News Implementation of a dedicated mission server

[Lux Veritas Occulta]

Greetings Commanders,

In the next chapter of Beyond (3.3), we will be implementing and migrating mission data to a new separate server. While this mainly affects the back-end of the game, you will see some changes to missions in-game.

As it currently stands, missions are on a shared server with other elements of the game. This has the risk of problems with missions causing outages and stability issues for the rest of the game if there are technical hiccups.

So, what benefits will we see by moving missions to their own separate server?

• Any issue (generated by missions) which can cause a server outage or stability problems will no longer result in players disconnecting. Instead the missions will be unavailable for a period of time.
• If such issues do occur, the previous servers will be able to act as a back-up, offering better opportunities to recover game content as quickly as possible.
• We may see a slight decrease in mission board loading times.
• Missions will now be consistent across game modes (Solo/Open/Private Group).

It's also worth noting that, as a result of a dedicated 'mission server', there will be a removal/significant reduction of the method of refreshing mission boards by logging in and out of the game ("board flipping"). While we understand that this is a practice utilised by some* players, this was never the intended use of the mission system.

Even though there is a small number of players doing this, we will increase the credit payout of missions (by 10%) across the board so all players using the mission boards as intended will see a net profit. As a result of this, some mission reward choices will see boosted influence, reputation and rank gains. As always when it comes to missions, we will continually review and balance them where needed.

Ultimately, this is a healthy step for our overall servers and game experience.

If you have any questions or would like to share your feedback with us, please post below!

*we found that only 2.8% of daily online players were using the mission system in this way.

Good show!

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Board flipping happens/ed so that you could actually find missions for your chosen faction. If this means there is essentially only one mission board, and the mission generation doesn't change otherwise, I fear you're significantly nerfing missions as an option for targeted BGS play.

But goal is that you can't find missions you want to grind so easily. It is specially designed that way to prevent that.

 

[Grisbane]

This is total bull.

You realy think they're trying to throw ED overboard? Just wow.
Yes Fdev is doing a lot of things, erm, not good imho but this conspiracy stuff is total bullsh*t.

throwing out that possibility is purposeful ignorance. The evidence of their actions lately support the claim. the rise of Jurassic World Evo, Q3 update being next to useless, the most wanted features from q4 being yanked, spitting in the face of the community with the Gnosis fiasco, and now nerfing missions (and in the process making sure the influx of new players goes away due to inability to progress)...

It's not conspiracy when it's a logical possibility

you act like gaming companies haven't done exactly that hundreds of times before.

 

[Speedcuffs]

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

forcing players to sit in dock twiddling their thumbs waiting for the mission board to refresh isn't exactly "compelling gameplay" or in any way better than what we have in place today.

It's a choice players make.

 

[rp198419]

Just some feedback for you FDev... Haven't read the thread so it may have already been mentioned.

First, I will say I have board flipped, many times. Nice to know I'm in the top 2.8% of all CMDRs out there. Second, I HATE having to utilize that mechanic in order to be efficient at what I'm doing, so this is a welcome change. "Board flipping" isn't always about credits. I honestly don't really care about credits anymore. Frankly anyone with more than a couple billion in total assets shouldn't care about credits because there is nothing in the game that can sink that many credits (short of buying dozens of ships just because you can).

If I'm flying my bulk pax anaconda from one station to another I want it to be full, or close to full. If I can only take a couple missions to another system, then I might as well run pax in a Cobra. Again, it's not about credits, it's about the immersion. No captain is going to fly their huge ship around 3/4 empty all the time. Don't tell me I can stack multiple bulk pax to multiple locations, while this is technically true there is no easy way to plan a route to deliver pax to any general area. The mission system gives you stuff within a sphere and that's it. I would welcome a tool that allowed me to say "I'm going to Lave, show me missions in a roughly cone shaped trajectory from here towards Lave." Or something along those lines. I once suggested the idea of a "Dispatcher" in-game that (for a fee) would provide me with a full-ship of missions that could be completed in a loop.

If I'm looking for Biotech Conductors, I can ONLY get them from missions. If they aren't on the mission board, or aren't associated with a mission that I can take (wrong ship/loadout) then, in the past, I would flip the board to get a mission that was more in-line with what I could do. The choice of missions rewards was an excellent first step in this regard. And the mat trader is also a nice feature. But the exchange rate to obtain these G5 mats...well. Anyway...

Finally is missions around state changes. I suspect this issue may actually be fixed by this change, but I will mention it anyway. In the past, if I pulled into a system where a war was recently won, I would go to the mission board and find tons of massacre missions for instance. If I took one, I would find either there are no CZs anymore, or they're all in Cease Fire. But those "war" missions are ALL that were available from those factions. If I flipped to a different mode I would be able to find missions for the correct, new faction state. The mission server needs to keep up with the current faction states in the system.

What would be great is if the new mission server could serve up dozens, or even hundreds of additional missions so that we can have more variety to choose from. In order to find the bulk pax or cargo going to the system we want to travel to. Or the combat mission with the pilot rank that gets us the best rewards. Or the engineer mat that we're trying to collect.

^^^^
This is so right. Rep+1

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Great another nerf and to all missions. Now people that don’t have all day to play won’t be able to manipulate BGS. I guess that makes it easier though on the heavy runners. I’d say less then 20% of the community will really be able to make a big difference with missions being cut in half. Which is the bottom line of this. Missions selection cut right in half.

BGS and mission system main goal has never been to allow manipulate BGS. Influence, yes, but not manipulate.

 

[DR Grandreefer]

What could possibly go wrong?

I know you’re only being sarcastic but I do have to say the problems are being laid out pretty quickly and accurately. You’re screwing over people that don’t play all day long, FDev. Why hurt those that have a real life other then playing your game?

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

The problem with mission board is that most of the time...it doesn't offer the mission type you want and/or the reward you expect.

Yeah but thing is - that's a life. In other MMOs and games you also don't choose missions or rewards. You go with what you get.

 

[Ant_Solo]

*we found that only 2.8% of daily online players were using the mission system in this way.

2.8% of users in a day are board flipping. That is not a small number. People don't board flip every day, it is done when you need something.

Give us the percentage of players that do it every month, of better still 3 or 6 months. If it is extremely high (which I suspect it is) maybe that points to some poor game design and maybe some time spent fixing that might be an idea?

 

[Dutchman141]

throwing out that possibility is purposeful ignorance. The evidence of their actions lately support the claim. the rise of Jurassic World Evo, Q3 update being next to useless, the most wanted features from q4 being yanked, spitting in the face of the community with the Gnosis fiasco, and now nerfing missions (and in the process making sure the influx of new players goes away due to inability to progress)...

It's not conspiracy when it's a logical possibility

you act like gaming companies haven't done exactly that hundreds of times before.

Whatever you say bud.
If you want to believe that go right ahead.
I just think you're being a bit paranoid.

 

[Turd Ferguson]

It's a choice players make.

yes....blaze your own trail...as long as it's a trail pre-approved DFev and they haven't changed their mind. If you take away all the other choices, it's not really a choice. Eventually the only choice you have left is play/don't play...or what's far more important - BUY/DONT BUY DLC.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Will this mean missions themselves will be more complex? I would love to have more wrinkles and consequences as I sculpt governments.

I hope this also mean this. Fingers crossed. Some serious improvements to mission system - not that I don't like chains - would be welcome.

 

[DR Grandreefer]

BGS and mission system main goal has never been to allow manipulate BGS. Influence, yes, but not manipulate.

If you don’t see that as semantics then I don’t know what to say. This is about everyone getting the missions they enjoy doing as quickly as possible. What the outcome of those less/more missions has nothing to do with it. Influence, money, materials. It’s just about getting those missions to get the outcome.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

yes....blaze your own trail...as long as it's a trail pre-approved DFev trail. If you take away all the other choices, it's not really a choice. Eventually the only choice you have left is play/don't play.

It's a game with rules, not 'do it all' buffet. Those rules and balances are engaged to make some sense out of it. And yes, that's always a choice - accept those rules, or go elsewhere.

 

[rp198419]

It is good idea only if the cause of board switching is fixed also. Otherwise, useless and half cooked solution as always.

FD's greatest weakness: Fix the symptom, not the cause.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

If you don’t see that as semantics then I don’t know what to say. This about everyone getting the missions they enjoy doing as quickly as possible. What the outcome of those less/more missions has nothing to do with it. Influence, money, materials. It’s just about getting those missions to get the outcome.

Sure but as I said, that's not a goal of neither BGS, or mission board. Mission board is to provide goal driven context to what's happening in BGS, not provide you missions you would specially like to do.

 

[Artess]

But goal is that you can't find missions you want to grind so easily. It is specially designed that way to prevent that.

Then maybe they should reduce the grind because this way this aspect of the game just isn't fun.

 

[cmdr kruzer70]

Once again too little too late. No board flipping sounds good until you find out the mission board for the faction you need to run missions for is only offering mining missions.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

FD's greatest weakness: Fix the symptom, not the cause.

Cause is a bit of min maxing syndrome some (2.8%) people engage with because they are goal driven. Mission system in ED is not, it is situational feedback system. Show me where in MMOs you can pick and choose what you do? You can't, that's whole point of missions offering different things.