Poll: Mission cap - should they be removed since cargo volume already limits?

[jacozilla]

**Edited below to add section of what I believe probable consequences would be to various mission types (in part based on good feedback from other people in this thread**

Title and TL'DR - since cargo volume is now fairly well tuned (size vs payout), should max number of missions cap (20) be removed?

Longer background and explanation why at one time mission cap made sense, but no longer does -->

Once upon a time, max missions cap made sense because of the long ago 'exploit' in stacking infinite missions by accepting cargo, dumping it, and rebuying cargo once at destination area.

When long range missions first launched, there were three glaring weaknesses to the mission system that when combined --> resulted in 'infinite mission stacking'. FD admitted this was 'unintended design' and fixed it but problem is the fixes arrived spaced over several updates and poorly coordinated (e.g. redundant fixes)

1- Mission cargo used to not be unique per mission --> hence players could take a mission, accept the mission cargo, then dump it and take more missions since cargo volume was no longer a limiting factor (and rebuy cargo needed at destination area)

2- There was no mission cap --> hence players could take as many missions as they had cargo volume for and with the above loophole, players could stack infinite number of missions

3- Mission cargo was significantly lower mass vs. relative payout --> before this was adjusted, you could get very high paying long range missions that took very little cargo volume, unlike 2.1 where typically good missions required lot more cargo mass/tons

#1 and #2 in particular, when combined, was the 'dump cargo at origin and rebuy at destination exploit' for infinite mission stacking, which no longer is possible today because unique mission cargo and balanced cargo volume self limits the number of cargo missions one can take.

Max missions cap is now simply a redundant feature (for most but not all mission types), especially as far as stacking cargo missions are concerned. --see below re: short thoughts on consequence to each mission type--

Vote is straight up yes / no poll.

Mission stacking today is limited by cargo volume AND mission cap, as well as mission timers and re-balanced mission cargo mass (e.g. takes much more tonnage than back in the original days of low mass but high pay missions)

In my opinion, we could remove the mission cap entirely and let the other self regulating measures control how many missions you can take.

May not get all - just brief summary of major mission types as I see them and consequence if mission cap (20) was removed:

1- Cargo transport missions - take or bring X to Y locations
*primarily limited by cargo mass today; whether long range delivery, shorter range transport, etc - I believe how much actual cargo capacity you build into your ship should be the sole governing limiter, not an artificial mission cap. If cap was removed, only consequence I can think of is we'd be able to take reasonable but limited additional missions until capacity was reached.

2- Data delivery missions
*removal of mission cap would allow infinite number of data mission stacking, theoretically; but reality is data missions have extremely short timers relative to other missions. (e.g. 30-40 minutes, not hours or days, or even weeks). Therefore, the short mission timers would have large data mission stackers fail and take rep hit for taking more data missions than they could successfully deliver in time

*reminder that even with mode switching, you can only take so many missions before server boards need to be refreshed (~10 min), so practical number of stackable data missions in the short time available before first batch of data missions expire is fairly limited

3- Attack missions
*I readily concede this could be a problem; e.g. the attack and kill X skimmers type missions. Mission cap removal would allow infinite stacking of these with only the mission timer somewhat limiting how many, but since timers on these are very generous, practical outcome would be significant income boost to those taking these missions if mission cap was removed.

*Don't have good answer yet for this - personally I can live with it, but understand if others think too high a price to pay for benefits of making other missions types make more sense

4- Passenger missions
*Cabin capacity would be the self limiting mechanism if mission cap removed, far before any timer or stacking more than reasonable number

*For very long range passenger delivery / tourist missions, even the somewhat generous-seeming timer would be the limiter as currently some very long range passenger missions are extremely long distance, and taking even handful of them concurrently would likely cause failures

Current activities that artificially block despite having excess cargo capacity
a) Fed / Empire ranking - zero mode switching, no 'exploits', just travel as intended from station A->B->C. Within a few station visits, merely taking the available missions on board has you hit max mission cap

b) local faction rep grinding - same as above, players would hit max mission cap simply by 'playing the game' rather than any presumed mode switching

c) assuming non-long distance delivery missions get fixed soon and payouts return to reasonable norms, regular short distance missions with cargo for larger ship owners (Annie, Cutter, Corvette) get mission capped far before actual cargo capacity is reached

 

[unity100]

if it is as you describe, it should be removed.

in real world there is no limit to amount of contracts someone can take on. all that matters is delivery. no one cares about the rest.

such artificial limits break realism/immersion and say 'hey, here is an artificial limitation for you to enforce a game design decision'.

 

[Sathayorn]

The only people this mission cap affects are those who relog to stack. This is clearly not how FD wants us to do missions, kinda exploity and the reason missions got nerfed in the first place.

They should take the mission cap, restrict it slightly more, then un-nerf missions.

 

[jacozilla]

Adding some additional rationale why in my opinion I'd like missions cap to be removed -->

Aside from being redundant as balanced missions cargo volume + unique mission cargo makes infinite stacking impossible, the use case scenario I run into is taking normal missions with cargo (not bulk cargo missions) and being limited by the missions cap when I still have a lot of cargo capacity left.

e.g. when running pure cargo builds with high cargo volumes like my Anaconda, I hit the max mission cap but have lots of cargo capacity left.

Don't own one, but imagine would be worse in a cargo Cutter. Not talking bulk delivery missions but regular mission cargo -> I end up limited by mission cap on missions that have a timer anyways, so why shouldn't I be allowed to take as many missions as I have cargo room for?

Can't read FD's mind of course so not prepared to say whether this was 'intended' or 'unintended' design but it seems bizarre to have cargo capacity left but not be able to take a mission contract that would still fit in my hold?

- - - - - Additional Content Posted / Auto Merge - - - - -

The only people this mission cap affects are those who relog to stack. This is clearly not how FD wants us to do missions, kinda exploity and the reason missions got nerfed in the first place.

They should take the mission cap, restrict it slightly more, then un-nerf missions.

Not true. Aside from long range delivery missions, which is where mode switching was primarily in use, take rep building mission grinding for instance.

You go to system A, take all the missions on board, goto first drop point B --> deliver 1 mission and take all the missions on board --> goto C and rinse/repeat.

With absolutely ZERO mode switching, in extremely short manner you can travel to 6+ destinations, deliver 6 missions, but have picked up all the viable missions on those boards -> have lots of cargo room left, but unable to take more missions due to mission cap. All without every once mode switching.

Whether you believe mode switching is ok but frowned upon, quasi exploit, or total legit - I don't think anyone is going to argue that simply going to A->B->C->etc on your missions list while picking up new missions at each stop is absolutely intended behavior. Or are you saying simply stopping at multiple destinations is also now an 'exploit' to get lots of missions?

 

[Agony_Aunt]

Depends on how people feel about the ability to stack missions in general, but most of the get rich quick schemes that are around revolve around mission stacking. Not all of them are cargo based. Skimmer missions for example.

If anything, if FD really want to address mission stacking, they should add further restrictions, for example, no more than 5 missions of the same type. Take as many missions you like of different types, but limit those of the same.

In return, they could speed up the mission board refresh rate so if you don't see anything you like, you don't have to mode switch to get something different.

 

[Riverside]

Not all missions are limited by cargo capacity.

If they raised the limit but eliminated mode switching would you accept that? Be careful what you wish for imo.

 

[jacozilla]

Not all missions are limited by cargo capacity.

If they raised the limit but eliminated mode switching would you accept that? Be careful what you wish for imo.

No. Since linking mode switching to hitting max mission cap easily is a completely false red herring.

Just by delivering missions, one at a time and never mode switching, ever, we can easily hit max mission cap simply by landing at multiple destinations. Try fed/empire rank grinding, or faction rep grinding by taking missions to build rep. Far before we hit cargo volume limit in some ships/builds, we hit max mission cap without ever mode switching. Just simply taking missions at each new destination.

 

[Shar]

You seem to skip the point that not all missions involve cargo, so it would encourage mode switching. eg data delivery between sothis and ceos. we could take 100 or 500 or 1000 see the problem.

Oh and the mission cap is 20 not 30.:S

 

[jacozilla]

You seem to skip the point that not all missions involve cargo, so it would encourage mode switching. eg data delivery between sothis and ceos. we could take 100 or 500 or 1000 see the problem.

I actually pointed out that scenario in my OP - while removal of mission cap would allow infinite data missions, they are and never were about making cash - as they are low paying and done to yield major/minor faction rep. And also as pointed out, missions have timers, and in the case of data missions - those timers are very short, as in minutes (ex. 30-40 min).

So sure, one could take 1000 data missions but by the time you took 1000th one, even with frantic mode switching, you'd have already failed and taken rep hit for large number of them. Timers on data missions would be the self regulating mechanism far, far before any mission cap.

The loophole I didn't think of, and entirely concede - was raised by Agony Aunt in the example of get-rich-schemes like potential to infinitely stack attack-skimmer missions. That is a valid point and not sure I have good answer as yet. But I think it's equally fair to say it seems like unintended gameplay failure where players have both mission time AND remaining cargo volume but can't take an additional mission.

Perhaps fairer way to put it is that imo, some form of additional mission taking tweak is needed because while infinite attack skimmer missions don't sound like good idea, it also seems not a good idea to limit players artificially on missions when they clearly are already restrained by mission timers and cargo volume and end up with excess cargo capacity but inability to take another contract.

 

[unity100]

Try fed/empire rank grinding,

i confirm that you hit mission cap after visiting 2-3 stations while grinding navy rank.

 

[kofeyh]

You seem to skip the point that not all missions involve cargo, so it would encourage mode switching. eg data delivery between sothis and ceos. we could take 100 or 500 or 1000 see the problem.

Oh and the mission cap is 20 not 30.:S

Meanwhile anyone visiting multiple stations not mode switching is screwed over by people with way to much time on their hands to hop onto the forums to whine about mission stacking. Frankly.

 

[Sandmann]

I'm voting yes, not because I'm SURE it's no longer required, but because I think it should be at least examined and re-evaluated. If it was ONLY put in place to cover a loophole that no longer exists, then it sounds like it's no longer needed. It depends if that was the only thing in FD's minds when they implemented it.

 

[Shar]

I actually pointed out that scenario in my OP - while removal of mission cap would allow infinite data missions, they are and never were about making cash - as they are low paying and done to yield major/minor faction rep. And also as pointed out, missions have timers, and in the case of data missions - those timers are very short, as in minutes (ex. 30-40 min).

So sure, one could take 1000 data missions but by the time you took 1000th one, even with frantic mode switching, you'd have already failed and taken rep hit for large number of them. Timers on data missions would be the self regulating mechanism far, far before any mission cap.

The loophole I didn't think of, and entirely concede - was raised by Agony Aunt in the example of get-rich-schemes like potential to infinitely stack attack-skimmer missions. That is a valid point and not sure I have good answer as yet. But I think it's equally fair to say it seems like unintended gameplay failure where players have both mission time AND remaining cargo volume but can't take an additional mission.

Perhaps fairer way to put it is that imo, some form of additional mission taking tweak is needed because while infinite attack skimmer missions don't sound like good idea, it also seems not a good idea to limit players artificially on missions when they clearly are already restrained by mission timers and cargo volume and end up with excess cargo capacity but inability to take another contract.

Look if you could eliminate/prevent mission stacking i would totally agree with you about limits, the 20 limit is a balancing factor to that exploit. So remove the exploit no balance would be required. good luck lobbying for a change but i don't like the chances.

Mission rewards might be bugged at present i made 2mil moving 20 data missions between sothis and ceos before 2.2 if the reward do go back 200 missions will take me no more than a couple of hours, and net me 20mil for an 8ly jump.

Edit your op post its 20 not 30, and i can't see how you adressed data mission stacking.

All the best....

 

[gazzareth]

I voted no, frankly you shouldn't need to take more than 20 missions. Perhaps FD should tweak it so there are more missions with a higher cargo requirement (and payment) so the big ships make more sense though....

G

 

[DragoonKnight]

if it is as you describe, it should be removed.

in real world there is no limit to amount of contracts someone can take on. all that matters is delivery. no one cares about the rest.

such artificial limits break realism/immersion and say 'hey, here is an artificial limitation for you to enforce a game design decision'.

In the real world you have to be licensed, insured, and may even have to post a bond to take on a large contract. It is best not to bring up the real world when discussing video games.

 

[vrseven]

In the real world you have to be licensed, insured, and may even have to post a bond to take on a large contract. It is best not to bring up the real world when discussing video games.

This is incorrect, independent contractors do not as long as the hiring company does. The IC just needs to show the ability to handle the cargo, if and when asked, for insurance purposes.

 

[jacozilla]

Edited OP based on lot of good feedback, from both Yes and No voters.

Let me also say so far the thread has been pretty positive, as polls go, whether people are on the Yes or No sides.

And also reiterate my opinion thus far that I'm not necessarily saying anyone on the Yes or No sides are all wrong or all right. Don't think there really is one, because clearly (imo at least), there are some mission types that seem to artificially limited due to mission caps that has nothing to do with 'exploits' or mode switching or anything like that.

But also clearly, like stacking skimmer attack missions, there'd be boosts to income if one could take as many as the timers on each would allow vs the current cap based on # of missions. I suppose how you vote depends on whether the overall relief to some missions types merits giving attack missions the boost in income. Although I'd point out even with attack missions you couldn't stack infinite or anywhere near huge number because even the generous mission timers would at some point come into play as the actual limit.