The Crisis in the Combat Job Market

[BlackSpaceCowboy]

Combat missions to -capture a surface base, -defend an outpost from assault, - escort a T 9, - follow a criminal in SR across a planets surface without being detected, -liberate an occupied space station. Anything is better than the endless fishbowl where you have the same unending treadmill race against the respawn clock.

Great ideas! FDev should hire you to join their brainstorming meetings.

A mission to defend a base would be great. You go to the base, wait a few minutes and then a couple of waves of enemies attacks.

I would add, escorting a critical shipment would be great.

 

[House0fDerp]

2. Risk vs. Reward
.
It might sound crazy, but I consider combat the lowest risk activity in the game by now. When I go mining trading, I use a ship which has moderate shields, no HPRs or MRPs and a very limited selection of defensive modules. After all, I need the cargo space. When I go mining, the same is true, except that some cargo space is instead used up by a refinery and limpet controllers and I also carry a reduced weapon load, to make space for mining lasers. For exploring, my ship again replaces defensive options with ADS/DDS, SRVs, heat sinks, etc.
.
Most of my combat ships feel like you can detonate a nuke right next to them and it would merely inconvenience them a little. So thanks to insane defense stacking, engineers and parts of the community successfully crying away any rebalancing attempt, combat actually is the lowest risk activity in the game by now. Thus it unfortunately makes sense that it also pays worse than other activities.

I take some exception to this point. Yes, you can minimize tank for greater effect but this is in no way mandated by mining or trading. This is an active choice to increase your risk with the intent of not getting shot at in a game where very few things can occur forcing that to happen. You may have to retreat and only fit enough defenses to enable that, but that's intentionally choosing risk. My mining ships are in less danger than my combat ships due to the engagement selection and the fact that all are at least decently shielded and armed such that I can take on lesser to moderately threatening NPCs without issue. There is no risk because there is an easy option to negate that. I don't think the choice not to negate it justifies the difference in pay.

 

[Eldragon]

There's actually several aspects here, which make it reasonable that combat pays worse than other activities. I'll limit myself to the top three.
.
1. Fun
.
Many players consider combat to be the most fun activity in the game. That means that it's the most common source of income. So to make other careers viable, at least on paper, they need to have higher revenue than combat.
.
2. Risk vs. Reward
.
It might sound crazy, but I consider combat the lowest risk activity in the game by now. When I go mining trading, I use a ship which has moderate shields, no HPRs or MRPs and a very limited selection of defensive modules. After all, I need the cargo space. When I go mining, the same is true, except that some cargo space is instead used up by a refinery and limpet controllers and I also carry a reduced weapon load, to make space for mining lasers. For exploring, my ship again replaces defensive options with ADS/DDS, SRVs, heat sinks, etc.
.
Most of my combat ships feel like you can detonate a nuke right next to them and it would merely inconvenience them a little. So thanks to insane defense stacking, engineers and parts of the community successfully crying away any rebalancing attempt, combat actually is the lowest risk activity in the game by now. Thus it unfortunately makes sense that it also pays worse than other activities.
.
3. In game logic
.
This one actually is related to #2, but transfers into the game. If there's combat and pirates all over the place, then non-combat activities are logically in higher demand and thus more profitable. It really boils down to the picture of 500 heavily armed but starving soldiers in the desert fort, awaiting the enemy to attack. Now what do they crave more, the 50 men reinforcements, or the food caravan? (And what would be more painful if the enemy intercepts on the way? )
.
In the world of this game, it really makes sense that just killing a criminal doesn't pay well. There seems to be an endless supply of those, after all. Escorting a convoy of goods to a destination, that's what should be lucrative. Unfortunately FD seems to love the idea of that, but doesn't seem to be able to really support that. They tried with wings, but the small payout for escorting a transport is not cutting it, either.
.
Some escort missions would go a long way, but with supercruise and how interdiction works, it's really not that easy to find a way to do it, which would not appear broken right from the start.
.

This is so wrong on so many levels, rather than write a lengthy reply. I'm just going to assume its troll post.

Remember kids: Game play is more important that realism. Don't try to justify bad game mechanics by making up handwave explanations.

 

[Daynen]

Honestly, massacre missions for combat zones shouldn't exist. Combat bonds exist; they should be balanced to cover whatever aid you provide the faction in question in a CZ. +rep for kills or something if you want, but no factions should offer a payout for an arbitrary number of ships; they should be saying "hey we're at war here and we need your help. Shoot down as many ships as you can and we'll pay you well for each kill." Higher ranked pilot+better equipped and more dangerous ship=bigger bond, plain and simple. Adding "missions" on top of that was just a silly excuse for devaluing combat bonds.

 

[House0fDerp]

Honestly, massacre missions for combat zones shouldn't exist. Combat bonds exist; they should be balanced to cover whatever aid you provide the faction in question in a CZ. +rep for kills or something if you want, but no factions should offer a payout for an arbitrary number of ships; they should be saying "hey we're at war here and we need your help. Shoot down as many ships as you can and we'll pay you well for each kill." Higher ranked pilot+better equipped and more dangerous ship=bigger bond, plain and simple. Adding "missions" on top of that was just a silly excuse for devaluing combat bonds.

One problem with that is that currently engaging in military combat support of a faction doesn't help rank outside of massacres. It's a double shot in the foot, combat bonds pay jack all on top of not helping ranking. Massacres were a rectifier for both of those issues.

 

[CMDR Dumbfries]

Fixing massacre missions would be a good place to start.
Still bugged....

 

[CMDR Corlas]

I think combat, as commonly experienced in the game - combat ships dropping into a RES and blasting away at Pirates - shouldn't exist. That's one of the main problems. RES's were intended for miners, combat players (myself included) just go there for mindless fun and way to print money with little effort and functionally zero risk.

If more combat encounters were like high-ranked assassination missions, with CZ-style combat as the "grind" (where there's at least risk of being attacked), things would be in a better place (CZ rewards may have to be tweaked some).

FD should put a change in to RES pirate logic, so that if they scan you and you have no cargo, instead of just leaving, they do a simple check:

• If your ship has a mining laser and a refinery, they say something like "I'll come back for you later, you better have something good..."
• If you ship doesn't, it's "Die bounty-hunter scum!" and an immediate attack

It's kinda dumb the way it is out, with Pirates just loitering around, waiting for you to kill them. The payout potential of just brainlessly grinding suicidal pirates is way too high.

 

[BlackSpaceCowboy]

The payout potential of just brainlessly grinding suicidal pirates is way too high.

How is that different from mindlessly grinding out passenger missions? At least there is some risk involved in combat.

 

[Dimensions]

Kill pirate ships from a certain faction missions are the worst. You go to system and the spawn rate in supercriuse and nav beacon is terrible unless there is a res site there, and guess what most of those missions happen in systems that have no res sites. So kill 50 or 70 ships is just impossible. I went to one system and I never saw even one pirate from that faction after 1 hr. I don't take them now unless I can verify there is a res site in that system that isn't 10mins away from a station.

 

[House0fDerp]

I think combat, as commonly experienced in the game - combat ships dropping into a RES and blasting away at Pirates - shouldn't exist. That's one of the main problems. RES's were intended for miners, combat players (myself included) just go there for mindless fun and way to print money with little effort and functionally zero risk.

So RES pirates (which people still lose ships to) shouldn't pay but actually mindless rocks should?

 

[Trollymctrollerson]

I agree. The res sites are a sad state of affairs. The one dimensionality of them is a big contributor to why people perceive so much grind. With all the solar systems and gas giant's available, it's pretty demoralizing to only have 4 kinds of res site that are all clones of eachother with the same endless supply of loitering pirates. A system of 10 billion people and pirates are the ones in space ships. You can kill 300 ships and there's still only a dozen ships total in SC. Sigh. Oh well.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

So RES pirates (which people still lose ships to) shouldn't pay but actually mindless rocks should?

Show me where I said that.

Actual RES mining is far more dangerous than RES combat:

• You're in a mining ship, so you have fewer internals dedicated to defense
• You're in a mining ship, so you have fewer hardpoints dedicated to offense
• You have mined materials in your hold, so pirates attack you

(Also, I think the patrol radius of pirates in a RES should be increased, so there's not a "safe zone" where you can mine with an RES-bonus, but not get pirates)

 

[House0fDerp]

Show me where I said that.

Actual RES mining is far more dangerous than RES combat:

• You're in a mining ship, so you have fewer internals dedicated to defense
• You're in a mining ship, so you have fewer hardpoints dedicated to offense
• You have mined materials in your hold, so pirates attack you

(Also, I think the patrol radius of pirates in a RES should be increased, so there's not a "safe zone" where you can mine with an RES-bonus, but not get pirates)

You said RES BHing shouldn't exist. So hunting wanted ships in a RES and getting paid for it shouldn't be an activity is what I took that as. You also stated those site were for miners.

Actual RES mining is far less dangerous than RES combat:

• You can be in a multipurpose ship, so you have plenty of internals to dedicate to defense
• You can be in a multipurpose or hauling ship, if the former you have plenty of hardpoints to dedicate to offense, or both you can chose to run instead since your profitability isn't dependent on killing your target and that's even if the area you set down at is active since you can mine far away from the res beacon.
• You have mined materials in your hold, so pirates attack you, but per the above you have the option to prepare for that

Regarding the pirate activity concentration, sure, that would even things out a bit but until that happens the balance doesn't towards mining being more dangerous should you take basic precautions.

My mining python is equipped to handle NPCs and mine. It has never died. It's shields rarely if ever break. My combat ships on the other hand have nearly exploded.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

You said RES BHing shouldn't exist.

No, I didn't. What I took issue with was the way that "bounty hunters" get to pick and choose each and every engagement in an RES. RES grinding is hardly bounty hunting - your "prey" literally fly up to you and wait to be shot. I literally spelled out how I think bounty hunting should work in an RES:

If you ship doesn't [have a mining laser and a refinery], it's "Die bounty-hunter scum!" and an immediate attack

A given ship, purpose-built for combat, will always have more hardpoints and internals to dedicate to combat than the same ship built for mining. Are you seriously trying to pretend this a point of contention?

When you claim RES mining, as I defined it - mining in the active "hot zone" of an RES, where pirates are actively prowling - is less dangerous than "bounty hunting" in that same RES, it's obvious you're just flat-out exaggerating to try to make your point. It's utter nonsense, and it's transparently nonsense.

Given any ship in the game, having less weapons and not being able to choose when a fight starts is, in no way, shape, or form, ever less dangerous than being in the same place, having more weapons and more open internals for defense, and being able to choose if a fight starts or not.

Take your mining ship. Fill it up with limpets. Go to a HazRES. Never go more than, say, 7km from the center. Mine there until you're out of limpets. Then tell me it's "easier" than going to the same HazRES and being able to pick and choose your own engagements and when they start.

 

[Riverside]

No, I didn't. What I took issue with was the way that "bounty hunters" get to pick and choose each and every engagement in an RES. RES grinding is hardly bounty hunting - your "prey" literally fly up to you and wait to be shot. I literally spelled out how I think bounty hunting should work in an RES.

A given ship, purpose-built for combat, will always have more hardpoints and internals to dedicate to combat than the same ship built for mining. Are you seriously trying to pretend this a point of contention?


When you claim RES mining, as I defined it - mining in the active "hot zone" of an RES, where pirates are actively prowling - is less dangerous than "bounty hunting" in that same RES, it's obvious you're just flat-out exaggerating to try to make your point. It's utter nonsense, and it's transparently nonsense.

Given any ship in the game, having less weapons and not being able to choose when a fight starts is, in no way, shape, or form, ever less dangerous than being in the same place, having more weapons and more open internals for defense, and being able to choose if a fight starts or not.

Take your mining ship. Fill it up with limpets. Go to a HazRES. Never go more than, say, 7km from the center. Mine there until you're out of limpets. Then tell me it's "easier" than going to the same HazRES and being able to pick and choose your own engagements and when they start.

I'm not much of a miner but my experience is in line with Corlas' comments. the RES scenarios are for high risk, high gain mining, they provide a secondary role as a place to have some fun hunting pirates which has become the primary reason players visit the sites.

There have been times when carrying cargo in a RES has been considered foolhardy, and other times when it is necessary to get an appropriate challenge. With the latter it allows one scenario to be useful to many levels of player skill. I prefer CZs for combat, the majority of my combat rank was earned in CZs rather than a RES but if I want to test a build a RES is flexible enough to allow me to try out an exploration or trade build, a CZ is more about endurance.

 

[House0fDerp]

No, I didn't. What I took issue with was the way that "bounty hunters" get to pick and choose each and every engagement in an RES. RES grinding is hardly bounty hunting - your "prey" literally fly up to you and wait to be shot. I literally spelled out how I think bounty hunting should work in an RES:



A given ship, purpose-built for combat, will always have more hardpoints and internals to dedicate to combat than the same ship built for mining. Are you seriously trying to pretend this a point of contention?

When you claim RES mining, as I defined it - mining in the active "hot zone" of an RES, where pirates are actively prowling - is less dangerous than "bounty hunting" in that same RES, it's obvious you're just flat-out exaggerating to try to make your point. It's utter nonsense, and it's transparently nonsense.

Given any ship in the game, having less weapons and not being able to choose when a fight starts is, in no way, shape, or form, ever less dangerous than being in the same place, having more weapons and more open internals for defense, and being able to choose if a fight starts or not.

Take your mining ship. Fill it up with limpets. Go to a HazRES. Never go more than, say, 7km from the center. Mine there until you're out of limpets. Then tell me it's "easier" than going to the same HazRES and being able to pick and choose your own engagements and when they start.

My point of contention is that a party which needs to see the fight through to get paid is at greater risk than one that doesn't. And further that while you can maximize your potential for engagements there is no reason why you should. By the same token I can say hunting is more dangerous because I can pick a fight with a wing of elite condas in an unshielded sidewinder.

 

[Riverside]

My point of contention is that a party which needs to see the fight through to get paid is at greater risk than one that doesn't. And further that while you can maximize your potential for engagements there is no reason why you should. By the same token I can say hunting is more dangerous because I can pick a fight with a wing of elite condas in an unshielded sidewinder.

Without cargo or a bounty on your head you can go afk in a RES without concern (other players aside). That you can choose to engage a tough opponent does not make it dangerous. Flying a ship equipped purely for combat is probably one of the safest things you can do in the game, because you control the risk.

 

[House0fDerp]

Without cargo or a bounty on your head you can go afk in a RES without concern (other players aside). That you can choose to engage a tough opponent does not make it dangerous. Flying a ship equipped purely for combat is probably one of the safest things you can do in the game, because you control the risk.

You can go AFK in an empty hauler and do the same. Both see 0 profitability and the hunter can't run and get paid.

 

[CMDR Corlas]

My point of contention is that a party which needs to see the fight through to get paid is at greater risk than one that doesn't.

Functionally, both need to see the fight through to get paid. A RES miner that runs from pirates doesn't do much mining at all.

You've clearly not RES mined like I'm talking about, so you don't really have a basis to try to argue what you're trying to.

 

[Riverside]

You can go AFK in an empty hauler and do the same. Both see 0 profitability and the hunter can't run and get paid.

I think the point you are making is a very weak one. The pure combat pilot has little to gain & little to lose. If you just want combat go to a CZ imo, leave the RES for the miners.