Lets be fair about multicrew

[Guywired]

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.

Have wings revert to sharing and have MC do the same? Sounds good, ship it.

IIRC, the whole point to making wings give the payouts they now have was to balance it with what MC was GOING to get.

So in that sense, when MC got nerf'd.. why didn't Wings get nerf'd too?

THAT'S messed up.

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.

I'm only pointing that one thread argues that guests don't have enough responsibilities while the other argues that they have too many.

MY Anaconda is setup so that the crew does most the work. I'll not have an AFKer on my ship because honestly I have no control over my stuff and I need them to get the kill. But that's MY choice.

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.

They should be equal because whether they have to do the work or just go along for the ride it's on the host to decide if they're willing to share the risk.

To reiterate my above point, Wings might need to be nerf'd. But even then the MC payout should be equal to what you can get in a wing.

 

[Ezren]

They should be equal because whether they have to do the work or just go along for the ride it's on the host to decide if they're willing to share the risk.

That's not a reason for equal pay. That's a reason for non-shared risk. They are not mutually exclusive. Stop drawing false equivalences.

 

[GODofDUTY83]

Its a shame I cant give some credits to those explorers that open up their ships. I just got taken on some tour.

 

[Guywired]

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.

Kinda need to build rep to buy a Corvette too.. That'll delay the supposed afk-achievement.

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.

Which is it then? MC guy does too much or not enough? Can't have both.

 

[Guywired]

That's not a reason for equal pay. That's a reason for non-shared risk. They are not mutually exclusive. Stop drawing false equivalences.

Hmm.

This is an interesting point, because I can KINDA see what you're saying.

Sure, they're not mutually exclusive.. but does that make it a false equivalent?

My position assumes that there are plenty of other things broken with MC and that the 'risk sharing' is a separate component which needs to be adjusted along with payouts but not necessarily at the same time, because they are NOT mutually exclusive to each other. .

And I've said this before too, but I'll take half the blame for not communicating it clearly to you.

WITH THAT SAID, if equal pay and risk sharing are NOT mutually exclusive, why bring it up? That's on you, not me.

 

[GODofDUTY83]

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.

Yeah. Deeper roles for the copilot chairs is definitely needed.

 

[Ezren]

WITH THAT SAID, if equal pay and risk sharing are NOT mutually exclusive, why bring it up? That's on you, not me.

No, that's directly on you, as you took a comment by Monk on risk sharing and applied it to equal pay. You made the comparison, by taking his words out of context and misrepresenting them.

Also, in that quote I was directly responding to you talking about shared risk and equal pay:

They should be equal because whether they have to do the work or just go along for the ride it's on the host to decide if they're willing to share the risk.

There is no ambiguity for you to play with there. This is you literally not comprehending your own words.

 

[Guywired]

No, that's directly on you, as you took a comment by Monk on risk sharing and applied it to equal pay. You made the comparison, by taking his words out of context and misrepresenting them.

Also, in that quote I was directly responding to you talking about shared risk and equal pay. So how am I "bringing it up" when responding to you talking about exactly that comparison?

You are just flooding this thread with complete nonsense.

Whoa WHOA WAIT

You are claiming that you haven't brought up risk sharing in your attacks against Equal pay?

Clear this up, please.

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.

You've got the equipment and resources to sustain a lot of income, or get a higher value out of teamwork by putting your ship on the line by winging up.

Each also has to manage the full range of ship functions, is paying for maintenance, repairs, and risking possible rebuy. Wings and Multi-crew are not equivalent.

 

[AkimuMC]

It is truly a moot point in the long run. FD is going to do what FD does. They obviously have no desire to involve themselves in this discussion. The bottom line from what they have put out is that higher payscales will disturb the designed progression of their game.

Now, I will argue all day that point is bunk. It is far easier to make credits on your own. So, if you are early game, and you decide to jump in a multicrew situation, your progression is stunted. I suppose that is the way to "balance early game progression" is to all but freeze it.

Everyone is worried about AFK credit farming? Lol, ok... so a person proving they don't want to play the game, is somehow going to ruin the game for you... somehow... while they are not playing... I guess when they get done not playing, maybe they play? And at that point someone who didn't really want to play, but is now playing is again going to ruin the game for everyone else... somehow... Oh yeah, they are going to get loads of credits and then become griefers. Right, I forgot... because currently there are no griefers so we should keep them away by cutting profits to a career choice... because you know if they had all those credits, someone who has been AFK is going to have mad skills and knowledge of how to effectively take on PvP... right... I am sooooo worried about that...

Not to mention, multicrew (at least the gunner seat) teaches absolutely nothing about running your own ship. So even if these "griefers in training" are in fact playing and working ship systems, what PvP skills are they going to have when they magically buy their Corvette? Oh wait, they would have to be in their own ship for countless hours to rank up to get a Corvette... Um, what skills will they have when they get in their own Cutter? Oh... yeah... countless hours on their own again.... So they can get in a Conda and do what? Become the most infamous griefer in the galaxy? Lol... ok. Scary stuff going on if multicrew pays anymore than 5% to competent and below...

I have already proven twice I can wing with a new player and skip early game progression BEFORE wing payouts were 100/100 across the wing. Now? please. What ship do you want? We can get you in whatever isn't rank locked in a few good sessions. Easy peasy. I will show you exactly where to fly and what to do to make a ton of credits without much risk.

Now, I will stop helping if you do one thing. But, there is one thing that negates absolutely every ounce of risk in the game. Log. However, if you do this on your own, or with somebody who doesn't care, no one will be the wiser. It eliminates absolutely all risk, and gets you 100% of payouts instead of 5%, or whatever pathetic percentage you would be at sitting in my ship as a gunner/fighter. But, it is obviously an option that nobody has an answer to. It is an exploit that completely breaks the game and every argument about progression/digression in this game.

Nope. It is what it is folks. Keep arguing the solutions. Keep arguing your happiness. I will keep playing the game, and I will keep using multicrew. It has been decided for us that this is what it will be, at least currently. Does it make sense? Nope. Not to me. But keep spouting off all your "logic" that feels completely "illogical" after I think about what I have been doing in this game for 2 years...

Lol... someones game is going to disturb my game... lol... how many of you even play in open anyway... I haven't once had another CMDR's bank balance affect my game in the slightest.

Early game progression [haha] Griefers in training [haha] Risk [haha]

 

[Ezren]

Whoa WHOA WAIT

You are claiming that you haven't brought up risk sharing in your attacks against Equal pay?

Clear this up, please.

Removing comments from context, do you have anything new?

And clearly you have no comprehension of what "mutually exclusive" means, as I did nothing to make one dependent on the other, as you were attempting to.

 

[Guywired]

What the actual?

You clearly brought up risk as issue in your debate against equal pay.

I quoted you using risk as a counter point.

You don't defend any of it and you go on to reverse your course on what's mutually exclusive and what's not?

I'll quote you again:

That's not a reason for equal pay. That's a reason for non-shared risk. They are not mutually exclusive. Stop drawing false equivalences.

And clearly you have no comprehension of what "mutually exclusive" means, as I did nothing to make one dependent on the other, as you were attempting to.

You wanted to bring in risk as an issue towards not allowing for equal pay.

When it paints you into a corner you say that I don't understand that it's not mutually exclusive.

When I agree and say that they aren't mutually exclusive and ask why it is you brought it up, you claim you didn't bring it up even though I quoted you multiple times doing it.

 

[AkimuMC]

/applause [heart]

Can we get a round of applause for the thread that should be entitled: "My reading comprehension and debate skills are better than yours! No they aren't! Mine are! Nope, not true! Yes huh!"

The thing that you folks are not realizing or taking into account at all, is that logging is, and has been a huge exploit since the game was released. You do realize, that anytime you ever talk about risk, that can be shut down with the push of one button, right?

Hey, more power to you if you don't use exploits regardless of what they are (log, long range missions, beacon undermining, mode switching, whatever), but don't be so naive that you forget that other people give absolutely 0 :O 's about exploits. Being that there are no checks and balances for exploits... guess what? People are going to keep exploiting.

 

[Ezren]

What the actual?

You clearly brought up risk as issue in your debate against equal pay.

I quoted you using risk as a counter point.

You don't defend any of it and you go on to reverse your course on what's mutually exclusive and what's not?

I'll quote you again:





You wanted to bring in risk as an issue towards not allowing for equal pay.

When it paints you into a corner you say that I don't understand that it's not mutually exclusive.

When I agree and say that they are mutually exlusive and ask why it is you brought it up, you claim you didn't bring it up even though I quoted you multiple times doing it.

My use of risk was as a factor of balance; higher rewards require higher risk - and risk was only one of the many factors mentioned. But you somehow think that translates into "more risk = more rewards" because you're oversimplifying and taking out of context to serve your purposes and misrepresent what I've said.

All apples are fruit. All fruit is not apples. You clearly do not comprehend the difference and continue to make dishonest comparisons and willfully misuse the words of others.

 

[Guywired]

My use of risk was as a factor of balance; higher rewards require higher risk - and risk was only one of the many factors mentioned. But you somehow think that translates into "more risk = more rewards" because you're oversimplifying and taking out of context to serve your purposes and misrepresent what I've said.

All apples are fruit. All fruit is not apples. You clearly do not comprehend the difference and continue to make dishonest comparisons and willfully misuse the words of others.

ROFL - you're seriously after making post after post after post saying that "there shouldn't be equal pay because there isn't equal risk" are NOW trying the defense of "I never actually said that?"

C'mon...

You're just trolling now, get out.

 

[Ian Phillips]

You two have persuaded me to close the thread.

Do not continue this in other threads.