Missions: Obtainable regardless of team skill

(DarkangelUK) #1

So obviously there has been much debate regarding missions and exactly how many players want to play them. I’m not a mission/credit whore myself but I can understand why players are put off by certain missions as it goes against what they perceive as enjoyment in the game.

My suggestion is to create missions that are achievable in-game regardless of the mode and regardless of how crap your team is. Missions that are geared towards wins, especially in a mode like Execution that has new players pushed towards the mode primarily relies on luck and having skilled players on your team to aid your progress, if you happen to get a few level 1 quick joins in your team then you’re more or less screwed. Missions should rely on individual skill and not the luck of team composition.

My suggestion is to include missions that cater to personal skill rather than group skill. Some examples below primarily for Execution:

Plant the C4 10x
Get the round winning kill 5x
Defuse the C4 5x
Get first blood 10x

IMO missions are far too team focused and don’t emphasise individual skill enough. Thoughts?

(cornJester) #2

First blood and round winning kill requires an element of luck as well.

(DarkangelUK) #3

At the end of the day it’s all luck really, but at least those two are individual based and not hoping that the team you landed with are good at the game.

(Ctrix) #4

Nope, nope, nope.
Experience based missions are way better, because you don’t have to farm specific actions.

(DarkangelUK) #5

[quote=“Ctrix;102727”]Nope, nope, nope.
Experience based missions are way better, because you don’t have to farm specific actions. [/quote]

Please elaborate on ‘experience based missions’, because I’m not a fan of participation awards where all you have to do is turn up to the game and you earn credits for it.

(Ctrix) #6

Have you not played the game?

You get xp for any action in the game that accomplishes something. There’s different types to.
Combat XP you get for killing people, you get a bonus for headshots and stuff.
Support XP you get for healing, reviving or handing out ammo.
Objective XP you get for planting C4, defusing C4, repairing Generators or the EDV.

Then you’ll happen to get quests like “Get A amount of B type of XP in C game mode”

(Runeforce) #7

Pretty sure DarkAngelUK is not seeking of an explanation of how it works.
Change the A, B and C’s to an X, and you have the magic solution (of course along with giving out xp for being actually useful, which I guess is the real developer challenge.)
The problem about giving out ‘mission completions’ on skill base, in the way suggested by the OP, is that it becomes a competition, which you don’t want, because it favors more skilled players, making it impossible for lower skilled to ever earn a credit.
But as a ‘bonus system’ to add a little extra credit on top, it might just work!

(DarkangelUK) #8

Why are you so hung up on XP, no one mentioned XP at all. So proving my point, you get rewards for doing what you’re meant to do, my suggestion is to reward players with CREDITS for going above and beyond the call of duty.

(Ctrix) #9

[quote=“DarkangelUK;102760”]Why are you so hung up on XP, no one mentioned XP at all.
[…][/quote]

You make little sense friend.
The same goes for the rest of your suggestions.

(DMaster2) #10

[quote=“DarkangelUK;19553”]So obviously there has been much debate regarding missions and exactly how many players want to play them. I’m not a mission/credit whore myself but I can understand why players are put off by certain missions as it goes against what they perceive as enjoyment in the game.

My suggestion is to create missions that are achievable in-game regardless of the mode and regardless of how crap your team is. Missions that are geared towards wins, especially in a mode like Execution that has new players pushed towards the mode primarily relies on luck and having skilled players on your team to aid your progress, if you happen to get a few level 1 quick joins in your team then you’re more or less screwed. Missions should rely on individual skill and not the luck of team composition.

My suggestion is to include missions that cater to personal skill rather than group skill. Some examples below primarily for Execution:

Plant the C4 10x
Get the round winning kill 5x
Defuse the C4 5x
Get first blood 10x

IMO missions are far too team focused and don’t emphasise individual skill enough. Thoughts?[/quote]
Game mode XP are bad enough thank you. Round winning? Nope. Terrible idea. First Blood? Even more terrible since it requires RNG.

(SereneFlight) #11

[quote=“DarkangelUK;19553”]
Plant the C4 10x
Get the round winning kill 5x
Defuse the C4 5x
Get first blood 10x

IMO missions are far too team focused and don’t emphasise individual skill enough. Thoughts?[/quote]
You realize that in order to get many of these done will depend on your team…
If your team sucks balls, you’re not gonna get 10 plants, round winning kills (which also requires a good amount of luck so what about missions that require you to get cobalt card from regular case?) or defuses for a long time. Or if the enemy team sucks balls you’re not gonna get your defuses.

First blood?.. oh goodie, this will just take forever even if the teams were even.

If these would be added to the game, they would might as well get those awful win a match in competitive mode missions back.

(Rjsto) #12

Imagine if people actually had the first blood mission. Half the server would just leave after someone else got the first kill

(Yes) #13

Four missions which I would cancel the moment I saw them.

(DarkangelUK) #14

Are people seriously playing this game purely for the missions and thats it?? It’s pretty darned sad really. Actually it’s borderline pathetic. You’re basing your gaming experience on how many credits you can earn rather than purely enjoying the game for what it is… I feel remorse for the gamers of today.

(avidCow) #15

Yes, I understand this, but thankfully playing many of the missions coincides with just playing the game.

(Mr-Penguin) #16

Yes, I understand this, but thankfully playing many of the missions coincide with just playing the game. [/quote]

And completing the missions gives you credits, which is an intrinsic motivator for playing the game and having fun.

(Jostabeere) #17

Every mission around an objctive is pretty shitty imo. Engies will ALWAYS steal it from you so you’re forced to play a Proxy to be the first at the objective or you wont get them.

(Runeforce) #18

[quote=“derpypenguinz19;102821”]
And completing the missions gives you credits, which is an intrinsic motivator for playing the game and having fun.[/quote]

But that is my problem. I’d say about half the time, doing the missions are not fun. I don’t play the game for the missions, but I need to do those to get more mercs and loadouts, at least as a F2P player.

(Drac0rion) #19

It’s a team based game, there should not be missions rewarding solo play, in that case there could be added some milestone achievments that reward a certain amount of credits.

Missions are just extra cash along the way, you’re not forced to complete them. Some are there to make you try new things and put you out of your comfort zone.

I’m already a little bit upset about the Game mode xp, as the fastest one to complete that objective gains the xp, so when you have 5 engineers in underground, good luck competing against them for that game mode xp. Same goes for that EV damage when you got 5 fire support on your team.
Secondary missions already got removed, because they we’re just too annoying to complete, as you would only gain progress towards that mission by just finishing the objective, even if someone on your team did 99% of the repair, if he didn’t manage to finish it for whatever reason, you can just steal it. Also on some maps you would always need the enemy to construct/disable that secondary objective first to be able to interact with it.

That mission alone would require you to play 10 games and I really doubt anyone could pull off first blood every single game 10 games in a row.
Missions refresh every 3 hours and currently I am able to complete all 3 missions I have available in about 1 game, maybe 2 depending on the map and the types of XP I am required to earn. I think missions are fun, as they often require me to play different mercs and different styles.

I already dislike some of the execution missions, which I abandon immediately as I’m just not a fan of the game mode, but already looking at missions which require you to play more than 1 game to be able to complete the mission seem rather dissatisfying. I know more than just 1 game isn’t too much to ask to complete the missions, but I find it shouldn’t be required either, some players have more time, some less.

As I don’t deal with the execution type missions myself, I would like to kindly ask for someone to leave their impression by first letting us know the games/win requirements per round, how many games would it take to complete them in one go and then their average amount of games it actually takes.

(retief) #20

Play X execution rounds is pretty straight forward – a single round takes somewhere around 2 minutes on average (counting between rounds time and lobby time), and you have to play 20-30 of them. Not fast, but not impossible. Game length is actually pretty irrelevant here. You will spend around the same total time whether you play 3 7-0 stomps or 2 closer 7-3 games.

Win x execution rounds obviously depends on your skill and teammate luck. On average, win X rounds should be a bit better than play 2X rounds – people tend to drop out of the losing side, so more people win matches than lose matches and the overall average winrate is probably over 50%. However, I haven’t had a “win X execution rounds” mission yet, so I don’t know what the exact numbers are.