Missions for Expired Conflicts

[MTKnife]

Last night, I took the opportunity to take on several missions for an "Alliance" "conflict". Before I could complete any of them, the "conflict" ended, resulting in my losing a total of 30 or so rep with the "opponent" in the "conflict" once I did complete the missions. I think that's a problem, even in the harsh universe of STF.

I get that Alliance and Trade Alliances are shoe-horned into the conflict/mission system, and therefore I'm willing to overlook that the missions that are purportedly meant to help both sides are exactly the same as those you get when two sides are fighting--it looks silly, but you can find ways to explain it, and it's not worth changing solely for the cosmetics.

However, if these genuinely are missions that help both sides, I shouldn't be penalized for completing them right after the conflict ends: if the mission is actually helpful to the "opponent", it's still going to be helpful, even if the relationship no longer exists. I think I could accept if the missions in question no longer granted rep with the target faction (you're no longer fulfilling promises in order to bolster a growing relationship), but having them hurt your rep is perverse, especially since, even though the alliance has ended, you can't back out of them without taking a rep hit with the sponsoring faction and contact. At the very least, I'd like to be able to cancel these missions without penalty.

[fallen]

Whether or not you lose Rep for the mission is wholly dependent on the type of mission you took.

[MTKnife]

I'm not sure if we're talking past each other, but I don't think I understand your answer.

In fact, I just had it happen again, in the very early game: I'm playing Alta Mesa, and one of my contacts popped up with missions for an Alta Mesa-De Valtos Alliance. Seeing a critical opportunity to gain a couple of rep points early with De Valtos, I diverted from what I should have been doing to take two missions in a neighboring quadrant, figuring I'd pick up about 2 points of rep with De Valtos. It probably would have worked if I hadn't forgotten to buy the trade permit I needed for one of the missions, which was a drop of raw spice.

So once I did get the spice (or rather part of it--not enough at the Tradeway, but I knew where to get the rest), I jumped to the next quadrant, and finished the first mission--it was "Opposed Transport", and got me rep with both the sponsoring faction, Alta Mesa, and, since it was an Alliance mission, De Valtos as well (1 point). I grabbed the rest of the raw spice I needed, then headed over to the other mission, requiring me to deposit the raw spice (not sure if it was "Spice Stockpile" or another one, but they both work similarly)...and, sure enough, tbe conflict expired mid-way through the trip.

So, what happened was, I still completed the mission, losing 4 rep for De Valtos in the process, leaving me a net loss (with the 1 gained from the first mission) of 3. In other words, I diverted, burning valuable time, and for my trouble I lost rep with De Valtos--when the main point of the exercise was to gain De Valtos rep.

I don't understand what you mean by "[w]hether or not you lose Rep for the mission is wholly dependent on the type of mission you took." That is clearly not the case when a mission is for an Alliance or Trade Alliance. It will be one of the same types that appear normally, if there's a real conflict (Spy War, Trade Ban, Solar War, etc.) or no conflict between the sponsoring and target Factions. However, if you finish it before the "conflict" ends, you get positive rep with the target Faction (or at worst, for trivial missions, there's no rep gain). If the conflict ends before you can finish it, you lose rep instead, as you normally would for the mission type in question. I've seen this happen every single time I've taken an Alliance or Trade Alliance mission and had the conflict expire before I could finish some of the steps--since I started playing the game a couple of years ago.

Is this not how you intended it to work? If not, I'm surprised no one reported it before.

[MTKnife]

Actually, let me amend that: IIRC, when I started playing, Alliance and Trade Alliance missions gave you rep penalties with the target factions. A number of player complained about this, and you changed it at some point, around 2 years ago, I think? But I could of course be remembering wrong, and/or confusing that change with a change in the original ST.

[fallen]

Oct 4, 2021 21:43:17 GMT -5 MTKnife said:

Actually, let me amend that: IIRC, when I started playing, Alliance and Trade Alliance missions gave you rep penalties with the target factions. A number of player complained about this, and you changed it at some point, around 2 years ago, I think? But I could of course be remembering wrong, and/or confusing that change with a change in the original ST.

Maybe you could provide the title of the specific mission in question?

As mentioned above, it is utterly related to the *type* of mission. Cargo missions, negotiation missions, very specific missions had their Rep rules adjusted for Alliances.

Also, yes, if the Conflict expires before you complete the mission you loose all benefits of the Conflict. If the Solar War expires, you got no special Solar War rules. If the Alliance expires, you get no special Alliance rules.

[MTKnife]

Yes, that's why this was in Suggestions, not Bug Reports.

To sum up: if a mission was for an Alliance conflict, and it would have resulted in positive rep with both Factions during the Alliance, we can assume that the mission itself was helpful to both Factions. Therefore, it is hard to understand why one of the parties involved would be ticked off about it. If this were a highly detailed and accurate simulation, you might want to handle edge cases where the changed circumstances make the mission no longer meaningful, but STF isn't that kind of political simulation, and the normal state of affairs (the average case) will be that it's still helpful. And it really should not go from helpful to ticking off the target.

From a gameplay standpoint, this state of affairs either bites a naive player in the butt, or makes an experienced player avoid Alliance missions. It doesn't serve any real purpose, unless you enjoy aggravating players, and it makes an intriguing option for reputation management not all that valuable.

[fallen]

Sorry, I missed the board this got posted into!

Thanks for the details, added to the list to evaluate.

[MTKnife]

Ughh...took on on 4 missions for an Alliance, and had it expire before I completed 3 of them. Net result: -18 rep with the other faction, rather than the +4 or so I was hoping for.

Since it's early game, I'm deleting and starting over. I'm not sure it's smart to do those missions anymore.

[fallen]

Oct 17, 2021 23:47:59 GMT -5 MTKnife said:

Ughh...took on on 4 missions for an Alliance, and had it expire before I completed 3 of them. Net result: -18 rep with the other faction, rather than the +4 or so I was hoping for.

Since it's early game, I'm deleting and starting over. I'm not sure it's smart to do those missions anymore.

Sorry to hear the Reputation loss lead to a full Captain delete!

We'll keep working to improve.