And I'm answering from a gameplay point of view, that they should put failed assignments back on the list instead of letting you off the hook for doing a bad job.
This is the part that I was asking about. Why does it upset you so much that I use my shuttles like this?
Because the game is rewarding you for failure.
Not really. You still (likely) fail that mission, and it still occupies an Admirality Assigment Slot and the Shuttle.
The cost of the failure is just something you can manage.
Mustrum "Today I am in war with Quote Tags" Ridcully
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Let's say an ISA takes about 5 minutes and gives about 2k xp.
There are some admirality missions that gave me more than 10k xp - and only took a Minute to set up.
Now I have quite a few toons and there are quite a few specialisation trees....so, yes I do more admirality than I actually Play the game. Considering the Long waiting times in Queues for PvEs I guess I am not the only one....
18 characters
KDF: 2 tacs, 2 engs, 3 scis
KDF Roms: 3 tacs, 1 eng, 1 scis
FED: 2 tacs, 1 eng, 2 scis
TOS: 1 tac
all on T5 rep (up to temporal)
all have mastered Intel tree (and some more specs Points)
highest DPS: 60.982
Why would your superiors allow you to intentionally F up a mission just because you don't like it? There should be a reason not to do it.
What does a Pass token represent? It probably does not mean someone else does take care of the issue - no one does.
It does represent someone else doing it. Someone gave you that pass token. It represents someone promising to do one assignment for you. What else could it possibly represent?
Oh, and another way you can fail is accidentally hit the 'go' button instead of the the next ship. Had that happen with a failure last night. First time in many many months. I was surprised at the failure and saw that I was like four points below minimum and there was only one ship assigned. I remember going to assign another ship but it wasn't there. So I must have started it up instead of committing that second ship.
Too much rushing.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
In fact for my AoY Character, I have been using some 'Pass' Tokens lately to get my number down below 40. As I close in on getting the remaining two Campaigns to 10 (they are 9.3 and 9.7) I don't want to lose those 10 Tokens you get for the final Temporal Unlock.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
When you fail an admiralty/DOFF mission, you get no rewards. Therefore it shouldn't bother you that someone is deliberately failing them.
I've sent out admiralty assignments where one of the requirements was up to five points lower before and still at least succeeded. If I can fulfill requirements on at least two of the three and get the third at least to within one to three points then I'm usually good to go.
Preferably, I do like to fulfill all three requirements, but sometimes that is just not possible.
And if I choose to send out an assignment that I know is going to fail so that a more desirable assignment can be slotted, then it's none of anyone else's business and shouldn't bother anyone else since it's my game to play the way I see fit, just as it's the other player's game to play as they see fit. Don't judge me and I'll afford you the same courtesy.
Now a LTS and loving it.
Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.
I have come to the conclusion that I have a memory like Etch-A-Sketch. I shake my head and forget everything.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
And if I choose to send out an assignment that I know is going to fail so that a more desirable assignment can be slotted, then it's none of anyone else's business and shouldn't bother anyone else since it's my game to play the way I see fit, just as it's the other player's game to play as they see fit. Don't judge me and I'll afford you the same courtesy.
Do what you want I couldn't care less. But I do judge the game for being designed to encourage that.
We're supposed to be running military operations, not managing office drones in their cubicles. Some amount of risky high-stakes missions should be inevitable.
That's a very action movie/video game way of running military missions though. The work of the military brass (of a major nation not in a desperate situation) is mostly trying to make it as office-y as possible, training people precisely for what they have to do, minimizing each risk that can be minimized at all. Yes, it still needs physical labor, yes it is still high personal risk for those involved, but a general or admiral trying for the long shot which may yield the oh-so-sweet rewards will quickly lose his or her position.
My mother was an epohh and my father smelled of tulaberries
Come to think of it with all this talk about taking some risk, how is it that getting an 8% - 12% chance of success not considered taking a risk. How is it any different in the chance of success than opening a Lockbox and hoping for the Grand Prize Ship (other than your odds are much better with the Mission than getting the prize).
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
When you fail an admiralty/DOFF mission, you get no rewards. Therefore it shouldn't bother you that someone is deliberately failing them.
I've sent out admiralty assignments where one of the requirements was up to five points lower before and still at least succeeded. If I can fulfill requirements on at least two of the three and get the third at least to within one to three points then I'm usually good to go.
Preferably, I do like to fulfill all three requirements, but sometimes that is just not possible.
And if I choose to send out an assignment that I know is going to fail so that a more desirable assignment can be slotted, then it's none of anyone else's business and shouldn't bother anyone else since it's my game to play the way I see fit, just as it's the other player's game to play as they see fit. Don't judge me and I'll afford you the same courtesy.
You have been found guilty of playing a video game the way you want.....
You are hereby charged to....do what you want.
What really bugs me is the 10k per day cap on Adm points. Forced slow progression of the tiers.
I've got to agree with you on this one. It's a slap in the face of those of us that spend resources on building our admiralty decks and devote time to using the system only to be told, "Hang on we think your burning through the campaign too fast, so we want to slow you down so our metrics look better". The maintenance time on ships is justifiable in my opinion, but campaign progression cap is just more BS on cryptics part. But on the other hand I'm surprised they didn't limit the standard xp gains from it either. Because with an admiralty deck of almost 200 ships coupled with the duty officer system I can hit both my daily refining cap and get a spec point per day.
What really bugs me is the 10k per day cap on Adm points. Forced slow progression of the tiers.
I've got to agree with you on this one. It's a slap in the face of those of us that spend resources on building our admiralty decks and devote time to using the system only to be told, "Hang on we think your burning through the campaign too fast, so we want to slow you down so our metrics look better". The maintenance time on ships is justifiable in my opinion, but campaign progression cap is just more BS on cryptics part. But on the other hand I'm surprised they didn't limit the standard xp gains from it either. Because with an admiralty deck of almost 200 ships coupled with the duty officer system I can hit both my daily refining cap and get a spec point per day.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh now that you've mentioned it they will nerf the XP.
We're supposed to be running military operations, not managing office drones in their cubicles. Some amount of risky high-stakes missions should be inevitable.
That's a very action movie/video game way of running military missions though. The work of the military brass (of a major nation not in a desperate situation) is mostly trying to make it as office-y as possible, training people precisely for what they have to do, minimizing each risk that can be minimized at all. Yes, it still needs physical labor, yes it is still high personal risk for those involved, but a general or admiral trying for the long shot which may yield the oh-so-sweet rewards will quickly lose his or her position.
Sure. But when it comes to enemy contact, no amount of planning is going to 100% guarantee success.
You'd think with all the 'slapping in the face' that Cryptic does, we were playing 'The Three Stooges Online'.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
When you fail an admiralty/DOFF mission, you get no rewards. Therefore it shouldn't bother you that someone is deliberately failing them.
I've sent out admiralty assignments where one of the requirements was up to five points lower before and still at least succeeded. If I can fulfill requirements on at least two of the three and get the third at least to within one to three points then I'm usually good to go.
Preferably, I do like to fulfill all three requirements, but sometimes that is just not possible.
And if I choose to send out an assignment that I know is going to fail so that a more desirable assignment can be slotted, then it's none of anyone else's business and shouldn't bother anyone else since it's my game to play the way I see fit, just as it's the other player's game to play as they see fit. Don't judge me and I'll afford you the same courtesy.
You have been found guilty of playing a video game the way you want.....
You are hereby charged to....do what you want.
Hahahaha...thanks for the giggle. I always enjoy a good giggle. And I always did like Q.
Now a LTS and loving it.
Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.
I have come to the conclusion that I have a memory like Etch-A-Sketch. I shake my head and forget everything.
The game does not reward you for failure. You receive nothing when acknowledging failures. The game does not incentivize you to fail. If someone is thinking "But it still encourages you to skip until you find a tour," then it does not. You are still missing out on any rewards that you receive upon a success, whether someone deems them to be worth it or not is irrelevant. The game straight up does not encourage or reward people failing. The failures are something that I swallow.
There shouldn't be any reason for the game to punish people when they fail an assignment. That's going too far imo. The maintenance time is already there, whether you succeed or fail. It's similar to having a doff be put in sickbay, except in admiralty it always happens no matter what. You can't use the ship again until the maintenance time is over. That's enough punishment already. If admiralty followed what doffing did by making common quality ships have the chance of permadeath, that'd be stupid. It may seem fine with ships like the Miranda, but it starts becoming a problem with higher tiers. Common quality t4 ships cost 40k dil. t5 costs 80k. Having them be able to be lost would only devalue them. It would make it less appealing to buy and would instead be better to spend that 80k on upgrades, donate to the fleet, buy from the dil exchange, ect. The cards need considerably more work to acquire than a standard doff you can get for nothing.
Like I said, I have no problems if the devs suddenly decide to raise the maintenance time on shuttles. I also don't have an issue with being forced to have at least a 15%, 20%, or what have you, to start any assignment. I think the fact that you get nothing in return, that you still take up an assignment slot, that you still have to wait for the assignment to finish, and that you're not getting a maintenance time reduction on other ship cards... yeah, I still don't see a need to change anything.
On that note, I think there should be assignments you can't get more than 30% on even if you have every ship card in the game. Something should ask for 400/400/400, plus event. And it should be worth trying. It should be so much worth trying that people would WANT it to be put back in the list if they fail.
This is rather interesting. Maybe have assignments like these that offer a base reward of something like 5k dil or 800k ec. However, I still disagree with putting it back on the list if you fail just for you to try again. If someone wants to risk going for a jackpot, then it should be gone until you find another one. These assignments should probably be classified as ultra rare or epic quality to live up to their reputation. It'd be fun if stuff like this is hard to come by on the assignment list. It'd make it more special whenever you encounter one.
Wow, I just noticed this HUGE error due to this thread. I never really paid it any mind until now. Cryptic owes me MILLIONS of EC because of this. I am definitely sending in a ticket to claim what is owed to me.
It is preposterous that We miss out on rewards if the rewards in both boxes match the type of reward, regardless of amount. If both rewards are dilithium you only get one of them, if both rewards are energy credits you only get one of them. I just lost 75,000 energy credits into thin air. And I am now thinking about how many missions that were like that that I did not notice until just now and that amount is staggering, considering I do admiralty specifically for the energy credits, I skip all other missions or use shuttles to "skip-ish" them.
Wow, I just noticed this HUGE error due to this thread. I never really paid it any mind until now. Cryptic owes me MILLIONS of EC because of this. I am definitely sending in a ticket to claim what is owed to me.
It is preposterous that We miss out on rewards if the rewards in both boxes match the type of reward, regardless of amount. If both rewards are dilithium you only get one of them, if both rewards are energy credits you only get one of them. I just lost 75,000 energy credits into thin air. And I am now thinking about how many missions that were like that that I did not notice until just now and that amount is staggering, considering I do admiralty specifically for the energy credits, I skip all other missions or use shuttles to "skip-ish" them.
We don't miss out on any rewards. That's just a misunderstanding of the UI. The event rewards are added to the main reward box display, not listed separately.
It does represent someone else doing it. Someone gave you that pass token. It represents someone promising to do one assignment for you. What else could it possibly represent?
I dunno, a naked mechanic in place to keep the mini-game from being entirely boring? As befits a resource that is mysteriously generated by getting crits on tasks.
It does represent someone else doing it. Someone gave you that pass token. It represents someone promising to do one assignment for you. What else could it possibly represent?
I dunno, a naked mechanic in place to keep the mini-game from being entirely boring? As befits a resource that is mysteriously generated by getting crits on tasks.
Maybe it's an abstraction of luck and good work - because you did something very well elsewhere, another task or challenge could be avoided.
Or it could represent Starfleet's leeway: As other jobs are done particular well, they trust your judgement when you say that some missions that present itself are not to be done.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
I don't know. The maintenance times seem way off to me. I mean, if they used a variable Damage/Wear system to determine the maintenace at the end, that would be one thing, but they don't. It doesn't matter what the ship did, it is still going to be in dry dock for that period of time.
(Rediculous Example)
Mission:
Number One Gets Her Nails Done - failure
Ship Maintenance: 18 hours
Now, if that ship had been in a battle, I could see it. Or even run into an astroid due to pilot error, or something (Thinking of StarQuest where the pilot scrapped the ship), that would make sense. But a tricorder reading? or something more lame?
It is not Logical, Captian.
The other issue with this, is that if maintenance is going to give you a fixed Dry Dock period, it should be included in the total mission time. Repairs can be made on the return trip, unless half the ship is missing (ie: Saucer section was eaten by an anomally - with ketchup).
...
and I still don't really understand the mechanics used to calculate the mission stats, though. Several times, I've had one that said 10/10/10 on preview jump to 50/90/100 when I pulled up the actual mission.
As for rewards. If they give two different amounts of the same thing in both areas as possible rewards, they use the "Whichever is greater" method of distribution. Many games do, and I haven't seen where this is different here.
You know this was all explained one of the Devs many many months ago. Nothing was supposed to reflect true timings, it was a mechanism put in place for the overall system. Use some logic people, you couldn't even get out of space dock in the time for the 15 minute Missions.
And really, a Tour of Duty in 20 hours. Find something really egregious to complain about. Is it not an obvious system mechanic meant to reward X over Y timeframe.
Post edited by ltminns on
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
and I still don't really understand the mechanics used to calculate the mission stats, though. Several times, I've had one that said 10/10/10 on preview jump to 50/90/100 when I pulled up the actual mission.
That's easily explained. It depends on what you're going to encounter. If it's pirates, then the tac stat will rise. If it's anomalies then the sci stat will rise. Sometimes the encounter will need all three stats to rise, sometimes a stat will be decreased. Look at what you're going to encounter and you won't be surprised when you see the stats change once you click the mission. Stable Particle Fountain rewards purple mats and I always choose that when I see it come up.
Now a LTS and loving it.
Just because you spend money on this game, it does not entitle you to be a jerk if things don't go your way.
I have come to the conclusion that I have a memory like Etch-A-Sketch. I shake my head and forget everything.
Always look at the ACTUAL Mission. The type of Mission is what you initially see, meaning under regular circumstances this is what it would take for a routine patrol, for example. When you look at the ACTUAL Mission there is an Event listed which alters the Stats needed.
A routine patrol that will run into the Doomsday Machine needs more than the routine to handle that situation. You are commensurately rewarded for the additional effort.
'But to be logical is not to be right', and 'nothing' on God's earth could ever 'make it' right!'
Judge Dan Haywood
'As l speak now, the words are forming in my head.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Yeah, I generally look for missions that have some type of special event which offers some type of extra reward like EC, Dil or R&D Mats. Sure the special event usually bumps up the mission requirements, but that is to be expected. Some events even lowers the mission requirements.
Overall, I like A.S.S. (in more ways than one...) since it's a good way to get XP and resources. I built up a nice collection of one time use ships that I have not really bothered to / need to use. Too bad there is a 50 limit on Pass Tokens, but at least when a mission rewards them I would use 'em on missions with less desirable rewards instead of letting them go to waste.
With some of the talk about "superiors" not being happy with you passing an assignment or just sending a shuttle effectively not trying to complete it... What superiors?
You are the head of Starfleet at this point. You control Federation's fleet. You judge the importance of every mission and therefore whether you even try to complete it.
I view passing on a mission as simply not acting, at least for the time being. The fact it reappears sooner or later after passing on it means that the issue is ongoing and you have another choice: Is it now more important for Starfleet to take care of it? Or does it still have to wait?
(Completed assignments that show up again can be viewed as incidents that have been taken care of but are reoccuring. You towed a ship in sector XYZ, now you save a ship in sector ABC.)
TOIVA, Toi Vaxx, Toia Vix, Toveg, T'vritha, To Vrax: Bring in the Allegiance class. Toi'Va, Ti'vath, Toivia, Ty'Vris, Tia Vex, Toi'Virth: Add Tier 6 KDF Carrier and Raider. Tae'Va, T'Vaya, To'Var, Tevra, T'Vira, To'Vrak: Give us Asylums for Romulans.
Comments
Sending a Shuttle means there was at least an observer of the situation, even if the crew couldn't do anything.
Not really. You still (likely) fail that mission, and it still occupies an Admirality Assigment Slot and the Shuttle.
The cost of the failure is just something you can manage.
Mustrum "Today I am in war with Quote Tags" Ridcully
There are some admirality missions that gave me more than 10k xp - and only took a Minute to set up.
Now I have quite a few toons and there are quite a few specialisation trees....so, yes I do more admirality than I actually Play the game. Considering the Long waiting times in Queues for PvEs I guess I am not the only one....
KDF: 2 tacs, 2 engs, 3 scis
KDF Roms: 3 tacs, 1 eng, 1 scis
FED: 2 tacs, 1 eng, 2 scis
TOS: 1 tac
all on T5 rep (up to temporal)
all have mastered Intel tree (and some more specs Points)
highest DPS: 60.982
It does represent someone else doing it. Someone gave you that pass token. It represents someone promising to do one assignment for you. What else could it possibly represent?
Too much rushing.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
I've sent out admiralty assignments where one of the requirements was up to five points lower before and still at least succeeded. If I can fulfill requirements on at least two of the three and get the third at least to within one to three points then I'm usually good to go.
Preferably, I do like to fulfill all three requirements, but sometimes that is just not possible.
And if I choose to send out an assignment that I know is going to fail so that a more desirable assignment can be slotted, then it's none of anyone else's business and shouldn't bother anyone else since it's my game to play the way I see fit, just as it's the other player's game to play as they see fit. Don't judge me and I'll afford you the same courtesy.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Do what you want I couldn't care less. But I do judge the game for being designed to encourage that.
That's a very action movie/video game way of running military missions though. The work of the military brass (of a major nation not in a desperate situation) is mostly trying to make it as office-y as possible, training people precisely for what they have to do, minimizing each risk that can be minimized at all. Yes, it still needs physical labor, yes it is still high personal risk for those involved, but a general or admiral trying for the long shot which may yield the oh-so-sweet rewards will quickly lose his or her position.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
You have been found guilty of playing a video game the way you want.....
You are hereby charged to....do what you want.
I've got to agree with you on this one. It's a slap in the face of those of us that spend resources on building our admiralty decks and devote time to using the system only to be told, "Hang on we think your burning through the campaign too fast, so we want to slow you down so our metrics look better". The maintenance time on ships is justifiable in my opinion, but campaign progression cap is just more BS on cryptics part. But on the other hand I'm surprised they didn't limit the standard xp gains from it either. Because with an admiralty deck of almost 200 ships coupled with the duty officer system I can hit both my daily refining cap and get a spec point per day.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh now that you've mentioned it they will nerf the XP.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Hahahaha...thanks for the giggle. I always enjoy a good giggle. And I always did like Q.
There shouldn't be any reason for the game to punish people when they fail an assignment. That's going too far imo. The maintenance time is already there, whether you succeed or fail. It's similar to having a doff be put in sickbay, except in admiralty it always happens no matter what. You can't use the ship again until the maintenance time is over. That's enough punishment already. If admiralty followed what doffing did by making common quality ships have the chance of permadeath, that'd be stupid. It may seem fine with ships like the Miranda, but it starts becoming a problem with higher tiers. Common quality t4 ships cost 40k dil. t5 costs 80k. Having them be able to be lost would only devalue them. It would make it less appealing to buy and would instead be better to spend that 80k on upgrades, donate to the fleet, buy from the dil exchange, ect. The cards need considerably more work to acquire than a standard doff you can get for nothing.
Like I said, I have no problems if the devs suddenly decide to raise the maintenance time on shuttles. I also don't have an issue with being forced to have at least a 15%, 20%, or what have you, to start any assignment. I think the fact that you get nothing in return, that you still take up an assignment slot, that you still have to wait for the assignment to finish, and that you're not getting a maintenance time reduction on other ship cards... yeah, I still don't see a need to change anything.
This is rather interesting. Maybe have assignments like these that offer a base reward of something like 5k dil or 800k ec. However, I still disagree with putting it back on the list if you fail just for you to try again. If someone wants to risk going for a jackpot, then it should be gone until you find another one. These assignments should probably be classified as ultra rare or epic quality to live up to their reputation. It'd be fun if stuff like this is hard to come by on the assignment list. It'd make it more special whenever you encounter one.
It is preposterous that We miss out on rewards if the rewards in both boxes match the type of reward, regardless of amount. If both rewards are dilithium you only get one of them, if both rewards are energy credits you only get one of them. I just lost 75,000 energy credits into thin air. And I am now thinking about how many missions that were like that that I did not notice until just now and that amount is staggering, considering I do admiralty specifically for the energy credits, I skip all other missions or use shuttles to "skip-ish" them.
I dunno, a naked mechanic in place to keep the mini-game from being entirely boring? As befits a resource that is mysteriously generated by getting crits on tasks.
Maybe it's an abstraction of luck and good work - because you did something very well elsewhere, another task or challenge could be avoided.
Or it could represent Starfleet's leeway: As other jobs are done particular well, they trust your judgement when you say that some missions that present itself are not to be done.
(Rediculous Example)
Mission:
Number One Gets Her Nails Done - failure
Ship Maintenance: 18 hours
Now, if that ship had been in a battle, I could see it. Or even run into an astroid due to pilot error, or something (Thinking of StarQuest where the pilot scrapped the ship), that would make sense. But a tricorder reading? or something more lame?
It is not Logical, Captian.
The other issue with this, is that if maintenance is going to give you a fixed Dry Dock period, it should be included in the total mission time. Repairs can be made on the return trip, unless half the ship is missing (ie: Saucer section was eaten by an anomally - with ketchup).
...
and I still don't really understand the mechanics used to calculate the mission stats, though. Several times, I've had one that said 10/10/10 on preview jump to 50/90/100 when I pulled up the actual mission.
And really, a Tour of Duty in 20 hours. Find something really egregious to complain about. Is it not an obvious system mechanic meant to reward X over Y timeframe.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
That's easily explained. It depends on what you're going to encounter. If it's pirates, then the tac stat will rise. If it's anomalies then the sci stat will rise. Sometimes the encounter will need all three stats to rise, sometimes a stat will be decreased. Look at what you're going to encounter and you won't be surprised when you see the stats change once you click the mission. Stable Particle Fountain rewards purple mats and I always choose that when I see it come up.
A routine patrol that will run into the Doomsday Machine needs more than the routine to handle that situation. You are commensurately rewarded for the additional effort.
l don't know.
l really don't know what l'm about to say, except l have a feeling about it.
That l must repeat the words that come without my knowledge.'
Overall, I like A.S.S. (in more ways than one...) since it's a good way to get XP and resources. I built up a nice collection of one time use ships that I have not really bothered to / need to use. Too bad there is a 50 limit on Pass Tokens, but at least when a mission rewards them I would use 'em on missions with less desirable rewards instead of letting them go to waste.
You are the head of Starfleet at this point. You control Federation's fleet. You judge the importance of every mission and therefore whether you even try to complete it.
I view passing on a mission as simply not acting, at least for the time being. The fact it reappears sooner or later after passing on it means that the issue is ongoing and you have another choice: Is it now more important for Starfleet to take care of it? Or does it still have to wait?
(Completed assignments that show up again can be viewed as incidents that have been taken care of but are reoccuring. You towed a ship in sector XYZ, now you save a ship in sector ABC.)
Toi'Va, Ti'vath, Toivia, Ty'Vris, Tia Vex, Toi'Virth: Add Tier 6 KDF Carrier and Raider.
Tae'Va, T'Vaya, To'Var, Tevra, T'Vira, To'Vrak: Give us Asylums for Romulans.
Don't make ARC mandatory! Keep it optional only!