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

Dr Dre

D
Will Flanagan said:
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.
Click to expand...

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

Product 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!
 

GreyAreaUK

GreyAreaUK
Will Flanagan said:
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!
Click to expand...

Thank you for the clarification.
 

[VR] Mad Mike

[VR] Mad Mike
Will Flanagan said:
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!
Click to expand...

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
 

Cmdr Eagleboy

Cmdr Eagleboy
Will Flanagan said:
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!
Click to expand...

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.
 

Crank Larson

Crank Larson
Will Flanagan said:
'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.
Click to expand...

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.
 

Genus

Genus
Will Flanagan said:
If there's additional feedback you want to share on the matter, please do so but make sure it’s constructive and civil. Thanks!
Click to expand...

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.
 

Garix

G
Will Flanagan said:
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!
Click to expand...

Would be good if all Fdev could be on the same page.

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...ing-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....
 

GreyAreaUK

GreyAreaUK
Genus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, they'd have received the usual melange of "yes they are" "no they're not" "don't tell me how to play" "it's an exploit" "no it isn't" etc etc etc.
 

Edward Lewis

Edward Lewis
Genus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just out of interest, what do you mean by 'more to this'?

Ed
 

GreyAreaUK

GreyAreaUK
Edward Lewis said:
Just out of interest, what do you mean by 'more to this'?

Ed
Click to expand...

Possibly because the Smeaton situation has been in-game for a while now, but only in the last day or two has it suddenly turned into a 'thing'. Personally I just see that as a priority stack but others may see some hidden agenda or conspiracy.
 

Stealthie

Stealthie
Crank Larson said:
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.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that.

Trouble is that, like with the surface-scan missions, it just took them a looooonnnnng time to make the correct decision.

If it'd happened and then been whacked a couple of days later, nobody would have cared.
As it is, people had time to become reliant on it and then they get a lot more uppity when it's removed again.

Somebody from FDev needs to start looking at things and then making an immediate decision about whether or not it's working as they intended.

I mean, what was the rationalisation here?
"Okay, so the payouts are much higher than we ever intended but people will get bored of it soon so there's no need to do anything about it"?
Do they know gamers at all? :p
 

jasonbirder

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

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.
Click to expand...

From Frontier....I'd like to point out to everyone my comment WAY back on Page 31 of this thread

but simply because the mission reward algorithm is programmed in a casual fashion
Click to expand...

Do I win a cookie ???
 

MVP_Bluntman

MVP_Bluntman
What constitutes the definition of an exploit anyways? Technically anything you use with an unintended result is still an exploit. Furthermore the ugly sins of the engineer module exploit response still ring to this day about your unbalanced stance fdev.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom