I don’t believe the 2.8% board flip statistic has been presented correctly, can FDev please clarify?

[WR3ND]

...

The irony is not lost on me. I'll leave it to the rest of you to sort out the minutia.

 

[kofeyh]

Ultimately this. FD doesn't say they don't need to improve mission boards and missions and payouts and generation of them. They do and they know it.

Knowing, and doing, are two different things. Frontier's solution is to dedicate resources, not to improve the missions system, but just to stop it breaking the rest of the game. They've moved on, friend. Now? It's removing the thing to stop people complaining about performance.

They see this, imho, as a series of issues to solve; not a series of experiences to improve. It's been four years, they're just trying to keep the game going and relevant. Expecting more than that, will probably just lead to disappointment.

 

[bitstorm]

Here's what I find a tad messed up. 2.8% of the community board flips, they create a dedicated server for it. (And demonstrating that the game can DO such a thing in the first place btw.)

But they haven't gone ahead and created a test server to well, test and Q/A things before they release it to the live servers (ya know like every other MMO in existance. and remember Fdev likes to think ED is an MMO.)

So Fdev solves an issue that only effects 2.8% of the community, yet doesnt solve an issue that effects 100% of the community.

Like I keep saying in other threads,

messed...up...priorities.....

Well this thread is here because folk suspect it's higher than 2.8% due to the way the data was collated.

And for me board flipping effects everyone, whether you board flip or not.

Also if you read Will's post, the impression I get is it's primarily about creating resilience in the infrastructure and creating a separate mission "service" which is going to benefit development in all sorts of ways. That it removes board flipping is not the point or driver for doing this but it is a "benefit".

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

Loopholes? Why a loophole?

How would the request for clarification decrease that figure? If anything it's likely to increase.

A loophole would push the figure so low there then becomes a strong argument not to implement the change.

But folk are arguing they suspect the figure should be higher, where does loophole come into it?

Believing it it should be higher won't make it higher. Saying FD is not telling the truth won't change their decision making based on such numbers.

Why it is so important for that number to be higher anyway?

 

[Julio Montega]

Well this thread is here because folk suspect it's higher than 2.8% due to the way the data was collated.

And for me board flipping effects everyone, whether you board flip or not.

Spot on, and for me this sentence is true:
If there is a statistic that just showcases the result and not the method
how the data was gathered and factored in, it is fake.

In germany we were tasked to create statistics as homework for school,
not including the above mentioned key parts resulted in a very bad degree.
Here we add flak and speculation aswell to this.

 

[jonesskill]

Knowing, and doing, are two different things. Frontier's solution is to dedicate resources, not to improve the missions system, but just to stop it breaking the rest of the game. They've moved on, friend. Now? It's removing the thing to stop people complaining about performance.

They see this, imho, as a series of issues to solve; not a series of experiences to improve. It's been four years, they're just trying to keep the game going and relevant. Expecting more than that, will probably just lead to disappointment.

I just remember the FSD boosters and keep thinking IF this new server sucks and make things even worse - Worse missions that don't go away.
6 months to be fixed?

 

[Aashenfox]

I was just about to say the same thing, repped.

I don't care if FD said it was 2.8%, 28% or 100%, they made the decision to fix the mission boards, which is exactly what a lot of the community has been requesting. At times this Community confuses me, the cry goes out for FD to fix something, change something, and they do. Then those same people jump on here crying about the changes. I am convinced that either some here don't know what they want or they just like complaining about anything FD does.

As for those demanding better paying missions, more missions of a certain type - is that just been greedy? Not all missions are high paying now, not all missions have always been high paying. Yet now these players want the majority of missions to be high paying. Is it that hard to earn credits now, or are we that use to doing a simple haulage mission, assassination mission, fetch mission even a courier mission for millions of credits than we look down our nose at anything lessor?

No, it's not like that. It;s about doing the kind of missions that I want to do. And it's about quantity.

If you are going to remove a mechanism that has been used by a lot more than 2.8% of the players, without fixing the underlying problem that necessitates the behaviour, I can absolutely assure you, there will be an impact on player numbers. Out of the 4 people I play with 100% of them do it, and 2 of them do it at pretty much every station every time, to cherry pick the good missions, of course. I on the other hand do it infrequently, because I'm easier to please, I'm not too bothered about he money, I just want to do what I want to do (kill bad guys). While 4 is hardly a representative sample, the 100% is very representative of the fact that 2.8% is just plain wishful thinking. Out of those I know that do it, I do it the least and I still feel a need to do it sometimes.

I was in my Empire holiday home recently. It's a system with 6bn population, 12 bodies, 7 stations not including planetary, 7 empire factions, 1 independent. I am allied with everybody. This system 'usually' gives me enough missoins I want to do, that's why it's home (and to answer eagleboy's facetious, borderline rude, post earlier, that's why I spent a lot of money to put all my ships there, I can usually get what I want in this system)

I checked the board, 2 solo assassinations, for low value, so pathetic targets I could take out with 0 effort in a sidey. I accept them and keep looking, I go through every mission on the board and accept a planetary scan that I'll do later in the week. I do a couple of donations, then I log off and back on again. Nothing, only boom data deliveries, wing deliveries, wing fetch missions. I do a couple more donations, then I head off to perform the 2 assassinations. A python and a cobra. To make things extra interesting, they both dropped in on me while scanning the nav beacon, so I only had to get my hardpoints out once, it was over in seconds. Back at the board. More wing assassinations (I didn't feel like flying the corvette or I would have taken them), more wing fetch missions, more data and election data deliveries (yes I realise having a faction in election state makes things more predictable), but most importantly, no skimmer missions, no planetary scans, no solo assassinations. I flipped the board again, 7 factions with between 12 and 20 of the same crap, logged off, watched youtube til my eyes closed.

Anyway, boring stories aside, the point is that the mission variety is already poor. If you take away my only mechanism of enriching it, is that going to make the game better in my eyes?

I hope you see where I'm coming from. Yes it's not ideal, yes, it's technically gaming the game, but it's a needed workaround to a real problem. All I'm saying is solve that problem before you remove the workaround. For me it's not about money, it's about doing something my CMDR wants to do.

 

[kofeyh]

What I can tell you is that everyone on my friends list goes through phases of logging in and out. Not all the time, but they all do it.

The irony of people questioning stats despite the desired outcome happening anyway. Nobody trusts Frontier. Even when they do what's asked. What a community! lol; i give them a hard time for average approaches to a thing (they do good work, just fumble at times) but this is next level white-anting.

 

[bitstorm]

Believing it it should be higher won't make it higher. Saying FD is not telling the truth won't change their decision making based on such numbers.

Why it is so important for that number to be higher anyway?

It's important for the figure to be accurate.

If we are going to use a figure presented to one decimal place of accuracy, it should represent what it's claimed to represent.

In the first 3 pages of this thread I counted 5 instances of the figure being misrepresented to mean something it may not mean. (IMHO, but I could be wrong)

If discussions on the forum are arguing based on bad data they are not going to be good discussions.

I don't see any reason why it couldn't be clarified, Will even welcomed questions.

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

 

[bitstorm]

The irony of people questioning stats despite the desired outcome happening anyway. Nobody trusts Frontier. Even when they do what's asked. What a community! lol; i give them a hard time for average approaches to a thing (they do good work, just fumble at times) but this is next level white-anting.

I honestly don't get why people seem so desperate for the stat NOT to be clarified.

 

[kofeyh]

Believing it it should be higher won't make it higher. Saying FD is not telling the truth won't change their decision making based on such numbers.

Why it is so important for that number to be higher anyway?

Because Frontier are saying something that's inconsistent with an assumption, ergo the developer is wrong not the assumption. The notion someone might swap boards 3-4 times in one session, then not do that again for days, doesn't compute. This is not possible. People have to be rampantly doing this. Like rabbits. Just 24x7.

Yet that's exactly what would lead to a small percentage. Bursts of flipping, followed by large gaps between repetition. This could pull an average down, a lot. It means that instead of this being rampant, it's situational. And that, actually, makes a whole lot of sense.

 

[Parmo]

I have no idea how this absurdly low figure was achieved -...
strangely low figure?

Yes, you have no idea.

So how come you know its a low figure?

Why do you believe its 'absurdly low' and 'strangely low'?

I accuse you of exactly what you are accusing FDev of.

Very unclear communication.

 

[TheSynopticVision]

It's simple really: perhaps some random day of last week it really was 2.8% of people.

But go back in time to the day after something like Quince or Rhea had been advertised here, on Reddit, and YouTube, and tell me again with a straight face that only 2.8% of people where there boardflipping like there's no tomorrow. That's what really matters, that people are so desperate for a rewarding economy such that they flock to any new money fountain.

 

[M00ka]

No, it's not like that. It;s about doing the kind of missions that I want to do. And it's about quantity.

If you are going to remove a mechanism that has been used by a lot more than 2.8% of the players, I can absolutely assure you, since out of the 4 people I play with 100% of them do it. While that's hardly a representative sample, the 100% is very representative of the fact that 2.8% is just plain wishful thinking. Out of those I know that do it, I do it the least and I still need to do it sometimes.

I was in my Empire holiday home recently. It's a system with 6bn population, 12 bodies, 7 stations not including planetary, 7 empire factions, 1 independent. I am allied with everybody. This system 'usually' gives me enough missoins I want to do, that's why it's home (and to answer eagleboy's facetious, borderline rude, post earlier, that's why I spent a lot of money to put all my ships there)

I checked the board, 2 solo assassinations, for low value, so pathetic targets I could take out with 0 effort in a sidey. I accept them and keep looking, I go through every mission on the board and accept a planetary scan that I'll do later in the week. I do a couple of donations, then I log off and back on again. Nothing, only boom data deliveries, wing deliveries, wing fetch missions. I do a couple more donations, then I head off to perform the 2 assassinations. A python and a cobra. To make things extra interesting, they both dropped in on me while scanning the nav beacon, so I only had to get my hardpoints out once, it was over in minutes. Back at the board. More wing assassinations (I didn't feel like flying the corvette or I would have taken them), more wing fetch missions, more data and election data deliveries (yes I realise having a faction in election state makes things more predictable), but most importantly, no skimmer missions, no planetary scans, no solo assassinations. I flipped the board again, 7 factions with between 12 and 20 of the same crap, logged off.

Anyway, boring stories aside, the point is that the mission variety is already poor. If you take away my only mechanism of enriching it, is that going to make the game better in my eyes?

I hope you see where I'm coming from. Yes it's not ideal, yes, it's technically gaming the game, but it's a needed workaround to a real problem. All I'm saying is solve that problem before you remove the workaround. For me it's not about money, it's about doing something my CMDR wants to do.

So you want the missions tailored to you and your playing style - correct? Well in that case I don't want assassination missions, illegal missions, massacre missions, mining missions, and even courier missions deleted or severely decreased, cos I don't do them. So yes it would be nice to have the game tailored for myself, but I also know that such an undertaking would be a momentous task for FD to undertake as they would have to be mind readers as well as everything else. Mind readers you say, well if you decide to not fly your Corvette but instead jump in a small ship, surely you would expect the missions to be tailored to that ship now. Or if you decide you want to do some courier missions, FD should be smart enough to make those missions the most numerous for you.

Look, everyone agrees that the type of missions could be vastly improved. There was a great thread (that was unfortunately mostly ignored) about missions for explorers - that is the type of things that FD could do easy without breaking the current system. Mission narratives and linked story lines could be used to make missions seem more realistic. Mission distance could be extended past the current 20ly range now that distance is considered mediocre jump range. But this discussion isn't about improving missions per sec, it is about changes to the mission board mechanism.

 

[Aashenfox]

Thanks for the sourced info, truly will "banish" board flipping as they say, due to server outage backlashes.

Consistent missions across all gamemodes does represent removal of the flipping.
That means BGS states will have more impact on mission generation, as you cannot refresh by board flipping.

What needs to be done is having a very deep look into how that works and to allow players,
as said before to provide services to keep players interested and not excluded by having BGS
only generate a single mission type.

Will that be done?
Wasn't announced and given how FD handle things i think not.

This. kofeyh, we don't trust FD because they have proven time and again, untrustworthy in this regard. Closing loopholes without solving the underlying problems that caused players to resort to them int he first place, is not the right way to deal with this kind of problem.

Not to mention, I have a funny feeling this is to reduce server load, and since I don't have any errors (very rarely), one must assume this is for their own streamlining (cost cutting).

 

[kofeyh]

I honestly don't get why people seem so desperate for the stat NOT to be clarified.

I'm not desperate, I am asking what difference does it make if the ratio of flipping to not, is still statistically nearly meaningless at say 6-9% or marginally higher? A very high percentage means a very high repetition rate over a very long period. The percentage looks more like sporadic occurrences, with gaps, that has pulled the average down.

Which, actually, makes sense. But I just don't see how a number that's marginally larger, even if it was, which it probably isn't, actually achieves anything constructive. Frontier are making changes due to load; closing the switching loop is just collateral to ensure intent is met, and turns out wasn't a sustained high percentage anyway.

People believe assumption, more than provided information from the developer. I'd argue Frontier have a massive trust issue at this point, but the entire thing is like arguing the point over how fast the horse was going, when it bolted. It's probably irrelevant at that point.

 

[Julio Montega]

This. kofeyh, we don't trust FD because they have proven time and again, untrustworthy in this regard. Closing loopholes without solving the underlying problems that caused players to resort to them int he first place, is not the right way to deal with this kind of problem.

Not to mention, I have a funny feeling this is to reduce server load, and since I don't have any errors (very rarely), one must assume this is for their own streamlining (cost cutting).

Factoring in the amount of low budget copy paste paintjobs to generate revenue and ships to save on work effort, i agree to your assessment with the "cost cutting" aspect.

 

[Robert Maynard]

But the figure is (IMHO) probably being misrepresented, and it's because the way the data was gathered was not mentioned.

Just as the "the majority of players play in Open" statement was not accompanied with supporting data - yet, from reading the forums, there seems to be little doubt as to the veracity of that statement.

 

[Cmdr Eagleboy]

I hope you see where I'm coming from. Yes it's not ideal, yes, it's technically gaming the game, but it's a needed workaround to a real problem. All I'm saying is solve that problem before you remove the workaround. For me it's not about money, it's about doing something my CMDR wants to do.

Why not move around then? Why not try different boards?

While I think FD will increase amount of missions available, I still think players have to move around a lot more.

Also your post is good example why people should stop using statistics to prop up their arguments. Your argument, your story is interesting on itself to give some ideas and indicate some issues with the game. THERE IS NO NEED TO PAD THAT It is already good argument on itself.

 

[Julio Montega]

Just as the "the majority of players play in Open" statement was not accompanied with supporting data - yet, from reading the forums, there seems to be little doubt as to the veracity of that statement.

If you believe that, you missed at least 86 pages of contradicting perspectives.

Why not move around then? Why not try different boards?

While I think FD will increase amount of missions available, I still think players have to move around a lot more.

Countering question with question:

Why does a minor faction, that operates on 5 stations in a single system, or system cluster
not have a single point of contact for you, allowing to access all of their momentary job offers?
-> The same contact person per system already is used, though each system has its own BB missionlist?

Why the arbitrary outdated 1984 design?