There are now various threads reporting nerfs in 3.0. I've started one myself, regarding payments for bulk passenger runs to Smeaton Orbital.
Now some nerfing was undoubtedly called for. My one Smeaton session before it got hammered in the run-up to 3.0 made me Cr 600m in an afternoon; I doubt anyone thinks that's reasonable, though there are probably those who don't care.
Still, we were told that the pre-3.0 nerf was only temporary, pending adjustment. In the beta I couldn't do the Smeaton run because my recently allied status at Allen Hub didn't make it into the beta save, but my usual Barr Survey/Searfoss Enterprise Passengaconda run, which had been providing a rather generous Cr 70m/hr was down to Cr 22m/hr, and from what I saw of Allen Hub rates I would have expected Cr 27-35m/hr on the Smeaton run.
What I've found in 3.0, however is ca. Cr 10-12m/hr for bulk passenger runs at Smeaton. Other reports suggest that the Hutton Orbital data run, which was good for Cr 40m/hr may also have been nerfed.
Curiously, though, VIP missions at Allen Hub to Smeaton Orbital are still paying generously, making me ca. Cr 50m/hr. What's more, these missions are exclusively of the sort that don't get you shot to pieces as you're scanned approaching the mailslot.
So what's going on?
Well, it's conventional wisdom on these forums that FDev doesn't like there being money trees in the game. Big payouts get nerfed, and that's that.
But I'm wondering if there isn't a bit more going on here. Changes to Crime and Punishment mean that griefers and gankers are now to be burdened with huge costs for their transgressions.
But those huge costs are only huge if there's no easy way for criminals to recoup their losses. So the cry goes up: uproot all the money trees! Show no mercy!
Fine.
Except.
There are players in the game whose playstyles depend on easy money.
PvPers and Thargoid hunters in Corvettes with Cr 50m rebuys need some quick way of stockpiling these rebuys. They're willing to do a certain amount of grinding, or they wouldn't have tanked'n'tooled-up Corvettes in the first place; but it's a fair bet that if they have to spend yet more of their game time grinding than playing the game they want, a good percentage of them will seek their pleasure elsewhere.
Then there are players like me, sandbox players who want to enjoy whatever the game has to offer without endless grinding. Again, a certain amount of grind is tolerable; but if we're too often put in the position of having to decide between doing what we want to do now and grinding out money so we can do it later - well, we play games for pleasure, not so we can have the option of choosing between work and pleasure.
Other players, of course, are irritated by easy money - those whose game consists of working their way methodically through the laid-out progression and who have a noticeable tendency, at least as expressed on these forums, to think that everyone else should be playing the same way they do. But they have their game with or without easy money. Those of us who rely on it lose our game if it goes. And if it goes, some of us do too.
I think that there are members of the dev team who understand that. Which is why I think that the survival of high-paying and exclusively low-risk VIP missions at Allen Hub isn't mere accident or oversight.
I think there's a debate - to put it politely - among members of the dev team and their managers over the pros and cons of easy money. The Crime and Punishment changes have give the con side ammuntion to push their case. They're currently winning.
But they haven't won yet.
And for the sake of the game and the breadth (and size!) of its player base, and of course for my own sake, I hope they don't.
Now some nerfing was undoubtedly called for. My one Smeaton session before it got hammered in the run-up to 3.0 made me Cr 600m in an afternoon; I doubt anyone thinks that's reasonable, though there are probably those who don't care.
Still, we were told that the pre-3.0 nerf was only temporary, pending adjustment. In the beta I couldn't do the Smeaton run because my recently allied status at Allen Hub didn't make it into the beta save, but my usual Barr Survey/Searfoss Enterprise Passengaconda run, which had been providing a rather generous Cr 70m/hr was down to Cr 22m/hr, and from what I saw of Allen Hub rates I would have expected Cr 27-35m/hr on the Smeaton run.
What I've found in 3.0, however is ca. Cr 10-12m/hr for bulk passenger runs at Smeaton. Other reports suggest that the Hutton Orbital data run, which was good for Cr 40m/hr may also have been nerfed.
Curiously, though, VIP missions at Allen Hub to Smeaton Orbital are still paying generously, making me ca. Cr 50m/hr. What's more, these missions are exclusively of the sort that don't get you shot to pieces as you're scanned approaching the mailslot.
So what's going on?
Well, it's conventional wisdom on these forums that FDev doesn't like there being money trees in the game. Big payouts get nerfed, and that's that.
But I'm wondering if there isn't a bit more going on here. Changes to Crime and Punishment mean that griefers and gankers are now to be burdened with huge costs for their transgressions.
But those huge costs are only huge if there's no easy way for criminals to recoup their losses. So the cry goes up: uproot all the money trees! Show no mercy!
Fine.
Except.
There are players in the game whose playstyles depend on easy money.
PvPers and Thargoid hunters in Corvettes with Cr 50m rebuys need some quick way of stockpiling these rebuys. They're willing to do a certain amount of grinding, or they wouldn't have tanked'n'tooled-up Corvettes in the first place; but it's a fair bet that if they have to spend yet more of their game time grinding than playing the game they want, a good percentage of them will seek their pleasure elsewhere.
Then there are players like me, sandbox players who want to enjoy whatever the game has to offer without endless grinding. Again, a certain amount of grind is tolerable; but if we're too often put in the position of having to decide between doing what we want to do now and grinding out money so we can do it later - well, we play games for pleasure, not so we can have the option of choosing between work and pleasure.
Other players, of course, are irritated by easy money - those whose game consists of working their way methodically through the laid-out progression and who have a noticeable tendency, at least as expressed on these forums, to think that everyone else should be playing the same way they do. But they have their game with or without easy money. Those of us who rely on it lose our game if it goes. And if it goes, some of us do too.
I think that there are members of the dev team who understand that. Which is why I think that the survival of high-paying and exclusively low-risk VIP missions at Allen Hub isn't mere accident or oversight.
I think there's a debate - to put it politely - among members of the dev team and their managers over the pros and cons of easy money. The Crime and Punishment changes have give the con side ammuntion to push their case. They're currently winning.
But they haven't won yet.
And for the sake of the game and the breadth (and size!) of its player base, and of course for my own sake, I hope they don't.
Last edited: