Lets be fair about multicrew

[Monk]

It's the simplest that defeats his other positions, that's why I go back to it.



Admittedly: It's the strongest yet the hardest one in all our debates for HIM to conceive of.



As outlined in other threads AND IN MY POST HE IGNORED, AFK farming even at equal payouts doesn't net credits any faster and retains it's downside of someone losing a ship they don't know how to fly.

And the "risk" assumed by a captain in MC is always assumed by the captain, risks that one can avoid/negate by not using the feature if you don't want to. No one is MAKING you host a mutli-crew session.

Edit to add: WHOA - Can't argue with this!

First, that isn't related. One involves players causing havoc, the other has to do with how progression and credits are handled. Fundamentally different.

I thought you can't AFK farm in a wing...don't you have to land a shot, at least, to get your share of the bounty? Perhaps if the same logic was applied to MC, I might reconsider how I'm viewing this.

 

[Guywired]

First, that isn't related. One involves players causing havoc, the other has to do with how progression and credits are handled. Fundamentally different.

First, it is related. The point is that as host you have control over both.

I thought you can't AFK farm in a wing...don't you have to land a shot, at least, to get your share of the bounty? Perhaps if the same logic was applied to MC, I might reconsider how I'm viewing this.

But then I would argue that's a problem with the mechanic that SHOULD be addressed, not an argument for nerfing payouts into the ground like they have.

 

[Ezren]

ROFL - You're ridiculous if that's how you've interpreted my posts.

I literally made the point: "If you don't like it, don't use it and then it doesn't effect you"

That's not a point, and also it's "affect", not "effect". And, in a case of irony that seems to have soared directly over your head, you could apply that exact same statement to not changing MC payouts at all.

"If you don't like the MC payments, don't use it and it won't affect you."

Which totally negates all your concerns, it's that simple of an argument. Don't like it? Don't use it. Done.

No, it totally negates any feedback on anything in the game, at all. Also, it does not address my concerns in any way, which I've stated clearly in regards to their impact on the game. And, again, that's not an argument.

Post after post you attack a style of argument and not the argument.

You don't make an argument. You post the forum equivalent of a bumper sticker. Calling your posts an "argument" would be an insult to the concept.

I'm sure you think that's gaining you ground somewhere, but it's not. Especially with me. Your attacks against me and not the topic only embolden me.

You're not leading a revolution, nor are you fighting some sort of oppression. You're just reciting your opinion, repeatedly. And despite how desperately you paint it as an "attack" or whatever negative connotation you continually try to attach to my posts, I've made a measured and reasoned argument, and you have not.

Feed me your tears, I can take them.

What you can't seem to take, however, is criticism or opposing opinions.

But my point about balancing Wing and MC payouts remains. If you don't like equal payments, just don't use the feature and all your concerns about how "fair" things are goes away.

You never made such a point. You restated your opinion; so unless your point is entirely defined by "because I think so", that's not a point.

And, as I said above but will happily repeat here: "if you don't like it don't use it" applies to any feedback. It's you attempting to shut out any discussion without the awareness of how self-defeating it is every time.

 

[Guywired]

---Snipped garbage attacks, again..---

But my point about balancing Wing and MC payouts remains. If you don't like equal payments, just don't use the feature and all your concerns about how "fair" things are goes away.

You never made such a point. You restated your opinion; so unless your point is entirely defined by "because I think so", that's not a point.

I made the point several times, specifically in the post you continue to ignore because it rips your position to threads.

Don't put your comprehension issues on me, man.

 

[Monk]

First, it is related. The point is that as host you have control over both.



But then I would argue that's a problem with the mechanic that SHOULD be addressed, not an argument for nerfing payouts into the ground like they have.

I agree they took it down too harshly. As I've said, I'd payout a little more than double what it does now for the lower ranks with it capping out at 75ish% for the top rank.

Looking at this from a new player's perspective, the payout is just too little, especially considering that everything for a new player takes 10x longer to do. However, full payouts would facilitate the fast transfer of wealth to new players which is something Frontier has not wanted since day one. Which is why we don't have credit transfers.


Back to the first thing...still don't see how they are related. I can't think of a single helmsman that would want to allow people to fire off all their SCBs for the lulz. Helm is deciding if they want to manage an external risk as opposed to easily enriching another player.

 

[Ezren]

I made the point several times, specifically in the post you continue to ignore because it rips your position to threads.

Don't put your comprehension issues on me, man.

Mm, No. That post does nothing to address my points. I stated clearly: it comments on my points, but does nothing more. You do nothing to refute AFK farming, or the differences I point out in your faulty comparison to Wings, or anything.

My position is clearly stated and firmly supported with multiple arguments and explained reasons.

You have moved to a state of full-on delusion if you think you're in any kind of superior position.

 

[HBK]

I'm not sure I follow the whole "debate", but nerfing rewards doesn't prevent "AFK farming", it just slows it down.

I didn't test it but if you can get a share while sitting in the copilot seat doing nothing, then the blame is entirely on Frontier, and nerfing rewards is just a bandaid to a much bigger problem.

 

[Guywired]

I agree they took it down too harshly. As I've said, I'd payout a little more than double what it does now for the lower ranks with it capping out at 75ish% for the top rank.

I would say that between the low payout and the associated bugs that the feature is not worth using, at all.

Looking at this from a new player's perspective, the payout is just too little, especially considering that everything for a new player takes 10x longer to do. However, full payouts would facilitate the fast transfer of wealth to new players which is something Frontier has not wanted since day one. Which is why we don't have credit transfers.

If AFKing transfers wealth too quickly to a new player who has purchased BOTH ED AND Season 2, I say reward them with AFK-MC credits. You are seriously catering to such a small group that it's not going to break the game. (another point made to Ezren but he likes to ignore and reword my posts).

But let's go deeper into this argument...

It takes X credits to buy a ship.
It's takes Y time to AFK grind X credits.

Right?

So you have someone, who in your words bought ED AND SEASON 2 despite not ever playing the game before...

And they find a friend willing to let them AFK from Zero to 125mil credits (cause if you pay full price for a conda you're a real noob)

Now we have this harmless CMDR who's never even flown a sidewinder now flying an Anaconda. (I know! Your worse nightmare, right?)

How long before that n00b is back in a sidewinder.. or GASP! Back in multi-crew? And the only reason this AFK guy keeps landing back in MC is because someone else, someone other than yourself and Ezren let him there.

But he's not hurting anyone.

IN FACT I think YOU just made the point that if he can competently fly a conda after afking his way into 125mil credits, then there's something else wrong with the progression of the game and NOT MC payouts.

Back to the first thing...still don't see how they are related. I can't think of a single helmsman that would want to allow people to fire off all their SCBs for the lulz. Helm is deciding if they want to manage an external risk as opposed to easily enriching another player.

Both are under his control. Boot the people you don't want on your ship, it's the same argument.

 

[Monk]

I'm not sure I follow the whole "debate", but nerfing rewards doesn't prevent "AFK farming", it just slows it down.

I didn't test it but if you can get a share while sitting in the copilot seat doing nothing, then the blame is entirely on Frontier, and nerfing rewards is just a bandaid to a much bigger problem.

Yes, you could say the earnings nerf is a small band-aid to a larger issue. It probably makes sense to tie bounty payouts to you only when you contribute to that ships destruction...though, there is one flaw in that thinking. Say you just want your crew to manage SCBs, Chaff and Heat Sinks and you have no turreted weapons. How does that commander get compensated?

I'm thinking that is how the discussion went and why they ended up with "just pay everyone"

- - - Updated - - -

I would say that between the low payout and the associated bugs that the feature is not worth using, at all.

Disagree. MC is fun to use in its own right, though I understand the need to be paid.

If AFKing transfers wealth too quickly to a new player who has purchased BOTH ED AND Season 2, I say reward them with AFK-MC credits. You are seriously catering to such a small group that it's not going to break the game. (another point made to Ezren but he likes to ignore and reword my posts).

But let's go deeper into this argument...

It takes X credits to buy a ship.
It's takes Y time to AFK grind X credits.

Right?

So you have someone, who in your words bought ED AND SEASON 2 despite not ever playing the game before...

And they find a friend willing to let them AFK from Zero to 125mil credits (cause if you pay full price for a conda you're a real noob)

Now we have this harmless CMDR who's never even flown a sidewinder now flying an Anaconda. (I know! Your worse nightmare, right?)

How long before that n00b is back in a sidewinder.. or GASP! Back in multi-crew? And the only reason this AFK guy keeps landing back in MC is because someone else, someone other than yourself and Ezren let him there.

But he's not hurting anyone.

IN FACT I think YOU just made the point that if he can competently fly a conda after afking his way into 125mil credits, then there's something else wrong with the progression of the game and NOT MC payouts.

What does purchase of the game have to do with it? It isn't about hurting anyone...obviously, I'm not hurt by a new player in a Conda. Rather, what I'm seeing is players doing themselves a disservice by skipping across the early game and having not cut their teeth. Only to later feel like they got nothing out of the game b/c they can't figure out how to do anything in their shiny conda. Frontier has shown that they believe the game is to be experienced as a weakling...a weakling who loses their ships until they figure it out. Fat payouts only set up players for failure and eventual hate of the game, imo.

Both are under his control. Boot the people you don't want on your ship, it's the same argument.

No, still not. There are CMDRs who would happily enrich their buddy, even if it is to their eventual detriment as I described above. In contrast, literally no one wants a person on their ship who are trying to cook it to death or ruin their chances at survival.

 

[Ezren]

First, really sorry for the delayed reply. Dealing with something here.

I provided enough reason. Not MY fault you find it lacking. Equal payments kills the debate at a cost of NOTHING to anyone. Do it.

If you provided reason, show it. You continually refer to it vaguely.

/sigh

YOUR chart might be the greatest compromise in the history of human negotiations, but that doesn't make it THE answer let alone a correct answer.

You do nothing to address this. You do not formulate an argument against the values or scaling. You just make a comment. You say nothing specific.

So? Let them. They'll seek out other players and ultimate add to a thriving community of people who love to play together. How is that a bad thing?

Completely and utterly blew past the point of making MC far too efficient at income earning. You don't address the argument in any way but provide and tangential comment.

I would think that's up to the ship host then. Don't like the crew? Boot them. THIS IS A CURRENT MECHANIC. Don't act like it's not.

Again, completely and utterly ignoring the point that there would be nothing preventing anyone from having buddies on board and just feeding them free credits while they have no need to take any action, at no detriment. You comment about something on the peripheral of the point. Again.

So? That goes both ways. Someone can multicrew with someone else in another part of the galaxy putting the ownership on another CMDR and not always the same CMDR. That decision should be up to the host, not you. I'm fine paying those things for other people to come on my ship. That's kinda the point when you play host, not crew.

The idea that different people can host MultiCrew has absolutely nothing to do with this. Again, commentary on a tangent, not addressing the clearly stated point.

You know people have done the math in other threads, it still takes over 40hrs of PERFECT spawning and action for a player being compensated at 100% of wings WHILE being AFK to earn the cost of a Conda.

In short: It is ACTUALLY so much work to get yourself an AFK-E-CLASS-Conda that we should LET players do it just to see the look on their faces when they crash it the first time and can't buy it back, causing them to have to the MC grind all over again.

One more time: not addressing the point. The fact that it's possible, but fastest for a player to earn the funds to buy an Anaconda without ever flying or docking their own ship under full payout is completely ignored. No, you decide to throw a vague reference to how it would take a little longer, instead. More tangential commentary.

Players will always want to follow the path of least resistance and YOU need to realize that doesn't mean the one programmed to be the easiest, it means they'll follow the path most satisfying TO THEM.

So "path of least resistance" doesn't equate to "easiest"? I see that the logic of definitions continues to hold no sway over you. But this sentence is fluff; you're advocating for a system that gives rise to the easiest and also most beneficial method.

There, I've addressed your commentary, which you could loosely call a "response", but accurately assess as non-topic fluff. You talk around my points, but completely and utterly fail to address them.

 

[HBK]

Yes, you could say the earnings nerf is a small band-aid to a larger issue. It probably makes sense to tie bounty payouts to you only when you contribute to that ships destruction...though, there is one flaw in that thinking. Say you just want your crew to manage SCBs, Chaff and Heat Sinks and you have no turreted weapons. How does that commander get compensated?

I'm thinking that is how the discussion went and why they ended up with "just pay everyone"

It's the same issue this game is facing from day one : gameplay.

What if instead of hacking the current game mechanics (here replacing turret AI) we gave copilots actual, dedicated gameplay ?

Wouldn't it have been nice to have a dedicated "engineer" role managing sub-systems to improve their performance ?

There, problem fixed. You don't have turrets ? Copilot can help you overcharge shields/engines/weapons and the game can detect if he/she plays/contribute or just "AFK".

And if you design it so that it is a pure bonus (i.e. messing up doesn't hamper your ship, you just don't get bonuses), bam you can't even troll the pilot because messing stuff on purpose doesn't hamper the pilot in any way (other than missing potentially useful bonuses).

Edit : You can even skip the magic pip part.

 

[Ezren]

I'm not sure I follow the whole "debate", but nerfing rewards doesn't prevent "AFK farming", it just slows it down.

With a full payout, there's no reason to not do it, because the Helm is getting 100% either way, and even gets extra pips from an inactive lump in one of his chairs.

With the split that I detailed pretty clearly in the chart I provided, the act of afk farming would be hindered by the fact that the split would be a financial detriment to the Helm, and thus not purely beneficial, which is a deterrent. It would also reduce the rewards for the afk farmer, which is a further deterrent.

I don't bemoan rewards if you're sitting not doing anything, for cases where a ship with one fighter for is currently rebuilding it would be a not-uncommon scenario. Fighter role is much more popular than gunner.

 

[Monk]

It's the same issue this game is facing from day one : gameplay.

What if instead of hacking the current game mechanics (here replacing turret AI) we gave copilots actual, dedicated gameplay ?

Wouldn't it have been nice to have a dedicated "engineer" role managing sub-systems to improve their performance ?

There, problem fixed. You don't have turrets ? Copilot can help you overcharge shields/engines/weapons and the game can detect if he/she plays/contribute or just "AFK".

And if you design it so that it is a pure bonus (i.e. messing up doesn't hamper your ship, you just don't get bonuses), bam you can't even troll the pilot because messing stuff on purpose doesn't hamper the pilot in any way (other than missing potentially useful bonuses).

Edit : You can even skip the magic pip part.

Honestly, this is what I was really hoping for with MC. I'd imagined an engineer role that had you prioritize shields from being more resistant to specific types of weapons to strengthening different quadrants during battle...or even having direct control of capacitors...like dumping power out of ENG to WEP for a burst of damage while the Helm has all pips in ENG and SYS.

 

[Guywired]

Disagree. MC is fun to use in its own right, though I understand the need to be paid.

Right. So if Wings can now illogically payout 100% to all ships, then MC can do the same. Keep it consistent and it will be a non-issue.

What does purchase of the game have to do with it? It isn't about hurting anyone...obviously, I'm not hurt by a new player in a Conda. Rather, what I'm seeing is players doing themselves a disservice by skipping across the early game and having not cut their teeth. Only to later feel like they got nothing out of the game b/c they can't figure out how to do anything in their shiny conda. Frontier has shown that they believe the game is to be experienced as a weakling...a weakling who loses their ships until they figure it out. Fat payouts only set up players for failure and eventual hate of the game, imo.

I would just like to point out that on one hand your argument is that the player will afk his way into a ship he's going to crash because he was afk and NOT doing anything to earn credits.

And then on the other hand you are posting in threads recognizing that MC guests have a lot of control over their hosts ships.

Feels like these two things cancel each other out leaving nothing to really refute the Equal payment argument, ya'know?

No, still not. There are CMDRs who would happily enrich their buddy, even if it is to their eventual detriment as I described above. In contrast, literally no one wants a person on their ship who are trying to cook it to death or ruin their chances at survival.

For sure, but that's on the captain to make those choices. Not on a lame payout system, right?

How about this.. you're meeting me halfway with the payouts and agreeing that they need to be increased...

But seriously, why should they just NOT be equal?

 

[Monk]

Right. So if Wings can now illogically payout 100% to all ships, then MC can do the same. Keep it consistent and it will be a non-issue.

I'd agree, it should be more consistent. I never like 100% bounties going to all wing members. It was better when it was shared and I don't remember anyone complaining about it.

I would just like to point out that on one hand your argument is that the player will afk his way into a ship he's going to crash because he was afk and NOT doing anything to earn credits.

And then on the other hand you are posting in threads recognizing that MC guests have a lot of control over their hosts ships.

Feels like these two things cancel each other out leaving nothing to really refute the Equal payment argument, ya'know?

Except they don't. You are conflating two issues. One involves players snoozing in their chairs while making loads of cash while the other involves crew deciding to participate in a destructive way to the host. And I never said "a lot of control" I said that they have control over specific functions that the Helm should be able to limit at will.

For sure, but that's on the captain to make those choices. Not on a lame payout system, right?

How about this.. you're meeting me halfway with the payouts and agreeing that they need to be increased...

But seriously, why should they just NOT be equal?

They shouldn't be equal because they are doing a fraction of the work at zero risk to themselves. As I said before, if risk could be shared, we could move closer to a more equal payout or a payout akin to how wings used to be.

 

[Guywired]

If you provided reason, show it. You continually refer to it vaguely.

A trick I learned from you? But scroll up, you'll find it.

You do nothing to address this. You do not formulate an argument against the values or scaling. You just make a comment. You say nothing specific.

Not true. I said make it equal so it becomes a non-issue. If there are no values/scaling then there's nothing to debate. That's how this whole thing came up.

Completely and utterly blew past the point of making MC far too efficient at income earning. You don't address the argument in any way but provide and tangential comment.

You're not making an actual counter-point here, you're attacking the style of argument, AGAIN.

Again, completely and utterly ignoring the point that there would be nothing preventing anyone from having buddies on board and just feeding them free credits while they have no need to take any action, at no detriment. You comment about something on the peripheral of the point. Again.

The bold is impossible, but it's your ONLY counterpoint so I'll address it.

Why is that a problem?

The idea that different people can host MultiCrew has absolutely nothing to do with this. Again, commentary on a tangent, not addressing the clearly stated point.

It's everything to do with it. If you don't like the way someone is playing the game, don't play with them and it's a non-issue for you.

One more time: not addressing the point. The fact that it's possible, but fastest for a player to earn the funds to buy an Anaconda without ever flying or docking their own ship under full payout is completely ignored. No, you decide to throw a vague reference to how it would take a little longer, instead. More tangential commentary.

Because it defeats your argument about why this is a problem to begin with. You ignore the fact because it's inconvenient to your position. That doesn't make my position wrong.

So "path of least resistance" doesn't equate to "easiest"? I see that the logic of definitions continues to hold no sway over you. But this sentence is fluff; you're advocating for a system that gives rise to the easiest and also most beneficial method.

I took extra time to explain that players will play the most satisfying way. But way to ignore that so you can artificially inflate your position and get another off-topic jab in. It's really what you do best.

There, I've addressed your commentary, which you could loosely call a "response", but accurately assess as non-topic fluff. You talk around my points, but completely and utterly fail to address them.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Ezren]

They shouldn't be equal because they are doing a fraction of the work at zero risk to themselves. As I said before, if risk could be shared, we could move closer to a more equal payout or a payout akin to how wings used to be.

Even at equal risk, the requirements to attain that level of income need to scale to ensure that a player can't go from Zero to Corvette level income in a CZ or RES.

Also you don't need to keep defending your comments that were taking out of context about MC griefing - I don't think anyone is misconstruing your intent, despite his best efforts to misrepresent your words.

 

[Ian Phillips]

Hello boys.

Tone it down a bit please?

The PC side is getting upset by all the bickering

 

[Monk]

Even at equal risk, the requirements to attain that level of income need to scale to ensure that a player can't go from Zero to Corvette level income in a CZ or RES.

When looking for compromise, sometimes we must explore. I'm afraid no compromise is possible, however. Perhaps time to bow out again.

EDIT: not you, I mean. I think we can come to some agreement, though we keep getting derailed.

Also you don't need to keep defending your comments that were taking out of context about MC griefing - I don't think anyone is misconstruing your intent, despite his best efforts to misrepresent your words.

When someone asks for a shovel, I hand it to em.

 

[Ezren]

You're not making an actual counter-point here, you're attacking the style of argument, AGAIN.

I did not need to make a counter-point, as you did not present a point. And what I did was actually call attention to lack of argument.

You can keep saying you defeat my argument and you're right, and it's not going to amount to anything because you have nothing of substance.

You've clearly demonstrated your inability to participate in actual, thoughtful discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

When looking for compromise, sometimes we must explore. I'm afraid no compromise is possible, however. Perhaps time to bow out again.

EDIT: not you, I mean. I think we can come to some agreement, though we keep getting derailed.

I was going to say, I thought my suggestion was a pretty reasonable compromise that took elements of scaling and crew size and worked them into a middle with consideration for rewarding and balance.

But yes, I would call it derailed, indeed.