Exclusive Mission Forks + In-Game Variables = Player Rage
Rito pls.
When it comes to missions, most of us appreciate what you're trying to do, but we're frustrated with how you keep trying to explore a functionality we don't want.
Before I harp on what's wrong, let me remind you of existing functions in the client mission UI.
##Mission Pre-activation
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-vtu9F4d_NCQ/WzOr8muLBeI/AAAAAAABF-k/LJ_j2-WgcUQyRT_mvjCKJr3_mTIDNLzOwCLcBGAs/s1600/garenvsdar.jpg https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-B_Fr9ENfYyQ/WzOoxFSXGYI/AAAAAAABF-Q/KfCXJYX3l7M0PB00NT8VFX1VzTHMxOwuACLcBGAs/s1600/mission.jpg Images taken from Surrender at 20
For multiple mission sets in the past, the available mission list has required players to manually click a button before missions would start tracking progress. This function exists for mission groups, so why not use it for multiple choice missions?
Pros
- Players are directly engaged and made aware of the tasks being tracked
- Accidental completion of an unwanted task is rendered impossible
Cons
- Super lazy players and those who routinely ignore alerts may miss out on missions by failing to open the mission list to accept the missions
##Summoner Icon Activation
Another recurring mission tracking convention for multiple sets is having players equip specific Summoner Icons. With the latest mission set, equipping a Cat or Dog icon for the Animal Instincts mission was all that was necessary to lock an account to its faction. Prior events required players to keep icons equipped to tally their games with those icons.
Pros
- In most cases, this is a manual opt-in action, so most players will not accidentally complete missions by using the wrong icon
Cons
- Icons are often seen as a unique expression of the player's interests
- This forces players to use icons other than their usual preference
- Player individuality is temporarily diminished when friend lists are dominated by two icons
Now that we've established that there are pre-existing ways to let players decide when to allow a mission to progress, the problem is that you don't let us do just that.
##Concurrent Exclusive Missions
https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ypgU1mM8dzE/WjAGICL1BkI/AAAAAAABFcg/eiAXzb4bhosGWImW2nTioE4QSN_2AFF_ACLcBGAs/s1600/miss.jpg Image taken from Surrender at 20
While players sometimes have the option of directly choosing mission lines, we've also been presented an indirect method of choosing a faction by which mission is completed first.
Pros
- Players can effortlessly let their playstyles/habits dictate the mission line
- Indecisiveness won't prevent players from clearing missions
Cons
- Players more interested in a particular mission line have to limit their options until the decisionmaking mission is complete
- They may have to decline invitations to certain game modes
- They may have to make in-game choices detrimental to success
- They may feel pressured to throw games
##Forked Missions
You've been experimenting with missions granting different rewards based on alternate criteria for a while.
Pool Party 2018's The Poro Pool mission was only unlockable by completing the alternate ARAM criterion in the Fun in the Sun mission. https://i.imgur.com/bWQIqpe.png[] Image taken from Reddit user Spankosaurio
While the bonus reward was a mere 500BE, this exclusionary bonus approach is not a good habit to foster when criteria are so easy to accidentally satisfy. More recently, Snowdown 2018 missions granted extra Nexus tokens for alternate completions. In the latest example, players were upset by the fork produced by The Impossible Mission during the Cats vs. Dogs event. This is because exclusive rewards were initially only accessible to those who had completed the more difficult requirement, whereas the easier requirement is something incidental to most games with competent players. Simply put, without allowing players to indicate which path they were taking, you made it possible (and more likely!) that they would be forced into a path with lesser rewards.
Pros
- Some rewards become more scarce (bragging rights) due to players having their access blocked
- Unpredictability can be interesting
Cons
- Some rewards become more scarce
due to players having their access blocked - Unpredictability can be frustrating (e.g., players may intend to choose path A when the game begins but feel forced to fulfill path B's requirement to prevent a loss)
Allowing in-game variables to affect mission paths is not good design. You might even call it toxic, as it breeds frustration in your players. I already text walled about it a few months ago. See the section about "Player Agency" here: https://boards.na.leagueoflegends.com/en/c/gameplay-balance/bl5Py7Kt-riot-mission-team-ambiguity-alternate-criteria-and-player-agency-long
If you're going to give us missions with exclusive rewards, let us choose whether we intend to complete them when we are out of game, in the client. Don't forcibly remove the possibility of completion due to some random in-game occurrence.
