Buffed combat rewards have gone from underpaid to massively overpaid for very little effort/risk.

[Urbanski101]

I'm doing the mission USS; I presume it's normal to use mission USS when doing missions?

And when I do, this is what I get greeted with:

Those three kills were basically 12 million credits worth in a minute

As a contrast, here's some actual hard opponents.

... earning me basically 6 million, in two minutes.

This is the problem.

Ah ok, I've been to the mission USS a couple of times and found it better to go straight to a RES.

So, I wouldn't presume that players exclusively use the mission USS, it's one way but by no means the only way.

 

[Jmanis]

So, I wouldn't presume that players exclusively use the mission USS, it's one way but by no means the only way.

I really don't comprehend how it's presumptuous to assume people would do a mission by, well, doing the mission. No other mission with mission USS has alternatives (except maybe assassinations).

I personally think it's presumptuous to baseline earn rates on ways other than doing mission USS.

 

[Urbanski101]

It's kinda ironic here... yours is not an uncommon complaint (following mission USS means you have to go too far)... yet I'm literally using them for over 100m/h, so maybe CNB/Hazres aren't the best source of targets after all?



Do me a courtesy mate and actually read my posts.

Retropolitan and Rat Catcher get it. But just so you clearly understand: I absolutle DO NOT give a whistle what anyone else earns. If someone found a way to earn 10 billion credits an hour, bully for them.

What I care about is that these rewards are applied to the easiest gameplay, meanwhile the hardest gameplay rewards breadcrumbs. This is inane and logic and exactly why earning credits feels like a grind. You get good at blatting easy targets, decide to move on to harder ones and "Oh! What's that? I'm not not earning as much? Well screw that!" so you stick with the easier targets. It's a grind because the reward structure is back to front It's mundane, uninspired design, and it has to go.

FD literally just embarked on a balance passed focussed entirely on "risk vs reward"[1] and proceeded to buff the easiest combat in the game which already out-earned the hardest combat, and frankly, did absolutely nothing for the hardest combat[2] (Fully engineered Threat 5/6 PAs and Wing Assassinations). That's a complete failure as far as I'm concerned, and a complete failure of game design. I've never played a game where the best rewards in the game come from stomping entry-level challenges. I've seen quirky artefacts of player-run or player-facilitated economies[3]. But ED enjoys none of those conditions.

A common counterargument against me is "Why don't we just buff the harder combat then? Why nerf this?"... I mean sure, let's just buff everything else, and I already said for me, a fair balance would drive doing Threat 5&6 Pirate Activity sites into the realms of 1 billion credits an hour. With the most expensive asset in the game being 5b, that's an absurdly high earn rate... at that point you might as well just remove credits from the game, and I'd happily entertain the idea of that if those were the circumstances. The only other alternative that makes credits still have a lick of meaning is to nerf these low-challenge, high-income earners, and put the higher-challenge activities into the level of rewards that these things currently generate.

Anyways, this is my question not just of you, but of anyone who doesn't see the problem here: Why should higher-challenge activities not pay out more than lower-challenge activities? Because that's my issue here with the current state of the game. Any other interpretation of my problem is, frankly, wrong.

[1] I don't like the term "risk vs reward" and prefer the concept of "challenge vs reward", which is the same construct dungeons and dragons use. Within that construct, there's no risk to a Level 20 character stomping a Challenge Rating (CR) 5 opponent, but it still pays more than a Level 1 opponent risking life and limb against a CR 4 opponent, which makes sense. The problem with ED is that a CR 1's are rewarding substantially more than CR 10.

[2] Excluding AX combat, which got a buff, and could probably earn an equivalent amount now to this massacre stacking. But see how I think that's completely fine? That's because, just to re-iterate, I don't give a stuff what anyone else earns. I care about the game having a balanced and sane challenge vs reward construct.

[3] An example of this was in Guild Wars 2, where resources (Wood, ore etc) found in mid-level areas (40-60) paid more than resources found in high-level areas (80+). The reason for this was because end-game characters were constantly fighting the hardest challenges for the best rewards (like they should be), and along the way they'd earn heaps of resources from the high-end areas, so the market was constantly flooded, while the L40-60 areas were just transitory to the endgame, so there were no concentrations of players constantly farming those resources.

You do have a point and it's up to FD to try to get the balance right but I still think the method you're using is atypical and not the norm...I'm certainly not making 108m in minutes...but my playstyle probably isn't typical either.

 

[Urbanski101]

I really don't comprehend how it's presumptuous to assume people would do a mission by, well, doing the mission. No other mission with mission USS has alternatives (except maybe assassinations).

But you understand that it's not the only way to complete the mission, and the RES is probably the more common method used because the targets spawn in the same place endlessly so you're not chasing mission USS all over the system.

 

[Jmanis]

But you understand that it's not the only way to complete the mission, and the RES is probably the more common method used because the targets spawn in the same place endlessly so you're not chasing mission USS all over the system.

Of course, there is other ways.

But, cutting everything away here; my argument is: You can earn too many credits too fast by accepting missions and doing the mission USS.
Your argument seems to be: Your earn rates are reduced and everything's fine, if you accept missions and don't do the presented mission USS.

I find that a completely illogical counterpoint. You're saying people "don't like chasing USS"; my assumption is because they think it's faster to just sit in a RES hunting targets; but you're also claiming this won't earn as much as what I am.... so doesn't that imply chasing USS is a faster way to get targets?

To put it in a different light... cargo missions take longer if you don't take the cargo straight away... is basically what I'm hearing right now. That, or you're suggesting going to a mission objective is some sort of advanced tactic, which is equally weird?

EDIT: Scratch that, a better example is suggesting it's presumptuous to assume people just buy cargo off the market for source missions, when they could salvage it off a planet's surface through countless POIs.

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

What I care about is that these rewards are applied to the easiest gameplay, meanwhile the hardest gameplay rewards breadcrumbs. This is inane and logic and exactly why earning credits feels like a grind. You get good at blatting easy targets, decide to move on to harder ones and "Oh! What's that? I'm not not earning as much? Well screw that!" so you stick with the easier targets. It's a grind because the reward structure is back to front It's mundane, uninspired design, and it has to go.

It's easy for YOU because you are farming kills at a rate that nobody those missions are actually designed for could possibly achieve. I assume you're in an A-rated and fully engineered top-tier ship in those videos, yes?

I just bought an FDL and A-rated it best I could, and I barely feel competent at combat. I'm getting kills don't get me wrong, but No WAY I can pull of what you're doing in those videos.

So I get it, you're a bored veteran. But instead of asking for an end-game or some kind of challenge, you're trying to nerf payouts of noob missions which seems a bizarre way to go about it. Not to sound like a jerk, but the other guy is right - stop doing those missions! Who's forcing you?

In the end, you're just going to nerf something for someone else and you'll still be a bored veteran. Congrats on your quest I guess...

 

[Jmanis]

It's easy for YOU because you are farming kills at a rate that nobody those missions are actually designed for could possibly achieve. I assume you're in an A-rated and fully engineered top-tier ship in those videos, yes?

I just bought an FDL and A-rated it best I could, and I barely feel competent at combat. I'm getting kills don't get me wrong, but No WAY I can pull of what you're doing in those videos.

So I get it, you're a bored veteran. But instead of asking for an end-game or some kind of challenge, you're trying to nerf payouts of noob missions which seems a bizarre way to go about it. Not to sound like a jerk, but the other guy is right - stop doing those missions! Who's forcing you?

In the end, you're just going to nerf something for someone else and you'll still be a bored veteran. Congrats on your quest I guess...

For the love of all that's holy read my posts, and answer my question. And stop inventing your own reasons for my problem here, it does nothing for your argument.

Why should "noob missions" pay out substantially more than progressively harder activities?

 

[Starshot_Jigawatts]

For the love of all that's holy read my posts, and answer my question. And stop inventing your own reasons for my problem here, it does nothing for your argument.

Why should "noob missions" pay out substantially more than progressively harder activities?

I am reading your posts, I just don't agree with your premise. This isn't a reading comprehension issue dude, it's a differing of opinions. Can you deal with that on a discussion forum?

Why should "noob missions" pay out substantially more than progressively harder activities?

Noobs need money too. And you KNOW what you are doing isn't exactly the common use-case for those missions, come on.

 

[Edwyndham]

I really don't comprehend how it's presumptuous to assume people would do a mission by, well, doing the mission. No other mission with mission USS has alternatives (except maybe assassinations).

I personally think it's presumptuous to baseline earn rates on ways other than doing mission USS.

Erm...

They said I could use haz res :'(

 

[Retropolitan]

But, cutting everything away here; my argument is: You can earn too many credits too fast by accepting missions and doing the mission USS.

If you'd led with that, instead of proposing that stacking massacres should be eliminated, I'd agree completely. But your solution and the OP's revolve around reducing reward rather than increasing difficulty.

Bearing in mind that changing reward levels is probably the easiest solution, and that there are at least precedents for eliminating stacking, I'd suggest that a better-but-not-easier compromise would be to replace the current mission USS's with those Pirate Activity locations we both seem to like. Though it's not a simple change it would be simpler than scripting entirely new missions. Pirate Activity sites are rare, but fun and challenging, and this might be a better use for them. There's also precedent for this kind of change: we saw Encoded Emissions get copies of the old Combat Aftermaths when 3.3 dropped.

Pirate Activities come in a range of threat levels which could even be tailored to the rank of the mission - though by using the whole range each time you'd be offering play to newer commanders who can't yet deal with the higher levels.

It would still be possible to work a RES or a CNB or to interdict targets. So the end effect would be to increase difficulty without messing with rewards, or with stacking, and if that sounded good to you I doubt that so many people would object.

Of course, good luck with getting such a change. But you had that problem anyway.

 

[Jmanis]

I am reading your posts, I just don't agree with your premise. This isn't a reading comprehension issue dude, it's a differing of opinions. Can you deal with that on a discussion forum?

If you were reading my posts, you wouldn't be making daft statements like "I'm some bored veteran" to somehow justify your position that the current situation is ok.

Let's pare this back for a moment. Let's pretend we're noobs, but still capable enough to do all the activities. This turns a thargoid cyclops into a 20 minute fight for most "my first interceptor" videos. That translates to what, 24m an hour?

So we blow that out similarly for other activities, and massacre stacking is still earning 40m an hour, easily.

That's dumb, and should be the other way around. Of course, the common counter here is "well just buff the harder activities"... repeating myself yet again, since a "vet" like me could spin over 200m an hour off basic noob mission stacking[1]. I would expect Threat 5&6 PA sites, thargoids and wing assassinations to close on 1 billion an hour. I'm pretty confident here that the general perception of that figure is that it's outrageously high.

But anything less is simply not commensurate to the challenge.

How do you make a more challenging scenario pay more than easier ones, when the level needed to create a reasonable balance is too high. Your only option is to reduce the easier rewards in hand with that.

Noobs need money too. And you KNOW what you are doing isn't exactly the common use-case for those missions, come on.

Again, reading. Not what i asked.

Why should noob- level missions pay more than progressively harder missions? This is what you're preserving here.

Also remember FD explicitly implemented mission stacking in this way, after being being able to stack missions from the same faction. There's nothing "out of the ordinary" here, and is a very common activity.

 

[Jmanis]

If you'd led with that, instead of proposing that stacking massacres should be eliminated, I'd agree completely. But your solution and the OP's revolve around reducing reward rather than increasing difficulty.

Right , so part of my fault (and in fairness, frustration) is the same old arguments happen over and over and over again, so when i come to these tired old debates, I've already made several leaps in assumption based on those previous debates... because it's "solved debate" for the most part.

There's also contradictions going on now. What's wrong with suggesting stacking should be removed, when in this thread it's been suggested now that doing this is "not common" or "too much effort" or "not the way it's meant to be done"... if what I'm doing is somehow strange or an outlier, resulting in unreasonable rewards, surely it makes sense for that to get nixed?
As a corollary, if stacking was removed, a "noob" could still grab a single massacre mission for 30 kills, 40m reward and spend an hour doing it. Is 40m for an hours play really unreasonable for a relatively new character?

There's a dozen different ways to cut and solve this, but most need new mechanics. The easiest to implement right now is remove stacking, or nerf massacre rewards in recognition of their stackabilitym

 

[Retropolitan]

There's also contradictions going on now. What's wrong with suggesting stacking should be removed, when in this thread it's been suggested now that doing this is "not common" or "too much effort" or "not the way it's meant to be done".

There have been plenty of walls of text in here; I must have missed that comment. If I'm doing these I always stack them, and I pile on a few assassinations to boot.

There's a dozen different ways to cut and solve this, but most need new mechanics. The easiest to implement right now is remove stacking, or nerf massacre rewards in recognition of their stackabilitym

Those are the two that would be easiest to implement, from what I've seen. But I can't agree that those are good solutions - especially now that you've explained your problem is with difficulty rather than reward.

Embrace the Pirate Activity USS! They're so cool, and so rare - and like I said there is at least one precedent for one kind of USS to inherit from another.

 

[Jmanis]

...especially now that you've explained your problem is with difficulty rather than reward.

Embrace the Pirate Activity USS! They're so cool, and so rare - and like I said there is at least one precedent for one kind of USS to inherit from another.

No.. my problem isn't difficulty or reward... rather it's and. It's the combination of the two meaning a difficult challenge gets a limp reward.

 

[Urbanski101]

Of course, there is other ways.

But, cutting everything away here; my argument is: You can earn too many credits too fast by accepting missions and doing the mission USS.
Your argument seems to be: Your earn rates are reduced and everything's fine, if you accept missions and don't do the presented mission USS.

I find that a completely illogical counterpoint. You're saying people "don't like chasing USS"; my assumption is because they think it's faster to just sit in a RES hunting targets; but you're also claiming this won't earn as much as what I am.... so doesn't that imply chasing USS is a faster way to get targets?

To put it in a different light... cargo missions take longer if you don't take the cargo straight away... is basically what I'm hearing right now. That, or you're suggesting going to a mission objective is some sort of advanced tactic, which is equally weird?

EDIT: Scratch that, a better example is suggesting it's presumptuous to assume people just buy cargo off the market for source missions, when they could salvage it off a planet's surface through countless POIs.

Ok look, you have a point, harder combat should pay more, easy combat should pay less, I do get it. I have a lot of respect for you on these forums but this is just a difference of opinion.

Your whole premise seems to be that everyone can stack 15 massacre missions and go to mission USS to kill easy targets in minutes to earn mega bucks. I'm saying I don't think that is how many people play the game. It's certainly not how I play the game. I understand it can be done, so could the egg exploit, so could the Taygeta haulage missions, or Robigo or any of the other quick credit loops that have been prevalent in ED over the years. I didn't take part in those either.

Combat finally feels rewarding again but your suggestion would reduce my already meagre earnings so I'm not in favour...sorry. But I do think 'harder' targets like Thargoid hunting should pay a bit more for the inherent risk.

 

[Retropolitan]

No.. my problem isn't difficulty or reward... rather it's and. It's the combination of the two meaning a difficult challenge gets a limp reward.

I do get that. What I'm trying to say is that I think you're trying to solve the wrong side of the equation.

 

[Jmanis]

I do get that. What I'm trying to say is that I think you're trying to solve the wrong side of the equation.

Right, so you think 1b an hour is reasonable then? Because that's what i expect from the harder combat activities if this remains as-is.

Most opinion on that matter seems to suggest 1b an hour is too much. But if we're going yolocredits, then sure, 5 his for an FC it is.

 

[Jmanis]

Your whole premise seems to be that everyone can stack 15 massacre missions and go to mission USS to kill easy targets in minutes to earn mega bucks. I'm saying I don't think that is how many people play the game.

If that's the difference of opinion, then yes, i disagree, and we probably won't be getting beyond that point. Massacre stacking has been a thing since day dot, and continues to be a very easy and reliable source of credits.

 

[Retropolitan]

Right, so you think 1b an hour is reasonable then? Because that's what i expect from the harder combat activities if this remains as-is.

Most opinion on that matter seems to suggest 1b an hour is too much. But if we're going yolocredits, then sure, 5 his for an FC it is.

That's it: I'm done here.

 

[Cmdr Snuffler]

Interesting discussions, from multiple perspectives.
I think people are focusing on me owning a FC too much rather than the 2b credits earnt during a single CG.

Ok look, you have a point, harder combat should pay more, easy combat should pay less, I do get it.
...
Combat finally feels rewarding again but your suggestion would reduce my already meagre earnings so I'm not in favour...sorry. But I do think 'harder' targets like Thargoid hunting should pay a bit more for the inherent risk.

I agree with this...but something can also be done about stacking missions, for example if you take an Elite ranked 40m mission but instead of killing any pirate you had to kill deadly+ pirates then that would prevent seal clubbing npcs in a res site. The missions would scale with your combat rank...exactly how your combat rank works actually in the fact you get 0 progression by killing much weaker targets.

The reason I brought this up isn't because I have just bought a FC, it's because this was the 1st full combat CG since the combat pay out balancing came into effect. I've not done anything different from what I've done in 6 years. Similar CG, similar missions, similar time spent, I was just on CG auto pilot...just this time round the amount of credits I earnt was off the charts compared to anything over the last 6 years. So this post is very relevant and is actually aimed at addressing the new combat balancing.
My issue isn't that they buffed combat...bounties and other missions seem ok now...but the balancing was supposed to be addressing these areas of the game where you can make silly money very quickly with zero risk and their latest balancing attempt seems to have just made massacre missions the new void opals.

This can be done in un-engineered ships. A viper, cobra or vulture (my ship of choice for anything combat related) can easily clean up in a high res site killing novice ships very quickly with help from the local security forces. You don't need a full on engineered tank. The only difference is that if you are flying an un engineered ship then there's a good chance you won't be Elite ranked, which means you won't get 40m / mission...but the missions still pay out very well...enough to earn a conda with very little play time.

My 1st post could have been simplified to:

"During a CG do people think it's unreasonable to earn 2b credits with only a few hours a day play time and 0 risk (apart from doing it in open)?"