Good news at last, but I wonder if Frontier would have bothered to announce this under 'normal' circumstances.
News Implementation of a dedicated mission server
Thank you Mr. Flanagan for this technical news update.
"we found that only 2.8% of daily online players were using the mission system in this way."
So there are offline players?
Is that 2.8% of players that used the mission system employed board hopping? Used in the sense that they accepted a mission.
1. Access mission system.
2. Accept mission.
3. Log off / on.
4. Access mission system.
5. Accept mission.
"While we understand that this is a practice utilised by some* players, this was never the intended use of the mission system."
could be written for the many featrues that are in ED
"While we understand that this is a feature used by players in this way, this was never the intended use of the feature."
An unforeseen consequence?
Seems a recurrent theme.
Are we in a Half-Life world here?
Unforeseen consequences.
[video=youtube;tZqBrMqZLR4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZqBrMqZLR4[/video]
Gnosis and the C&P comes to mind too as a similar unforeseen consequence.
Still even if 2.8% may be a small enough percentage to ignore this technical modification seems to be reasonable on the grounds of the principle of 'separation of concerns' alone.
Your post is much appreciated.
"we found that only 2.8% of daily online players were using the mission system in this way."
So there are offline players?
Is that 2.8% of players that used the mission system employed board hopping? Used in the sense that they accepted a mission.
1. Access mission system.
2. Accept mission.
3. Log off / on.
4. Access mission system.
5. Accept mission.
"While we understand that this is a practice utilised by some* players, this was never the intended use of the mission system."
could be written for the many featrues that are in ED
"While we understand that this is a feature used by players in this way, this was never the intended use of the feature."
An unforeseen consequence?
Seems a recurrent theme.
Are we in a Half-Life world here?
Unforeseen consequences.
[video=youtube;tZqBrMqZLR4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZqBrMqZLR4[/video]
Gnosis and the C&P comes to mind too as a similar unforeseen consequence.
Still even if 2.8% may be a small enough percentage to ignore this technical modification seems to be reasonable on the grounds of the principle of 'separation of concerns' alone.
Your post is much appreciated.
Judging by activity of discussion I think they know it is pretty big deal for us and it is. I really did not expect this fix come in 3.3, this is really good news. I hope other Q4 invisible improvements are as good as this.
![Bronson [BBfA]](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/148/148938.jpg?1619515370){kind=avatar}
Krait! Never board hopping to maybe find a planetary wingmission! 2,8% do it. Good to know that you focus on 2.8%. If you would listen to the majority of players, that´d be krait!
Why dont you focus on real Problems in this game and start to implement good content (not your boring grindphilosophy) before everybody leaves this game!
Or at least try to fix some serious gameplay mistakes, like the gnosis gank, the CG gank, the useless search for Highgrad Signal sources and many many more. If I was Braben, I would force everybody of you to play Elite for at least 200 Hours, that you get an impression of whats really important!
Why dont you focus on real Problems in this game and start to implement good content (not your boring grindphilosophy) before everybody leaves this game!
Or at least try to fix some serious gameplay mistakes, like the gnosis gank, the CG gank, the useless search for Highgrad Signal sources and many many more. If I was Braben, I would force everybody of you to play Elite for at least 200 Hours, that you get an impression of whats really important!
Last edited:
No from the start mission where meant to be based on rank and rep the higher you get the better class of reward you get, Dont add to the grind with saying "don't increase rewards" fGS missions is what drives the game and having grinded for years YEARS I will not see all that work nerfed away, think about what your saying.
I'm sure dedicated mission server was right at the top of peoples' upcoming must have features list.
A restructuring of missions would be great, different ways of getting missions. Finding tourist missions in a Beluga shouldn't be a chore, a passenger ship doesn't pull into port then decide where it's going by the amount of people who want to go to different places, they have their route arranged beforehand and advertise their destination beforehand, then people buy tickets.
We should be able to nominate a target destination, then see how many people take up spots on the ship.
Missions generated should also reflect the population size of a system, again with passenger missions it shouldn't be hard to fill a beluga in a system with populations in the billions, whereas finding enough people to fill a cruise liner should be difficult in a systme populated by thousands.
How good would it be if we could take on long range research missions, then advertise the journey to see if any tourists would like to come along on the trip?
We should be able to nominate a target destination, then see how many people take up spots on the ship.
Missions generated should also reflect the population size of a system, again with passenger missions it shouldn't be hard to fill a beluga in a system with populations in the billions, whereas finding enough people to fill a cruise liner should be difficult in a systme populated by thousands.
How good would it be if we could take on long range research missions, then advertise the journey to see if any tourists would like to come along on the trip?
Dear White Knights, it is always others are lying and not understanding that forum is broken if it supports beliefs other your own.
Please don't. There will be always another forum, another developer who doesn't serve your whims. And there's literary TONS of forums who support white knighting and even encourages it.
This is just not that kind of forum.
Only because people don't fully comprehend what it could mean for future mission development. It actually does "free up" a lot of space, so will probably allow for greater number & diversity of missions, & maybe more open ended mission mechanics. If anything, they should have done this 2 years ago.
You don't want them to be consistent across modes, you want them to be mode specific, based on capability. For example, no wing missions in Solo.
I suspect you didn't look everywhere.
Will this address the issue whereby you can be inundated with Wing missions whilst in Solo connectivity mode?
Indeed.
This is great news, on the condition that FD also fix the efficacy of the Mission Boards.
To be clear, efficacy is extremely low, and the conditions are many, the above quote being only one example.
Moreover, please fix other related gameplay activities that will be affected, in line with the change. I'd suggest the long, boring (DaF) grindy mess that is the ranking system...as an example...of which there are also many. However, I am aware that this might incur a lead time on new hires.
As a result, I'd be fine with these changes not being implemented for at least six months, assuming this announcement is the start of the process, and the concept hasn't already been through a very in depth and consumer facing (in addition to technical) planning stage.
Good luck sorting it all, BEFORE implementation.
All the best with it.
Last edited:
![[VR] Deggial](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/47/47252.jpg?1553527110){kind=avatar}
This. Is. Great. News!
It not only removes a long lasting exploit from the game, it also opens up the possibility to re-balance the mission board as well as to re-visit the mission limits.
Think about it: The artificial limitations of active missions of one kind were only necessary because people flipped the boards until they had countless copies of the same mission. This will not be possible any more and the limits will therefore become obsolete.
Additionally, the range of mission payouts could be increased, making it possible to find real "über" missions - with all the excitement and joy accompanying them! With the (soon) old board flipping exploit, those rare and excellent paying missions weren't feasible, as people would do nothing but re-rolling the board to get them.
Dominic, are you contemplating about this option?
Really, I am SO happy about this news! Well done, FDev (... and it was about time! )
It not only removes a long lasting exploit from the game, it also opens up the possibility to re-balance the mission board as well as to re-visit the mission limits.
Think about it: The artificial limitations of active missions of one kind were only necessary because people flipped the boards until they had countless copies of the same mission. This will not be possible any more and the limits will therefore become obsolete.
Additionally, the range of mission payouts could be increased, making it possible to find real "über" missions - with all the excitement and joy accompanying them! With the (soon) old board flipping exploit, those rare and excellent paying missions weren't feasible, as people would do nothing but re-rolling the board to get them.
Dominic, are you contemplating about this option?
Really, I am SO happy about this news! Well done, FDev (... and it was about time!
)
Last edited:
It would seem that some people are thoroughly obsessed with other people's possible 'min maxing'.
Never figured out what the definition of an ED min/maxer is. Seems to change with the argument.
Care to provide evidence to back what you claim? Not having to share the servers with every other part of the game means *more* missions & more potential for mission diversity......plus you're getting an increase to payouts that quite frankly aren't required......yet still the whiners whine.
In 2018 your mobile phone can eavesdrop on your private conversations and use what you say to push RELEVANT advertising in your feed...
In 3304 it seems the local plebs in any given station can't seem to get their act together to offer missions RELEVANT to the ship you're in...
May I reiterate a desperate need for the mission server to grow at least 2.8% more intelligence, and offer missions that are RELEVANT!
Examples (And these are in no way exhaustive - engage imagination, please)
1) I've just docked at a station in any one of the cargo ships, with no weapons, no collector limpets, no ship launched fighter. Why am I being offered ANY combat missions? Surely it would add QoL if the mission plebs could pick up some of the slack, do their job, and their homework, LOOK at how much cargo space I have and fight over each other on price to offer either ONE job that fills my hold or multiple jobs to the same place, or at least the same system that will fill my hold. Anything less is a waste of my time.
2) I've just docked at a station in any one of the combat ships, with zero cargo slots. Surely air traffic control has scanned my ship, and made this information available (for a tax deductible fee probably) to every business owner in the station, local system, 20LY range or actual range of my FSD and said businesses use this information to offer me the highest paying work they have to compete with each other for my extremely valuable time considering my Elite rank and current standing with local and major factions.
3) I've just docked at a station in a dedicated military ship, with no cargo space or kill warrant scanner, so it's a relatively safe bet to assume I'm not bounty hunting. No, an educated guess might think I'm here looking for a CZ, and perhaps a stack of massacre or kill skimmer missions. Yes, a stack. Not one for 200 kills, a full stack of 20 for 10 kills each or better yet 10 for 20 kills each because the mission stack could be reduced if there was an efficient way to fill that stack with exactly the type of activity I actually want.
4) I've just logged in, in station, in a ship with mining lasers, a refinery, cargo racks and collector limpets. I load the mission board and why am I not seeing ONLY mining missions either within the local system, or in external systems within a single hyperspace jump? Or, even better might be mining missions that clearly state which system, planet and ring I'm likely to find said commodity, and maybe some safer albeit slower options and maybe some variety on the chain mission idea where I can mine here, deliver elsewhere?
5) How about if I've docked at a station and changed ship, into a long range Hauler, then I've gone into the galaxy map and set a 200LY route to where another of my ships is located. Could the NPC's be smart enough to only offer me a small selection of high paying long range cargo missions up to the 4 tons I can carry, to where I'm already going, or systems already selected by the filter I'm using along the route they should already know I'm going to take, supplemented by the best data missions along the same route plan?
5a) As long as the above is possible, why can't sensible chain missions spawn, like "Thanks CMDR, your flight plan says you're continuing to x-system, would you mind taking these three data missions with you as well, as long as you're going there anyway?" Me: Er, sure! Saves wasting my time trying to fill those mission slots by flipping the mission board. That's so awesome you were able to do your job and offer me something lucrative that doesn't force me to go light years out of my way or try to force me to change ship!"
6) Could we please also improve the smarts of those numpties that waste my time with rubbish while I'm already busy. Fine, I'm out grinding USS for G5 materials in a Krait, with collector limpets, and loads of cargo space but that doesn't mean I want to drop everything and fly to another system where the state is different. Now, if I were to be offered, no BEGGED to URGENTLY pick up a couple of damaged escape pods, right now, near the planet I just happen to be flying past and hey wow, that was quick, the mission objective just appeared and I hadn't even said yes but I can still ignore it then sure. Maybe if there was another button that said "offer more money and I'll think about it" we could come to a negotiated agreement. I'm already busy. Why should I do what you want when you're interrupting me and begging for something to be fixed urgently that I really don't care about?
How to actually implement this? No idea, lol! But, the mission system should be able to look at the type of ship you're in and offer missions accordingly. It should also be able to take into account your current galaxy map status and filters, eg selected destination and how you're getting there. Have you fixed the map for hi-sec to avoid griefers or anarchy to avoid attention on your smuggling activities? If you're in a passenger ship, why doesn't selecting the same destination on two or more missions populate the board with ONLY that destination to help you fill your cabins, even if you have to fly to the station next door, or en-route to pick them up. It should at the very least be able tell what missions you already picked and offer more of the same type or material reward based on the NPC's fighting over your business, especially in high population systems and stations.
Currently, it seems the missions are purely random, pushing masses of rubbish you don't want in your face, just in case you might want it.
In an ideal world we'd be able to use a query table front end to drill down into and select any mission in the galaxy from any location, since we might be looking for a particular type of mission for the ship that's parked at the destination we're going to, not the ship we're in or where we're currently at. If you don't select any options each faction offers up a selection of missions based on what the ship you're currently in can actually do, with a variety of destinations within range and one of each reward type so the player can use their own agency to narrow the activity type. If you select a material reward for example, the system makes more of those rewards available, or offers more missions to the same destination. The board would need to repopulate every time you accept a mission, but that might resolve the issue of handing one in to gain reputation and still not being able to take one at the next level up because the board has failed to refresh and recognise that you've just ranked up enough to qualify.
If the mission system worked smarter it wouldn't need to offer as many missions at once either. No point listing 10 missions of any given type when you don't want any of them. Just offer two, and if the CMDR decides that's the activity they want to do they can take one, advising the mission system that's what they want by their action and be offered say, three more. They take another one, which has a material reward but less cash than the others so in the next iteration they all have material rewards. The CMDR selects Exquisite Focus Crystals again and hey look, a logical pattern has already formed with the first three missions they took, so how about the mission system pushes out more of the same with variations that don't mess with what the CMDR has actively told you they want. Think of this as the NPC's making some effort to win your business by looking at what you've demonstrated you want as a reward and THEY do their job instead of making you waste your own time doing THEIR job! That's basic business 101.
If you're in a low-pop backwater outpost, why do all the missions on the board have to originate from the station you're in, unless they're source and return goods, which might be significantly more appropriate to a low-pop backwater? Unless that station produces something rare or cheap, why would there be missions to export commodities at all? Surely export missions would spawn in supply side fringe systems, with mining rings or other resources with chains available at the destination to bring back coffee, chocolate and toilet paper that they can't produce themselves. Import missions should also spawn in tourist and military systems and the type of goods should match, as should the wrinkles.
Missions are one of the places that player agency MUST supersede RNG. There are OH&S rules to prevent truck drivers trying to do 24 hour days, suggesting there's more than enough work, in 2018. Please make ED reflect this on a much larger scale and consider that billions of people are going to generate billions of items of mail, secure data transfers, goods deliveries, back-loading and freight allocators who's job it actually is to make sure every available square foot of load space on the road is full to maximum legal weight and going in the right direction most efficiently. You've built a space-logistics game, did you involve anyone with current logistics experience in the discussion or just decide to wing it?
And on that note: Wing cargo missions. Hmm, no. Just make them cargo missions with reasonable round quantities, like 100, or 1,000, or 10,000. You know, the kind of quantities that might actually get ordered in bulk by a space station servicing an entire star system and if you happen to be in a wing your mates can decide if they want to help you haul the goods or fly support in a combat ship instead. Similar idea for assassinations - Indicate what types of ships you're actually going to come up against in the mission description before accepting it and if you can't take on an Elite Corvette with five Deadly FAS on your own you can dial a friend, even if you've been offered that mission in space because you happen to be flying through their last known location. And yes, this is the only reason we should be offered a mission in space, because we happen to be right there, right now. I do not want my time wasted by idiots trying to get me to fly 15LY and pickup 15 tons of cargo while I'm out bounty hunting in my FDL. Offering these completely irrelevant missions in remote systems, for ships I'm not currently in are an insulting waste of my time to even reject them.
To make it obvious what's going on, for new people, it's probably a good idea to add a data panel on the mission board that states exactly what factors are being considered in the missions being offered, with a footnote making it very clear that for the best results from the mission board, please get in the ship you intend to use and preset your destination. If this is done right, there should be no need to split the passenger mission board from the other(s). What if you have a multi-role ship with both economy cabins and limited cargo space, plus heat sinks that has been engineered for use at thargoid attacked stations with the intention of ferrying refugees out and medicines in? You might want to be able to take both types of mission at once. Using a smart query table mission system, pre-populated using the ship you're in would make the whole ordeal less painful, provide plenty of relevant missions and hopefully negate the need or desire to board flip.
TL;DR
I read this whole thread before commenting, and it's NOT about the CR!
It's about finding something that suits our current "personal narrative".
Get rid of all that rubbish I can't do in this ship, only offer what I can do.
In 3304 it seems the local plebs in any given station can't seem to get their act together to offer missions RELEVANT to the ship you're in...
May I reiterate a desperate need for the mission server to grow at least 2.8% more intelligence, and offer missions that are RELEVANT!
Examples (And these are in no way exhaustive - engage imagination, please)
1) I've just docked at a station in any one of the cargo ships, with no weapons, no collector limpets, no ship launched fighter. Why am I being offered ANY combat missions? Surely it would add QoL if the mission plebs could pick up some of the slack, do their job, and their homework, LOOK at how much cargo space I have and fight over each other on price to offer either ONE job that fills my hold or multiple jobs to the same place, or at least the same system that will fill my hold. Anything less is a waste of my time.
2) I've just docked at a station in any one of the combat ships, with zero cargo slots. Surely air traffic control has scanned my ship, and made this information available (for a tax deductible fee probably) to every business owner in the station, local system, 20LY range or actual range of my FSD and said businesses use this information to offer me the highest paying work they have to compete with each other for my extremely valuable time considering my Elite rank and current standing with local and major factions.
3) I've just docked at a station in a dedicated military ship, with no cargo space or kill warrant scanner, so it's a relatively safe bet to assume I'm not bounty hunting. No, an educated guess might think I'm here looking for a CZ, and perhaps a stack of massacre or kill skimmer missions. Yes, a stack. Not one for 200 kills, a full stack of 20 for 10 kills each or better yet 10 for 20 kills each because the mission stack could be reduced if there was an efficient way to fill that stack with exactly the type of activity I actually want.
4) I've just logged in, in station, in a ship with mining lasers, a refinery, cargo racks and collector limpets. I load the mission board and why am I not seeing ONLY mining missions either within the local system, or in external systems within a single hyperspace jump? Or, even better might be mining missions that clearly state which system, planet and ring I'm likely to find said commodity, and maybe some safer albeit slower options and maybe some variety on the chain mission idea where I can mine here, deliver elsewhere?
5) How about if I've docked at a station and changed ship, into a long range Hauler, then I've gone into the galaxy map and set a 200LY route to where another of my ships is located. Could the NPC's be smart enough to only offer me a small selection of high paying long range cargo missions up to the 4 tons I can carry, to where I'm already going, or systems already selected by the filter I'm using along the route they should already know I'm going to take, supplemented by the best data missions along the same route plan?
5a) As long as the above is possible, why can't sensible chain missions spawn, like "Thanks CMDR, your flight plan says you're continuing to x-system, would you mind taking these three data missions with you as well, as long as you're going there anyway?" Me: Er, sure! Saves wasting my time trying to fill those mission slots by flipping the mission board. That's so awesome you were able to do your job and offer me something lucrative that doesn't force me to go light years out of my way or try to force me to change ship!"
6) Could we please also improve the smarts of those numpties that waste my time with rubbish while I'm already busy. Fine, I'm out grinding USS for G5 materials in a Krait, with collector limpets, and loads of cargo space but that doesn't mean I want to drop everything and fly to another system where the state is different. Now, if I were to be offered, no BEGGED to URGENTLY pick up a couple of damaged escape pods, right now, near the planet I just happen to be flying past and hey wow, that was quick, the mission objective just appeared and I hadn't even said yes but I can still ignore it then sure. Maybe if there was another button that said "offer more money and I'll think about it" we could come to a negotiated agreement. I'm already busy. Why should I do what you want when you're interrupting me and begging for something to be fixed urgently that I really don't care about?
How to actually implement this? No idea, lol! But, the mission system should be able to look at the type of ship you're in and offer missions accordingly. It should also be able to take into account your current galaxy map status and filters, eg selected destination and how you're getting there. Have you fixed the map for hi-sec to avoid griefers or anarchy to avoid attention on your smuggling activities? If you're in a passenger ship, why doesn't selecting the same destination on two or more missions populate the board with ONLY that destination to help you fill your cabins, even if you have to fly to the station next door, or en-route to pick them up. It should at the very least be able tell what missions you already picked and offer more of the same type or material reward based on the NPC's fighting over your business, especially in high population systems and stations.
Currently, it seems the missions are purely random, pushing masses of rubbish you don't want in your face, just in case you might want it.
In an ideal world we'd be able to use a query table front end to drill down into and select any mission in the galaxy from any location, since we might be looking for a particular type of mission for the ship that's parked at the destination we're going to, not the ship we're in or where we're currently at. If you don't select any options each faction offers up a selection of missions based on what the ship you're currently in can actually do, with a variety of destinations within range and one of each reward type so the player can use their own agency to narrow the activity type. If you select a material reward for example, the system makes more of those rewards available, or offers more missions to the same destination. The board would need to repopulate every time you accept a mission, but that might resolve the issue of handing one in to gain reputation and still not being able to take one at the next level up because the board has failed to refresh and recognise that you've just ranked up enough to qualify.
If the mission system worked smarter it wouldn't need to offer as many missions at once either. No point listing 10 missions of any given type when you don't want any of them. Just offer two, and if the CMDR decides that's the activity they want to do they can take one, advising the mission system that's what they want by their action and be offered say, three more. They take another one, which has a material reward but less cash than the others so in the next iteration they all have material rewards. The CMDR selects Exquisite Focus Crystals again and hey look, a logical pattern has already formed with the first three missions they took, so how about the mission system pushes out more of the same with variations that don't mess with what the CMDR has actively told you they want. Think of this as the NPC's making some effort to win your business by looking at what you've demonstrated you want as a reward and THEY do their job instead of making you waste your own time doing THEIR job! That's basic business 101.
If you're in a low-pop backwater outpost, why do all the missions on the board have to originate from the station you're in, unless they're source and return goods, which might be significantly more appropriate to a low-pop backwater? Unless that station produces something rare or cheap, why would there be missions to export commodities at all? Surely export missions would spawn in supply side fringe systems, with mining rings or other resources with chains available at the destination to bring back coffee, chocolate and toilet paper that they can't produce themselves. Import missions should also spawn in tourist and military systems and the type of goods should match, as should the wrinkles.
Missions are one of the places that player agency MUST supersede RNG. There are OH&S rules to prevent truck drivers trying to do 24 hour days, suggesting there's more than enough work, in 2018. Please make ED reflect this on a much larger scale and consider that billions of people are going to generate billions of items of mail, secure data transfers, goods deliveries, back-loading and freight allocators who's job it actually is to make sure every available square foot of load space on the road is full to maximum legal weight and going in the right direction most efficiently. You've built a space-logistics game, did you involve anyone with current logistics experience in the discussion or just decide to wing it?
And on that note: Wing cargo missions. Hmm, no. Just make them cargo missions with reasonable round quantities, like 100, or 1,000, or 10,000. You know, the kind of quantities that might actually get ordered in bulk by a space station servicing an entire star system and if you happen to be in a wing your mates can decide if they want to help you haul the goods or fly support in a combat ship instead. Similar idea for assassinations - Indicate what types of ships you're actually going to come up against in the mission description before accepting it and if you can't take on an Elite Corvette with five Deadly FAS on your own you can dial a friend, even if you've been offered that mission in space because you happen to be flying through their last known location. And yes, this is the only reason we should be offered a mission in space, because we happen to be right there, right now. I do not want my time wasted by idiots trying to get me to fly 15LY and pickup 15 tons of cargo while I'm out bounty hunting in my FDL. Offering these completely irrelevant missions in remote systems, for ships I'm not currently in are an insulting waste of my time to even reject them.
To make it obvious what's going on, for new people, it's probably a good idea to add a data panel on the mission board that states exactly what factors are being considered in the missions being offered, with a footnote making it very clear that for the best results from the mission board, please get in the ship you intend to use and preset your destination. If this is done right, there should be no need to split the passenger mission board from the other(s). What if you have a multi-role ship with both economy cabins and limited cargo space, plus heat sinks that has been engineered for use at thargoid attacked stations with the intention of ferrying refugees out and medicines in? You might want to be able to take both types of mission at once. Using a smart query table mission system, pre-populated using the ship you're in would make the whole ordeal less painful, provide plenty of relevant missions and hopefully negate the need or desire to board flip.
TL;DR
I read this whole thread before commenting, and it's NOT about the CR!
It's about finding something that suits our current "personal narrative".
Get rid of all that rubbish I can't do in this ship, only offer what I can do.
Good grief!! This thread was created just yesterday and it already turned into a shouting contest between between adults with less maturity (and clearely more free time) than a teenager. Do you honestly expect Frontier to sift through all this nonsense just to find some actual feedback? We're at page 33 already and the feedback so far provided could fill no more than a single page.
If you guys have some feedback to provide, please do so. But if your only intention is to mock other players and the way the play the game, then there's plenty other threads for you to vent your frustration and feed your ego..... so don't derail this conversation.
I myself do not board flip, but i don't judge those who do, because i understand why they do it.... and if would be extremely important for Frontier to understand that aswell, if they wanna get rid of board flipping.
Now let's try to get on topic:
Will, of course board flipping was never intended as a feature by Frontier. But, as i'm sure u realise, even the players who flip the board don't enjoy doing it...... moving from solo to open, just in order to get some variety in the mission boards is not "engaging gameplay".
Still some people do it (for the sake of the conversation, let's assume that 2,8% stat is real [big grin] ). Why? because it's an expedient to bypass and circumvent the serious flaws in the way mission boards work. If you remove the solution the players found (ugly though this solution may be) without addressing the issues which led the players to board flip, u will have done nothing but a disservice to the playerbase and to yourselves.
As of right now, missions reward the player with 5 different currencies: credits, materials, commodities, influence and reputation. Giving a small bump to just 1 of those 5 rewards won't solve anything, as i'm sure you realize (i refuse to believe Frontier doesn't understand how its own game works).
Having said that, here are a few steps which, in my personal opinion, might help:
1) Increase the number of missions offered by each board (and not just by a ridiculous 10%!!! Make it a 100% bump if you want such measure to have any effect at all).
2) Rebalance the mission thelselves. As of right now there are several types of missions which do nothing but clog the boards: There's no reason why every system in a war state should have more than 2 or 3 massacre missions, so why congesting those boards with 7, 8 massacre missions? all they do is take space!!! And that's just 1 example.
3) Also it wouldn't hurt to rebalance missions payouts, since right now pretty much half of each board is filled with missions which rewards are so ridiculously low, they might aswell not be there at all.
Taking theese steps would go a long way towards making board flipping unnecessary. if you would actually fix the issues plaguing the mission boards, infact, i believe you wouldn't even need to make board flipping impossible, as people would just stop doing it.
However that would be a lot of work and i realize that just bumping the credits rewards by 10% is much easier.....
Anyway that's my feedback, for what it's worth. My suggestion to you Frontier is to think carefully about what your doing; If you get rid of board flipping without addressing the issues plaguing the mission system...... you might end up "getting rid" of the players who used to board flip too..... and i'm sure that's not something you want.
If you guys have some feedback to provide, please do so. But if your only intention is to mock other players and the way the play the game, then there's plenty other threads for you to vent your frustration and feed your ego..... so don't derail this conversation.
I myself do not board flip, but i don't judge those who do, because i understand why they do it.... and if would be extremely important for Frontier to understand that aswell, if they wanna get rid of board flipping.
Now let's try to get on topic:
Will, of course board flipping was never intended as a feature by Frontier. But, as i'm sure u realise, even the players who flip the board don't enjoy doing it...... moving from solo to open, just in order to get some variety in the mission boards is not "engaging gameplay".
Still some people do it (for the sake of the conversation, let's assume that 2,8% stat is real [big grin] ). Why? because it's an expedient to bypass and circumvent the serious flaws in the way mission boards work. If you remove the solution the players found (ugly though this solution may be) without addressing the issues which led the players to board flip, u will have done nothing but a disservice to the playerbase and to yourselves.
As of right now, missions reward the player with 5 different currencies: credits, materials, commodities, influence and reputation. Giving a small bump to just 1 of those 5 rewards won't solve anything, as i'm sure you realize (i refuse to believe Frontier doesn't understand how its own game works).
Having said that, here are a few steps which, in my personal opinion, might help:
1) Increase the number of missions offered by each board (and not just by a ridiculous 10%!!! Make it a 100% bump if you want such measure to have any effect at all).
2) Rebalance the mission thelselves. As of right now there are several types of missions which do nothing but clog the boards: There's no reason why every system in a war state should have more than 2 or 3 massacre missions, so why congesting those boards with 7, 8 massacre missions? all they do is take space!!! And that's just 1 example.
3) Also it wouldn't hurt to rebalance missions payouts, since right now pretty much half of each board is filled with missions which rewards are so ridiculously low, they might aswell not be there at all.
Taking theese steps would go a long way towards making board flipping unnecessary. if you would actually fix the issues plaguing the mission boards, infact, i believe you wouldn't even need to make board flipping impossible, as people would just stop doing it.
However that would be a lot of work and i realize that just bumping the credits rewards by 10% is much easier.....
Anyway that's my feedback, for what it's worth. My suggestion to you Frontier is to think carefully about what your doing; If you get rid of board flipping without addressing the issues plaguing the mission system...... you might end up "getting rid" of the players who used to board flip too..... and i'm sure that's not something you want.
Last edited: