Combat Zones, and Missions that require a certain number of kills

[Cmdr BH Surfer]

Returning beta backer, I'd taken a pretty long break after the Engineers addition to the game.

First off, I'm enjoying the game again - that's great! I've been finding the Engineers aspect to the game has encouraged me to do different things in the game, and have given those things purpose.

I'd been doing some CZ missions lately, and find the structure to be a little odd. Why such a large number of kills to complete a mission? For some of us, that only have an hour or two time per session available, it makes a lot of your mission types a no go. I also find it very odd that the CZ missions require less kills for the ones recommended done with a wing..

A quick suggestion with Combat Zone missions. Why not make the mission completion simply winning the "war" at one of the particular combat zones? You could make the Low intensity sites missions that offer the smaller rewards, then the medium / high intensity sites offer greater rewards (and obviously come with more risk) and perhaps recommended done with a wing. There would still be a benefit of getting as many kills as possible, to obtain bonds for more payout.

 

[sandkid]

I've always figured Combat Zones and similar areas (now and in the future) would not be associated with missions at all, rather the reward for completion (as you sort of suggest) is a phat pile of bonds.

"Thanks for showing up" - because that's what you did - "Here's some bonds for your trouble!"

If you leave before it finishes, you only get the bonds earned from the kills you had. Missions can be tied to kills (I agree, the counts get a bit absurd). But for the zone itself, it behaves as its own mission you 'accept' by playing it.

As for combat missions, I think the quantities need to be more structured around difficulty rather than actual quantity. As an example, use a 'point' system instead of kill count. Each rank is worth one additional point (so Harmless = 1, Mostly Harmless = 2, etc.) then turn the commander loose. Newer commanders will take lower count missions because they might struggle to reach higher levels of points in a small ship, whereas veterans with their engineered vette or the like will target high count missions because we can get that with far less kills hunting higher-difficulty ships.

This also allows for ace pilots - new to the game or just flying small ships for fun - to complete those same high count missions if they know where to find lots of targets of higher ranks. Since NPC spawns are largely based on your own combat rank, it's not a system that can really be abused.

My two credits.

Welcome back by the by!

 

[Cmdr BH Surfer]

Thanks!

I hear ya, it's silly that killing an Eagle provides the same level of progression in the mission as an Anaconda. But that sort of ties into my original point, you get the combat bonds. But for the purpose of the "mission", isn't the point of the CZ's to win the "war".

I disagree about removing them as a mission type. Missions provide many purposes, and the more variety the better. Increasing your rank, rep, influence, etc. Helping out your preferred minor faction with their struggle. Frontier should expand on missions more, not limit them further than they already seem to be.

 

[Arry]

There are a silly amount of required number of kills, with most of the kill missions. Even if you are not allied, with the offering faction. It is like, 'Oh you must have a couple of weeks with nothing better to do; go and find a few hundred targets for us'.

 

[Cmdr BH Surfer]

There are a silly amount of required number of kills, with most of the kill missions. Even if you are not allied, with the offering faction. It is like, 'Oh you must have a couple of weeks with nothing better to do; go and find a few hundred targets for us'.

Except you only get what, 20 hours to complete the mission? So for myself, that's a single sitting session which might be an hour or two in the evening. By the time I get to it the following day, the mission will have expired.

 

[Arry]

Except you only get what, 20 hours to complete the mission? So for myself, that's a single sitting session which might be an hour or two in the evening. By the time I get to it the following day, the mission will have expired.

Me to, a couple of times a month and if I am really lucky, about 3 to 4 hours per session.

I still managed to do power play, in open and get my pack-hounds and make a profit, while doing so.

 

[Cmdr BH Surfer]

Yeah, us filthy casuals need to plan our play time a little in advance and be very efficient about it

Missions need some work, basically it would be nice if a single mission could be completed within an hour or two of actual game time. If not, the mission duration needs to be much longer. I guess if the mission to kill 90 ships spanned a week for the 25mil payout, I could work with that. But I much prefer to do multiple missions over that play time for rank, rep, materials rewards.

 

[Arry]

Yeah, us filthy casuals need to plan our play time a little in advance and be very efficient about it

Missions need some work, basically it would be nice if a single mission could be completed within an hour or two of actual game time. If not, the mission duration needs to be much longer. I guess if the mission to kill 90 ships spanned a week for the 25mil payout, I could work with that. But I much prefer to do multiple missions over that play time for rank, rep, materials rewards.

They could adjust it to 'playing time'. Maybe just on the kill or collect missions.

 

[enonymous]

I think the numbers should be tweaked especially since they buffed the ships in the December update. To make it worse, the conflict zones end too quickly so you're wasting time in supercruise after every 10 or 20 kills. I used to do the 81 ship missions as training. I'd set a timer, drop in and try to have it complete in an hour. Now it would take several hours.

I find the difference between wing missions and single player missions frustrating. The wing missions pay better while requiring fewer ships. There's nothing different about the conflict zone, just poor mission design.

 

[Kissamies]

Those missions sort of worked when the conflict zones just ran on and on, but now with battles that end they are hopelessly outdated. "Win X number of battles" might be a workable replacement, or earning certain number of victory points where battle in low intensity is 1, medium 2 and high 4.

 

[Cmdr BH Surfer]

Those missions sort of worked when the conflict zones just ran on and on, but now with battles that end they are hopelessly outdated. "Win X number of battles" might be a workable replacement, or earning certain number of victory points where battle in low intensity is 1, medium 2 and high 4.

Oh please no! Could you imagine going from killing 90 ships to needing to win 90 battles, LOL. /s. Win a single battle is sufficient. If you want to help a particular faction increase influence in that system, just go pick up another mission.. I mean let's face it, the rewards on these missions don't warrant the time investment.

I think most missions should be kept relatively short and sweet imho.

 

[Kissamies]

Oh please no! Could you imagine going from killing 90 ships to needing to win 90 battles, LOL. /s. Win a single battle is sufficient. If you want to help a particular faction increase influence in that system, just go pick up another mission.. I mean let's face it, the rewards on these missions don't warrant the time investment.

I think most missions should be kept relatively short and sweet imho.

Well, obviously I wasn't thinking it should be 90 battles, but something like 5 or 6 at the most extreme, or 12 "victory points". Of course knowing FDev it is not an idle fear, I grant you that.