Completely agreed. As I also stated, missions are on a timer... so regardless of the amount you pick up, there's still time restrictions to adhere to. It's not like you're able to pick up 300 missions at once and still do them whenever you please.
Mission limit no longer necessary?
- Thread starter Crank Larson
- Start date
Completely agreed. As I also stated, missions are on a timer... so regardless of the amount you pick up, there's still time restrictions to adhere to. It's not like you're able to pick up 300 missions at once and still do them whenever you please.
That's kind of how I was looking at it too.
I suppose there might be a time when you'd taken on a heap of data missions and stumbled across a station with some highly-paid cargo missions and you currently can't accept them even though your cargo hold is empty.
TBH, though, I suspect that the biggest problem would be behind the scenes, getting the game to track and spawn all the NPCs and waypoints related to a potentially large number of missions at the same time.
OK, I suppose I didn't account for that sort of behavior... thanks for mentioning it! Sounds a bit trickier than I realized.
Perhaps some counters could be added to alleviate the effects that a single player has on the BGS? A 24/48 hour timer that kicks into effect so that only a certain percentage is allowed?
Last edited:
I still remember flying back from Robigo in my Python with what was basically a small fleet chasing me. Good times.
What we really WANT is the ability to fill our passenger hold without relying on the mission queue.
We want emergent non mission based passenger runs.
Like there's emergent non mission based combat
And trading
And mining
And exploration.
And g search and rescue at this point
But not passengers.
Why?
What honest reason is there for the nonemergent state of passenger gameplay?
For every other mode of game play missions are salad dressing. A supplement to the emergent game mode as it exists. Something to boost your earning a little and fill in around the edges of standard game play in order to give it a bit of a kick in the pants and make things more interesting.
Passenger captains are sick of eating nothing but salad dressing. They want their damn salad now.
Give us a real passenger queue for standard bulk passenger runs -- not missions, but some other non-mission way to fill your seats while running from one station to the next, something that makes sense and is moderately emergent and immersive, and people will stop complaining about passenger missions AND stop flipping the board. I guarantee it.
Last edited:
OK, I suppose I didn't account for that sort of behavior... thanks for mentioning it! Sounds a bit trickier than I realized.
Perhaps some counters could be added to alleviate the effects that a single player has on the BGS? A 24/48 hour timer that kicks into effect so that only a certain percentage is allowed?
Now your making things even more complex. One of the things mentioned about Wing missions that some folks asked to have all missions wing missions was the complexity of the mission system. I cannot remember the exact wording but it seems to me that this would be much more involved than it sounds.
The suggestion of non-mission based passenger hauling, similar to how we trade in commodities seems like a good idea to me. Even trucking people between stations in a system. These woudl not pay the "big bucks" but would be useful to new players in their smaller ships.
Next thread "remove the cargo limit!"
I'm not making anything more complex... it's apparently already that complex. The only thing left to do is address behavior that was unintended in regard to the BGS.
Adding timers so that a single CMDR would not be able to manipulate the BGS with such severity would go a long way to making a limit to the amount of missions unnecessary. I'm a firm believer in more choices, more options, as opposed to arbitrary limitations. Actions = consequences, and all that.
e·mer·gent
/əˈmərjənt/
1. in the process of coming into being or becoming prominent.
immersive
[ih-mur-siv] adjective
1. noting or relating to digital technology or images that actively engage one's senses and may create an altered mental state: immersive media;immersive 3D environments.
2. noting or relating to activity that occupies most of one's attention, time, or energy.
Elite: Dangerous has been emergent since it first launched.
The misappropriation of language to unclearly communicate things bothers the hades out of me.
How, exactly, would you like to see passenger missions "coming into being" and "occupy most of your time, attention or energy"? They already come into being in the passenger lounge. They occupy plenty of time, attention and energy just carrying them out. What more do you want from them? Bare in mind the game does have limitations.
/əˈmərjənt/
1. in the process of coming into being or becoming prominent.
immersive
[ih-mur-siv] adjective
1. noting or relating to digital technology or images that actively engage one's senses and may create an altered mental state: immersive media;immersive 3D environments.
2. noting or relating to activity that occupies most of one's attention, time, or energy.
Elite: Dangerous has been emergent since it first launched.
The misappropriation of language to unclearly communicate things bothers the hades out of me.
How, exactly, would you like to see passenger missions "coming into being" and "occupy most of your time, attention or energy"? They already come into being in the passenger lounge. They occupy plenty of time, attention and energy just carrying them out. What more do you want from them? Bare in mind the game does have limitations.
From the standpoint of game play and game dev, The word "emergent" has been taken to mean "organic to the experience, emerging as the game is played rather than dependent on scripted events." It's easy enough to see how the dictionary definition applies the standard usage of the word as seen through the lens of game dev.
As for "immersive," well I'll admit I'm "immersed" in mission board hopping trying to fill my hold in time to get where I'm going before the passenger missions expire, and in that sense it occupies all my time, energy and attention, but I have my doubts that this is the way in which FDev wants people immersed in their game.
Playing semantics with an English major is not likely to get you where you need to go.
Structured mission based quests are excellent. It's important that they be there. I'm glad to see them. They can not be the only way to fill seats on a passenger liner if we wish to call passenger gameplay fully emergent. Missions are procedurally generated scripted experiences. Especially if you rely on them for 100% of the gameplay content the way the passenger lounge does.
Emergent gameplay would be more similar to the commodity system, at least in the sense that with commodities, you have the option to forge a trade route for yourself rather than being restricted to the RNG of procedurally generated haulage missions. Don't find a mission you like, scan the galaxy map for a trade route or go to EDDB, load up with whatever you can, and go wherever you want. T
hat's emergent gameplay, and that's the difference between what the passenger system we have now is, and what it needs to be -- the ability to find your own passenger hauling experience rather than being forced into what the mission generator provides you..
Last edited:
It's very simple. It doesn't make sense that I have an empty ship and yet am prevented from taking a cargo (or passenger) mission. While it also doesn't make sense that the other missions are limited, I can understand that there are reasons that they are (i.e. gameplay reasons). However, as cargo and passenger missions are self-limiting, there is no need for an arbitrary cap.
And what have big ships got to do with it? I was in a Python.
Anyway, there's only so many ways I can say the same thing using different words... I'll leave it at that.
Now that's just silly. How would you remove the cargo limit? By making ships able to hold an infinite amount of cargo? Not going to happen. No way, no how.
I heard Farseer has discovered how to install a tow package on a T9...
cool cool cool- VR, Stellar Forge- guess we have it pretty good.
Last edited:
If you have multiplke T9's, you can hitch them together to form a space train. Just imagine how much you can move once you do that with a Cutter lol.
Failing missions doesn't drop faction influence. It only drops YOUR reputation with said faction. Your entire nightmare scenario is misinformed or made up.
And if what you're saying *were* true; it still wouldn't matter, because even with a 20 mission limit, you can intentionally fail a mission as fast as you can take it on. Pick up 20 cargo transport missions. Eject all your cargo. Every mission instantly failed and you haven't even left the station. Repeat. A mission limit does NOTHING to prevent or even discourage this. Good thing failing (and abandoning - did you know you can just abandon missions too?) does nothing to the BGS.
The problem with reasonable requests is that people misunderstand or willfully misread the request, and then come up with unreasonable objections which often have nothing to do with the request in the first place.
Last edited:
Because those are the only two mission types which are inherently self regulating and hence there is no good reason to have the cap. You're starting from the standpoint that 20 missions is a natural and correct maximum which should be applied to all missions by default unless there is a good reason NOT to do so.
Flip around the way you're looking at it. Start by recognizing that the number 20 is totally arbitrary and go through all the mission types one by one and ask yourself "is there a good reason to cap this mission type, and if so why?" If the only reason you have for capping mission type X is "because mission types Y and Z are already capped", well that's not a good enough reason. It's not a reason at all; it's just inertia.