BGS Independent missions, can we have them?

[Chaparral]

We all know the BGS is the determining factor for mission offerings. This can result in gold rushes, or systems with extremely limited offerings with minimal payouts.

There are a fair number of players that are not invested in the BGS, and would just like to play the darn game (myself included).

Would it be possible to have a stock set of basic missions offered at every station that is related to basic system functionality which operates independent of the BGS?

The rewards would, by definition, be influence independent and have as rewards reputation, credits, commodities, and materials ONLY.

Basic operations would be:

Trade related to the industry type for the station/system.
System security related to the security state of the system (bounties on NPCs).
Passenger missions related to the industry type for the station/system.
Mining related to the industry type for the station system (ex. exotic metals for high tech, water for tourism).
(I'm sure that you could conceive of more than this tiny list).

Payouts for these missions would be FLAT bubble wide with a reasonable FLOOR of 100k/mission. The role of these missions is to ensure there is something for players TO DO as BGS woes are handled.

What do you think?

 

[Schlack]

Em there are thousands of inhabited systems. If your interest is cash only cant you just go next door? Alternatively get interested in the bgs. It really changes your view of the game and provides a deeper meaning to your actions.

 

[SentineI]

Yeah, I've made a similar suggestion before. Not showing some mission types, just because the BGS says that won't benefit the current faction's state, is very annoying.

 

[Chaparral]

Em there are thousands of inhabited systems. If your interest is cash only cant you just go next door? Alternatively get interested in the bgs. It really changes your view of the game and provides a deeper meaning to your actions.

Yeah, I don't want to be limited to boom state data transfer missions because they have deeper meaning.

 

[Schlack]

Suit yourself.

 

[askavir]

I prefer it the way it is, dynamic according to system state/economy. The current system can always be improved upon, but surely not by making it static and making all systems/stations the same. Having the very same missions always available everywhere would make for a poorer, more static game world, not richer.

 

[Bill Clement]

We all know the BGS is the determining factor for mission offerings. This can result in gold rushes, or systems with extremely limited offerings with minimal payouts.

There are a fair number of players that are not invested in the BGS, and would just like to play the darn game (myself included).

Would it be possible to have a stock set of basic missions offered at every station that is related to basic system functionality which operates independent of the BGS?

The rewards would, by definition, be influence independent and have as rewards reputation, credits, commodities, and materials ONLY.

Basic operations would be:

Trade related to the industry type for the station/system.
System security related to the security state of the system (bounties on NPCs).
Passenger missions related to the industry type for the station/system.
Mining related to the industry type for the station system (ex. exotic metals for high tech, water for tourism).
(I'm sure that you could conceive of more than this tiny list).

Payouts for these missions would be FLAT bubble wide with a reasonable FLOOR of 100k/mission. The role of these missions is to ensure there is something for players TO DO as BGS woes are handled.

What do you think?

I think you're looking at it the wrong way. The guys playing the bgs are amongst the happiest on this board- their concerns usually come down to a circular argument about how the different game modes interact and how it totally sucks/is totally justified that gunships can't pew pew underminers. There aren't really any BGS woes to 'be handled'.

Missions are generated- randomly. One of the biggest complaints from players, including yourself, ironically enough, is that there is too much random in this game. Your suggestion would have yet more RNG piled on top of the amount that's already there.

That would be a Bad Thing.

The current system allows a degree of control over the random nature of the mission board. Your actions and the actions of fellow players will filter the available missions. Your actions will govern your standing with the local factions offering those missions, boosting or lowering the rewards from them.

This is a Good Thing.

If you don't like the missions on offer you can change the conditions generating them. If that's too much effort then you can move to a system generating the kind of missions you want. Either way, at present you can pick and chose the conditions you conduct your business under, but with your suggestion RNG would increase and the mission boards would lose a lot of their character.

Another thing most players object to is bland, samey, 'inch deep' gameplay...

Yeah, I don't want to be limited to boom state data transfer missions because they have deeper meaning.

You're not being limited, you're being rewarded for performing missions that will improve the standing of the local faction that gives you the mission. You know, meaningful gameplay, with results beyond credits and mats?

Personally, I don't want to log into a board covered in exactly the same old missions that every other board has, with a token portion actually having anything to do with the ambitions or plans of the factions that inhabit the system. If it winds up like that, why bother having any factions at all? We might as well go back to the early release version of the mission board.

Frontier reacted to our interest in the bgs. They gave us local factions, they put faces to them, they've tweaked the character of the work they offer. There's still a way to go, but it's getting us closer to the 'living, breathing galaxy' that was such a big part of the game's initial pitch. I like the mission boards the way they are and I like the direction the mission structure seems to be heading in.

I think our reaction to the boards reflects a broader dichotomy seen in the real world. Some people, perhaps most people, want to have their favourite fast food resturant and fizzy drink available everywhere they go. Some people would rather see and try different food and drinks on their travels. Is it fair of me to suspect that we have different opinions on dining as well as gaming choices?

 

[Chaparral]

You're not being limited, you're being rewarded for performing missions that will improve the standing of the local faction that gives you the mission. You know, meaningful gameplay, with results beyond credits and mats?

Yeah - the actual tasks performed constitute gameplay, not 20,000 system chess for casuals such as myself. I got 4 mates that play this game, and I'm not interested in joining a bunch of BGS players to move the influence needle a tick so I can get my non-animated, non-voiced jpeg represented faction out of famine. If there were authentic wars i.e. wvw instances capable of supporting 50x or more players like so many other mmos, I would be happy to join a major faction and go to war. That's not what we have going here. We have a glacial sim with goldrush quirks with nerf hammer smashes, and a smorgasboard of an amazing 2-4 mission types. Take a step back and think about what a non-aligned person actually sees at a given station. Gruel.

I play Stellaris or MOO2 if I'm looking for what your describing.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

We all know the BGS is the determining factor for mission offerings.

Do we?

Since you're suggesting missions should be related to system economy or security level - which I assume you don't therefore consider part of the BGS - presumably you mean government types and states?

Most of the missions are basically state-independent already (and apart from Anarchy factions, mostly government-independent too):
- donations show up any state
- courier missions show up any state just with different text
- mining missions show up at least most states just with different text
- passenger missions show up in every state (the type of passenger varies with government and state, but if you're just stuffing people in a comfy box and moving them no questions asked, that's no big deal)
- trade missions (source and haulage) are primarily dependent on economy to show up at all. The types of cargo hauled change a bit with state as the state affects the supply/demand levels in the economy, of course.
- smuggling, surface attack, piracy ... criminal factions will come up with a justification for those in any state
- surface scan missions, again, pretty much any state just with different text
etc.

The only mission type (as opposed to detail like the flavour text or the precise type of cargo/passenger) I can think of which is really state-dependent is that you only get CZ Massacre missions if there's actually a war on...

I think Frontier have done a good job of giving the impression that the missions are rather more BGS-dependent than they are, but most systems that I'm famiilar with don't significantly change their mission offerings as the state or government changes. The majority of mission-related mega-earners have been down to odd system configurations that most of your suggested independent missions would also be vulnerable too.
- trade / passenger: needs nearby destination systems, this can have edge cases with particular destinations
- mining: has never been a mega-earner for BGS-related reasons
- system security: security level is (sometimes significantly) affected by BGS state, so this wouldn't be BGS-independent.