Plain and simple, I realise it would take a lot of time and resources to accomplish, but I feel like one of the reasons why this game is so grindy is because you don't just play the game, you have to make sure you have hours ahead of you before you accept a mission because I find that a lot of the time, I run out of time to play, and when I get back online, the mission timer has run out. Some people have to sleep, and some people have to work, that's not even taking into account having to head out without forewarning. Coming back online and being greeted with a fine or a passenger scoffing at you is beyond annoying.
Stop mission timers running down while offline
- Thread starter RhysTheT00n
- Start date
Seems like the answer is to bring back the short mission timers. 
What type of missions take hours to complete?
Accepting multiple missions when you only have 30-60 minutes to play while each mission may take (arbutrary number) 15 minutes to complete is not somthing I do (regularly).
Accepting multiple missions when you only have 30-60 minutes to play while each mission may take (arbutrary number) 15 minutes to complete is not somthing I do (regularly
).So, the only answers I have so far is a joke answer and someone telling me it won't happen without explaining why. A mission timer and world events are two different things, so that comment about the world carrying on while you're not playing is a false equivalency. Sometimes missions branch off and change while you're on a journey, so you don't always know how much time something is going to take.
SciTrekker. The only missions that don't take at least an hour are ones that aren't worth doing, trade missions (especially wing ones), delivery missions and passenger missions.
Having a mission that expires while you're not online is an unnecessary level of realism that detracts from the game rather than adding to it. It doesn't need to be there and it doesn't add any fun, immersion, or anything that makes something a good game.
SciTrekker. The only missions that don't take at least an hour are ones that aren't worth doing, trade missions (especially wing ones), delivery missions and passenger missions.
Having a mission that expires while you're not online is an unnecessary level of realism that detracts from the game rather than adding to it. It doesn't need to be there and it doesn't add any fun, immersion, or anything that makes something a good game.
The missions are generated by a server.
The server is always online.
The server doesn't know whether you are online or offline.
They could redesign to add this feature, but there would be problems with background sim (probably) and probably a lot of code to write for little reason apart from more mission bugs - there is enough of them already.
The server is always online.
The server doesn't know whether you are online or offline.
They could redesign to add this feature, but there would be problems with background sim (probably) and probably a lot of code to write for little reason apart from more mission bugs - there is enough of them already.
Yes! Short mission timers which DON'T tick down while you are offline would be much better than long mission timers which tick down when you aren't even signed into the game.Seems like the answer is to bring back the short mission timers.
Yeah no real reason to do a bunch of work when the only thing it would accomplish is making the game better and more fun for everyone.
The game already keeps track of time played. So... Time played + Mission time = Mission Timeout. Current code is Server time + mission time = mission timeout. The only real difference is if it's looking at the time played or the server time.
But missions are world events. The people who gave you the mission want that mission completed and they want this done in a timely fashion for obvious reasons.
Freezing the mission timers while you're offline would go against the whole "the world doesn't care about you" mantra.
I think OP has a reasonable request. Missions that players take are specific to them, it doesn't affect anyone else's ability to get missions (unless it's a wing mission and you share it obviously).
People talking about living universe and whatnot as a response are being a little silly. Regardless of whether you complete a mission or not, anyone else opening the board sees pretty much the exact same types of missions. Over, and over, and over. Most of these responses against the OP's suggestion are not really relevant imo.
The only exception would be missions that are specific to the faction or system States, which will obviously stop generating once those states end. Even now, you can still complete those if you have them once the state ends, so what the OP requests wouldn't change anything for those either. Arguing BGS is also rather silly; the OP is still going to do missions either way, the impact on the BGS remains. He just wants the game to not punish him for having less time to play so he can maybe finish the occasional one that he didn't get time for after accepting.
Now, I personally think the mission timers are quite generous anyway (too generous in many cases...imo), but I can see how someone who doesn't have time to play every day could be unhappy that a mission they thought they had time to finish today but didn't would not appreciate that it then times out before they can log back in.
People talking about living universe and whatnot as a response are being a little silly. Regardless of whether you complete a mission or not, anyone else opening the board sees pretty much the exact same types of missions. Over, and over, and over. Most of these responses against the OP's suggestion are not really relevant imo.
The only exception would be missions that are specific to the faction or system States, which will obviously stop generating once those states end. Even now, you can still complete those if you have them once the state ends, so what the OP requests wouldn't change anything for those either. Arguing BGS is also rather silly; the OP is still going to do missions either way, the impact on the BGS remains. He just wants the game to not punish him for having less time to play so he can maybe finish the occasional one that he didn't get time for after accepting.
Now, I personally think the mission timers are quite generous anyway (too generous in many cases...imo), but I can see how someone who doesn't have time to play every day could be unhappy that a mission they thought they had time to finish today but didn't would not appreciate that it then times out before they can log back in.
Last edited:
Can I get this IRL? I'd love my work deadlines to be extended if I took an afternoon nap.
Yes, it's simply changing a piece of code to which timer it looks at...
It doesn't have to also store the 'active' missions you accepted, have to pause them with all the data required on mission details, remaining time to complete etc. For each player in the game, potentially forever for people who only sign in for the off occasion. Since there would be no penalty of accepting countless missions due to time constrains, players could rack up large mission backlogs. (I'm a DBA, just thinking of the database requirements behind this gives me a headache already)
Lets also not consider what that might affect to others in the game at the time with 'x' amount of missions being accepted and paused in a living universe.
Lets also not consider potential new features and plans FDev might have for the game that might need to utilise the 'always on' clock for balancing or other purposes.
Lets also not consider you're a small speck in the galaxy that ultimately doesn't care about you as a single ship cmdr and it will keep on going whether you're taking a break or not. There's a purpose to the timer and it has been thought out as to why it is the way it is.
It begs the question "what purpose do the mission timers serve?"
If you take a single delivery mission, 24 hour timers are trivial. But if you stack (and if you have a large ship, you will probably do so), and you have limited time to play, you have little choice but to only take short breaks from the game. You literally cannot take any more than a break less than 24 hours if you have missions outstanding.
So, what do they do? Are they meant to create in-game tension, or encourage you to play Elite as much as possible? The do not do the former, but a case could be made for the latter. What other purpose do they have? Maybe we don't even need them in the first place??
Addendum: just read Atreyue's post. I think you're assuming a lot about how the game is constructed. Why could missions simply not be attached to the player object? They do not radiate impacts out to the universe while held by the player and not yet turned in (that I'm aware of). Mission timers have been a long standing tradition in space games that have a sense of time. I'm betting that's the primary reason it's in here in the first place. Don't assume it's a good purpose automatically. I work in software development and see that kind of thing frequently.
If you take a single delivery mission, 24 hour timers are trivial. But if you stack (and if you have a large ship, you will probably do so), and you have limited time to play, you have little choice but to only take short breaks from the game. You literally cannot take any more than a break less than 24 hours if you have missions outstanding.
So, what do they do? Are they meant to create in-game tension, or encourage you to play Elite as much as possible? The do not do the former, but a case could be made for the latter. What other purpose do they have? Maybe we don't even need them in the first place??
Addendum: just read Atreyue's post. I think you're assuming a lot about how the game is constructed. Why could missions simply not be attached to the player object? They do not radiate impacts out to the universe while held by the player and not yet turned in (that I'm aware of). Mission timers have been a long standing tradition in space games that have a sense of time. I'm betting that's the primary reason it's in here in the first place. Don't assume it's a good purpose automatically. I work in software development and see that kind of thing frequently.
Last edited:
Sure, you can take a mission where the outcome could benefit a war that doesn't even exist anymore when you decide to complete the thing 14 months later...
This is why we can't have nice things
Because of the way the BGS works, there is no action that doesn't affect at least someone.