Change mission timers

[Misty_Dark]

I suggests that mission timers only counts ingame time.



The logic behind this is that people who have limited playtime can take take missions and continue where they left off, without having to fear that they will not make it.
So if a specific long range mission with a timeframe of one week, would take an estimated 12 hours play time to complete. I can easily do that in two sessions.... but people who only have a few hours each week to escape into Elite, have almost no chance to complete that mission, as that would take them 3-4 weeks to complete.


So without punish those player, chaning mission timers to be counted as ingame time, would make sense. And I do not expect this to complicated to add.

Today I guess the mission timer is set to ingame time when you pick the mission and then game checks how long have passed since you accepted the mission, if the current date is bigger than the starting date + mission time, then mission failed (unless it was completed).

You only need to add a counter that increases every minute (second, etc) and that counter is unique for each player, as this represents their ingame time. (you already sort of track this already), and now when you accept a mission, we store your current counter as "starting date", now we can keep the same logic, add mission time to "starting date" if that is less than they current counter, mission failed due to mission time expired.

 

[Jmanis]

And I do not expect this to complicated to add.

On the contrary, it's much more complicated than you'd think. Just to cherry pick some of the pertinent points

- Missions are state-specific. Famine missions have you deliver food during a famine, medicines in outbreak. Finishing these days, weeks, or even months in the fact, doesn't make particular sense in most cases, and outright breaks missions in some (e.g wartime massacre missions, which rely on the existence of conflict zones)
- Such a mechanic would allow you to influence/state bomb a faction, using a stacked set of specific missions collected over time. There was a point raised in the linked thread which suggested "Don't allow any influence or state changes occur from a mission after a certain wallclock time has passed, but allow completion of the mission just for credits". It'd work, but seems kludgy to me.
- It'd just outright break missions where the target appears during a certain timeframe (assasination, hijack missions)

So if a specific long range mission with a timeframe of one week, would take an estimated 12 hours play time to complete. I can easily do that in two sessions.... but people who only have a few hours each week to escape into Elite, have almost no chance to complete that mission, as that would take them 3-4 weeks to complete.

My understanding is long-range (1-20k LY) missions already have a 4 week timer. Is this not enough?

 

[SpaceScania]

I suggests that mission timers only counts ingame time.



The logic behind this is that people who have limited playtime can take take missions and continue where they left off, without having to fear that they will not make it.
So if a specific long range mission with a timeframe of one week, would take an estimated 12 hours play time to complete. I can easily do that in two sessions.... but people who only have a few hours each week to escape into Elite, have almost no chance to complete that mission, as that would take them 3-4 weeks to complete.


So without punish those player, chaning mission timers to be counted as ingame time, would make sense. And I do not expect this to complicated to add.

Today I guess the mission timer is set to ingame time when you pick the mission and then game checks how long have passed since you accepted the mission, if the current date is bigger than the starting date + mission time, then mission failed (unless it was completed).

You only need to add a counter that increases every minute (second, etc) and that counter is unique for each player, as this represents their ingame time. (you already sort of track this already), and now when you accept a mission, we store your current counter as "starting date", now we can keep the same logic, add mission time to "starting date" if that is less than they current counter, mission failed due to mission time expired.

This was recently discussed in this thread:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/393338-The-one-change-that-could-make-Elite-friendlier-to-busy-people-eliminate-mission-timers

I actually like another approach better (though this one would also be fine). Eliminate mission timers altogether from most missions, but add a few missions with really stringent timers that add excitement to the mission.

Another approach that was discussed which has merit is make timers bonus only. You get a bonus if you complete the timer but no penalty if you are unable to.

But yeah, timers are one aspect of the game that are a big net minus in my books.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

BGS I don't think is that big a deal. You can only stack 20 missions for your bomb, which you can probably obtain anyway pretty quickly, and it prevents you doing other missions in the meantime. Similarly, the existing missions often stretch well across a tick - or several ticks - to the point that their original state can be days gone by the time you hand in. You can stack 10 long-range passenger missions and hand them in 4 weeks later...

The thing I think it's critical for isn't in-game yet ... but Frontier have announced it. Wing missions have to be real-time. Similarly, if they ever do them - and they were in the original pitch - Wing vs Wing missions definitely have to be real-time. That being the case, the rest of the missions should also be real-time to avoid inconsistency and confusion over how the timers work.

But ... if they're going to have timers they should be effective ones. Have the timers on basic courier and delivery missions be a couple of hours, maybe shorter. Have the timers on massacre missions be a few hours or shorter - the higher-ranked missions don't have more targets, they have less time to kill the same number of targets - etc. As it is practically the only time the timer can get you on a short range mission is if you log off for the night.

 

[Misty_Dark]

On the contrary, it's much more complicated than you'd think. Just to cherry pick some of the pertinent points

- Missions are state-specific. Famine missions have you deliver food during a famine, medicines in outbreak. Finishing these days, weeks, or even months in the fact, doesn't make particular sense in most cases, and outright breaks missions in some (e.g wartime massacre missions, which rely on the existence of conflict zones)
- Such a mechanic would allow you to influence/state bomb a faction, using a stacked set of specific missions collected over time. There was a point raised in the linked thread which suggested "Don't allow any influence or state changes occur from a mission after a certain wallclock time has passed, but allow completion of the mission just for credits". It'd work, but seems kludgy to me.
- It'd just outright break missions where the target appears during a certain timeframe (assasination, hijack missions)



My understanding is long-range (1-20k LY) missions already have a 4 week timer. Is this not enough?

https://i.imgur.com/AeVBQkI.png

So what is so problematic to change mission timers to ingame tmie only? they are already tracking your ingame playtime already. I did not see any good sources at the link you posted as what was so problematic with changing it. You did nothing to show why my proposed change to how to count ingame time would not work.



The state specific mission argument is also pretty bad, as you can still today stack missions to battle famine, hours BEFORE famine ends. So what you are warning about, is already present in game today. And you crying wolf over people hoarding such missions to complete later to "influence" BGS or whatever, how would that work? to collect those missions you have to collect them during such conditions they are given. they still have the timer, and if you are so set on not playing for a while, to keep those missions alive, then go ahead. But everytime you play, the missions counts, so what is the real problem here actually? What effect can this have on BGS in the end?

The same goes for the conflict related missions. The game already today gives out these kind of missions, when a 24 hour CEASE FIRE is in play. No ship to kill, You can also get a bunch of these missions just hours before the war truly ends, so you could already today be stuck with 3 missions to kill over 50 ships each, after war has ended. So I do not see this to be changed by my suggestion.


So I fail to see what any of those initial arguments brings to the table, that isn't already present in the game as it is today.



You might be correct on the long range mission always being 4 weeks, but that still can lock people out of these due to lack of time to play the game. So my point still stands on these still.

 

[Misty_Dark]

This was recently discussed in this thread:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...dlier-to-busy-people-eliminate-mission-timers

I actually like another approach better (though this one would also be fine). Eliminate mission timers altogether from most missions, but add a few missions with really stringent timers that add excitement to the mission.

Another approach that was discussed which has merit is make timers bonus only. You get a bonus if you complete the timer but no penalty if you are unable to.

But yeah, timers are one aspect of the game that are a big net minus in my books.

I like the suggestion to make mission timers bonus only.

 

[Seizewell Warrior]

Kind of see where the OP is coming from as when I get in from work tonight will probably only have about 25 - 30 mins to play, with the same tomorrow evening. So even 24 hours might not be enough to start a courier mission and finish it in time. The simple answer is to look for something short and easy, or perhaps jump to a shipyard ready to buy my new Viper.

A compromise might be the ability to notify the mission giver you will be late (further 24 hours grace perhaps), but that immediately halves the payment/rep which continues to decrease sequentially to the point where you turn up 23.5 hours late and just about get enough to cover the fuel.

 

[MickyG1982]

Umm, no while I would like to see some missions have longer timers, I'd also like to see the really short rush jobs come back.

Removing timers makes no sense in ED. As has already been said, most of the missions are state/time specific.

If you don't have the time to complete the missions, don't take the missions. Just take on other missions when you have the time.

Tell you what, I'll take a job delivering some apples to a shop, get bored half way through & decide, you know what time only counts when I'm inside the delivery van, I'll just leave it here. Come back a few days/weeks/months/years later & attempt to deliver the now rotten apples.

The owner of the shop isn't very happy, he was expecting his apples last week/month/year and when he does finally get them really late they have rotted in the back of my van. No pay for you sonny boy & no chance I'll ever use you to deliver my apples again, & I'll tell all my other shop keeper friends not to use you too.

Business lost.

 

[AH_ImADot]

Sorry, but time doesn't stand still when you're not in the game. This is not an offline single player game. If your play style or available time doesn't allow for completing certain missions within the allotted timeframe of the Galaxy, then don't take on that mission.

It's the same for exploration, you know. If I scanned a system that has never been scanned before, but don't play for a few weeks, by the time I get to a base and turn in my data, it's possible that someone else could have scanned that system and got their name on the "first discovered by" tag, and I would lose out on it and the bonus.

 

[Misty_Dark]

Sorry, but time doesn't stand still when you're not in the game. This is not an offline single player game. If your play style or available time doesn't allow for completing certain missions within the allotted timeframe of the Galaxy, then don't take on that mission.

Well that is your point, but this is game, and it supposed to cater many players, do you NOT want more players in the game? Because if the argument about your playstyle or avialble time should stop you from certain stuff, then the entire thing with Multicrew and tele presence should be abolished, if you or any one else cannot get together for some Multicrew action, then you should by the same logic NOT be doing multicrew.
But still, they added telepresence to to make the entire multicrew more available to a WIDER AUDIENCE... Are you in favor of removing telepresence aswell?

Should I go on with game mechanics that are choosen to ACCOMODATE more players than a select few?

It's the same for exploration, you know. If I scanned a system that has never been scanned before, but don't play for a few weeks, by the time I get to a base and turn in my data, it's possible that someone else could have scanned that system and got their name on the "first discovered by" tag, and I would lose out on it and the bonus.

So? what does that have todo with mission timers? Is there a timer on exploration? You can still go exploration as much as you like, you potentially spend years out there exploring. The only thing keeping you from doing this could be damage to moduyles you cannot repair, or you started doing exploration before you could outfit your ship with AFM and Repair limpet controller, which certainly can prolong your exploration time. But even though, there is still no time limit on exploration.
So I fail to see how this is relevant in this suggestion.

 

[[Diplomacy] Carnegie]

How would this work with the wing missions proposed for Beyond?

 

[AH_ImADot]

Why should time stop in the game just because you aren't playing it? How can there be a single cohesive environment if everyone can take however much time as they want to complete certain time-sensitive things? I guess I'll just stop here and let you go forward with your plea for Frontier to re-work the entire game mechanics just for you because you can only spend a few minutes a week playing.

 

[Seizewell Warrior]

Further to my earlier response, in my 30 mins (actually 26 mins) last night I managed 3 courier missions, netting some 15k creds. Okay small bills particularly as there were some juicy 70 - 80k jobs on the board, but I knew those would entail a 10 or 15 minute cruise from the jump point to destination. However in the early game 15k not to be sniffed at and I'm that bit closer to getting my Viper. In fact, I'm parked up on a station with a shipyard so when I come in tonight, I can get straight on and do the purchase.

 

[Misty_Dark]

Why should time stop in the game just because you aren't playing it? How can there be a single cohesive environment if everyone can take however much time as they want to complete certain time-sensitive things? I guess I'll just stop here and let you go forward with your plea for Frontier to re-work the entire game mechanics just for you because you can only spend a few minutes a week playing.

The art of reading....
You have totally failed to understand what I was suggesting... And I do not have problems spending many hours in Elite, but I have friends, and I have seen other CMDRs that cannot spend the same amount of time, and this is causing them to avoid stuff.

So for whom should. the game be designed, a few ELITIST players or the bigger generic player base?
You decide what type of game design that will attract the most players.


[edit]
And do explain why ships are removed from the game when you logout? why does it not remain? Same mechanics that are abused for the combat loggers....

 

[Misty_Dark]

How would this work with the wing missions proposed for Beyond?

Well Wing missions are always going to be a bit of different beast to begin with.

Just look at how multicrew is implemented.
The rational way to do this would be to meet up at a station/base, enter the same ship, and go and have fun. and to disband, you have to go back the station.
To begin with, all this makes sense, and then we add that people have to leave, before docking again to disband, what will happen with those upon their next login? So for ease of access to the function, they invented the horrible Telepresence system, to allow any CMDR wherever he/she is to join you ship. And once Multicrew session is over, CMDRs are returner to their own ship.

So how they will do with wing missions I have no clue, as they could implement it so that you have to be present the entire time from taking to turning in the mission. They could implement so that you be in a wing and share you wing compatible mission with your wing. They could maybe do it so that you have to be in a wing to take a wing mission and then all members get the same mission. Will wing missions even have mission timers? Must all members of a wing be present to turn the mission in? What happens if we try to swap out a member in the wing? Will FDEV even allow us to to take a break in wing missions? IE all logout and and then come back an hour later to finish it?

 

[Misty_Dark]

Umm, no while I would like to see some missions have longer timers, I'd also like to see the really short rush jobs come back.

Removing timers makes no sense in ED. As has already been said, most of the missions are state/time specific.

If you don't have the time to complete the missions, don't take the missions. Just take on other missions when you have the time.

Tell you what, I'll take a job delivering some apples to a shop, get bored half way through & decide, you know what time only counts when I'm inside the delivery van, I'll just leave it here. Come back a few days/weeks/months/years later & attempt to deliver the now rotten apples.

The owner of the shop isn't very happy, he was expecting his apples last week/month/year and when he does finally get them really late they have rotted in the back of my van. No pay for you sonny boy & no chance I'll ever use you to deliver my apples again, & I'll tell all my other shop keeper friends not to use you too.

Business lost.

I'm not saying to remove the timers, I just say that we should only count ingame time. So that does not break the rush missions, that could have a very short time.


And this is a game, NOT work, and there are plenty of examples of ingame mechanics that does NOT translate well to how real world functions. Telepresence from anywhere to wherever? how do you justify that game mechanic? OR the stuff combat loggers abuse, that their ship is removed from the game just because they pulled the plug?

And there is plenty of example of the game giving out missions that when you complete them, then the conditions for what they was given for is no longer true.
Conflict missions that are given out shortly before the conflict is ended!
Famine related missions giving out shortly before the famine ended
and so on.

There are plenty of examples where real life logic makes no sense when compared to ingame mechanics. and that is totally fine, because this is NOT a REALITY SPACE SIM. it is a game. Even the physics when we fly our ships is bonkers, but made that way because it provided better gameplay!