Have a look at my last two posts above at why I would love this and it would be terrible 
1 Like
I’d think simplifying the parameters (and penalties, etc) would ultimately relieve workload:
2 Likes
It would relieve the workload on the devs and increase the frustrations by the users. There are already constant complaints about instances where you’re given that kind of freedom but they’re interpreted as bugs instead.
Like what? Just curious. Since the mission parameters follow strict cookie cutter templates and everything else about them is strict hand holding, when the mission design doesn’t work, it seems entirely plausible it’s a bug or game design flaw. It’s not like they’re giving you the freedom to pick amongst diverse options, more like you have to try to avoid the bad apples where the game falls short due to its limitations.
2 Likes
Listed a few here, but there are likely more instances.
Yeah those are bugs in my opinion. Given how strictly the mission rules and parameters are enforced, it doesn’t make sense that they’d throw a seaplane base at you when seaplanes aren’t even allowed for that mission type. Likewise, for employee missions, where the company should be curating the missions, it doesn’t make sense that the airports don’t meet the aircraft’s capabilities.
2 Likes
But the exact same complaints would occur in a more unrestricted mode. Like I said, the best solution is variable difficulty/realism selectable by the user, but I don’t see that coming for quite a while if ever.
A lot of those are happening because of the parameterization, the shoehorning. It’s setup rigidly, as if you’re supposed to trust what it gives you, but then it gives you nonsense. At least if it were clearly up to the user, they’d perhaps take the planning seriously.
1 Like
I think the part people miss is that not all users want to do this. Microsoft is not designing a Career mode exclusively for hardcore simmers, even if that’s what some desire.
Again, take out the parameters, and we will be inundated with users angry at the sim for letting them fly their XCub on a mission across the Pacific, or purchase a 737 for their banner towing company. Games need rails to be accessible to all users - I support the option to remove the rails, but the default cannot be to just not have them at all.
I consider myself a growing hardcore simmer. I can’t get enough of it and I fly both modes. I love everything about this sim (of course not the bugs). I like career mode because it gives a different experience. I can always choose something different from within the sim if on a day that’s what I want. People should not be restricted to their choices nor categorised.
2 Likes
Some users require restrictions to have an enjoyable time in any game. There’s a reason Mario Kart will pick your butt up and put it back on the track if you veer too far from the course (present open world game excluded). I continue to maintain the position that the choice of restrictions is the best, but most time consuming for developers, solution.
I would very much prefer to pick my own airplane for a mission and the destination airport should be given the opportunity to be changed to the nearest suitable runway length and location. I agree with Charlie it’s too prescribed.
1 Like
I’m not saying you shouldn’t have that option - you should, I would also love this. But forcing everyone to have that freedom with a playerbase as diverse as MSFS’ would be a very bad time for many.
That’s what the employee mode should be for. The missions should be curated so they simply work. After all it’s the company setting up the job, not the employee pilot. if they don’t, it’s a bug.
Freelance should be hands off though. It’s up to you to get the cargo from A to B, and the sim is hands off. When you’re given an empty flight planning screen and actually have to pick your airports, it’s going to be apparent to the user it’s on them.
This is about designing a game so that it works. If the devs are being inundated by complaints from users, it doesn’t mean the users are are dumb, can’t handle complexity or the freedom to choose. It’s because the game is badly designed.
And Career Mode is indeed fundamentally flawed in its design.
3 Likes
Nah. Just make the aircraft a suggestion and it’s almost no different than now.
What i meant was just because you choose free flight over career you should not consider yourself more superior. Simming is about obtaining pleasure out of any of the endeavours you partake in to whatever depths makes your time here a happy experience.
1 Like
I agree with this, and the concept of keeping Employee as the more restricted one and Freelance as the (well, the name implies it) “free” mode makes a lot of sense.
I still think you would see a major influx of users angry at the sim for giving them too much freedom (just look at how many people scream about how a complex aircraft’s autopilot is broken when it’s 100% them not knowing how it works). It comes down to a debate of which demographic do you cater to?
I think of it as a scale of inconvenience from 1-10 - the current system inconveniences me, maybe at a 3 or 4? But complete freedom would inconvenience thousands of users at a 9 or 10.
Again, I do like the idea of splitting the mode to give more freedom when you own your own company - and most importantly, resolving the bugs that cause Employee missions to set you up for failure.
I agree with this to a point, but in a sim/game this complex with a super wide variety of users in it, there will always be a massive number of users who are, unfortunately, in over their heads - and that will only get worse if more rails are removed.
Ah yes, of course - agreed 100%.
1 Like
If it were another game entirely, the phrase “Git gud” would probably apply. 
2 Likes