Hogwash i'm not a lab rat here to test a released game!
mission server - the death of ED
- Thread starter Bionic Bytes
- Start date
1) You play it!
2) Beta tests are specifically about NOT YET RELEASED parts of the game. (Big letters to help emphasis the import bit)
you are too late to disagree. FDev have said they making changes to the missions...
All I'm asking is they fix bugs in the mission system and make the templates work as intended. If they balance the payments for risk/reward then even better as the current set of massacre/pirate missions can't be as intended either.
ED has died with the engineers. I couldn't care less for the missions. I just want to reanimate the carcass and see what the new exploration can do without having to deal with the botched rest of the game.
That you are a lab rat.
I didn't suggest it was a sudden decision...
And again, FD have been pretty much fine with it for four years, and again I could quite easily imagine them just putting up with the current behaviour and limitations as "gameplay" forever...
But it may well be they are putting this effort into a single server just to fix the issues they list, and for no other gain.
But it may be, it's two birds with one stone, where another future enhancement they wish to add requires a single server.
I'd suggest assuming only the former scenario may not be wise...
Maybe the reason for the change is FD can finally afford the stand alone server, finally all those paint jobs and holo-me outfits have paid off. After all, those half dozen poor people who are the only ones working on FD must be paid gigabucks since they are doing the work of supposedly 100+ people!
Hahaha, you're so funny !
Maybe, but board flipping isn't a mission and was never an intended part of the system.
The irony of this sentence is almost palpable.
Stop waiting around and go to a different station.
I've done this as well, without refreshing any mission boards, when rewards were vastly less than they are currently, and I didn't find the rate of progression to be problematic.
Even if the only effect was preventing manual regeneration of the mission board (and it won't be), I'd still consider it a benefit.
Most of the progression in ED has nothing to do with assets or ranks, which is fortunate, because both of those aspects have been devalued so many times that they have essentially zero meaning.
Hard to have a trading game without a functional economy.
Alpha-level feature still missing four years after release.
Utter nonsense.
It's a persistent, shared, game world. ED is not a single player game and it has no offline mode (outside the tutorials) where you can complete avoid influencing others.
Even if direct PvP was impossible, balance would still be of critical importance.
Balance doesn't need to, and should not, be based around player 'needs', IMO. It should be used to best illustrate the setting Frontier wants to depict.
Elite: Dangerous may be a released game, but it's not even close to being done and like it or not you are a lab rat. If this isn't acceptable, ask for a refund, but don't expect them to freeze a game in an unfinished, often unworkable, state for your benefit.
Last edited:
No I'm not. The devil is in the detail. Let me repeat (with underlining for clarity) ... 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.
10% payout increase... minor change; they mentioned 'some' changes, but denied a large increase in numbers of missions or a major overhaul (at this time) ; you are asking for a suite of major changes alongside a major infrastructure changeover. Now how do I know that 'fixing the bugs and making the templates work as intended' is more than a simple minor change... if it were, they would have done it already.
First step is always to determine the cause of an issue; basic troubleshooting really.
Far easier to asses the impact of a change when that change can be looked at in near isolation. If you change everything at once, you may or may not improve something, but if you do, you won't know where the improvement came from, and if you don't you won't know whether some of your changes were negating each other, or if some other area entirely needs adjustment.
Far easier to asses the impact of a change when that change can be looked at in near isolation. If you change everything at once, you may or may not improve something, but if you do, you won't know where the improvement came from, and if you don't you won't know whether some of your changes were negating each other, or if some other area entirely needs adjustment.
How? You make some missions pay out less, it will jut make the players board flip more. Balancing is impossible, when you can roll the missions repeatedly.
True! How-ever, board flipping is a result of the mission system?
Why do players board flip? Why do I board flip?
because I hope to see more missions that I am interested in at the payout I'm interested in.
If you look at the current system, it is devoid of any kind of balance. The board can show missions A to B paying 900k and another missions A to B paying 4m. Which one is likely to be taken? The 2nd obviously. Mission 1 is taking up space. No-one in their right mind is going to take it. So what do we do? We roll the boards again, in the hope of seeing more mission 2 types. That's just basic economics.
Board flipping is not the problem. The mission generation system is. What the new server does is remove the result, rather than fixing the cause.
What does the 'death of ED' mean exactly?
That Frontier will withdraw the game from us?
That everyone who licenses the game will stop playing it after the introduction of said changes?
The probabilty of these 2 events coming to pass is, in my judgement, very low.
It seems that the 2.8% is doing 97.8% of the whinging.
That Frontier will withdraw the game from us?
That everyone who licenses the game will stop playing it after the introduction of said changes?
The probabilty of these 2 events coming to pass is, in my judgement, very low.
It seems that the 2.8% is doing 97.8% of the whinging.
And that's the problem, innit?
As I've stated elsewhere (and previously) the issue isn't the "board flipping" it's the flipping board itself.
It needs a serious overhaul. I see 70%+ WINGS missions in SOLO. Clear indicator that there's issues with the mission system itself. It wasn't originally intended to handle the needs of the game in its current state. Adding a "dedicated server" simply does not address that, at all. (nor all the previous bugs associated, such as kill X targets "stacking", etc.)
I always assumed that the reason why wing missions appear on solo is because you were expected to board hop.
As for the rest, the simple truth is that the random mission generator produces 97.2% of rubbish missions that no-one would take, given the option, and 2.8% of missions that are worth while. (I think I mentioned the same in another thread, and I am not thinking of the comedy 2.8% one).
I suppose this change will simply force people into doing more of the former missions. Or something else.
The direct translation in this context is "I want/don't want 'X' right now".