TheMegaTurnip
Banned
Erm... Why no dedicated servers for instancing guys?!
If you can do this, you can do that^.
If you can do this, you can do that^.
News Implementation of a dedicated mission server
Got any kind of rational justification for why you believe that will be the case? Missions are going from a place of limited space/resources to a place of much less limited space/resources. Indeed, the fact that missions shared the same servers as everything else in the game helps explain who Missions have undergone such limited, piecemeal improvement over the last 2 years. Even if all you care about is *volume* of missions, then you should support this move, but even moreso if you want missions to be more varied and "open ended". Of course, if all you care about is stacking missions-to get maximum payout for the least amount of effort-then I can see why you would oppose these changes.
Of course, once they get done putting missions in their own dedicated servers, they might also consider storing certain NPC's Signal Sources & Points of Interest on their own servers too-or possibly even client-side.....so as to allow them to be more persistent than is currently the case. Maybe then we might get 2nd tier NPC's as our allies or nemeses.
lol, ok, all good points, however...
Those mission NPC's represent the competing factions in any given station, and they do have access to massive freight haulage companies, who are already taking the freight. What's left is offered to us based on our reputation with that faction and our mission level. Mostly Harmless blow-ins that nobody has ever seen before get the dregs, highly reliable allied Elite pilots with the fastest engineered ships in the bubble get, or should get first refusal on all the highest paying top priority cream, or why did I bother leveling up and proving my reliability?
You're welcome to haul the dregs if you prefer them, CMDR.
I absolutely do support this change, but only if they also address the root cause of the problem which is mission boards not offering enough missions or not offering the right type of missions (why are most of them massacre or assassination missions if I'm in a cargo or passenger ship, or wing missions when I'm not in a wing?). I have enough credits already and materials are easy enough to get. I only really do missions for the sake of doing missions so it sucks when I go to a station, wanting to just do a bunch of missions because I have nothing else to do, and there aren't enough of them to fill my cargohold/pax cabins or they go to a bazillion different destinations.
I don't care about the credits much (any reward is fine as long as it's not stupidly low) but I still want to feel like I'm being reasonably efficient in terms of the amount of stuff delivered per unit of time (that's kind of important in the logistics business, don't you think?). That means flying a full load of stuff to as few destinations as possible (ideally they'd all go to the same destination). Board flipping enabled me to do this and getting rid of it will ruin courier missions for me unless they tweak their mission generation system.
Last edited:
I do not have your insight into the minds of the developers.
And made no comment about so called min/max.
My concern is reduction in choice.
The 10% credit increase is hopefully not to compensate for that. Worthless. (E.g. just put back the 300 tonne cargo missions that seem to have disappeared since the last patch.).
Perhaps you quoted the wrong post.
WorldsGreatestForumDad
Banned
Pretty frustrated with playergroup stuff. At the same time, I think we need to look at the possibilities this adds. Obviously some stuff will have to be adjusted as well. Lets see what happens. Lots of people spazzing out right now haha.
For the first time ever, seeing these changes the past few weeks. Im feeling pretty good about whatever they are working on.
I think we should let them deliver. And I hope they can deliver sooner than later.
I’m thinking that gives you more room to manover when designing some new missions... So you’ve got the techies to put a few more interaction scenarios along with feedback channels and now a dedicated server to handle the load. Interesting times, getting more and more excited for the the Q4 update guys.
I’ve not had a chance to play the most recent update yet but come winter i’m Looking forward to getting back into the seat.
Fly safe
I’ve not had a chance to play the most recent update yet but come winter i’m Looking forward to getting back into the seat.
Fly safe
By 'playstyle' he was talking about the playstyle of working the BGS.
You don't work the BGS to any significant degree - I know this because a) based on what you've said in the past about your playing time, you just don't put enough hours into the game to do it and b) if you did do it, you'd understand why examples like the one I posted earlier (mission board in a 1 billion population system with the faction in boom giving six missions, three of which are ice mining and one of which is a data courier mission) are a significant problem because if the result of an hour or two's gameplay is to change your faction's influence by 0.5%, it restricts effective BGS play to either large groups, or people who can put six hours and more into the game regularly.
Now as I said, as long as the result of these changes gives us mission boards that are populated with far more missions and a far better variety of mission than we currently see, which it could do based on what's been said, it will actually improve that situation.
However given the outcome of pretty much every previous change which was supposed to have a positive effect on the mission boards, which has led us to the current situation where you get boards like the one I described above, or boards where 75-90% of the missions are massacres, or ice mining, or begging missions, I can understand why there is at best a healthy cynicism from some players and at worst, a fear that if this doesn't go well it will completely cripple most player's ability to effectively play the BGS.
We need to see what happens and how it works out obviously. I think it's reasonable for players to have some concerns though. I know I do.
I don't dispute that board flipping is an exploit in the dictionary definition sense but if you imagine the reason most players do it is just for credits, I think you're mistaken. I don't do it habitually but I certainly have done it. I have assets of over four billion (all tied up in ships) so do you imagine credits are my primary motivator? I'm not short of cash at all - I could add a billion cash onto my balance just by selling my Cutter which I hardly ever fly. When I do it, the usual reason is to get something on the board that I might actually want to do, or that will allow me to progress my gameplay objectives in the hour or two that I might be playing for that day.
Last edited:
So once again, these decisions show that the Devs don't understand the game or play it. Has ANYONE at Fdev ever considered why players board flip? Has Anyone at Fdev ever actually tried to do passenger missions in a large ship? I am certain the answer is no because if they had, even the lowest IQ scrub would have realized that if you have a large ship and you don't want to take criminals and risk getting blown up by the station, you can't fill the ship on a single board. Second, High ranking players don't want to take low ranking missions. You want to stop board flipping? Fine, double the number of missions on the board and scale missions appropriately. Problem solved. A 10% increase in payout is meaningless and doesn't address the issue at all.
Again, the underpinning reason for board flipping would be completely solved if FDEV did 2 things. 1) double the number of missions offered on each board 2) Make the missions you are offered scale to your rank (in trade, exploration or combat). This means elite would only get elite missions and so on all the way down in each category. If this is done, there are enough missions to choose from and the pay is appropriate for the players level.
Again, the underpinning reason for board flipping would be completely solved if FDEV did 2 things. 1) double the number of missions offered on each board 2) Make the missions you are offered scale to your rank (in trade, exploration or combat). This means elite would only get elite missions and so on all the way down in each category. If this is done, there are enough missions to choose from and the pay is appropriate for the players level.
While I largely agree that the list of available missions can be frustrating even if nothing else changes after this update it will at least level the playing field - everyone will see broadly the same opportunities to influence the BGS in their chosen way. Naturally this will be at a lower rate for those that board flip.
I regularly take wing fetch or deliver missions alone, and each time I return to base I check for more missions that can be completed during one of my A-B runs. I tend to focus on influence rather than cash but certainly I feel I get enough out of my time invested without board flipping. I'd expect this change to slightly improve my current effectiveness even if nothing else changes.
Last edited:
So you don't want any disadvantages of having big ship and all advantages? I don't remember how it is called...but I suspect I have used that word before.
It is intentional. You aren't suppose to feel up ship with one board, or take safe route and have only one type of missions which gives you minimum effort and maximum reward.
Apparently they will do that by just fixing technical issue that made it possible. Oops.
free paintjob for you!
this.
You can see how much this will be welcome when 2-3 Whiteknights need to constantly post in this thread to put their ideas on the another players mind =)
Just in this thread, more than 80% of the people are worried because this changes - asking if they will fix the Problem behind the boardfliping of if they will just nerf it. (Like cut the entire arm because a infection on a finger);
Those stupid ways become common after the change of the community manangement, someone clearly are having problems to understand the comunity feedback.
haha, you know those are Fdevs we're talking about, right? Not some proper game developers.
You trust them to do a decent job? Are you nuts?
I have every confidance they will fail to bring anything good to the table with this.
In fact I can tell you what to expect exactly from this update.
1. Mission boards will be the same across all modes - just like they want to.
2. Mission rewards will be bugged - this will be the result of increasing payouts from the missions by 10%
3. You will have to wait 20-30 seconds for mission boards to load, maybe even a whole minute.
4. Quantity and variety of missions avaible will be even less than what we have now.
Mark my words - this will happen.
But will we see an increase in missions?