Why do the devs keep destroying every form of making income?
- Thread starter rupok
- Start date
Whooooa! That is spooky, you've just written my Elite bio. Word for Word
I'm starting to get tired of this idea that anyone who thinks playing for peanuts as rewards for completing missions started playing two weeks ago and ONLY did the sothis milk run for their anaconda's and asset balance.
I've been a regular pilot for over a year now, I feel like I am an an appropriate place in terms of progression in game, and that has only been made possible by two separate "exploits."
Were it not for Robigo, I would have given up a LONG time ago.
enter cricket noises...haha I never knew about these places. I did my grind 10,000cr at a time. It was cool and I loved it at the time but I think the rewards should be more. Just my opinion. p.s. if my srv spins out one more time while trying to get modified embedded firmware im just going to drive backward...lol
Last edited:
Awesome post!
For me, money = fun.
When I started Elite, all I wanted to do was explore. This was back in Gamma at the end of 2014. I was desperate to get to a nebula, access to them had only just been made available.
I was going to go to the Pelaides in a Sidewinder. There was no route plotting then, at least not like we have today. Navigation took time, often with many dead ends. But that was all fun.
What wasn't fun, was the days upon days of searching for the grade A jump drive. There were no databases to help locate modules, so I had to go from station to station looking for that FSD, using the pathetically low stock jump range. It was immensely frustrating.
People said the lack of modules adds to the game, "do you want instant gratification?!" they said.
Nope. I just wanted to be an explorer. And it took me weeks to become one.
Hunting for a grade A jump drive didn't add anything to the game. Aside from frustration and a time sink that is.
Today money still equals fun. It's what I can do with the money which makes the game fun. It's the ability to have a quality exploration ship which keeps me coming back. I love knowing that if I fly a kitted out T9 or beluga I can have fun and not worry about the insurance costs. The ins. Is enough to make me feel I have failed, but it isn't punishing. So the game remains fun.
So yep, having money = fun.
Yet there seems to be many people that want obtaining money to be WORK.
I can't say I understand that, because that approach doesn't add anything aside from frustration and time-sinks.
There have been a ton of big money earners over the past few years, and they have always been fun. Building money allows me to do fun things. Obtaining money should also be fun.
I tend to believe that the idea we should have to work for money in a game, displays a distinct lack of imagination.
The more fun I can have, the more I play.
Add if we need money sinks, then by all means, make those fun too.
Last edited:
^ this, i already have a job that takes a lot of time. It pays me money so i can buy the games and systems to run them on. what other people do, with the exception of jumping on you and greifing, should have no impact on your play style. If you want to spend your time trucking poo then all power to you, maybe you want to get every ship and not wait 5 years for the privilege. If you want to go off exploring why is it accepted that you will have to play for a month to afford an asp, if you get one on your first 12 hours how is that making someone elses day worse? Just because they took longer.
If there needs to be a limit on how people get to these bigger ships then put a narrative in. reducing the payouts was prehaps the simplest but also the least effective.
Buy a conda now and you have to tiptoe round as a rebuy is gonna set you back weeks.
I made my money in the last year, i got my shiny new ships, and with the ships i can now trade if i need cash, so mission nerfs, though annoying, do not impact me so much. If you are starting out you are now on an increasing vertical slope to be able to try new things. Why do we begrudge players that?
Making people sit for hour after hour just to get to the mid level ships is a bizarre way to do things. The top level ok chuck in a grind, or a task so its a sense of achievement but to be able to do things so you feel progress you need cash, cash gives you options, without options its less fun.
They seem dead set on relying on proc. gen. to fill the world and not actually using some 'hand drawn' effort to fill a few places in.
The hand of an artist helping even in small amounts can go great lengths in improving the player experience. You can't expect an algorithm to come up with all of your content and spread it all around copy paste style.
Why can't a CZ have some scripted elements like the capital ships moving in a certain way, or having more than two in play, or having a CZ in the same instance as a station or one of the new structures? The new tutorials with their voice acting and a little scripting goes a LONG way in making the world come to life and feel more rewarding and entertaining to play with.
I just count myself lucky I joined as Premium Beta, access to Shinrarta from day one, makes outfitting so much easier, I know I can get cheaper out there, but having access is a real QoL benefit....
G
This was the reason why I first quit playing for a while. Pure goddamn frustration trying to find class 3 gimballed burst lasers paired with 'instant gratification' and 'this generation, swear to god' comments. Came back when I finally broke down and started using the external tools.
Golly, turns out procedural generation gets boring real quick! Who'da thunk it?
Why do you care how others play this game or choose what to do in it. Your argument is pure nonsense and speculation.
FD please fix the mission's, add real narrative, constant npc, multiple story modes.
FD please fix the mission's, add real narrative, constant npc, multiple story modes.
It's less of money equaling fun and more of money providing the freedom to have fun(not unlike the real world, eh?).
The problem has been apparent for a while. Especially for explorers. Especially for 2.0 explorers flying DBXs. There are too many modules and not enough internal compartments. There are other reasons as well, but this is the primary one.
The DSS has effectively doubled in importance because it is now needed for finding surface materials(for engineers and synthesis).
Now, with the oft threatened but not yet seen in game, dangers for explorers, SCBs and Bulkheads are going to be essential as well.
Now what ship has loads of internals, lots of shields, hull armour, excellent jump range, and tonnes of fire power? The Anaconda.
The main argument against the Anaconda was the speed and maneuverability, but now, 2.2 you can have high maneuverability and speed just on a leash.
And the future, 2.3 multi-crew, what ship is going to make the best use of that? It probably rhymes with Shmanaconda.
So I've established that the Anaconda is objectively the best ship. Where am I going with this?
Well, I've also established that the appeal of the Anaconda rises with every update, but that is because the appeal of other ships drops every update.
Bigger is better right? Yes, but in this case bigger is getting better, because smaller is getting worse.
This is why people complain about money, about grinding(there is also engineers, but that is another story), about nerfs, because it makes it such a pain to get to that much needed ship.
Moving the ADS and DSS out of internal slots to utilities or their own slots(subset of sensors) would go a long way to increasing the appeal of smaller ships. Being able to split internals would also go a long way. My original point about making the basic activities for the roles more fun engaging is still valid as well.
I agree money is totally needed to have the freedom to do whatever you want in the game instead of trying to make ends meet. Now that I have just enough money to bee free I an no longer being walked all over by ships that outclass mine. To me it seems the latest fix has made money reasonable but the number of missions and the material rewards are still all kinds of messed up. I have to constantly dump 30 Biotech Conductors from my inventory because that is just about the only thing people are getting.
A small but very loud portion of the community is adamantly opposed to fun, thinks that computer games should be roughly as enjoyable as working a second job, and whines endlessly whenever anyone else has fun in a way that "breaks their immersion".
Making money is evil. You should only blaze your own trail as a pauper.
I would guess most of them don't have a 'first job' as a point of reference; that said, that small gaggle of loudmouths will be the downfall of the game.
There is so much scope for dynamic narrative development here using mechanics that are already in the game... the problem FDev have is that the design and development is being driven by people who lack narrative vision and hence design within the scope of creating new mechanics(the excruciatingly drawn out aliens story is evidence enough... my god is it poorly curated).
The problem is not that things get Nerfed, it's the way they get Nerfed.
FD have this fracking annoying habit of Overpower/Meganerf™. They introduce something that is insanely powerful, then, realise their mistake, grab the Nerf Bat™ that has the power of Sandro's Loach streaming through it, then smash whatever it is out of the stratosphere.
Let me list my examples - off the top of my head, but hardly all inclusive...
Rares
Originally, unlimited quantities, take them 160Ly and get heaps of cash. The Nerf - limit quantities, and then, also limit the allocation every 15 minutes - often dropping just a single unit.
Seriously? Either one of those two would have been PERFECTLY adequate, reducing the huge money making potential, but still profitable enough that it's worth it. But both? Really?
Python
Originally a force of nature that combined the firepower of an Anaconda, the speed and agility of a Viper, and the most powerful shields (at the time) in the game. It was fun, sure, but yes, overpowered.
So, let's drops it's speed by 30-40%, nerf agility, drop shields by 30%, and then continue to Nerf it over the years to where it doesn't even fit it's own brief... The agility nerf would have been enough, and honestly, rather than messing with sliders, they should have dropped the thruster size to a lower class - it would make more sense, and would at least make it a touch cheaper to outfit.
FDL
Originally an ok ship, but underpowered and probably not quite as fast/agile as we'd really like.
Let's cut the price, pull out the polishing cloth, and the Brasso, and buff that baby until it's gold. Let's give it a speed/agility boost, and, a larger power plant. And hey, while we're at it, the engineers will give you even more power, so you can build a ship so powerful that there is no point even considering anything else, for any reason at all, if you want to blow stuff up.
Cannons
Originally, these were so powerful that the only weapon worth having on your Viper was an all cannon load out.
Let's make the projectiles so slow, that it would be faster to pop out the airlock, space walk over to your target, and smash the shell against the hull with your bare hands - but we'll Nerf the damage, too...
Ceos/Sothis
Huge payouts, and re-logging means lots of money!!!
Let's fix re-logging, AND cut mission rewards by 90%!!!
*triple facepalm*
I could go on...
Gently gently FD, seriously! This reminds me of my own fault finding, where if can change number of things, get the issue sorted (with side effects) and never really know what is actually wrong, or I can do one thing at a time and know I got it right.
It's almost as if we have a team of very talented hotshots, because there really are a lot of amazing aspects to this game, but no one actually has any experience, and it's just a company of hotshots constantly brainstorming without the benefit of the lessons of historical mistakes...
Z...
FD have this fracking annoying habit of Overpower/Meganerf™. They introduce something that is insanely powerful, then, realise their mistake, grab the Nerf Bat™ that has the power of Sandro's Loach streaming through it, then smash whatever it is out of the stratosphere.
Let me list my examples - off the top of my head, but hardly all inclusive...
Rares
Originally, unlimited quantities, take them 160Ly and get heaps of cash. The Nerf - limit quantities, and then, also limit the allocation every 15 minutes - often dropping just a single unit.
Seriously? Either one of those two would have been PERFECTLY adequate, reducing the huge money making potential, but still profitable enough that it's worth it. But both? Really?
Python
Originally a force of nature that combined the firepower of an Anaconda, the speed and agility of a Viper, and the most powerful shields (at the time) in the game. It was fun, sure, but yes, overpowered.
So, let's drops it's speed by 30-40%, nerf agility, drop shields by 30%, and then continue to Nerf it over the years to where it doesn't even fit it's own brief... The agility nerf would have been enough, and honestly, rather than messing with sliders, they should have dropped the thruster size to a lower class - it would make more sense, and would at least make it a touch cheaper to outfit.
FDL
Originally an ok ship, but underpowered and probably not quite as fast/agile as we'd really like.
Let's cut the price, pull out the polishing cloth, and the Brasso, and buff that baby until it's gold. Let's give it a speed/agility boost, and, a larger power plant. And hey, while we're at it, the engineers will give you even more power, so you can build a ship so powerful that there is no point even considering anything else, for any reason at all, if you want to blow stuff up.
Cannons
Originally, these were so powerful that the only weapon worth having on your Viper was an all cannon load out.
Let's make the projectiles so slow, that it would be faster to pop out the airlock, space walk over to your target, and smash the shell against the hull with your bare hands - but we'll Nerf the damage, too...
Ceos/Sothis
Huge payouts, and re-logging means lots of money!!!
Let's fix re-logging, AND cut mission rewards by 90%!!!
*triple facepalm*
I could go on...
Gently gently FD, seriously! This reminds me of my own fault finding, where if can change number of things, get the issue sorted (with side effects) and never really know what is actually wrong, or I can do one thing at a time and know I got it right.
It's almost as if we have a team of very talented hotshots, because there really are a lot of amazing aspects to this game, but no one actually has any experience, and it's just a company of hotshots constantly brainstorming without the benefit of the lessons of historical mistakes...
Z...
Last edited:
Actually, I think the problem is two-fold: FD intentionally gives high rewards for missions which use new features, to encourage players to try them out. An example being trips to planetary stations yielding higher payouts than stations in space. After a while, given unfavorable feedback, they nerf the payouts for those mission types.
I think the second issue is that their mission-generating code is probably complex and finicky; any change creates unintended consequences. As a programmer, I understand that all too well. I've worked with complex, finicky code. It's hard to make any changes without breaking something. There comes a point in the code life-cycle when it becomes necessary to rewrite that section of code. That's something that is generally postponed until absolutely required, since it's a very high cost endeavor and usually breaks stuff, even with heavy testing.
If the second issue is true, I have a recommendation for FD: They should make heavy use of Google's GTest framework (or similar system) to test the mission-generating subsystem. They need a great many test cases, so that potential changes can be verified to not break the existing mechanics. This is incredibly valuable when the day comes to rewrite the subsystem. It's a time consuming task to create and maintain the tests, but the eventual payback is high: a quality product and faster, more stable implementation of new features.
I think the second issue is that their mission-generating code is probably complex and finicky; any change creates unintended consequences. As a programmer, I understand that all too well. I've worked with complex, finicky code. It's hard to make any changes without breaking something. There comes a point in the code life-cycle when it becomes necessary to rewrite that section of code. That's something that is generally postponed until absolutely required, since it's a very high cost endeavor and usually breaks stuff, even with heavy testing.
If the second issue is true, I have a recommendation for FD: They should make heavy use of Google's GTest framework (or similar system) to test the mission-generating subsystem. They need a great many test cases, so that potential changes can be verified to not break the existing mechanics. This is incredibly valuable when the day comes to rewrite the subsystem. It's a time consuming task to create and maintain the tests, but the eventual payback is high: a quality product and faster, more stable implementation of new features.
Last edited:
Meh. It's all gone to hell in a Cargo Bay rack.
I'm off to play Skyrim SE.
I'm off to play Skyrim SE.