multi-part jobs

[enkephalin07]

I was going to lead with negative feedback about the length and repetitiveness of Tier 5 jobs, but an alternative occurred to me. Add multipart jobs into parts that aren't contingent on the time and connectivity commitment to clearing a single massive POI. As appealing as endgame quests are to hardcore gamers, not every one of them has the time, or not often enough the time, to complete them without some kind of save point. And even if you do have the time, replaying the same grueling marathon from a limited number of map gets tedious. After the first exploration excitement is gone, it becomes more and more of a chore that you need a break from, to do something else for awhile and get back when you can actually have fun with it.

I request alternatives to upper tier jobs for players that want the challenge, but without the constraints of time they may not have. You could have missions with objectives that could be completed in specific orders, or in any order the player chooses. In the case of shared quests, objectives could begin together then tackled independently, or require separate actors to complete objectives before finishing together. Time-based segments would fit well here.

 

[zztong]

You mean, instead of a T5 POI, you would have to do something like Fetch the satchels from two different T3 POIs within some time frame? Thus, you have two POIs and travel between them to get done?

 

[BFT2020]

Interesting.  I have written quests that have multiple fetch/keep requirements and ones that have multiple kill entity requirements.  I never thought about blending a couple of lower tier quests (say like T3 quests) into a multipart T5 quest.

I wonder how the game will handle that.  Would you need to travel back to the NPC to get the next location on the quest, or can the game grab the next quest location - for example, use the T3 fetch supplies quest and from there, once you grab the supplies, the game then picks another T3 POI as a clear quest?

Something like this (but I got it in the opposite order - clear quest then a fetch quest). 

        <property name="difficulty_tier" value="3"/>
        <property name="login_rally_reset" value="true"/>
        <property name="completiontype" value="TurnIn"/>
        <property name="completion_key" value="quest_clear_completion"/>

        <objective type="RandomPOIGoto">
            <property name="phase" value="1"/>
            <property name="nav_object" value="quest" />
        </objective>

        <objective type="RallyPoint">
            <property name="phase" value="2"/>
            <property name="nav_object" value="rally" />
        </objective>

        <objective type="ClearSleepers">
            <property name="phase" value="3"/>
            <property name="nav_object" value="sleeper_volume"/>
        </objective>

        <objective type="POIStayWithin">
            <property name="phase" value="3"/>
            <property name="radius" value="25"/>
        </objective>

        <objective type="RandomPOIGoto">
            <property name="phase" value="4"/>
            <property name="nav_object" value="quest" />
        </objective>

        <objective type="RallyPoint">
            <property name="phase" value="5"/>
            <property name="nav_object" value="rally" />
        </objective>

        <objective type="FetchFromContainer">
            <property name="phase" value="6"/>
            <property name="quest_item_ID" value="1"/>
            <property name="item_count" value="1"/>
            <property name="default_container" value="cntFetchQuestSatchel"/>
            <property name="nav_object" value="fetch_container" />
        </objective>

        <objective type="POIStayWithin">
            <property name="phase" value="6"/>
            <property name="radius" value="25"/>
        </objective>

        <objective type="ReturnToNPC">
            <property name="phase" value="7"/>
            <property name="nav_object" value="return_to_trader" />
        </objective>

        <objective type="InteractWithNPC">
            <property name="phase" value="7"/>
            <property name="nav_object" value="return_to_trader" />
        </objective>




This though wouldn't have a time frame to get it done by.

 

[enkephalin07]

You mean, instead of a T5 POI, you would have to do something like Fetch the satchels from two different T3 POIs within some time frame? Thus, you have two POIs and travel between them to get done?

Interesting.  I have written quests that have multiple fetch/keep requirements and ones that have multiple kill entity requirements.  I never thought about blending a couple of lower tier quests (say like T3 quests) into a multipart T5 quest.

I mean T5 difficulty quest segments that can be completed in shorter time. You both assume that a T5 POI must be bigger (and so do the devs apparently,) but other constraints could up the challenge.  Is exploring the entire POI always required? And if so, isn't there some turning point in the action where an objective could be considered complete enough that the whole quest could be paused to resume later?

 

[Syphon583]

I mean T5 difficulty quest segments that can be completed in shorter time. You both assume that a T5 POI must be bigger (and so do the devs apparently,) but other constraints could up the challenge.  Is exploring the entire POI always required? And if so, isn't there some turning point in the action where an objective could be considered complete enough that the whole quest could be paused to resume later?

I like this idea a lot and hopefully it is something they have been considering. It seems like they've been trying to expand the quest variety lately and this would be a nice addition.

Relatedly, they could also allow players to break up T5 quests across multiple game sessions by making a small change. As far as I'm aware the game does not keep a quest active if the game is closed. You retain your position, time, loot, everything, but quests are essentially abandoned (which means you cannot restart it and have to get a new quest from the trader). I've had the game crash on me during a quest, and it would have been nice if the game didn't punish me for something out of my control. If they changed it so that quests remained active even if the game is closed or crashes, that would be a huge plus.

 

[BFT2020]

I mean T5 difficulty quest segments that can be completed in shorter time. You both assume that a T5 POI must be bigger (and so do the devs apparently,) but other constraints could up the challenge.  Is exploring the entire POI always required? And if so, isn't there some turning point in the action where an objective could be considered complete enough that the whole quest could be paused to resume later?

We know that the Devs are working on additional quest types, but not sure where they will fall in the structure (or if they will be shorter ones).  For the T5 quests, there are only 3 options right now (fetch, clear, and clear/fetch) as Restore power ends at T4 and buried supplies end at T3.

We didn't just assume that the T5 quests have to be bigger, but based it on the fact that the Devs have already established that the T5 quests were going to be more difficult and take longer to complete (which is why T5 quests are worth 2x as much EXP on completion and 2X casino coins, along with higher grade gear).  So they have already established a higher risk / higher reward based system for the various quest levels.

The complaint about T5 quests being so long to complete has been raised in the past.  The response from the Devs was not lowering the amount of time to complete them, but instead allowed the survivor to keep doing lower Tier (but faster) quests.  It's not a bad suggestion, but not sure if that is what the Devs want.

What I started to do (not sure if zztong was the same) was start thinking of ways to have what you were requesting (multiple objectives) that don't have to be finished at once within the current quest system.

 

[enkephalin07]

We didn't just assume that the T5 quests have to be bigger, but based it on the fact that the Devs have already established that the T5 quests were going to be more difficult and take longer to complete

You already made the assumptions that the T5 quest has to be contained exclusively in a T5 POI, in whole and not in part.  And I agree that they should take longer to complete, but is it necessary to hold the player hostage to time for the entire time? If you wanted to do that, a time-based mission could more easily be fit into real life obligations on a player's time.

(which is why T5 quests are worth 2x as much EXP on completion and 2X casino coins, along with higher grade gear)

The response from the Devs was not lowering the amount of time to complete them, but instead allowed the survivor to keep doing lower Tier (but faster) quests.

Yeah, forfeiting the higher tier rewards for a more reasonable completion timeframe, and instead doing those lower tier quests repetitively, is not a satisfying alternative.

Which brings me back to another point of this post -- repetitive use of the same maps on each job tier. This wasn't so bad when the quests were short, but the fun factor goes assward when you're retreading those hours. With multipart jobs that aren't shackled to the entirety of a single location, you can mix segments of POIs that have been visited before with POI that players haven't even located before. Why couldn't T0 POI be used for T5 quest completion?

 

[BFT2020]

You already made the assumptions that the T5 quest has to be contained exclusively in a T5 POI, in whole and not in part.  And I agree that they should take longer to complete, but is it necessary to hold the player hostage to time for the entire time? If you wanted to do that, a time-based mission could more easily be fit into real life obligations on a player's time.

Yeah, forfeiting the higher tier rewards for a more reasonable completion timeframe, and instead doing those lower tier quests repetitively, is not a satisfying alternative.

Which brings me back to another point of this post -- repetitive use of the same maps on each job tier. This wasn't so bad when the quests were short, but the fun factor goes assward when you're retreading those hours. With multipart jobs that aren't shackled to the entirety of a single location, you can mix segments of POIs that have been visited before with POI that players haven't even located before. Why couldn't T0 POI be used for T5 quest completion?

No I didn't.  If you re-read my first post, I was trying to figure out a way to tie in two T3 level quests at 2 different T3 POIs as a T5 given quest, not going to a T5 location for the quest.

and I am quoting myself

 I never thought about blending a couple of lower tier quests (say like T3 quests) into a multipart T5 quest.

Neither @zztong or myself were restraining ourselves to a T5 POI. 

For reference, here I am quoting zztong

You mean, instead of a T5 POI, you would have to do something like Fetch the satchels from two different T3 POIs within some time frame?

We were clearly talking about tying in multiple lower tier quests in a chain quest.  T3 quests are a good starting point because you could do both locations in a single day if you wanted to, which from my experience in SP, is faster than clearing out and looting a single T5.   And it may (or may not) be possible that you don't lose the progress if you log out of the game and come back later to finish it up.  I have written up challenge quests that track the progress you made, even when you log out of the game and log back in. 

So from your last post - use a T1 POI for a T5 quest.  Sure, that would greatly speed up completing a T5 quest compared to it using one of the T5 POIs, but I think that is just making the T5 quest too easy relative to the rewards you are getting in turn.  Even if you tie in several T1 POIs into a single T5 quest, I don't think the complexity of those POIs would really be at the same challenge level as a T5 quest.  Maybe a multipart T3 quest using T1 POIs would be reasonable,.

Did you actually read our posts or just made assumptions on what we were saying in them?  Seems to me you did the latter not the former.

 

[zztong]

Did you actually read our posts or just made assumptions on what we were saying in them?  Seems to me you did the latter not the former.

It's hard to say what I was thinking at the time. As I reread my comment, I think I was trying to echo back what I thought you said so that I could confirm I understood you. It's possible I read too quickly. I can also be naturally dense from time to time. There might have been something in the wording that I found confusing. Sorry if my comments were a distraction.