mission server - the death of ED
- Thread starter Bionic Bytes
- Start date
Missions, like most everything else in E|D are a product of procedural generation. We aren't going to see handwritten mission paths. We'll continue to get standard contracts from factions that require mundane help staying profitable throughout the galaxy. It's our job to find our way through the maze.
Why would you expect every aspect of the game to be delivered by the missions boards? There are a number of mysteries and intrigues that are going on without missions at all. Missions drive the BGS. They aren't the only driving force in the game. When we take a mission we serve one faction or another, so we react to what they need.
As usual, you quote selectively so that you can intentionally misconstrue the other person's statement. It must hurt to have to corrupt other people's intent to be able to argue. I mean, by definition, you are all but admitting you don't have a position to argue from.
The rest of the statement, and the rebuttal for your trite little bit of twaddle. One of these days, you really need to actually come up with something that requires effort to rebut.
But now you'd get 10% more.
10% more wing missions, so instead of 10000t of mined water, you'd need 11000t of water, but, wait, there is more. you will also get a mind blowing 10% more cr too. 1.1m credits!
And passengers will want to go 10% further too.
Seriously - I wait how this pans out, until then, I'm off to play something else. Glad I paid for a LEP of this *smh*
But thing is here...
Mission's system is not there to provide level of gameplay that offers decent value for player's investment in time. No mission system is.
Also every time someone tries to use "player's investment in time" about games I really, really want to punch a wall. Fact that you dress up min maxing in fancy words doesn't mean meaning changes. It is still...min maxing.
Also "no one in their right mind wants to fly half empty on cargo missions"....guess what, that's PART OF THE JOB. That's how risks and challenges are done in this game. You take a risk flying with not fully utilized ship. Do you have to if you can't make money back? Nope. You can choose smaller ship.
Fact you fly big ship in this game doesn't guarantee you same level of earning.
That's the gameplay - to have risks, to have challenges, not having chances to fly full ship all the time, move around when jobs dry up.
It is not a slot machine with maximum efficiency.
And as for boards - they are one element of feedback loop of BGS system. So they are pretty deterministic and in same time limited. They are not unlimited buffet of pinjata dolls.
That's why it is dangerous to allow such issues to linger for long. It creates group of players who are used to 'workarounds' and they have issues to adapt. Same happened when MoM unleashed AI to the game....it caused lot of people to quit and write bad reviews on Steam.
But ohh well, that's wonders of evolutionary development...you have to take good with bad.
FD gathers feedback from all places and fact they do not rush to address this give you signals that their numbers (2.8%) most likely checks out.
Forums are proper echo chamber definition, if there is one. It gathers mostly salt, because mostly disappointed people are coming here. This gives impression of wide support for claims about issues. Some of them are real, but some of them are mostly due of people's approach to the game (as this one).
It feels FD have learned their game towards forums and that's good. Sad though we have lost regular dev participation because of that. But to be fair, streams with QAs work better anyway and most likely have wider appeal.
I wish they would. Frontier could call it premium DLC and charge moneys for it.
Last edited:
I laughed. Thank you. have some cookie.
10 mins is too long imo
I'm amazed you find RNG so baffling given your credentials. As a layman I expect the occasional comedy outcome in video games.
So your saying the issues raised in the opening post hasn't the wide support that your view has?
This post is about the single instance mission server coupled with the fact that FDEV aren't increasing the number of missions available, and they aren't fixing the broken mission templates (kill counts, risk/reward massacre balance, etc) * at the same time *. This, I believe, is shooting yourself in the foot. With less mission choice the number of complaints about missions will increase or more people will quit / reduce their play time. That's my opinion, that's all.
I think the first thing will be passenger missions, it doesn't seem realistic to fill up your passenger ship without board flipping.
I understand Frontier want to do things step by step but let's be honest about this, these steps usually come very very slowly.
First example that comes to mind is the beige-ification of planets, an understandable change to rework the fundamentals of planetary procgen (probably), but for players (in real terms) all it was was an extended period where the game was "broken".
I'm all for fixing mission boards, but I'd rather it not be a change for the worse for an undetermined period and with no commitment to fix the problems introduced.
It seems like an intermediary solution so player's aren't worse off would be to bump mission counts by around ~25% or more. (back of packet calculation)
Last edited:
And your opinion shows a total lack of understanding of how to do infrastructure changes.
The golden rule is don't change anything else.
They could balance the missions now, but have failed to do so since launch. As you say, the stability is a no brainer and I fully agree, however expecting any kind of missions balancing is 'one step beyond' I think.
Right now, on my 3rd account, I'm 12% from Elite Explorer, having traveled a furthest distance of 1200ly. That's crazy! Also, while doing passenger missions for 3.7m for a one hop sightseeing mission, I'm seeing missions for 1.2m to travel 5k away. The mission system is farcical.
The problem they [defv] face, is that no matter what they do, players have way too many credits to make the lower paying missions of interest. Right now, unless it's stackable and I'm earning 15-20m for my one hop run, I'm not going. Toys out of the pram, stamping of feet
So, trying to balance missions against other activities is just not a runner. I can earn 5-10m in the HazRez in an hour or, 90-120m for passenger missions in the same time. To balance that, they need to reduce the passenger mission payouts, which would have the net effect of killing them entirely.
Skimmer missions have been nerfed to hell, not to mention someone thought adding in the ship landing nauseating spinning to be a good thing for VR players.
Balance is a huge issue in Elite, and I'm afraid, it is beyond redemption at this point. They be better of making it into a sim and just forgetting about balance entirely.
No I don't think you understand what you've written. Infrastructure changes = hardware/networking/internal systems at FDEV. Hence relocate the mission servers away from the instance servers so that mission refresh is independent from serving player game instances. That's the primary motivation at frontier for this change.
I'm saying that they also need to fix the bugs in their mission templates = software change. Not an infrastructure change and is something they are continuous doing. Infact they have said they are making some changes to the mission system as a whole - so perhaps you should write to FDEV and ask them if they understand 'infrastructure changes' ?
Nope, I gotta agree with Murdock - it would be daft to introduce massive changes alongside splitting off and porting part of the game to a new set of servers. Minor changes... maybe, but that's just asking for potential issues. As someone far cleverer than I already posted...