Star Citizen Alpha 4.0.1 More Updates - Mission Rewards Need Changes Get NORDVPN + BIG Discount | nordvpn.com/boredgamer Tobii Eye Tracker 5 | tobii.gg/boredgamer Alpha 4.0.1 Patch Notes | robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/190048/thread/star-citizen-alpha-4-0-1-ptu-patch-notes-2/7657089 Mission Rewards | robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/190049/thread/bugfix-and-issue-discussion-4-0-1-9484757-ptu/7657115 Become a Channel Member | th-cam.com/users/BoredGamerUKjoin Get a Star Citizen Account & Bonus | boredgamer.co.uk/enlist Try Incogni 60% Off - Take Control Of Your Privacy | www.boredgamer.co.uk/incogni Support On Patreon | www.patreon.com/BoredGamer Get GameGlass | www.boredgamer.co.uk/gameglass Donate To The Channel | www.boredgamer.co.uk/donate Direct Paypal Donations | paypal.me/boredgamer Discord | discord.gg/boredgamer Twitch | www.twitch.tv/boredgameruk Twitter / X | twitter.com/BoredGamerUK Reddit | www.reddit.com/r/BoredGamer/ Podcast | soundcloud.com/boredgameruk Checkout Hasgaha's Screenshots | www.hasgaha.com/gaming-screenshots/ LATEST STAR CITIZEN PATCH ALPHA 4.0.1 OPEN PTU
My issue with missions right now is that you cant share to people with lower rep My local friends get together every Saturday night to play. Sometimes its the only time one or two of our crew log in that week. Because we can't share more advanced missions with party members it means we have to all pile onto the beginner ones to get rep up so we can all play a bigger, more risky mission. It really sucks, and I know for a fact that it makes that one person feel like they're dragging the whole play session down, which is the opposite we want from a chill night out with our friends
It's about perspective, I don't mind helping a friend who is 3 ranks below me. The payout however is a joke when we play together, we are getting punished for playing together.
That bit me in the arse during the Overdrive Initiative. I helped so many org mates get their F7A but the event ended the night before I was about to get mine.
Despite everyone complaining, for me personally the performance increase that came with 4.0 has changed this game from being on the backburner to being what I want to get on and play every day. That being said, missions need work and more variety. I just don't want to get f'd over by a crime stat for shooting the guards after they choose to cosplay as the pirates.
Agreed. 4.0 has given me optimism that the foundation of SC as a whole can work. Despite everything that doesn't work in the preview, the performance increase between 3.24 and 4.0 (when everything is working) is phenomenal. It actually plays like a game for me now instead of a benchmark test.
Dont talk shit, every server i join does nothing but complain in chat, nothing works. I couldnt do a single mission without any critical bug that made it impossible to complete.
If the game performs well enough for you, then I imagine you don’t have much to complain about compared to do the person who is still having a tough time logging on or when they finally do, they can’t even get out the hangar.
They do. The more people in your group that accepted the shared contract the more you all get paid... If I have 10 people in a party take a VLRT we get a total of 500,000 for killing a single seat fighter that's meant to pay 50,000...
I realized Star citizen is a game u should just pop in every 6 months, idk how people can make daily content from it... I really liked the beginning of 4.0 until it became a diceroll of either being unplayable or just barely playable. I cant imagine what the people that have been there from the beginning must be feeling
As someone who has been here from (almost) the beginning: i play other games, barely play SC. The goal of SC is something that I still see as the ultimate game for me. Untill its there, I have been doing exactly what you have decided now. I recommend this to everyone, don't play this as your main game as you'll be disappointed somehow. For content creators i get why they play it, but playing becomes more of a job than it is for the majority of us. Right now i dont have the time and money to play star citizen in the way i want it anyways. I have a good pc, but i want a top of the line pc with ultra wide monitor, mounts for my joysticks, possible vr, etc. That is something i am saving up for the coming 3/4 years. In 3/4 years i should also have more time to play games in general, so for me a 1.0 release in 4/5 years would be absolutely perfect. I can wait easily for SC.
Personally I would agree missions should give full rep to all members doing the mission , and either pay full mission pay or at least a bonus for as a group
A better way to handle it is mission scaling, you want to bring 10 people to join the mission where we only spawn 3 ships... cool, now you need to kill 30 ships for the same reward
@@BeepBooper55that incentivizes solo play as well when earning is the goal. Only incentizives group play for the times people want a big fight, which death of a spaceman would disincentivize. You could do one mission with 30 ships, each of you getting paid one missions worth, but due to numbers its significantly harder and takes much longer. Or each of you can solo 3 ships, which is much easier, and you can do the mission multiple times in the timespan it takes to kill 30 in a single mission
I agree with that spectrum post. Right now there's almost no point to multicrew other than "big ships are harder to solo." The reduced payouts, split haul of gear, rep split, etc all make it seriously pointless to do. They want this to be a multi-crew game and have reasons for it, but then the gameplay doesn't support multicrew at all beyond the ship restrictions. The ION rebalance and all of that wouldn't be necessary with that simple fix. A fully crewed andromeda is more effective in combat as a whole than a single pre-nerf Ion and they cost about the same. This entire game would be better if they made the missions worth doing with a crew. Heck even older MMOs like EQ would give you a slight XP boost for having a full group. IF CIG wants to continue to make the game more "players look for meta over crew" then they can simply make all HRT+ bounties require a crew along with any hauling beyond "small." However, that'll put everyone back to the "mine til your rich, then combat pilot for pvp only" style gameplay we were at back in 3.8-3.9 era.
I do think incentivizing group play is vital. Splitting rewards just doesn’t do that. Big rewards for big group missions could be a cool experience … but with Save Stanton, it very rarely turned into an actual group experience. It was slamming your face against the server and hoping somebody had a Polaris that could Manage to torpedo despite the bugs. So group missions can’t be Too big. Smaller groups with coordinated play could be fun. But the risk reward still has to be balanced way more in favor of group play to be worth the trouble. One person fighting bugs they have to get a mission done is hard. 5 people all fighting their own bugs is nearly insurmountable.
For a game that is meant to be a large scale MMO style game with large ships needing multiple people playing together, these changes of splitting mission rewards and things like that, actually discourages people from playing together.
I think mission rewards should be full pay out full rep. Every single MMO on the planet does this. Why, because it encourages what the game was made for. If they want ORGs to function and people to actually want to do Multi crew then the penalty for grouping needs to go. Now should every single mission be allowed for multicrew, no I believe there should be a multi crew section of missions and single player section. But until then stop penalizing people who want to group up. Good vid man, and have a good one.
My friend group has the same issue with group missions. There will be no incentive to do missions in a group when the patch drops. With the higher prices there is no way a group can earn money together in a reasonable amount of time. People need to realize that not everyone can no life games and only have a few hours at most to play. Hopefully they can get it balanced right.
There should be some really big and challenging missions where if a group actually finishes them then the reward is a particular bug or proposed quality of life improvement gets full focus across CIG groups until handled.
They really need to fix mining bags for the freight elevators. Would be nice if refinery read from and dumped into the local cargo. Would enable full party play for mining.
Even if all participants get the full amount of all the rewards, the Inpact on the economy would be quite negligible, since mining/salvage/looting seems to make the big bucks. But it would be a great incentive to play together with other players, and that's what a MMO should do.
Yes if people could behave, that would be true. What will happen, however, is that 10 people each take a mission and share with the other 10. Each finishes one mission and gets paid for 10 of them. The mission system is too broken for this right now
@@eavdmeer Sadly, players always optimise the fun out of everything and will do what makes the most income per hour. I still think it's more beneficial to encourage social interaction, even if it will get exploited heavily. Regardless, the mission system needs an overhaul for sure.
@@ToitleInTime agreed, it *can* be fixed. But that's not the current state of the game. Plus we all know how long even the most basic shit takes to get in
Missions need a top to bottom rework, not just the reward. All the old legacy mission stuff needs a complete overhaul to bring them in line with the newer game features.
I think it was City of Heroes where you gained % for every team member, so if you were solo you were leaving experience behind. That mechanic produced a desire to group because the rewards GREW not SPLIT the more people you had. CIG once more displays a disconnect between stated goals and implemented mechanics
For every mission payout, CIG should factor in a "Recommended Crew Size" and a "Estimated Time to Complete" value. If they deisgn a mission to need a crew of 4, or take 4x as long, it should have 4x the payout (or at least close to that) when compared to a solo mission. For rep, they could do 100% for the one who accepted the mission, and then 75% for anyone who joins. Just like a real captain/crew situation, the Captain gets the most glory.
I remember on Star Wars galaxies there was the Hoth instance that required a min number of 4 players to enter, so not a new idea. Each player got the same XP/rewards if completed.
They should make it to where if you’re on site you get the full reward. If they can tell when you’re trespassing then they can tell when you get the reward. I think the major problem that they had was four people running solo missions sharing them all and getting full payouts. If they can also calculate how many people show up on site and are now trespassing, that can affect the spawn amount of enemies. That way you earn the full amount payout.
Only difficulty with this is it further punishes anyone who dies. Make it flag if they reached the location, they get the payout. People could mass share and chain, leaving one person at each mission, but those being left at the beginning of the chain not recieving what is earned for later missions would be enough disincentivize mass sharing as who is getting screwed in the group.
Would be greaat to participate, but I can't leave the Hangar today. Elevator didn't work and Hangar didn't open for any ship. Again. I tried for 5 hours now, with relogs and everything possible. No chance.
tried out the newest patch on the PTU myself. it is definitely working lots better then the preview and live builds. Still has lots of bugs like not everyone in our party was able to get a shared missions even though we had the same rep level for the missions faction. Looking forward to see what other improvements get added.
IMO, they need a multiplayer barrier for the missions that are intended to be played by multiple people. I'm think these should be missions from NPC rather than normally appearing ones in the contract manager where the NPC won't give you the mission unless you're in a large enough party, sort of treating it like a special thing instead of a generic "work needed" where no one really cares as long as the work gets done.
Mission rewards should NOT be 100% distributed to each party member. You could easily make 2 alts party with them. Share the mission and throw them in your cargo hull. Then farm missions for millions. Effectively making a viable "pay to win" strategy. At the cost of like $80
Still not hearing anything about a black screen fix.. I’ve got one, when you join and have the Que; put a tiny piece of tape where the cancel button is so you can click out of an error like you should be able to do in the first place.
While there has been a true showing that the new server method is better and actually showing the feel of a real game, all we ever really see is the "showing what something 'could' be". I want some stability that allows me to say "today I want to play on SC" and then actually be able to do that. The rewards for missions should at this point be flagrant just to compensate your time, it is not as if the money matters really balance later, play now. I will also say here again the game braking point that has me telling other people not to EVER play this game is the "Death of a spaceman", the stupidest idea ever aside from their over encouragement towards piracy over legitimate activities. Why would I want to play a game where the main focus of it all seems to be "What more can you take away from me?"; I have RL for disappointment, a game is supposed to make me feel better not worse.
There can be a compromise formula for rep. Just for being an easy number to work with, let's use a 100 rep points mission as an example. - Half the total rep value goes to everybody +50 - The remaining 50 points are divided. So if one player does it by themselves, they get 50 + 50 = 100 pts. 2 players get 50 + 25 = 75 each. 3 player team get 50 + 17 = 67 pts each. 4 players get 50 +13 = 63 pts each. 5 platers get 50 + 10 = 60 pts each. Etc, etc. It's dead easy to blend the two models of point sharing.
i can't play the game anymore absolutely broken for me at this point. when i can quantum jump i get crashes, or lockups, doesn't matter EU, Best, USA, Asia whichever server it just dies on me. worked fine in 3.24 and worked for about 3 days into 4.0 which was awesome, but completely unplayable now which is frustrating, any word on when 4.01 will hit regular servers?
This talk about Mission rewards is putting me in mind of the negotiation phase of a shadowrun game. I could see something where a mission could support a certain size group, and perhaps there would be say an extra per diem for each member. So you're not paying everyone the same as solo, but you're also not just completely dividing up the money that a solo player would get.
I wonder what additional missions they have planned for Pyro. But what I’m really looking forward to are the handyman missions coming to Stanton.🇺🇦🇭🇹🇵🇸
I hope that 3.24 will be retired soon, ever since the servers we're split between 3.24 and the preview I have insanely long login times and low frames on both versions even though 3.24 worked (somewhat) fine before the preview was live.
Completely agree on the idea of full rep per group member. Pay should be split as a team and rewards can definitely be randomized if there's a reward pool at the end of a specific mission
Another annoying bug, after getting to member in Covalex, it shows I have up to 120 missions, however when viewing the available contracts, it only loads 50.
There is another facet of mission rewards that i think many are not considering: Looting. A way to encourage group play is to provide a larger loot pool (quantity and value) to the more difficult missions. It can be anything from a few salvage opportunities to a similar loot room like in the CZs. That way, the payout becomes less important than the potential profit in a group activity.
In EVE Online, there are some newer missions in high sec that split the payout on a curve, which encourages a specific group size. For instance, payout might be 25k for 1 person, 75k for each of a 4 person group and 20k for each of a 6 person group, dropping off sharply for every extra person after that (I normalized these numbers to typical SC magnitude, but that's the general pattern). These could be tailored for each mission type and scaled based on EVR, but would offer a reason to group up and bring an end to the "Hire and escort" memes... xD
Really looking forward to Save Stanton continuing but hoping that it works better in a group. Overdrive was a lot of fun running it with the Yacht Club every weekend. Save Stanton was just four phases of solo gameplay that needed to be done simultaneously as others but didn't really need any grouping.
Hauling mission payouts don't make sense to me. First, they need to allow players to decide what size containers the cargo is delivered in. Something they mentioned before. Second, the payout needs to be based on number of scu delivered and the distance traveled. I get payed 50k to move 6 scu from leo station to city and 56k to move 90+ scu from leo station to L-station? Why would I spend more time to get basically the same pay?
Loved that guys post on the mission sharing/splitting and mission locks, rep locks etc. etc. etc. I see no point in looping in Org mates to do group gameplay when we are all at different levels in the progress tree and then have to split rep and money on top of that (assuming we are at the same tier / level in the chain). Hopefully they address that.
as for the mission rewards, I believe the corsair weapons were split to encourage multi-player, and I thought that was what GCIG was doping for bounties, where NOT splitting rewards (especially RPep.) was good to encourage it, where as now, with the cost of missiles, reload and refuel, its not as profitable at starter levels, and not as multi-player level (like the Polaris, etc). Now, I would do some sort of "distance" type where if a player is in a different system or too far to engage on the bounty, maybe they don't get the Rep, and payment is split, that would keep , lets say, a player leveling by staying in a spaceport, while his buddy grinds out the bounty, or One does bounty, one does hauling, and split the rewards, SHould encourage somehow that they ccould both get full Rep and pay, but both should be somehow engage in doing the misssion.
I agree with sharing rep, although it doesn't make sense for everyone to be paid the same amount, be like if you hire someone for £100 to help tidy up your house and they bring like three other people, they sudden ask for each person to be paid £100 for the job since there are four people, not £100 because that was for the job as a whole. I think the other thing that some people have mentioned with this is, for people with multiple alt accounts, they can and will use it to farm tons of Auec, so, personally, I think to try and cull that, I think that, to get a share of the money, you need to be both A. in the mission area and B. you need to be actively taking part in the mission (helping move boxes, firing guns, etc) so you can't just leave a alt AFK in a safe place, far away from the mission site to farm money, they have to be close by and actively moving and doing things. I'm probably going to get disagreements from people, but look; if your gonna get a share, do the work
The full rep aspect of that makes a lot of sense. Maybe some conditions that they have to be within x kms of the target for y% of the time to prevent people from accepting missions and spreading out to grind faster. Not sure what tye exact numbers are to make that fair, but im sure it could be figured out.
Package delivery? They haven't managed to make it work with server meshing yet, therefore it's missing until they do, aka until the mission refactor is fully finished.
Like the idea of bumped up mission reward for multicrew. I'd also like to see a different system to the current 'share mission' system we have. Feels clunky. Would like to be able to accept a mission as a group!
More mission variety and types, like mining, and a way to sort or filter between higher risk and reward multicrew/group missions and lower difficulty solo missions would go a long way in improving contracts and gameplay loops. But first, they've got to get contracts actually functioning again since 4.0 broke....well, all of them.
I feel pretty lucky, I've finally brought a couple of my "pickier" friends to come play on 4.0.. we had an amazing time. The only major issue was my buddy running out of QT fuel even though the colour was "blue". Picked them up and kept enjoying 4.0.
We did a lot more missions together as an org with it being the full pay out. Yeah some people were trying to min max and get everyone to go solo but share but more of us just ran together
I personally think it would be the most rewarding and make the most sense if missions had a financial payout reduction based on the amount of players, you have in incremental percentages. What I mean by that is that you could have the base payout of the mission at 100% as a solo player. Adding another player reduces that percentage by 10% for each player and then a third player by 20%. So on a mission that paid 100k, each player would receive 80 K. As it stands right now, mission rewards are split in half each time you add another player making multi crew missions that want financial gain almost entirely pointless. One of the best examples is cargo missions. Sure, I may be able to load my cargo faster with two people, but with my atlas, I can still load it pretty damn fast by myself, and if I was smart and stacked all the cargo missions to be picked up from one place and delivered to one place I can make a lot of money very quickly. It then doesn’t make any sense for me to have another person come on board and then split that by 50%! That would almost be like me as the CEO of my company hiring another person to help me do what I’m doing and then paying them the exact same amount that I’m making. That’s bad business.
Desync is the killer for me, as I like to play with my kids, but once things don't work right, that usually means the end of the session. I expect it will take a while for them to get the meshing bug-fixed and optimised. In Star Wars Galaxies, groups would get bonuses to XP, payments, resources, rewards, etc. If you do that, then group content becomes beneficial and organic, instead of forced and detrimental to everyone in the group. Difficulty needs to be dynamic to counter the reward.
The post has a great analogy for why to keep the rep gains as a share not split. Hope it is reverted or when I try to carry my newer friends on a rep grind it will take way longer to grind up in ranking.
It's actually starting to really feel like cig can't keep up with the bugs in the game. I feel like they fix 10 just to get 10 to 20 more. Often they fix things but they didn't get fixed. I don't know if it's the turnover that is causing such issues with being able to stay on top of bug fixes, but the more complicated the game gets the worst situation gets. It's hard to see things getting better anytime soon unfortunately.
They are working with mostly younger/inexperienced people. Most of the older guiding devs are gone. The whole game is probably spaghetti code (unless they have great documentation and very good project managers).
I agree with the rep not being split at all. Torn on the pay issue. Perhaps they could work on some scale in between full and total split, which I'm sure would require ongoing balancing.
I'm soooo glad you brought up this topic. Here are my thoughts. Mission rewards should NOT be split in anyway with group members. Both $ and Rep should be paid out in full. Why? This will encourage group and multi-crew game play at all levels. If mission rewards are split, this heavily discourages group play. For the most part, groups will be formed with sizes only as big as is necessary to complete the objectives, otherwise it negatively effects mission reward payouts. Mission payouts should be tailored around the above to not negatively affect the economy. If that means dropping the payout, fine. For now, I think this should be implemented as is with the 4.0 release. Bug or not, it is having a net positive effect on the community. However, I do think that limitations on this should be implemented, but I don't think we should be penalized while waiting for them to get this done. Potential restrictions could include: Active participation in the mission. If you're simply sitting on the ship, not doing a thing, or sitting in the corner. You shouldn't get credit. Region locked, you must within range to receive credit. Caveat to this would be if you died and respawned away from the action, you should still get credit if completed before you get back within a reasonable amount of time. I do somewhat like the idea of a participation meter, the more you participate, the higher payout you receive. NOT tied to how much you actually accomplish, but simply how much you participate and are active/present. I do think this would be very complicated to implement though. All missions should be shareable, but rep should be rewarded at the level someone is at, assuming higher level missions reward more rep than lower ones. I do wish there were more missions and specifically, missions tailored to larger groups, multi-crew, and multi ship/fleet groups. I suspect these will come with time. Again, this is a multi player and specifically multi-crew focused game... They should NOT penalize that style gameplay in any way shape or form, period.
I like the idea of not splitting the rep or pay as I do like to play with my friends and encourages group play. If you are going to have large ships that need to be multi-crewed for group play we should then have no split pay to encourage group play for missions.
I love how they're making the game play mechanics more hostile to solo play, but the mission mechanics hostile to group play. Well done. Honestly, if they don't want full payout for everyone, you can still make it a sliding scale with more towards more of a payout with fewer people you have. So, for example, 100% for solo, 95% for two, 90% for three, etc etc.
Contract rewards should give a bonus for each additional player participating. So instead of being 50/50, it should be 80/80. And instead of 33/33/33 for three people, it could be 70/70/70. So it would be better individually to do them solo, but as a group of friends or an org, your TOTAL payout will be greater when splitting. I.e. two people will see a 160% payout, and three people will see a 210% payout, with diminishing returns. I think this is best of both worlds.
I like the idea of everyone getting the same reward (both auec and rep) for a mission when doing multicrew gameplay - there's zero incentive at the moment for any multicrew gameplay. Both myself and a friend enjoy running cargo hauling missions, however it would make it significantly easier to get the rep up if we could get a few missions, share them with each other and grind the rep up (currently at member and it's taking an age to get upto the next rank!)
Just keep everyone getting the full reward. I play with my cousin and we love to squad up and raid bunkers for a really good amount of cash. With this patch we're just going to go split off and do our own thing now, which sucks because I enjoy playing together. Lower Rewards = We do solo missions = we get bored faster = we stop playing faster.
Rep should always be equal no matter how many people do a mission. Its one of the driving incentives to potentially help people lower along the chain of progression. If someone's able to do 2,000 SCU missions but their ship is in a claim window for whatever reason, they should be able to help a friend in their Cutlass do missions a bit faster and still gain rep even if its not a major financial boon.
A ton of things about missions could be reworked. The Mission panel in the mobiglass needs a rework, we need a search bar like the map, We need mission classified by location/payout/Group size/Cargo size required. I shouldn't have to scroll down 52 hauling missions one by one to find the one starting from my location or any other location I'm planning on my route. I should be able to tap area 18 and see all the hauling missions starting from this location. With the SCU required for the mission in the mission info even before I clicked on it to see where it asked me to go (Best ever would be mission title is like the: Hauling mission: Fr: Area 18 /to: Everus Harbor /22 Scu /Pay 43k. Bam with this it makes finding what you want way easier, add a search to it. The mission panel is the quality of life upgrade I have wanted to see since map one. I would like this way more than the ship panel to be done first. Also if talking about Hauling again (but this should be also with other mission styles in some way). I should be able to find stuff like (example) From:Area 18 To:Baijini /4 Scu /Pay 20k From Area 18 To Baijini /20Scu/ Pay 30K From Area 18 to Baijini /40 Scu/ Pay 70K From Area 18 to Baijini /140 Scu / 200k But when you check the contract: the 4 scu is Laranite and needs a fast small ship to be moved as the people paying want the stuff fast and quick. the 20 Scu is for anyone with a ship capable of doing the work as it's 20 Scu of Quartz so there is no special requirement. The 40 SCU that pays 70 needs a group of 20 people to do in time cause it's also time sensitive and you transport gold. The last one is for a large ship and a group of 3 to 4 as it is time-sensitive but less than the other one. You have 1h to make the entire loading, moving, and unloading. So you need a group. We need small cargo that still pays good money for solo player with small ships but their cargo could be valuable stuff, the mission could be bought for some kind of insurance on the cargo: You make money on delivery but lose your buy-in money if you lose the cargo. And, we need missions that pay a ton for large groups and ships but which need a minimum of organization as there is still a required amount of time to do the mission. We need different types of missions for different types of cargo (like they did with Quantanium in mining). Titan, Nomad, all the small ship with cargo size and that can go fast and defend themself a bit if need be could have a "Priority cargo" for valuable stuff. When they talk about Making the game stable and playable, this is the kind of thing I want them to do. Make the mobiglass apps finalized and always working... Like can we finally nail the fucking bug that prevents the refueling platform to work once and for all?! Can we have an Inventory with a search, with a drag and drop for multiple objects? Can we have elevators and hangar doors that open and work? I could go a year without any new thing being added if by the end of the year, All these things were ironed out and to a point where they barely bug anymore (like I know it's alpha, and each time the add something, something else breaks). And then just put half the ship team on reworking older ship to the new standard by starting with those who have their gameplay in game. (Reclaimer I'm looking at you now).
There needs to be functionality for a party leader to choose whether contracts get automatically shared, accepted, and tracked by the whole group. When it still looked like full payouts for everyone was intended, I thought it was brilliant. The Yellow combat mission, doable by a solo pilot, pays out 58k. The Orange mission, which arguably needs a wingman, pays out 78k. The numbers here tell me that this payout is not intended to be split, or else why would you go through the trouble of teaming up and taking on many more enemies, for a smaller payout? It makes no sense.
If they made a “Once per day” mission - tied to your account - that gave a big reward that didn’t split rep or pay… it would be nice for groups. Make it a multi-part mission at different locations. Everyone could get together for it, but they can’t grind them all back to back and make a bunch of money. Full reward but doesn’t break economy.
Splitting rep makes no sense as many have pointed out. The splitting of pay is acceptable if they adjusted mission pay to be reflective of the total number of people required to complete said mission.
I'm on board with the Rep not being split, but being applied to everyone in the group equally. Financially splitting is fine, although I could see higher paying missions being only available to larger parties. What ever happened to rep-tiered faction shops with custom gear though? That would make reputation make a lot more valuable.
For missions I like systems that give everyone the same reward but increases the difficulty for every player added. So if a bunker has 10 enemies for 1 person there should be more 17-22 people for 2 people in my opinion
Makes sense for money to be split for mission payouts, but rep should be per-person. To use the analogy in the video...the team doing that install gets paid an amount and splits it up, but the rep is just the same for all.
I can see the opposite for the rep argument. If you take the employee "bob" away from the deck company, no one will know who he is. Because most people only deal with the boss
I'm sure plenty of peeps have good ideas for groups of players and ships doing and being rewarded for missions. But! If they made some missions in every trade have a feature where it could only be 1 ship doing it, but varying difficulty levels, that would be interesting. Think massive ion storm in the area, only 1 ship can enter the area.... Then you'd do what if it's a hard mission? Bring a multi crew ship with friends. Just a thought, I know they plan to tackle multi crew via engineering, but just wanted to throw another pillar/carrot out there on that note.
I think rep should ne equally split. More credit per mission and they need to get harder as the reward increases, driving group play. Also. You should have to be at least on the same planet to get the shared reward. In 4.0 you could be in another solar system!
Mission reward should be divided amongst participants equally. Include faction. Faction can be a plus or minus, remember that. Tough that being said, players also have to be in proximity when these things are being done.
I think there definitely needs to be a good mix of missions to allow for those who want to solo and those that want to group together. I feel rep needs to be looked at more closely as that shouldn't be broken down the same way as funds shared perhaps. Great vid BG
Stability and bugs. I would understand if bugs related to new things but I don't know how bugs reappear after being fixed or of things with no apparent improvements (like elevators)
splitting rewards makes sense from an in-universe point of view, but it might be implemented with a modifier on the grand total based on whether or not there are more players participating, so if a mission pays 100K but you bring an extra player, the base pay to split is incremented by, I don't know, 10% per extra player so in total you would split 110k instead of 100, making 55K each instead of 50. From the NPC's point of view it would look like a "I'm taking a risk by hiring the lowest amount of people possible to save money, but have a higher chanche that they will fail the mission I assign to them" kind of situation, where if you need something done and be sure it's done, you would be willing to pay more, to have more people involved...so you're still paid less individially if you go as a group, but doing that is not AS punishing when it comes to rewards. I have no idea if 10% would be a good number, that was just an example, but deciding how much would be adequate would just be a matter of balancing, so, not a huge deal
Star Citizen Alpha 4.0.1 More Updates - Mission Rewards Need Changes
Get NORDVPN + BIG Discount | nordvpn.com/boredgamer
Tobii Eye Tracker 5 | tobii.gg/boredgamer
Alpha 4.0.1 Patch Notes | robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/190048/thread/star-citizen-alpha-4-0-1-ptu-patch-notes-2/7657089
Mission Rewards | robertsspaceindustries.com/spectrum/community/SC/forum/190049/thread/bugfix-and-issue-discussion-4-0-1-9484757-ptu/7657115
Become a Channel Member | th-cam.com/users/BoredGamerUKjoin
Get a Star Citizen Account & Bonus | boredgamer.co.uk/enlist
Try Incogni 60% Off - Take Control Of Your Privacy | www.boredgamer.co.uk/incogni
Support On Patreon | www.patreon.com/BoredGamer
Get GameGlass | www.boredgamer.co.uk/gameglass
Donate To The Channel | www.boredgamer.co.uk/donate
Direct Paypal Donations | paypal.me/boredgamer
Discord | discord.gg/boredgamer
Twitch | www.twitch.tv/boredgameruk
Twitter / X | twitter.com/BoredGamerUK
Reddit | www.reddit.com/r/BoredGamer/
Podcast | soundcloud.com/boredgameruk
Checkout Hasgaha's Screenshots | www.hasgaha.com/gaming-screenshots/
LATEST STAR CITIZEN PATCH ALPHA 4.0.1 OPEN PTU
My issue with missions right now is that you cant share to people with lower rep
My local friends get together every Saturday night to play. Sometimes its the only time one or two of our crew log in that week. Because we can't share more advanced missions with party members it means we have to all pile onto the beginner ones to get rep up so we can all play a bigger, more risky mission. It really sucks, and I know for a fact that it makes that one person feel like they're dragging the whole play session down, which is the opposite we want from a chill night out with our friends
It's about perspective, I don't mind helping a friend who is 3 ranks below me. The payout however is a joke when we play together, we are getting punished for playing together.
yeah it's great no more exploiting contract shares
That bit me in the arse during the Overdrive Initiative. I helped so many org mates get their F7A but the event ended the night before I was about to get mine.
Despite everyone complaining, for me personally the performance increase that came with 4.0 has changed this game from being on the backburner to being what I want to get on and play every day. That being said, missions need work and more variety. I just don't want to get f'd over by a crime stat for shooting the guards after they choose to cosplay as the pirates.
Agreed. 4.0 has given me optimism that the foundation of SC as a whole can work. Despite everything that doesn't work in the preview, the performance increase between 3.24 and 4.0 (when everything is working) is phenomenal. It actually plays like a game for me now instead of a benchmark test.
I agree, Although soon as I actually put some time and effort in, it became clear, way too buggy to enjoy, too many game-breaking bugs.
You got to play missions? Awesome. I couldn’t get 1 to complete
Dont talk shit, every server i join does nothing but complain in chat, nothing works. I couldnt do a single mission without any critical bug that made it impossible to complete.
If the game performs well enough for you, then I imagine you don’t have much to complain about compared to do the person who is still having a tough time logging on or when they finally do, they can’t even get out the hangar.
There are missions that explicitly say "bring a partner". Those should pay accordingly.
They do. The more people in your group that accepted the shared contract the more you all get paid... If I have 10 people in a party take a VLRT we get a total of 500,000 for killing a single seat fighter that's meant to pay 50,000...
@iKennectz no. They removed the missions rewards playing full price to each member of a party and went back to divide the payout for each member.
I realized Star citizen is a game u should just pop in every 6 months, idk how people can make daily content from it... I really liked the beginning of 4.0 until it became a diceroll of either being unplayable or just barely playable. I cant imagine what the people that have been there from the beginning must be feeling
Feeling pretty great to see the game evolve over the years. I play as much as I can. 👀
As someone who has been here from (almost) the beginning: i play other games, barely play SC. The goal of SC is something that I still see as the ultimate game for me. Untill its there, I have been doing exactly what you have decided now. I recommend this to everyone, don't play this as your main game as you'll be disappointed somehow. For content creators i get why they play it, but playing becomes more of a job than it is for the majority of us. Right now i dont have the time and money to play star citizen in the way i want it anyways. I have a good pc, but i want a top of the line pc with ultra wide monitor, mounts for my joysticks, possible vr, etc. That is something i am saving up for the coming 3/4 years. In 3/4 years i should also have more time to play games in general, so for me a 1.0 release in 4/5 years would be absolutely perfect. I can wait easily for SC.
The mission rewards were a great incentive to working with friends to complete them. Hope they bring it back or at least balance it better.
This
Personally I would agree missions should give full rep to all members doing the mission , and either pay full mission pay or at least a bonus for as a group
Trouble is players were making huge groups with only one person completing the mission but everyone getting the pay out
A better way to handle it is mission scaling, you want to bring 10 people to join the mission where we only spawn 3 ships... cool, now you need to kill 30 ships for the same reward
@@BeepBooper55that incentivizes solo play as well when earning is the goal. Only incentizives group play for the times people want a big fight, which death of a spaceman would disincentivize.
You could do one mission with 30 ships, each of you getting paid one missions worth, but due to numbers its significantly harder and takes much longer. Or each of you can solo 3 ships, which is much easier, and you can do the mission multiple times in the timespan it takes to kill 30 in a single mission
I agree with that spectrum post. Right now there's almost no point to multicrew other than "big ships are harder to solo." The reduced payouts, split haul of gear, rep split, etc all make it seriously pointless to do. They want this to be a multi-crew game and have reasons for it, but then the gameplay doesn't support multicrew at all beyond the ship restrictions. The ION rebalance and all of that wouldn't be necessary with that simple fix. A fully crewed andromeda is more effective in combat as a whole than a single pre-nerf Ion and they cost about the same. This entire game would be better if they made the missions worth doing with a crew. Heck even older MMOs like EQ would give you a slight XP boost for having a full group. IF CIG wants to continue to make the game more "players look for meta over crew" then they can simply make all HRT+ bounties require a crew along with any hauling beyond "small." However, that'll put everyone back to the "mine til your rich, then combat pilot for pvp only" style gameplay we were at back in 3.8-3.9 era.
I do think incentivizing group play is vital. Splitting rewards just doesn’t do that. Big rewards for big group missions could be a cool experience … but with Save Stanton, it very rarely turned into an actual group experience. It was slamming your face against the server and hoping somebody had a Polaris that could Manage to torpedo despite the bugs. So group missions can’t be Too big. Smaller groups with coordinated play could be fun. But the risk reward still has to be balanced way more in favor of group play to be worth the trouble.
One person fighting bugs they have to get a mission done is hard. 5 people all fighting their own bugs is nearly insurmountable.
Let’s throw GTA Heist mechanics into group missions and that’ll solve it
Hopefully we'll be getting 4.0.1 sooner rather than later. 4.0.0 has become progressively more unstable over the last two weeks.
For a game that is meant to be a large scale MMO style game with large ships needing multiple people playing together, these changes of splitting mission rewards and things like that, actually discourages people from playing together.
Yeah, there need to be multiplayer missions with appropriate rewards.
I think mission rewards should be full pay out full rep. Every single MMO on the planet does this. Why, because it encourages what the game was made for. If they want ORGs to function and people to actually want to do Multi crew then the penalty for grouping needs to go. Now should every single mission be allowed for multicrew, no I believe there should be a multi crew section of missions and single player section. But until then stop penalizing people who want to group up. Good vid man, and have a good one.
Yeah the mission system really needs work
My friend group has the same issue with group missions. There will be no incentive to do missions in a group when the patch drops. With the higher prices there is no way a group can earn money together in a reasonable amount of time. People need to realize that not everyone can no life games and only have a few hours at most to play. Hopefully they can get it balanced right.
There should be some really big and challenging missions where if a group actually finishes them then the reward is a particular bug or proposed quality of life improvement gets full focus across CIG groups until handled.
Normal mmos have this, there called dungeons. CIG cant even get a hauling mission to work 100% of the time so let's fix that first.
They really need to fix mining bags for the freight elevators. Would be nice if refinery read from and dumped into the local cargo. Would enable full party play for mining.
Yikes are the bags still an issue on freight elevators? That's crazy.
Even if all participants get the full amount of all the rewards, the Inpact on the economy would be quite negligible, since mining/salvage/looting seems to make the big bucks. But it would be a great incentive to play together with other players, and that's what a MMO should do.
Yes if people could behave, that would be true. What will happen, however, is that 10 people each take a mission and share with the other 10. Each finishes one mission and gets paid for 10 of them. The mission system is too broken for this right now
@@eavdmeer Sadly, players always optimise the fun out of everything and will do what makes the most income per hour. I still think it's more beneficial to encourage social interaction, even if it will get exploited heavily. Regardless, the mission system needs an overhaul for sure.
@@MasticoreWinter well, you could encourage social interaction, but it will definitely break the economy, such as it is at the moment
@@eavdmeereasy fix, man, just limit the payouts to players within an appropriate area
@@ToitleInTime agreed, it *can* be fixed. But that's not the current state of the game. Plus we all know how long even the most basic shit takes to get in
Missions need a top to bottom rework, not just the reward. All the old legacy mission stuff needs a complete overhaul to bring them in line with the newer game features.
I think it was City of Heroes where you gained % for every team member, so if you were solo you were leaving experience behind.
That mechanic produced a desire to group because the rewards GREW not SPLIT the more people you had.
CIG once more displays a disconnect between stated goals and implemented mechanics
For every mission payout, CIG should factor in a "Recommended Crew Size" and a "Estimated Time to Complete" value. If they deisgn a mission to need a crew of 4, or take 4x as long, it should have 4x the payout (or at least close to that) when compared to a solo mission.
For rep, they could do 100% for the one who accepted the mission, and then 75% for anyone who joins. Just like a real captain/crew situation, the Captain gets the most glory.
Everyone should obviously get full rep from missions together. Splitting the reward make sense, splitting the reputation do not.
I remember on Star Wars galaxies there was the Hoth instance that required a min number of 4 players to enter, so not a new idea. Each player got the same XP/rewards if completed.
They should make it to where if you’re on site you get the full reward. If they can tell when you’re trespassing then they can tell when you get the reward. I think the major problem that they had was four people running solo missions sharing them all and getting full payouts. If they can also calculate how many people show up on site and are now trespassing, that can affect the spawn amount of enemies. That way you earn the full amount payout.
6:01 make group play great again
I think everyone should get full payout but only if you are in the vicinity of the mission. I think rep should be handled the same.
100% agree. It's a good compromise.
That would encourage boosting. Or people who have alts could effectively farm millions by just partying and having them in the hull.
@@landsraad9745 I'll take boosting over incentivizing solo play.
Only difficulty with this is it further punishes anyone who dies. Make it flag if they reached the location, they get the payout. People could mass share and chain, leaving one person at each mission, but those being left at the beginning of the chain not recieving what is earned for later missions would be enough disincentivize mass sharing as who is getting screwed in the group.
Would be greaat to participate, but I can't leave the Hangar today. Elevator didn't work and Hangar didn't open for any ship.
Again. I tried for 5 hours now, with relogs and everything possible. No chance.
if in party mission rewards go up by 20% as an example
Missions rewards are not the real problem.
Save stanton missions still not completing sometimes, exactly like in 4.0 preview bounty missions, marker remains, but the mission still active
Mission difficulty scalable to the group size will never be thing. There are no group size limits, very easy to exploit.
tried out the newest patch on the PTU myself. it is definitely working lots better then the preview and live builds. Still has lots of bugs like not everyone in our party was able to get a shared missions even though we had the same rep level for the missions faction. Looking forward to see what other improvements get added.
IMO, they need a multiplayer barrier for the missions that are intended to be played by multiple people. I'm think these should be missions from NPC rather than normally appearing ones in the contract manager where the NPC won't give you the mission unless you're in a large enough party, sort of treating it like a special thing instead of a generic "work needed" where no one really cares as long as the work gets done.
Like tall tales in Sea of Thieves
Do stuff CIG, DO STUFF!
Mission rewards should NOT be 100% distributed to each party member. You could easily make 2 alts party with them. Share the mission and throw them in your cargo hull. Then farm missions for millions. Effectively making a viable "pay to win" strategy. At the cost of like $80
I’ve had more of my friends come back to play during 4.0 than ever before
Still not hearing anything about a black screen fix.. I’ve got one, when you join and have the Que; put a tiny piece of tape where the cancel button is so you can click out of an error like you should be able to do in the first place.
Just hit the tilde key and enter the 'quit' command. Same thing and 100% reliable
While there has been a true showing that the new server method is better and actually showing the feel of a real game, all we ever really see is the "showing what something 'could' be". I want some stability that allows me to say "today I want to play on SC" and then actually be able to do that. The rewards for missions should at this point be flagrant just to compensate your time, it is not as if the money matters really balance later, play now. I will also say here again the game braking point that has me telling other people not to EVER play this game is the "Death of a spaceman", the stupidest idea ever aside from their over encouragement towards piracy over legitimate activities. Why would I want to play a game where the main focus of it all seems to be "What more can you take away from me?"; I have RL for disappointment, a game is supposed to make me feel better not worse.
There can be a compromise formula for rep. Just for being an easy number to work with, let's use a 100 rep points mission as an example.
- Half the total rep value goes to everybody +50
- The remaining 50 points are divided.
So if one player does it by themselves, they get 50 + 50 = 100 pts. 2 players get 50 + 25 = 75 each. 3 player team get 50 + 17 = 67 pts each. 4 players get 50 +13 = 63 pts each. 5 platers get 50 + 10 = 60 pts each. Etc, etc.
It's dead easy to blend the two models of point sharing.
Thanks for the info. The rewards should be increased for multi crew , think of it as paying a premium for getting the job done faster.
i can't play the game anymore absolutely broken for me at this point. when i can quantum jump i get crashes, or lockups, doesn't matter EU, Best, USA, Asia whichever server it just dies on me. worked fine in 3.24 and worked for about 3 days into 4.0 which was awesome, but completely unplayable now which is frustrating, any word on when 4.01 will hit regular servers?
This talk about Mission rewards is putting me in mind of the negotiation phase of a shadowrun game. I could see something where a mission could support a certain size group, and perhaps there would be say an extra per diem for each member. So you're not paying everyone the same as solo, but you're also not just completely dividing up the money that a solo player would get.
I wonder what additional missions they have planned for Pyro. But what I’m really looking forward to are the handyman missions coming to Stanton.🇺🇦🇭🇹🇵🇸
I hope that 3.24 will be retired soon, ever since the servers we're split between 3.24 and the preview I have insanely long login times and low frames on both versions even though 3.24 worked (somewhat) fine before the preview was live.
Completely agree on the idea of full rep per group member. Pay should be split as a team and rewards can definitely be randomized if there's a reward pool at the end of a specific mission
Another annoying bug, after getting to member in Covalex, it shows I have up to 120 missions, however when viewing the available contracts, it only loads 50.
This is gonna be a long 4.0...
I really like the payout bumps, but when you share the profit it makes solo sound better.
Agreed on that rep split message, immersion means payment split, no rep split
There is another facet of mission rewards that i think many are not considering: Looting.
A way to encourage group play is to provide a larger loot pool (quantity and value) to the more difficult missions. It can be anything from a few salvage opportunities to a similar loot room like in the CZs. That way, the payout becomes less important than the potential profit in a group activity.
Oh man I gotta get in for the Save Stanton missions, forgot about the second part to it.
What I want the most right now is a fix for hauling missions and a way to filter contracts
In EVE Online, there are some newer missions in high sec that split the payout on a curve, which encourages a specific group size. For instance, payout might be 25k for 1 person, 75k for each of a 4 person group and 20k for each of a 6 person group, dropping off sharply for every extra person after that (I normalized these numbers to typical SC magnitude, but that's the general pattern). These could be tailored for each mission type and scaled based on EVR, but would offer a reason to group up and bring an end to the "Hire and escort" memes... xD
Elite, for example, has specific multiplayer missions that you can share and everyone gets paid the full amount.
Really looking forward to Save Stanton continuing but hoping that it works better in a group. Overdrive was a lot of fun running it with the Yacht Club every weekend. Save Stanton was just four phases of solo gameplay that needed to be done simultaneously as others but didn't really need any grouping.
Hauling mission payouts don't make sense to me.
First, they need to allow players to decide what size containers the cargo is delivered in. Something they mentioned before. Second, the payout needs to be based on number of scu delivered and the distance traveled.
I get payed 50k to move 6 scu from leo station to city and 56k to move 90+ scu from leo station to L-station? Why would I spend more time to get basically the same pay?
Loved that guys post on the mission sharing/splitting and mission locks, rep locks etc. etc. etc. I see no point in looping in Org mates to do group gameplay when we are all at different levels in the progress tree and then have to split rep and money on top of that (assuming we are at the same tier / level in the chain). Hopefully they address that.
as for the mission rewards, I believe the corsair weapons were split to encourage multi-player, and I thought that was what GCIG was doping for bounties, where NOT splitting rewards (especially RPep.) was good to encourage it, where as now, with the cost of missiles, reload and refuel, its not as profitable at starter levels, and not as multi-player level (like the Polaris, etc). Now, I would do some sort of "distance" type where if a player is in a different system or too far to engage on the bounty, maybe they don't get the Rep, and payment is split, that would keep , lets say, a player leveling by staying in a spaceport, while his buddy grinds out the bounty, or One does bounty, one does hauling, and split the rewards, SHould encourage somehow that they ccould both get full Rep and pay, but both should be somehow engage in doing the misssion.
I agree with sharing rep, although it doesn't make sense for everyone to be paid the same amount, be like if you hire someone for £100 to help tidy up your house and they bring like three other people, they sudden ask for each person to be paid £100 for the job since there are four people, not £100 because that was for the job as a whole. I think the other thing that some people have mentioned with this is, for people with multiple alt accounts, they can and will use it to farm tons of Auec, so, personally, I think to try and cull that, I think that, to get a share of the money, you need to be both A. in the mission area and B. you need to be actively taking part in the mission (helping move boxes, firing guns, etc) so you can't just leave a alt AFK in a safe place, far away from the mission site to farm money, they have to be close by and actively moving and doing things. I'm probably going to get disagreements from people, but look; if your gonna get a share, do the work
The full rep aspect of that makes a lot of sense. Maybe some conditions that they have to be within x kms of the target for y% of the time to prevent people from accepting missions and spreading out to grind faster. Not sure what tye exact numbers are to make that fair, but im sure it could be figured out.
Cool that they are beginning to really feel out what MMO means here for SC
Where has the delivery missions gone? in 4.0 preview
Package delivery? They haven't managed to make it work with server meshing yet, therefore it's missing until they do, aka until the mission refactor is fully finished.
@@VinePest Thanks
It would be great If they pay a percentage as you complete parts, and incorporate error handling to repeatedly check as you complete different parts
Like the idea of bumped up mission reward for multicrew. I'd also like to see a different system to the current 'share mission' system we have. Feels clunky. Would like to be able to accept a mission as a group!
Thank you for the coverage!
More mission variety and types, like mining, and a way to sort or filter between higher risk and reward multicrew/group missions and lower difficulty solo missions would go a long way in improving contracts and gameplay loops. But first, they've got to get contracts actually functioning again since 4.0 broke....well, all of them.
I feel pretty lucky, I've finally brought a couple of my "pickier" friends to come play on 4.0.. we had an amazing time. The only major issue was my buddy running out of QT fuel even though the colour was "blue". Picked them up and kept enjoying 4.0.
We did a lot more missions together as an org with it being the full pay out. Yeah some people were trying to min max and get everyone to go solo but share but more of us just ran together
I personally think it would be the most rewarding and make the most sense if missions had a financial payout reduction based on the amount of players, you have in incremental percentages.
What I mean by that is that you could have the base payout of the mission at 100% as a solo player. Adding another player reduces that percentage by 10% for each player and then a third player by 20%. So on a mission that paid 100k, each player would receive 80 K.
As it stands right now, mission rewards are split in half each time you add another player making multi crew missions that want financial gain almost entirely pointless.
One of the best examples is cargo missions.
Sure, I may be able to load my cargo faster with two people, but with my atlas, I can still load it pretty damn fast by myself, and if I was smart and stacked all the cargo missions to be picked up from one place and delivered to one place I can make a lot of money very quickly. It then doesn’t make any sense for me to have another person come on board and then split that by 50%!
That would almost be like me as the CEO of my company hiring another person to help me do what I’m doing and then paying them the exact same amount that I’m making. That’s bad business.
Desync is the killer for me, as I like to play with my kids, but once things don't work right, that usually means the end of the session. I expect it will take a while for them to get the meshing bug-fixed and optimised.
In Star Wars Galaxies, groups would get bonuses to XP, payments, resources, rewards, etc. If you do that, then group content becomes beneficial and organic, instead of forced and detrimental to everyone in the group. Difficulty needs to be dynamic to counter the reward.
The post has a great analogy for why to keep the rep gains as a share not split. Hope it is reverted or when I try to carry my newer friends on a rep grind it will take way longer to grind up in ranking.
It's actually starting to really feel like cig can't keep up with the bugs in the game. I feel like they fix 10 just to get 10 to 20 more. Often they fix things but they didn't get fixed. I don't know if it's the turnover that is causing such issues with being able to stay on top of bug fixes, but the more complicated the game gets the worst situation gets. It's hard to see things getting better anytime soon unfortunately.
They are working with mostly younger/inexperienced people. Most of the older guiding devs are gone.
The whole game is probably spaghetti code (unless they have great documentation and very good project managers).
I think we're watching CIG eat itself and all our money before they will ever finish.
@@Kyle-sr6jm I agree. I've been through that myself in the past and that's why it's so concerning.
Actually this year is only performance based, no new features till the games running smoothly basically
Glad I'm not the only one that feels this way, tho I try to remain hopeful
They really need to get it together with group content, hopefully soon. It's a key feature of the MMO genre.
I agree with the rep not being split at all. Torn on the pay issue. Perhaps they could work on some scale in between full and total split, which I'm sure would require ongoing balancing.
I'm soooo glad you brought up this topic. Here are my thoughts.
Mission rewards should NOT be split in anyway with group members. Both $ and Rep should be paid out in full. Why? This will encourage group and multi-crew game play at all levels. If mission rewards are split, this heavily discourages group play. For the most part, groups will be formed with sizes only as big as is necessary to complete the objectives, otherwise it negatively effects mission reward payouts.
Mission payouts should be tailored around the above to not negatively affect the economy. If that means dropping the payout, fine.
For now, I think this should be implemented as is with the 4.0 release. Bug or not, it is having a net positive effect on the community. However, I do think that limitations on this should be implemented, but I don't think we should be penalized while waiting for them to get this done.
Potential restrictions could include:
Active participation in the mission. If you're simply sitting on the ship, not doing a thing, or sitting in the corner. You shouldn't get credit.
Region locked, you must within range to receive credit. Caveat to this would be if you died and respawned away from the action, you should still get credit if completed before you get back within a reasonable amount of time.
I do somewhat like the idea of a participation meter, the more you participate, the higher payout you receive. NOT tied to how much you actually accomplish, but simply how much you participate and are active/present. I do think this would be very complicated to implement though.
All missions should be shareable, but rep should be rewarded at the level someone is at, assuming higher level missions reward more rep than lower ones.
I do wish there were more missions and specifically, missions tailored to larger groups, multi-crew, and multi ship/fleet groups. I suspect these will come with time.
Again, this is a multi player and specifically multi-crew focused game... They should NOT penalize that style gameplay in any way shape or form, period.
I like the idea of not splitting the rep or pay as I do like to play with my friends and encourages group play. If you are going to have large ships that need to be multi-crewed for group play we should then have no split pay to encourage group play for missions.
I love how they're making the game play mechanics more hostile to solo play, but the mission mechanics hostile to group play. Well done.
Honestly, if they don't want full payout for everyone, you can still make it a sliding scale with more towards more of a payout with fewer people you have. So, for example, 100% for solo, 95% for two, 90% for three, etc etc.
Contract rewards should give a bonus for each additional player participating. So instead of being 50/50, it should be 80/80. And instead of 33/33/33 for three people, it could be 70/70/70. So it would be better individually to do them solo, but as a group of friends or an org, your TOTAL payout will be greater when splitting. I.e. two people will see a 160% payout, and three people will see a 210% payout, with diminishing returns. I think this is best of both worlds.
I like the idea of everyone getting the same reward (both auec and rep) for a mission when doing multicrew gameplay - there's zero incentive at the moment for any multicrew gameplay. Both myself and a friend enjoy running cargo hauling missions, however it would make it significantly easier to get the rep up if we could get a few missions, share them with each other and grind the rep up (currently at member and it's taking an age to get upto the next rank!)
Just keep everyone getting the full reward. I play with my cousin and we love to squad up and raid bunkers for a really good amount of cash. With this patch we're just going to go split off and do our own thing now, which sucks because I enjoy playing together.
Lower Rewards = We do solo missions = we get bored faster = we stop playing faster.
I really wish they would make spawning in hanger optional where you can choose to spawn in hanger or hab.
Rep should always be equal no matter how many people do a mission. Its one of the driving incentives to potentially help people lower along the chain of progression. If someone's able to do 2,000 SCU missions but their ship is in a claim window for whatever reason, they should be able to help a friend in their Cutlass do missions a bit faster and still gain rep even if its not a major financial boon.
A ton of things about missions could be reworked. The Mission panel in the mobiglass needs a rework, we need a search bar like the map, We need mission classified by location/payout/Group size/Cargo size required. I shouldn't have to scroll down 52 hauling missions one by one to find the one starting from my location or any other location I'm planning on my route. I should be able to tap area 18 and see all the hauling missions starting from this location. With the SCU required for the mission in the mission info even before I clicked on it to see where it asked me to go (Best ever would be mission title is like the: Hauling mission: Fr: Area 18 /to: Everus Harbor /22 Scu /Pay 43k. Bam with this it makes finding what you want way easier, add a search to it. The mission panel is the quality of life upgrade I have wanted to see since map one. I would like this way more than the ship panel to be done first.
Also if talking about Hauling again (but this should be also with other mission styles in some way).
I should be able to find stuff like (example)
From:Area 18 To:Baijini /4 Scu /Pay 20k
From Area 18 To Baijini /20Scu/ Pay 30K
From Area 18 to Baijini /40 Scu/ Pay 70K
From Area 18 to Baijini /140 Scu / 200k
But when you check the contract: the 4 scu is Laranite and needs a fast small ship to be moved as the people paying want the stuff fast and quick.
the 20 Scu is for anyone with a ship capable of doing the work as it's 20 Scu of Quartz so there is no special requirement. The 40 SCU that pays 70 needs a group of 20 people to do in time cause it's also time sensitive and you transport gold. The last one is for a large ship and a group of 3 to 4 as it is time-sensitive but less than the other one. You have 1h to make the entire loading, moving, and unloading. So you need a group.
We need small cargo that still pays good money for solo player with small ships but their cargo could be valuable stuff, the mission could be bought for some kind of insurance on the cargo: You make money on delivery but lose your buy-in money if you lose the cargo.
And, we need missions that pay a ton for large groups and ships but which need a minimum of organization as there is still a required amount of time to do the mission. We need different types of missions for different types of cargo (like they did with Quantanium in mining). Titan, Nomad, all the small ship with cargo size and that can go fast and defend themself a bit if need be could have a "Priority cargo" for valuable stuff.
When they talk about Making the game stable and playable, this is the kind of thing I want them to do. Make the mobiglass apps finalized and always working... Like can we finally nail the fucking bug that prevents the refueling platform to work once and for all?! Can we have an Inventory with a search, with a drag and drop for multiple objects? Can we have elevators and hangar doors that open and work? I could go a year without any new thing being added if by the end of the year, All these things were ironed out and to a point where they barely bug anymore (like I know it's alpha, and each time the add something, something else breaks).
And then just put half the ship team on reworking older ship to the new standard by starting with those who have their gameplay in game. (Reclaimer I'm looking at you now).
Thank gosh for the cargo missions slowly being fixed. Me and my Connie T haven't seen any safe missions in a minute
There needs to be functionality for a party leader to choose whether contracts get automatically shared, accepted, and tracked by the whole group.
When it still looked like full payouts for everyone was intended, I thought it was brilliant.
The Yellow combat mission, doable by a solo pilot, pays out 58k. The Orange mission, which arguably needs a wingman, pays out 78k. The numbers here tell me that this payout is not intended to be split, or else why would you go through the trouble of teaming up and taking on many more enemies, for a smaller payout? It makes no sense.
If they made a “Once per day” mission - tied to your account - that gave a big reward that didn’t split rep or pay… it would be nice for groups.
Make it a multi-part mission at different locations. Everyone could get together for it, but they can’t grind them all back to back and make a bunch of money. Full reward but doesn’t break economy.
Splitting rep makes no sense as many have pointed out. The splitting of pay is acceptable if they adjusted mission pay to be reflective of the total number of people required to complete said mission.
I'm on board with the Rep not being split, but being applied to everyone in the group equally. Financially splitting is fine, although I could see higher paying missions being only available to larger parties. What ever happened to rep-tiered faction shops with custom gear though? That would make reputation make a lot more valuable.
For missions I like systems that give everyone the same reward but increases the difficulty for every player added. So if a bunker has 10 enemies for 1 person there should be more 17-22 people for 2 people in my opinion
Yeah, mission rewards matter. Definitely looking to see where this goes. They should be nuanced motivators in some cases. Great stuff, Bored! 😉👍
Makes sense for money to be split for mission payouts, but rep should be per-person. To use the analogy in the video...the team doing that install gets paid an amount and splits it up, but the rep is just the same for all.
I can see the opposite for the rep argument. If you take the employee "bob" away from the deck company, no one will know who he is. Because most people only deal with the boss
I'm sure plenty of peeps have good ideas for groups of players and ships doing and being rewarded for missions.
But! If they made some missions in every trade have a feature where it could only be 1 ship doing it, but varying difficulty levels, that would be interesting. Think massive ion storm in the area, only 1 ship can enter the area.... Then you'd do what if it's a hard mission? Bring a multi crew ship with friends.
Just a thought, I know they plan to tackle multi crew via engineering, but just wanted to throw another pillar/carrot out there on that note.
I think rep should ne equally split. More credit per mission and they need to get harder as the reward increases, driving group play. Also. You should have to be at least on the same planet to get the shared reward. In 4.0 you could be in another solar system!
Yeah it always felt bad to do starter bunker missions and only get a few thousand because there were 4 of us.
Mission reward should be divided amongst participants equally. Include faction. Faction can be a plus or minus, remember that. Tough that being said, players also have to be in proximity when these things are being done.
I think there definitely needs to be a good mix of missions to allow for those who want to solo and those that want to group together. I feel rep needs to be looked at more closely as that shouldn't be broken down the same way as funds shared perhaps. Great vid BG
I 100% agree with not splitting rep. I get not splitting payments.
Stability and bugs. I would understand if bugs related to new things but I don't know how bugs reappear after being fixed or of things with no apparent improvements (like elevators)
splitting rewards makes sense from an in-universe point of view, but it might be implemented with a modifier on the grand total based on whether or not there are more players participating, so if a mission pays 100K but you bring an extra player, the base pay to split is incremented by, I don't know, 10% per extra player so in total you would split 110k instead of 100, making 55K each instead of 50.
From the NPC's point of view it would look like a "I'm taking a risk by hiring the lowest amount of people possible to save money, but have a higher chanche that they will fail the mission I assign to them" kind of situation, where if you need something done and be sure it's done, you would be willing to pay more, to have more people involved...so you're still paid less individially if you go as a group, but doing that is not AS punishing when it comes to rewards.
I have no idea if 10% would be a good number, that was just an example, but deciding how much would be adequate would just be a matter of balancing, so, not a huge deal