Avatars don't require animation or voice-acting. There are tons of games where mission objectives are handed to you in the form of text and diagrams. The vast majority of missions in 'Mass Effect' games are played out in that way. The cinematic stuff is generally only for before/after stuff. When you're on a mission, you generally just look at the journal for what to do and get on with it.
It's the 'getting on with it' part which needs thought and substance behind it. That doesn't mean they need to be multi-part or complicated - quite the opposite. What we need is for a task to feel rewarding just to have participate in, regardless of credits given.
Just the combat portions of 'Elite: Dangerous', alone, feel somehow lacking. Compare the combat missions to some of the stuff in older titles, like 'TIE Fighter'. And even that wouldn't be touching on a fraction of real military capabilities we should have access to, like electronic warfare, recon and so on.
Frontier has a very curious way of fusing an artificial stick, instead of simply using a pre-existing carrot. Being able to lock on surface targets was removed, which makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever. This was done to force players into having a reason to use the SRVs (as opposed to properly armoured and weaponised surface vehicles), because they haven't really come up with a point for them. Instead, what the situation should be is a typical choice between different stategies.
Is there any intelligence on the target? If so, is the intelligence likely to be reputable in nature? The latter could also be impacted with how friendly/loyal you are perceived to be with that faction (as they'd give you better information if you are considered an asset). If none is available (or you have reasons to suspect it could be problematic of have a chance percentage of being inaccurate/out of date), then you could also decide to undertake your own recon. There could even be NPCs you could hire to undertake it for you (the results of which will be given to you after a certain allocated time), but will depend on their own reliability rating. Frontier could then allow some of the modules typically used for exploraiton to give us estimations of base layouts, defences, energy readings (a base might have defences hidden, but a high energy output could indicate suspicious activity could be occuring) and so on. All stuff which makes up an auto-generate intelligence estimate.
This could take some time, but it's the difference between going in blind/assuming third party intelligence to be correct, versus doing what you need to guarantee safety and intelligence reliability. This also opens up missions you undertake for others to perform recon missions on their behalf. Missions diversity!
Regardless of whether you just accept intelligence estimates on a target or not, the user then has to decide how to go about it... We now enter the difference between high-risk/low-risk mission potential.
What kind of defences does the base have? Are they static? Are there patrols and, if so, what kind of craft and how many? Are defences optimised for attacking ships or taking out ground targets?
At this point, if the primary/secondary/tertiary target(s) is/are hardly defended, you can go at it/them as you please. On the other hand, if they're defended, is it lightly, moderately or heavily?
You then decide... An SRV could be a much stealthier way of going about things, if it's deployed at a sufficient distance. Alternatively, just going in and treating it like a gunship-style air assault mission could be far better. Helicopter gunship simulators can be very fun! It would be fantastic to see some missions like that.
We could also find that a particularly large base which is also heavily defended, makes for a situation where we need to co-ordinate our efforts with either other players or hired NPCs (either in ship-launched fighters or, perhaps, eventually actual NPC wingmen with FSD capability, which we should have all long ago had the option for utilising), so that some can take on defences, others act as distraction, others take out patrols and so on. It could eb as chaotic as you desire or timed to perfection for better results.
This is the kind of extra detail which should be allowed. None of it is compulsory, but for those who want better chances of success (or simply to take on much more profitable and better defended targets), then the options to do so could be there. It would go some considerable way towards getting players to want to interact and make fighters and surface vehicles a far more valid choice.
Would also like to see sneakier options for combat missions... Ships specifically optimised for stealth would be one example (and older games, such as 'F-19', could be looked at for how to give them unique and fun mechanics when used in missions), but how about some missions where you're given access codes and are given a specific different ship to pick someone/something up or drop them off? Like in 'Return Of the Jedi', with the stolen Imperial shuttle. We wouldn't be risking our own ships, but it would give us a challenge of, say, using an Eagle or Type-6 to very carefully get access to some huge base or carrier, knowing we have to keep to a very specific protocol or risk being investigated (and possibly having to very hastily get out of the situation, 'Independence Day'-style). There would certainly be prospective employers or reps from the Federation or Empire, who would want to hire such people for plausible deniability reasons!
It's the 'getting on with it' part which needs thought and substance behind it. That doesn't mean they need to be multi-part or complicated - quite the opposite. What we need is for a task to feel rewarding just to have participate in, regardless of credits given.
Just the combat portions of 'Elite: Dangerous', alone, feel somehow lacking. Compare the combat missions to some of the stuff in older titles, like 'TIE Fighter'. And even that wouldn't be touching on a fraction of real military capabilities we should have access to, like electronic warfare, recon and so on.
Frontier has a very curious way of fusing an artificial stick, instead of simply using a pre-existing carrot. Being able to lock on surface targets was removed, which makes absolutely no sense, whatsoever. This was done to force players into having a reason to use the SRVs (as opposed to properly armoured and weaponised surface vehicles), because they haven't really come up with a point for them. Instead, what the situation should be is a typical choice between different stategies.
Is there any intelligence on the target? If so, is the intelligence likely to be reputable in nature? The latter could also be impacted with how friendly/loyal you are perceived to be with that faction (as they'd give you better information if you are considered an asset). If none is available (or you have reasons to suspect it could be problematic of have a chance percentage of being inaccurate/out of date), then you could also decide to undertake your own recon. There could even be NPCs you could hire to undertake it for you (the results of which will be given to you after a certain allocated time), but will depend on their own reliability rating. Frontier could then allow some of the modules typically used for exploraiton to give us estimations of base layouts, defences, energy readings (a base might have defences hidden, but a high energy output could indicate suspicious activity could be occuring) and so on. All stuff which makes up an auto-generate intelligence estimate.
This could take some time, but it's the difference between going in blind/assuming third party intelligence to be correct, versus doing what you need to guarantee safety and intelligence reliability. This also opens up missions you undertake for others to perform recon missions on their behalf. Missions diversity!
Regardless of whether you just accept intelligence estimates on a target or not, the user then has to decide how to go about it... We now enter the difference between high-risk/low-risk mission potential.
What kind of defences does the base have? Are they static? Are there patrols and, if so, what kind of craft and how many? Are defences optimised for attacking ships or taking out ground targets?
At this point, if the primary/secondary/tertiary target(s) is/are hardly defended, you can go at it/them as you please. On the other hand, if they're defended, is it lightly, moderately or heavily?
You then decide... An SRV could be a much stealthier way of going about things, if it's deployed at a sufficient distance. Alternatively, just going in and treating it like a gunship-style air assault mission could be far better. Helicopter gunship simulators can be very fun! It would be fantastic to see some missions like that.
We could also find that a particularly large base which is also heavily defended, makes for a situation where we need to co-ordinate our efforts with either other players or hired NPCs (either in ship-launched fighters or, perhaps, eventually actual NPC wingmen with FSD capability, which we should have all long ago had the option for utilising), so that some can take on defences, others act as distraction, others take out patrols and so on. It could eb as chaotic as you desire or timed to perfection for better results.
This is the kind of extra detail which should be allowed. None of it is compulsory, but for those who want better chances of success (or simply to take on much more profitable and better defended targets), then the options to do so could be there. It would go some considerable way towards getting players to want to interact and make fighters and surface vehicles a far more valid choice.
Would also like to see sneakier options for combat missions... Ships specifically optimised for stealth would be one example (and older games, such as 'F-19', could be looked at for how to give them unique and fun mechanics when used in missions), but how about some missions where you're given access codes and are given a specific different ship to pick someone/something up or drop them off? Like in 'Return Of the Jedi', with the stolen Imperial shuttle. We wouldn't be risking our own ships, but it would give us a challenge of, say, using an Eagle or Type-6 to very carefully get access to some huge base or carrier, knowing we have to keep to a very specific protocol or risk being investigated (and possibly having to very hastily get out of the situation, 'Independence Day'-style). There would certainly be prospective employers or reps from the Federation or Empire, who would want to hire such people for plausible deniability reasons!
Last edited:
![[VR] optimal_909](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/109/109067.jpg?1553781733){kind=avatar}
