Elite Dangerous Wiki - User contributions [en-gb]

Talk:AX Xeno Scanner/@comment-95.90.230.216-20191013215538/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D663:FD26:6138:73D4:6FC7-20200209201920

2020-02-09T20:19:20Z

2003:DB:F70F:D663:FD26:6138:73D4:6FC7: Created page with "that would make sense but whenever I think that, the game says "nope", and does takes a totally different route with logic and balance in all it's game mehcanic decissions......"

that would make sense

but whenever I think that, the game says "nope", and does takes a totally different route with logic and balance in all it's game mehcanic decissions...

It's almost as if this was all designed by idiots...

Talk:Limpet Controller/Repair/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D663:FD26:6138:73D4:6FC7-20200209190533/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D663:FD26:6138:73D4:6FC7-20200209193944

2020-02-09T19:39:44Z

2003:DB:F70F:D663:FD26:6138:73D4:6FC7: Created page with ""cockpit", that was the word I was looking for. My tired brain has the most irritating of lapses"

"cockpit", that was the word I was looking for. My tired brain has the most irritating of lapses

Talk:Merits/@comment-187.145.43.95-20180109163125/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D663:FD26:6138:73D4:6FC7-20200209192322

2020-02-09T19:23:22Z

2003:DB:F70F:D663:FD26:6138:73D4:6FC7: Created page with "are you sure? I am in a controlled system, just killed an agent that interdicted me, and the number of merits did not change"

are you sure?

I am in a controlled system, just killed an agent that interdicted me, and the number of merits did not change

Talk:Limpet Controller/Repair/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D663:FD26:6138:73D4:6FC7-20200209190533

2020-02-09T19:05:33Z

2003:DB:F70F:D663:FD26:6138:73D4:6FC7: Created page with "I really hate the fact (esp. for the chance to equip repair limpets in far off exploration vessels), that limpets have all got to be stored in cargo, w/o any inherent cargo ca..."

I really hate the fact (esp. for the chance to equip repair limpets in far off exploration vessels), that limpets have all got to be stored in cargo, w/o any inherent cargo capacity to the controller itself.
It makes no sense, and creates an unnecessary problem, i.e. having to have an additional modul slot reserved for cargo, for the repair limpet controller (2 modules total) to actually do anything.

It's effing stupid, and there is no reason for it. Have additional limpets go into cargo, that's fine, and will still be a thing. But for a proper sized limpet controller hoarding up to 4 limpets (the amount one can synthesize) should not be too much to ask. Refineries can hold additional minerals just as well, when cargo is full. There are too many sacrifices to be made as is, for exploration, this one is totally unecessary.

besides: why can't all ships hold some additional inherent cargo, anyway?... if the manufacturers can waste so much god damn precious space for volumptuous bridges/pilots cabin (which, from a security standpoint, wouldn't make sense to begin with, in a space faring vehicle), why not have some for just a handful of maintenance items?
- why do they even weight so much?
- why does an "item" of [e.g.] grain or polymers weight the same as an "item" of gold or uranium, for the same volume, anyway?

sigh.... nothing, NOTHING in this game makes any sense -.-

it gives me a headache just to think about it...

Talk:Shielded Module/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D667:3942:8CF4:6E91:D5F3-20200208180319/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D667:3942:8CF4:6E91:D5F3-20200208180414

2020-02-08T18:04:14Z

2003:DB:F70F:D667:3942:8CF4:6E91:D5F3: Created page with "<correction> "...if the module is actually being powered" not "Isn't""

<correction> "...if the module is actually being powered"

not "Isn't"

Talk:Shielded Module/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D667:3942:8CF4:6E91:D5F3-20200208180319

2020-02-08T18:03:19Z

2003:DB:F70F:D667:3942:8CF4:6E91:D5F3: Created page with "This raises the question: does this integrity bonus actually only work, if the module in question isn't being powered? for, if I want to have two auto-maintenance units on a..."

This raises the question: does this integrity bonus actually only work, if the module in question isn't being powered?

for, if I want to have two auto-maintenance units on a long exploration trip, I may want them shielded (if nothing else), for them to stay functional at all costs, but I may not have the power to keep them on by default (have to drop out of supercruise, anyway, to safely engage them, right?? - this system is so stupid... why do they even draw power to begin with, when not being used [and un-"shielded"]???), as weight has to be stripped down in all areas possible for maximum ranges...

so: is it basically pointless to have them shielded then? - i.e. is the integrity "normal" while switched off?
Or how does this actually all work?!?

Talk:Li Yong-Rui/@comment-82.131.175.253-20150613181123/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D6BE:492:1B55:899D:7556-20200207144104

2020-02-07T14:41:04Z

2003:DB:F70F:D6BE:492:1B55:899D:7556: Created page with "most useless bonus I could think of. How's a long range explorer, gathering all that sweet sweet data, gonna keep up his weekly rank while away? How, in contrast, is he supp..."

most useless bonus I could think of.

How's a long range explorer, gathering all that sweet sweet data, gonna keep up his weekly rank while away?

How, in contrast, is he supposed to deal with the consequences of his ship being blown up, on return, before he could work his rank up again?

Talk:Intergalactic Naval Reserve Arm/@comment-188.243.119.180-20190201181032/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D6BE:492:1B55:899D:7556-20200207143713

2020-02-07T14:37:13Z

2003:DB:F70F:D6BE:492:1B55:899D:7556: Created page with "Hitler also felt that he was doing what needed to be done. just sayin' . . . "a loose end that had to be removed " - once you utilize such tactics not just against your mort..."

Hitler also felt that he was doing what needed to be done.

just sayin' . . .

"a loose end that had to be removed " - once you utilize such tactics not just against your mortal enemies, but also against your own, your true caracter lays bare; sociopath...

Talk:Intergalactic Naval Reserve Arm/@comment-2003:ED:4F17:AE00:41F:450E:D117:191D-20200125194443/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D6BE:492:1B55:899D:7556-20200207143410

2020-02-07T14:34:10Z

2003:DB:F70F:D6BE:492:1B55:899D:7556: Created page with "jeez you are stupid. lets all hope, that a clinical fascist like you never holds any power over people... and that's beside the fact that I, too, consider "ethical concerns"..."

jeez you are stupid.

lets all hope, that a clinical fascist like you never holds any power over people...

and that's beside the fact that I, too, consider "ethical concerns" a moot concept in the face of a mortal enemy, that you cannot even communicate with (and seemingly, the Guardians, even when managing basic communications with targoids, still didn't sway their path in the slightest).

But that's just it: it makes no sense, it is stupid, to ponder ethical consideration when one cannot even communicate with one's enemy, which is set out to eradicate your own, w/o asking questions. - but your kind is no less stupid; you'd mutilate, corrupt humanity, if your mindset was at the helm; and enrage & motivate your mortal enemy even more...

Talk:Double Shot Weapon/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D6BE:492:1B55:899D:7556-20200207131340

2020-02-07T13:13:40Z

2003:DB:F70F:D6BE:492:1B55:899D:7556: Created page with "wait - what??? this gives an additional shot PER GRADE??? - or rather: "+2" ?!? - huh? am I reading this correctly?? why is it called "double shot"? either it would give an a..."

wait - what???
this gives an additional shot PER GRADE??? - or rather: "+2" ?!? - huh?
am I reading this correctly??

why is it called "double shot"?
either it would give an additional salvo for the price of one ("double"), or it would give an additional "fragment" for each "fragment" (basically the same as option 1) - which would be insane to have either way. - - - OR it does actually "just" give 2 additional shrapnells per grade and salvo, which is still a good upgrade, but not in line with the name.

colour me confused.

Talk:Shock Cannon/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D6FE:51B3:393:A44E:B808-20200201170336/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D6A7:1DED:D8B6:9A47:FE88-20200204214403

2020-02-04T21:44:03Z

2003:DB:F70F:D6A7:1DED:D8B6:9A47:FE88: Created page with ""A DPT value makes no sense." it does,though. If one isn't comparing apples to oranges (e.g. rockets to kinetic weapons), but apples to apples; or better yet: when comparing ..."

"A DPT value makes no sense." it does,though.

If one isn't comparing apples to oranges (e.g. rockets to kinetic weapons), but apples to apples; or better yet: when comparing a weapon to itself in different engineered variants, to quickly judge how much to get out of it for heat being produced can be of much relevance; esp. when dealing with heat problems elsewhere in your ship.
Just because you cannot make sense of something, doesn't mean there is non.

"Since the game does not present this information in the loadout screen then it cannot be given accurately." - you gotta learn how to logic. This sentence may be true, but it says nothing about your "such a stat would make no sense" claim.

"I doubt anyone is going to be willing to calcuate such values" - pure arrogance. if you don't have anything constructive to say, just don't.

"given that it doesn't really mean anything." non sequitur. Ever heard that before?

"Imperial hammers doesn't come in table form because they only come in one class, so making a full table just for one row of data is pointless overhead." my suggestion was going the opposite direction; to list weapons, which there are many variants of, up to dpwn, rather than left to right

again: just because YOU cannot make sense of it, does not mean there is no sense in it.

Talk:Shipwreck/@comment-82.1.203.26-20200115135333/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D6A7:14E4:EE2C:ED34:9307-20200204160455

2020-02-04T16:04:55Z

2003:DB:F70F:D6A7:14E4:EE2C:ED34:9307: Created page with "you may not like, what you find, when you cut open that dolphin belly. Best scenario is, they are already dead, after all these years worst scenario: you just killed them, b..."

you may not like, what you find, when you cut open that dolphin belly.

Best scenario is, they are already dead, after all these years

worst scenario: you just killed them, by exposing them to the vacuum, you terrible human being!

But if you still manage to get inside a still pressurized passanger cabin (for whatever reason) - bring some smelling salts.

Talk:Cytoscrambler/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D6A7:14E4:EE2C:ED34:9307-20200204141916/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D6A7:14E4:EE2C:ED34:9307-20200204141951

2020-02-04T14:19:51Z

2003:DB:F70F:D6A7:14E4:EE2C:ED34:9307: Created page with "*big sigh -.-"

*big

sigh -.-

Talk:Cytoscrambler/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D6A7:14E4:EE2C:ED34:9307-20200204141916

2020-02-04T14:19:16Z

2003:DB:F70F:D6A7:14E4:EE2C:ED34:9307: Created page with "I'd love to see a david-against-goliath scenario, with these mounted on a small ship like the viper, with packhounds on the mediums, and enhanced performance thrusters; engine..."

I'd love to see a david-against-goliath scenario, with these mounted on a small ship like the viper, with packhounds on the mediums, and enhanced performance thrusters; engineered to the max (because: power), against a large ship...

For now though, I cannot try that out myself... jeez, engineering is a stupid grind. Like a bick middle finger from the developers to the player, showing the utmost disdain for them, their fun, and quality time spend...

Talk:HUD/Left/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D637:D8F0:DEB9:B7A2:F93F-20200203144111/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D637:D8F0:DEB9:B7A2:F93F-20200203144625

2020-02-03T14:46:25Z

2003:DB:F70F:D637:D8F0:DEB9:B7A2:F93F: Created page with "scratch that"

scratch that

Talk:HUD/Left/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D637:D8F0:DEB9:B7A2:F93F-20200203144111

2020-02-03T14:41:11Z

2003:DB:F70F:D637:D8F0:DEB9:B7A2:F93F: Created page with "anyone else having issues with the messy state these menus are in? e.g. if I scan too many moons, and have "planets and moons" as well as "points of interests" on, then findi..."

anyone else having issues with the messy state these menus are in?

e.g. if I scan too many moons, and have "planets and moons" as well as "points of interests" on, then finding anything in between those gets a real sore. maybe I am only interested in hotspots? - maybe only in geological sites? - but I can either show both or non, and so one category downs out the other.

Another thing that really annoys me is the transaction/mission menu; no sorting options at all? (for distance, time remaining, rewards; when stacking missions this becomes a sore to navigate through, also; in fact: I'd much prefer having a table that lists such details directly, w/o having to look into each and every entry manually) - seems like they made this cumbersome on purpose, or FDev are entirely dumb/incompetent/lazy. Either way there is no excuse for that, as this sort of feature could be dealt with in a few hours AT MOST!

Talk:Super Penetrator/@comment-90.200.46.38-20181127121900/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D637:D8F0:DEB9:B7A2:F93F-20200203140012

2020-02-03T14:00:12Z

2003:DB:F70F:D637:D8F0:DEB9:B7A2:F93F: Created page with "... whilst the piercing value actually stays the same. ED-logic ... The way "targetting" modules (via panel, rme) works in this game is too cartoonish anyway. Same with the..."

... whilst the piercing value actually stays the same.

ED-logic ...

The way "targetting" modules (via panel, rme) works in this game is too cartoonish anyway. Same with the interdiction mechanic, which may as well be copied from "Starlink" or some stupid game like that, if that one did not come out later...

Talk:Railgun/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D637:D8F0:DEB9:B7A2:F93F-20200203135644

2020-02-03T13:56:44Z

2003:DB:F70F:D637:D8F0:DEB9:B7A2:F93F: Created page with "I'm confused with some of the listed stats (in game) for this weapon. It says it had a) a reload time of 1s [with a clip size of 1] and it did also have b) a RoF of 1.2/s ..."

I'm confused with some of the listed stats (in game) for this weapon.
It says it had

a) a reload time of 1s [with a clip size of 1]

and it did also have

b) a RoF of 1.2/s

...how exactly does that work?
If it takes O N E second to reload, the RoF cannot be ANY higher than ONE per second.

What gives?

If anthing, the RoF would have to be noticably below 1/s, considering the noticable delay/loadup when firing up the weapon...
am I to believe, that there was an inate autoloader, that does not get mentioned for some reason?!?

PS: I know that high capacity can double the clip size, but at the same time the listed RoF changes with it, which still leaves this contradiction in.

Talk:Asp Explorer/@comment-2602:306:CE29:B0D0:91A:13CE:35AA:4E20-20190916225021/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D635:65A2:4594:34B4:B8D6-20200202211655

2020-02-02T21:16:55Z

2003:DB:F70F:D635:65A2:4594:34B4:B8D6: Created page with "there are many things that make up for it. More departments -> more utility. As a quick hopper for known space, the diamondback seems preferable. But for far range exploratio..."

there are many things that make up for it. More departments -> more utility.

As a quick hopper for known space, the diamondback seems preferable. But for far range exploration having no space for any additional stuff (hangar, maintenance, discovery scanner. Think about the many tasks you might need, and where to facilitate them) is a real bummer.

Talk:Asp Explorer/@comment-96.250.114.167-20190919215431/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D635:65A2:4594:34B4:B8D6-20200202211358

2020-02-02T21:13:58Z

2003:DB:F70F:D635:65A2:4594:34B4:B8D6: Created page with "he whole engineering thingy is a piss poor idea. (and grossly OP) Having a late game grind to create OP additions for already affluent (and thus powerful) players just makes ..."

he whole engineering thingy is a piss poor idea. (and grossly OP)

Having a late game grind to create OP additions for already affluent (and thus powerful) players just makes the game more skewed towards "I have the bigger ship: you loose!" Skill thus becomes meaningless. Which also gives rise to more grieving and toxicity

there seems to be no proper tradeoff between size/power and low profile/slim build.

one thing that needs to change, for instance, are boot-up times for fsd; the heavier a ship the longer the time. And if you add to that a proper balance of sensor-range (in supercruise. WHich is a stupid game mechanic in it'S own right when it comes to the whole hunter/hunted dynamic) -- the mightier the ship the stronger the profile (wider detection range). And give slick ships a considerable advantage at dodging interdictions, also.

Thus pirating could become inproper to overpowered ships (and small smugglers could find a nieche... if the payoffs would scale accordingly, which they do not), and a sort of pack-hound tactic would have to be applied. Teamplay ftw.

But this developer team doesn't have the slightest of clues about proper balance and engaging game-mechanics, so why even bother spitballing...

Talk:Beam Laser/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D6FE:51B3:393:A44E:B808-20200201202058

2020-02-01T20:20:58Z

2003:DB:F70F:D6FE:51B3:393:A44E:B808: Created page with "what I do not get, about weapons like these: how does "armor piercing" factor into a weapon which, mostly, isn't there to deal with armour [first] to begin with, but rather sh..."

what I do not get, about weapons like these: how does "armor piercing" factor into a weapon which, mostly, isn't there to deal with armour [first] to begin with, but rather shields (from a logical standpoint I do not get it anyway. Laser weapons - "p i e r c i n g" armor?... you can melt it, maybe; but that isn't ever "piercing", but actually "erasing", if you will; or just melting to no effect, i.e. it hardens again as it cooles down, to no breach-through effect occuring at all). Is the piercing gonna allow part of the damage to emit direct (100%) damage to moduls(/?), or is it gonna be scaled according to the factor that is inherint to the armor (e.g. -20% damage) ? ! ?

I find it interesting, that I can give Beam Lasers a "sturdy" treatment (engineering), which raises their "50%" (size 3 fixed; on level 3 already!) to the very interesting "70%" upper limit, which, absurdly, is the highest (?) value in the game, if we just look at armor hardness, which it scales up against . . .

Talk:Shock Cannon/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D6FE:51B3:393:A44E:B808-20200201170336

2020-02-01T17:03:36Z

2003:DB:F70F:D6FE:51B3:393:A44E:B808: Created page with "it would be swell, if there was a "DPT" and both types of "TPS" ratings listed for each weapon; that would be "Damage per Thermal[load]" and both "Thermal[load] per Shot" AND..."

it would be swell, if there was a "DPT" and both types of "TPS" ratings listed for each weapon; that would be "Damage per Thermal[load]" and both "Thermal[load] per Shot" AND "-second";

Oh, and pease make it, that all tables for weapon-stats are oriented the same, for quick comparison; e.g. if I open "Railgun" and "Imperial hammer", one table has the orientation down-up, the other left-right for each statistical category (and vice-versa for weapon sub-typ). Though it is consistent "in this case" (Shock-cannon vs. MC and cannon), it would make more sense to order everything like it is done on page for the imperial hammer (no matter if there was only one subtype or multiple ones), as one would not have to scroll left and right within the table to compare apples to apples (same size+installation).

jm2c

Talk:Meta-Alloys/@comment-47.198.66.142-20180716144049/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D66E:6194:BCB3:D1D:4B6B-20200127220828

2020-01-27T22:08:28Z

2003:DB:F70F:D66E:6194:BCB3:D1D:4B6B: Created page with "it's actually 2 (every ten), though?"

it's actually 2 (every ten), though?

Talk:Plasma Accelerator/@comment-2602:306:CE29:B0D0:64AD:A199:8DED:88E8-20190924223436/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D66E:6194:BCB3:D1D:4B6B-20200127201245

2020-01-27T20:12:45Z

2003:DB:F70F:D66E:6194:BCB3:D1D:4B6B: Created page with "hm... reading this, I though: maybe there were just some some rounding errors going on? - though, while for small and medium I see 17.9 / 54.3 = 0.32965... 24.2 / 83.4 = 0..."

hm... reading this, I though: maybe there were just some some rounding errors going on? - though, while for small and medium I see

17.9 / 54.3 = 0.32965...

24.2 / 83.4 = 0.2901...

both values that would round to "0.3" (once down, once up),

as soon as looking at the third variant (large) this goes out the window:
31.31 / 125.3 = 0.24988...

(I read people saying, that they have to wait multiple seconds (5+) between shots (single shots, not clips, if I understand it correctly), that the "clip size" seems like a moot point here.)

But then again, I can't make sense of these weapons to begin with:
They have larger range than rail guns (which makes no sense to me on a purely logical standpoint; and when I read, that it had a damage dropoff of 1km, I am actually starting to pull my hair out...), ok, but their shot speed is so abysmal, [+] comparing thermal load & power draw & distributor draw to raw damage (atleast damage/s), that there is no competition between the two to begin with. Yes, rail guns have that annoying delayed fire, w/o the ability to hold off on the release (which, again, makes no sense to me, in addition to their power-draw when unused still being that high. What is it now: do I have to load up my shots each instance, or is it always loading, thus always drawing serious amounts of power???), but once you get used to that (also considering the lack of bullet speed), landing your shots consistently is actually quite possible. - if I either engineer them for short range, where I have a better chance to land my shots anyway, or for long, which eradicates the drop-off, I have much use for the railgun, but not so much for a PA, even at "200%" overall "projectile" speed... maybe I need to up my game for long range, slow projectile sniping of eratic using targets with fixed weaponry, but -- whatever...

Speaking of railguns, though:
There is no level 3 rail gun, ok... but even the size 2 railgun outperforms a class 3 plasma accellerator by a country mile... atleast on paper. It's so unappealing to me, that I am not even attempted to try it out and find out what's wrong. What am I missing?
Even considering the afore mentioned damage dropoff, which starts at 2km for the PA, the marginal advantage is hughely offset by the "projectile"-speed (a package of plasma... being a slow moving projectile? - whilst a rail gun shot has no projectile speed (lightspeed?)??? - nothing, NOTHING makes any sense in all of this... not semantically, and certainly not logically).

What am I missing...

... I don't even ...

PS: the descriptive lore above also makes no sense:
".. This has a devastating effect on the local population, because the terrifying noise of the beam cutting through the atmosphere can be heard for hundreds of kilometers, and will deafen anyone unprotected in the vicinity...." a weapon shooting 3.5km is devastating to morale for people hundreds of kilometers away? - and it can reach cities from orbit?? - and "hundreds of kilometers away" = "in the vicinity"???
It's a clown's world... either that or an immature, irrational [and frankly: supid!] little child worded all that, because "it sounds cool".
(Is this actually a sound-wave weapon, with a purposefully misleading name, or -- something?? & why do any weapons in free space have a damage falloff to begin with, let alone a rail gun for that matter?)

PPS : and can anyone explain to me, how the split between "absolute" damage and "thermal" damage and "kinetic" damage is properly calculated? is it "damage(actual) = 0.6*(raw-damage) + 0.2*(rD)*thermal-resistance + 0.2*(rD)*kinetic-resistance" - or ... what???
The in-game description also does not make sense; some stated, underneath, that the PA only does "absolute damage" now; but it's still listed as "thermal & kinetic"... smh. FDev... go home, you're drunk!

This game, it's lore, its mechanics and it's descriptions are really taking a toll on my intelligence.

Talk:Planetary Vehicle Hangar/@comment-2601:183:200:81E7:7580:7A7:D9AB:6CC4-20180411235015/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D66E:6194:BCB3:D1D:4B6B-20200127140212

2020-01-27T14:02:12Z

2003:DB:F70F:D66E:6194:BCB3:D1D:4B6B: Created page with "Let me get this straight: ships in ED can reproduce their own fighters during fight/in between fights, but cannot provide the exploration orientated player with that same ind..."

Let me get this straight: ships in ED can reproduce their own fighters during fight/in between fights, but cannot provide the exploration orientated player with that same independence from having to go back to replace the in-hangar-thingy??? - so the one player who needs that utility most doesn't get it, but the one who should be denied that same utility for balance reason, does???

That, amongst so many other things, makes no effing sense for me, be that in terms of balance or intelligent game design...

Same with the fact that ganking does not get punished, but combat logging does, even when trying to get out of a really ill-natured gank; so the grieving player can even report you and you are the baddy, even getting you banned (main reason I won't touch open play atleast for the next half year or more; it's like they WANT the community to be toxic)...

It's like the devs have all their priorities backwards.

Talk:Pilot/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D6E2:A94A:602A:D0B7:92BC-20200123161428/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D6EA:ADB1:3BA5:2504:FB30-20200125130148

2020-01-25T13:01:48Z

2003:DB:F70F:D6EA:ADB1:3BA5:2504:FB30: Created page with "it's 12%, not 20; so 3*12=36... still substantial, but not quite "60%" I really wonder how many people know how percentages work though. There seems to be a believe, that ha..."

it's 12%, not 20; so 3*12=36... still substantial, but not quite "60%"

I really wonder how many people know how percentages work though.

There seems to be a believe, that having to pay 12% every damned time was somehow a little price to pay, even though that mounts up to millions upon millions upon millions of "pay" for someone who, most trips, will just be a passanger... that's just beyond any proportional demand. It's ludicrous...

And still: they don't chip in with anything!

This system is in dire need of an overwork; give them a base pay, a bonus pay per trip, a bonus per enemy being shot down, and maybe a danger bonus depending on a) level of assignment (mission; their level vs. demand) and b) value of cargo hold (i.e. how attractive it is to pirates); they can have their "fair" share of bounty vouchers (50% if it's one member, 33% for two each, 25% for 3), for what it's worth -- atleast that makes some level of sense (but NOT the mission rewards) ... and let the player negotiate between these different areas to find a contract best suited to his playstyle.

If this was accomplished then, maybe, MAYBE I could see myself giving 1% of mission payout to an expert(!) pilot (have their share be set off by what you may have had to invest for that mission, like buying goods; if you are too stupid to come up with code/formula for that, let the payout (their share) for those missions atleast be half of other payouts). That's still ludicrously much over the course of time, but atleast it's a far cry from those insane 12%

I swear, those developers know nothing, NOTHING about balance and proportionality...

Talk:Pilot/@comment-173.73.173.35-20170128233836/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D60C:7D14:AAC5:15C1:17E0-20200124230114

2020-01-24T23:01:14Z

2003:DB:F70F:D60C:7D14:AAC5:15C1:17E0: Created page with ""Training them is MUCH better than hiring them at rank." - why though? the amount of "profit share" (and XP!!) they claim (all the time!) mounts up so much, it does not seem w..."

"Training them is MUCH better than hiring them at rank." - why though? the amount of "profit share" (and XP!!) they claim (all the time!) mounts up so much, it does not seem worth it, ever (and if you train them you are putting yourself in a bind, atleast mentally, to keep them, always, and eat up your earnings, allways). Unless your entire gameplan revolves around having crewmembers 24/7...

Talk:Pilot/@comment-76.14.169.25-20180128214032/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D60C:7D14:AAC5:15C1:17E0-20200124151659

2020-01-24T15:16:59Z

2003:DB:F70F:D60C:7D14:AAC5:15C1:17E0: Created page with "Preach it, Anon-brother! - preach it! (to the "fandom user" above)"

Preach it, Anon-brother! - preach it!

(to the "fandom user" above)

Talk:Pilot/@comment-86.52.85.36-20171011190015/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D60C:7D14:AAC5:15C1:17E0-20200124144935

2020-01-24T14:49:35Z

2003:DB:F70F:D60C:7D14:AAC5:15C1:17E0: Created page with "... one more thing: a partner also provides money to your business, by buying into it (new partner) or having set it up with you also. You don't pay anyone to become your par..."

... one more thing:

a partner also provides money to your business, by buying into it (new partner) or having set it up with you also. You don't pay anyone to become your partners; they pay YOU. You don't pay them: T H E Y P A Y Y O U !!

Do these NPCs pay for my equipment? - for the necessary purchases in the market? - for new ships, ammunition, weapons? - no, no, and again: no! They are not partners, they are employees. jeez, this is stupid...

Talk:Pilot/@comment-86.52.85.36-20171011190015/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D60C:7D14:AAC5:15C1:17E0-20200124143722

2020-01-24T14:37:22Z

2003:DB:F70F:D60C:7D14:AAC5:15C1:17E0: Created page with ""Think of it as like a retainer fee for a lawyer." - you got that all backwards A fee is a set amount, that is tied to a certain deed; be that work by hour, or your fancy sti..."

"Think of it as like a retainer fee for a lawyer." - you got that all backwards

A fee is a set amount, that is tied to a certain deed; be that work by hour, or your fancy sticking-around-fee. Your lawyer may be entitled to all that (let's not debate rates here), all fair and good; but what your lawyer is not entitled to are shares of your entire income (not even profit. INCOME!), esp. since he does not share into your expenditures also.

You know who is entitled to part of your earnings? - a partner! - a real, full fleshed out partner, who shares into your entire business, your earnings, your expenditures, your liabilities. You know who isn't entitled to shares of your earnings? - everyone else! - every employee (which may or may not include lawyers btw.!), your freelance service providers (which may be the more common category for a lawyer) and your assistant, your delivery boy, your chaffeur, your mercenaries, etc.

It takes a special kind of moron (game designer) to get those two completely different concepts mixed up.

Those NPCs add nothing to my business. They don't give impulses, they don't provide me with additional business contacts, they don't haul in extra missions. All they do is fullfilling a specific task for me, a JOB, they deserve a salary, a fee... NOT A F***ING PROFIT SHARE.

Talk:Pilot/@comment-93.76.190.38-20190814161103/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D60C:7D14:AAC5:15C1:17E0-20200124134417

2020-01-24T13:44:17Z

2003:DB:F70F:D60C:7D14:AAC5:15C1:17E0: Created page with "... and when I thought, I couldn't think any lower of the intelligence of those game designers, I read: this!"

... and when I thought, I couldn't think any lower of the intelligence of those game designers, I read: this!

Talk:Pilot/@comment-2003:DB:F70F:D6E2:A94A:602A:D0B7:92BC-20200123161428

2020-01-23T16:14:28Z

2003:DB:F70F:D6E2:A94A:602A:D0B7:92BC: Created page with "The fact that these take a PROFIT SHARE irritates me to no end (esp. in addition to hiring costs). Those are my EMPLOYEES, not my PARTNERS, so HOW THE F are they entitled to..."

The fact that these take a PROFIT SHARE irritates me to no end (esp. in addition to hiring costs).

Those are my EMPLOYEES, not my PARTNERS, so HOW THE F are they entitled to a share in profits??? - they should be paid in WAGES that are due per time interval, and additional per-trip bonuses, maybe; even a per-engagement bonus would make sense, and a "shot down enemies" bonus also. It should be up to you, the player, to balance cost vs. benefit here, when either having them as your guard (trading etc.) or your wingmen in mercanary works.
Above all, the share they take is insane; a 20% share for 3 pilots to pilot your fighters (if you have the hangar installed) would take an accumulative share of 60% - that's the lions share!

Who ever thought of this system must be a moron; as could be said about many many game mechanics and balance decisions (like the totally scanted risk-vs-reward "balance" this game has)

I'd understand if they took a share of BOUNTY VOUCHERS (=> a bonus relative to the voucher directly paid upon earning of voucher); that would make sense; even a large share for that! - or atleast give us some tool for negotiating their contract; like mechwarrior 5, for instance, where you allocate points upon different areas; e.g. bounty vouchers, profits, etc. -- the number of negotiation-points being dependent on fame/reputation (yours), rank (yours vs. theirs), affiliation, state/background (NPCs with criminal background may take less for an opportunity; NPCs from anarchy systems may be less afraid of dangers, i.e. take less), ongoing contracts (maybe tie in contracts having signed already into negotiations, in such a way, that their share for new contracts automatically goes up; i.e. you give them tasks that have not been negotiated for, so you pay double; others you can tie in individually), danger (esp. when taking on contracts above your rank; contracts in dangerous areas) etc. etc. etc.; but still, give us some better rate!

It would even be fun to have pilots for additional ships (not fighters!) of mine, flying with me in some sort of private convoy (even better: tie in some risk when hiring dubious cheap pilots with questionable reputation; as they might steal your ship, leaving you to warrant a bounty for those to get them back - at a later time in a damaged, or even stripped condition); though that would only work in single player/group sessions, as it would unbalance the game even further in open (players with large funds vs. others).

Alternatively (or even in addition to that last point), if there was some story to it (i.e. if this was a completely different game) I could actually see myself having an [NPC] partner that I am somewhat connected to (but this game just shows the middle finger to story-telling and interactive lore; power-play is only a sad fill-in for that; everything this game has is build around the design concept of lazyness; like having the almighty RNG govern pretty much everything in mission "design"); if that partner would grant me additional bonuses, like a bigger payout (/contract volume), access to additional opportunities (missions), contacts, etc. But this game has none of that; NONE! - wide as an ocean (or galaxy, for that matter) deep as a puddle...

This game was being advertised to me as having some interactive feature to it; like an economy that is influenced by players actions. But I see none of that. Otherwise, the price for painite would plummet into nothingness and a great recession (like spain when the conquistadores brought home copious amounts of gold, destabilizing their economy) would grip the surrounding systems.
Likewise there is no real sense of trading alltogether, as missions grant payouts many, many times that of actual trading, being obscenely disproportional (often paying 10 times and more what the good in question is worth. wtf???). -- and it pushes the player towards goods, that would have the receiving stations drown in raw material and useless noble metals, while starving to death in lack of food and water (the lack of differentiation between different cargo also doesn't help here. How is it, that a ton of Uranium and a ton of grain take up the same amount of cargo space? - how can I have radioactive and toxic materials be in the same cargo hold as food??).
Likewise, these developers have no idea of sensible profit shares, and when such a share actually makes any sense to begin with.
Likewise they have no sense of scale and speeds (100 times the speed of light? - b****, please! ... and spacetime around me does not get warped by that?? -- SERIOUSLY???)
Likewise they have no sense of free space, and what it would do to ship design (you think the Anaconda is huge? - that's a very, VERY pedestrian perspective. A society that completely lives in zero-g, doing all their constructing under these conditions, would build much, MUCH bigger ships for huge hauls; ships to big to fit through those tiny entrances, but would have to dog outside of bigger stations. Which would make trade actually viable... like food and water hauling actually making sense again)

One's gotta be really, really ignorant, not to see all these nonsensical "design decisions". Suspense of disbelieve really takes a toll on one's intelligence here; like "beating your head with a brick, until you silenced all doubts" level of straining...

/rant over