Nonsense!
It is quite possible to lose a fully engineered ship to NPCs, admittedly you have to be being greedy and inattentive at the time and of course remember that fully engineered does not mean the ship has an optimal build.
ANNOUNCEMENT Game Balancing Pt.2
It is quite possible to lose a fully engineered ship to NPCs, admittedly you have to be being greedy and inattentive at the time and of course remember that fully engineered does not mean the ship has an optimal build.
Mission timings, as well as number of kills required definitely does need adjusting/balancing. Some players only have an hour or two per day to play the game, in which case a Solo mission to kill 80 targets in 21 hours, is just not feasible. Even if every target takes say 2 minutes (Including hunting, interdicting, etc. which is completely unrealistic) that's 160 minutes to complete the mission, 2 hours 40 minutes... even if you drop into a signal source with 10 mission targets, by the time you've killed them all (Assuming none run away) and found the next one, you're still not hitting that 2 hour window of time to play. Now, this would be fine, if the mission was like 3 or 4 days like some of the planetary scan missions, or 7 days like some of the wing assassination missions, but they're not, they're 21 - 24 hours, if that CMDR can't guarantee they can play again within 24 hours, they're going to fail that mission. Also, why on earth would wing missions have 7 days and a solo with essentially the same number of targets only have 1 day? In a wing of 4, you can complete the wing missions any number of ways, all 4 of you drop into different signal sources and clean up, or you all drop into individual sources and clean each one quicker, then hunt for the next, if you're on your own, you don't have either of those options.
I heard about the problem of other players in mining, but speaking for myself, everything is fine for me, perhaps because of my experience in this business, I get 100kk at least an hour and a half in a relaxed way, up to 150- 160 if I strain myself. And yes, I feel the problem of PWS bug, without it I would farm even more.
I strongly second this!
Solo missions need more time to complete, especially the massacre once. At the minimum add 1 day more so we can logon again same time next day and complete it!
Compromised Nav beacons are unreliable and are not a good example of how much the average bounty hunter will make.
And I'd love to see evidence of someone earning 15m credit in 10 minutes. I feel you're massively over exaggerating.
I agree that everyone should be able to get everything, that is intended to be owned by a single player. Also in a reasonable time frame, as not everyone can afford to make this game a job, like some people here suggest. A solution around this, especially for carriers, would be a system that allows squadron owned items. These then could be managed by certain player ranks, within the squadron. If members of a squadron could then "donate" a cut of their income (similar to what crew member take automatically) so the squadron can collectively own a carrier, that would help make this item feel more important (and ideally not have the entire galaxy cluttered with them). As it stands right now, only players who acquired riches before the changes, can enjoy the disproportional benefit of having huge cargo space and 500ly jump range, in that way.
yes the only issues i still see is the carrier jumping to some loaction without people liking it and that may create alot of dead groups just so people can have their own carrier. and i think the clutered systems may have something to do with carriers being cross platform for all i know
To add even more depth, repair costs could depend on the controlling faction. So repairing a courier would be cheaper at an imperial starport
Well, what is the regeneration time of the asteroid belt after the core mining ? And I agree that in individual cases it is still possible, but this is more related to luck than to the skill of controlling the ship of the core mining or ssf mining. and in terms of time, it rather takes 2 hours in any mode ... for that we have 50kk per hour if ... IF you're lucky
Just credits. Shouldn't affect combat ranking.
Making repair costs cheaper at stations that sell the ship/module in question (or, if the station doesn't have shipyard/outfitting enabled, would sell it if they had those services, as in they meet the faction/economic requirements) would be amazing.To add even more depth, repair costs could depend on the controlling faction. So repairing a courier would be cheaper at an imperial starport
![[VR] Bulbulunufus](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/261/261245.jpg?1671230473){kind=avatar}
Well, the bounty payout should depend on what the NPC is supposed to have done. However, a tougher (non-mission) NPC should have been capable of more badness than a weak one, so there should be a correlation. But there's room for a large RNG factor there...
Agree, that's a nice way of making an engineered ship more valuable than a less engineered one. Especially given the rebuy is the same regardless (and in fact you'll be paying it much less frequently in an engineered ship for the same task). I mean, we could increase the rebuy too on engi ships right? As in, put an excess on the insurance for all the extra fiddling and material sourcing required?Ages ago I suggested this:
Fuel and repairs more expensive based on ship type, engineering / manufacturer + other ideas
Since money flows like a river, how about making ship ownership a bit more interesting? Firstly, raise the base repair cost by x10, and maintenance by x5. Repair costs are then based on: Tier of ship- basic generic ships are massively inexpensive to repair. So workhorse freighters are cheap...forums.frontier.co.uk
There has to be some form of link between ship type, level (and type) of engineering and frequency of repairs, otherwise major parts of the game are slowly drifting away from each other. It should be IMO an unengineered T-9 should be easy to repair as well as cheap, and that it hardly ever requires repairs to begin with...while high performance hot rod bleeding edge engineered ships need constant maintenance.
If not, then repair cost and fuel are pointless.
Hi, i'd like to see a change in weapons to rebalance ships somehow, it might be off topic.
My idea would be to nerf higher class weapons when shooting at smaller target, while smaller weapons still being highly accurate. For example, a ship that only have big hardpoints would be less effective against an eagle. That could be done by introducing some kind of dispersion or "acquisition time" on those big weapons, making it hard to hit small and fast moving targets. Big hardpoints would still be as effective against big targets but bigger ships would need support for dealing with small and agile vessels. This change could make small turreted hardpoints viable on big ships in order to defend themselves against smaller ones. Fighter hangar would become more viable. Some ships like the vulture would then specialize in taking out big ships since it has only class 3 hardpoints... I feel like this could introduce a lot of nuance in the ship balancing : right now, the big fish almost always eats the small one.
I think we should be incentivized to use small ships, right now they are just too weak.
It's barely the embryo of an idea, but it could lead to many interesting gameplay changes.
Cmdr Furmos
My idea would be to nerf higher class weapons when shooting at smaller target, while smaller weapons still being highly accurate. For example, a ship that only have big hardpoints would be less effective against an eagle. That could be done by introducing some kind of dispersion or "acquisition time" on those big weapons, making it hard to hit small and fast moving targets. Big hardpoints would still be as effective against big targets but bigger ships would need support for dealing with small and agile vessels. This change could make small turreted hardpoints viable on big ships in order to defend themselves against smaller ones. Fighter hangar would become more viable. Some ships like the vulture would then specialize in taking out big ships since it has only class 3 hardpoints... I feel like this could introduce a lot of nuance in the ship balancing : right now, the big fish almost always eats the small one.
I think we should be incentivized to use small ships, right now they are just too weak.
It's barely the embryo of an idea, but it could lead to many interesting gameplay changes.
Cmdr Furmos
That's a great idea. They should be far more expensive to replace.Ages ago I suggested this:
Fuel and repairs more expensive based on ship type, engineering / manufacturer + other ideas
Since money flows like a river, how about making ship ownership a bit more interesting? Firstly, raise the base repair cost by x10, and maintenance by x5. Repair costs are then based on: Tier of ship- basic generic ships are massively inexpensive to repair. So workhorse freighters are cheap...
There has to be some form of link between ship type, level (and type) of engineering and frequency of repairs, otherwise major parts of the game are slowly drifting away from each other. It should be IMO an unengineered T-9 should be easy to repair as well as cheap, and that it hardly ever requires repairs to begin with...while high performance hot rod bleeding edge engineered ships need constant maintenance.
If not, then repair cost and fuel are pointless.
It could be done via:
base value for each ship
each module having its own complexity value plus grade (which are added up)
notoriety (i.e. if you are wanted, you need to do an under the table cash in hand repair)
location (rank locked ships being expensive in rival superpower locations, while neutral ships are set to 0) plus the proximity to high tech systems (for the parts- a station in the middle of nowhere needs to order them in an abstraction).
base value for each ship
each module having its own complexity value plus grade (which are added up)
notoriety (i.e. if you are wanted, you need to do an under the table cash in hand repair)
location (rank locked ships being expensive in rival superpower locations, while neutral ships are set to 0) plus the proximity to high tech systems (for the parts- a station in the middle of nowhere needs to order them in an abstraction).
No luck, only knowledge.
You are of course correct, however I think we have to accept that there are limitations as to what Frontier can do technically (the code is a total mess) and are willing to do (resources may not be deployed in significant amounts).
In short - anyone expecting a full rebalance needs to be prepared for disappointment.