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

[Sterling MH]

Exploring only paid well per hour if you invested a lot of time in one sitting. Like mining was 3 mil/hr, but exploring was more like 100k/hour^2. So if you put an hour in, you got 100k/hr. If you put 10 hours in, you got 1m/h. Put 100 hours in and you got 10m/hr. You saddled yourself with a long set of playing ONLY explorer, no surcease, and you got paid a lot for it, but it paid poorly if you didn't sign up for it and did "casual explorer".

 

[fus roh potato]

It's not just about risk and what you have to lose but also the nuance, skill, and effort involved in the activity. Fly A-to-B activity is entry level and shouldn't be beating the pants off complex activity in terms of reward.

A player should have the opportunity to be more successful by stepping their game up, but this is no good when the easiest activity is one of the best paying.

I remember when hauling slaves out of Robigo cost me a lot of wasted time and effort when I failed to run away from a scan. Avoiding scans required developing and employing methods, so it made sense that it was a well paying activity. But now standard delivery missions typically pay 4 times more than smuggles and I'm not even talking about wing source, which can be 40x higher.

 

[Sooden]

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

yes i stated i know nothing about the payout situation (yet, just got back to the bobble, and its a mess right now in 3.3). we have now confirmed it 3 time. i don't get why you stated that.

I was addressing a statement you made and i think you took it as an attack (it was not). when all i was doing was joining in by giving information i had, that was relevant to the discussion.

you asked 'Which imbecile stays away for years', note nice way task, maybe it was even rhetorical, and just a jab at anyone that stays out? but i explained why someone would. not as an attack (But it was in bold >< ) (Obsidian, The Canadian from the bro-cast and some unnamed heros)

you stated 'If you are trying to insinuate that every jump you make in Exploration is a risk, then I'll just laugh' and i know i had just taken a recording of a risky jump, so i addressed this, explain some jumps are risky...(just takes on really big mess up and bang.. you can't just get back in the game, you lost it all. neutrons are a killer ><)

I was adding information to the discussion, but not taking a side on it, as i don't know who is correct. I would like to know, so i have been reading, and if i felt i could add something useful, so i did.

Not attacking on anyone.Maybe i'm out of date and bold text is now offensive, if that is the case, for that i am sorry, and can understand the confusion (not being sarcastic)

It was important to state my position on payout, so people knew i was just clearing up exploration information.

I found your post strangely aggressive, but maybe it was just advice on how i could format my text, and not an attack, and i got the wrong end of the stick?

I have taken on board what you have said about my text formatting and will improve my post,and i hope others found my post about exploration informative or at least interesting.

 

[TrailBlazer 143]

yes i stated i know nothing about the payout situation (yet, just got back to the bobble, and its a mess right now in 3.3). we have now confirmed it 3 time. i don't get why you stated that.

I was addressing a statement you made and i think you took it as an attack (it was not). when all i was doing was joining in by giving information i had, that was relevant to the discussion.

you asked 'Which imbecile stays away for years', note nice way task, maybe it was even rhetorical, and just a jab at anyone that stays out? but i explained why someone would. not as an attack (But it was in bold >< ) (Obsidian, The Canadian from the bro-cast and some unnamed heros)

you stated 'If you are trying to insinuate that every jump you make in Exploration is a risk, then I'll just laugh' and i know i had just taken a recording of a risky jump, so i addressed this, explain some jumps are risky...(just takes on really big mess up and bang.. you can't just get back in the game, you lost it all. neutrons are a killer ><)

I was adding information to the discussion, but not taking a side on it, as i don't know who is correct. I would like to know, so i have been reading, and if i felt i could add something useful, so i did.

Not attacking on anyone.Maybe i'm out of date and bold text is now offensive, if that is the case, for that i am sorry, and can understand the confusion (not being sarcastic)

It was important to state my position on payout, so people knew i was just clearing up exploration information.

I found your post strangely aggressive, but maybe it was just advice on how i could format my text, and not an attack, and i got the wrong end of the stick?

I have taken on board what you have said about my text formatting and will improve my post,and i hope others found my post about exploration informative or at least interesting.

Thank you for being informative and giving your opinion on the matter with the information you were given and keeping it relevant.(someone tried to tie this discussion to real life...) Also, thank you for not being a complete and utter **** as well.

 

[sollisb]

yes i stated i know nothing about the payout situation (yet, just got back to the bobble, and its a mess right now in 3.3). we have now confirmed it 3 time. i don't get why you stated that.

I was addressing a statement you made and i think you took it as an attack (it was not). when all i was doing was joining in by giving information i had, that was relevant to the discussion.

you asked 'Which imbecile stays away for years', note nice way task, maybe it was even rhetorical, and just a jab at anyone that stays out? but i explained why someone would. not as an attack (But it was in bold >< ) (Obsidian, The Canadian from the bro-cast and some unnamed heros)

you stated 'If you are trying to insinuate that every jump you make in Exploration is a risk, then I'll just laugh' and i know i had just taken a recording of a risky jump, so i addressed this, explain some jumps are risky...(just takes on really big mess up and bang.. you can't just get back in the game, you lost it all. neutrons are a killer ><)

I was adding information to the discussion, but not taking a side on it, as i don't know who is correct. I would like to know, so i have been reading, and if i felt i could add something useful, so i did.

Not attacking on anyone.Maybe i'm out of date and bold text is now offensive, if that is the case, for that i am sorry, and can understand the confusion (not being sarcastic)

It was important to state my position on payout, so people knew i was just clearing up exploration information.

I found your post strangely aggressive, but maybe it was just advice on how i could format my text, and not an attack, and i got the wrong end of the stick?

I have taken on board what you have said about my text formatting and will improve my post,and i hope others found my post about exploration informative or at least interesting.

I did find your post to be informative, and yes the needless bolding of my own quote annoyed me. But that was not the reason for being really annoyed. That I put down to the 'I Win' mechanic of exploration now, and you saying it was more risky than combat, and admitting you knew not a lot about it.

I am in no way, in your league when it comes to Exploration. I even said I respect players like you that stay out for months, jumping from system to system. I can't do it. I'd throw the PC and monitor out the window in frustration.

Any exploration I have done, has as much risk as me deciding which side of the pillow I prefer. Oh I get that jumping into a neutron star is bad, but then, I have never jumped into a neutron star and been fried. I've always managed somehow to navigate out of the corona. I did blow myself up learning the FSD overcharge mechanic, but I put that down to my stupidity. As for the black holes.. As a noob I decided I wanted to see a black hole. The galactic type you mention. So I got the location of one and set out. Reached it and was impressed by the pretty graphics and I flew around a bit and took some screenies. That was it. At no time did i feel, Whoah! I could lose my rebuy here!

But the real reasoning I gathered from you, was the data. You stay out weeks/months? on end gather data, and then when you do decide to come back, some NPC can blow your ship up and lose it all. I get that, I understand that. And that's why, I always explore in a ship than can run fast.

As for the imbecile comment.. I really cannot stress enough that to me, staying away for a year! And then coming back to reality, is silly! Note the 'to me' I cannot understand it. Especially if your ship is such that it cannot run away. I'd be more inclined to have a ship that can stand up to the average NPC or at worst run away. Which, bring me back full circle to the start. I stated that it was your choice to stay away, and the longer you decided to stay away, the more risk you heaped on yourself.

We're going in circles, about a game. It's Christmas, let's agree to disagree. These are game forums, not reality and really, everyone's a mouth piece looking to be heard, and I say that very much inclusive of myself.

Happy Christmas, Give your family some time, and enjoy the holidays. Some randomer on the internet getting angsy about text formatting is not the end of the world.

o7

 

[Sterling MH]

Combat has as much risk as deciding which bit of toast to eat first. Just load up resistances and SCBs and I can ALWAYS just wake out, don't even need to high wake, and I'm safe. Meanwhile AFMUs need to be carried if you're an explorer. If it is supposed to be safe, why is that? And I've nearly died appearing between two close binary stars. Heat sinks are needed. If that isn't creating risk, what is it creating?

 

[Sooden]

..That I put down to the 'I Win' mechanic of exploration now, and you saying it was more risky than combat, and admitting you knew not a lot about it...
o7

Never said that, just balanced the discussion. explaining that 'some jumps', showing there was risk. different type of risk.

Never found NPCs to be an issue (just go out with out any cargo or bounties).

Happy to drop this, as its not the main area of discussion on the subject, but don't put words in my mouth, else i have to respond. As do you when you feel i'm saying things relating to you, that you disagree with.
--------

More related to the topic at hand. I am getting a chance to have a shoot around the bubble in 3.3 and it feels more challenging than it did in the prior version (maybe i'm out of practice) but i'm yet to test payouts as system state where rest (so no pirate zones near me, working on that .. so many innocent deaths)

As for knowing about combat, i know a few things but that all pre 3.3 and i hear payout of missions have been changed.

 

[Sooden]

Combat has as much risk as deciding which bit of toast to eat first. Just load up resistances and SCBs and I can ALWAYS just wake out, don't even need to high wake, and I'm safe. Meanwhile AFMUs need to be carried if you're an explorer. If it is supposed to be safe, why is that? And I've nearly died appearing between two close binary stars. Heat sinks are needed. If that isn't creating risk, what is it creating?

Reminds me of my first trip out to beagle point (think that's the spelling) heading back from there with 4% hull ><. I learnt to take a AFMU after that (don't know if they where in the game when i did it). still little mistakes add up (also, i was unskilled)

exploration is a lot safer than it used to be (shame, felt more rewarding knowing people where dying out there ).

The risk in combat or exploration seem to be down to choice, but the reward for that choice, its is balanced?

Example; i can go out in a shield tank, and just farm in a rez zone and the risk is low (not a fan of big ships, so i just use my fighter )

..But you can go into a CZ with a hull tank FAS and kills fast, but the risk is more (so is the fun, i love the panic of exiting at 20% or less hull).

 

[Sterling MH]

The risk in combat or exploration seem to be down to choice, but the reward for that choice, its is balanced?

According to the combat crowd, definitely.

AGAIN, stop conflating reward with credit balances.

And here's a thing: if you can spend all your time in combat even if you're not very good at it, then everyone will be dressed for combat: doing otherwise is a recipe for disaster.

But I'll make one point out again, those fluffing combat don't seem capable of making up their mind. They say there's no risk in every other activity when they're trying to get more credits or plaudits from the public, but they'll say there's no risk in playing as a trader because winning interdiction is easy and surviving losing that and high waking is easy if you "design your ship properly". Which is it? Safe or hard? Because if a trader can leap out of a losing situation, so can combat pilots. There's certainly a lot of complaints about how there's too many hitpoints now and every target is just leaving via HW. That says to me that there's only risk if you play risky. And that's the same as every other profession. Don't buy heatsinks? You may explode for no fault of your own, just the geometry of binary stars.

I guess one difference is that if you're in combat you end up on 20% hull because you "failed", a learning experience and a test of your skill in which you came up short, whilst if you die as a result of a jump or because someone killed you in 3 seconds, your skill had nothing to do with it, you had no choice and no effect on it. Look how menulogging enrages combat afficionados: the only thing they can possibly lose on their side is the expression of their choices in the game. They don't get a choice if someone just leaves the game.

 

[Sooden]

.
AGAIN, stop conflating reward with credit balances.

.

i'm not. just hoping to shine a bit of light on the idea of risk and reward. People are seeing different risks in different areas, and what is risk, well its not the dying, its what you lose or gain, and what you up on the line.

This can include, fun, credits, discoveries, BGS and so on (as has been covered in the topic). Yes this thread is about payout, but it has not been my point to agree that payouts are the only reward. I have address risk.

11 days out in the black, with a lot of time on elite in each session (had put time aside) and came back with 400mill. Not much really for the time spend, but my reward was tagging planets and getting some 'Reported by' in the new system. (and before the exploration payout buff, it was still worth it, to me.. but saw that other people where unhappy with the payouts, and they had a fair point, relating to their way of playing the game)

I'm not on a side (yet ). what i am doing is adding my thoughts where i can, to get answers. I'm working from what had been said already.


just a side note... the 20% hull, never a mistake that's when i leave. I use the FAS 5th hard point, i ram. If i run out of ammo and have hull, i stay in the fight, the repair cost are very reasonable (so are the rebuys, but death only happen in PvP)

ADDED: at the moment, i am taking out authority vessels.. zero payout, but it works on the BGS and it fun... so is rewarding, worth the risk.

 

[Sterling MH]

i'm not. just hoping to shine a bit of light on the idea of risk and reward. People are seeing different risks in different areas, and what is risk, well its not the dying, its what you lose or gain, and what you up on the line.

You start talking "risk and reward" then only mention risk.

This can include, fun, credits, discoveries, BGS and so on (as has been covered in the topic). Yes this thread is about payout, but it has not been my point to agree that payouts are the only reward. I have address risk.

Then be more explicit. Most of the claims have either left it empty or just flat out said "MOAR CREDITS!".

Moreover, since you asserted "kills faster" in a CZ, that ONLY matters if either

a) actually fighting is boring, you want more wins per hour
or
b) since you get credits for kills you're saying more credits per hour

I don't buy (a) and (b) only has credits as the reward you were thinking of. Sure you haven't SAID more credits, but look up the term "dogwhistle".

11 days out in the black, with a lot of time on elite in each session (had put time aside) and came back with 400mill. Not much really for the time spend,

A thing those who want more credits per hour as their "fun" metric is that you spend a lot of hours to do it, and if you're cherry picking the R2R, then you spend most of your time going out and coming back and you only get that 15 mil/hr if you ignore the 20-40 hours spent earning 100k/hr to get out there for a few hours earning 15 mil./hr.

Note again that it's coming back to credits when we're talking rewarding gameplay.

just a side note... the 20% hull, never a mistake that's when i leave.

To quote a Split military doctrine (See the X series of games): there's no need for shields if you never get hit. Mistake is not a good word, but there's just no other word for it. You go in to a fight and think you will win. You bug out because you were mistaken. Root word of mistaken is "mistake".

 

[Jmanis]

Just curious, what's "high risk" about taking a ship armed-to-the-teeth to a fight?

The one activity I'd call "higher risk" (not necessarily high risk) is Wing Assassination missions. That's the only activity I can't do reliably, but others can because they're just better pilots than me. Beyond that, Massacre, Assassination, Skimmers, Base Assault, Disable Megaship Turrets, they're all cake when you have high-end gear.

Illegal assassinations tend to be higher risk, as you get notoriety for killing escorts. Great if you don't care about it, but the difficulty goes up massively if you're trying to avoid that.... and the reward here is "not getting notoriety".

And while the risk could be tuned up a degree for other activities, what's higher risk? Getting into a slog with a deadly anaconda when you're in your battleconda, or getting into a slog with that same ship, when you're a mostly-unarmed/unarmored hauler? And as for exploration, while the new rewards are great, I can still outstrip those rewards faster doing combat *if* I take the credit rewards.

On another note, there's a lot (too many) threads about Conflict Zones not paying out enough. The reward isn't credits; it's winning the war. If you look at any mission, taking influence rewards *always* cuts the credit reward by around 60-80%, up to =~ 4m credit deduction.

In my opinion, ED needs to do more of this sort of non-monetary reward. Credits are all well and good, but frankly the *real* rewards are influence, rep, materials and data. But Rep is virtually meaningless, mats and data ephemeral, and influence only relevant if you care about the BGS and stuff. I've said elsewhere, I'd gladly fight in Conflict Zones for free, because it's the outcome that matters, not the credits.

But I'm digressing slightly. There's no risk taking a killing machine into battle, so by extension the reward is low. Other factors weigh in to make some of those combat rewards even less. If there were activities where the goal was not to kill, but to endure, e.g if you needed a combat-heavy ship, but with additional fittings such as recon limpets and hatchbreakers which gimp your tank, and endure a spec ops wing while you operate, or if you had to take out a corvette, but you must be in a viper when you do it, then we can start talking about risk.

 

[Sooden]

You start talking "risk and reward" then only mention risk.



Then be more explicit. Most of the claims have either left it empty or just flat out said "MOAR CREDITS!".

Moreover, since you asserted "kills faster" in a CZ, that ONLY matters if either

a) actually fighting is boring, you want more wins per hour
or
b) since you get credits for kills you're saying more credits per hour

I don't buy (a) and (b) only has credits as the reward you were thinking of. Sure you haven't SAID more credits, but look up the term "dogwhistle".



A thing those who want more credits per hour as their "fun" metric is that you spend a lot of hours to do it, and if you're cherry picking the R2R, then you spend most of your time going out and coming back and you only get that 15 mil/hr if you ignore the 20-40 hours spent earning 100k/hr to get out there for a few hours earning 15 mil./hr.

Note again that it's coming back to credits when we're talking rewarding gameplay.



To quote a Split military doctrine (See the X series of games): there's no need for shields if you never get hit. Mistake is not a good word, but there's just no other word for it. You go in to a fight and think you will win. You bug out because you were mistaken. Root word of mistaken is "mistake".

i know it can be hard to debate someone when they are not polarised. i'm 'exploring' both sides of the argument.

arguments like 'You start talking "risk and reward" then only mention risk.' are algebraic. we know of the reward,(fun credit..ect.) and i have been addressing the risk. Gotta work out the risks so you can see if the rewards (what ever they be) are balanced.

Then be more explicit, you say... nah, post are long enough without explain each little statement i make, done that before and i end up with subsection in posts.

All i have got from your post is, you are getting something different from what i am trying to explain. this is my fault i guess, as i'm not putting my ideas forward correctly... but also mean we will get nowhere if we aren't on the same page


also:
'To quote a Split military doctrine (See the X series of games): there's no need for shields if you never get hit. Mistake is not a good word, but there's just no other word for it. You go in to a fight and think you will win. You bug out because you were mistaken. Root word of mistaken is "mistake".'

what nonsense I go into a fight with the plan to leave at 20% as i explained (my hull is like ammo with that ship's build). I am using the ship build as a ram, as i explain. If i die, it would be a mistake (and i only die in PvP combat).

 

[Sterling MH]

Just curious, what's "high risk" about taking a ship armed-to-the-teeth to a fight?

Not a lot. So someone initiating or preparing for combat can optimise for combat and control their risk. Someone preparing to trade or explore and optimising for it when forced into combat cannot control their risk. Unless they leave open.

Combatheads prepare for combat, so they control their risk and therefore either cannot see or don't care to see that their opponents not building for combat are not able to control their risks. If "so build to survive" were a thing then maybe remove the FSD booster and tell combat pilots to "build to jump" if they find the jump range limiting. They did not like that. But when the shoe is on someone else, they no longer see a problem with being told to de-optimise for THEIR preferences but to avoid "shortcomings" of the ships.

 

[Jmanis]

Not a lot. So someone initiating or preparing for combat can optimise for combat and control their risk. Someone preparing to trade or explore and optimising for it when forced into combat cannot control their risk. Unless they leave open.

Combatheads prepare for combat, so they control their risk and therefore either cannot see or don't care to see that their opponents not building for combat are not able to control their risks. If "so build to survive" were a thing then maybe remove the FSD booster and tell combat pilots to "build to jump" if they find the jump range limiting. They did not like that. But when the shoe is on someone else, they no longer see a problem with being told to de-optimise for THEIR preferences but to avoid "shortcomings" of the ships.

Bit of a segue again, but that's where I was utterly disappointed when Ship Transfers became a thing. Don't get me wrong, I use them heaps, but that's because I can. Before Ship Transfers, I built what I coined "Penetrator" fits for ships, which basically consisted of fitting a large fuel tank in one of your slots. This was way more optimal than fitting a fuel scoop in something like a vulture, because you'd be fuelling every second jump. With a 32t fuel tank, you could very quickly get from A to B, and if you planned it, hit a high tech system just before your target system and refit for combat, with the loss on the fuel tank being near-negligible. It was way more effective.

Now it's just easier to do 3 jumps in a 60LY asp, transfer my ship and get a coffee, rather than triage 20 jumps in a vulture.

 

[Sterling MH]

i know it can be hard to debate someone when they are not polarised. i'm 'exploring' both sides of the argument..

Yes, but then again, to take an extreme, what's good about seeing both sides of an argument about whether or not the holocaust happened? The problem here is that still tying in to credits per hour being reward, the insistence on that is enhanced and entrenched. It's hard NOT to. Because to counter it you have to talk about it. So when your attempt is to build bridges, you need to be very careful to avoid giving someone who wants to believe you are supporting them when you aren't where you still disagree.

Building bridges is fine, however there are those who will claim you're building a wall against their opponents, PROVING that their arguments won over everyone and that those still disagreeing are by popular agreement wrong bad people. Even if they have to call it "a horizontal wall". Deluding yourself being so popular is why we have the scientific method.

I don't take offence at what you are attempting. i think it a waste, since it will be cherry picked to fit whatever a reader wants to hear. But that can be minimised with the effort of being clear on already conflated issues.

I would kick the word "Risk" in the bin. It's a board game. But it doesn't exist in any game unless you're betting money or possessions on it. Reward is all that matters in a game. Credits aren't it. See the complaints about grind. Not one suggestion to remove it cites "pay more" as a solution.

What REWARD is combat missing? There's no risk in it unless you choose wrong or fluff it up. And in the latter case, you can fluff it up and slam into something that kills your ship in any "profession". And choosing wrong is how you learn, so a temporary situation.

 

[Parmo]

It's baffling to me why people expect high rewards for 'high risk' activities.

High risk means there is a high probabilty of failure i.e. loss of ship.

If you judge a mission to be high risk then you are really admitting to the high probability of loss of ship.
But why do you expect a 'high reward'? There's always someone else in the market who will take the mission on.
It's all supply and demand but this model is not implemented for the mission system as far as I know.

And the biggest mitigation of risk in ED is the insurance one has.

Elite Pure Greed.

 

[Julio Montega]

Combat, a high risk activity in these days of a song of hitpoints and replenishment?

 

[Sooden]

Yes, but then again, to take an extreme, what's good about seeing both sides of an argument about whether or not the holocaust happened? The problem here is that still tying in to credits per hour being reward, the insistence on that is enhanced and entrenched. It's hard NOT to. Because to counter it you have to talk about it. So when your attempt is to build bridges, you need to be very careful to avoid giving someone who wants to believe you are supporting them when you aren't where you still disagree.

Building bridges is fine, however there are those who will claim you're building a wall against their opponents, PROVING that their arguments won over everyone and that those still disagreeing are by popular agreement wrong bad people. Even if they have to call it "a horizontal wall". Deluding yourself being so popular is why we have the scientific method.

I don't take offence at what you are attempting. i think it a waste, since it will be cherry picked to fit whatever a reader wants to hear. But that can be minimised with the effort of being clear on already conflated issues.

I would kick the word "Risk" in the bin. It's a board game. But it doesn't exist in any game unless you're betting money or possessions on it. Reward is all that matters in a game. Credits aren't it. See the complaints about grind. Not one suggestion to remove it cites "pay more" as a solution.

What REWARD is combat missing? There's no risk in it unless you choose wrong or fluff it up. And in the latter case, you can fluff it up and slam into something that kills your ship in any "profession". And choosing wrong is how you learn, so a temporary situation.

This has gone to a very strange place... too strange for me. backs out the room slowly

(i know when to shut up ....hmmmm. about now will do )

 

[Sterling MH]

This has gone to a very strange place... too strange for me. backs out the room slowly

(i know when to shut up ....hmmmm. about now will do )

I don't see anything in there that is actionable by anyone. Nor even anything other than insinuation. For someone wanting to build bridges, you don't seem to like actually walk on them.