Missions for ships in the stations concourse

[Rudi Raumkraut]

Ahhh, are your feelings hurt. I gave my opinion, your perfectly allowed to disagree, but there is no need to be rude or unpleasant.

Wasnt rude nor unpleasant,
and you and your opinion doesn't even come close to anything that impacts my feelings, no worries.

Sry if quoting you hurt yours.

As I said, I don't like it, so I don't want it in the game. Simple. You wouldn't want stuff that you don't like in the game either.

Btw, you obviously have no clue what I would want or wouldn't want, although you could if you read the post

So again, I'd be pretty happy with stuff in the game I don't like if I get the option to circumvent that part.

Because, someone might like what I don't.
Simple concept, isn't it?!

 

[Ian Skippy]

shakes head I am not at all for mixing mission rewards for ship and on foot. That would just make it impossible to get what you are looking for, for either. It's all ready problematic for some of the on foot stuff. It took me 3 'days' before i was finally able to get the last 4 data objects I needed for a suit module. The same thing can happen when looking for G5 engineering materials for ship board engineering.

I'll agree that the EDH SRV stuff is more than a little nonsensical and limited now though.

EDO isn't in alpha any longer. Late Beta is arguable though.

That it's too hard to get the right rewards is a separate issue, and evidently not solved by keeping rewards distinct. It should be less random and more deterministic. But that is distinct from creating arbitrary gamey barriers between loot tables.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Quality of life or convenience does make the game better. If the only thing I want to do is grab on foot missions, why do i need to take the time to get out of my ship, run back and forth and then get back on? I don't see how that makes EDO better. Mind explaining that a bit better?

Quality of life is not necessarily convenience.
What makes it better is that your are interacting with a part of the game world. Going places to get missions and hand them in are major part of the game. To me, it makes the game better as it expands the game world, but that's just opinion.

From my perspective, if i don't find a mission of one type, but something looks good from the other, it's a win win.

Hence the reason why I would like combined mission boards in the station.

 

[-VR- Max Factor]

Wasnt rude nor unpleasant,
and you and your opinion doesn't even come close to anything that impacts my feelings, no worries.

Sry if quoting you hurt yours.

Wasn't hurt, just a bit confused with your reaction.

Btw, you obviously have no clue what I would want or wouldn't want, although you could if you read the post

So again, I'd be pretty happy with stuff in the game I don't like if I get the option to circumvent that part.

Because, someone might like what I don't.
Simple concept, isn't it?!

Yes, I did understand that, but I don't agree with it.

It's like me going, I'm not interested in getting credits so where's the anaconda button that gives me an anaconda for free, yeah blaze your own trail.

To me, that's just wrong.

 

[VR SenseiMatty]

I won't disembark if I'm flying a Corvette or a Cutter. The walk to the lifts is insane and a complete waste of time. The blue circle can go anywhere - at least put it under the part of the ship near to the lifts (front, rear, either side.)

More than happy to disembark from a smaller ship and go to the concourse for missions of both kinds.

Large ships should have multiple disembark points cause they really have multiple exits!

 

[Fenwe]

That it's too hard to get the right rewards is a separate issue, and evidently not solved by keeping rewards distinct. It should be less random and more deterministic. But that is distinct from creating arbitrary gamey barriers between loot tables.

Except that you are going to make the issue worse, not better. So I'm not sure what the point is? Let them make it "less random and more deterministic" first, and then they can mix the rewards. Doing it the other way would just be a cluster .... bomb.

It isn't an 'arbitrary' division. On foot gives on foot rewards and vice versa. That is without doubt or question - deterministic.

Be honest here. What it sounds like is that you want to use your ship and totally avoid on foot play.

 

[Fenwe]

Hence the reason why I would like combined mission boards in the station.

My apologies, but my understanding is that you only wanted that from the on foot perspective?

 

[Ian Skippy]

Except that you are going to make the issue worse, not better. So I'm not sure what the point is? Let them make it "less random and more deterministic" first, and then they can mix the rewards. Doing it the other way would just be a cluster .... bomb.

It isn't an 'arbitrary' division. On foot gives on foot rewards and vice versa. That is without doubt or question - deterministic.

Be honest here. What it sounds like is that you want to use your ship and totally avoid on foot play.

That makes no sense: if I did I wouldnt care about foot rewards in the first place. Have to say I don't find the insinuation of some hidden agenda very classy of you.

I find it absurd cat pictures seemingly cannot exist in space, or why you can't find technical data in research stations. You can disagree without the insinuations.

 

[CMDR Brae]

I agreed. But I don't want unified ones in the ships. All that does is remove the need to go into the station, which I don't want.

It doesn't though. Still need to go inside the get weapons, suits, consumables, trade with the barkeep, Vista Genomics, Inter Astra, and grab the negotiable missions from the in-person providers. You also have to go inside for Apex Taxi and Frontline Solutions. Plenty of incentive left.

 

[Fenwe]

That makes no sense: if I did I wouldnt care about foot rewards in the first place. Have to say I don't find the insinuation of some hidden agenda very classy of you.

I find it absurd cat pictures seemingly cannot exist in space, or why you can't find technical data in research stations. You can disagree without the insinuations.

I didn't insinuate anything. I put it out there in the open for you're response.

I never said they 'couldn't' co-exist, boss. I'm just pointing out the current downsides of the suggestion.

 

[CMDR Brae]

Except that you are going to make the issue worse, not better. So I'm not sure what the point is? Let them make it "less random and more deterministic" first, and then they can mix the rewards. Doing it the other way would just be a cluster .... bomb.

It isn't an 'arbitrary' division. On foot gives on foot rewards and vice versa. That is without doubt or question - deterministic.

Be honest here. What it sounds like is that you want to use your ship and totally avoid on foot play.

I think the "issue" with only getting the on-foot and in-ship mats through their respective gameplay loops would be much less of an issue if the grind wasn't as insane as it is. At the moment, because of the Engineering mountains that stand before the player, it feels really bad to know that if I spend 3 days doing ship content but want to then switch it up and do some ground content, I have literally nothing to show for any overall progress I've made and I'm effectively shutting that portion of the game away until I decide to pick up where I left off again.

This just...doesn't feel good. The obvious solution to this would be a complete Engineer re-balance/rework and the reintroduction of credits as something useful. I should be able to make money in a CZ in my ship, and then use some of that money to buy a scope for my rifle to then enhance my on-foot experience, because at the end of the day it's the same COMMANDER doing both activities. This is how the real world works, and it's how the space sim should work.

Edit: Obviously this won't happen, as the Engineers have already been created and are in the game so it's a bit late to nix them (talking mainly of the Odyssey Engineers at this point) but maybe it's worth considering taking some of the engineering upgrades and refactoring them as purchasable attachments. I get stowed reloading or better headshot damage being an engineered upgrade, but I just can't get behind scopes, suppressors, and extended mags being locked behind engineers. It's a bit egregious.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I think the "issue" with only getting the on-foot and in-ship mats through their respective gameplay loops would be much less of an issue if the grind wasn't as insane as it is. At the moment, because of the Engineering mountains that stand before the player, it feels really bad to know that if I spend 3 days doing ship content but want to then switch it up and do some ground content, I have literally nothing to show for any overall progress I've made and I'm effectively shutting that portion of the game away until I decide to pick up where I left off again.

This just...doesn't feel good. The obvious solution to this would be a complete Engineer re-balance/rework and the reintroduction of credits as something useful. I should be able to make money in a CZ in my ship, and then use some of that money to buy a scope for my rifle to then enhance my on-foot experience, because at the end of the day it's the same COMMANDER doing both activities. This is how the real world works, and it's how the space sim should work.

Yup. Instead of being forced to do one thing and hope to get lucky you should have multiple options that are guaranteed to reward you.

 

[CMDR Brae]

Yup. Instead of being forced to do one thing and hope to get lucky you should have multiple options that are guaranteed to reward you.

I agree. And it almost makes more sense in the reverse: you absolutely should be able to find ship materials while on foot. The idea of finding a part to make your ship better while you're rummaging through a warehouse or doing some salvage from a crash site makes so much thematic sense that it almost had to be a deliberate decision to avoid it vs. an oversight.

I'd even be okay with allowing cross-trading of mats, or letting certain mats function as stand-ins for others. Having some power regulators able to be tossed towards engineering a power distributor module makes sense to me

 

[Fenwe]

I think the "issue" with only getting the on-foot and in-ship mats through their respective gameplay loops would be much less of an issue if the grind wasn't as insane as it is. At the moment, because of the Engineering mountains that stand before the player, it feels really bad to know that if I spend 3 days doing ship content but want to then switch it up and do some ground content, I have literally nothing to show for any overall progress I've made and I'm effectively shutting that portion of the game away until I decide to pick up where I left off again.

This just...doesn't feel good. The obvious solution to this would be a complete Engineer re-balance/rework and the reintroduction of credits as something useful. I should be able to make money in a CZ in my ship, and then use some of that money to buy a scope for my rifle to then enhance my on-foot experience, because at the end of the day it's the same COMMANDER doing both activities. This is how the real world works, and it's how the space sim should work.

I'm firmly against the use of credits to buy engineering mats, regardless of whether that be for on foot or ship.

It makes sense to me that engineering rewards have to come from game play. If you want to make all that credit based, then they have to rebalance the entire game to make credits near impossible to make .. again. Which wasn't any fun the first time a round.

Now, the fact that some of the 'game loops' associated with engineering blow chunks isn't something I'm going to argue with. That though isn't an EDO vs EDH thing. It's a common denominator. that deserves it's own thread.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I agree. And it almost makes more sense in the reverse: you absolutely should be able to find ship materials while on foot. The idea of finding a part to make your ship better while you're rummaging through a warehouse or doing some salvage from a crash site makes so much thematic sense that it almost had to be a deliberate decision to avoid it vs. an oversight.

I'd even be okay with allowing cross-trading of mats, or letting certain mats function as stand-ins for others. Having some power regulators able to be tossed towards engineering a power distributor module makes sense to me

Allow them to be added to FC trading. Create a halfway decent player economy.

 

[Fenwe]

I agree. And it almost makes more sense in the reverse: you absolutely should be able to find ship materials while on foot. The idea of finding a part to make your ship better while you're rummaging through a warehouse or doing some salvage from a crash site makes so much thematic sense that it almost had to be a deliberate decision to avoid it vs. an oversight.

I'd even be okay with allowing cross-trading of mats, or letting certain mats function as stand-ins for others. Having some power regulators able to be tossed towards engineering a power distributor module makes sense to me

You're designing a brand new game though boss. I'm not disagreeing with your thought process mind you. Just stating the obvious.

 

[Ian Skippy]

I'm firmly against the use of credits to buy engineering mats, regardless of whether that be for on foot or ship.

It makes sense to me that engineering rewards have to come from game play. If you want to make all that credit based, then they have to rebalance the entire game to make credits near impossible to make .. again. Which wasn't any fun the first time a round.

Now, the fact that some of the 'game loops' associated with engineering blow chunks isn't something I'm going to argue with. That though isn't an EDO vs EDH thing. It's a common denominator. that deserves it's own thread.

In a player economy demand Vs supply fixes that. Smear campaigns would be super expensive, but if someone likes grinding them and someone else wants to spend huge sums for it, who cares? I won't lose sleep over two strangers both having fun their own way while progressing.

 

[Fenwe]

Allow them to be added to FC trading. Create a halfway decent player economy.

Interesting concept. This is workable.

 

[Ian Skippy]

You're designing a brand new game though boss. I'm not disagreeing with your thought process mind you. Just stating the obvious.

He is just changing a few items in a table.

Boss.

 

[Fenwe]

In a player economy demand Vs supply fixes that. Smear campaigns would be super expensive, but if someone likes grinding them and someone else wants to spend huge sums for it, who cares? I won't lose sleep over two strangers both having fun their own way while progressing.

nods you are correct. This would be a perfect way of introducing a player driven economy. Which is one of the things ED has missed from the beginning, from my perspective.