Because this game has a long-haul timeline, half the features aren't even done, and maybe he has hope for the future?
Worst thing in humanity is when people try to censor opinions they don't agree with.
Should Massacre Mission Stacking be Nerfed?
- Thread starter drkaii
- Start date
Because this game has a long-haul timeline, half the features aren't even done, and maybe he has hope for the future?
Worst thing in humanity is when people try to censor opinions they don't agree with.
Ok, you touch the government idea, i look at the logic of the mechanic.
Discussing the government is speculation, looking at the mechanic
gives facts.
Can we both agree on that?
Really? You can extend the concept to a group just as easily. Say 20 factions all want 10 ships from one faction destroyed, unaware of the others, do they give a crap?
The missions are already presented in a very ambiguous manner. How is any of this silly?
Last edited:
Answering OP's opening question.
Their actions don't impact me.
So why should I care if someone wants to stack missions?
Answer: I shouldn't, so I don't.
If people want to stack missions, let them.
Their actions don't impact me.
So why should I care if someone wants to stack missions?
Answer: I shouldn't, so I don't.
If people want to stack missions, let them.
It they want to claim responsibility, yes of course they give a crap.
Which is why OP keeps saying realism isn't really relevant, since both arguments can be justified.
Last edited:
Okay, I withdraw calling you disingenuous if you truly believe what you're saying. I can't really see how someone can really think that, but then again I don't understand how people think or do a ton of stuff. Humans are weird.
Seeing as the mechanic doesn't explain what it "means", you can't say looking at the mechanic gives facts.
Lol ok then. Understanding others is one of the tests of life.
No censorship from my end. I was honestly questioning. Clarification was my goal there. No malice
I'm personally not even stacking these missions, but I see no reason to hamper others enjoyment simply because they are innovative and found something that rewards them. Also, I like the design.
The more missions you stack, the harder the ships are anyways. It's not like it's all reward, no risk. The only problem is skimmers, which is being resolved already. I would prefer they buff them, but removing them from the chain seems to alleviate the problems. There is no exploit without the skimmers. Anyone who is convinced there is honestly doesn't understand game design.
Last edited:
Really? It is the same person, a representative of one organization, giving you all these missions to do the same thing. You must certainly be trolling.
*mod hat off* please argue the point, not the person making the point. Be reasonable please.
Where are you getting this that ships get harder the more missions you stack? That is absolutely untrue. You got any evidence of that?
No, because it's a fallacy to assume they're all from one faction. I've seen the trio of systems I call home provide some interesting combat missions that I could have stacked between six factions and four stations. What's the problem?
Last edited:
What it means to me is, that lore justification is tacked on,
and we clearly have a logical problem with these missions.
You can present the government one or the other way,
but what comes out is what we discussed:
paying multiples for one kill.
That isn't logical.
Of course the government is a large host of people,
but as they are reflected as a single faction, isn't
it more logical to think that they are a united host,
a single machinery, then what you described as a multitude of
subfactions?
As long as the game design does not allow to show the original
mission creator like Jim from faction a subfaction b,
the representation is that the faction as a whole issues the mission,
thus takes account.
Last edited:
That's the general mission design, as far as I recall. It also is based on the mission rank itself and your highest rank. Don't shoot the messenger, this is the way FDev relayed the mission changes in 2.1. Wouldn't surprise me if it isn't actually working as intented.
Last edited:
I never got this sentiment. It appears very open minded but it means to care about something it needs to have an impact on you. Using "it shouldn't" also implies this should be the case for others.
Well, I care about lots of things that have no impact on me. And so do many of you. We just had a 24 hour livestream proving just that
As far as massacre missions are concerned the difficulty of the target is not looked upon,
as the targets are ships affiliated to a single faction, thus the mission is ignorant
to the rating of the ship (or skimmer) you kill to qualify towards completion.