I just wanna make sure this is okay with everyone.

The point is, the devs don't make missions where the objectives are scattered around to make people hunt around for hours for them. They do that because the threat of not finding them quickly is the only way to make actually finding them quickly meaningful. In the same way surviving combat is only meaningful if the threat of death is real.

And you can't make dying optional, because it trivializes it for everyone. You can't just ask people to volunteer to die. Not all gameplay limitations can be made optional as a consequence or they become pointless.

I don't think that's a fair comparison. I have never felt "threatened" in any way when I couldn't find a mission objective quickly. Heck, they give us a difficulty slider that can be utilized to completely negate your comparison.

Actually finding the objectives is meaningful because you've completed the mission and you can move on to the next one. For example, I don't think many people do tip missions because of how rewarding it is when they complete each objective. They do them for the reward that they leave you with, in this case an alignment merit.

If you believe the comparison is unfair because of the word "threatened" there are many other synonyms I can use which eliminate the objection.

Similarly, I don't think people enter into combat so they can celebrate the fact they are still standing after each fight, but that's also not relevant to my point. My point distilled to the essentials is that you cannot remove the negative impact of the inability to execute a gameplay objective without diminishing or eliminating the point of that objective existing when the objective is specifically designed with a failure condition which is materially concomitant with its situational gameplay imperatives.

Sorry, I actually wasn't being a smarta*s, I guess i just misunderstood what you were saying.
Actually, when it comes to things like charging into groups on the ITF, a lot of the fun and the thrill for me is to see how much I can take. Often times, I can take on everything and clear entire spawns by myself, and other times I slip up/am negligent, and I die. That thrill is actually a big part of what makes the game interesting to me.

Wow, I see you're in thesaurus mode right now. There is no "failure condition" to not being able to find a glowy. It's an "annoying" condition. Lots of missions guide you from one objective to the next via the map. The objectives are shown at some point regardless, it just becomes tedious when they're not being shown.

Like someone else said, knowing where things are is not the end of the mission. You still have to click on, destroy, lead out, rescue whatever you were required to in the first place. I'm not saying "all mission objectives should be a glowie that you click as soon as you walk in so you can go on to the next mission."


This really strikes me as unfair. Based on your logic, using the map to find anything, ever, makes the game 'Pac Man-esque.' As for the rest of your post, read this thread. It should be an indication of the fact that many people do not want to speed through everything. Heck, I know I don't. I've already said more than once that the thrill of fighting challenging enemies is a big part of the thrill of the game for me. I was referring largely to more tedious elements of the game, like glowie hunting.

There is no right or wrong way to play. If you're on a team that wants to speed everything and that isn't your thing, form a new team and be clear up front that you plan on enjoying the content at a normal pace and you want to have time to read the stories. If the people you invite don't want to play the same way you do, you're all free to go your own way.

You could say that about anything. There's no failure in combat, because there's no perma-death. There is only a temporary condition that time is guaranteed to resolve. At worst, you go to the hospital and try again. And possibly multiple times. But almost no fight is impossible to win, so its only a matter of time and repetition.

What you're saying is a matter of perspective that isn't universal. All penalties we don't like and think are easy to surmount are "annoyances." But that doesn't mean they aren't serving an important game play function to encourage getting it right either the first time or quickly.

The problem is we cannot simply remove any penalty that someone finds annoying, even optionally for just that one person. It undermines the integrity of the game when everyone can simply rewrite the game rules to their own convenience. So there has to be a line drawn somewhere. The real question to ask is why not just put all the objectives in the very first room you enter, and give everyone the option to go any farther and clear the mission. That kind of design goes farther than your suggestion. Does it go too far? It does to me, but the real question is, if it does to you, why does it go too far, and how do you judge too far? And how do you judge too far in a way you could explain, so even if the devs were willing to do it your way, they could understand what your way actually was?

If its just an ad hoc decision, and not based on some specific line of thought as to what kinds of things should or should not be in the game, recognize that those kinds of things are very difficult to get other people to understand and follow, even if they were of a mind to do so.

Once again I don't think your comparison is fair at all. You're equating dying to glowie hunting? I really don't think it's a "matter of perspective," you die because you took more damage than you had health points before you could regenerate. Not being able to find a glowie is not testing the strength of your characters or your understanding of game mechanics.

If it's a matter of perspective, what is the other way to look at it? Are you saying that some people judge the quality of a player based on how well they mitigate damage and stay alive, and other people judge the quality of a character based on how quickly they find glowies? Because, that hasn't been my experience.
Except there are already missions in the game where the objectives appear on the map as soon as you enter. In some of the Praetorian missions, you're not only guided to objectives as soon as you enter the map... You're guided from door to door so you don't go the wrong way. It also happens in some of the newer Talos Island arcs.

I don't think making it easier to find things and get back to actually playing the game would undermine the game's integrity in any way. You act like some people play the game primarily because they just LOVE finding glowies. They've built their characters to be softcapped at mundane efficiency, if there's no glowie to be found they get real upset and log for the day. I just don't think your argument makes any sense at all.
Other people seem pretty capable of following it, actually. It just seems to me that you're insisting on making it into something that it's not. Having the map show mission objectives wouldn't mean you didn't still have to complete the objectives. It would just mean that you would have the option to show those things on your map, so that you could go about things a bit more efficiently if you so choose. I hardly think that is as difficult a concept to understand or potentially game breaking as you seem to think it is.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Mmm, fishcakes. Now I'm hungry.

I just bought a bunch of fish fingers the other day. I think I'll make some for dinner tonight.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair enough. Your next stop is convincing the devs that first scattering objectives in a mission, then telling everyone where they are is logical. If it actually gets that far, I'm going to be questioning their design logic strongly, and I've already given you a preview of the argument I intend to make. If you think you have the winning hand there, you have no problem. I'm not the one to tell you not to try to get a suggestion implemented, but I will oppose it if it ever gets to the point of serious consideration.

Did you miss the part of my post where I pointed out that many newer arcs have already implemented my suggestion? I'm not asking for anything new to be added to the game, just that it be applied to more than just a few selected bits of newer content.

No, I did not miss it.