Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 77

Thread: Frontier Developments, why not increase CG payouts to keep everybody happy?

  1. #46
    Originally Posted by MrFailfactory View Post (Source)
    I'm no 777Driver, but I am really confident that I can be around 10M/hr reliably just using the Mission Board in my home system, and I only have about half of the factions Allied. That's the standard board, and not even mentioning the Passenger Missions. That isn't terribly far from the bottom end of your range, and with little effort, and I could possibly be in that range with more effort and/or optimization. No EDDB, no min-maxing, just taking the Missions that the board provides. I would say that not all activities provide that kind of payout, but your assertion that this can't be done without exploiting or goldrushing just doesn't appear to be factually correct. Again, this is me, and not someone who can really make the most out of (legitimately) making credits in this game.
    Yes, 10 mil/hr is definitely achievable but I don't think that's enough for sustainable large-ship gameplay since that is 3-4 hours to earn a rebuy on a Corvette or Cutter. Activities that used to consistently generate 15-20 mil/hr reduces that to only 1.5 to 2 hours to earn that rebuy back which is a significant difference. When you hit around 30-35 mil/hr, which is what the Palin missions were giving, that is only 1 hour to make back a Corvette or Cutter rebuy which means you can fly your big ships much more often. That's why I consider the 15-20 mil/hr threshold critical for being able to support the use of large ships without needing several hours to earn back a rebuy.

    If you look at the activities that FD nefed, Sothis was only really giving most players 12-20 mil/hr in a Python or Anaconda after mission generation and delivery was all taken into account. Even most Cutters were topping out around 30-35 mil/hr. Some players were claiming 50 mil/hr which in most cases was either not true or required them to generate multiple private groups to flip the mission boards over and over until they got nearly 100% optimal missions. Unfortunately that eventually drew enough attention to get the Sothis runs nerfed. Even though Sothis was only generating 12-20 mil/hr for most players in a Python or Anaconda, maybe 30 mil/hr in a Cutter, FD still decided to nerf. It was the same for massacre missions, when you factor getting the faction Allied, getting missions, etc., it was maybe 20-30 mil/hr for most players not 50 mil/hr that was claimed by some players. Again the massacre missions were nerfed because FD seems to think that anything above 10 mil/hr is "too much" income. The Palin missions weren't just nerfed they were completely wiped out of existence, but FD decided to troll everyone first by making them repair Obsidian Orbital only to find that the Palin missions were completely gone even when the station was repaired.

    Originally Posted by MrFailfactory View Post (Source)
    I am ok ignoring the Solo and Private Group options for this part, simply because those options do not fully address the issue. They are an avenue, but not a blanket solution. That said, there is this video detailing how to go about this the right way. Please explain how it's not applicable at a CG. I am not terribly familiar with the new C&P, so maybe there is a wrinkle here that I am not aware of, but it should still hold true for those who wish to fly in Open, and participate in CG's.
    The video is more of a humorous take about traders in Open flying completely defenceless ships but really even with a "defended" trader or even a multirole combat/trading ship the ganking will still happen. I had my FDL ganked repeatedly at a bounty hunting CG by wings of griefers and there is very little if anything you can do about that if you want to participate in the CG. You will be targeted not so much when you're flying to the RES/CZ but on the way back to the station when you're damaged and out of ammo, chaff and SCBs. I actually started flying a Vulture or Type 7 at CGs to reduce my rebuy costs but really the CGs are so repetitive that I eventually stopped doing them because they were just not worth the effort. The new C&P system does nothing to reduce this griefing, it continues to happen just as much if not more than it used to and fundamentally that is why there are so many Open/PVP debates going on in the forums.

    Originally Posted by MrFailfactory View Post (Source)
    Regarding the second point you made, I would not be against rewards being scaled up for playing in Open (and have suggested as much in the past), but Frontier seems to be pretty firm about not doing such a thing. As such, I would argue that just increasing the CG payouts would incentivize more people going into Solo or Private Group, which still does not address the issue in Open.
    Aside from increasing the CG payouts the only other good solution I've read so far would be simply reducing rebuy costs for players participating in CGs. I'm thinking a massive discount here on the order of a 75-80% reduction in rebuy costs. That way players who want to participate in the CG can lose their ships several times from ganking without going bankrupt and the PVP players get to have their "fun" without players moving to Solo or combat logging. For all the claims that the gankers "don't properly represent" PVP in Elite it is the vast majority of PVP that is seen in Open by far and the number of PVP players who take the opportunity to fight those griefers for meaningful PVP interactions are few and far between.

  2. #47
    Yes, 10 mil/hr is definitely achievable but I don't think that's enough for sustainable large-ship gameplay since that is 3-4 hours to earn a rebuy on a Corvette or Cutter. Activities that used to consistently generate 15-20 mil/hr reduces that to only 1.5 to 2 hours to earn that rebuy back which is a significant difference. When you hit around 30-35 mil/hr, which is what the Palin missions were giving, that is only 1 hour to make back a Corvette or Cutter rebuy which means you can fly your big ships much more often. That's why I consider the 15-20 mil/hr threshold critical for being able to support the use of large ships without needing several hours to earn back a rebuy.
    Unless someone is prone to disaster (which implies that a change of tactics, Ship, or Outfitting is needed), they should not be exploding several times per session. We are just going to have to agree to disagree whether or not 10M/hr is sufficient to support sustained large-ship gameplay (in Open), and whether or not 3-4 hours is a reasonable time to recover a rebuy. The bottom line though, is that a major part of the risk/reward structure for those ships is that hefty rebuy, and advocating to significantly reduce that just doesn't seem like an idea that makes sense, unless we are also going to talk about commensurately reducing the rewards for using them. Neither really makes sense, to be honest.

    The video is more of a humorous take about traders in Open flying completely defenceless ships but really even with a "defended" trader or even a multirole combat/trading ship the ganking will still happen. I had my FDL ganked repeatedly at a bounty hunting CG by wings of griefers and there is very little if anything you can do about that if you want to participate in the CG. You will be targeted not so much when you're flying to the RES/CZ but on the way back to the station when you're damaged and out of ammo, chaff and SCBs. I actually started flying a Vulture or Type 7 at CGs to reduce my rebuy costs but really the CGs are so repetitive that I eventually stopped doing them because they were just not worth the effort. The new C&P system does nothing to reduce this griefing, it continues to happen just as much if not more than it used to and fundamentally that is why there are so many Open/PVP debates going on in the forums.
    If that is what you got out of that video, I would suggest watching it again, so that in the future, you can escape those situations in your Fer De Lance. I haven't maxed one out yet, but as I understand it, they are quite fast, quite nimble, and quite well shielded in Combat fit. I would think that you could reliably escape 2-3 aggressors in one of those using the tactics shown (twice) in that video. It's inconvenient to High Wake and make another attempt (maybe after getting repairs and restocking someplace...), but sound tactics tend to win out over rolling dice.

    Aside from increasing the CG payouts the only other good solution I've read so far would be simply reducing rebuy costs for players participating in CGs. I'm thinking a massive discount here on the order of a 75-80% reduction in rebuy costs. That way players who want to participate in the CG can lose their ships several times from ganking without going bankrupt and the PVP players get to have their "fun" without players moving to Solo or combat logging. For all the claims that the gankers "don't properly represent" PVP in Elite it is the vast majority of PVP that is seen in Open by far and the number of PVP players who take the opportunity to fight those griefers for meaningful PVP interactions are few and far between.
    Playing in Open has a general equation that goes with it: Experience = Increased Danger + Consequence + annoyance

    The Increased Danger has a counterpart component of being successful in your endeavors, despite other players perhaps trying to thwart you, and that is what provides the extra reward and heightened Experience of playing in Open. The Consequence is comprised of the rebuy, the cost of replacing lost bounties/cargo (plus the lost profits), and lost time. The annoyance is mostly just the bother of being thwarted in general, especially if it happens frequently in a short period of time, or by the same person.

    Your suggestion changes the equation to: experience = consequence + Annoyance

    By removing the Increased Danger (reducing the lion's share of the Consequence), you have also removed the extra reward for being successful (because it no longer really matters as much). You have also reduced the consequence down to mostly just the bounties/cargo and/or time. Since the extra reward is no longer present, and the cost of the consequence is far less, the experience is now weighted much more heavily by the Annoyance factor. You may have noticed the changes in capitalization - they are not accidental. Do you see now why this would be a bad change for those who prefer Open play? Some just like seeing other Commanders and are ok just taking their lumps, but I would venture to say that a large portion of those who prefer to play in Open do so because of the thrill of the chase, and the thrill of victory against another person.

    Your suggestion largely takes that away from them, and for what? So Commanders who aren't willing to accept those risks will be able to fly the bigger ships more often?

    I don't see that as a good trade, man.

    Rit

  3. #48
    Why not get rid of 'carry A 2 B 4 reward' style community goals and replace them with something interesting. I have this theory that if there was no payout, nobody would do community goals because they aren't fun.

  4. #49
    Originally Posted by Devari View Post (Source)
    You made the claim, it's up to you to support it. Or not. Don't ask someone else to find evidence for a claim that you made.
    Im not looking for you to produce any evidence,this is not a courtroom.

    If you have a system nearby like i described earlier and a T9,just nip over and have a look.

    Or just dont believe me\_(ツ)_/

  5. #50
    Originally Posted by Devari View Post (Source)
    Would like to see a screenshot of those missions as an example and full route details. I've seen many claims of mission payouts which weren't calculated correctly (didn't take into account mission generation times or need to be allied) or weren't sustainable (required extensive third-party sites to find or required unique one-jump routes or specific system states).
    El_Hefe is correct. 20-30 mill. an hour is easily achievable, and not just at unique places but all over the Bubble. You just need to be in good standing with the factions - preferably allied.

  6. #51
    Originally Posted by Miko View Post (Source)
    The point to all of this is my emphasis on the risks versus the relatively measly payout for a task that can take a long time to max out to tier 8.
    But the risk of doing CG is relatively low, on par with trading. Although that means it's still higher than combat or passenger missions.

    I'm posting this thread on behalf of most commanders who seem very disgruntled at the latest trend of missions having their value stripped and credits nerfed to the ground.
    But the missions still pay out a lot compared to what they did historically, both in terms of earlier games and compared to the beginning of E. Often, you can even make more money than with bulk trading.

  7. #52
    Originally Posted by Devari View Post (Source)
    Yes, 10 mil/hr is definitely achievable but I don't think that's enough for sustainable large-ship gameplay since that is 3-4 hours to earn a rebuy on a Corvette or Cutter.
    I think that is where people differ. I personally dont think you should lose a Corvette or Cutter every 3-34 hours. Come to think of it, there isnt really a good reason to lose one at all outside of some gentlemen's agreement PvP duel. My total insurance cost after 2000+ can be earned in a few hours of either missions or casual trading, using nothing but in-game tools.

  8. #53
    Originally Posted by Devari View Post (Source)
    FD consistently nerfs any income-earning method that provides more than around 10 mil/hr.
    I can think of at least four which pay considerably more than that (50 mil/hr or higher) and have been consistent (or even buffed) over the last two years.

    All four have been repeatedly mentioned on these forums over that period, so if Frontier thought they were unreasonable they could have done something long before now.

    Add an extra zero ... and yes, Frontier does tend to nerf anything which can easily be used to significantly exceed 100 mil/hr long term. (That limit has itself increased over time, for various reasons)

  9. #54
    Originally Posted by RidingTheFlow View Post (Source)
    Looks like because FDev thinking is:
    a) can't make everyone happy anyway
    b) progression due to money earning should be limited to fairly slow speed
    c) if it made too fast, people will give up too soon and then will start complaining how short the game was instead of how grindy it is

    Not that I agree that these are "good" design choices.
    You missed off:
    d) we will no longer give any form of feedback in our own forums

  10. #55
    Originally Posted by MrFailfactory View Post (Source)
    Unless someone is prone to disaster (which implies that a change of tactics, Ship, or Outfitting is needed), they should not be exploding several times per session.
    Against most PVE situations, sure, but I'm referring here to Open which is basically treated as a greifing sandbox for many players. A PVE build is really not at all a fair fight againt a PVP build and the vast majority of PVP players in Open are interested in griefing, not a fair fight.

    Originally Posted by MrFailfactory View Post (Source)
    We are just going to have to agree to disagree whether or not 10M/hr is sufficient to support sustained large-ship gameplay (in Open), and whether or not 3-4 hours is a reasonable time to recover a rebuy. The bottom line though, is that a major part of the risk/reward structure for those ships is that hefty rebuy, and advocating to significantly reduce that just doesn't seem like an idea that makes sense, unless we are also going to talk about commensurately reducing the rewards for using them. Neither really makes sense, to be honest.
    The fundamental problem here is that incomes and combat ability don't scale properly with ship size or cost. My Corvette at 30 mil rebuy or my Anaconda at 20 mil rebuy are not 3-4X more effective at combat than my Python, Krait of FDL each of which are around 8 mil rebuy. The combat effectiveness does not scale properly with rebuy which means the risk/reward gets worse, not better, with a larger and more expensive ship. Instead of "economy of scale" with larger ships they are turned into hangar queens or white elephants which might look good on paper but in practice aren't usualy worth flying. FD needs to change that in some way in order to make large-ship gameplay more viable.

    Originally Posted by MrFailfactory View Post (Source)
    If that is what you got out of that video, I would suggest watching it again, so that in the future, you can escape those situations in your Fer De Lance. I haven't maxed one out yet, but as I understand it, they are quite fast, quite nimble, and quite well shielded in Combat fit. I would think that you could reliably escape 2-3 aggressors in one of those using the tactics shown (twice) in that video. It's inconvenient to High Wake and make another attempt (maybe after getting repairs and restocking someplace...), but sound tactics tend to win out over rolling dice.
    My FDL can escape any one target rather easily, possibly two, but against a wing of 3 ships equipped for PVP they can do very significant damage within 5-10 seconds and will interdict you over and over. The difference between a dedicated PVP ship and a PVE ship is masive and without chaff or SCBs it doesn't take long for your shields to fail. The only real option at that point was to high-wake and if I'm constnatly high waking I'm not making any progress at the CG. It also didn't help at the time that the PVP groups were systematically using the Engineering eploit and while my FDL is a well-Engineered PVE ship and was even equipped for stealth operations it certainly couldn't compete with 3 players who cheated on their Engineering rolls.

    My experience fighting players on more even footing was a completely different experience, i.e., encountering another player equipped for PVE at a RES or CZ who happened to be on the other side and engaged in PVP without specifically planning for it. I've used my Vulture very aggressively in those situation an destroyed considerably more powerful player ships, including an FDL and have even driven off another player in a Corvette. Those were very enjoyable fights because it was a generally level playing field and player skill was far more important than whether you had brought whatever PVP meta happened to be OP at the time. Unfortunately that type of PVP is quite rare in Elite and unless you happen to encounter it randomly in a RES or CZ you are not likely to have an enjoyable PVP experience.

    Originally Posted by MrFailfactory View Post (Source)
    Your suggestion largely takes that away from them, and for what? So Commanders who aren't willing to accept those risks will be able to fly the bigger ships more often?
    I think the large ship balance needs to be addressed in general to make larger ships more viable, but really I was refering more specifically here to the risk at CGs. My Vulture, with around a 1 mil rebuy, or my Type 7, with a 2 mil reuby, can be used all day at a CG and I am still likely to make some money from the CG with a 20 mil reward. My Python, with an 8 mil rebuy, or my Type 9, with a 12 mil rebuy means only 1-2 losses and I make little to no profit. My Anaconda, with a 20 mil rebuy, or my Corvette, with a 30 mil rebuy, means a single ship loss and I either make no credits or even take a loss for participating in the CG. I am suggesting that CG participation offers a rebuy discount, ideally 75% but at least 50%, to encourage player participation. They have no problem reducing rebuy costs in multicrew by 25% per player so it is not like FD hasn't implemented a similar mechanic elsewhere in the game. It could only apply in the CG's main system to limit it specifically for CG purposes so if the goal is to encourage CG participatoin that would definately improve the risk/reward balance at CGs.

  11. #56
    Originally Posted by C64Fan View Post (Source)
    El_Hefe is correct. 20-30 mill. an hour is easily achievable, and not just at unique places but all over the Bubble. You just need to be in good standing with the factions - preferably allied.
    That is my point, there's always a catch when someone quotes those numbers. Being Allied with everyone at a station takes time and for most players they won't see anywhere near those type of missions without investing several hours of time first and that needs to be counted towards the overall income earning rates. When I was doing massacre missions frequently and was looking for systems in war state they would often be systems I hadn't visited before and I had no rep with the location factions. It would take several hours to get one or two of the factions to Allied and then I would start to see the lucrative massacre missions, but even then we had many bugs in the mission generation system. If you took the time spent searching for a system, travel time and time to get Allied you only had a certain amount of time to actually do the missions before the system state changed from war state to another state entirely. In practice I was making around 10 mil/hr average from massacre missions when they were still stackable. If I encountered a more optimal situation I could reach 20 mil/hr fairly easily, but I had no control over those factors. If all of those factors were in your favor, i.e., if you already had the local factions Allied, you didn't need to travel, and the system was generating optimal missions for a war state that lasted for several days? Then sure, you could easily make 30 mil/hr from those massacre missions. On average, however, my sustained income rates were nowhere near that level and for a new player who decided to start that activity it was maybe 10 mil/hr average incomes.

  12. #57
    Originally Posted by El_Hefe View Post (Source)
    Im not looking for you to produce any evidence,this is not a courtroom.

    If you have a system nearby like i described earlier and a T9,just nip over and have a look.

    Or just dont believe me\_(ツ)_/
    The reason I don't accept someone's claims without proof is not because I don't think those incomes are possible but because I've seen incorrect quotes all the time for many activities and on closer inspection they were either inaccurate or even significantly exaggerated. When I was doing Sothis runs, massacre missions or Palin missions I found that the actual income rates were far lower than many players were claiming. As a result I don't accept someone's claims of income without full details so I can do the math myself and determine if I can actually duplicate those results. If you have a method which anyone can use reliably and consistently to generate those incomes, and it doesn't involve passenger missions, then please share it with everyone on the forums who would most certainly like to know about it. If you are unwilling or unable to share the details, then I will treat your claims accordingly, because as I mentioned above I've found that many players are either prone to exaggeration or are simply not very good at math.

  13. #58
    Originally Posted by Ian Doncaster View Post (Source)
    I can think of at least four which pay considerably more than that (50 mil/hr or higher) and have been consistent (or even buffed) over the last two years.

    All four have been repeatedly mentioned on these forums over that period, so if Frontier thought they were unreasonable they could have done something long before now.

    Add an extra zero ... and yes, Frontier does tend to nerf anything which can easily be used to significantly exceed 100 mil/hr long term. (That limit has itself increased over time, for various reasons)
    Frontier is very inconsistent about how and when they decide to finally nerf any given activity but if enough attention is drawn to an activity that makes more than 10 mil/hr they will eventually nerf it. That's what happened to Sothis, massacre missions and Palin missions. They allowed these activities to go on for many months but eventually there were enough players who kept repeating claims of exaggerated incomes on the forums and FD finally took notice and nerfed them. In part this is probably due to their internal "metrics" showing them that "too many" players were doing those activties. The isolated cases of excessively high incomes were probably not used frequently enough by many players and as a result were not as much of a priority for FD to fix. That is likely why passenger missions have been a mess for nearly a year now, they were intentionally introduced with an unrealistically high income level and despite various nerfs have still remained far more lucrative than they should be. There's also the issue that the passenger-specific ships that can carry luxury cabins are less useful for these missions than an Anaconda which makes the situation even worse. Since players have to specifically run passenger missions however that still requires a ship equipped for a specific activity they were never as popular as Sothis or massacre missions and FD has allowed them to continue for much longer than they would have otherwise.

  14. #59
    All ships should be free with no rebuy.

    There, freedom for all to play what ship they want and how they want.

  15. #60
    Originally Posted by Devari View Post (Source)
    The reason I don't accept someone's claims without proof is not because I don't think those incomes are possible but because I've seen incorrect quotes all the time for many activities and on closer inspection they were either inaccurate or even significantly exaggerated. When I was doing Sothis runs, massacre missions or Palin missions I found that the actual income rates were far lower than many players were claiming. As a result I don't accept someone's claims of income without full details so I can do the math myself and determine if I can actually duplicate those results. If you have a method which anyone can use reliably and consistently to generate those incomes, and it doesn't involve passenger missions, then please share it with everyone on the forums who would most certainly like to know about it. If you are unwilling or unable to share the details, then I will treat your claims accordingly, because as I mentioned above I've found that many players are either prone to exaggeration or are simply not very good at math.
    Thing is i did share the method with you. I then asked you to just try it.

    If you dont want to do that i dont mind.

    You should have tried playing even last year,rep gain has increased HUGELY since being able to take Rep rewards from missions. Thats the key,invest in Rep early in a new system to gain the benefits of increased payout quicker.

    Rep building with local factions has alaways been a major factor in incresing payouts. If you just want to rock up to any random station in the bubble and make tens of millions thats not going to happen. You will need to build rep first in an economy type that sells high price commodites.

    Thats the trick,the average price of the commodity your shipping plays a part in calculation of the reward ie tranport gold missions will pay a lot more than a mission to transport water.

    So go to systems with high value commodities,like i said earlier.

    Im on PS4 also so the evidence you ask for is not easy to just put up like it is if your on PC. ie screenshots

    I migrated from PC after about 400hr in the game to PS4 to play with friends.

    If you follow the above you should be making 20mil+ per run,and if your really lucky you might be able to get two runs in in an hour.

    If you dont want to do that and maintain 10mil an hour is the max without exploits have at it,enjoy trying to outfit or buy any of the expensive medium ships or god forbid a large ship and outfit it.

    *EDIT* Quoted the wrong post intially,fixed now

Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst ... 23456 LastLast