Ships aren't supposed to be disposable. If you can't fly your billion dollar ship without losing it you don't deserve it.
Biggest request for 2.3 or 2.4: Please let us make money.
- Thread starter killerofstars
- Start date
I kind of agree... However, I would say that not being able to fly a specific expensive rebuy ship (due to low funds) should not be the end of the world - if you can afford that kind of ship and a couple of rebuys then you can afford to mothball/bench the ship for a while and switch to another more affordable (rebuy wise) ship. If you have an expensive rebuy ship and do not retain some smaller (cheaper rebuy wise) ships as a contingency then you are your own worst enemy.
Last edited:
hahah. I expect answer like that. You bring literary nothing on this topic. "dont deserve it"
you are funny guy. * im talking about low mission rewards. There arent hard good paid missions for "end" game.
My state right now: look for exploits OR repeat million missions
Plenty of missions paying 1/2 million.
I have trade routes paying 1.5 to 2.2 every 10 minutes
I think it's fine
You just need to put the work in to find areas.
I have trade routes paying 1.5 to 2.2 every 10 minutes
I think it's fine
You just need to put the work in to find areas.
I remember back when I started, it was nearly impossible to find a mission that paid more than 100k. Those were typically assassination missions, the vast majority of missions paid half that or less. Haz rez didn't exist yet, powerplay didn't exist yet. The two fastest ways to make money were A-B trading (which as far as I can tell basically hasn't been touched, other than powerplay modifying prices in Alliance space and certain Empire systems), or bounty hunting in a high rez.
Massacre missions didn't exist yet, and a CZ would only pay you what, 36k for an anaconda kill? They doubled CZ payouts later to get the ones we have today.
So the high rez was where it was at. Back then if you could get more than 80k on an anaconda it was a good score, scanning one for a 100k+ bounty was a jackpot.
So to say we're not making money now when 10M to 20M missions are not that hard to find? Well... perspective, perhaps, but it seems to me our income has already been buffed by a few orders of magnitude. How much more do you want?
Massacre missions didn't exist yet, and a CZ would only pay you what, 36k for an anaconda kill? They doubled CZ payouts later to get the ones we have today.
So the high rez was where it was at. Back then if you could get more than 80k on an anaconda it was a good score, scanning one for a 100k+ bounty was a jackpot.
So to say we're not making money now when 10M to 20M missions are not that hard to find? Well... perspective, perhaps, but it seems to me our income has already been buffed by a few orders of magnitude. How much more do you want?
Enough to be in open and pvp with it without being crippled after a loss is what I think is being surmised here
Your logic is flawed. Have you considered what a reasonable payback for a large complicated craft would actually be?
Looking at real life examples that may be useful for comparisons, based on the numbers you provided, running $2ml missions in your $1bn ship will see twice the payback of a 747 running sold out round trip flights between London and Atlanta.
The 747-8 costs around $368mil USD and seats 467 passengers. Average operating costs for large network carriers is around $.11/seat/mile. Assuming full occupancy per flight and 4,206 miles one way, that aircraft would show a simple payback of 851 round trip flights.
If you ran 851 missions averaging $2mil rewards each, you would have earned $1.7bn, which is nearly double payback.
So, having nearly double the payback rate of real world examples doesn't seem too bad, and certainly not out of scale.