Balance PROBLEM with Risk/Reward & Payoff for all military-combat missions in ED.

[CMDR R.Hunter]

There is a HUGE issue with the mission system right now.

It would seem that FDevs are content on turning ED into a grind-repetitive Space-Haulage & touring simulator, encouraging disproportionately a LOW risk-LOW involvement, LOW Skill, HIGH grind system, where you will mostly end up with glorified buss drivers as ADMIRALS of the federal navy with enough wealth to afford Federal Corvettes.

Allow me to elaborate.

I spent the better part of my weekend, planning out base strikes, CZ contracts (very few and far apart despite "war" status), planetary intel hacking, and assassinations. Most missions are very low pay, very-low rank impact, until you achieve any sort of influence with the minor factions that issue them, and it seems once the influence is achieved, mayor military missions are, again, very few and far apart, as most factions will only hand out haulage assignments.

Once I became frustrated with the bad pay-reward and combat mission availability, I scrolled over to the passenger lounge. There were over 14 missions with 1 MIO avg payoff, for minor factions that I was neutral with. The message seems to be: If I want to earn real money, and push for rank with the Navy, I have to become a space tour driver, or Haul Cargo.

Clearly something is amiss here:

Sightseeing tours for random space faring aristocrats SHOULD pay well, however, they SHOULD NOT work towards your advancement in the federal/Imperial navy. In all honesty, this is just stupid. This is the exact way you end up with tour-guides as Admirals?

By contrast, If military operations (ground strikes, intel hacking, scouting/exploration, covert ops, combat assignments etc.) are to be low-pay, at the very least hand out MORE assignments OR have them play a greater impact in rank progression than HAULAGE and SIGHT SEEING tours (two activities that should be NEAR IRRELEVANT for a military rank consideration) .

It makes NO sense that you can make 4 MIO and have at least a +1% Fed. rank increase by hauling some CEO over 3 destinations 24Ly from each other, while on the other hand you would get paid an insulting 126K (with medium influence and rep impact) to assault a base, take out their air defenses (One Dangerous Corvette, one Elite ASP, two Dangerous Viper MKIV, one Dangerous eagle), take out their turret grid (high security), in order to take our 3 sentry skimmers. BTW I had to abandon the latter due to the INSANE amount of difficulty involved, and I have an A rated slightly engineered conda with a size 6 Fighter bay and an ELITE fighter AI pilot, still can´t handle that 5 v 1 planetary dogfight (1.8KD rate with semi-pro rank in CQC).

Again, it is not difficulty I am against, I am against the payoff. 126K with medium influence and reputation impact... Devs need to be congruent, this game has already ALL the elements of a fun space combat and military sim, it does, I love the missions, we just need better RANK rewards for them or at the very least MORE military-related missions.

Regards,
R.

 

[Bionic Bytes]

Totally agree. I too posted a ‘suggestion’ to allow (re-allow) massacre stacking - perhaps 3 to 5 missions or significantly upping the payouts to reward the risk involved battling in combat zones

 

[Misty_Dark]

now when they have finally fixed the root cause that made stacking massacre missions so profitable, they can now remove the stupid limit to 3 of a kind mission limit, that only sort of works anyway.

And I totally agree on the strange balance of risk/reward!


I like that they finally made so going long distances in super cruise worth it, but they still have lots of things todo with the combat missions, especially those that will have you to raid a surface installation!


And I also think that they should add specific Imperial/Federation missions that gives much better gains to you rank progression, but may not pay that well in return. but can be high risk combat missions. As an option to doing regular missions, and also rank gain for non combat mission should be even lower.

So best rank increase is:
* Specific rank combat missions, with high risk, low pay
* Specific rank delivery mission of military nature, with high risk, low pay
* Specific rank personel transport mission of military nature, with high risk, low pay - could be deliver troops, or high ranked officers etc,

Low rank increase is:
* Generic combat missions, with varying risk levels, medium to high pay
* Generic delivery missions, with varying risk levels, medium to high pay
* Generic personel transport missions, with varying risk levels, medium to high pay

 

[Ranek Eisenkralle]

While I can agree to the sentiment that combat missions should be appropriately rewarding compared to the risk involved, there is one thing I have to vehemently disagree with - that hauling stuff or personnel from point A to Point B should have little influence on military standing. Has anyone of you ever heard of "Logistics"? This refers to having a fighting army supplied with all the stuff it needs to actually do its job. a soldier couldn't shoot a whole lot if no-one drops by and supplies him with additional ammunition or provisions, don't you think?
And with interstellar empires it is entirely possible that the necessary network of logistics is of a scale beyond comprehension. as for the sightseeing missions you mentiond, have you ever heard of generals touring the camps of his troops? Like Yamamoto Isoroku did during WW II.