Multi-crew rewards need to be 1:1 with the profits the pilot / ship owner gets.

[Red Fox Four]

Jumped into a friends AspX to help him learn how the core mining works.

We flew around for an hour or so and just popped some Alexandrite rocks. Yeah, yeah, not the top paying mineral but he was just learning the ropes.
By the end though we had 50T of Alexandrite and a quick check on the Galaxy map found us a system where it was selling @ 550k. So total 27,5 million profit.

Well... he got 27,5 million profit.

Me, as a multi-crew member, get the trade dividends from the sale which is 5% out of the total profit, thus landing me at 1 375 000 credits.

This is just laughable.

For the same amount of time invested I'm getting 5% compared to what I could get if I was just flying my own ship and finding my own rocks to pop.

This is the very root cause of why multi-crew is so underused and pointless.

Yes, it's fun to play with your friend and multi-crew is actually not too bad. In our case he was flying the ship and shooting prospectors while I was Pulse Wave Scanning and scouting for rocks (which the 3rd person gunner view is quite good at compared to trying to see something out of your cockpit while dodging asteroids). I also kept tabs on the collector limpets and checked the galaxy map to find systems with icy and metallic rings as well as figuring out where to get the best sell prices.

So overall working together as multi-crew makes things run more smoothly, even if you are in the backseat and not able to fly the ship (which, in my case, was kind of convenient since I could then lean back, pet my cat and chew on some snack during supercruise and such).

However... getting barely 1.4M from it while he gets 27.5M really deflates the experience. Not saying he shouldn't get 27.5M. Sure he should. But why shouldn't the multi-crew members who invested the same time, doing the same activity get the same?

Then some of you might argue... but that would make it too easy to make money... people could just sit AFK in the ship and get free money. Well... sure they could. The real question though is; would you allow someone to just be a freeloader and hang out in your ship doing nothing, while having control over several of your ship systems (e.g. you can't deploy collector limpets yourself as pilot if you have a gunner hanging out in the ship).

I'm pretty sure the answer is no. You wouldn't want a freeloader in your ship who does nothing and inevitably ends up slowing you down and making you earn less credits. You MIGHT do it for a friend, but it would be far from the norm.

Rewards for multi-crew needs to be on-par with rewards from playing in a wing.

Playing in a wing and doing bounty hunting = sharing bounties. You get 100k, then I get 100k. If you play in a wing and your friend kills a bounty worth 100k then you'd be upset if you helped killed the same enemy and you get 5%, thus your reward is 5000.

Improve the credit rewards for multi-crew so crew members earn the SAME amount as the pilot. There is simply no good reason for this to not be the case (same time invested in the same activity) and you don't have to look further than the bounty voucher rewards while in a Wing.

I quite enjoyed multi-crew today. It was a nice experience right up until the reward screen.
Will I do it again? Not really. Why would I spend hours of my leisure time earning 5% compared to just making 100% ? Sure I'm nice to my friends, and I'd do it just to teach them how parts of the game works, but in the current state it will never be a preferred playstyle.

Never.
Improve the rewards.

 

[Bloodsign]

100% in agreement here. I tried multicrew for eight minutes and never touched it again.

Even beginner CMDRs can do better for themselves by just flying their own ship.

I think that FDev is afraid that CMDRs will log into multicrew and go afk to reap the rewards while not playing at all, though. I guess it's a valid concern, but considering how meaningless credits are in this game, does it really matter, FDev? If it comes down to a few CMDRs getting rich with little effort, or NO ONE using a feature that FDev spent time and resources to develop, which makes more sense?

Frankly a lot of what FDev does makes no sense:

- At any given time, many of their digital products are not available in the store (paint packs). They have the paint packs completed, which could be a great passive income stream, but they'd rather just make them temporarily available now and then instead, crippling earning potential.

- FDev invests energy into things that no one asked for, like CQC, and then just stops development on those features on a whim.

-FDev discourages players from using some features due to crippling drawbacks or no rewards (NPC crew, multicrew).

I sometimes wonder if ED is some sick social experiment and not really a game at all. Eventually they'll just disappear ED entirely, that will be the final plot twist.

 

[stereoBear]

Risk → reward

 

[Sylow]

While I understand the "risk vs reward" statement, I also am more along the "time vs reward" line here. Doing activities in multi-crew should be as rewarding as doing them in a wing.

I would understand some reduction. You eliminate some logistics, etc. (No traveling to each other, in case of bounties not having to travel to places to cash the vouchers in, etc. ) But the current reduction is over the top. It was cried in place by people who were scared that MC could be the new money exploit. Which it wasn't, even before FD gave in on the reduction rates.

So yea, I'm also for strongly reducing the current multi-crew penalty.

 

[stereoBear]

Admittedly I value fun higher than any reward so I'd even do it for free. But you can't say that aloud around here or the Church of Cr/h will come for you.

 

[metatheurgist]

Yeah, I disagree with the everyone gets the same bounty crap. If the authorities can magically multiply the bounty for wings I want the same multiple for doing it solo thanks.

 

[Sylow]

Admittedly I value fun higher than any reward so I'd even do it for free. But you can't say that aloud around here or the Church of Cr/h will come for you.

Hehe. In contrast I dare to say: there were so many money rushs in here already. Most of us are filthy rich, without even wanting or needing any more credits. I mean, I can right away buy and outfit any ship in the game, and I am a pauper compared to many others.

So for us veterans, what's the big deal about credits? Those who want and need are new players. And multi-crew would, theoretically, be a way to help them out. But the multi-crew penalty prevents that. What's really unclear to me is, why some people seem to be so butt hurt if newer players would have a way to catch up.

Must be some Yorkshire men thingie...

 

[Bloodsign]

Hehe. In contrast I dare to say: there were so many money rushs in here already. Most of us are filthy rich, without even wanting or needing any more credits. I mean, I can right away buy and outfit any ship in the game, and I am a pauper compared to many others.

So for us veterans, what's the big deal about credits? Those who want and need are new players. And multi-crew would, theoretically, be a way to help them out. But the multi-crew penalty prevents that. What's really unclear to me is, why some people seem to be so butt hurt if newer players would have a way to catch up.

Must be some Yorkshire men thingie...

Some people like to feel superior, I guess.

 

[Red Fox Four]

I fail to understand this risk / reward notion that people have about the Helm taking the risk.

This is extremely simple to solve.

Allow the helm to set an option where all multi-crew members have to cover the cost of expenses and potential ship destruction.

This is easily done by taking ship rebuy cost and divided by 2 or 3 depending how many are in the multicrew session. If the ship rebuy is 12 million then you either have to pay a down payment of 6 million each, optionally 4 million each if there are 3. That way, if ship is exploded the cost is shared. If it is not exploded then everyone gets the money back.

Likewise and running costs for ship, such as repairs, rearm, refuel, restocking limpets and so forth is simply added up, and when the multicrew session ends the total running costs is divided by 2 or 3, and then subtracted from the total reward at the end of the multicrew session when the reward screen shows up.

This way both rebuy cost and running costs is fairly spread out among each multicrew member and there is no longer any argument to be had about "Helm takes all the risk".

Again, this would be optional. If the helm WANTS to take all the risk, i.e. wants to play with a newbie friend who does not have the money to pay for the down payment to cover rebuy cost, then that is entirely a volunteer decision by the Helm and noone else.

The main point here is: there are plenty ways to adjust multi crew so it is

a) more rewarding
b) encourages using multi crew
c) removes the risk for the Helm
d) makes multicrew more fun with a sense of accomplishment for everyone.

 

[Kaocraft]

Anytime multiple people are connected to the same activity, the gains should be DIVIDED, not duplicated, amongst the participants. This should be true for all wing activities and all multi crew activities, and every mission should be shareable. This type of split would encourage collaboration in some situations, and discourage it in others. If multi crew increased your ships capabilities, the way wings does, Frontier could add higher level challenges that actually necessitate the advantages a crew brings, with rewards to match.

Multi crew and wings need to be tweaked mechanically such that each additional participant has the ability to be enough of an asset to at least potentially justify the sharing of rewards.

Right now the problem is that multi crew, as a play system, is worthless garbage and crew members can’t contribute anything of value to the overall efficacy of the ship. A turret gunner is worthless and a net drag on the productivity of the ship. Turrets are weak and gunners can’t even aim at sub targets, nor can you have multiple gunners targeting multiple ships simultaneously. There is no advantage to having a second party controlling your turrets, heat sinks, and limpets. This is doubly true for mining. If you have a crew member with you you’re going to mine WORSE, not better. SLFs aren’t much better. The only thing crewmembers add is artificial stat bonuses: extra pips and extra ships, at the cost of overall functionality. Multi crew is bad because it doesn’t allow for productive and efficient division of labor. Until that changes, the only compelling reason to use multi crew is because Frontier BRIBES you with fake bonuses, free money, and a zero-stakes barrier to entry of literally teleporting into someone else’s ship. It’s not a play system it’s a carnival ride you get paid to get on.

The problem with OP’s complaint is that the 5% or whatever dividends have nothing to do with time. You can be in your buddy’s ship for 5 seconds or 5 hours, the only thing that matters is that you are sitting in that seat when he sells his goods. The REAL reward for being in multi crew, is NOTHING. The 5% dividend is the same thing that wing members get, just for being in the same wing as someone whenever they happen to sell their goods. It’s money created out of thin air as a bribe simply for showing up. That’s also why it can’t be higher than 5% - because you don’t have to do anything to get it.

 

[Sylow]

I fail to understand this risk / reward notion that people have about the Helm taking the risk.

Hehe. I also don't see the point here. There's enough money to go around. But for those who imagine that it's a problem, what you wrote indeed would be a solution.

Anytime multiple people are connected to the same activity, the gains should be DIVIDED, not duplicated, amongst the participants. This should be true for all wing activities and all multi crew activities, and every mission should be shareable. This type of split would encourage collaboration in some situations, and discourage it in others. If multi crew increased your ships capabilities, the way wings does, Frontier could add higher level challenges that actually necessitate the advantages a crew brings, with rewards to match.

That's the purely capitalistic theory, without taking gaming into account. We had that at some time for wings. It meant that nobody winged up. Too many people felt like the wing was taking something away from them.

Gamer psychology is not always logical. But the game should work with gamer psychology, else it fails.

 

[Kaocraft]

Hehe. I also don't see the point here. There's enough money to go around. But for those who imagine that it's a problem, what you wrote indeed would be a solution.



That's the purely capitalistic theory, without taking gaming into account. We had that at some time for wings. It meant that nobody winged up. Too many people felt like the wing was taking something away from them.

Gamer psychology is not always logical. But the game should work with gamer psychology, else it fails.

Division of labor and equal sharing of rewards is “capitalism”. Ok.

People did wing up before the duplication nonsense. I sure did. But whatever.

My point is that people only felt that wings were taking something away from them because being in a wing was not actually any kind of meaningful force multiplier. If a wing of four could take out ships four times or five times or six times as fast, or could take down challenging ships that are worth 4x as much but which would otherwise be a suicide run for one ship, then people would use wings for those challenges, because their shared performance would be proportional to (or hopefully better than) the equivalent amount of individual effort divided however many ways.

Or, to put it another way - wings (and later multicrew) are for the most part worthless as tools for accomplishing anything in the game. You are not better able to do anything in a wing, or in multicrew. This is partially because the advantages of wings and multicrew are not well realized due to bad implementation of the mechanics, but additionally because the devs have failed to provide challenges (and proportional rewards) which are commensurate with what little added benefits multicrew and wings can provide.

Hence the game has to BRIBE you with artificial bonuses to get you to use the features in the first place, which is how we know that the features aren’t good on their own.

It’s not that I’m discounting gamer psychology, it’s just that I’m pointing out that if the mechanics of wings and multicrew were properly fleshed out, and if the game provided higher level challenges to accommodate teamwork, that the gamer psychology aspect of this whole thing would take care of itself in a naturalistic way without needing to resort to artificial incentives like bonus money, pips, and ship-launched-fighters godhanded out of thin air.

 

[Sylow]

Division of labor and equal sharing of rewards is “capitalism”. Ok.

Hmm. The word might not be the perfect choice. But it was the only word i found without having to write several paragraphs. And yes, in a perfect world and game, what you write would be true. But it's just not how most gamers think. And so game design has to take account on that.

 

[Chaparral]

They used to be 1:1. It was a nice way to introduce players to the game.

Somebody whined about they're immersion being broken by other people having fun.

I hope those whiners are having lots of fun to make this exciting feature so awesome.

 

[Kaocraft]

Hmm. The word might not be the perfect choice. But it was the only word i found without having to write several paragraphs. And yes, in a perfect world and game, what you write would be true. But it's just not how most gamers think. And so game design has to take account on that.

You’re definitely not wrong. However I don’t think what Im advocating for here is a perfect world or a perfect game.

I’m suggesting that if the base mechanics function semi-realistically, as in they work roughly how you would intuitively expect them to work, then most of the incentive structures fall into place automatically. The only reason Frontier has to produce these transparently gamey god-handed incentives, none of which act the same as each other or have any intuitive or natural logical flow to them; is because they botched the underlying play structures and are trying to compensate for those deficiencies in order to salvage any playability at all. But none of these solutions are going to be satisfying because they MAKE NO SENSE, neither from a generic “realism” standpoint nor with respect to each other from an in-game “rules” standpoint. It’s like if every move in chess were a special exception along the lines of “castling” - it’s bad design to begin with but it’s made worse by the fact that you inevitably have to come up with MORE weird little one-off rules, bonuses, and exceptions to compensate for the edge cases and exploits created by the preceding set of add-on out-of-the-blue nonsense incentives.

And that’s where your player psychology comes in again. In order for these bizarre incentives to actually work, you have to KNOW about them. They either have to make sense intuitively, reveal themselves organically through natural play, or be communicated upfront and explicitly by the game; preferably all three. In most cases Elite’s incentives meet NONE of these criteria - it’s more common that a player notices something in the game isn’t working the way they thought it would, or seems unfair, or seems broken, and then maybe they go look it up online and realize that yes, it’s actually supposed to be like that in defiance of all logic. But also it’s only like that for this one thing. For something nearly identical there’s an entirely different rule. And depending on which side of this arbitrary distinction you happen to fall, you’re likely to think that this is either unfair or that the REST of the game is unfair or at the very least very silly.

 

[Chaparral]

You’re definitely not wrong. However I don’t think what Im advocating for here is a perfect world or a perfect game.

I’m suggesting that if the base mechanics function semi-realistically, as in they work roughly how you would intuitively expect them to work, then most of the incentive structures fall into place automatically. The only reason Frontier has to produce these transparently gamey god-handed incentives, none of which act the same as each other or have any intuitive or natural logical flow to them; is because they botched the underlying play structures and are trying to compensate for those deficiencies in order to salvage any playability at all. But none of these solutions are going to be satisfying because they MAKE NO SENSE, neither from a generic “realism” standpoint nor with respect to each other from an in-game “rules” standpoint. It’s like if every move in chess were a special exception along the lines of “castling” - it’s bad design to begin with but it’s made worse by the fact that you inevitably have to come up with MORE weird little one-off rules, bonuses, and exceptions to compensate for the edge cases and exploits created by the preceding set of add-on out-of-the-blue nonsense incentives.

And that’s where your player psychology comes in again. In order for these bizarre incentives to actually work, you have to KNOW about them. They either have to make sense intuitively, reveal themselves organically through natural play, or be communicated upfront and explicitly by the game; preferably all three. In most cases Elite’s incentives meet NONE of these criteria - it’s more common that a player notices something in the game isn’t working the way they thought it would, or seems unfair, or seems broken, and then maybe they go look it up online and realize that yes, it’s actually supposed to be like that in defiance of all logic. But also it’s only like that for this one thing. For something nearly identical there’s an entirely different rule. And depending on which side of this arbitrary distinction you happen to fall, you’re likely to think that this is either unfair or that the REST of the game is unfair or at the very least very silly.

What are you even talking about? This is a game. Multicrew allows players to share the game experience. If sharing in game rewards offends you, don't use the feature. Why lobby to screw over people that want to use the feature? Are you a dentist or something?

 

[Kaocraft]

What are you even talking about? This is a game. Multicrew allows players to share the game experience. If sharing in game rewards offends you, don't use the feature. Why lobby to screw over people that want to use the feature? Are you a dentist or something?

Did you ready any of what I wrote? I don’t get how you can come away from reading my post and think that I am in any way advocating for screwing people over or preventing people from sharing in game rewards (or that I don’t recognize that this is a game, for that matter)

 

[Chaparral]

Did you ready any of what I wrote? I don’t get how you can come away from reading my post and think that I am in any way advocating for screwing people over or preventing people from sharing in game rewards (or that I don’t recognize that this is a game, for that matter)

Dividing rewards only works if the labor time is more than halved, otherwise collaboration is disincentivized. We don't even have equal reward division in multicrew, it is subdivided by grind title (not actual skill or contribution).

So let's explore why collaborating players should not have a credit incentive to multicrew in game.

Is it that you don't want another player with friends having an easier time of credit grinding than you? That guy has friends so his life is easier - that is not fair. There is an obvious solution to that inequity isn't there? It isn't about screwing the other guy out of fun.

Let the players that wish to collaborate have fun, don't worry about their "rate" of progression. (engineering has the actual progression now).

Are you arguing that the completion of missions and mining and bounty hunting has toxic effects to the BGS? Forgive me for saying this, but there are thousands and thousands of players that are not in PMFs and carry on their activities oblivious to its machinations. The missions offered at stations are annoyingly narrow in scope (as a result of the spectacular BGS) and are often only made interesting through multicrew or wing collaboration for many players.

This little niche game needs new blood to stay alive, dropping a few credits on the buggy multicrew is not going to break it.

 

[Sylow]

I’m suggesting that if the base mechanics function semi-realistically, as in they work roughly how you would intuitively expect them to work, then most of the incentive structures fall into place automatically.

I think by now i can express my statement above better. What i quote here directly connects to it: you are right in the present day environment, in many aspects. Mind you, not all. There are a few exceptions. For example several years ago, in my wild times, i was involved (not in a high position, but i was there) in the organisation of a hard rock open air festival. And "security" there had just a deal like that. The organizer told the "security" (basically a local biker group, but hey, they were cheap) that he expected people in a certain number range to be around. And within these limits, each of them would get the same pay. (And yes, they hit the maximum number of people allowed. But hey, they had their money, enough people were on the grounds wearing security jackets and the police report held nothing else than that they found a bit of weed on people on the camping area. So again: everybody happy, except those who lost their drugs. )

So exactly this "unrealistic" thing happened in that case. From what i was told, it wasn't that an uncommon deal at that time, either. And while i am not deeper into this topic, i know that it was common practice during the 30 years war. There are several known documents of that time, where mercenary bands were hired along the lines of "need between X and Y men, pay per person is ..."

In our current society, with capitalism being applied the way we do it today, these things indeed seem to make no sense. But while they seem strange, they even today sometimes (see above) seem to still happen, although probably very rarely. But the world of ED is not present time. I mean, one of the superpowers for example is built along the model of a specific period of the roman empire. And if such mindsets are around in the world of ED, then contracts of the given way also don't seem that unrealistic any more.

 

[Kaocraft]

I think by now i can express my statement above better. What i quote here directly connects to it: you are right in the present day environment, in many aspects. Mind you, not all. There are a few exceptions. For example several years ago, in my wild times, i was involved (not in a high position, but i was there) in the organisation of a hard rock open air festival. And "security" there had just a deal like that. The organizer told the "security" (basically a local biker group, but hey, they were cheap) that he expected people in a certain number range to be around. And within these limits, each of them would get the same pay. (And yes, they hit the maximum number of people allowed. But hey, they had their money, enough people were on the grounds wearing security jackets and the police report held nothing else than that they found a bit of weed on people on the camping area. So again: everybody happy, except those who lost their drugs. )

So exactly this "unrealistic" thing happened in that case. From what i was told, it wasn't that an uncommon deal at that time, either. And while i am not deeper into this topic, i know that it was common practice during the 30 years war. There are several known documents of that time, where mercenary bands were hired along the lines of "need between X and Y men, pay per person is ..."

In our current society, with capitalism being applied the way we do it today, these things indeed seem to make no sense. But while they seem strange, they even today sometimes (see above) seem to still happen, although probably very rarely. But the world of ED is not present time. I mean, one of the superpowers for example is built along the model of a specific period of the roman empire. And if such mindsets are around in the world of ED, then contracts of the given way also don't seem that unrealistic any more.

Your examples presuppose a team of people all working for the same "boss". In those situations payment distribution can indeed take on all kinds of forms as determined by the person in charge (see also how tipping is handled at US restaurants). But in Elite everyone is a freelancer and wings are all formed ad-hoc. Nobody assigns you to a wing or crew and you can drop in or out at any time. It would be extremely unusual to expect whatever paying entity to spontaneously pay 2-3-4 times as much as the originally agreed upon amount, just because 2-3-4 friends show up with their hands open and your original contractor says they helped.

Which isn't to say that these kinds of situations couldnt exist in some far flung future society, just that it runs against all intuition and there's nothing about the way that the future societies are portrayed in-game to suggest how or why such payment schemes would exist.

But realism isn't the main reason I'm advocating for split shareable payments of ALL activities between wing members. It's mostly a matter of practicality and internal consistency. It's better to have one rule that applies across many similar domains, than a bunch of unique one-off rules for each circumstance, especially when all those circumstances (multiple players collaborating on one task) appear to be very similar.