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

[galahad2069]

200m in 90 minutes, compared to Thargoid Cyclops at 64-96m/h... that 200m isn't even near optimised yet, I'm, sure I can make it 300m.

It's even worse if you look at engineered NPCs.

Thargoids are only more difficult than other NPC's if you solo them in a medium or small ship.
If you farm them the one-shot way in a wing using premium ammo, then they are way less tedious to kill than 70+ plain NPC's during a wing massacre mission...
Wing assassinations ditto (although they are even more easily soloable).

 

[Jmanis]

Thargoids are only more difficult than other NPC's if you solo them in a medium or small ship.
If you farm them the one-shot way in a wing using premium ammo, then they are way less tedious to kill than 70+ plain NPC's during a wing massacre mission...
Wing assassinations ditto (although they are even more easily soloable).

Compare like with like mate.

I'm talking solo massacre stacking vs Thargoids.

If you want to compare wings vs wings, wing massacre stacking pays out significantly more compared to Thargoids again.

Also; why do you keep using wing massacres missions as your meter? They don't pay anything compared to solo missions like this:

 

[galahad2069]

Compare like with like mate.

I'm talking solo massacre stacking vs Thargoids.

If you want to compare wings vs wings, wing massacre stacking pays out significantly more compared to Thargoids again.

Yes ofc you're right that a Thargoid is a tougher opponent than a plain massacre-mission NPC.
It's just that the 30 targets during a massacre mission is a way bigger effort to kill (at least for me, that is). Not because it's hard to kill them, ofc not. It's because there's too many of them. After a couple of minutes I'm like "how many have I killed so far? oh goddammit still 18 left... I'd like to be somewhere else..."

I'd always choose a Thargoid or two, even if I'm paid a bit worse, at least they look and sound cool.

 

[Jmanis]

Yes ofc you're right that a Thargoid is a tougher opponent than a plain massacre-mission NPC.
It's just that the 30 targets during a massacre mission is a way bigger effort to kill (at least for me, that is).

Well, I just wiped 30 targets in as many minutes for a cool 100 million, so I've got no idea what you're doing wrong.

 

[Sir.Tj]

Let's knock off the personal comments please.

 

[galahad2069]

Well, I just wiped 30 targets in as many minutes for a cool 100 million, so I've got no idea what you're doing wrong.

What am I doing wrong that I find it a chore? Nothing, lol.

Edit: ah, I realize the word "effort" was apparently a bad choice, sorry I'm not a native speaker

 

[Jmanis]

What am I doing wrong that I find it a chore? Nothing, lol.

Your argument is that massacring stacking is harder/more frustrating/whatever.

I completely disagree with that assertion. Stacking missions results in a target-rich environment of weaker-variant NPCs, with a substantially higher earn rate. To clear these missions just now I only had to flush out five mission USS, which I did in 30 minutes.

Fighting, say, Cyclops? You'd be lucky to find 5 NHSS actually containing Cyclops in that same time, let alone fight them, thanks to all the empty/sensor-only/scout NHSS that exist you get hit with. And even if you did, you'd be walking away with half the credits.

So, I dunno what your meter for something being a chore doesn't really hold against the points you're identifying as a chore vs those that aren't. I mean, whatever, you do you, but how you feel about activities doesn't change the fact that NPC massacres against simple targets pay out substantially more than more difficult combat choices. And that's wrong.

EDIT: Personally, I'll take all those frustrations with AX combat anyday in terms of preferred activity... but the payout is dirt, so unless some relevant CG or other non-credit outcome is on the line, I'll be elsewher, because that just wrecks it.

 

[Deleted member 110222]

During the last CG, over the last 7 days, I earnt just shy of 2 billion credits...and just shy of a billion in the previous combat CG. Last year I was happy if I earnt 100 million during a CG.
In 6 years of playing I have amassed 3.5 billion in credits AND assets...a Fleet Carrier would take me years to afford, it wasn't even something I considered aiming for.
During the last couple of CGs I've earnt more credits than I have in 6 years!
Stacking kill pirate missions then dropping in on mission POI results in many reasonably tough ships made up of FDL, Pythons, Chiefs and Vultures....but dropping into a Haz/High Res results in lots of squishy eagles, sidewinders and vipers to kill. Destroying 30 ships that completes 5+ stacked missions doesn't take very long at all. Doing this in a High Res means there is almost zero risk. I earnt credits faster than I did during the void opal rush...and I do all my combat in a Vulture.

I now own a fleet carrier...but I don't really feel like I earn it.
Similar thing with the Federation rank reward CG that bumped me to the top rank.

I think the pay outs should be reduced across the board.

I agree. But I'm afraid those buffs confirmed one thing, and one thing only: Pay-out reductions are never going to happen.

The buff was done for one reason: To close the gap between miners and everyone else.

FD had two choices: Reduce mining rewards to match the old combat rewards, or buff the combat rewards to match the mining rewards.

I guess that because so many players mine now, which hilariously flies directly into the face of a now-infamous quote made my David Braben regarding game balance, the decision was made to instead to increase pay everywhere else, purely to avoid the inevitable cries of "unfairness" from the mining crowd. (Ironically they were the ones with a massively oversized advantage over everyone else regarding earnings)

 

[vargata]

LOL
Show me that billion-an-hour place, bro

you've got it

Yeah I figured, but we were talking about massacre mission stacking here.

no, i was talking about the "possibilities and payouts", you see?:

what FD would have to realise is that the payouts and possibilities are awful high at the high level

the mission stacking is just one little part of the problem. Im only playing a short time ago and i know more moneymaking exploits, where the simplest is
-just being in a wing doing nothing for 20-30-40 million payouts,
-running goldruns that pays 35mill for a single cargo jump,
-stacking missions that can pay hundreds of millions, like, cmon, have just 3 of those 40 mill missions is 120mill for killing 30 pirates. it wont take an hour in my e rated anaconda so how fast can it be done in an engineered medium combat ship?
-killing sidewinders in a low res site for 30 mill payouts instead of the elite enemies that should come with the mission,
-wing killing otherwise hard to kill enemies for quick bucks without actually fighting them...

and I bet there are many more i will learn soon enough

these options shouldnt be in the game. all level should have its own challenge but these remove any challenge. on the other hand all the rest of the missions or options pay rubbish, seriously, when did any of you like EVER done an "expansion data couriering" mission? you want to advance you MUST get into using exploits, like it or not... i mean, why the hell would i want to buy an adder or a cobra if i can just go straight to a type 9 or an anaconda? sure, the elite ships need some faction rep before you can jump in but hell

 

[Jmanis]

I agree. But I'm afraid those buffs confirmed one thing, and one thing only: Pay-out reductions are never going to happen.

The buff was done for one reason: To close the gap between miners and everyone else.

FD had two choices: Reduce mining rewards to match the old combat rewards, or buff the combat rewards to match the mining rewards.

I guess that because so many players mine now, which hilariously flies directly into the face of a now-infamous quote made my David Braben regarding game balance, the decision was made to instead to increase pay everywhere else, purely to avoid the inevitable cries of "unfairness" from the mining crowd. (Ironically they were the ones with a massively oversized advantage over everyone else regarding earnings)

Funnily enough, I just want engineered targets paying out, say, 10 times more. Economy is screwed anyway, and that wouldn't make it any worse.

 

[tolm]

I think people may be missing the point of a GAME ... which is - I would say - in no particular order:

• To pass time enjoyably (aka having FUN)
• To provide a challenge
• To provide a sense of achievement / progression
• To provide an opportunity to share the above with friends

So ... when I first killed a Cyclops I was pretty stoked. Was it because I got 2 million imaginary credits? No ... it was because it was something I didn’t think I’d be able to do but was accomplished as part of my first session in a wing with my new squadron mates. It was a great feeling.

And I’d never have been able to do it without earning those imaginary credits and upgrading my ship via all those other “easier” things.

So, yeh, maybe mission stacking massacre missions pays more than defeating high-level alien enemies but the point is that the challenge and sense of achievement that comes from the latter is more rewarding and can only be accomplished BECAUSE the other stuff is easier and gives you the progression required.

 

[vargata]

I think people may be missing the point of a GAME ... which is - I would say - in no particular order:

• To pass time enjoyably (aka having FUN)
• To provide a challenge
• To provide a sense of achievement / progression
• To provide an opportunity to share the above with friends

So ... when I first killed a Cyclops I was pretty stoked. Was it because I got 2 million imaginary credits? No ... it was because it was something I didn’t think I’d be able to do but was accomplished as part of my first session in a wing with my new squadron mates. It was a great feeling.

And I’d never have been able to do it without earning those imaginary credits and upgrading my ship via all those other “easier” things.

So, yeh, maybe mission stacking massacre missions pays more than defeating high-level alien enemies but the point is that the challenge and sense of achievement that comes from the latter is more rewarding and can only be accomplished BECAUSE the other stuff is easier and gives you the progression required.

except it does NOT give the progression but removes it.... progression is by its meaning is making progress. advancing. not just getting it from 0 to ready. that's progression. by the way if the cyclopses would pay 3x the massacre missions then it would provide you both the sense of achievement AND the progression, instead of going to kill cyclopses for achievement and then to grind to be able to afford killing cyclopses... progression would exactly be if after massacre missions when you get to kill big monsters you dont have to look back, you progressed to the next level

 

[tolm]

except it does NOT give the progression but removes it.... progression is by its meaning is making progress. advancing. not just getting it from 0 to ready. that's progression. by the way if the cyclopses would pay 3x the massacre missions then it would provide you both the sense of achievement AND the progression, instead of going to kill cyclopses for achievement and then to grind to be able to afford killing cyclopses... progression would exactly be if after massacre missions when you get to kill big monsters you dont have to look back, you progressed to the next level

In any other game, you have to do the easy levels first. Those give you the gear/resources to take on the hard levels. Same deal in Elite except the game doesn’t “finish” but instead allows you to keep playing.

There‘s no need to go back and play massacre missions or trade missions or whatever unless you want to - so long as you stop thinking of credits as being some kind of “score”. Once you’ve progressed enough (both skill and ship/equipment wise) to take on the hardest challenges the game has to offer you could do nothing but shoot Thargoids. Or stop playing entirely. But neither of those options sound that fun to me!

Now, should there be some kind of “better“ reward for clobbering the really hard Thargs? Possibly, but I’d argue it shouldn‘t be credits as there are already enough ways to get those and they shouldn’t be the be-all-and-end-all of the way that success in the game is measured.

 

[vargata]

In any other game, you have to do the easy levels first. Those give you the gear/resources to take on the hard levels. Same deal in Elite except the game doesn’t “finish” but instead allows you to keep playing.

There‘s no need to go back and play massacre missions or trade missions or whatever unless you want to - so long as you stop thinking of credits as being some kind of “score”. Once you’ve progressed enough (both skill and ship/equipment wise) to take on the hardest challenges the game has to offer you could do nothing but shoot Thargoids. Or stop playing entirely. But neither of those options sound that fun to me!

Now, should there be some kind of “better“ reward for clobbering the really hard Thargs? Possibly, but I’d argue it shouldn‘t be credits as there are already enough ways to get those and they shouldn’t be the be-all-and-end-all of the way that success in the game is measured.

omg

in any other game you do the easy level missions yes, then you get low rewards but enough to get to the next level, then you keep doing that for an increased reward to get to the 3rd level where you again get higher rewards

contrary to this in elite you do the easy mission to advance to the next level that you only do for the achievement as you saidand then you go back to do the easy mission because it pays more

and credits is not the "score" its the tool "to score", this is why in normal games the tool and the "achievement" is balanced so you can keep advancing from one level to the next one

 

[tolm]

contrary to this in elite you do the easy mission to advance to the next level that you only do for the achievement as you saidand then you go back to do the easy mission because it pays more

Only if getting credits is what you see as the “end game”. Or because you want to because you enjoy the missions - in which case who cares?

Personally I choose what I do in Elite based on, well, what I want to do! I enjoy PvE combat so I do a fair amount of that and the progression I’m currently working on is getting my Elite Combat ranking ... not my bank balance. But sometimes I don’t fancy that and, since I joined a Squadron, there might be some BGS stuff that needs some working on in which case the progression I’m chasing is the influence our faction has in a given system or the results of an election, etc, etc.

The point is ... I’m in the endgame now. I’ve done the standard stuff and earned the credits required to get the ships and equipment needed for better missions, unlocked engineers (okay, not all of them so there’s some more stuff I can still do when I’m in the mood!) and even unlocked a few Guardian modules as well. None of that has been motivated by credits but by my own personal progression - in terms of ranks, ships/modules I wanted and my experiences in the game. The ONLY time credits were being actively chased was in order to figure out which ships I like best and then invest in upgrading those. But even there, the progression isn’t the credits: it’s the improved ships/gear and a lot of that is from engineering which isn’t credit based anyway!

Now I have the ships I like, credits are irrelevant save for having enough for rebuys if I screw up which is a pretty low requirement by this stage of the game. Materials are actually more important now since I still need to G5 a shed load of HRPs ...

So, my point is, I don’t see credits as being a sensible reward for activities that - realistically - no one is doing unless they’ve already done a ton of other stuff that has already rewarded them with loads of credits already.

 

[vargata]

Only if getting credits is what you see as the “end game”.

nope, but because the credit is the tool to get to the next level or to be able to keep doing what you enjoy. what you are talking about is only true to the endgame when you have so much credit you cant spend it, in every other cases you need to get the cash or you are stuck at whatever you are actually doing on your level, and everything is only fun for a while, then you want to look for other things, which again costs credit

 

[tolm]

nope, but because the credit is the tool to get to the next level or to be able to keep doing what you enjoy. what you are talking about is only true to the endgame when you have so much credit you cant spend it, in every other cases you need to get the cash or you are stuck at whatever you are actually doing on your level, and everything is only fun for a while, then you want to look for other things, which again costs credit

I can see where you are coming from to a point but I still think - especially with the payouts where there are now - that there are very few “other things” that are credit gated for very long in the game. Engineering unlocks, materials, guardian sites, navy rank ... these are FAR greater gates to trying new things (or, at least, optimising for trying a particular new thing) than credits.

Case in point ... for just one of new things I’ve done in the last 6 months? The 500 million or so I had at the start of that period (after some years of playing on and off) were in no way a hindrance to trying Thargoid hunting. Unlocking three engineers to get the one that could upgrade my HRPs (which I had never used before) and all the materials for that? Oh yes. Taking a run out to a Guardian Weapon Blueprint site to unlock Gauss Cannons? You betcha. Having a clue what I was doing and not limping back to a Squadron mates Fleet Carrier on literally 0% hull? Well ... clearly that never happened ...

 

[Jmanis]

• To pass time enjoyably (aka having FUN)

Being rewarded less for a more challenging activity isn't fun.

• To provide a challenge

And once a challenge is done, it's no different the second time around, or third, or fourth, so it's no longer a factor for consideration, except enumerating a suitable reward. There's no repeat value implemented in ED's activities except for the reward, and that reward for more challenging is lower than the easy ones. That's bad design.

• To provide a sense of achievement / progression

Being rewarded less for a harder activity is the opposite of this.

• To provide an opportunity to share the above with friends

Most of my friends who played don't play anymore, and most people who say they might get turned off by this aspect of the game.

But regardless of these points, none of them preclude harder challenges receiving bigger rewards. Why people are so opposed to this makes no sense whatsoever.

Edit: i get the feeling people have the perception i don't think stacking massacres is fun. I enjoy the combat, and seeing how many enemies i can take on at once, or how many assassination targets i can get brawling each other, something that's actually hard to find. But god damn it pays ridiculously high compared to thargoids or engineered targets.

 

[vargata]

I can see where you are coming from to a point but I still think - especially with the payouts where there are now - that there are very few “other things” that are credit gated for very long in the game. Engineering unlocks, materials, guardian sites, navy rank ... these are FAR greater gates to trying new things (or, at least, optimising for trying a particular new thing) than credits.

I get you were a newbie a very very long time ago and already forgot what is it like not being able to do things because you cant even afford an A power plant (without using the above mentioned exploits)

Case in point ... for just one of new things I’ve done in the last 6 months? The 500 million or so I had at the start of that period (after some years of playing on and off) were in no way a hindrance to trying Thargoid hunting. Unlocking three engineers to get the one that could upgrade my HRPs (which I had never used before) and all the materials for that? Oh yes. Taking a run out to a Guardian Weapon Blueprint site to unlock Gauss Cannons? You betcha. Having a clue what I was doing and not limping back to a Squadron mates Fleet Carrier on literally 0% hull? Well ... clearly that never happened ...

yes, but again you are talking about times you had 500million. all my ships are not worth that much for now, or well, might just be there now, thanks to all the exploited money earning possibilities, but there was no sense of progression. i had a sidewinder, a keelback and then an anaconda. there was no reason to play anything else because there is no progression just exploitable activities. and truth is, fd had to do this because there are NO any activities you could do between these points other than grind. btw, yes, all the other activities are the same as earning credit. the grind for materials or the guardian sites are the same stupid as i've read about it. it starts ok but becomes a rinse and repeat stuff

 

[galahad2069]

Your argument is that massacring stacking is harder/more frustrating/whatever.

I completely disagree with that assertion. Stacking missions results in a target-rich environment of weaker-variant NPCs, with a substantially higher earn rate. To clear these missions just now I only had to flush out five mission USS, which I did in 30 minutes.

Fighting, say, Cyclops? You'd be lucky to find 5 NHSS actually containing Cyclops in that same time, let alone fight them, thanks to all the empty/sensor-only/scout NHSS that exist you get hit with. And even if you did, you'd be walking away with half the credits.

So, I dunno what your meter for something being a chore doesn't really hold against the points you're identifying as a chore vs those that aren't. I mean, whatever, you do you, but how you feel about activities doesn't change the fact that NPC massacres against simple targets pay out substantially more than more difficult combat choices. And that's wrong.

EDIT: Personally, I'll take all those frustrations with AX combat anyday in terms of preferred activity... but the payout is dirt, so unless some relevant CG or other non-credit outcome is on the line, I'll be elsewher, because that just wrecks it.

To make it clear, I'm not defending cross-faction massacre mission stacking because it's my favourite activity (on the contrary, actually). It's just that I think there's nothing wrong with being able to make something like 200 M/hr every now and then.

Massacre missions are not even one of the easiest ways to make that much money, compared to other (now pretty much nonexistent) methods like LTD/Painite mining or 1-jump transport missions for 40M. I mean, first you need to go find a good place where these missions are given reliably, then build up reputation with multiple factions. That's quite a lot of work before you can even think about milking the missions (and even then there is RNG in how they spawn).

I'd be all in for nerfing massacres to the ground and make Thargoid interceptors the new cash cow. But even then it wouldn't result in hard opponents giving you the big money, since even interceptors are pretty easily farmable if you have the right tools (and a few friends to wing up with).