Mode switching for missions and Smeaton Orbital [200mill/hour]

Just to pick up on this...

It'd be nice if FDev could take the opportunity to take a step back and rethink the way ALL this stuff works.

Right now it seems like we've just got 3 types of mission; cattle transport, annoying VIP transport and annoying VIP tours.
It'd be nice if there was, instead, a range of mission-types available with a range of different tiers (requiring the different cabins) as well.


The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of just making the cattle transport missions into "charters" with big volumes of people to fill up ships in one go.
You go to the passenger lounge and, instead of stacking"X refugees want to go to Y" missions together, it'd be "World's End Tours wants to hire your ship to transport 131 passengers to X for Cr40m".
If you accept, you've hired your ship to the company so you simply can't take any more missions until you complete that charter flight.

They could deliberately offer the charter missions in group sizes of around 20, 60 and 140 to suit the max capacity of the Dolphin, Orca and Beluga - paying, say, Cr10m, Cr20m and C40m respectively.
And if the configuration of your ship doesn't allow you to take biggest group, that's just tough cookies.
This is basically what they tried a few months back when they massively upped the number of VIPs to try and reduce stacking. Odd that at the same time they didn't do what they've done with delivery and a mission that used to be for 2-10 you now take 120 cargo for less money! They could have upped the passenger numbers needed way back fairly easily. But they didn't.

Because IMO Passengers sell units. Simple as that
 
If they remove boardhopping, theyshould make a way to fill all cabins.. leaving half a ship empty is just silly. Its means you can use a smaller ship for the same task..
I didn't board hop, and I rarely made a trip without a full ship (Beluga). I just visited three or four stations until i was full and then headed to Smeaton. Always made more than 100 million, sometimes over 150.

If there isn't demand, you can't fill all cabins. Sometimes a small ship is more appropriate.
 
If Quantas can charge a hell of a lot more for flying people to Australia over 24 hours you’re basically saying they shouldn’t charge more than Ryanair who charge a hell of a lot less for flying people to Scotland in an hour.

Makes no logical sense to penalise something that pays bigger because it takes a big investment in time.
British Airways London to Glasgow Tickets from 75 pounds...c400 Miles equals nearly 19 pence/mile
British Airways London to Sydney Tickets from 700 pounds...c10,000 Miles equals nearly 0.13 pence/mile

Cost doesn't rise Linearly with distance
 
I'm just glad that after 1836 hours in the game, I finally managed to get into a decent cash cow before it dried up..

I now have a 1.3 billion bank roll to play the game my way....
 
British Airways London to Glasgow Tickets from 75 pounds...c400 Miles equals nearly 19 pence/mile
British Airways London to Sydney Tickets from 700 pounds...c10,000 Miles equals nearly 0.13 pence/mile

Cost doesn't rise Linearly with distance
Depends on the demand, time, day of the week,month,year. and start and finish point. If the finish point isnt the best and they struggle to fill the plane on the return journey they raise the price. Also basically bidding wars between airlines. Elite doesn't have bidding wars to drive prices down. Smeaton doesn't have the demand to leave so filling up is harder. Its the same as taxis here in Australia if you want to go somewhere were they aren't guaranteed return fare either they refuse to take you or they have a bigger flagfall. Same as peak times.

Also here in Australia say you want to fly to broome from perth in the same state. It costs more than flying to adelaide in a different state. Or it costs more to fly to sydney from perth than from sydney to perth.
 
Last edited:
A 25% reduction would defiantly re-balance the missions.

Honestly I think FDev's heart is in exploration and they won't let one branch be more profitable than exploration.

Furthermore I think this has to do with 3.0 quarter 4 update; in that, they don't want everyone having a fleet carrier.
 
British Airways London to Glasgow Tickets from 75 pounds...c400 Miles equals nearly 19 pence/mile
British Airways London to Sydney Tickets from 700 pounds...c10,000 Miles equals nearly 0.13 pence/mile

Cost doesn't rise Linearly with distance
Ahh but A380 has 544 seats therefore $38 per mile (sorry no GBP sign on this keyboard) and that assumes all economy to fit the regional example
A320 has 150 therefore only $26 per mile.

Then we have longer distance = costs you more.

But that said price gouging airlines are possibly not the best example, I've paid $1,000 to fly Perth (WA) to Exmouth (WA) about 1200km just because it was peak time mid week, for another $200 I could have flown to the UK 14,000km.

So whilst it isn't linear by any stretch it is most definitely more expensive overall due to the scale needed.

Ask BA to fly you to Sydney in a A320 and they will give you a hell of a quote for the privilege, ask them to do a 1 hour hop in an A380 you'll get the same ridiculous quote.

However Passenger missions here aren't BA or Qantas on a scheduled route, this is passengers lining up outside the charter offices at the local dustbowl airstrip wanting a daytrip or a "fast jet anywhere as long as it leaves now" and these puppies will charge you both by the hour, distance, by the number of people being hauled and any "risk" involved. Believe me they will make your eyes water with the amount they may ask for this type of service. No place for short hands and deep pockets if you want to fly in a hurry or if it is a no questions asked trip.

So yeah in reality it is a linear cost both in terms of time , distance, numbers and risk.
 
Hello commanders,

As some of you are aware, Passenger Bulk missions are currently generating extremely high credit rewards that we feel are excessive of what we would consider reasonable and balanced.

After a detailed investigation, we can confirm that this is due to an element in our mission generation algorithm that rewards credits based on the distance of the destination system from the star.

Due to this, we will be disabling (until further notice) the aforementioned element of Passenger Bulk missions to reduce the amount of credits offered as a reward. Commanders will still be able to select and complete Passenger Bulk missions, but will see less excessive credit rewards.

In the meantime, we will be reviewing the Passenger Bulk missions and correct the previously mentioned element – hopefully in time for you to test in the Beyond Chapter One beta.

Thanks to all the players who reported the issue.
Good. (with a grumpy cat face)

But not soon enough. "Give free money" -buttons are never good for any game. Players get bored too soon and start complaining that there's no content (because they just skipped it all with the free money button).

Idea: Make the crazy paying passenger missions to require luxury cabins or whatever they were, and make them to require privacy = you can get only one set of passengers at a time.
 
Last edited:
Hello commanders,

As some of you are aware, Passenger Bulk missions are currently generating extremely high credit rewards that we feel are excessive of what we would consider reasonable and balanced.

After a detailed investigation, we can confirm that this is due to an element in our mission generation algorithm that rewards credits based on the distance of the destination system from the star.

Due to this, we will be disabling (until further notice) the aforementioned element of Passenger Bulk missions to reduce the amount of credits offered as a reward. Commanders will still be able to select and complete Passenger Bulk missions, but will see less excessive credit rewards.

In the meantime, we will be reviewing the Passenger Bulk missions and correct the previously mentioned element – hopefully in time for you to test in the Beyond Chapter One beta.

Thanks to all the players who reported the issue.
Frack you Fdev. You Frackers "fixed it" once already remember Reha?...you said "It is now working as Intended." Thanks for another lie. the Devs clearly don't give a flying frack about this off portion of their player base. I seriously doubt anyone capable of making real game changing decisions is going to read this thread. Much less pay any fracking attention to the good suggestions that are in it....


Braben :"Grab the trusty Nerf Hammer Sandro it's time to go out and patch some bullet holes with Band-Aid's." Random passerby "I don't think a band-aid is the proper solution to the problem..." * A loud Swoosh ..... BOOM* as the Nerf Hammer is brought into play on the passerby* instead of blood excessive salt Rains from the sky*
 

Will Flanagan

Community Manager
Frontier
Hello everyone,

I've gone through your responses based on the statement that I made yesterday and wanted to thank you for your feedback, critical and positive. We hear what you’re saying on multiple issues raised in this discussion and we'll take all feedback we've received onboard.

There are a few things I want to clarify in case there’s any confusion:

  1. As I said in my original post, we don’t feel that this is an exploit, but an imbalanced element of our mission reward algorithm. 'Distance from the star' is a mission reward element we want to keep, but as said yesterday, we feel it needs balancing so we’ve temporarily turned off that particular mission reward element. We're not removing it; we just need to test it before reintroducing it back into the game. As a result you will see reduced credit rewards for Passenger Bulk missions for the time being while we find the right balance.
  2. As this is not an exploit, but a balancing matter, we won’t be removing credits from those who have earned credits in this way.
  3. Regarding 'mission board switching', we’ve passed the feedback onto the team and we'll update you when we have more information.
If there's additional feedback you want to share on the matter, please do so but make sure it’s constructive and civil. Thanks!
 
Hello everyone,

I've gone through your responses based on the statement that I made yesterday and wanted to thank you for your feedback, critical and positive. We hear what you’re saying on multiple issues raised in this discussion and we'll take all feedback we've received onboard.

There are a few things I want to clarify in case there’s any confusion:

  1. As I said in my original post, we don’t feel that this is an exploit, but an imbalanced element of our mission reward algorithm. 'Distance from the star' is a mission reward element we want to keep, but as said yesterday, we feel it needs balancing so we’ve temporarily turned off that particular mission reward element. We're not removing it; we just need to test it before reintroducing it back into the game. As a result you will see reduced credit rewards for Passenger Bulk missions for the time being while we find the right balance.
  2. As this is not an exploit, but a balancing matter, we won’t be removing credits from those who have earned credits in this way.
  3. Regarding 'mission board switching', we’ve passed the feedback onto the team and we'll update you when we .
If there's additional feedback you want to share on the matter, please do so but make sure it’s constructive and civil. Thanks!
Thank you for the clarification.
 
Hello everyone,

I've gone through your responses based on the statement that I made yesterday and wanted to thank you for your feedback, critical and positive. We hear what you’re saying on multiple issues raised in this discussion and we'll take all feedback we've received onboard.

There are a few things I want to clarify in case there’s any confusion:

  1. As I said in my original post, we don’t feel that this is an exploit, but an imbalanced element of our mission reward algorithm. 'Distance from the star' is a mission reward element we want to keep, but as said yesterday, we feel it needs balancing so we’ve temporarily turned off that particular mission reward element. We're not removing it; we just need to test it before reintroducing it back into the game. As a result you will see reduced credit rewards for Passenger Bulk missions for the time being while we find the right balance.
  2. As this is not an exploit, but a balancing matter, we won’t be removing credits from those who have earned credits in this way.
  3. Regarding 'mission board switching', we’ve passed the feedback onto the team and we'll update you when we .
If there's additional feedback you want to share on the matter, please do so but make sure it’s constructive and civil. Thanks!
I guess this thread is your official welcome to the forums.... you have not lost your Elite dangerous forum virginity until you have been subjected to a good roasting :D
 
Hello everyone,

I've gone through your responses based on the statement that I made yesterday and wanted to thank you for your feedback, critical and positive. We hear what you’re saying on multiple issues raised in this discussion and we'll take all feedback we've received onboard.

There are a few things I want to clarify in case there’s any confusion:

  1. As I said in my original post, we don’t feel that this is an exploit, but an imbalanced element of our mission reward algorithm. 'Distance from the star' is a mission reward element we want to keep, but as said yesterday, we feel it needs balancing so we’ve temporarily turned off that particular mission reward element. We're not removing it; we just need to test it before reintroducing it back into the game. As a result you will see reduced credit rewards for Passenger Bulk missions for the time being while we find the right balance.
  2. As this is not an exploit, but a balancing matter, we won’t be removing credits from those who have earned credits in this way.
  3. Regarding 'mission board switching', we’ve passed the feedback onto the team and we'll update you when we .
If there's additional feedback you want to share on the matter, please do so but make sure it’s constructive and civil. Thanks!
Will, thank you for clarifications. As always they are welcome, especially with hot subjects like this.

Could you weight in on what Dominic said about board flipping....I understand FD doesn't see it as first priority, but scenarios might this might make management see it other way?

Because even if I don't find gold mine gameplay appealing, I kinda agree major issue here was board flipping. If Boards would stay the same across relogins, this would remove one thorny element from discussion and would allow to see balance, earning as they are atm.
 
'Distance from the star' is a mission reward element we want to keep, but as said yesterday, we feel it needs balancing so we’ve temporarily turned off that particular mission reward element. We're not removing it; we just need to test it before reintroducing it back into the game.
Right. So, this feature has been in the game for a few months now (at least two, though I think more)... And suddenly it becomes such a huge issue that it needs to be turned off immediately. :rolleyes: You don't need to test anything - if the rewards are too high, adjust the multiplier.

I'll be honest, I couldn't care less whether these missions come back or not. But FD's reaction here has been cack-handed.
 
If there's additional feedback you want to share on the matter, please do so but make sure it’s constructive and civil. Thanks!
Just a point of order Will. The arbitrary nature of this "temporary situation" can hardly be classified as constructive or civil. Maybe FDev should act by example?

If you lot had posed a question of "What does everyone think about passenger mission payouts on longrange missions being too high?" It pretty clear what asnswer you would have received.

There is obviously more to this and a little transparency of why it's even a thing would go a long way I feel.
 
Hello everyone,

I've gone through your responses based on the statement that I made yesterday and wanted to thank you for your feedback, critical and positive. We hear what you’re saying on multiple issues raised in this discussion and we'll take all feedback we've received onboard.

There are a few things I want to clarify in case there’s any confusion:

  1. As I said in my original post, we don’t feel that this is an exploit, but an imbalanced element of our mission reward algorithm. 'Distance from the star' is a mission reward element we want to keep, but as said yesterday, we feel it needs balancing so we’ve temporarily turned off that particular mission reward element. We're not removing it; we just need to test it before reintroducing it back into the game. As a result you will see reduced credit rewards for Passenger Bulk missions for the time being while we find the right balance.
  2. As this is not an exploit, but a balancing matter, we won’t be removing credits from those who have earned credits in this way.
  3. Regarding 'mission board switching', we’ve passed the feedback onto the team and we'll update you when we .
If there's additional feedback you want to share on the matter, please do so but make sure it’s constructive and civil. Thanks!
Would be good if all Fdev could be on the same page.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/400760-Progress-on-Mode-Swapping-exploits?p=6317295&viewfull=1#post6317295

"Hi there,

Missions are generated on our servers, these are then delivered to the client.

The initial board sizes in 2.4 were too large to produce a satisfactory experience for users.

We tuned the number to still be more than twice as many missions as you were getting on a board prior to 2.4, though.

The reason "mode switching" works is because if you connect to a different server, it has a different board of missions.

Solo mode should always be using a separate set of servers to the multiplayer modes (because we don't try to cluster players by geography, since they can never meet eachother in game), so switching from Open to Solo will always cause a server switch.

It is undesirable and technically an exploit (It allows the players to derive an advantage from game systems unintended by the devlelopers.) but we're not going to take action against people using it at this point.

We've thought of a few ways to fix it and it is on our list of things to fix eventually, but it is a fairly substantial chunk of work for multiple teams and other things get prioritised in front of it.

Thanks,
Dom"

I've bolded the relevant part....
 
Top Bottom