Mission Stacking Discussion

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Greetings CMDRs!

I fancied a chat about mission stacking. But not whether it's right or wrong, or lame, or evil... or whatever.
I'm not really sure what I'm on about, as usual, but the problem I see is that, people find, say System X, thats glorious for stacking shed loads of easy missions for whatever reason.
Then other people, or FD feel that's wrong or not intended, and nerf that entire mission line in to the ground.
It's not the best solution. We only have so many missions. Lol

So, I'm a strong believer in that if a mission is hard, or takes a long time, then the reward should be high. If it's easy, or quick, then the reward should be low.

However, no one likes it when a source of income, or military rep, is nerfed, including me. (Corvette, you're so close!)

So basically, instead of messing with the outcome, mess with the risk, or time investment.

For example, data deliveries are easy, stackable, so create great rep rewards, with little or no risk, or time investment.
Nerfing the reward is going to upset a lot of people. So that's a No.
Making them take longer for no reason, is also a No.
That leaves Risk.
What risk can be added?
The only one I can think of is "Fail On Scan". Sending ships to blow you up is rather annoying, but sending ships to scan you and "steal the data" makes sense. Or it does to me.

Imagine you had 20 missions stacked, and you're on your way to your destination, and bam, interdicted. The ship scans you and runs for it. You can either give up and fail all the missions, or chase them down and blow them to bits, then carry on as normal.

Or something.

Anyhoo, I'm forgotten what I was on about....


CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[shadragon]

People should play the game and not game the play.

Mission stacking is fine. If you see a mission to the same place that you already have one, go for it. If you're sitting on a pad for three hours logging in and out of various game modes you're not really playing a game at that point.

If you do want to do that, feel free, but you're only cheating yourself in the end.

 

[Jenner]

High risk = high reward is well and good, but insta-fail on scan is rather cheap imho. That's not adding risk, just annoyance.

Better to make missions more engaging/challenging/immersive/appropriately rewarding as a whole rather than slapping a band-aid on it.

How? I'm not a game designer.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

High risk = high reward is well and good, but insta-fail on scan is rather cheap imho. That's not adding risk, just annoyance.

Better to make missions more engaging/challenging/immersive/appropriately rewarding as a whole rather than slapping a band-aid on it.

How? I'm not a game designer.

I covered that bit. Lol

The only one I can think of is "Fail On Scan". Sending ships to blow you up is rather annoying, but sending ships to scan you and "steal the data" makes sense. Or it does to me.

So security won't be failing your missions on the way out the dock, but you might get interdicted by a 3rd party on the way to the next port, and rather than fail on scan, you only fail if they escape. Nor will it matter if security scan you at the other end.

 

[Factabulous]

First they need to fix the broken stacking: if I take 3 base scan missions to different locations then I should have to visit 3 locations - not one or two. Same with the dodgy tourist beacon missions. Then worry about adding variety.

 

[Ninj]

Imagine you had 20 missions stacked, and you're on your way to your destination, and bam, interdicted. The ship scans you and runs for it. You can either give up and fail all the missions, or chase them down and blow them to bits, then carry on as normal.

I don't have to imagine! Robigo was fun back in the day.

The "fail mission on scan" thing disappeared when the whiners flooded the forums with their woes. Now it just affects bonuses on smuggling missions afaik.

This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[andrewg_oz]

The issues I have with mission stacking are:

1. Completing multiple mission objectives in parallel.
2. Mode flipping to get more missions.

On 1, the most common example is taking on multiple kill missions, such as 'kill 6 pirates' and 'kill 9 pirates'. Currently you only need to kill 9 pirates to complete both missions, while IMO you should need to kill 15.

I don't think there is much that can be done about multiple data missions completing in parallel - the real 'problem' is that they take up zero space. Regular cargo delivery missions require using up finite cargo space that will run out. The quick-and-dirty solution here is to limit the number of data missions that can be taken at the same time. Another idea is the more data missions you take on, the more likely it is that each mission will generate hostile ships to intercept you. What I mean here is let's say doing one mission has a 10% chance of triggering hostile ships. Taking on two missions could increase the probability to 20% for each mission and so on. Taking ten data delivery missions would guarantee that every single one would generate hostile ships. (Probabilities given are just examples.)

As for things like scan missions completing in parallel, the game should really only spawn one target site at a time, and require you to leave that instance before generating a new target site for the next scan mission.

As for mode flipping, it seems obvious to me that mission boards should remain the same no matter which mode you select. It's the same station, the same factions - it should be the same missions too.

 

[Rozete]

i stack. i stack mining missions prior to going mining. i stack scan/salvage misions and then try to finish them in one go. i stack power grid take out missions so i could blow something up and it would cost me more then one missile before i rerturn. i stack supply missions, massacre missions, assassinations.. i stack alot. most of the time one or two particular kind of missions. i dunno, just to create an ilusion of task at hand i have to commit to maybe?.. doing one single mission feels like not doing anything. ships are not used to full potential - i need a feeling that i can run out of limpets, cargo space, fuel, ammo; that i need some route/action plan, some materials for synth.. otherwise i dont even want to leave the station
but then again i can run game in the background 24/7, cheking board from time to time, and then actually play for an hour or two

 

[IndigoWyrd]

There are two kinds of mission stacking.

The first involves logging in and out over and over, until your mission list is full, usually of the same kind of mission, typically massacre or scan missions, as they can be completed at a single location. The makes certain types of players wet themselves in frustration because they don't believe in this sort of thing. They don't have to, but they pile in here calling this an "exploit", when really it's just a mechanics thing.

The second is similar to the first, but involves either traveling to different stations in the same system, or simply sitting on a landing pad waiting for the next mission board update. In the end, you wind up with the same kind of thing - a full list of missions to the same place(s) or for the same activity. This does not offend the above mentioned group nearly as much.

But here's the thing - nothing will satisfy this group of players short of the mission list being cut down to a limit of 1 mission at a time, worth 1 credit. These folks simply need to butt out of everyone else's play style, play their own games and mind their own business. A lesson a growing portion of society needs to learn badly, before it collapses.

 

[Deleted member 115407]

People should play the game and not game the play.

Mission stacking is fine. If you see a mission to the same place that you already have one, go for it. If you're sitting on a pad for three hours logging in and out of various game modes you're not really playing a game at that point.

If you do want to do that, feel free, but you're only cheating yourself in the end.

That pretty much covers it.

 

[Andovar]

I fancied a chat about mission stacking. But not whether it's right or wrong, or lame, or evil... or whatever.
I'm not really sure what I'm on about, as usual...

Or something.

Anyhoo, I'm forgotten what I was on about....

Your Delta Tau Chi nickname is... CMDR Cosmic Onionhead!

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

Your Delta Tau Chi nickname is... CMDR Cosmic Onionhead!

No need for drugs. ADHD will do that by itself.

 

[Crank Larson]

Personally, I'd like the missions to be fixed (the ones that have bugs still) and then the stacking limits removed. It is very artificial to limit cargo delivery missions to a particular number. I regularly hit the "You have too many missions of this type" when my cargo hold is only half full (with the Python - there's rarely any point in using the Cutter for these). I should be able to stack cargo missions until I have no cargo space left. Ideally, the same should apply to other missions too (why should I be limited?) - but with the existing bugs this wouldn't work too well.

 

[Tacyon]

This again ...
Surface scan's and data deliveries shouldn't be limited in numbers. If I'm an efficient trader and I see that I can also do "X" because it’s on the way or even at the same location, then I'm doing it right. What IS wrong is that while I'm holding 13 surface scans in my job queue and a pilot who just landed a minute before me, scans the data hub and not only does ALL his scan jobs complete at once, but also ALL of mine as well and I've not even landed. I agree, you should have to land, get out, scan, board, take off, nav to next, land, and repeat for each of the 13 scan jobs in your queue. Also, if you take three scan jobs (no more available) and exit the mission board, you will not be offered any additional scan jobs no matter what mode you’re in. You can however, hit the jackpot and have multiple scan jobs available and pick them all up, even in excess of 3 but not more than 20.
To show you just HOW broken that whole scenario is, next time you do it, pay attention to the raising antenna mast at the data shed. Note, there are TWO (or more) overlaid on each other. Yes two Data HUB buildings occupying the same space! You can see that in the light segment at the top of the mast as its spinning, you'll see two of them.

Data storage on my ship should also be virtually unlimited by the year 330x. Even ignoring Moore’s law of advancement, this should not be an issue. This means data from scan or data delivery missions, scans of anomalous objects that result in entries in the inventory/data tab should not be limited to 500 (or cargo hold size). There is no basis or logic behind this. But there is if you're simply wanting to cap or govern the player from being able to do "X" in the game. Which I suspect IS the case as tracking an “unlimited inventory DB” of items per ship, per user is beyond FD’s design and/or abilities.
Limits to number of concurrent missions excepted where physical cargo is either delivered or picked up should obviously be limited to the amount of cargo space available and the landing pad size at the delivery end. This is logical and intuitive.
But even this is not a adhered all the time in game. I’ve had data delivery missions declined (not available) due to insufficient available cargo space!! is that, and basically a differently worded but basically same type of mission right next to it, available to me!

Its like they need a continuity directory just to clean up all the floobs

 

[Lucius-Darcia]

Greetings CMDRs!

I fancied a chat about mission stacking. But not whether it's right or wrong, or lame, or evil... or whatever.
I'm not really sure what I'm on about, as usual, but the problem I see is that, people find, say System X, thats glorious for stacking shed loads of easy missions for whatever reason.
Then other people, or FD feel that's wrong or not intended, and nerf that entire mission line in to the ground.
It's not the best solution. We only have so many missions. Lol

So, I'm a strong believer in that if a mission is hard, or takes a long time, then the reward should be high. If it's easy, or quick, then the reward should be low.

However, no one likes it when a source of income, or military rep, is nerfed, including me. (Corvette, you're so close!)

So basically, instead of messing with the outcome, mess with the risk, or time investment.

For example, data deliveries are easy, stackable, so create great rep rewards, with little or no risk, or time investment.
Nerfing the reward is going to upset a lot of people. So that's a No.
Making them take longer for no reason, is also a No.
That leaves Risk.
What risk can be added?
The only one I can think of is "Fail On Scan". Sending ships to blow you up is rather annoying, but sending ships to scan you and "steal the data" makes sense. Or it does to me.

Imagine you had 20 missions stacked, and you're on your way to your destination, and bam, interdicted. The ship scans you and runs for it. You can either give up and fail all the missions, or chase them down and blow them to bits, then carry on as normal.

Or something.

Anyhoo, I'm forgotten what I was on about....


CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

For surface scan missions:
What would be, if they would work right? For each mission a separate landing point and separate progress of the mission? Not "scan one to complete 20" but "scan 20 points at 20 planets to complete 20 missions"

This would solve the problem without nerf in any direction

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

For surface scan missions:
What would be, if they would work right? For each mission a separate landing point and separate progress of the mission? Not "scan one to complete 20" but "scan 20 points at 20 planets to complete 20 missions"

This would solve the problem without nerf in any direction

I believe that behaviour is a bug anyway. Hopefully fixed in 2.4+.

Atleast that's what the QA guys say. Lol

 

[Flavourless]

People should play the game and not game the play.

Mission stacking is fine. If you see a mission to the same place that you already have one, go for it. If you're sitting on a pad for three hours logging in and out of various game modes you're not really playing a game at that point.

If you do want to do that, feel free, but you're only cheating yourself in the end.

^^This^^

The issues I have with mission stacking are:

1. Completing multiple mission objectives in parallel.
2. Mode flipping to get more missions...

^^And this^^

There are two kinds of mission stacking.

The first involves logging in and out over and over, until your mission list is full, usually of the same kind of mission, typically massacre or scan missions, as they can be completed at a single location. The makes certain types of players wet themselves in frustration because they don't believe in this sort of thing. They don't have to, but they pile in here calling this an "exploit", when really it's just a mechanics thing.

The second is similar to the first, but involves either traveling to different stations in the same system, or simply sitting on a landing pad waiting for the next mission board update. In the end, you wind up with the same kind of thing - a full list of missions to the same place(s) or for the same activity. This does not offend the above mentioned group nearly as much.

But here's the thing - nothing will satisfy this group of players short of the mission list being cut down to a limit of 1 mission at a time, worth 1 credit. These folks simply need to butt out of everyone else's play style, play their own games and mind their own business. A lesson a growing portion of society needs to learn badly, before it collapses.

^^This is unfortunately typical of the factually incorrect, ill thought out, condescending, drivel that constitutes many contributions to this forum^^
An exploit is using a game mechanism in a way that was not intended. Like getting multiple rewards for completing only one task. Just saying.

 

[Demascus]

I propose a trade, I'll see your limit to 1 mission at a time in exchange for a hard cap limited on the amount of scanned systems and planets.

Clearly being able to scan and hold data for more than one system at a time is not in keeping with the spirit of the game.
As of now you can hold an unlimited amount of exploration data, clearly an exploit if I ever heard one.

I also put forth the notion that being able to hold multiple types of different cargo is ridiculous.

 

[Nervous Energy]

Then they to SIGNIFICANTLY improve rewards.

Credits
Influence
Rep.

People only do it due to the ridiculous game design of grindathon for elite dangerous.

GRIND AND REPEATING OVER 100 Times + Is not game-play.

The core system is broken, you cant blame players one bit.

 

[verminstar]

I find these discussions funny...mostly because Im not motivated by money. Its merely a commodity needed to advance an endgame...why wouldnt ye wanna make it as fast as possible?

Ye Ive stacked missions though not fer the money...those were courier missions with rng coin rewards, and ye mode switched to get the best missions when I needed money...so what? Ive never used any other exploits because I chose not to at the time...I was role playing ironman mode, so exploits didnt make any sense. Now Im not roleplaying ironman and I needed money to put a larger plan into motion...of course I wanted to make that as fast as possible. What possible motivation would I have fer wanting to intentionally prolong it? If I need it, Ill get it and then move on...its not an endgame, its merely an early requirement in a larger plan.

Am I cheating meself? So what if I am...its my game so if I wanna cheat meself then whats that to anyone else? Are ye trying to dictate how a game should be played? A game that says play yer own way? Think about it. Nobody has the right to judge others on how they play, regardless how much they disagree with it...if its an issue for ye, then yer issue is with the game itself. Blame the game, not the player.

Should it be nerfed? Absolutely, but then ye gotta do a few other wee things like fix the damned thing so one doesnt have to go to such lengths in the first place ^