Non binary mission results

[metatheurgist]

At the moment the completion state of missions is pass/fail. Either you do the job and pass or you don't and it's a fail. This is far too simplistic.

There should be a scale of success or failure which is influenced by the level of rep you have with a given faction.

As a suggestion:

50% or less of the goal - fail.
51-75 - pass but you're not getting the full reward or any reward choices and zero rep gain.
76-90 - you get most of the reward and reward choices. Minor rep gain.
91-99 - all of the reward, most of the rep.
100+ - everything.

The % can slip slightly if you're in good standing but constant under-delivery should still result in less favourable rep until you find your natural level.

Now with a non-binary result you can actually put missions in that are hard to do instead of the generally easy missions you have now. Players will not feel like they have wasted their time if they lost a few tons of cargo due to a fuel scooping accident. Players that carelessly ram salvage will not be rewarded by spurious extra mission signal sources supplying as many mission objectives as they need.

There is now more challenge and consequence to the mission system.

 

[Teh Smoo]

The mission should be decreased by the cost of the cargo, at least. For the obvious reason that people would dump cargo to a second commander if there was more money to be made in "piracy" or actual piracy than just hauling cargo.

But yes, it would make it possible for haulers to get knocked over for a few tons of cargo, and not have the mission fail completely. Which would make sense: charge the failed hauler the cost of replacing and re-shipping the cargo. But if it's an honest mistake/fail, why would they do a full rep ding just for having bad luck?

 

[metatheurgist]

But if it's an honest mistake/fail, why would they do a full rep ding just for having bad luck?

That's why it should be influenced by your standing. If you're in good standing you can take a few dings without affecting the reward, if you just walked off the street odds are I'm looking at you sideways the next time you walk in asking for a job, honest mistake or not.

What I've suggested are just guidelines anyway, it's up to the devs to decide. I don't claim to have the final and best iteration of this idea.

 

[Teh Smoo]

That's why it should be influenced by your standing. If you're in good standing you can take a few dings without affecting the reward, if you just walked off the street odds are I'm looking at you sideways the next time you walk in asking for a job, honest mistake or not.

What I've suggested are just guidelines anyway, it's up to the devs to decide. I don't claim to have the final and best iteration of this idea.

Plus, players could get hit with pirate NPCs that are not just hell-bent on killing them. If a newbie takes a cargo missions, gets nailed by an NPC, chokes up for the combat and dies to rebuy screen, that is a TERRIBLY negative experience. Stuff like that in the first 2 hours gets refunds on Steam.

Now- if the newbie does the same thing, cargo then choke, but the NPC just nails them with cargo limpets and steals part of the cargo? Then, COVAS tells them to reboot, and they limp to the destination? THAT is a gameplay experience. Still not terribly positive, but it's a good story, and it's not a boring rebuy screen.

Plus! If the cargo is stolen and removed from the game by an NPC, the penalty *can* be waived, since no money is created. So again, a poor newbie might get most of the reward and some rep anyway, as the cargo was "insured" by the NPC shipper.


And yeah, I know you're not a dev. This is a suggestion forum. Going out of your way to tell people that is silly.

 

[Daynen]

I like where this is going. Please continue.

 

[Skip Rockbounder]

At the moment the completion state of missions is pass/fail. Either you do the job and pass or you don't and it's a fail. This is far too simplistic.

There should be a scale of success or failure which is influenced by the level of rep you have with a given faction.

As a suggestion:

50% or less of the goal - fail.
51-75 - pass but you're not getting the full reward or any reward choices and zero rep gain.
76-90 - you get most of the reward and reward choices. Minor rep gain.
91-99 - all of the reward, most of the rep.
100+ - everything.

The % can slip slightly if you're in good standing but constant under-delivery should still result in less favourable rep until you find your natural level.

Now with a non-binary result you can actually put missions in that are hard to do instead of the generally easy missions you have now. Players will not feel like they have wasted their time if they lost a few tons of cargo due to a fuel scooping accident. Players that carelessly ram salvage will not be rewarded by spurious extra mission signal sources supplying as many mission objectives as they need.

There is now more challenge and consequence to the mission system.

Huh!

 

[Marc_Hicks]

At the moment the completion state of missions is pass/fail. Either you do the job and pass or you don't and it's a fail. This is far too simplistic.

There should be a scale of success or failure which is influenced by the level of rep you have with a given faction.

As a suggestion:

50% or less of the goal - fail.
51-75 - pass but you're not getting the full reward or any reward choices and zero rep gain.
76-90 - you get most of the reward and reward choices. Minor rep gain.
91-99 - all of the reward, most of the rep.
100+ - everything.

The % can slip slightly if you're in good standing but constant under-delivery should still result in less favourable rep until you find your natural level.

Now with a non-binary result you can actually put missions in that are hard to do instead of the generally easy missions you have now. Players will not feel like they have wasted their time if they lost a few tons of cargo due to a fuel scooping accident. Players that carelessly ram salvage will not be rewarded by spurious extra mission signal sources supplying as many mission objectives as they need.

There is now more challenge and consequence to the mission system.

One thing that I once suggested is that rather than just have missions 100% fail, maybe have that "failure" trigger a special Wrinkle or Follow On Mission type. Some way that the Commander can still redeem themselves.

 

[Ranek Eisenkralle]

I like this idea. And pirates that are after cargo instead of just blowing ships up might get me back into hauling stuff. I stopped doing cargo missions because I kept getting intercepted by Anacondas or FDLs that just blew me up time and time again in supposedly High-Security systems - which me off quite a lot because it meant I had to do more exploration flights, just to afford all those rebuys.

 

[Corian Teranos]

Why hasn't this gotten more traffic it is a major problem and personally I consider the current mission system defective as a result. With multipart deliveries risk of interdiction and destruction becomes much higher and if any of the (cargo with a magical uniqueness tag) is lost the only option is to abandon a mission and face rubbish (FINE) because cargo insurance doesn't exist (WHY THE %$#@ NOT) and none seems to care that you did not abandon the mission because you wanted to but because you were %$#@ KILLED BY A THIRD PARTY.(there would be a record of intentionally abandoning a mission vs fail due to combat) basically failed mission fines are insult to already significant injury. The whole transport mission system is unrealistic and completely defective and should be redesigned with partial rewards insurance and basic sanity checking for combat vs breaking a contract intentionally

 

[Lestat]

You know I can see an exploit. With this idea. I can understand getting some credit if the mission somewhat failed. But Rep or a choice of reward is not a good idea. Because credits are so easy to get right now. But Rep and choice reward is harder to get. I can see people not finishing the full reward just to exploit reward choice and rep reward.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Why hasn't this gotten more traffic it is a major problem and personally I consider the current mission system defective as a result. With multipart deliveries risk of interdiction and destruction becomes much higher and if any of the (cargo with a magical uniqueness tag) is lost the only option is to abandon a mission

Cargo delivery missions have an option to complete the mission (for significantly reduced rewards, but not actually a failure) once 50% of the cargo has been delivered.

They're about the only thing this mechanism currently applies to, and yes, it should be rolled out quite a bit more.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

You know I can see an exploit. With this idea. I can understand getting some credit if the mission somewhat failed. But Rep or a choice of reward is not a good idea. Because credits are so easy to get right now. But Rep and choice reward is harder to get. I can see people not finishing the full reward just to exploit reward choice and rep reward.

That's easy enough to make unexploitable by making the reward curve above linear - so you get more (be that rep, credits, materials, etc) from 3 missions 100% complete than you would from 4 missions 75% complete, and much more than you'd get from 6 missions 50% complete.

 

[Corian Teranos]

I think the primary issue is lack of cargo insurance and dispite automated "report crimes against me" fines are levied ontop of lost ship due to a failed mission when there is a fundamental difference between abandoning a mission and being robbed / destroyed in which case the cargo loss would be handled by insurance and law enforcement and not dumped on the victim of the crime which is frankly rude and disrespectful on a very fundamental level. another thing is potential for rep loss which probibally not occur or be much less severe in the event of crime rather than abandonment. non binary mission results would add a more precise level to the simulation with more resonable results

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

I think the primary issue is lack of cargo insurance and dispite automated "report crimes against me" fines are levied ontop of lost ship due to a failed mission when there is a fundamental difference between abandoning a mission and being robbed / destroyed in which case the cargo loss would be handled by insurance and law enforcement and not dumped on the victim of the crime which is frankly rude and disrespectful on a very fundamental level. another thing is potential for rep loss which probibally not occur or be much less severe in the event of crime rather than abandonment. non binary mission results would add a more precise level to the simulation with more resonable results

Way back in 2017 I made an "unexploitable" cargo insurance idea, didn't get enough traction to really figure out if it was exploit free, so feel free to poke holes in this ancient idea!

I've had an idea!
(No surprise there!)

This one is obviously about Cargo Insurance.

Now, as a pilot who avoids trading at all costs, I basically have no idea what I'm on about. So feel free to jump in any time.

The basic premise is that, your cargo insurance payout is based almost entirely on the manner is which it was lost.
Insurance companies in 3303 are even more evil than in 2017.

Insurance payouts are broken in to categories, with different conditions, but these are the common terms;

• Cargo is reimbursed based on the The Price It Was Purchased For, or in the case of mined or collected good, Galactic Average.
• Only legal cargo is covered. Illicit cargo is only covered if it is lost in a system where it is not illicit.
• Stolen cargo can not be insured.
• Cargo is insured per unit, so partial claims are possible.
• Cargo that has previously been insured by another party, can not be reinsured.

95% Reimbursement
A 95% Reimbursement is given in the event the insured cargo is lost in a manner that is completely unrecoverable, which includes, but is not limited to;

• Total Ship Destruction. Losing your ship, and cargo contained within is covered under 95% reimbursement.
• Accidental Jettison in Supercruise. Dumping cargo in supercruise destroys cargo immediately and is covered under the 95% reimbursement.
• Jettisoned and Destroyed in Normal Space or While Docked. If cargo you have jettisoned is destroyed, by anything, including stations, or simple exposure to space it is covered by 95% reimbursement.

50% Reimbursement
A 50% reimbursement is when cargo is lost, but not destroyed through no fault of your own, and includes, but is not limited to;

• Agressive Piracy. Loss of cargo from hatchbreakers limpets, or malfunctioning cargo hatch.

25% Reimbursement
A 25% reimbursement is given when cargo is jettisoned, but not destroyed, and is under your control. This includes situations such as;

• Surrendering To Piracy [Jettison]. Complying with piracy demands, and agreeing to drop cargo is not fully covered under your policy, and we much prefer it if you die instead (see 95% reimbursement).

0% Reimbursement
Some situations are not covered under insurance, and will result in no payout what so ever, this includes;

• Abandoning Cargo. Abandoning Cargo, which is then collected by someone else, is not covered under insurance.
• In Lawless or Anarchy Systems. Due to high levels of insurance claims from Lawless and Anarchy systems, we no longer offer cover for cargo lost in these systems in any manner, including accidental. This condition overrides all previous conditions.

How To Buy Insurance
Unlike ship insurance, cargo insurance is optional and not automatically applied.
There are two methods to insure your cargo;

• Via The Commodities Market. Under the commodities market, there is an insurance check box. Checking this box will insure all cargo purchased after that. A 5% charge is applied to all cargo on confirmation. This option is remembered, and will remain on until switched off, across all stations.
• Via Cargo Panel. Under the Cargo Panel, you can select individual cargo items, and opt to insure them immediately from there (Same system as used to jettison, select cargo, choose how much, press insure/cancel). A 5% cargo insurance fee (based on Galactic average of selected cargo) is deducted from your account on confirmation, and cargo is insured immediately.

Cancellation Of Policy
Should you wish to cancel your insurance at any time, use the cargo panel to select insured cargo, and cancel the policy. No refund is given.

Claiming on Policy
Depending on the manner which you lost your cargo, you can claim either via the rebuy screen of your ship, or under contacts menu in any station.
Insurance claims are only valid for 24 hours after loss of cargo.

Other Bits
Insured cargo is also tracked better by security. Carrying stolen, but insured cargo is more likely to be investigated by local security forces.


Aannnddd that's it I think.

I think I filled all the holes.
Feel free to poke more in it.

Thoughts?

CMDR Cosmic Spacehead

 

[Sylow]

Plus, players could get hit with pirate NPCs that are not just hell-bent on killing them. If a newbie takes a cargo missions, gets nailed by an NPC, chokes up for the combat and dies to rebuy screen, that is a TERRIBLY negative experience. Stuff like that in the first 2 hours gets refunds on Steam.

Now- if the newbie does the same thing, cargo then choke, but the NPC just nails them with cargo limpets and steals part of the cargo? Then, COVAS tells them to reboot, and they limp to the destination? THAT is a gameplay experience. Still not terribly positive, but it's a good story, and it's not a boring rebuy screen.

I fully agree on this part. Mind you, i already had it that NPCs attacked me with hatch breaker limpets. They have the ability to do that. So indeed, more "hack and grab" NPCs and less "kill the target and also destroy the cargo" NPCs would be a great idea, especially for lower ranked missions. (Higher ranked missions could instead have the note that a rival might be hell-bent to prevent the shipment to arrive, so expect deadly force to be used. That's part of it being a higher ranked mission, after all. )

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Way back in 2017 I made an "unexploitable" cargo insurance idea, didn't get enough traction to really figure out if it was exploit free, so feel free to poke holes in this ancient idea!

The obvious hole I think is for mining, in that it would give a decent payout boost from all the "junk" rocks.

- laser mine in metallic ring for Painite
- pick up a bunch of Platinum, Palladium, and so on along the way.
- insure the cheap stuff for 5% of value from the cargo screen
- jettison it, let it explode, get paid 95% of its galactic average value (so 90% total payout)

Platinum at about 37k per tonne, Palladium, Osmium, Samarium, etc. at about 12-14k - but it's all free money, even the Bertrandite.

You'd have to have the payout based on the purchase price - which for mined goods or salvage is zero.

 

[CMDR Cosmic Spacehead]

The obvious hole I think is for mining, in that it would give a decent payout boost from all the "junk" rocks.

• laser mine in metallic ring for Painite
• pick up a bunch of Platinum, Palladium, and so on along the way.
• insure the cheap stuff for 5% of value from the cargo screen
• jettison it, let it explode, get paid 95% of its galactic average value (so 90% total payout)

Platinum at about 37k per tonne, Palladium, Osmium, Samarium, etc. at about 12-14k - but it's all free money, even the Bertrandite.

You'd have to have the payout based on the purchase price - which for mined goods or salvage is zero.

That's a good hole there. Lol

 

[Killnine]

Agree. This is especially bad with source and return missions. I take a mission, invest a lot of credits, real life gets in the way, time runs out and I lose everything I invested. These missions should have the reward consist of a price per unit (usually the local price, possible slightly more) plus a completion bonus. Fair and simple.

 

[MK Regular]

The obvious hole I think is for mining, in that it would give a decent payout boost from all the "junk" rocks.

• laser mine in metallic ring for Painite
• pick up a bunch of Platinum, Palladium, and so on along the way.
• insure the cheap stuff for 5% of value from the cargo screen
• jettison it, let it explode, get paid 95% of its galactic average value (so 90% total payout)

Platinum at about 37k per tonne, Palladium, Osmium, Samarium, etc. at about 12-14k - but it's all free money, even the Bertrandite.

You'd have to have the payout based on the purchase price - which for mined goods or salvage is zero.

If the payout for cargo loss was based solely on purchase price, there would likely be a veritable flood of people who lost their T-9 full of mined painite and are salty that none of it is insured despite the insurance premiums they pay. Considering that I generally want this forum to be filled with constructive discussions and not people ranting about stupid things, I'm going to suggest treating ALL jettisoned cargo the same regardless of the circumstances involved.

Ideally, once you jettison cargo it should be treated like compliance to a piracy demand (25% payout for a 20% profit if mined). This would mean that is doesn't matter where you jettisoned your mining byproducts or what happened to them (no, you can't jump into supercruise to get the 95% payout).

With this new rule, the jettisoned platinum would give a profit of about 8.5k per ton, and osmium / palladium / samarium / whatever paying out around 2-4k CR per ton. At these rates a player would need to mine around 90 tons of platinum (or over 180 tons of the other stuff) in order to make the same amount of profit as a single ton of painite sold at one of the gold rush stations, meaning that it would probably be more efficient to just go look for more painite instead of mining and jettisoning any platinum you find.



Now that I've spent time typing that out, I just had another idea. Why not just make the payout based on the purchase price but ONLY for jettisoned cargo? The original rates for the circumstances of jettison could still be observed (although I'm not sure if they should), and you can guarantee that nobody will be earning any extra cash on the side from tossing platinum out the airlock. It just seems simpler to me.

 

[dxm55]

I read the title and thought, oh yay... more inclusive missions results.
Uh no. Different topic.