An idea in regards to the mode-switching, cash cow silliness

I made this suggestion ages ago during the Sothis hub-bub and I still think it's a valid solution. I'm only starting this thread because when you've been around long enough you start to see the same discussions repeat themselves over and over again, I believe I may have a solution that could be viable without retooling the whole game or going crazy with punishing people for no really good reason.

FDev has said multiple times that mode flipping is not an exploit (though a questionable practice...). Whether or not you believe that to be true or not doesn't actually matter. It exists and it's not going away.

I believe there really is a simple solution to the whole thing.

Here are two options that shouldn't "Kill Ma Immersion!"

1. Make it so the mission boards auto-refresh after a per-determined (yet reasonable) amount of time. Let's say.. 5 minutes just for arguments sake. This was done wayyyy back in the middle ages in a game called Earth and Beyond. It "worked" to a degree. You grabbed X number of missions then after 5 minutes or so the boards would refresh. Though it was a bit different as the boards were inside stations and you left your ship to access them. Other players would also be able to access them at the same time so there was a bit of supply and demand to a degree.

2. Add a "Refresh" button. Again, nothing new. SWG had it and I'm sure there are other games that had it to. Pull up the boards, if the missions didn't go the direction you wanted, hit refresh. Not the payout you want? Hit refresh. Rinse and repeat.

I think what would make this a bit more viable is to reduce the total amount of missions you can take at a time in order to slow down the total credits per hour yet still allow the player some choice in destination or type of mission.

Is it a perfect solution? Of course not. Is it an option that could be tweaked or expanded on, I think so.
Do something about the mode flipping (remove it, as opposed to making it something that players would be punished for doing), choose one of the 2 options above (or propose something better), and tweak the amount of missions that players can take at one time to adjust the credit flow to an acceptable level.

There will ALWAYS be those who find a way to "game the system", but maybe this could be a way to reduce the demand for such a system.

Slightly off-topic but I would also suggest that scaling the mission payouts based on either rank/standing/erroneous level based number would be helpful with such a solution. This way 10 missions early in a pilots career would be enough to help them start building their resources while still allowing "veteran" players to make enough credits to easily afford upkeep costs on their fleet. A new player doesn't need as much income to maintain their Viper 3 as someone who is trying to maintain a Corvette, Clipper and 12 other ships.

I know it's more popular to sling mud and cast aspersions on internet forums but I'm just not in the mood. I figured throwing out a possible solution was a better way to contribute.

Thanks and fly safe!
 
The problem, is that you are offering a constructive feedback, based on the notion that commanders should actually have some choice around missions, the numbers of, and how much that might provide.

This isn't the actual concern; it's that whatever that happens to be (amount of choice, credits, or the number of) isn't acceptable to a portion of the player base. You can slice a potato really any way you like; but some folks? They don't like potatoes. You can't solve that by providing a better selection of potatoes, or the ability to have new ones appear faster.

The closest we had to a system where mode switching was virtually redundant, happened to be the increase in mission counts. For reasons I cannot fathom, Frontier seems to have either intentionally, or absentmindedly sabotaged the outcome, leading to a roll-back. Finally we had an improvement, and it's rolled back because of an own goal.

Boards are flipped, because the missions system starves people of choice and availability. When you respond to the starvation issue, it pretty much takes care of itself; I basically never had to flip during the increased mission count stage, because missions were plentiful enough to keep me well busy; minimal time in a station, maximal time doing and enjoying. Which really is as it should be.

Honestly I think it's a lost cause now. Missions are like PowerPlay at this point. Frontier probably just won't go near it again. Which is a shame, because this will pretty much enshrine mode flipping because it's about the only way to actually get the boards to provide missions at all.
 
Last edited:
The closest we had to a system where mode switching was virtually redundant, happened to be the increase in mission counts. For reasons I cannot fathom, Frontier seems to have either intentionally, or absentmindedly sabotaged the outcome, leading to a roll-back. Finally we had an improvement, and it's rolled back because of an own goal.

Rolled back because of performance issues apparently. There was a reason, just one you didn't either acknowlege or agree with.

As for the suggestion to add a refresh button, let me just say: F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5

You know people will do it. Auto-refresh ok, but show people a refresh button and they will go mental on it. You could lock it with the timer, but then why not just auto-refresh? Although, i suppose auto-refresh could be making calls to the server that are not necessary.

I do think FD could do something to increase mission count for all factions, but they obviously have performance issues stopping them, it might require a serious refactor of the mission system to make it happen. Maybe its something they are looking for with Beyond since they are planning on adding coop missions.
 
Rolled back because of performance issues apparently. There was a reason, just one you didn't either acknowlege or agree with.

As for the suggestion to add a refresh button, let me just say: F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5

You know people will do it. Auto-refresh ok, but show people a refresh button and they will go mental on it. You could lock it with the timer, but then why not just auto-refresh? Although, i suppose auto-refresh could be making calls to the server that are not necessary.

I do think FD could do something to increase mission count for all factions, but they obviously have performance issues stopping them, it might require a serious refactor of the mission system to make it happen. Maybe its something they are looking for with Beyond since they are planning on adding coop missions.


Really? I would say it was a reason FDev never really explained. It's not the other poster that's at fault here with not understanding. It's FDev making a bad change.
 
Really? I would say it was a reason FDev never really explained. It's not the other poster that's at fault here with not understanding. It's FDev making a bad change.

Hmm, they don't say it directly here, but i'm sure somewhere they said it was due to performance. Maybe it was in a bug report or something.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/381655-2-4-The-Return-Update-2-4-02-Downtime-scheduled

After reviewing overall player experiences since 2.4, we've adjusted the number of missions the servers attempt to send for each board or passenger lounge

Regardless, it does read like it was performance related reading that. I think everyone was happy with getting more missions, so that can't be the experience they were talking about.
 
As for the suggestion to add a refresh button, let me just say: F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5 F5

You know people will do it. Auto-refresh ok, but show people a refresh button and they will go mental on it. You could lock it with the timer, but then why not just auto-refresh? Although, i suppose auto-refresh could be making calls to the server that are not necessary.

That's why the refresh button (with a timer to throttle it) is probably the best way to address relogging. I'm fairly certain relogging (as opposed to refreshing) isn't kind on the servers either, because a whole bunch of data the user doesn't care about, but which the game client needs and which does put load on the servers, will have to be re-fetched when they relog. A refresh button with a throttle makes sure that only mission data needs to be sent to the client, and only when the player wants it. I've been known to leave the game with my ship docked and some random station services page open while I had my dinner, and refreshing on a timer would be a complete waste of server resources. I doubt I'm the only one who does this sort of thing either, since it seems completely harmless.

Of course, the refresh throttle timer can't be too long either, otherwise people will ignore the refresh button and relog anyway. I'd set it to something like 30s or a minute, long enough that the server isn't affected but short enough that it's more inconvenient to relog than it is to refresh. Rule #1 of sneaky design is to make things you want your users to do as easy and smooth as possible, while making things you want to discourage a right pain in the rear.
 
Last edited:
I'm all for a refresh button. Stick it behind a 60 second timer or similar, how ever long it takes to relog perhaps?

I hate mode switching but I feel you have to do it as FD have to balance payouts around it.
 
I made this suggestion ages ago during the Sothis hub-bub and I still think it's a valid solution. I'm only starting this thread because when you've been around long enough you start to see the same discussions repeat themselves over and over again, I believe I may have a solution that could be viable without retooling the whole game or going crazy with punishing people for no really good reason.

FDev has said multiple times that mode flipping is not an exploit (though a questionable practice...). Whether or not you believe that to be true or not doesn't actually matter. It exists and it's not going away.

I believe there really is a simple solution to the whole thing.

Here are two options that shouldn't "Kill Ma Immersion!"

1. Make it so the mission boards auto-refresh after a per-determined (yet reasonable) amount of time. Let's say.. 5 minutes just for arguments sake. This was done wayyyy back in the middle ages in a game called Earth and Beyond. It "worked" to a degree. You grabbed X number of missions then after 5 minutes or so the boards would refresh. Though it was a bit different as the boards were inside stations and you left your ship to access them. Other players would also be able to access them at the same time so there was a bit of supply and demand to a degree.

2. Add a "Refresh" button. Again, nothing new. SWG had it and I'm sure there are other games that had it to. Pull up the boards, if the missions didn't go the direction you wanted, hit refresh. Not the payout you want? Hit refresh. Rinse and repeat.

I think what would make this a bit more viable is to reduce the total amount of missions you can take at a time in order to slow down the total credits per hour yet still allow the player some choice in destination or type of mission.

Is it a perfect solution? Of course not. Is it an option that could be tweaked or expanded on, I think so.
Do something about the mode flipping (remove it, as opposed to making it something that players would be punished for doing), choose one of the 2 options above (or propose something better), and tweak the amount of missions that players can take at one time to adjust the credit flow to an acceptable level.

There will ALWAYS be those who find a way to "game the system", but maybe this could be a way to reduce the demand for such a system.

Slightly off-topic but I would also suggest that scaling the mission payouts based on either rank/standing/erroneous level based number would be helpful with such a solution. This way 10 missions early in a pilots career would be enough to help them start building their resources while still allowing "veteran" players to make enough credits to easily afford upkeep costs on their fleet. A new player doesn't need as much income to maintain their Viper 3 as someone who is trying to maintain a Corvette, Clipper and 12 other ships.

I know it's more popular to sling mud and cast aspersions on internet forums but I'm just not in the mood. I figured throwing out a possible solution was a better way to contribute.

Thanks and fly safe!

The thing i feel ruins the immersion is when im docked in my fighter designed ship fully kitted for combat and no cargo. I click into missions and on the first instance theres a full list of all the npcs offering trading missions.

If there was a way they we could set a profession (perhaps in our functions panel) that would then only generate a certain type of mission it might help us all get the missions we're looking for without having to board hop.

I mean its not economically viable not to have a full 20 of the mission type youre trying to complete if youre wanting to build up that 800 million required for the fully fitted federal corvette you have your eye on so players are always going to have to board hop just to prevent that grind from taking best part of 12 months.

Alternatively they could do away with 20 mission model they currently have and make it so doing 1 mission will reap you the same reward. Perhaps have missions when youre allied drop you 100 million for killing 240 ships as thats pretty much what im doing with my 6mill kill 12 ship missions.
 
The thing i feel ruins the immersion is when im docked in my fighter designed ship fully kitted for combat and no cargo. I click into missions and on the first instance theres a full list of all the npcs offering trading missions.

If there was a way they we could set a profession (perhaps in our functions panel) that would then only generate a certain type of mission it might help us all get the missions we're looking for without having to board hop.

I mean its not economically viable not to have a full 20 of the mission type youre trying to complete if youre wanting to build up that 800 million required for the fully fitted federal corvette you have your eye on so players are always going to have to board hop just to prevent that grind from taking best part of 12 months.

Alternatively they could do away with 20 mission model they currently have and make it so doing 1 mission will reap you the same reward. Perhaps have missions when youre allied drop you 100 million for killing 240 ships as thats pretty much what im doing with my 6mill kill 12 ship missions.

One of the ways they dealt with this in the 2 examples I mentioned was there were essentially tabs. You could select either Combat/Exploration/Delivery missions in Earth and Beyond. If I remember right SWG had Combat/Delivery missions originally (I think they added/changed those after they rebooted everything).

As far as the F5 into infinity issue, I guess my take on that is it probably takes less resources to refresh a mission page than it does to logout and re-authenticate between modes. I know it's probably not sending username/password credentials every time but I'm sure it takes a bit less to generate random missions. Of course, I could be totally and completely wrong.

Thanks for replying folks, always nice to have a good conversation.
 
A refresh button on a timer would be a good solution.
  • It would require less load on the servers than a relog
  • It would require less load on the servers than an auto-refresh
  • It would provide players with more missions (about the same as relogging)
Overall, it would be the most efficient way to increase the number of missions on the mission boards. It shouldn't require too much work to implement, and would reduce the load on the servers while improving immersion.
 
Any kind of refresh is going to result in spam requests to the server.
The real issue is that mode switching refreshes the board at all.
 
Any kind of refresh is going to result in spam requests to the server.
The real issue is that mode switching refreshes the board at all.

True, but could you imagine the outrage if relogging no longer refreshed the board?

It would be better if there was an actual way to properly refresh the board (i.e. A button) even if it was on a timer to prevent spamming.
 
I think the mode-switching is a bit of a red herring here.

For example, there's a few stations I know which reliably generate stackable missions in large quantities, for 50MCr/hour or more in earnings, no mode-switching required, even in the biggest ships you'll be leaving potential missions on the dock. (And not difficult missions: safe short range A->B trips)

Sure, it's not the 100-300 MCr/hour people estimate from the current flavour of the month depending on which pair of stations you use for it, but it's still pretty high. There surely can't be that many people who think 50MCr/hour is acceptable but 200MCr/hour is not?


And yes, more missions per board to start with would be good - on the other hand, since Frontier cut it back the number of threads about partial/failed mission boards has gone down to zero. I expect we'll get higher numbers when they've had time to optimise the generation a bit more.
 
Why not do away with all the silly board hopping by making missions actually pay out higher based on your rank in that profession and the standing with the faction and sub faction in a station. Would mean players with elite status get the big 100 mill missions they need to sustain their gameplay but only 1 at a time.

As for the lower level grinds have lower level missions give more faction ranking than credits to balance this.
 
Rolled back because of performance issues apparently. There was a reason, just one you didn't either acknowlege or agree with.

Frontier added broken missions with payouts that were so excessive that they fundamentally broke both the client, and introduced excessive load. I fully am aware and acknowledge that. One of Elite's core mechanics is the missions system.

Having a board present dozens and dozens of missions, with wide variety, should have been solved about a year and a half ago. And yet here we are. The performance issues are because Frontier did what they always do; introduce an improvement, and then "while they are at it" add something that is 100% counter productive. Every time.

This isn't an isolated incident. It's SOP at this point. Missions should be large in number, with moderate payouts with some upper limits to encapsulate a minimum, median and maximum. 3 years. Mission system is still just a complete shambles. Because Frontier seem incapable of considering maybe some basic constraints and consistency would be a good thing to do.

Frontier made a mistake with scaling of long range missions, broke the client, and very clearly caused background service impact. And that's somehow my fault for just wanting a mission system that actually has some missions? Please.

Mode flipping exists purely due to the lack of mission variety and number. That's it. Everything can be traced back to the lack of variety and count, matched with some upper and lower boundaries.

The solution is there. Always has been. Variety, number, consistency of value. That's it. Done. Sorted. Move the hell on to all the other things needing improvement.
 
Last edited:
Why not do away with all the silly board hopping by making missions actually pay out higher based on your rank in that profession and the standing with the faction and sub faction in a station. Would mean players with elite status get the big 100 mill missions they need to sustain their gameplay but only 1 at a time.

Rank used to mean higher risk/ reward missions. People complained this was unfair, and so Frontier removed the rank lock, which also then broke the concept of balancing missions against player rank (either from a payout, or risk perspective). Even if player rank is a bit arbitrary, it's the only metric frontier use to allocate complexity to players.

Honestly at this point I am just super disappointed. The missions system should be one of Elite's strongest, well built and functional draw cards; it's an anchor and potential for so many mechanics.
 
Last edited:
Earth and Beyond was an absolutely super game and the mission idea is good although I have no issue with folks that mode switch as it has no effect on what I do or how I play... no effect. Cheers and thanks for the memory toss .. love it !!!
 
whilst I wouldn't mind a refresh key, how would people feel about the ability to "request" missions
traders could specify rough capacity and distance
combats could specify types of combat (assassin, installation, massacre, etc)
missions generated this way pay...ohhhh...15% less than if generated the "normal" way (to show its not an "urgent" mission), but it guarantee's you can always do what you want whilst making having a browse of the mission boards a worthwhile endeavour still
 
Back
Top Bottom