So, yeah... Missions suck.

[Ydiss]

We know. So do FD.

The reason they have stopped fixing them is because of 1.3. It would be an incredible waste of resource fixing missions that won't exist in the next update.

You should get one thing clear, too. There will be bugs with the new missions, too. It won't be the finished article, either. But it will be treated differently because it'll be the core they intend to work with. So bugs will get fixed and new missions will be added.

The whole point of the revamp is to make the mission system modular. It will be much easier to add new, more intricate missions and it will be easier to fix bugs.

Anyone who has a decent understanding of coding will understand the difference between a long-term modular approach and a short-term linear approach. The latter is what we had (most likely bespoke scripting for each mission). What we'll get is a plug in structure which will allow flexibility and ease of isolation.

Much of the game's core features were bare bones at launch. Michael confirmed this. The mission system was one. It was obvious to most of us that it would get a revamp at some point. Many of us hoped it would be in 1.3.

It is.

I know some are predispositioned to complain regardless of reality but repeatedly complaining about something that's due to change very shortly is about as pointless as complaining can get.

 

[Philip Coutts]

Frontier are well aware that the missions are not what they should be. Hopefully 1.3 is going to address these issues and give us meaningful missions with real consequences. Missions are pretty core to ED and they need to be done properly.

 

[specialsymbol]

And they're broken again. Once you get the "offer" to abort the mission the mission goal never shows up in USS.

 

[Jaeger]

I know some are predispositioned to complain regardless of reality but repeatedly complaining about something that's due to change very shortly is about as pointless as complaining can get.

The reality being that the game was released unfinished, and complaints should be expected... but you know that, and are simply complaining, go figure.

 

[Ydiss]

The reality being that the game was released unfinished, and complaints should be expected... but you know that, and are simply complaining, go figure.

The difference is, the subject matter I'm complaining about isn't going to be fundamentally changed in the next few weeks.

 

[Ancipital]

We know. So do FD.

The reason they have stopped fixing them is because of 1.3. It would be an incredible waste of resource fixing missions that won't exist in the next update.

You should get one thing clear, too. There will be bugs with the new missions, too. It won't be the finished article, either. But it will be treated differently because it'll be the core they intend to work with. So bugs will get fixed and new missions will be added.

The whole point of the revamp is to make the mission system modular. It will be much easier to add new, more intricate missions and it will be easier to fix bugs.

Anyone who has a decent understanding of coding will understand the difference between a long-term modular approach and a short-term linear approach. The latter is what we had (most likely bespoke scripting for each mission). What we'll get is a plug in structure which will allow flexibility and ease of isolation.

Much of the game's core features were bare bones at launch. Michael confirmed this. The mission system was one. It was obvious to most of us that it would get a revamp at some point. Many of us hoped it would be in 1.3.

It is.

I know some are predispositioned to complain regardless of reality but repeatedly complaining about something that's due to change very shortly is about as pointless as complaining can get.

I am disappointed, that was extraordinarily patronising. I have come to expect a great deal better from you (and usually get it!).

Rewriting systems is fine- however, it's extraordinarily bad practise to break and then not fix existing core mechanics in the meantime, leaving them to fester with a vague promise of "jam tomorrow". Yes, the assassination missions have never worked properly- in itself somewhat unforgivable, and have been like that since beta. Replacing all of that broken crapola is necessary and sorely overdue, I agree- it's a bit shameful that it ever went live like that. However, leaving newer bugs like the current mess with the CGs and CZs live for more than a month, having broken them in the 12.07 release really isn't terribly impressive. A complete moratorium on fixing brand new bugs while working on a major update with an extremely vague release schedule is not how you manage a live in-use software project.

I found myself at a loss to explain to a friend who picked up the game, and who was intent on gaining a Clipper, that raising rep via combat is just fundamentally broken right now. When he asked why, and when it would be fixed, I actually felt embarrassed on FD's behalf about the answer. His response was unprintable, anatomically unlikely and somewhat unhygienic- yet it was hard to substantially disagree.

It's not a vital factor in the continued existence of the species, but as a way to run a live software project, which this is, it bites the wax-fattened tadpole.

 

[Guyperson]

Incidentally, on a slight-mission-related-tangent, on pirate-kill missions, is there a reliable way to ID pirates? Hunting at a NAV beacon last night I found that not every 'wanted' NPC was a pirate.

Non-authority ships with a cargo scanner fitted. Some lack a scanner but you'll know them when they comm you to drop the cargo you don't have.

 

[Zephyriel]

I agree with the OP and really hope 1.3 will massively change things. But I'm afraid the "take mission -> stop at random USS -> stop at another USS to finish mission" structure might not change that much. Hopefully I'm wrong. The USS system needs a massive redesign anyway, right now it still feels like a beta placeholder for some real system. It just doesn't make sense that random ships stop in normal space in the middle of nowhere, hoping that passer-s by will make a detour from their journey and attack them.

Assassination missions should lead you to a specific place where the pirate is. A pirate wouldn't be flying in normal space, just waiting for someone to stop by and kill them.

Ideally, there would need to be some sort of interaction between you and the USS before you decide to stop there. Like in GTAV and Red Dead Redemption, where you see random strangers calling you on the side of the road when you're cruising around, and by looking at them you can evaluate if they're people waiting for your help, or criminals trying to ambush you. The weak/strong signal variation is a step in the right direction, but it's too small and doesn't fundamentally change the system.

 

[Ydiss]

I am disappointed, that was extraordinarily patronising. I have come to expect a great deal better from you (and usually get it!).

Rewriting systems is fine- however, it's extraordinarily bad practise to break and then not fix existing core mechanics in the meantime, leaving them to fester with a vague promise of "jam tomorrow". Yes, the assassination missions have never worked properly- in itself somewhat unforgivable, and have been like that since beta. Replacing all of that broken crapola is necessary and sorely overdue, I agree- it's a bit shameful that it ever went live like that. However, leaving newer bugs like the current mess with the CGs and CZs live for more than a month, having broken them in the 12.07 release really isn't terribly impressive. A complete moratorium on fixing brand new bugs while working on a major update with an extremely vague release schedule is not how you manage a live in-use software project.

I found myself at a loss to explain to a friend who picked up the game, and who was intent on gaining a Clipper, that raising rep via combat is just fundamentally broken right now. When he asked why, and when it would be fixed, I actually felt embarrassed on FD's behalf about the answer. His response was unprintable, anatomically unlikely and somewhat unhygienic- yet it was hard to substantially disagree.

It's not a vital factor in the continued existence of the species, but as a way to run a live software project, which this is, it bites the wax-fattened tadpole.

Sorry

Just remember, it's possible to think something was done badly (I've long said the missions are weak and flat; I've been saying a mission revamp has been needed since gamma, when it became apparent that the missions weren't going to significantly change prior to launch) yet at the same time state that complaining about it now is non-productive and non-constructive.

I've been in the crowd asking for better missions for months. And I've given lots of suggestions to make it better. So when FD tell me their next major update will be giving us a total overhaul to enable them to do what we want, I find it... Well, wasteful to still complain about it.

I did read your earlier post and I respect your opinion but I'm going to allow myself to disagree. I don't see any benefit in having a go at someone when they're doing what I want them to do. If it were someone I knew, I'd stand up for them.

And I'll be the first in line with feedback about the overhaul, too. Negative, positive and, most importantly, constructive.

You feel they should have fixed existing bugs first (or add soon as possible). I just don't agree because I'd rather them do it properly than spend several iterations wasting time trying to fix the legacy code. And let's face it, it's become pretty obvious their current system is very difficult to do right. How often do these bugs keep happening?

If I came across as patronising, I'm sorry. But I do feel I have a right to disagree strongly with some opinions, even those from people I sometimes agree strongly with. No offense intended.