Missions are overpowered

[Skyelius]

Missions shouldn't be more profitable than ore trading (as they are now).

PvE Freelancing is not overpowered.

The industry of war has always been more profitable than mining in real life.

People are a gaming community's most valuable commodity, more than credits, equipment, etc. Some people prefer to PvE instead of PvP. The reasons I've seen in this thread so far from people backing up the OP have had to do with PvP interactions and profit.

---

---

On the topic of PvP Interactions:

Players hunting players that are doing missions should play it smart and not attack the missioning ship when it's 10k or 5k from a dock, and should wait until they are weak from battle damage to strike. If anything, the increased PvE from the now more profitable missions actually expose the PvE'ers to PvP, and it does not result in PvP denial.

---

On the topic of Profit:

A ship for trading/smuggling (Solo AFK Powertrading Max Profit: 120,000,000 credits per hour).

• The cost of an average Transport (Atlas: 4300 cargo): 60,000,000
  
  ADDING PEOPLE TO AFK POWERTRADING INCREASES PROFIT, MULTIPLYING IT FOR MINEABLE COMMODITY COLLABORATION.
  

A ship for PvE Freelancing (Solo PvE Freelancing Profit: 125,000,000 credits per hour).

• The cost of a Battleship: 400,000,000 to 515,000,000.
  
• The cost of armor: CapVI - 250,000,000 through CapVIII - 895,000,000
  
  ADDING PEOPLE TO PVE FREELANCING REDUCES PROFIT, AS THE CREDITS ARE SPLIT BETWEEN PLAYERS.
  

---

---

Not everyone is an extrovert, not everyone is a partygoer, not everyone has an amazing club of people that can log in their favor. Game activities like missioning which favor loners, introverts, people that like spending time alone, should have good profitability.
Mission loners can barely stack a lot of Sci Data from killing enemy capital ships because capital ship NPCs are super overpowered in terms of damage, since NPCs ignore the "power meter" and just fire when their guns are off cooldown so capital ships doing missions usually die to a rain of forward guns, heavy turrets and mortars.
Many of these missioning ships are also leeched by lowbies, newbies, and trolls that go AFK near the ship doing missions to steal bounty profit, so the kill bonus shouldn't be touched or it would make greedy killbonus leeching unbearable.

I do not think that mission profit should be nerfed. The maximum cut I could tolerate is 10%, if it does not affect kill bonuses.

Respecfully

---

"It is a cold universe until you know God as your Father, and then it becomes a home. Even the next life simply becomes the Father's house, home."
—David Pawson

[Binski]

The gripe is with anti-GB missions, which can yield upwards of 17 million in rewards in under 10 minutes of flight.

600k * 24 = 14,4 million in rewards per mission, or sometimes it's 4 waves of 8 so 600k * 32 = 19,2 million.

EDIT: Which is why halving it would bring it below the average of 12 million per Cruiser mission.

Yeah but try an anti GB mission in a bomber on your own. It goes a lot slower. I think part of the perk of having a capital ship is that you can go make decent cash fast that way instead of only trading. After all these years, a little variety keeps people interested.

A suggestion for missions is to use them in the same way mining is used to generate activity. Its already like this, but they could place the locations of missions closer to its opposing factions' territory.

So for example, anti Enclave missions from a Maquis base could make players go over into Acquintain or Brittany. Then just remind players it is ok to attack people doing missions. They take the risk, people are earning good money from it, and if in someone else's space, they then can go out and engage.

[Hubjump]

Just gonna bump this since I see people saying it should be what's already planned.

I think it's been said that it's already coming with phase 2: Missions just need to be less profitable when done in random locations all over the game universe, with the most profitable ones only being in very specific areas. That way they'd be much less safe (people would see you in "Mission Running System A" on the player list and know what you're up to) and more easily interrupted.

They're probably also not perfectly balanced. I'd like mission running in fighters to be both more difficult and more profitable, perhaps requiring duos or larger groups to really do efficiently. I think every class of ship should have access to a decent mission option in the highest "tier", and I'd like that tier to be difficult enough that you can actually die while doing it unless you come prepared (i.e. with friends).

I do think that killing off the Transport-Pirate-Lawful cycle with highly-profitable missions available all over the place is bad long-term.

[Its Raisu]

People seem to be having kneejerk reactions to the profitability of PvE because people sitting in bigger caps can farm lower-tiered faster than farming those of equal tier.
Reducing the reward overall reduces it for everyone including the valid cases where it should remain what it currently is.
Also, you almost have to go one tier below your ship's tier because NPC spawns can be pretty painful and unreliable for mission completion if you're in say a cruiser doing cruiser missions.

What I would rather see, is:
1) Introduce a diminishing effect to rewards when you're over-tiering (ie: Cruiser killing snubs, Battleships killing gunboats) -- A gunboat killing snubs, for example, should be fine and not penalized.
2) What would be the prospects of potentially make it so that mission npcs don't consist of a single type of ship?

If a mission currently spawns 4 Cruisers, make it spawn 2 cruisers and 4 gunboats instead.
If a mission currently spawns 2 battleships, make it spawn 1 battleship and 2 cruisers.
If a mission currently spawns 4 gunboats, make it spawn 2 gunboats and 6-8 fighters.

Something along those lines. Looking at Haste's post, this idea would likely be more for generic missions in random locations and intended to be soloable (less difficulty, less reward, easy to run into over-tier penalty). While missions in specific areas would be more like the current missions (but more difficult) where you're more likely to need a group of people (more difficulty, more reward, harder to run into over-tier penalty).

[E X O D I T E]

People seem to be having kneejerk reactions to the profitability of PvE because people sitting in bigger caps can farm lower-tiered faster than farming those of equal tier.
Reducing the reward overall reduces it for everyone including the valid cases where it should remain what it currently is.
Also, you almost have to go one tier below your ship's tier because NPC spawns can be pretty painful and unreliable for mission completion if you're in say a cruiser doing cruiser missions.

What I would rather see, is:
1) Introduce a diminishing effect to rewards when you're over-tiering (ie: Cruiser killing snubs, Battleships killing gunboats) -- A gunboat killing snubs, for example, should be fine and not penalized.
2) What would be the prospects of potentially make it so that mission npcs don't consist of a single type of ship.

If a mission currently spawns 4 Cruisers, make it spawn 2 cruisers and 4 gunboats instead.
If a mission currently spawns 2 battleships, make it spawn 1 battleship and 2 cruisers.
If a mission currently spawns 4 gunboats, make it spawn 2 gunboats and 6-8 fighters.

Something along those lines

The problem is that the Gunboats are too profitable per time involved. Nomad GBs in Delta are 900k a pop right now. That's 300k less than a Cruiser, which spawns in a max pack of 5, as opposed to GBs spawning in groups of 8.

7,2 million vs 6 million per wave, and for much less risk of taking damage in a heavy cap.

---

User was banned for: https://discoverygc.com/forums/showthrea...tid=182360
Time left: (Permanent)

[Hubjump]

If we could restrict missions per ID and ZOI for certain locations we could erase the Delta RP breaking lolwuttery shenanigans.

Also I'm for that solution to do with nerfing only GB missions and replacing certain missions ships with weaker ones.
Back in the good ol days of 2017 I could solo BS missions. Since when did they become so hard? Idk something happened around that year which made me quit disco till now.

BS can't punch at BS weight cos BS's with infinite cores are op af.
Coalition BC's and FWG ships in missions are op af.
Can we just strip them from spawning with FWG's and certain weapons to make them easier? And whilst we're at it we'd actually need to buff the solo gain from things like cruiser and BS missions since they're still considerably less than GB ones.

And no one has mentioned the speed you can do a station mission when it's 12k from ur base and you wait for every wave. Sometimes that its self is a bit too efficient. I'm just throwing things on the table.
I'm a bit intoxicated right now but if we nerf missions to be not worth it I can easily tell you all that I and many players will dip and become forum stalkers again rather than playing the game.

I would be playing in some For Honor tournies but my left eye is sticky af. so I'm here.

Also let me bump the ideas I forgot who voiced.

Death penalty timer being increased to a day or more - Thyrzul
Death penalty costing a load of money outside Zoi.
Caps for only officials (Personally this is a no no from me chief.)
Caps strictly can't leave Zoi (Again a no no from me because it limits gameplay and RP possibilities.)

But yeah those.
We should have another suggestion thing. The one for POBs was cool. I wish we had more of those. And whilst I'm digressing I hope POBs get their rework <3

[Markam]

Missions are a complicated beast.

Trying to fiddle with vignettes (these determine where missions go to) has some mixed results. It may be possible to force all missions to go to a single spot in a system (making them more interactive, dangerous), though you change one thing and suddenly the bases stop giving missions.

Next patch will have some systems that have a lot of missions given out to multiple factions via a Freelancer freeport, meaning it is good for a wide variety of factions. GMs can then make the PvE plugin more profitable for said systems, in theory bringing more people to it and making for interaction. It is still a WIP of course and likely needs a lot of work.

If someone wants to help with systems work for missions, to help them be more interactive, feel free to reach out to me.

---

Markam is evil

[Czechmate]

Yeah Ideally you'd have lucrative systems for opposed factions that have bases in the same system and have their mission zones overlap, make them spawn missions vs the opposing factions NPCS to make the RP straightforward too.

But there's issue with spawns right
I know e.g Hesperia's just busted because of zones


Tbh I'd prefer not to have the freeport solution because it turns the whole system into an oorp mess
But it's the only one easy to implement it seems devs?


It does work in Delta for nomad vs core/FP missions, but the openness of freeport to everyone messes with the balance and incentive to act in rp

[Its Raisu]

The problem is that the Gunboats are too profitable per time involved. Nomad GBs in Delta are 900k a pop right now. That's 300k less than a Cruiser, which spawns in a max pack of 5, as opposed to GBs spawning in groups of 8.

7,2 million vs 6 million per wave, and for much less risk of taking damage in a heavy cap.

Tis why I suggest a more multi-faceted solution rather than "just redooce muhnies".

[Busy Miner]

The problem is that the Gunboats are too profitable per time involved. Nomad GBs in Delta are 900k a pop right now. That's 300k less than a Cruiser, which spawns in a max pack of 5, as opposed to GBs spawning in groups of 8.

7,2 million vs 6 million per wave, and for much less risk of taking damage in a heavy cap.

Tis why I suggest a more multi-faceted solution rather than "just redooce muhnies".

Just give more for Cruisers and Battleships, then. They can do real damage that needs to be repaired costly.