News Implementation of a dedicated mission server



Well, I might as well talk to you then. Seems you're as willing, as anyone else is.

It's like being in a church. Or trying to convince a scientist you can prove a false positive in a lab.

I guess I paid to watch the world evolve around me.
 
Last edited:
... Ways to solve the problem:
  • Add a mission type selector before generating the boards, allowing players to "request" a mission category they want to fly.
  • Generate a much greater number of missions per board, thereby increasing the amount of missions to choose from.
  • Seperate the mission board into more sub boards for types of missions, similar to how passenger missions now have their own board. Possible board categories might be Combat, Salvage, Mining, Trade, etc.
Not like any from these propositions:

- missions (imo) should very closely follow BGS state of offering faction (or situation in system, included for example thargoids danger etc.) and there can be wider (but still related to state) variety of these missions. It makes no sense that you will come to mission board and order what mission you want to do. It's jobs offer and not purchasing rolls in shop. (all this imo, it represent my view only)
- I believe there are technical reasons why this is not possible or at least not so simple (it was also mentioned by FDev more times). Beside this there is now much more missions available as it was some time ago, but for some players it never will be enough no matter how much missions it will get.
- just no, personally I would like have all missions shown at once (with optional filter) to see what all is for given faction available in one time. And this ideally should include passenger missions aswell (but yea, technical limitations strikes here I believe too) ... not so I need to check two (or more [blah]) boards to see which "good" missions are available.

If I could have one wish, then it will be incorporate possibility take mission without check what ship I'm using atm and give possibility delay mission start or do it per parts (we get first small step in this direction in last update). This imo can be huge change for everyone who like to do missions in ED. I can imagine also ways how it can work for passengers ...
 
Last edited:
All I'll say about this is that the central issue with the mission board is the old gem of respecting my time.

By that I mean that this is an entertainment product and as such, I don't play it in order to replicate the myriad inconveniences that might blight my everyday life. In particular, waiting is not a gameplay mechanic and really 'oh you just need to wait for a while' isn't something that I can really countenance as having a place in a game.

When I log in to play Elite Dangerous after I get home from work, I usually have an idea about what I intend to do in that session,, both in terms of overall objectives and the activities which I want to perform in order to achieve them.

At the moment I'm dipping my toe into the BGS simply because it's one of the few things that can provide some structure to gameplay - I suspect that's the reason a lot of players seem to gravitate towards it the longer they've played the game for. I accept that by definition, involvment with the BGS brings with it some limitations on the things I can do if I want to continue to push a faction in that session because dependent on state, there are certain activities which are needed in order to have the desired effect.

However the often very limited number and selection of missions compounds that and frequently leads to situations whereby I spend significant amounts of 'gaming' time not actually playing the game at all.

Just one example of this from the other night - I log in and I'm in a general purpose Python at a station where suddenly the only thing my faction cares about is getting their hands on bromellite and antifreeze due to an economic boom. That's all they need - presumably they're drinking the anti-freeze.

(Edit - this is in a system whose main economy is agriculture by the way)

Even if we park the whole issue of ice mining being a twisted joke in terms of time in/reward out, what do I do? The options I was faced with were:

  • Spend half an hour flying around systems to completely refit my Python for mining
  • Wait 40 minutes whilst my already built and fully engineered mining Python is transferred from its current location to the system I'm in
  • Spend 20 minutes flying to that system, swapping ships and jumping back to where I was
  • Check the passenger mission board instead but then either wait 40 minutes whilst my passenger ship is transferred to the station I'm at, or spend 20 minutes flying to the system its parked in and flying it back, by which time any missions that were on the board are long gone anyway
  • Wait 15 minutes to see if the mission board refresh provides anything more suitable, with no guarantee that it will
  • Fly to another station (5 minutes) and see if the mission board there is any better, with no guarantee that it will be

In real life, I fully accept that I have to take the rough with the smooth. When I'm trying to fill the portion of my day which is set aside for recreation with fun stuff by playing a game though and what I'm actually presented with is six different flavours of doing nothing, or things that I don't want to do, for a chunk of that time then honestly? I'm less accepting of it.
 
Last edited:
So how about we all stop telling each other what we should find fun and accept that if a player says something isn't fun for them, they are expressing their own entirely valid opinion. I'm pretty sure that in terms of value to FDev as feedback, a player's opinion is worth a great deal more than another player's opinion of the first player's opinion.

Yes.
 
It's not tinfoiling, can you say what the sample size was, one day, one month, because it really does make a whole lot of difference.

If they're looking at dailies (as it seems) the 2.8% really isn't that useful a figure.

I am not trying to change anything here, I think what they've done is positive. (as a good starting point)

But I would just like to know some details around the figure because that figure keeps getting thrown around in arguments and misinterpreted to mean things it (probably) doesn't, that's what's so frustrating about it.

More so that it began with the communications team, the subsequent clarification didn't address the confusion, and folk like yourself are now even praising it for being clear!
Whether it addressed your confusion or not is none of my concern. I'm praising it for being clear because it was clear, to me.

If you require further clarification from Will & co, then quote them in your reply enquiries, not me, and accept that I'm happy with the stat & context that have been given.
 
Just for clarification, in asking for 'please sir, I want some more [missions]' I wasn't asking for an infinite supply of all types of missions at any location; just a good range of types appropriate to the local state, economy, pop size and faction balance of power. I strongly believe FD should also be working to create more 'clumpy' and distinctive human geography across the bubble.

That, I like a lot. Extraction economies should be very distinct from Tourist etc. and the mission boards should reflect that. If one doesn't like mining-related missions, it's probably not the best choice to hang around an Extraction system/station. (Though, I guess the ability to 'flip' an economy type with enough effort would be interesting).

Similarly, high population systems like Sol should have dramatically different mission boards to systems with a small outpost or two.

I don't think though, that if you pull into a station in a big Cutter you should always be guaranteed enough missions-of-your-preference to fill it. That, IMO, should be dependent on supply/demand, economy type and state, reputation, influence and a slice of luck.
 
This figure still does not make sense taken in isolation. "2.8% of daily active players".

  • Does it mean that, on a random/average day, if 100 people fired up Elite across all platforms only 2.8 have board flipped?

  • Does it mean that, out of the total number of people who regularly/daily play elite (but not necessarily every single day), only 2.8% board flip? And when, each session? Or only some sessions?


Around October last year Rhea was discovered. If you go and look at the numerous YT videos giving explanations (say, Yamiks and DTEA) they have roughly between 15 and 75 thousand views. Let's say 35/40K as an average. Let's also say (unrealistic, but still) that half the people who watched the video then decided against boardflipping. That's about 20K people. Is that really 2.8% of daily active players? Are you telling us that the total daily playerbase of Elite is around 714.285 people? That seems very unlikely...

I think it is plausible to say that on a random, low traffic day only 2.8% of people boardflip. Sure. But it is very unlikely that the day after a great money fountain hits YouTube and Reddit that number stays that low. And that's what matters, not the random boardflips, but those made in the context of a money fountain.
 
97.2% of players do not board flip.

iu
 
@TheSynopticVision

I think it' pretty clear that it's Option A. Because that makes the most sense and because Option B is too vague, as we can see in your post.

If you want to have a percentage of players who have board flipped at least once in their (Elite) life, I guess it would be easily >75%.
 
Hi everyone, thank you so much for the feedback you have provided thus far. I wanted to jump in and answer a few questions and discussion points raised:


Will we be increasing the amount of mission options so that players have more choice?

We won’t be increasing the amount of missions spawned initially. We will however be reducing the time it takes for a mission board to spawn new missions from 15 to 10 minutes. This means that players should overall see more variety and it won’t take as long for new missions to appear on the board.


Is there a possibility of adding a ‘refresh’ button if all available missions aren’t suitable?

We won’t be adding a refresh button at this time. It’s important to note that missions are shared between players so it could be frustrating if another player refreshed the mission board just as another player spotted one they wanted.


Will this see the return of the large cargo transport missions with high payouts?

Could you clarify which missions you mean? But this change does not impact the functionality of the missions themselves.


Can we get filters to find the type of missions we want to do?

You can filter the list currently. If you mean will it be possible to have a mission board spawn a specific type of mission based on player input (for example, choosing to spawn only cargo delivery missions), this is not currently planned.


How will this effect missions based around state changes (i.e. massacre missions) where the state may have changed in one instance (War) but not another?

This is an avenue we’re exploring but have no confirmed changes at this current time. It’s our goal to make the missions that spawn in each state make sense, but not overwhelm the entire board. As with a lot of mission development, it’s an ongoing iterative process.


Is it possible to separate wing and solo missions into different categories?

We are not separating Wing Missions into a different category at this time, but in the next update (3.3), you should see fewer Wing Missions spawning per board. We are trying to balance the right amount for all player types, and as said before, it’s an ongoing process.


Worried we’re focusing on the symptom of board flipping, not the cause (Not a great enough of interesting mission options rather than payouts)

We are trying to address all of the reasons players felt they need to use “board flipping”. As we said in the original post however, this is a small percentage of the player-base. We are listening to your feedback and trying our best to provide players with missions that suit their playstyle wherever possible.


Thanks once again for the feedback and keep it coming!

The change is effectively a refresh rate of 10 mins instead of 15 and a move to a dedicated server.
So currently with 15 min refresh rates and by board flipping I make it that you would see a change every 5 mins if averaged out over the 3 game modes (Open, Private and Solo) which means spending twice as long waiting for the right missions to come along compared to the current situation (board hopping 5 min refresh compared with 10 mins with the suggested change).

There will also be a 10% boon on credit rewards for those after money.


As I see it people do missions for the following reasons:

1. Cash reward - whilst the 10% increase might make them happier, they might be missing out on larger payouts or less earnings / hour as they will have to spend twice as long as currently to find the missions type they want.
2. BGS - Influence farming - again this will take longer due to the refresh time.
3. Material grinding - those mission only rewards for engineering and guardian tech, etc - again this will take longer
4. Faction Reputation - looking for the highest payouts will take longer
5. Mission exploits - e.g. skimmer missions, etc - will take longer to stack up missions (not within the rules of the game, so perhaps a good thing).

As there are no game mechanic changes being considered for this improvement some suggestions below....

1. Make the refresh 5 mins (same as board flipping so shouldn't affect anyone who currently does it - It would also remove all board hopping advocate complaints as nobody actually likes wasting time board hopping?)
2. Display a refresh timer so people know when the next set of missions is due and can do something else rather than exit and enter the mission board continuously (board spamming might put extra strain on the dedicated servers?)
3. Consult with the community on making missions work (There a loads of "not at this time" suggestions today and going back over time that would make a huge difference - e.g. filtering missions by rewards, destinations, categories (more of them), wing missions, etc, etc).


P.S. I think you'll find the 2.8% of players is likely to show you how much time virtually all players spend grinding the mission boards at anyone time and not the total number of board flippers. I think 2.8% of all time in the game is wasted waiting for the right text to appear on the screen to grind something, whereas other grinding actually involves flying your ship or driving the SRV..... above all 2.8% of game time is actually spent not grinding and enjoying yourself.....Think you need to create the 2.8% Decals in the store so we can buy them and show them off :)
 
Always happy to provide feedback, Will.

Based on this announcement, I'd offer that it might be prudent to fix your data analytics. Maybe then you might be able to break the cycle of making bad decisions, based on bad information?

I mean seriously, are you trying to fool yourselves or other people with this 2.8% number? Or are you holding the spreadsheet upside down?

The first part of defining any solution, is realising you have a problem. You guys have a huge amount of thinking to do on this, if you're going to stop being silly about it all and try to evolve this game.

An if the analytics are correct (I am sure they can read them just fine) where does that leave you. Personally I have never mode/server switched for missions or anything in the game and I see no need for it. Seems that it may be a small minority that actually do this.
 
An if the analytics are correct (I am sure they can read them just fine) where does that leave you. Personally I have never mode/server switched for missions or anything in the game and I see no need for it. Seems that it may be a small minority that actually do this.

I expected you to say as much.

You're semantics are incorrect too.

It should be, "If the analytics are correct, where does that leave us".
 
I expected you to say as much.

Say what. I didn't actually say anything definitive apart from what I personally do. I left what I said open ended as of course I could be wrong. That is precisely why I word things they way I do, unlike others that work in absolutes. I also see people reading what they want to read as it doesn't figure in the mindset and lie to themselves as they cannot fathom that they can be wrong in any shape or form.
 
I don't think though, that if you pull into a station in a big Cutter you should always be guaranteed enough missions-of-your-preference to fill it. That, IMO, should be dependent on supply/demand, economy type and state, reputation, influence and a slice of luck.

I'm mulling over what rules might inform the distribution of available missions; but my hunch is that the baseline for a station with several large pads is that the economy behind it should be strong enough to generate several Cutters' worth of meat-and-2-veg fetch or transport or bulk passenger contracts. Exceptional states like Bust or Outbreak might distort that. More exotic mission types like smuggling would be present in less volume in the average system, perhaps if you go to Gotham Terminal, a 10bn metropolis with 99% Unfettered faction control, the distribution would be inverted towards smuggling and piracy.

But I hear a voice say "You're describing regular trading!". I suggested earlier that regular bulk commodity trading should take a back seat in 3304, contract running is just more exciting as it can have time limits, interesting rewards, chained followups and targetted opposition. Leave bulk freight to the invisible Lynx Bulk Carriers plodding through the system at single multiples of light speed, for fulfilling fetch contracts, and for when you have to fill every nook and cranny of your hold.
 
Say what. I didn't actually say anything definitive apart from what I personally do. I left what I said open ended as of course I could be wrong. That is precisely why I word things they way I do, unlike others that work in absolutes. I also see people reading what they want to read as it doesn't figure in the mindset and lie to themselves as they cannot fathom that they can be wrong in any shape or form.

I expected you to say as much.

Where does it leave us though?
 
Will we be increasing the amount of mission options so that players have more choice?

We won’t be increasing the amount of missions spawned initially. We will however be reducing the time it takes for a mission board to spawn new missions from 15 to 10 minutes. This means that players should overall see more variety and it won’t take as long for new missions to appear on the board.

So essentially its just a nerf.

Instead of waiting 15 minutes for some mission rng I get to wait 10 minutes while also waiting for my ship to arrive.

Waiting seems to be a core mechanic of ED these days.
 

Viajero

Volunteer Moderator
Always happy to provide feedback, Will.

Based on this announcement, I'd offer that it might be prudent to fix your data analytics. Maybe then you might be able to break the cycle of making bad decisions, based on bad information?

I mean seriously, are you trying to fool yourselves or other people with this 2.8% number? Or are you holding the spreadsheet upside down?

The first part of defining any solution, is realising you have a problem. You guys have a huge amount of thinking to do on this, if you're going to stop being silly about it all and try to evolve this game.

Honestly curious. Do you have any data or analytics that shows FDEV´s are incorrect? Or just your personal and anecdotal bias?
 
Back
Top Bottom