Star Citizen Live: Mission Features

There's some good news for this: they had a design to implement this functionality but realised it would take too long, considering how badly everyone wants it. Luke and "Koda" (unclear who this is) looked at the design and tried to simplify it into something that could be delivered quickly and easily, and earlier this week they managed to "get something" that was really promising. Ed Fuller (Luke's Principle Designer - unsure on the spelling of their name) did an audit of all of their missions which he finished on Friday, coming to the conclusion that most of them would be easy to refactor (to allow for mission-sharing), but others like race missions might need some work. For example, if you shared a race mission with everyone, only the mission owner can pass through the checkpoints, otherwise the other people it was shared with could be at the other checkpoints and instantly finish the mission. Basically, some missions have edge-cases that they have to catch, but even so they were able, on Wednesday, to share a delivery mission. Some things didn't work, but over the course of 2 days they were able to get that up and running. Luke can't say when exactly it'll be released, but thinks instead that it'll be rolled out mission-by-mission as they convert them into this new shareable version. He adds that it's very promising and they were very happy with it on Wednesday. Gareth comments on the refactors that they have to do, which prompts Luke to talk about one such refactor of the missions, which is to facilitate Server-Side Object Container Streaming. He says "with server streaming on it's night and day", with similar gains as were seen with the introduction of Client-Side Object Container Streaming. Whilst this is great, it also requires a lot of work to be done in refactoring the missions to work with SSOCS, whereas this refactor which allows for missions to be shared is really beneficial and will make people happy (I think what they're saying here is that the refactoring work for SSOCS isn't directly beneficial for Players, and it's that directly beneficial work they'd rather be doing). Jared then uses this opportunity to talk about why we don't have more missions, or more missions of different types, and a few other things (I didn't feel like much of it was relevant to this question, rather just "heading-off" people who might make certain complaints about certain things. If you're curious about what was said, he starts at about 08:52 and ends around 10:52).

Yes, they plan to, especially with mission givers, considering that they want them to stand out, be special, and have mission chains. They really want to start focusing now on "organisations" within the game that Players work for and build up a reputation with, where that rep' then opens up different missions for those "orgs" (these "organisations" sound kinda like the "guilds" that have been mentioned before, such as a Bounty Hunter guild that you have to gain rep' to enter, and then also to get better and better missions from the guild - not to be confused with Organisations which are Player-made and Player-run, like Clans and Guilds in other MMOs). Additionally, working for one mission giver could cause the Player to accrue negative rep' with another mission giver who's opposed to the former. Luke references a question asking about the P.I. Wanted mission, and whether they'll create more missions like that. He says that's the closest he can think of to a "story mission" and that even that mission is quite basic, but they'd really like to take the notion of there being a big story arc existing within that station (Covalex, which orbits Crusader's moon Cellin I think? They might've moved it; I haven't been their for a while), where you go to it to do that one thing, but on the way the Player finds multiple smaller story arcs, and then once the main mission is done, they've actually unlocked more procedural missions - this makes it so that a location isn't built just for one specific mission. He adds that Elliot's been looking into what they can do to maybe take something like the P.I. Wanted mission and use it as a basis [for other missions], and learn more about the Building Blocks and what they can do there. Elliot expands on this, saying that they wanted to make more of a web so that it can be harder for the Player, but if they have good investigation skills "they'll be able to hopefully find it". They want to include extra things, such as when you're doing the mission and you're finding info, you could get contacted by someone requesting that certain people get "thrown under the bus" and they'll pay the Player more for that, thus creating moral choices and dilemmas. They're also looking at other ways it can be improved, because right now they have data-pads floating about, and they're looking at systems they can use to make the mission more immersive for Players (so in-world things, like email systems). Luke adds that they want to give the Players enough information for them to go through and figure things out, and also allow Players to decide which information is handed-in at the end, which would allow for those situations where maybe an NPC contacted the Player saying "make this person look guilty" or the opposite, and the Player can then release information from their investigation that shows that, or not.

Gareth says that, interestingly, in the Pacheco mission you're given a vehicle (she's one of the mission givers from Area18 on ArcCorp), so his current thoughts are similar - that a company could want the Player(s) to retrieve X resources for them and return it using their vehicle. Other methods could strongly encourage the Player to use a certain type of ship, but that's dangerous because Players could want to use their own ship, and Luke comments saying that they've heard people say that about the Pacheco mission, and that it's completely understandable. The reason they haven't done more missions with vehicle restrictions is because people can just cheat and use their own ships - ground vehicles are also slower, so they'd have to force Players to use them, which they don't want to do because then it'd be arbitrary and they want things to be contextual. When things like weather come online, that will force you to drive instead (a good example of this is the "Homestead" demo, which showed atmospheric disturbance forcing the Player to land their Connie and use the URSA Rover to get to their objective instead). Some caves will have entrances big enough for vehicles to enter, and because they're typically small, enclosed spaces, it'd be much smarter to take a vehicle inside than a ship. So they don't want their missions to be contrived, but instead to create situations where it makes sense to do things one way or another (arguably this could also create situations where, if you're a smart-arse, you could find a way to still use your ship in a situation where it's not really ideal, and reap the benefits of that intuitive solution - or just crash and make yourself look like a total idiot, in which case I'd hope you were recording so we can all watch and laugh).

Currently, their "Tier 1" plan is that Players have to go to Terminals to pay off their fines. Elliot's not sure if there are any plans in the future to do wire transfers. Luke assumes that eventually, Players will be able to transfer money back and forth between each other (so wire transfers could be possible if they wanted to do that). They know that they want the kiosks to be there so that there's something physical for Players to hack. They can't speak to other features such as money transfers, but admit that it makes sense that if Players are able to wire transfer money anywhere, then the fines should be payable that way too. That said though, they definitely always want to have the physical method to be an option. So to reiterate, they're currently working on a terminal that will allow for fines to be paid off, and the other option is to go to Security Post Kareah or "the UGF" and hack away the fines (a quick search tells me that "the UGF" is a reference to HDSF-Elbridge, an Underground Facility on Hurston, but it's possible that any UGF would do?). They would also like to differentiate between the criminal database where all of a Player's felonies are kept, and the Fine Terminal which is more jurisdiction-ally based, and would require the Player to go to a relevant terminal within that jurisdiction to pay off those fines (like going to Port Olisar or Orison to pay off fines within Crusader's jurisdiction). Luke adds that they do want Players to be able to hack the Fine Terminals/kiosks, but because the local light security can't detect whether a Player's hacking or not, and the Armistice/Green zone prevents other Players from intervening, that functionality just doesn't fit right now. As such, they're keeping it to the Terminals at Kareah and other such places. This at least adds another layer of Player-choice and dilemma, because the Player will have to decide whether they want to hack away their fines or their felonies first. Jared adds that the whole "money transfer" feature isn't something the Mission Team handles, so they can't talk about it much, but reiterates that it's a feature that CIG wants to implement.

They've done research into this and come up with a plan. If a Player doesn't pay off their fines, they'll go through certain stages that escalate the urgency to pay off those fines, and if they get to a point where they've not paid it off and the government decides the Player is "taking the biscuit now", the Player will accrue an "unpaid fine" felony, which raises the bar more and goes on the Player's record. Luke adds that the stages Elliot just mentioned are in the form of an early payment state, then an escalated payment state, and then after a certain length of time it turns into the felony. The hope is that in 3.7 Players will be able to pay off their fines at the aforementioned kiosks/Fine Terminals, and a little after that Players should be able to be arrested because of their unpaid fine. This might be done by Bounty Hunters, or by Security Forces. If you're in the early payment state, getting scanned by Security Forces could cause them to warn the Player about their unpaid fines, but they won't take action. The idea, especially with Bounty Hunters, is that you may just get a warning first, then maybe a warning shot, and then it'll no longer be a warning - the idea is that Debt Collectors will also come after the Players (it's uncertain though if this is something that Bounty Hunters would do, or if it's something new).

Luke says that there's technology that they already have that needs to get to a point where it can be used in missions, like Mining, Trading, and things like that. Melee Combat could be good, and also the localised Physical Inventory so that's there's finite "pocket" space. Gareth thinks that big trade cargo journeys could also be really cool, so instead of just the 1 box (like many of the cargo retrieval and deliveries in-game right now) it could be 200 boxes instead. They also refer to the UI Building Blocks being something new and exciting that's opening more doors for them, because it's being used in things like hacking, where previously hacking might be just walking up to a Terminal and pressing F to interact with the screen and then the rest is automatic, but now they can actually have multiple options select-able on the screens, and mini-games that require the Player to interact further in a more meaningful way. Jared adds that there's an ISC segment coming up in 2 or 3 weeks that will showcase the UI Building Blocks.

Gareth thinks that it comes back to context. If there's AI in a cave, they need to make sure that they're not in a place with a bunch of crates, so that there isn't a situation where the Player crawls through a tiny hole, but then the AI has a bunch of crates despite there not being any way that those crates could have gotten there. This is a problem that could occur because the caves will be Procedurally Generated. As such, they need to make sure that the nature of the connected rooms has an overall context and a flow that makes sense when you're in that space. For things like finding a missing person, they need to make sure that they're in a pit that isn't necessarily near the entrance of the cave, but could also be very far in, so there should be lots of different places that person could be in, and if they're dead on the floor, it shouldn't be near the entrance. As such, they need to make sure that the space that's been Procedurally Generated fits the context of the mission. Luke adds that in regards to the marker/waypoint specifically, they have to be careful anyway, such as not putting the marker on the actual missing person, because that just gives it away and removes the need to actually search or explore. It could also create a problem where you go to the marker, and then you're just on the surface looking at a marker that's underground with no clear way of how to get there, so they will most likely put the marker on the entrance to the cave, but it depends on whether or not finding the cave entrance without a marker is fun. Gareth adds that because the caves are naturally dark spaces, it's also important to make sure that the space is readable, that the Player(s) can understand where they've go to go - for example, if it's a cave that then becomes a cavern with no natural light source, it'll be unclear what you're looking at and about to step into. On top of this, again it'll be things like not spawning box/cargo missions where you can't actually get the cargo out of the cave - challenging situations like having to throw a crate before climbing up somewhere would be fine, but if you have to crawl into the cave for example, then there'd be no way of getting that crate out.

They're great and they love them. Luke says that right now, it's nice to pit Players against each other, considering that their AI is still being developed. He doesn't think that they do a good enough job of making it clear which missions are PvP missions though, and that they need to make sure that Players aren't lulled into thinking a PvP mission is a PvE mission, but at the same time PvP is always possible in SC so there's nothing stopping a Player from being attacked by another Player regardless of missions. He gives an example of missions involving derelict ships, and how they're designed to bring Players together, which can result in a standoff as the Players figure out whether the other is hostile, or what to do with regards to the other Player. He goes on to say that they can't prevent PvP, and when they encourage it that should also involve making Players aware of the risk involved. He concludes by saying that they like PvP missions, they're not avoiding creating them, and they're also not relying on them too heavily - they typically cycle between creating a PvP mission, then a PvE mission, and then back to PvP and so on.

They put in hacking as a basis because the tool (seemingly the UI Building Blocks) was brand new and being developed, and they're currently testing the waters with what they can do and how they can utilise it - this comes back to the UI Building Blocks again - which resulted in a lot of feedback on Spectrum and Reddit that they sorted through and read. Elliot and Ed Fuller (mentioned in Q01, unsure on how their name is spelt) have been working on ideas and prototypes of what they'd like to do, where they'd like to have hacking be easy for the people who don't really want to engage with it, which might just mean that certain things only require a basic level of hacking ability, but for people who might want to make a hacking career they wanted to give it some sort of depth to facilitate that and make it enjoyable to do so, whilst also creating situations where some people might be considered hacking experts that other Players rely upon - which comes back to "Easy to Learn, Difficult to Master". The intent is to try and build something that could be PvP, such as a situation where Player 1 is hacking and Player 2 is trying to prevent the hack, maybe hacking each other, or Player 2 setting up traps that will alert them to the hack, so they know when to intervene. They're trying to get deep with it, but at the same time, if a Player just wants to get through a door then that should be do-able for everyone, whether they're hacking or just using a hacking chip that they bought. With regards to the chips that they've introduced with 3.6, they may eventually get relegated to being the "buy your way out" option if you're no good at hacking.

They definitely want to do it, it's just that these things rely on other features that don't exist yet or are still being worked on. Unique items, for example, would need somewhere for them to be stored, like properly persistant Habs that Players can decorate. Reputation on the other hand, will be directly tied to completing missions for certain in-game organisations as they touched on earlier (so it seems rep' wouldn't be a reward in-and-of itself, more just something that goes up and down depending on the Player's actions). They've been wanting to do missions that give Players uniforms, and that allow Players to have ships such as is prototyped with the Pachecho mission. What they need is to be able to tie these things into the actual system that Players use right now so that party members can open doors and stuff, because at the moment with the Pacheco mission, only the person who has the mission can fly the ship.

Yes, they really want to allow Players to do that. As Luke was saying before, they build objectives in a simple manner, such as delivery missions where the Player picks up a box, and then drops it off somewhere else, although admittedly it's not that simple behind the scenes. However, it's not one mission but two objectives: pick-up, and drop-off, and they've built those separately. For example, in a mission where you steal a box, the first objective might be to do something first (like kill an NPC), but the end is the "drop-off" part of a delivery mission and they've just stitched those things together. As such, they could allow Players to take their objectives, and hopefully stitch them together into a coherent mission, after which the only thing to do is to decide what is being picked up and dropped off. It's a little like the Service Beacons, where when you're requesting a pickup the game always knows where you are so it's easy to determine what's being picked-up, and where it's going. For the Player-generated missions, they would need to expose all possible locations as an option because the box (or whatever) that's being picked up and dropped off, could be anywhere. This gets particularly interesting when the thing being picked up needs to be dropped off at a location that is secret or hidden, which therefore requires the Player completing the mission to have learned where that location is.

Yes - as soon as they're given them, they'll use them. Currently when the ships break up, they're not like the shipwrecks that Players can walk around right now; they have to put a lot more effort into making those shipwrecks as opposed to those you might actually witness being blown up. There are a lot of collision issues, and other things that Players wouldn't see because after breaking the ships apart, they then have to do a lot of work so that the Players can actually navigate the wrecks, and that they "hold up" when you get that close (I interpret this as meaning that they still look good, but it's possible that it could be meant literally). On top of this, the ships are getting bigger and bigger, and he (Luke) will only ever ask for the biggest ship lately because there's not really much to do with something as small as the Hornet. Incidentally, they're creating (or have created) an FPS combat mission within a wrecked Starfarer, and have prototyped an entire mission which takes place within an 890 Jump.

Luke says that although the mechanics exist, they aren't accessible to the missions right now (i.e. to be used in the missions). An example mining mission might be a request for a certain amount of gold to be delivered within a certain time-frame (which might be displayed on a new tab on the same Terminal you buy and sell from), and it doesn't matter where the resources come from. This might result in a situation where some Players know where to go to acquire those resources, and other Players don't have a clue. Luke posits that there might therefore be easier missions that direct you to a location instead. There are further complications too, such as how it's determined whether the Player has the right type of resource in their inventory, whether that resource can be deposited, how it is deposited, and so on. The same goes for Trading, which would also require a console/Terminal somewhere. One of the things holding them back is that the Trading consoles were built before the new UI Building Blocks tech that has been developed (or is being developed, I'm under the impression that it's not done yet but every now and then they talk as if it's done), so it's not something that Designers can get into and start changing - at least not yet, because there are plans to eventually remake these consoles in Building Blocks which will allow the Missions Team to take some pressure off of the UI Team. Something that Elliot does is to build an ugly wireframe UI model that's functional and shows how the Missions Team wants the UI to function, and generally how they want it to be laid out. The UI Team would then go in and make it look pretty. Luke adds that hopefully in the future there will be less "sticking points" which are caused by the UI Team having too many tasks to do on the schedule, and with the new UI Building Blocks the Mission Team are now free to kind of do it themselves. That said, the UI Team are providing styles within which any box (or whatever) that is created will look like that style. Jared reiterates that we'll get to see what this new UI Building Blocks tech is in the ISC segment coming in 2 to 3 weeks, but also adds that it's not hyperbole to say that it will revolutionise the way that the Designers get to implement their missions, their ship UIs, their kiosk UIs - everything. This will take a lot of strain off of the UI Team, and allow Designers at all levels to push forward with a lot of features that we've all been waiting for.

Gareth says, "It's Alpha." Luke says that people have to understand that a mission is at its core very simple, like with a delivery mission it's pick this thing up, then drop it off at this location, however between these two things is the rest of the game. As such, if any portion of the game doesn't work at that time, then that mission might not work - it might be entirely blocked, or it might be more of a pain. Some examples, like boxes disappearing or falling through things, those aren't the fault of the mission. Gareth adds that he sees the Designers being at the end of a funnel, trying to piece everything together to make something cohesive, where any single part could break, and that could seem like it's the fault of the mission when really the fault lies elsewhere (I imagine the box falling through a ship's cargo grid, for example, could be due to a bug with the cargo grid, or a de-sync with the server, or something like that). Despite all of that, it also doesn't mean that the missions are incapable of actually being broken, it's just that examples like the aforementioned disappearing box are not. Jared chimes in to say that all of the relevant teams are working very diligently to resolve these bugs and issues, that 3.6.1 is currently on the PTU in open testing, and so as the game becomes more stable and features are fleshed out more, the wonderful consequence of that will be that the missions will function better and thus Players will have more success in completing them. Luke adds that the more reliable the missions become, the more confident that they will be in pushing the envelope. Related to that, Jared plugs the importance of the Issue Council, and how Players can use that to expedite the bug-finding and squashing process.