Mission Nerfs, and the REAL problem

[JerryLove]

You make a good point. Would I be okay with wiping my account and starting over with those conditions? I can't say. I mean, when I started my account roughly 2 years ago, I didn't have that scope. It was rough in the beginning, but I ran a lot of trades, ran a lot of assassination missions that are no longer applicable, ran some rare trades, but not many, and forced my way up. Would I give up those hours, of course not. But if I was starting fresh, yes. I would gladly take a plethora of missions that paid less to a total lack of content. And I never said they all had to be in the same location. I expect them to introduce me to new locations, and for me to keep a steady 10+ mission load out while I visit new systems and turn in until I find my home. And if I get to the end of the night, I turn them all in, go home and wait for tomorrow.

If they are not all to the same location: then they take even longer to complete.

So now, instead of 1,000-1,500 hours of play to get that FC; you can double or triple the number.

Does that seem reasonable? 4,000 hours of play (somewhat more than 2 man-years in work-speak) to acquire a ship?

 

[AgingGamer]

Here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...of-1k-Delivery-Missions?p=4685916#post4685916

Also subscribe to the very useful dev posts rss feed: http://www.miggy.org/games/elite-dangerous/devtracker/ed-dev-posts.rss

Awesome! Thank you, Willfrog. That was exactly what I was looking for.

Michael's comment there is a bit short to really know what they are thinking i.e.: will missions in general (excluding the ones that were intentionally made less profitable like Sothis per Michael's subsequent comment) be restored to their previous levels? Or was the 'general' reduction intentional, just somewhat more extreme than intended.

Regardless- it is clear that the current rewards for general missions are in lie for some correction upwards.

 

[GilliganTX]

IMO, the percentage of Min/Maxers who TRULY exploit these mechanics bring about the nerf, ruining the game-play for a MUCH larger fraction of the players.

[using robigo 2.1 numbers as a standard]

So there's a new "Exploit" on the block, and 49.5% of those using it don't cheat at all, don't mode switch, just use it as intended, and truck along at a steady 5-10 Million CR/Hr. Another 49.5% do mode switch, and ramp up those earnings to somewhere between 10-20 Million Cr/ Hr depending on proficiency.

50% of players are OK with, or in favor of, earning at that potential, the rest aren't. Stalemate.

HOWEVER, a select 1% of players REALLY figure out how to do it well, and figure out that you can just sell back mission cargo and make 100Million Cr in 2 hours.

I don't ANYONE would argue that it isn't game breaking, and of that 1%, half of them do it just to show that the exploit is possible and that it should be nerfed, the ohter 1/2 of the 1% just exploit it and don't GAF.


Thus, FD's hand is forced, FD decides to bring the HAMMER down on 99% of the players using a mechanic, because 1% are exploiting it.


As a primarily PvE player, I think that is insane. I can understand the arguments from the PvP point of view, but, damn.

 

[Adept Geraden]

When they gave us Ice Mining, they took away the previous Painite Palladium Osmium missions. Now they give us Passenger Missions, and take away all the previous missions. Payouts are abysmal. Quantity is abysmal. Before 2.2, I used to regularly get milk run cargo delivery missions for 7 figures. Think the best ever was high 2 point something million credits. Now I struggle to get 100K. I don't really crave the credits, as I've got over 1.2 billion in assets. And the point of running missions for me is more about the minor faction influence. But I'm gonna have to give up donating to every worthy cause I come across. And many of the missions now won't cover running expenses.

 

[JerryLove]

Thus, FD's hand is forced, FD decides to bring the HAMMER down on 99% of the players using a mechanic, because 1% are exploiting it.


As a primarily PvE player, I think that is insane. I can understand the arguments from the PvP point of view, but, damn.

I don't understand the arguments from a PvP point of view either. Perhaps you can explain them to me?

I don't see anyone harmed by someone else being able to get money in fewer hours.

 

[unity100]

IMO, the percentage of Min/Maxers who TRULY exploit these mechanics bring about the nerf, ruining the game-play for a MUCH larger fraction of the players.

that's what i am annoyed about. it is the same problem for all games actually.

the main problem is that game development always tries to prevent that by nerfing everything for everybody.

but funny thing is that even in nerfed state, minmaxers are going to minmax.

actually, such people would be doing the exact same minmaxing if they were actually living in the game universe. its a part of society's consciousness, a behavior model, after all.

and as you just say, in pursuit of 'balancing' these people - a minority - game development ends up hampering everyone, forcing everyone to have to minmax to even normalize the situation.

for example now i have to grind navy ranking missions exactly in the same fashion as how those people were minmaxing before, because doing otherwise would be a hell lot of slower. so im running circles around 2 systems like an angry chicken.

it could have been different. i could have been taking random missions as i go in imperial space, while doing other things and still rank up. but now im stuck here until i rank up to get 20 million tier ship, the clipper, because otherwise i will have to stick with asp explorer until i am able to buy and outfit ships from next tier after that - 50 mil tier. there is no ship i can buy (combat or multi role) in 20 million tier (since i dont want to go for a trading ship) so i have to rank up either with empire or federation to get a combat capable multi role ship.

thus im forced to rank up and im forced to minmax to make it happen in an acceptable timeframe. even with minmaxing and being able to put considerable time into the game, it has already taken 2.5 days to 100% at Squire rank from zero and i have yet 2-2.5 days to go until i reach baron it seems. i didnt do anything else in the meantime in the game - only this.

..........

minmaxers are going to minmax.

and complaints of people who complain about minmaxers should be taken with a grain of salt - for these complaints bring such nerfs.

what difference does it make if someone else is able to minmax and fast track to something anyway. in the end no one is getting paid for playing, and you still have the freedom of playing as you like instead of being forced to minmax exactly like the people you complain about when you bring about a nerf.

so if someone is minmaxing because it is their thing to do so, let them do it. if someone is going to minmax because they want to pull off something before their weekend ends, let them do it.

this way people who want to play the game normally, like me, would not be hampered or pigeonholed into minmaxing.

 

[GilliganTX]

I don't understand the arguments from a PvP point of view either. Perhaps you can explain them to me?

I don't see anyone harmed by someone else being able to get money in fewer hours.

More money, better ships/weapons.

More money, more rebuys, less of a constraint to engaging in PvP combat.


That's the whole argument. More money gets an adversary a potentially "better" ship and the ability to die more, and that unbalances the game.

Technically they're right, but, IMO, it's kind of a stretch...

 

[JerryLove]

More money, better ships/weapons.

More money, more rebuys, less of a constraint to engaging in PvP combat.


That's the whole argument. More money gets an adversary a potentially "better" ship and the ability to die more, and that unbalances the game.

Technically they're right, but, IMO, it's kind of a stretch...

Every player who doesn't get bored and leave will get the better ship. It's merely a matter of time.

How many more hours do you think combat logging will add to said opponent getting a better ship.

If you are the guy not in a loaded-out corvette: how will slowing your income help you against the better armed corvette guy who has just been around longer?

Really: We don't want combat logging because we want to make sure players who are not us advance more slowly so that we can kill them more easily? Wow!

 

[GilliganTX]

The choir, Jerry, you're preaching to it.

 

[r3per]

Funny how mission payouts got reduced - but somehow the rank donation missions are at their 2.1 levels. Curious......