Mission Timers - Reopening an old wound with what we know now

spacejumbofudge · Feb 18, 2015

I know the whole concept of mission timers - that they're real time and can expire when you go offline - was covered a LOT at launch (and probably before). So sorry for bringing this up again, but...

At the time, a lot of people argued mission timers were necessary because of the background simulation and the shared world used in Elite. A lot of people now have come to realise the simulation isn't maybe as deep as it could be (or hopefully as deep as it will be). So I'm wondering if there's really still a good reason why standard missions need to time out in real time?

I'm obviously not including community goals here, but I see no reason why you can't have a separate mechanism for those to normal missions.

I've personally NEVER seen a mission in the bulletin board disappear before my eyes, so I'm sceptical that they're really that shared, or that if they are it's actually having any effect because of how spread out users are and maybe how few do missions.

Anyway, I think there are good reasons for mission timers not expiring (life for many isn't predicable, certainly not if you have a young child. Also, not everyone has lots of free time, which can make it harder to predict how long in real time it'll take to play a certain amount).

Gasoline · Feb 18, 2015

It's supposed to be Elite

angerous not Elite

lay On Your Own Time

spacejumbofudge · Feb 18, 2015

Gasoline said:
It's supposed to be Eliteangerous not Elitelay On Your Own Time

God, I hope that's a joke 'in before the it's supposed to be dangerous answers' reply.

Cmdr Pli55ken · Feb 18, 2015

So I'm wondering if there's really still a good reason why standard missions need to time out in real time?

If you want the mission system to get deeper (especially with shared mission goals) then real time limits are essential.

but I see no reason why you can't have a separate mechanism for those to normal missions.

Because it would add code (with costly tests and the potential of introducing bugs) that adds nothing to gameplay.

Anyway, I think there are good reasons for mission timers not expiring

An obvious reason for a mission timer expiring is that you have some incentive not to let that happen, since you incur a negative hit to your rep and maybe a fine for failing a mission.
Otherwise people would just click accept to all missions without reading them and then just by pure chance accomplish the occasional mission. That's not how it's supposed to go.
When you're on a mission you have to deliberately decide to go - and face the penalties if you fail.

Sim Maker · Feb 18, 2015

Combat Rank: Expert
Trade Rank: Merchant
Exporer Rank: Sureveyor.......

Combat Bonds 0
Profit from Combat Bonds 0
Assasinations 0
Profit from Assasinations 0
Highest Single Reward 0
Bounties Claimed 0

I'm in the same boat as you OP.........just dont have the time. But, I still have fun..............

Watcher · Feb 18, 2015

This one winds me up.
There is pretty much no reason for mission timers to tick down while you are offline - you still have the same in game time to complete the mission and you still take the hit in game if you fail.
Timers continuing while offline only hurts players who have less time to play and/or suffer from a higher likelihood of interruption.
In situations where the mission can become invalid due to changing background simulation I suggest the mission fails safe. You don't take a reputation hit but you also can't complete for the reward. If you are hauling cargo then I guess either mark it as stolen or simply remove it. These situations should be pretty rare, stations aren't exactly changing hands every five minutes so trying to benefit from this (if possible at all) would take a very long time and require a significant degree of planning or luck.
For situations where a mission is contingent on other players directly then, fine, yes, having a timer that ticks down offline makes sense. But _currently_ we don't really have anything like that and I really don't think it would prove a problem to manage...
Anyway, as I say, this winds me up.
I find I very seldom have time to play in large contiguous chunks of time so simply miss out on many missions - great.
I'm still enjoying a spot of bounty hunting (non mission based) and some light trading but, you know, this has reduced the game for me which is a tad depressing.
I'll now grit my teeth and try not to get in to an argument about it.. Again..

spacejumbofudge · Feb 18, 2015

Cmdr Pli55ken said:
If you want the mission system to get deeper (especially with shared mission goals) then real time limits are essential.

Because it would add code (with costly tests and the potential of introducing bugs) that adds nothing to gameplay.

An obvious reason for a mission timer expiring is that you have some incentive not to let that happen, since you incur a negative hit to your rep and maybe a fine for failing a mission.
Otherwise people would just click accept to all missions without reading them and then just by pure chance accomplish the occasional mission. That's not how it's supposed to go.
When you're on a mission you have to deliberately decide to go - and face the penalties if you fail.

I was tempted to just ignore your reply as there's no real arguments in there and I suspect you may not be open to real arguments, but I'll try anyway.

-Saying real time limits are essential for a deeper system is a statement without any reasoning. Having real-time limits doesn't make it deper in itself. You could argue there's a background simulation and the game is putting that kill pirates mission there at that point for the next 3 hours because there is currently a pirate problem that needs solving... only we all know that's not true. 1) no sensible person would advertise for a job like that with a three hour limit. 2) the simulation isn't actually that involved 3) that same mission will be offered again and again at every port

-arguments about adding code and bugs and the like are no longer arguing the change isn't the correct thing to do but just that it's not important enough.

-your 'obvious reason' at the end suggests you may not have understood the OP. I was not saying no timers, I was saying no real-time timers. I'm saying stop the timers when you log off. If I accepted a load of missions with this system I'd still fail them after a few gameplay hours, I just wouldn't fail them because the baby woke up/my internet went down/I went down the pub/I had a heart attack and was in hospital for a week/I got amnesia from a hit on the head and spent a year wandering the forests naked.

Sir_Robin · Feb 18, 2015

With posts like this you are always going to get both sides.

Those who can commit an uninterrupted chunk of time to the game - and don't see the problem...

And...

Those who would probably like to be in the first category - but for one reason or another can't.

My own view is if the requests of one group negatively impact the other - then it's probably best not to make the change. As the OP says that was the original argument against stopping the clock whilst offline.

Personally I don't think that argument holds water now.

Ie if offline stopped timer, group one would not be negatively impacted and group two would be at happier / more likely to play the missions.

I want more happy players - so +1 from me to OP and +1 for stopping clock when offline.

SR

Mithos09 · Feb 18, 2015

As a trader, I figured out that most missions simply aren't profitable enough. Which is sad, because I would prefer doing missions.
Keep the timer, but raise the payment by a magnitude for every mission type except commodity requests.

tayzyboy · Feb 18, 2015

sir robin has nailed it. mission timers pausing wouldnt negatively affect the "plenty of time to play" group. but would allow the rest of us with less predictable game sessions to do missions.. if the background sim changes in the future i may change my mind. but how it behaves now it makes no difference whether timers pause, so why not?

spacejumbofudge · Feb 19, 2015

tayzyboy said:
sir robin has nailed it. mission timers pausing wouldnt negatively affect the "plenty of time to play" group. but would allow the rest of us with less predictable game sessions to do missions.. if the background sim changes in the future i may change my mind. but how it behaves now it makes no difference whether timers pause, so why not?

In the original threads at launch on this topic, I could never understand the people who claimed it would negatively effect them if this was changed, I think it's just more of the thoughtless 'because dangerous' argument you see a lot.

Kolato · Feb 19, 2015

Oh please not this again!
It has been discussed so many times and it always end up in flame wars!
If you dont want missions to tick down while offline, dont do missions.

jgm · Feb 19, 2015

Sir_Robin said:
With posts like this you are always going to get both sides.

Those who can commit an uninterrupted chunk of time to the game - and don't see the problem...

And...

Those who would probably like to be in the first category - but for one reason or another can't.

And the third category of those who can't commit an uninterrupted chunk of time to the game but still enjoy the choice and consequence of missions as they are.

CMDR Sheehy · Feb 19, 2015

Totally understand. I tend to never pick up a mission I can't finish in the time I set myself to play. Creates some very rushed docking experiences and some "Oh, no you don't interdict me noooowwww!!!!" moments.

Whiterose · Feb 19, 2015

Customer: So I was expecting a delivery of your new widget last week according to your plan.
Business: Oh, the plan doesnt count when I am off line, or sleeping, its only there to suit me.
Customer: In that case we will instigate the failure tio deliver clause, so you owe us...let me see 1M credits.

Kalearne · Feb 19, 2015

I'm one of the players who don't mind the timers ticking when I'm offline, it really doesn't bother me.

However two points;
Games should be fun.
A big chunk of the players have real life commitments that get in the way.

I don't see a problem changing the timers so they stop on logoff. I can't think of a game mechanic that could be abused (you'd have to be online to abuse them). It would also add a lot of flexibility for those who can't commit to extended periods of play.

Well there's my opinion

babelfisch · Feb 19, 2015

Missions are generated according to the current state of the faction. You can check this state on the system factions tab by selecting and clicking on them. This actually works, the background simulation might not be perfect or fully fleshed out yet, but it works. If you accept a mission to help with economic boom for example, and you come back in 2 months, the mission doesn't make sense anymore.

Missions usually requiere something between 5 and 15 minutes. There is no way you could be unable to fullfil this mission in the given time. Except from Hutton Orbital of course...

BTW I don't have much time to play the game right now, still I think the timer should be in real time.

Farmboy · Feb 19, 2015

I've sat in empty anarchy systems for 20+ minutes waiting for USS to spawn so I can 'kill pirates'. I've had severe problems completing 3hr missions of that nature in the time limit and without being underslept for work the next day because when the do spawn they are full of cargo cannisters or bounty hunters rather than the pirates I need.

To assert that missions take between 5 and 15 minutes is incorrect. Trading ones, yes. The others can and do take variable, and unpredictable, amounts of time.

If missions timing out didn't count for -ve rep, this wouldn't be a problem. You don't do the mission, it's like not taking it in the first place. I don't think my accepting a mission affects it's availability for anyone else, so that shouldn't be a problem.

It's also mainly a gotcha for new players - I don't accept that type of mission now because the risk of not completing it and getting -ve rep is too high when my game time is limited. But that makes the whole mission system a lot less functional for me.

babelfisch · Feb 19, 2015

Farmboy said:
I've sat in empty anarchy systems for 20+ minutes waiting for USS to spawn so I can 'kill pirates'. I've had severe problems completing 3hr missions of that nature in the time limit and without being underslept for work the next day because when the do spawn they are full of cargo cannisters or bounty hunters rather than the pirates I need.

To assert that missions take between 5 and 15 minutes is incorrect. Trading ones, yes. The others can and do take variable, and unpredictable, amounts of time.

If missions timing out didn't count for -ve rep, this wouldn't be a problem. You don't do the mission, it's like not taking it in the first place. I don't think my accepting a mission affects it's availability for anyone else, so that shouldn't be a problem.

It's also mainly a gotcha for new players - I don't accept that type of mission now because the risk of not completing it and getting -ve rep is too high when my game time is limited. But that makes the whole mission system a lot less functional for me.

This is an entirely other problem. There shouldn't be a mission to kill pirates in an empty system. When I said 5-15 minutes I should have mentioned that I only take part in missions that I can actually fullfil, by looking at the system map in advance.

So the problem is that the mission is designed bad and your solution is to remove the real time instead of fixing the mission?

Gogster · Feb 19, 2015

Is there a particular reason for them to tick down whilst you are off-line?