that would hurt... a lot!

So I can agree the explorer isn't risk free. The data that represents his/her effort is at risk at all times, and it's actually worth a lot more personally than many of the other things in the game. Losing some credits (can be gained back by some work) or losing a ship (buy a new one), rarely it's as painful as losing days, weeks, maybe months of exploration that you now won't be flagged as "first discovery by" on.

 

[Mako The Grey]

Planetside

Also, why aren't there any combat missions/USSs to fight ships planetside? like wars and such next to a planetary base or canyon?

You can go over to the Bug Killer crashed Anaconda in HIP 16613 and combat Thargioids of many varieties planet-side. It really is a lot of fun and can be really tricky. Bring a full wallet for re-buys if you're in the mood

 

[tolm]

I made over 50 million credits in around 2 hours today, stacking “kill <x> pirates” missions - with 25-30 kills paying 10-15 million credits or so. Is it the quickest way to get rich? Probably not but it seems to be a decent earner now and is a nice change from lucrative (but dull) “deliver 180T of <x> for 3 million” which was my previous “cash cow” content.

 

[Sterling MH]

IThis is at risk when they jump through neutron stars etc (which can be avoided easily), and can encounter other dangers that could risk the data he/she has. I can agree on that, however, neutron star isn't the best example. Some better examples would be landing on high-g planets, or even worse... coming back, ready to check in your data, but you're flying in Open and a griefer interdicts you and takes you out and all that data is lost. All that time for nothing. Now... that would hurt... a lot!

You can be slaughtered by an NPC too. But, basically, yes, there has to be "work" *at risk" for there to be ANY risk.

So both parts of the equation has to be assessed for anyone to proclaim "this gameplay is the riskiest".

Like you i don't ascribe to "Risk" being of any use. Mostly because it's been so ised to support whoever wanted their preferred playstyle to "be best". And for games, where literally nothing is at risk, not even the time spent playing since this is what you bought the game for, it's best to kick the idea out of conversation and just talk about reward.

As a clear example, Dark Souls has a 100% chance of dying. And, unlike sandbox games like Elite, has an actual story or progression or campaign to see before you have gotten your game's worth. But it makes no sense to talk about risk because the FACT of this certain loss of time is irrelevant at worst because it leads to playing the game, and the entire g-d point because overcoming the obstacle is the dopamine hit you're looking for in this game.

So combat needs to be rewarding.

NOT reward credits. And I've said many times why not: if you have to trade to pay for the combat, then this increases the diversity, especially among those who do combat enough to "git gud" as the scrubs put it.

So I see the changes to CZs being much more challenging as one way to make it rewarding. With the other sources of combat being training and CZ's being a test, overcoming it is the reward. Better pilot AI (without the game being a cheating bstarred) would also be a reward, and not require any payouts, just a way to run if you are not up to the challenge, but enough easier encounters so that you don't feel like the game is deliberately picking on you.

A good AI would be a replacement for any player for Open PvP too. If putting a hollow square around such an NPC would lead to nobody knowing it was AI, then why not TRY putting some "CMDR" markings out as NPCs and let the PvP crowd enjoy "PvP" being more target rich.

CQC should have been proof that chance of failure and "risk v reward" was a nonstarter argument. There's nothing to lose, but it was abandoned because there was no (monetar) yreward. The "risk" being zero did not matter then. And when so few stayed back, it died because nobody could get a match.

If combat were 10x more fun, would you REALLY mind if you could only spend a third of the time doing it because you needed to earn credits by finding the next "Gold rush" or run R2R again?

So risk is worse than pointless, it covers up the actual arguments and allows for conflation.

Reward has conflation problems too, but it is less prone to self-serving rephrasing.

 

[Morbad]

And for games, where literally nothing is at risk, not even the time spent playing since this is what you bought the game for, it's best to kick the idea out of conversation and just talk about reward.

Risk and reward are inseparable. Risk, or at least the perception of it, is much of the reward.

Past a certain point, if nothing is at stake in combat, there is little to be gained. The greatest reward from combat would be overcoming risk in such a manner that renders the opponent so thoroughly defeated that the risk they chanced, and then suffered, puts them out of the running forever...and knowing that the same could have happened to me if I was on the losing end. Of course, the latter reward isn't possible without an ironman mode or the like.

A good AI would be a replacement for any player for Open PvP too.

Sure, but we aren't there yet.

CQC should have been proof that chance of failure and "risk v reward" was a nonstarter argument.

Not unless you think your perception of a majority opinion is some singular truth and that nothing else could possibly matter.

There's nothing to lose, but it was abandoned because there was no (monetar) yreward. The "risk" being zero did not matter then. And when so few stayed back, it died because nobody could get a match.

Having no context and no risk largely made CQC a grind in an attempt for me to get that permit it offered...which I've largely given up on as progress is painfully slow with the current population levels.

I did like CTF, despite the only risk being failure to win a match, but it also had a more definable objective.

If combat were 10x more fun, would you REALLY mind if you could only spend a third of the time doing it because you needed to earn credits by finding the next "Gold rush" or run R2R again?

So risk is worse than pointless, it covers up the actual arguments and allows for conflation.

Those statements strike me as being in direct opposition.

Combat cannot be dramatically more fun as long as it is low risk. The flight mechanisms could get better, the weapon vs. defenses balance could improve, but without risks to confront and overcome the whole motivation for it is lacking. Only by playing my character in a rather narrow way can I credibly engineer the risks required for me to extract some of the enjoyment I crave from it as is. Combat for it's own sake will always be less meaningful than combat with a goal behind it, and I'll likely always consider survival the highest goal possible. As long as my CMDR's own survival isn't at stake, much potential enjoyment is left on the table. As long as the survival of my CMDR's enemies isn't at stake, much of the incentive to fight them is lacking.

As for requiring gold rushes or R2R (I had to look up the latter), I've never bothered with them before because money has never been an obstacle. My CMDR has enough credits on hand for me to do nothing in this game, except combat, for the rest of my natural life, even if combat paid zero and it would have to pay nearly zero to not be profitable because the lack of risk means the cost of combat is near zero.

 

[Tariousx]

Who knows maybe combat will get a nice pass like Exp and Mining did. I can generally say that most mission do seem to be on a lower scale overall, granted you will still find some really good ones from time to time.

 

[da_wae]

Sorry, mate. Blaze your own trail an' that.

Sounds like he didn't use an exploit at all. [haha]

 

[Sooden]

You're out exploring with no shields. I have absolutely no sympathy for you.

And let's keep the bold white text to a minimum ok? I'm fluent in English, I don't need you to bold what I typed, in some vague hope of drawing more attention to it.

what the? i made them stand out as they where quotes no other reason,makes it easier to see the quote and my text response (*1) . but okay, can i used italics instead?

You have to find something to attack me for. very strange...

And i have shields, i just don't have them on in space, only for landing. Having shield in super-cruise has no benefit to safety... when running a A2 power-plant on an anaconda; Have to pick if i want my guardian booster on (for extra jumps) or my shields on (for landing) *2

I gave input form my area of game play and you got all salty

as for the latter text in bold.. that is important to make it stand out a little. As it state i don't really know anything about the combat payout situation. (Still, when you cant attack the argument, you attack the formatting of my post. nice one : )

*1) it's irritating when people pick on such things, show they don't think about other's. I use line spacing paragraphing and other methods to brake up text as i understand other may have a harder time seeing text (having worked with such people)

*2) what they said

Just FYI, For explorers, the only time a shield makes a difference is when he/she lands on a planet. Most explorers have a shield installed, but run with it turned off because it doesn't protect from heat or space-dust. The only other time would be if they're interdicted, but then, most explorers are too far away from home-bubble.

The bold text was not about you, nor was it some underhand insult, sadly you saw it that way. Maybe you need to think about that?

Accepted. But how many out of all the stars you have jumped to, have been Neutron stars? Or stars that might kill you? I've been playing since day 1, and have never even come close to dying while exploring. Though I will accept I'm no 'explorer'.

about 40% and 40% black holes, an that the rest is a mix of normal and other exotics. there are areas of space packed with them, 5 ly apart. That's where i go for the interesting stuff, that's where the risk is. Not here to fight with anyone, just giving my input on a subject i know

image. remembering that the plot map only show a range around the selected are, but there are 1000s of light-years like that, in continuous area (one big mistake and its all over... like when i lost 2 weeks of data from a bad landing )

Spoiler

 

[sollisb]

How about YOU show me 1bn mining in 90 minutes yourself? I bet you can't do it.

Combat is a middle-of-the-road activity with middle-of-the-road results and I'm saying that's fine. So I don't need to show you results comparable to the most extreme outcome of the most optimized mining run with the best luck and an already perfectly identified set of circumstances and locations. If 1bn in 90 were the average amount that any random doofus automatically made just by showing up in any planetary ring, then yeah that's a problem. But you're pointing at a particularly successful haul in the midst of a gold rush, and then saying "hey look how much money people get JUST for digging a hole! The pay rate for combat should be raised because soldiers deserve more money than ditch diggers."

Mining at least in its new incarnation, is supposed to be a highly specialized high volatility activity. Show me 1bn exploration in 90 minutes, show me 1bn passenger payouts in 90min, show me 1bn exploration in 90min.

Or better yet start pirating miners.

Less with the demands there Tonto. I hear what you're saying, but let me ask you this; Have you ever, in the history of Elite Dangerous heard of any combat player making that kind of credits in 90 mins? I've been around and used/misused every single rush there was, from slaves to volley boom. And none of them came close to that, not even nearly close. So stop with the exactness. We both know players are making millions and millions just by 'turning up' now. And I have zero problem with that! Best of luck to them, let them fill their boots with credits I say.

That in no way infers that Combat is in any way equating to the other branches in the Elite tree. There is nothing 'specialised' or indeed 'volatile' in mining never mind 'highly'.

Why would I pirate miners? Give me 20% ? I can the 20% quicker. mining it myself!!

And no, I cannot do 1bn in 90 minutes, because since the 3.3 drop my connections are ! Judging from the 44 Diamonds I did manage to get last night, I certainly would be over 50% of it and I'm a goof learner.

I don't care what others are earning and how much work they put in and how big their ship is. I would just prefer an equality across the different facets. You don't, fine. I respect that. How ever don't come on here and make demands on me. When we both know you're clutching at straws to justify it. Could I make 500m in 90 minutes? I believe I could as a complete noob. Find rock, blow it up and send in the collectors. Could I make 500m in 90 doing combat? Not a chance! Forgetting about risk altogether, the credit balance is a complete and utter shambles.

I love the new mining! Best thing they ever coded and implemented bar none. That's what mining should have been from the start. And more, I have yet to find a bug. Huge kudos to the team there. Alas their great work is diminished by the travesty of a deployment. And I simply will not accept, oh but Ben it was a very large deployment! Large deployments demand larger testing and larder QA teams, unless you want to look like amateurs.

I'm happy to accept that for some, combat is zero risk and they're happy out with their earnings. And being honest, I'm fast losing patience with this game with all it's disconnects and server failures. So yeh, ignore me, I'm on a rant, and I'm old

Happy Christmas to you and yours

o7

 

[sollisb]

what the? i made them stand out as they where quotes no other reason,makes it easier to see the quote and my text response (*1) . but okay, can i used italics instead?

You have to find something to attack me for. very strange...

And i have shields, i just don't have them on in space, only for landing. Having shield in super-cruise has no benefit to safety... when running a A2 power-plant on an anaconda; Have to pick if i want my guardian booster on (for extra jumps) or my shields on (for landing) *2

I gave input form my area of game play and you got all salty

as for the latter text in bold.. that is important to make it stand out a little. As it state i don't really know anything about the combat payout situation. (Still, when you cant attack the argument, you attack the formatting of my post. nice one : )

*1) it's irritating when people pick on such things, show they don't think about other's. I use line spacing paragraphing and other methods to brake up text as i understand other may have a harder time seeing text (having worked with such people)

*2) what they said


The bold text was not about you, nor was it some underhand insult, sadly you saw it that way. Maybe you need to think about that?



about 40% and 40% black holes, an that the rest is a mix of normal and other exotics. there are areas of space packed with them, 5 ly apart. That's where i go for the interesting stuff, that's where the risk is. Not here to fight with anyone, just giving my input on a subject i know

image. remembering that the plot map only show a range around the selected are, but there are 1000s of light-years like that, in continuous area

Sorry. There was no need to blind me or anyone else with the bolded text. It was first thing I saw and the first thing I commented on. If I offended you, my sincere apologies. /sarcasm

You stated you know nothing about the combat payout situation.

Have a good Christmas!
o7

 

[sollisb]

Who knows maybe combat will get a nice pass like Exp and Mining did. I can generally say that most mission do seem to be on a lower scale overall, granted you will still find some really good ones from time to time.

39m for 64 massacre targets last night.. Got to 24 and then constant disconnects
Gave up and played Farm Simulator.

 

[fus roh potato]

Chap yesterday made 1.2bn mining over the course of 1.5hrs.

I challenge you to make 1bn in Combat in 90 mins. It's ok.. I'll wait..

I did this yesterday as well. First time I ever tried the new mining and I had 160 million in just 45 minutes. Took me a little while to figure out what the rock looked like so that I didn't have to check every single one with a prospector but I'd suspect next time I could shrink it down to 15 minutes. I like it because there's some skill involved with really cranking out efficiency. Blow passed a rock with a clipper at 500m/s looking for visual signs of fissures and ripping off towards the next.

Yet I just don't see why easy things pay so well while more difficult (even if still easy) pay less. The new mining is definitely more involved and engaging than the old but it still doesn't compare to exercising combat skills. It's not just credits either. Across the board, all the missions and activities in the game seem to have completely randomized payouts with very little balance consideration. It's such a foolish thing to do to a game. I can look at the board and see two nearly identical cargo missions, except one of them is illegal smuggling and pays 1/4th. Like ok.

At this rate, they may as well add another reward option for missions that simply says pride and accomplishment+++.

 

[Sterling MH]

If risk and reward is so adamantly tied together then if there's no risk, no reward. So how about making no rebuy cost and having combat produce zero credits, then it's all fine, yes? No, don't say no. If it's no, then that means that risk and reward are not tied not even strongly correlated. Trading and exploration all can lose something other than rebuy, so they still deserve payouts. But combat gets nothing. NPC kills get you combat rank, nothing else.

And if gameplay is not a reward, then I don't want to hear about missing the gameplay in open with players and excitement. Apparently that is not a reward. And anyone who does I want to see you kick down the claims of those who insist on pretending that somehow we're missing out on gameplay, since that is not a reward or point of playing.

 

[sollisb]

If risk and reward is so adamantly tied together then if there's no risk, no reward. So how about making no rebuy cost and having combat produce zero credits, then it's all fine, yes? No, don't say no. If it's no, then that means that risk and reward are not tied not even strongly correlated. Trading and exploration all can lose something other than rebuy, so they still deserve payouts. But combat gets nothing. NPC kills get you combat rank, nothing else.

And if gameplay is not a reward, then I don't want to hear about missing the gameplay in open with players and excitement. Apparently that is not a reward. And anyone who does I want to see you kick down the claims of those who insist on pretending that somehow we're missing out on gameplay, since that is not a reward or point of playing.

Yep if the rebuy is 0, the the risk is basically noghint but time. So, let's remove all rebuys and all rewards, clean all credits and just play for the fun of it?

I do have to recant some of my earlier comments in relation to reward. With the new re-enterable USS I made over 100m in a short space of time. So maybe it's getting better. I did have to laugh tho at the mobs running away before they'd even been fired on. Never saw that before in an MMO.

o7

 

[Sterling MH]

Yep if the rebuy is 0, the the risk is basically noghint but time. So, let's remove all rebuys and all rewards, clean all credits and just play for the fun of it?

Continue reading. I said that trading and exploring risk losing something more than the rebuy screen. So they get to keep profits. They HAVE risk.

And, unlike combaters, they haven't bemoaned the cost of rebuy. PvPers have. They're also the ones claiming that risk and reward ARE 100% THE SAME THING, inextricably tied. They're not, but that's the mantra. They're usually used in place of reward. See the "jokes" about the more boring the game loop, the better it pays in Elite. Then continue to read up to the bit about Dark Souls and what reward is.

Don't cherry pick what suits your personal ideologies and then pretend you've somehow got an ally.

And I will point out too that you haven't accepted this change to no rebuy therefore combat brings no pay, you just tried to flip it on others "I will eat this doggie doo-doo sarnie if YOU will!!!".

Doesn't work that way.

 

[BL1P]

Without using any exploits.
Examples :-
No board hopping.
No instance resetting.
No stacking of more than max 3 missions.

Without using any exploits, Combat was the best earner per hour, for a long long time.
Now though the worst earner since release "Mining" is doing well (maybe too well), but at least you can make some money at it now.
Exploration is paying well and is engaging.
Trades the same.
Combats the same.

Seems to me all they have done is increase the lowest payed trades.