Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 77

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

  1. #1

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

    With all the bad taste left from removing fruitful missions and their payouts, why don't you stop this trend of making your players unhappy by increasing the payouts at CG events?

    Personally, I think this game forcing people to adopt the policy of rebuy or bye bye makes things particularly volatile, so I would suggest at the very least doubling the awards, if not increasing the payouts at CG events three fold.

    CG's in open come with many risks. Typically you are guaranteed to come across the gank squads and arguably suffer a rebuy or two if you do not escape them. For me, personally, I have poured many hours into this game across three platforms and have plenty of credits and experience to look after myself sufficiently, but what of the other players who are quite new and seeking a means to develop their fleets and retain an acceptable safety net of credit balance?

    If you continue to take away appealing and fruitful means of earning credit in the game then what's left for the player to do when essentially money making is a major factor to remaining motivated in the game so that people can actually then enjoy taking more risks to explore dangerous missions or tackling the aliens etc and having more freedom in the game to simply go and have fun.

    If it were upto me I'd particularly increase the awards in open play since open play is where the biggest risk to your ship is posed. CG's in particular are quite unbalanced where a solo player has a distinct advantage and exclusive access to rings for bounty hunting etc.

    I think ultimately with the amount of work, the time invested and the risks taken when participating in CG's warrants a greater payout award. If a player loses a Cutter or Corvette at the cost of around 30 million then the top 10% award doesn't even cover that. So there's why I'm making this particular point.

    CG's are the perfect activity to encourage players to play in open, working together, and to officially make it the go to GOLD RUSH activity, counter balanced by the risks taken, so it all makes sense awarding such participants something worth their while, wouldn't you say? A cool 80 million for a top 10% would be nice. Top ten players, a cool 100 million credits. .

    Personally I'd prefer CG's and Powerplay to be open only modes for balance sakes, but that's just me. Being unable to do anything about someone undermining your power makes little sense to me... But that's another topic. Lol.

  2. #2
    Originally Posted by Miko View Post (Source)
    With all the bad taste left from removing fruitful missions and their payouts, why don't you stop this trend of making your players unhappy by increasing the payouts at CG events?
    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.

  3. #3
    Yeah. There's no making everyone happy since some people probably feel payouts are acceptable in their current form, but I still think a CG would most definitely be the most welcome event to pin a Gold Rush to.

  4. #4
    Increase the reward for who, though? The top 10% who mind-numbingly grind their way to stay at the top with their flying mega-warehouses? Do they really need any more credits? The payouts for them are pretty high, if they stick at what they are doing, which is vacuuming cargo from one port to another.

    The payouts are pretty high for the rest of us when you use the CGs intelligently. Deliver cargo to the station, then make your way back to your destination via a mission or two. It may involve a diversion but you build rep and soon pick up mega millions in mission rewards.

    In the end, I find, even if I make the top 25% at a CG, I have made more from the mission rewards. Which is how it should be. A massive payout for concentrating on a single event of shifting cargo ought not to be so outrageously high that it discourages players from finding additional sources of income while participating in the event.

  5. #5
    Originally Posted by Lightspeed View Post (Source)
    Increase the reward for who, though? The top 10% who mind-numbingly grind their way to stay at the top with their flying mega-warehouses? Do they really need any more credits? The payouts for them are pretty high, if they stick at what they are doing, which is vacuuming cargo from one port to another.

    The payouts are pretty high for the rest of us when you use the CGs intelligently. Deliver cargo to the station, then make your way back to your destination via a mission or two. It may involve a diversion but you build rep and soon pick up mega millions in mission rewards.

    In the end, I find, even if I make the top 25% at a CG, I have made more from the mission rewards. Which is how it should be. A massive payout for concentrating on a single event of shifting cargo ought not to be so outrageously high that it discourages players from finding additional sources of income while participating in the event.
    You're missing my point. The emphasis was on even the top 10% not being awarded a sum greater than the rebuy of some of the ships that are more likely to get you to that spot.

    I think if you read into me stressing that a CG comes with many risks in open that an increase in the payout would keep players happy consider the endeavour taken to actually see a CG through to tier 8. They are high risk, relatively low reward, of you play in Open. You could play in solo, but I'd made a point about that also, personally.

    You speak of taking on additional missions throughout, which is the same as arguing that in a bountyhunt CG you are making bounty along the way, but this is standard and non CG relative as you could do this anywhere in the game, really. So that still ignores the key point I'm making.

  6. #6
    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.
    Or looked at another way, if it's made too slow people will give up rather quickly and think the game is a pile of grind manure.

  7. #7
    Originally Posted by Miko View Post (Source)
    You're missing my point. The emphasis was on even the top 10% not being awarded a sum greater than the rebuy of some of the ships that are more likely to get you to that spot.

    I think if you read into me stressing that a CG comes with many risks in open that an increase in the payout would keep players happy consider the endeavour taken to actually see a CG through to tier 8. They are high risk, relatively low reward, of you play in Open. You could play in solo, but I'd made a point about that also, personally.

    You speak of taking on additional missions throughout, which is the same as arguing that in a bountyhunt CG you are making bounty along the way, but this is standard and non CG relative as you could do this anywhere in the game, really. So that still ignores the key point I'm making.

    The point here is I think;

    A decent Cutter has a rebuy of 40m. The top 10% of a CG rewards 23m?

    I think what you're not taking into account is; To get to the top 10% required you handing in 30m + of bounties or whatever.

    If I CG over a weekend in my Cutter (43m rebuy) and get my usual top 10%, I earn around 50m + the 23m for the placing. 75m while peanuts compared to my normal weekday activities, is still not junk-change?

  8. #8
    Originally Posted by sollisb View Post (Source)
    The point here is I think;

    A decent Cutter has a rebuy of 40m. The top 10% of a CG rewards 23m?

    I think what you're not taking into account is; To get to the top 10% required you handing in 30m + of bounties or whatever.

    If I CG over a weekend in my Cutter (43m rebuy) and get my usual top 10%, I earn around 50m + the 23m for the placing. 75m while peanuts compared to my normal weekday activities, is still not junk-change?
    You're basing things strictly on your experience and perspective. What about a participant who gets ganked 5 times and loses substantially more than the reward?

    FD are making players unhappy nerfing missions and payouts to such an extent some players consider the effort undertaken not worth their time. Have you taken a look at the payouts for some of those 6000+ tonnes of cargo delivery missions?

    CG's in my opinion should offer a greater reward, that's all I'm saying, considering they come with high risks of rebuy in open.

  9. #9
    CGs already yield a lot of money.

    It feels only "cheap" because there is soo much inflation in the game through other activities. However, there are not much money sinks.

    Increasing payout for CGs would make the problem only worse.

  10. #10
    Originally Posted by Zelos1983 View Post (Source)
    CGs already yield a lot of money.

    It feels only "cheap" because there is soo much inflation in the game through other activities. However, there are not much money sinks.

    Increasing payout for CGs would make the problem only worse.
    Bounty hunting and hauling are you standard affair CG event. These activities can be done outwith CG's, so the payout is the only bonus on top of whatever additional earnings are made along the way.

    So again, I ask. Considering the high risks involved in open, where a CG naturally attracts all of your finest gankers, where I have seen many player getting blown up numerous times. Where's the profitability on some accounts? Isn't a CG the most viable activity to make credit seekers very happy, should they survive enough to make some degree of profit? And no, I'm not talking about the solo player base, who can hide away in safety to bag a top % position.

  11. #11
    Originally Posted by Miko View Post (Source)
    You're basing things strictly on your experience and perspective. What about a participant who gets ganked 5 times and loses substantially more than the reward?
    After my third rebuy in the T-10, I got the message that my loadout and tactics were wrong for the ship. I learned from the experience and fitted an SLF, changing the dynamics of my survival.

    Elite Dangerous is not simply about being compensated for taking risk. It's about taking risks and learning from mistakes. Sometimes you have to go down in credits before going up again.

  12. #12
    Originally Posted by Miko View Post (Source)
    So again, I ask. Considering the high risks involved in open, where a CG naturally attracts all of your finest gankers, where I have seen many player getting blown up numerous times.
    Ah, so you're talking about PvP. Well, you need to crossfinance it if you want to have your ship blown up multiple times a week.
    Those are events that realistically cost a lot of money. For gameplay purposes, the insurance even pays after multiple events, which would not be the case in a realistic game.

    But that should not affect CG payouts.

  13. #13
    Originally Posted by Zelos1983 View Post (Source)
    Ah, so you're talking about PvP. Well, you need to crossfinance it if you want to have your ship blown up multiple times a week.
    Those are events that realistically cost a lot of money. For gameplay purposes, the insurance even pays after multiple events, which would not be the case in a realistic game.

    But that should not affect CG payouts.
    No, I'm not just talking about PvP, I'm talking about people being targeted and destroyed by these hit squads in SC or at rings. They work overtime killing everyone on sight. Now to be clear on one thing, I have plenty of credits and some very strong ships, and even I get killed sometimes when the odds are against me and my engines are shut off with mines and FSD disabled during an attempt to wake out etc. 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.

    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. So for me, I just think a community goal is something FD could consider making more fruitful for all those involved. If you disagree then I guess you're OK with the current mechanic of the game becoming a full time grind for all those who wish to actually get the most out of it?

  14. #14
    Wouldn't make me happy. CGs are dull.

  15. #15
    Originally Posted by Miko View Post (Source)

    If you disagree then I guess you're OK with the current mechanic of the game becoming a full time grind for all those who wish to actually get the most out of it?
    Ahh, the "if you disagree with me you must want something negative" tactic.

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast