| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Doddy
Omega Fleet Enterprises
Executive Outcomes
    |
Posted - 2008.08.22 13:48:00 -
[1]
People are focussing far too much on the possible rewards of these missions and all the questions of whether they stop people going to low sec etc. The real problem is that there is no competition. Its just an isk grind which is totally not what eve is all about.
Why is there no competition? Because a single agent can hand out hundreds of missions simultaneously. They are basically bottomless resource pits. If there was infinitely spawning triple 1.85 spawns for each player in 0.0 i doubt anyone would be complaining. If roids had infinite ore in them (like ice) no one would complain either.
Agents should be limited as to the number of missions they can have running at a time. No one in eve other than mission runners get infinite resources without even having to move system. Once a mission runner has the standing he simply moves to the best agent he can use and grinds away, never having to worry about his resource running out. This is fundamentaly flawed.
Possible solution 1 - Agents are limited to the number of missions the can have running at a time. This solves many problems. It removes the inherint unfairness of an infinite uncompetable resource in a multiplayer game. It reduces the payouts high sec missioners are getting as they will have times they cant do a mission, or need to move to find one. It encourages teamwork as corps will be able to work together to get more missions (even war decing rivals for resource), It encourages exploration and travel as people need to look for untapped agents. Perhaps most importantly it reduces blobs and lag as hubs will be more spread out.
This sloution is however open to exploitation. It would be all too easy for farmers to get all the "slots" an agent has. It would also be possible for people to "save" slots by accepting missions and then not doing them till they wanted to. Finally npc players would have a major advantage as they never need to worry about a war-dec over resources.
Solution 2- Agent rewards are directly linked to how many missions that agent has running. The busier the agent, the more the rewards drop. In busy hub systems the agent would become unprofitable and people would need to look elsewhere. All the benefits listed for the above apply to this solution, but i think it would be a lot harder to farm or exploit.
|
Galvatine
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 13:48:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Doddy
People are focussing far too much on the possible rewards of these missions and all the questions of whether they stop people going to low sec etc. The real problem is that there is no competition. Its just an isk grind which is totally not what eve is all about.
Why is there no competition? Because a single agent can hand out hundreds of missions simultaneously. They are basically bottomless resource pits. If there was infinitely spawning triple 1.85 spawns for each player in 0.0 i doubt anyone would be complaining. If roids had infinite ore in them (like ice) no one would complain either.
Agents should be limited as to the number of missions they can have running at a time. No one in eve other than mission runners get infinite resources without even having to move system. Once a mission runner has the standing he simply moves to the best agent he can use and grinds away, never having to worry about his resource running out. This is fundamentaly flawed.
Possible solution 1 - Agents are limited to the number of missions the can have running at a time. This solves many problems. It removes the inherint unfairness of an infinite uncompetable resource in a multiplayer game. It reduces the payouts high sec missioners are getting as they will have times they cant do a mission, or need to move to find one. It encourages teamwork as corps will be able to work together to get more missions (even war decing rivals for resource), It encourages exploration and travel as people need to look for untapped agents. Perhaps most importantly it reduces blobs and lag as hubs will be more spread out.
This sloution is however open to exploitation. It would be all too easy for farmers to get all the "slots" an agent has. It would also be possible for people to "save" slots by accepting missions and then not doing them till they wanted to. Finally npc players would have a major advantage as they never need to worry about a war-dec over resources.
Solution 2- Agent rewards are directly linked to how many missions that agent has running. The busier the agent, the more the rewards drop. In busy hub systems the agent would become unprofitable and people would need to look elsewhere. All the benefits listed for the above apply to this solution, but i think it would be a lot harder to farm or exploit.
Why write another thread on this subject when the first 5 active threads discuss this whine already?
|
|
CCP Navigator
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 13:49:00 -
[3]
Locked.
Please keep the discussions to a single thread. Multiple threads on the same subject are not permitted.
Navigator
Community Representative
CCP Hf, EVE Online
Email / Netfang
|
|
Dirk Magnum
Spearhead Endeavors
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 13:49:00 -
[4]
Don't limit the number of missions an agent can hand out overall. If you must limit mission count, limit the count that can be given to any single player per 24 hour period. If you limit the total count, as opposed to the count any one person can get, only those who live in a timezone that's convenient to the end of downtime will ever get missions.
 SPEND Corp is now recruiting! Click for details. |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |