Tac officer ( Caption ) weapons locked on Cube defending the transformer Sir
Science officer ; Sir the Pegasus blew a generator , Nanite spheres are warping in to reinforce the transformer !!
First officer ( Caption ) we must Destroy that transformer before the Nanite Spheres get withinn repairing range or the mission will fail , we will be over run with borg reinforcements !!!
This type of ( Help ) is what a player should see when playing content
not what we have which is about worthless
The players should be over run...which would fail the mission and make sense and the players would know why
What we get is a fail team disbanded time wasted no one learned a thing
Again, are from ISN. That last one? I think it should mention not letting the Nanite Borg heal the Transformer. Though, given the Nanite Generators heal the Nanite Transformers that heal the Gateway...one might just piece together that the Nanite Probes/Spheres are going to be the Borg ships that heal.
So what does one have there?
"Captain, we need to destroy the Gateway."
"Captain, in order to destroy the Gateway we need to destroy those Transformers."
"Captain, in order to destroy those Transformers we need to destroy those Generators."
"Captain, in order to destroy those Generators we need to destroy this initial Borg force."
"Captain, destroying that Generator has alerted the Borg and they've sent ships to repair the Transformer. We need to destroy the Transformer before they can reach it. Orders?"
"The fleet took some time to defeat the initial Borg resistance, we'll need to find a way to delay those Nanite Probes/Spheres so the fleet has time to finish off the remaining Generators and take out the Transformer."
...or...
"The fleet obliterated the initial Borg resistance, destroy the remaining Generators, target the Transformer, and fire everything!"
So yeah...it tells you everything and more that you asked for...but you say what it tells you is worthless?
What doesn't make sense is why the transformer getting healed is a fail anyways.
How is it getting healed by nanite spheres worse than it being fully operational with four fully functional generators powering it?
Because you've begun your assault...it's a simple competency check. Is the group up to the task? They can't even do this? What hope is there of getting this done in time?
The thing that doesn't make sense is the 15 minutes being an optional instead of a failure condition. It also doesn't make sense that the 15 minutes begins after the initial engagement. It should begin from the start. The group has 15 minutes to complete the assault or overwhelming Borg forces will arrive and the mission will be a failure.
Make the finish objective destroying the Gateway after both Transformers are down.
Make destroying all the Borg on the field before destroying the Gateway an optional that provides bonus rewards.
It should scream at you relentlessly like: the troop transports from the starbase are...
the nanite spheres from the collective are moving towards the transformers.
the nanite spheres from the collective are moving towards the transformers.
the nanite spheres from the collective are moving towards the transformers.
etc...
btw kudos to this thread - the little thread that could.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
See but this is the issue I keep bringing up. Fails are not clearly marked in most STFs. I think it was Khitomer long before DR that had in bold red letters FAILURE: 10 probes get through, or something to that effect. And that red text didn't come up after the fact, it was there from the start of that phase. I don't remember if it is still there now, or if it was just the original version of that STF.
But that NEEDS to be a part of every queue with fails. It needs to be clear and obvious what the critical objective is. It needs to stand out from the start. Why should that point even be debated?
To further go and notify the players on normal which objectives are critical in advanced and elite is the next step. So if someone does normal they can look at the objectives and see oh, this objective is critical on advanced, this one is important on elite. That is one of the differences between normal/advanced/elite that you just don't even know which objective is most important until you fail it.
Learning by failing is one thing if you can try again right away, as in lots of other MMOs, but STO kicks you out and breaks up the group for a failure.
Actually they do, I myself have posted pics as well has Virus!
Tac officer ( Caption ) weapons locked on Cube defending the transformer Sir
Science officer ; Sir the Pegasus blew a generator , Nanite spheres are warping in to reinforce the transformer !!
First officer ( Caption ) we must Destroy that transformer before the Nanite Spheres get withinn repairing range or the mission will fail , we will be over run with borg reinforcements !!!
This type of ( Help ) is what a player should see when playing content
not what we have which is about worthless
The players should be over run...which would fail the mission and make sense and the players would know why
What we get is a fail team disbanded time wasted no one learned a thing
No, we don't need more boff popups and/or, cut scenes allowing enemies to pound away on you, as you cannot do anything about it till the cut scene is done.
NTY, there is plenty already making itself clear, if people cannot understand that, than they have issues, when sooooo many can and have understood it!
Anyone have a list yet of which queues are employing the new reward structure without having implemented the changes to failoptionals?
Because it still looks like the changes to Azure were just cover for slowly implementing a widespread marks nerf, similar to how the sector space revamp was cover for a doff nerf.
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
Anyone have a list yet of which queues are employing the new reward structure without having implemented the changes to failoptionals?
Because it still looks like the changes to Azure were just cover for slowly implementing a widespread marks nerf, similar to how the sector space revamp was cover for a doff nerf.
I had an instance maybe 2 days ago where I freed the 2nd engineer in Rhilo station and the guy vcalled us back to engineering. I looked up ready to be damn impressed the other side cleared 4 to my 2 but then realized it passed us on after only 4 saved. And the marks were lower.
Vaguely I think this happened once before a couple weeks ago, but in between that we freed 6 the rest of the time.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
I had an instance maybe 2 days ago where I freed the 2nd engineer in Rhilo station...And the marks were lower.
Yeah, I've noticed really meager mark rewards from DRS. Granted, it doesn't have a failoptional.
They recently nerfed mark rewards for BOTS, but that map technically doesn't have a failoptional either. It also rewards more marks than DRS, though I suspect the secondary objectives may be rewarded as if they were optionals.
Based on what they've done with BOTS, it looks like the only content change we're likely to see is the correction of failoptionals, either to correctly process them as optional or correctly label them as mandatory.
Which would be fine if there wasn't a mark nerf along with it.
"Tolerance and apathy are the last virtues of a dying society." - Aristotle
Actually they do, I myself have posted pics as well has Virus!
No they do not. Why would I say that if they already did what I wanted them to?
I played through KSA, CSA, and ISA this morning on the chance that they changed in a recent patch to reflect this, and not one did that. Cure even has the little box in the corner that tells you keeping the Kang above 75% is an optional which lets you continue if you fail. Khitomer's info box seems to indicate that nothing can get through but it is far too weakly stated, and no indication is listed in the mission objective list on the side, which is where the info should be clear and obvious what the fail conditions are.
The mission objectives should read something like this:
Khitomer used to have something like this, making it obvious and quick to see at a glance that stopping the probes was important. Nothing I've seen has that now. It isn't apparent which is critical and which is just a step to be done. At least some of them have the optionals properly marked.
No they do not. Why would I say that if they already did what I wanted them to?
I played through KSA, CSA, and ISA this morning on the chance that they changed in a recent patch to reflect this, and not one did that. Cure even has the little box in the corner that tells you keeping the Kang above 75% is an optional which lets you continue if you fail. Khitomer's info box seems to indicate that nothing can get through but it is far too weakly stated, and no indication is listed in the mission objective list on the side, which is where the info should be clear and obvious what the fail conditions are.
The mission objectives should read something like this:
Khitomer used to have something like this, making it obvious and quick to see at a glance that stopping the probes was important. Nothing I've seen has that now. It isn't apparent which is critical and which is just a step to be done. At least some of them have the optionals properly marked.
Er...
ISN says: [Optional] Let No Transformer Be Repaired by the Borg
ISA says: Let No Transformer Be Repaired by the Borg
CSN says: Defend the I.K.S. Kang
CSA says: Defend the I.K.S. Kang / Do Not Let I.K.S. Kang Fall Below 75% Health
KSN says: [Optional] Let no Borg Ships use the Gateway XX:XX / Mission Failure Condition - Time Vortex Used : [0/10]
KSA says: Let no Borg Ships use the Gateway
Er...
CSN says: Defend the I.K.S. Kang
CSA says: Defend the I.K.S. Kang / Do Not Let I.K.S. Kang Fall Below 75% Health
Which probably explains why its que is dead.
KSN says: [Optional] Let no Borg Ships use the Gateway XX:XX / Mission Failure Condition - Time Vortex Used : [0/10]
KSA says: Let no Borg Ships use the Gateway
No they do not. Why would I say that if they already did what I wanted them to?
I played through KSA, CSA, and ISA this morning on the chance that they changed in a recent patch to reflect this, and not one did that. Cure even has the little box in the corner that tells you keeping the Kang above 75% is an optional which lets you continue if you fail. Khitomer's info box seems to indicate that nothing can get through but it is far too weakly stated, and no indication is listed in the mission objective list on the side, which is where the info should be clear and obvious what the fail conditions are.
The mission objectives should read something like this:
Khitomer used to have something like this, making it obvious and quick to see at a glance that stopping the probes was important. Nothing I've seen has that now. It isn't apparent which is critical and which is just a step to be done. At least some of them have the optionals properly marked.
Than you sir/ma'am, are either completely blind and/or, have serious vision problems with possible attention disorders.
Those queues arent dead. I just played those queues today.
There a number of different reason why you personally cannot play those queues.
- There is new content to play with
- Players found a faster way to grind
- Players dont like that queue
- You try to find players on that queue on a dead timezone or try to find players when those playing those queues just finished playing that STF
- Players who play those queues are in the private channels/ fleets/ alliances
- Players are farming a different marks/stuff, thus different missions/STF
- Players dont do STFs
Good, I stopped doing Advanced when they screwed them up with the insta-fails. PUGs suck enough as it is; I don't need one AFKer TRIBBLE everything up.
Making the most critical objective also the most visible is clearly absurd to suggest. Why in the world would there be a problem sandwiching the critical objective between less important objectives? It isn't like the road workers wearing those orange vests do it for a non-arbitrary, scientific reason. It certainly doesn't actually make them easier to see at all!
I had hoped that something so benign and simple as changing the color of the text could be easily agreed to, that there could be some common ground found. Clearly I overestimated.
With no actual argument or reason to be against the suggestion presented, it becomes clear that the actual reason is simply to oppose any suggestion or change, no matter how reasonable and small. There is absolutely no further point in discussing anything here.
So for Cryptic's benefit:
Critical objectives are not obvious at a glance. In some cases, like Cure space, they are sandwiched between non-critical objectives. In other cases like Gateway to Grethor, they use the same color as optional objectives elsewhere.
They can also be weakly worded. Consider the difference.
Don't let the Kang fall below 75% hull.
The Kang must not fall below 75% hull.
Above all, make them consistent.
1. List the critical, fail objective at the top of the list.
2. Make the color different and highly contrasting from all the others, red worked well for Khitomer space. This does become a problem when also using red for failed optionals, however.
3. Don't mix your colors, use the same color for critical objectives in every STF, the same color for optional objectives in every STF.
4. Consider prefacing it with something like CRITICAL: [objective here]
This is, notwithstanding, the problem of fail objectives in general. But where they are used, make them consistent and easy to see.
You know, I think it's hard to argue against some of these suggestions, especially labeling the fail condition a "critical objective." I think this would actually help new players.
Also, it's important for the objectives to appear on the list you can see if you scroll down with the mission objectives (hard to explain what I mean I guess). But the most important objectives should be last on the list so they are there at the bottom. I always scroll all the way down or to the timer, and I assume this is common.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Making the most critical objective also the most visible is clearly absurd to suggest. Why in the world would there be a problem sandwiching the critical objective between less important objectives? It isn't like the road workers wearing those orange vests do it for a non-arbitrary, scientific reason. It certainly doesn't actually make them easier to see at all!
I had hoped that something so benign and simple as changing the color of the text could be easily agreed to, that there could be some common ground found. Clearly I overestimated.
With no actual argument or reason to be against the suggestion presented, it becomes clear that the actual reason is simply to oppose any suggestion or change, no matter how reasonable and small. There is absolutely no further point in discussing anything here.
So for Cryptic's benefit:
Critical objectives are not obvious at a glance. In some cases, like Cure space, they are sandwiched between non-critical objectives. In other cases like Gateway to Grethor, they use the same color as optional objectives elsewhere.
They can also be weakly worded. Consider the difference.
Don't let the Kang fall below 75% hull.
The Kang must not fall below 75% hull.
Above all, make them consistent.
1. List the critical, fail objective at the top of the list.
2. Make the color different and highly contrasting from all the others, red worked well for Khitomer space. This does become a problem when also using red for failed optionals, however.
3. Don't mix your colors, use the same color for critical objectives in every STF, the same color for optional objectives in every STF.
4. Consider prefacing it with something like CRITICAL: [objective here]
This is, notwithstanding, the problem of fail objectives in general. But where they are used, make them consistent and easy to see.
:rolleyes:
Now you're just nitpicking!!!
And, if I had to guess, you were probably one of those player(s), who never have even bothered to look over at that side of the screen.
Either that or, turned that section of your UI completely off.
You know, I think it's hard to argue against some of these suggestions, especially labeling the fail condition a "critical objective." I think this would actually help new players.
Also, it's important for the objectives to appear on the list you can see if you scroll down with the mission objectives (hard to explain what I mean I guess). But the most important objectives should be last on the list so they are there at the bottom. I always scroll all the way down or to the timer, and I assume this is common.
I scroll down as well but, the objectives are clear enough to see and understand and, after running the mission several times, a person should already by heart know what the objectives are, they don't change EVER!!!
So, while it doesn't hurt to ask such a suggestion, it is irrelevant of an argument to say they don't tell you what needs done!
You know, I think it's hard to argue against some of these suggestions, especially labeling the fail condition a "critical objective." I think this would actually help new players.
Also, it's important for the objectives to appear on the list you can see if you scroll down with the mission objectives (hard to explain what I mean I guess). But the most important objectives should be last on the list so they are there at the bottom. I always scroll all the way down or to the timer, and I assume this is common.
The thing is, though, why does a critical item have to be labeled if the non-critical item is already labeled? There are two things, if one is labeled as X...then the other is obviously Y, no?
I bring out two plates. I tell you the plate on the left is hot. Do I have to tell you the plate on the right is not hot?
As for the objectives, screen real estate has become a burden for me - and - I can only imagine it's more of a burden for folks running at a lower resolution than my 1440x900. Scaling tends to be brutal, I'm getting older and older. I've tried rearranging things, but it gets into some overlap issues and things randomly losing their focus for some odd reason. It's even worse with the Delta Recruit because of that additional UI element and wondering where I can shove that so it's out of the way...but I can't since it's stuck on the Mission Tracker.
As is, three horizontal bars simply isn't enough and the vertical bars are eating up space where I'd have more room to have those objective windows.
But yeah, that Mission Tracker UI element, imho, sucks.
On Delta Recruits you're stuck with the Delta Recruit progress at the top. When you're outside of a mission, it's displaying your overall Mission Tracker stuff. When you go into a mission, you get that split window that slides/dances around where it shows your overall Mission Tracker but also the Objectives for the particular Mission.
Something, imho, could definitely be done with that to make the actual Mission Objectives - well, simply more visible instead of potentially hidden behind a scroll depending on which way it's decided to shift at that moment.
Comments
http://i.imgur.com/bqNmYEs.png
http://i.imgur.com/k1JrW6C.png
http://i.imgur.com/2B8G9ZP.png
Again, are from ISN. That last one? I think it should mention not letting the Nanite Borg heal the Transformer. Though, given the Nanite Generators heal the Nanite Transformers that heal the Gateway...one might just piece together that the Nanite Probes/Spheres are going to be the Borg ships that heal.
So what does one have there?
"Captain, we need to destroy the Gateway."
"Captain, in order to destroy the Gateway we need to destroy those Transformers."
"Captain, in order to destroy those Transformers we need to destroy those Generators."
"Captain, in order to destroy those Generators we need to destroy this initial Borg force."
"Captain, destroying that Generator has alerted the Borg and they've sent ships to repair the Transformer. We need to destroy the Transformer before they can reach it. Orders?"
"The fleet took some time to defeat the initial Borg resistance, we'll need to find a way to delay those Nanite Probes/Spheres so the fleet has time to finish off the remaining Generators and take out the Transformer."
...or...
"The fleet obliterated the initial Borg resistance, destroy the remaining Generators, target the Transformer, and fire everything!"
So yeah...it tells you everything and more that you asked for...but you say what it tells you is worthless?
Puhleeeez... /facepalm
Because you've begun your assault...it's a simple competency check. Is the group up to the task? They can't even do this? What hope is there of getting this done in time?
The thing that doesn't make sense is the 15 minutes being an optional instead of a failure condition. It also doesn't make sense that the 15 minutes begins after the initial engagement. It should begin from the start. The group has 15 minutes to complete the assault or overwhelming Borg forces will arrive and the mission will be a failure.
Make the finish objective destroying the Gateway after both Transformers are down.
Make destroying all the Borg on the field before destroying the Gateway an optional that provides bonus rewards.
the nanite spheres from the collective are moving towards the transformers.
the nanite spheres from the collective are moving towards the transformers.
the nanite spheres from the collective are moving towards the transformers.
etc...
btw kudos to this thread - the little thread that could.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Heh, that made me chuckle...shame they went SAG or they could have gotten somebody in the office to do it on the cheap, eh?
Actually they do, I myself have posted pics as well has Virus!
No, we don't need more boff popups and/or, cut scenes allowing enemies to pound away on you, as you cannot do anything about it till the cut scene is done.
NTY, there is plenty already making itself clear, if people cannot understand that, than they have issues, when sooooo many can and have understood it!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Because it still looks like the changes to Azure were just cover for slowly implementing a widespread marks nerf, similar to how the sector space revamp was cover for a doff nerf.
I had an instance maybe 2 days ago where I freed the 2nd engineer in Rhilo station and the guy vcalled us back to engineering. I looked up ready to be damn impressed the other side cleared 4 to my 2 but then realized it passed us on after only 4 saved. And the marks were lower.
Vaguely I think this happened once before a couple weeks ago, but in between that we freed 6 the rest of the time.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
They recently nerfed mark rewards for BOTS, but that map technically doesn't have a failoptional either. It also rewards more marks than DRS, though I suspect the secondary objectives may be rewarded as if they were optionals.
Based on what they've done with BOTS, it looks like the only content change we're likely to see is the correction of failoptionals, either to correctly process them as optional or correctly label them as mandatory.
Which would be fine if there wasn't a mark nerf along with it.
No they do not. Why would I say that if they already did what I wanted them to?
I played through KSA, CSA, and ISA this morning on the chance that they changed in a recent patch to reflect this, and not one did that. Cure even has the little box in the corner that tells you keeping the Kang above 75% is an optional which lets you continue if you fail. Khitomer's info box seems to indicate that nothing can get through but it is far too weakly stated, and no indication is listed in the mission objective list on the side, which is where the info should be clear and obvious what the fail conditions are.
The mission objectives should read something like this:
[Phase title name, e.g. Destroy the gateways]
[Critical Objective, e.g. Let nothing through the Vortex
COLOR="Yellow"]Optional Objective[/COLOR], e.g. [COLOR="Yellow"]Finish in 15 minutes[/COLOR
[random other objectives here]
Khitomer used to have something like this, making it obvious and quick to see at a glance that stopping the probes was important. Nothing I've seen has that now. It isn't apparent which is critical and which is just a step to be done. At least some of them have the optionals properly marked.
Er...
ISN says: [Optional] Let No Transformer Be Repaired by the Borg
ISA says: Let No Transformer Be Repaired by the Borg
CSN says: Defend the I.K.S. Kang
CSA says: Defend the I.K.S. Kang / Do Not Let I.K.S. Kang Fall Below 75% Health
KSN says: [Optional] Let no Borg Ships use the Gateway XX:XX / Mission Failure Condition - Time Vortex Used : [0/10]
KSA says: Let no Borg Ships use the Gateway
Here, images: http://i.imgur.com/PLfjg5T.png
..and it looks pretty clear to me.
Which probably explains why its que is dead.
Which defiantly explains why its que is dead.
Than you sir/ma'am, are either completely blind and/or, have serious vision problems with possible attention disorders.
They clearly show you to be dead wrong!
In picture perfect clarity.
ISA
KASA
CSA
Now, put your glasses on and, tell me what says optional and, what doesn't!
Because these are current!!!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Er...waiting a minute or two is dead? I'm confused.
All the runs I did to get those snips were just quick public pug queue runs.
How does either of these explain, why you think the queues are dead?
I believe it to be, because so many terrible players & trolls still roam them!!!
I believe, that the vast majority of good players, would sooner not pug!!!
I believe, many players are not happy with the lag, that is involved in doing them!!!
I believe, we have many players, doing other things currently!!!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
Those queues arent dead. I just played those queues today.
There a number of different reason why you personally cannot play those queues.
- There is new content to play with
- Players found a faster way to grind
- Players dont like that queue
- You try to find players on that queue on a dead timezone or try to find players when those playing those queues just finished playing that STF
- Players who play those queues are in the private channels/ fleets/ alliances
- Players are farming a different marks/stuff, thus different missions/STF
- Players dont do STFs
I had hoped that something so benign and simple as changing the color of the text could be easily agreed to, that there could be some common ground found. Clearly I overestimated.
With no actual argument or reason to be against the suggestion presented, it becomes clear that the actual reason is simply to oppose any suggestion or change, no matter how reasonable and small. There is absolutely no further point in discussing anything here.
So for Cryptic's benefit:
Critical objectives are not obvious at a glance. In some cases, like Cure space, they are sandwiched between non-critical objectives. In other cases like Gateway to Grethor, they use the same color as optional objectives elsewhere.
They can also be weakly worded. Consider the difference.
Don't let the Kang fall below 75% hull.
The Kang must not fall below 75% hull.
Above all, make them consistent.
1. List the critical, fail objective at the top of the list.
2. Make the color different and highly contrasting from all the others, red worked well for Khitomer space. This does become a problem when also using red for failed optionals, however.
3. Don't mix your colors, use the same color for critical objectives in every STF, the same color for optional objectives in every STF.
4. Consider prefacing it with something like CRITICAL: [objective here]
This is, notwithstanding, the problem of fail objectives in general. But where they are used, make them consistent and easy to see.
Also, it's important for the objectives to appear on the list you can see if you scroll down with the mission objectives (hard to explain what I mean I guess). But the most important objectives should be last on the list so they are there at the bottom. I always scroll all the way down or to the timer, and I assume this is common.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
:rolleyes:
Now you're just nitpicking!!!
And, if I had to guess, you were probably one of those player(s), who never have even bothered to look over at that side of the screen.
Either that or, turned that section of your UI completely off.
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
I scroll down as well but, the objectives are clear enough to see and understand and, after running the mission several times, a person should already by heart know what the objectives are, they don't change EVER!!!
So, while it doesn't hurt to ask such a suggestion, it is irrelevant of an argument to say they don't tell you what needs done!
Praetor of the -RTS- Romulan Tal Shiar fleet!
The thing is, though, why does a critical item have to be labeled if the non-critical item is already labeled? There are two things, if one is labeled as X...then the other is obviously Y, no?
I bring out two plates. I tell you the plate on the left is hot. Do I have to tell you the plate on the right is not hot?
As for the objectives, screen real estate has become a burden for me - and - I can only imagine it's more of a burden for folks running at a lower resolution than my 1440x900. Scaling tends to be brutal, I'm getting older and older. I've tried rearranging things, but it gets into some overlap issues and things randomly losing their focus for some odd reason. It's even worse with the Delta Recruit because of that additional UI element and wondering where I can shove that so it's out of the way...but I can't since it's stuck on the Mission Tracker.
As is, three horizontal bars simply isn't enough and the vertical bars are eating up space where I'd have more room to have those objective windows.
But yeah, that Mission Tracker UI element, imho, sucks.
On Delta Recruits you're stuck with the Delta Recruit progress at the top. When you're outside of a mission, it's displaying your overall Mission Tracker stuff. When you go into a mission, you get that split window that slides/dances around where it shows your overall Mission Tracker but also the Objectives for the particular Mission.
Something, imho, could definitely be done with that to make the actual Mission Objectives - well, simply more visible instead of potentially hidden behind a scroll depending on which way it's decided to shift at that moment.