Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Kara Vix
Sanford and Son Salvage
144
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 13:30:00 -
[61] - Quote
Tippia wrote:WeeellGǪ it's an old idea, but still a pretty good one.
You'd probably want a bit more granularity than GÇ£25 every hourGÇ¥ (or whatever). Simply make them queue up at, say, one every minute GÇö first come, first serve (with the standard option of skipping over one with a 4h timer). Agents that are never used will end up with thousands queued up, whereas hub agents will constantly be dry unless your timing is very lucky.
It's that second part that is really needed to make it work: that the queue builds up (almost) so that you can find a treasure-trove of untapped agent resources if you look around a bit.
How is it a good idea Tippia? Why would people who pay to play this game doing missions mostly want to continue to do so if they can't do missions? Like or it not, this game needs PVE'ers money to continue. |
March rabbit
epTa Team Inc.
717
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 13:33:00 -
[62] - Quote
Kara Vix wrote:Tippia wrote:WeeellGǪ it's an old idea, but still a pretty good one.
You'd probably want a bit more granularity than GÇ£25 every hourGÇ¥ (or whatever). Simply make them queue up at, say, one every minute GÇö first come, first serve (with the standard option of skipping over one with a 4h timer). Agents that are never used will end up with thousands queued up, whereas hub agents will constantly be dry unless your timing is very lucky.
It's that second part that is really needed to make it work: that the queue builds up (almost) so that you can find a treasure-trove of untapped agent resources if you look around a bit. How is it a good idea Tippia? Why would people who pay to play this game doing missions mostly want to continue to do so if they can't do missions? Like or it not, this game needs PVE'ers money to continue. this is too difficult thing to consider for most children |
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2822
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 13:35:00 -
[63] - Quote
Ramona McCandless wrote:
B) They love PVP, not PVE
PVE for me always works as an enabler for PVP. The argument that one can exist without the other is just not true.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14762
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 13:44:00 -
[64] - Quote
Kara Vix wrote:How is it a good idea Tippia? It's a good idea because it creates a more dynamic universe, where people don't settle down in one system and then stays there for years on end, but rather create a little GÇ£standard tourGÇ¥ that they move about in. It should also help combat the sedentary tendencies that make people fall into a one-track mindset GÇö if you already used to moving around and setting up contingencies, it'll be easier to adapt or adopt new GÇ£lifestylesGÇ¥ and try new things.
Quote:Why would people who pay to play this game doing missions mostly want to continue to do so if they can't do missions? Why do you ask questions that are not related to the post you're quoting?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
Sentamon
1062
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 13:44:00 -
[65] - Quote
Kara Vix wrote:And watch as hi sec subscriptions become a limited resource as well. All these idiotic ideas to destroy hi sec never end do they?
Why? You could always travel to another agent or do something else. People would spread out and explore, this is a good thing. ~ Professional Forum Alt -á~ |
Anslo
The Scope Gallente Federation
1827
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 13:47:00 -
[66] - Quote
No.
|
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
2141
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 13:48:00 -
[67] - Quote
Ruze wrote:Some responses here have gotten downright mean. Here's some reasoning:
If you can limit the resource, the resource becomes more valuable. Hisec mission runners aren't getting any special reward for what they do, besides injecting isk/lp into the economy. We don't get officer/pirate drops. We don't get good bounties. Even our salvage generally sucks.
But hisec missions are also some of the most boring, repetitive, and downright soul-destroying activities that this game has.
CCP's choices have always been to either 'liven up' missions, or ignore them. A change as drastic as I've proposed, where missions become yet another fallible resource in this game, does a lot of mission runners. It makes our payout more effective. It makes our salvage more expensive. It destroys the mission hubs where our gear can't sell above dime because it's flooded with other players.
It also would give us more voice, because as another poster said, how much of our economy's isk was brought into the game by us, the oft-ignored and devalued mission runner.
We blow up ships every day. CCP loves for people to blow stuff up. So how come miners' are more important than mission runners in CCP's eyes?
That's the thing too many of your mission running brethern don't understand, these kinds of ideas make mission running MORE valuable even it it makes them a little less comfortable.
It also makes mission running safer. Mission hubs are the places people who want to gank and grief mission runners go. in the places where I mission run in high sec (when i get bored with everything else or just don't want the hassle of more dangerous PVE), no one messes with me, but omg as soon as i undock in a Hub system I got someone coming into my mission trying to screw with me.
|
Kara Vix
Sanford and Son Salvage
145
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 13:49:00 -
[68] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kara Vix wrote:How is it a good idea Tippia? It's a good idea because it creates a more dynamic universe, where people don't settle down in one system and then stays there for years on end, but rather create a little GÇ£standard tourGÇ¥ that they move about in. It should also help combat the sedentary tendencies that make people fall into a one-track mindset GÇö if you already used to moving around and setting up contingencies, it'll be easier to adapt or adopt new GÇ£lifestylesGÇ¥ and try new things. Quote:Why would people who pay to play this game doing missions mostly want to continue to do so if they can't do missions? Why do you ask questions that are not related to the post you're quoting?
How could not see the connection to that question and your post, I think you just enjoy arguements. |
Jenn aSide
STK Scientific Initiative Mercenaries
2141
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 13:55:00 -
[69] - Quote
Kara Vix wrote:Tippia wrote:WeeellGǪ it's an old idea, but still a pretty good one.
You'd probably want a bit more granularity than GÇ£25 every hourGÇ¥ (or whatever). Simply make them queue up at, say, one every minute GÇö first come, first serve (with the standard option of skipping over one with a 4h timer). Agents that are never used will end up with thousands queued up, whereas hub agents will constantly be dry unless your timing is very lucky.
It's that second part that is really needed to make it work: that the queue builds up (almost) so that you can find a treasure-trove of untapped agent resources if you look around a bit. How is it a good idea Tippia? Why would people who pay to play this game doing missions mostly want to continue to do so if they can't do missions? Like or it not, this game needs PVE'ers money to continue.
Tippia already explained, but man are some of you high sec people incredibly short sighted. To the point where you're so comfortable with the status quo that you can't see improvement when it rears up and bites you in the backside.
Ultimatley, All PVE in eve should follow Exploration principles IMO. The more people who use it, the less valuable it is so it's better to move around and look for situations other people having gotten to yet.
To be honest, the current situation in null is a lot like the mission situation in high sec ie you can upgrade a system and people just live there, not leaving except to chase an escalation plex or move some minerals/loot to empire.
The more I experience it, the more I think CCP would be better off taking away the ability to upgrade a solar system and replacing it with the ability to upgrade a Constellation and making the miners and explorers/anom farmers have to move around bit within that constellation from time to time, sometimes away from the "station systems". |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14762
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 13:56:00 -
[70] - Quote
Kara Vix wrote:How could not see the connection to that question and your post Oh, that's easy: because I'm not inside your head GÇö your assumptions are not mine.
You're the one saying people can't do mission (for some unexplained reason), not me. You're asking about me about something you made up.
The disconnect between what I said and what you asked is that we're two different people saying two different things. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
|
Kara Vix
Sanford and Son Salvage
145
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:00:00 -
[71] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Kara Vix wrote:How could not see the connection to that question and your post Oh, that's easy: because I'm not inside your head GÇö your assumptions are not mine. You're the one saying people can't do mission (for some unexplained reason), not me. You're asking about me about something you made up. The disconnect between what I said and what you asked is that we're two different people saying two different things.
You seriously are smug at times. You had stated that agents 'would be dry' or such, meaning there would be no missions, so a person logging on to run missions would have none there to run, thus I asked why would someone pay a game to run missions if agents were 'dry'. How anyone could not see a connection between my response and your statement is beyond me, but do continue to impress yourself if you wish, it is amusing. |
Anslo
The Scope Gallente Federation
1828
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:06:00 -
[72] - Quote
Either way, argue what you want. It's not happening.
|
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
267
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:06:00 -
[73] - Quote
Kara Vix wrote:Tippia wrote:Kara Vix wrote:How could not see the connection to that question and your post Oh, that's easy: because I'm not inside your head GÇö your assumptions are not mine. You're the one saying people can't do mission (for some unexplained reason), not me. You're asking about me about something you made up. The disconnect between what I said and what you asked is that we're two different people saying two different things. You seriously are smug at times. You had stated that agents 'would be dry' or such, meaning there would be no missions, so a person logging on to run missions would have none there to run, thus I asked why would someone pay a game to run missions if agents were 'dry'. How anyone could not see a connection between my response and your statement is beyond me, but do continue to impress yourself if you wish, it is amusing. I would suggest you go back and read the post you try to remember. It does say a lot more than what you try to make it out to say.
Also, blatantly quoting from myself on p2:
Quote:The funny thing for me, however, is that the best counterargument to this has been those who just asked "why", instead of those who tried their best to reason against it. Sometimes, a proposal is actually badly made but when you present it, the detractors are even worse at criticising it, so the bad criticism makes your proposal better by comparison. I know this from IRL experience, it really does work.
So, Kara Vix, will you do a better job at criticising Tippia, or will you essentially give her the win? |
Minmatar Citizen160812
The LGBT Last Supper
247
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:06:00 -
[74] - Quote
Ruze wrote:Now, please setup missions to be on a limited basis. Like, one mission per agent every 4 hours. Or even, each agent only gives 25 missions every four hours, and the first mission runners there get the go.
Actually, I like this alot. I know it sounds like sarcasm, but this hisec occupant is serious about it. I feel that making all 'resources' limited and something worth competing over is an awesome concept and needs more focus.
Scale the little guys, like level 1 agents, to be near infinite. But as you go up in the mission difficulty, down goes the number of missions which can be given out every hour, until each agent only gives 25 or 50 (however many would make it worth competing for) missions every four hours. Makes you second guess turning down that losec mission.
Do NOT apply this to FW zones, however, or FW pilots.
Didn't agent quality kinda work like this? You got better rewards the closer to low sec you went and those agents would send you to low every so many missions? Then you could either do them, decline and hope it wasn't another one or decline and wait 4 hours if it was two in a row?
I forget it was so long ago but I remember that was a bad change and made high sec missions all congregate into small areas a few jumps from the rookie systems. Your idea would be a good balance to the agent quality change from years ago. |
Vince Snetterton
300
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:07:00 -
[75] - Quote
Erotica 1 wrote:Kara Vix wrote:And watch as hi sec subscriptions become a limited resource as well. All these idiotic ideas to destroy hi sec never end do they? Just because others have different ideas from you does not make the ideas idiotic. If you would take the time to think about it, such a change would equally affect high sec, low sec, and null. Also, it would reduce the number of bots and bot aspirants. I have a feeling you are not yet a New Order supporter. I suggest checking it out at www.minerbumping.com
You are right. Just because others have different ideas does not make your ideas idiotic. The idiocy of your idea is clear all by itself. |
Kara Vix
Sanford and Son Salvage
146
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:10:00 -
[76] - Quote
Alphea Abbra wrote:Kara Vix wrote:Tippia wrote:Kara Vix wrote:How could not see the connection to that question and your post Oh, that's easy: because I'm not inside your head GÇö your assumptions are not mine. You're the one saying people can't do mission (for some unexplained reason), not me. You're asking about me about something you made up. The disconnect between what I said and what you asked is that we're two different people saying two different things. You seriously are smug at times. You had stated that agents 'would be dry' or such, meaning there would be no missions, so a person logging on to run missions would have none there to run, thus I asked why would someone pay a game to run missions if agents were 'dry'. How anyone could not see a connection between my response and your statement is beyond me, but do continue to impress yourself if you wish, it is amusing. I would suggest you go back and read the post you try to remember. It does say a lot more than what you try to make it out to say. Also, blatantly quoting from myself on p2: Quote:The funny thing for me, however, is that the best counterargument to this has been those who just asked "why", instead of those who tried their best to reason against it. Sometimes, a proposal is actually badly made but when you present it, the detractors are even worse at criticising it, so the bad criticism makes your proposal better by comparison. I know this from IRL experience, it really does work. So, Kara Vix, will you do a better job at criticising Tippia, or will you essentially give her the win?
I'm well aware of what it said and I think my response was valid and politely stated. He-She seems well able to argue for himself. If by chance I misunderstood and I don't see how, than I stand corrected, but my question still remains, why would I pay for a game that suddenly limits my chosen activity after so many years of paying to play that way. I started in Null and Low sec when the game launched in 2003 but now I prefer hi sec casual gameplay and I am less than impressed by arguements to squash that style of play. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
14762
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:13:00 -
[77] - Quote
Kara Vix wrote:You seriously are smug at times. Yes. Mainly when people try to throw strawman fallacies my way (or indeed any fallacy) since they're so easy to refute, and yet people seem so anxious to use them.
Quote:You had stated that agents 'would be dry' or such, meaning there would be no missions, so a person logging on to run missions would have none there to run GǪexcept that he'd have roughly 6,500 other new missions to choose from that particular minute (nearly 11,000 if he's brave enough to go below 0.45 security). If he fiddles around with his fitting window for a couple of seconds, it'll be closer to 13,000. How many people run missions at any given time during the day? How many of them accepts a new mission any given minute?
Quote:How anyone could not see a connection between my response and your statement is beyond me Largely because I'm not saying that people can't do missions, whereas you are. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: newbie skill plan 2.0. |
RomeStar
Empire Investments Logistics
176
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:22:00 -
[78] - Quote
Wrong section belongs in features and Ideas. Signatured removed, CCP Phantom |
Stetson Eagle
ROC Academy The ROC
42
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:36:00 -
[79] - Quote
Good idea. Nullsec anoms should follow as well; hourly cap in system regeneration. Scaled per site value: sanctums count more towards the cap than lower end anoms.
This would tilt nullsec more towards low end systems, as competition for sanctums would be tough. |
Dame Lanfear
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:38:00 -
[80] - Quote
Am just amazed this troll thread hasn't been locked. |
|
Stetson Eagle
ROC Academy The ROC
42
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:40:00 -
[81] - Quote
Another good thing about this is that it favors more inactive timezones over the peak hours. This allows for some competitiveness for players on bad tz, and promotes filling in any unrepresented tz. In the big picture this generates broader accessible player made content. |
Zircon Dasher
222
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:40:00 -
[82] - Quote
This would be fun to port over to belts and anoms too. After DT each system will be populated with a given number of PVE "objects" and when they are gone...welp, better change systems or log-off till the next day. This would make crappy systems more valuable and give people a reason to fight over them!
lol Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Ramona McCandless
Standards and Practices Petition Blizzard
254
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:41:00 -
[83] - Quote
Kara Vix wrote: casual gameplay
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1Jqu70c6XE "You are even dumber than everyone says." - Kristopher Rocancourt
Tell The Others |
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
1176
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:41:00 -
[84] - Quote
Oh look! Another nerf HS thread. HTFU!...for the children! |
Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations
404
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:43:00 -
[85] - Quote
RomeStar wrote:Wrong section belongs in features and Ideas.
That's nice, but let's move the discussion along rather than quibble over the category. A few people, like yourself, have said that without adding value to the conversation.
I think the ideas presented by myself and the OP have great potential. Like all great ideas, there is some initial hesitation. But that is normal. I think once mission runners step out of their comfort zone and embrace these changes, they will agree with us. See Bio for isk doubling rules. -áIf you didn't read bio, chances are you helped fund those who did. |
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
1162
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:43:00 -
[86] - Quote
Ruze wrote:Now, please setup missions to be on a limited basis. Like, one mission per agent every 4 hours. Or even, each agent only gives 25 missions every four hours, and the first mission runners there get the go.
Actually, I like this alot. I know it sounds like sarcasm, but this hisec occupant is serious about it. I feel that making all 'resources' limited and something worth competing over is an awesome concept and needs more focus.
Scale the little guys, like level 1 agents, to be near infinite. But as you go up in the mission difficulty, down goes the number of missions which can be given out every hour, until each agent only gives 25 or 50 (however many would make it worth competing for) missions every four hours. Makes you second guess turning down that losec mission.
Do NOT apply this to FW zones, however, or FW pilots.
You have very little insight about EVE and what the game dynamic requirements are in order to keep the trickle of new accounts rolling in. Even this bad idea should be posted in the ideas forum, not GD. It's an idea right ? Bad as it is. Personnel Division Director --áBene Gesserit Chapterhouse "The universe is an ancient desert, a vast wasteland with only occasional habitable planets as oases. We Fremen, comfortable with deserts, shall now venture into another." - STILGAR, From the Sietch to the Stars. |
Kara Vix
Sanford and Son Salvage
148
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:53:00 -
[87] - Quote
Problem? |
Ravnik
Choke-Hold
8904
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:53:00 -
[88] - Quote
Mr Kidd wrote:Oh look! Another nerf HS thread.
Personally i think they have far more important things to nerf...for example, the avatar creation. Dude...your face!!!!!!!!
The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long - and you have burned so very, very brightly.......... |
Signal11th
The Retirement Club
1009
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 14:58:00 -
[89] - Quote
Ravnik wrote:Mr Kidd wrote:Oh look! Another nerf HS thread. Personally i think they have far more important things to nerf...for example, the avatar creation. Dude...your face!!!!!!!!
You need to check out LCO before you even thing Mr.Kidd's face is different. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster. |
Murk Paradox
Red Tsunami The Cursed Few
402
|
Posted - 2013.06.12 15:02:00 -
[90] - Quote
I don't think Agents should repeat missions in one day (downtime) per pilot.
Other pilots, fleet members, whatever can increase this cycle amount.
But still should be 1 whole mission cycle per pilot to be honest.
Want to skip a mission? No problem! Won't get it back til tomorrow.
This will accomplish reducing cherry picking missions for isk/hour. This will also help encourage fleet activity (let's not be anti social people!) as well as encourage local to interact with one another (pick up fleets for mission running!). "Never rub another man's rhubarb." -Joker in Batman (Jack Nicholson) Just get a catalyst, blow him up and the post in local "Just a friendly reminder that I'm mining here and not you." -Abrazzar
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |