Maybe we should start a thread about which mission types should be available where under which circumstances.
Mining missions for example should only be available in extraction / refinery economies.
mission server - the death of ED
- Thread starter Bionic Bytes
- Start date
Maybe we should start a thread about which mission types should be available where under which circumstances.
Mining missions for example should only be available in extraction / refinery economies.
What if it’s an hourly figure? A minute-y figure? A...gasp!...second-y figure?!?!
Or maybe it’s a cumulative total gathered over an unknown time frame? Yes, that seems rather more likely.
It was said that it's a daily figure. So yeah, we're back to the 2.8% and why people are questioning that figure: Let's assume Commander Joe doesn't flip the board much, only when he is desperate. So let's say he flips the board one day out of four. Let's assume 11.2% of all regular players do the same, flipping one day out of four days played. Then if you measure the boardflip % on any given day you'll get: 11.2% * 1/4 = 2.8%
In this case even though 11.2% of all active players bordflip, the daily average is only 2.8%. Welcome to the beautiful world of statistics.
The numbers are made up of course, I'm just trying to point out that without more context the 2.8% figure is worthless or possibly even misleading, or maybe even correct, who knows. There is just no way to tell without more information about the timeframe in which this was measured.
#MeToo.com ...
And if they haven't got bob hairdo's they don't stand a chance!
My two look like this, though one blonde needs bleach ...
[video=youtube;EM0kHE2XQx4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM0kHE2XQx4[/video]
Didn't board flip to get them either. Am I the 69%? (Arf)
Aye you'd think wouldn't you.
But no, it's daily active users.
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ssion-server?p=7005234&viewfull=1#post7005234
Your actual problem is that you believe rewards should be balanced linearly and FDev uses a logarithmic progression. It is consistent and logical, you just disagree.
I think this leads to my ultimate long term point in that if the intended game play mechanics don't provide... you simply 'game the play' instead, and make 1000 times more.... but then I argue against myself and say, well, why shouldn't I just play the game and ignore these cash wells? and I sit in silence with no retort to my minds argument
Thing is, if people only board flip every 35,7th time they use the mission board it's still not a big deal.
This is my experience when doing missions like this also. Now we're going to have to fly to 9 different stations to do the same thing. Woopty Woo more supercruising and pressing j over and over.
I think this leads to my ultimate long term point in that if the intended game play mechanics don't provide... you simply 'game the play' instead, and make 1000 times more.... but then I argue against myself and say, well, why shouldn't I just play the game and ignore these cash wells? and I sit in silence with no retort to my minds argument
I just fly carefully and don't go waggling my Anaconda around thither and fro.
Interesting point, I suppose.
It might be that the mission generator isn't overloading at all, and that the problem is a bug which is more likely to manifest as a result of a high turnover of missions.
Even if that is the case, though, the causal factors are the same and the proposed changes are just as useful.
Generating a larger quantity of missions, in a busy system, would make the bug more likely to appear, aggressively "flushing" the mission cache, by accepting and abandoning missions, would increase the likelihood further and applying the proposed changes would make it less likely to happen and limit the problems it causes.
Having said that, though, from a layman's POV it sure as hell looks like the mission-generator is simply overloading, with the mission-board taking longer an longer to refresh and, ultimately, players starting to see transaction server errors and get disconnects in proportion to the amount of player activity in a system.
If there was a bug in the mission-generation system I'd assume there'd be a chance of encountering these problems even if you were the only player in a system, if you did enough missions.
This doesn't seem to be the case.
The problem only seems to manifest when there's an unusually large amount of player activity in a system.
Who knows, though?
Maybe that's something somebody from FDev could clarify?
I think that's true if you just look at the stats and don't try to understand why and when people board flip.
ie If people only board flip 1/35 mission board visits, why did they suddenly start board flipping on that occasion?
It's the value of whatever they were doing that caused them to board flip that's important, and that's ignored by that stat.
Board flipping is just a tool that is used now and again by a player to increase mission choice, generally used when the player has a very specific goal in mind.
Last edited:
rootsrat
Volunteer Moderator
You suck at mind reading lol
Firstly, I don't have "a problem".
Secondly, I believe rewards should be balance in accordance with many different criteria, from difficulty of the task, the player's equipment (ship + modules) to logical BGS criteria (system location, state, economy, allegiance, govt type etc.). That's not linear at all.
Nah, I was just pointing out how bascially all discussions about the 2.8% are nonsense. No matter how we twist it, it's a fact that it isn't happening often.
2.8% could mean that 100% flip the board every 35th time. In that case it's no big deal.
2.8% could also mean that 2.8% flip the board all the time. In that case it's still no big deal.
2.8% could also mean that 50% flip the board every
The people who are board flipping are either not doing it very often or they are very few or both.
That said, I fully agree that nothing of this tackles the underlying issue, which is that mission generation sometimes feels completely wrong. I don't think all missions should be available everywhere all the time, but certain economies, faction types and system states should virtually guarantee certain mission types to spawn while still maintaining some diversity. So if I want to do a certain mission I just need to know how the mission generation works and look for a specific system in a specific state which is pretty easy using galmap.
I'd also like to point out that the 2.8% don't tell us anything about how happy people are with the mission board. It seems like Frontier believes everything is OK since just a few people use board flipping, but they don't know how many people don't bother with missions at all because of a lack of interesting missions.
Last edited:
You could just take whatever the game flings at you instead of holding out for todays must have mission. When you get to the destination of whatever you do grab who knows that elusive special mission might be there, it takes less time than waiting for a refresh to do some missions anyway.
"2.8% percent of daily online players". This means 1 in 35 players use board flipping. So 34 out of 35 players won't even notice board flipping was removed. The 2.8% refers to number of players, not number of board visits.
That one player probably will flip every visit until his hold is full, or his passenger cabins are full.
I still agree with this. Elite is a GAME, so for the sake of entertainment and a feeling of self-worth, that missions should read the circumstance and assets of the player, and optimize a task for them.
I get this whole contrivance of mission givers supposedly trying to behave in some take it or leave it mindset, but, I'm sure the game can cope with dynamically scaling. With the removal of the BB 'refresh tool', scaling missions would be the most obvious solution. BUT limit to one type of each mission.
No it doesn't, it means *on a day* 1/35 users used board flipping.
If 5% of the UK population did a poo today, it does not mean 5% of people would be affected if we banned toilets.
Nor can this 5% stat be used to say it's a minority activity, because clearly 100% of people do it.
- 5% of Daily Active Players defecated
- 99.5% of Monthly Active Players defecated
- 100% of Yearly Active Players defecated
(Will clarified as "daily active players")
Last edited:
Not keen on the idea of mission payments changing depending on a player's ship.
In real life you'd be paid the same for, say, moving somebody's furniture if you decided to do it in a FIAT 500 or an articulated lorry.
The job pays what it pays.
It's up to you to decide what equipment you use.
In ED that'd mean you get paid the same for shifting 500t of stuff regardless of whether you do it in an E-rated Sidey or an A-rated T10.
Equally, you should get paid the same for doing an assassination mission in a Viper or a Corvette.
What's more, there's already an intrinsic balance in place in the form of the relative cost of the ships a player uses to complete a mission.
A player who's spent Cr1bn on a T10 or Corvette has already spent a lot of time, effort and credits on putting themselves in a position where they can complete a mission which a player in a stock Sidey or Viper hasn't.
You can choose to spend a heap of credits in order to complete a mission easily or you can choose to "git gud" and do it in a cheap ship.
That IS balance, right there.
No further "balance" is required.
In real life you'd be paid the same for, say, moving somebody's furniture if you decided to do it in a FIAT 500 or an articulated lorry.
The job pays what it pays.
It's up to you to decide what equipment you use.
In ED that'd mean you get paid the same for shifting 500t of stuff regardless of whether you do it in an E-rated Sidey or an A-rated T10.
Equally, you should get paid the same for doing an assassination mission in a Viper or a Corvette.
What's more, there's already an intrinsic balance in place in the form of the relative cost of the ships a player uses to complete a mission.
A player who's spent Cr1bn on a T10 or Corvette has already spent a lot of time, effort and credits on putting themselves in a position where they can complete a mission which a player in a stock Sidey or Viper hasn't.
You can choose to spend a heap of credits in order to complete a mission easily or you can choose to "git gud" and do it in a cheap ship.
That IS balance, right there.
No further "balance" is required.
I am happy, finally everyone agrees that the removal of board flipping will hardly affect anyone. Either it's so few people that nobody needs to care or it happens so rarely that nobody will really notice.