Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Asharee Intrefer
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 15:04:00 -
[1]
To go directly to to idea: What if agent quality was dynamic and based on use of the agent?
I'm thinking something like a mechanism that adjusts the base quality of an agent based on number of missions handed out compared to other agents in the same corp and division û when the count gets too high above the mean the agent's quality will start to drop, an of course the opposite will happen with low use agents. Lets describe it as one agent being overworked due to 200 hundred clients needing something to do, while the other is desperate to have his problems solved and has the motivation and time to dig out the better rewards.
It might mean mission runners get more spread out and forced to move around and see a bit of the world while keeping profits optimal. At the same time traders and, of course, ninjas will have to follow the trends to keep their activities as profitable and enjoyable as possible.
|
Atreus primus
Gallente The Order of Chivalry Nex Eternus
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 15:35:00 -
[2]
Very good idea, and propably not difficult to implement. I wonder what effect it would have on the EVErse ------------------------------------------------
Damn its dangerous here. Good thing i brought my towel. By the way... how do i get to Lave? |
Asharee Intrefer
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 16:22:00 -
[3]
It could become very interesting, yes.
To be a bit carebearish, I guess many would see it as a problem that all the max quality agents would be in low sec. I'm not all for forcing people that way for the best agents. But that could be solved as well, with agents that have reached max quality but not seeing use above a certain threshold not being included in the count. Or keeping them separate. Low sec has Level 5's, and hopefully that ends up more profitable anyway.
|
Contralto
Gallente GCHQ
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 16:57:00 -
[4]
yes I would vote for something like this, or as proposed elswhere, agents having the same quality but giving greater rewards the higher your standing rises with them.
This would mean you could choose any agent in any location that suited you and raise his effective quality to you personally. It would make sense that an agent would offer you greater rewards for continued loyalty, additionally the mission difficulty could rise with those standings and rewards.
This would mean agents could be all one level. I suppose it would still be necessary to give additional incentives the lower the system sec though, that would prevent everyone choosing 1.0 sec systems, and reward low sec and 0.0 mission runners.
Perhaps both ideas could be combined somehow.
|
syphurous
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 01:03:00 -
[5]
No one runs the the low sec agents, they all get max quality, all the spare "points in the pool" are used up on them. This would leave just a small amount floating round in empire, and everytime someone moved to get to the agent they've moved to, everyone else would follow. This would make the load shift from busy hubs to quiet little systems, and then dump the quiet system after a while back into the dark ages. You'd have constellations rise in ecomonic growth, then suddenly the bottom would fall out of the market.
I would love to see this impact on the market, making it flucuate more, but people are just sheep and would just kill systems overnight. The end of every weekend you'd have to open up the agent tabs and search all the agents and see where the load has shifted too.
What really needs to happen is some sort of personal quality system, so peopel can mission where they like. There will still be hubs, but those wanting somewhere quieter will be able to move and still gain the same rewards. Most people will read this thinking it's part of my post, when its actually my sig :P
|
Zo5o
Gallente Longcat is Long
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 01:11:00 -
[6]
Yes, spending more time moving all of my ships from system to system sounds way more fun than actually playing the game.
Not.
|
Wet Ferret
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 03:00:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Zo5o Yes, spending more time moving all of my ships from system to system sounds way more fun than actually playing the game.
Not.
So don't. And get paid slightly less. Ohnoes.
It's not like they would have to make the agent quality shift overnight like some are so afraid of, they could easily just make it happen slowly over time and limit it to a maximum rate of adjustment per day or something.
Anyway, suggested this plenty of times myself. Probably not going to happen. Oh well.
But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started.
|
Zo5o
Gallente Longcat is Long
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 03:17:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Zo5o on 28/08/2008 03:23:06
Quote: So don't. And get paid slightly less.
I've taken the initiative up to this point to find a nice quiet little backwater system with little to no lag to run missions in.
I'm more concerned about dynamic agent quality introducing lag to my home and having to move away from it than I am about making less money. If the player base moves with the quality payouts, the lag will move with the player base, which could cause runners to need to move from system to system to avoid lag.
Again, actually playing the game is way more fun than moving a bunch of ships from system to system.
I don't think crowded mission hubs are a problem. Players currently have the choice to run in crowded areas for more isk, or less crowded areas for slightly less isk. Seems pretty simple to me.
|
Shocker Steg
Amarr Crusaders of Darkness
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 09:47:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Asharee Intrefer It could become very interesting, yes.
To be a bit carebearish, I guess many would see it as a problem that all the max quality agents would be in low sec. I'm not all for forcing people that way for the best agents. But that could be solved as well, with agents that have reached max quality but not seeing use above a certain threshold not being included in the count. Or keeping them separate. Low sec has Level 5's, and hopefully that ends up more profitable anyway.
Could use 2 different systems one for low sec and one for high sec.
IF agents system is > 0.5 then compare situation A IF agents system is < 0.5 then compare situation B
and then for both situations work out the quality fluctuations... that way you keep your high sec agent runners and low sec agent runners seperate like it already is.
Then again i see the point of ppl need to move out of their "home" systems coz their agents are getting higher quality and ppl are moving into the system while they want a low populated zone to work in.. ------- Always a deeply religious people, religion remains of great importance to every Amarrian, a fervour which at various times has been responsible both for great good and great evil. |
Lady Valory
Caldari Caldari Strike Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 11:43:00 -
[10]
I think players should keep coming up with new ideas to stop the whoring of L4 missions, and your idea is pretty fair as it is...
Perhaps the point pool could be based on sec status...
After all one of the weird things about L4 missions is how/why/ and for what reason are there 100 000 bs rats a day in 1.0 and .9 systems?
Thus agents in 1.0 systems would get less "points" under your system and have a lower quality while other agents in .5 systems get more points.
Mission running is infinite isk at close to zero risk, so players with their infinite isk will soon get hangers for each probably mission site.
Many of the really good mission runners already have that. I keep 6 ravens in different areas with support ships for alts just as a flavor thing depending on which cluster of L4 missions I want to do, and I'm sure your system would just encourage that in a broader way.
|
|
Dzajic
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 12:06:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Lady Valory
Mission running is infinite isk at close to zero risk, so players with their infinite isk will soon get hangers for each probably mission site.
Ratting in 0.7 system in a noobship is infinite isk at close to zero risk. NPC goods trading is infinite isk at close to zero risk.
What matters is the speed at which you gain isk. faction fit CS or CNR or Golem will go over mythical 25 mill per hour mark. If he runs two or three accounts it goes even higher, though isk/hour/account should be looked at.
People running L4 in Pest or Geddon or Mega? I dont think they will get near 25 or even 20 mill per hour, and they risk much much more than multibillion isk faction fit ships.
Re: OP
Good idea, people would have to change systems when they become too exploited, low sec agents would naturally have much higher quality, less lag in high sec. Also, additional social skills related to missions and agents. Make charisma a useful stat.
|
AltBier
Minmatar Freelance Unincorporated
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 13:24:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Zo5o If the player base moves with the quality payouts, the lag will move with the player base, which could cause runners to need to move from system to system to avoid lag.
And so lag would not be solved, just constantly moved, because there will always be a current 'best agent' somewhere. Interesting observation.
|
Wet Ferret
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 13:43:00 -
[13]
Originally by: AltBier
Originally by: Zo5o If the player base moves with the quality payouts, the lag will move with the player base, which could cause runners to need to move from system to system to avoid lag.
And so lag would not be solved, just constantly moved, because there will always be a current 'best agent' somewhere. Interesting observation.
Ideally, the change would occur slowly enough that this wouldn't happen. IE: no new major mission hubs would ever develop as all agents would be "about the same" with only some being slightly better than others but not enough to move a large amount of players. Personally, working for all factions in various parts of the galaxy over a long period of time, I haven't noticed any significant lag outside of the mission hubs anyway. Even in systems with 80+ players regularly.
I'm thinking the only mission hubs that would be still around are ones with really good agents that are close to trade hubs. Still very easily avoidable for those that choose not to deal with it but live with some inconvenience.
Anyway, mission runners have been exempt from any kind of fluctuations in their productivity for a long time and it's hardly too much to ask for them to be subject to a little bit of it. And I say this as a full-time high-sec mission running carebear.
But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started.
|
Asharee Intrefer
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 14:17:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Wet Ferret
Originally by: AltBier
Originally by: Zo5o If the player base moves with the quality payouts, the lag will move with the player base, which could cause runners to need to move from system to system to avoid lag.
And so lag would not be solved, just constantly moved, because there will always be a current 'best agent' somewhere. Interesting observation.
Ideally, the change would occur slowly enough that this wouldn't happen. IE: no new major mission hubs would ever develop as all agents would be "about the same" with only some being slightly better than others but not enough to move a large amount of players.
Wet Ferret here puts my thoughts in words. I think there could be many interesting benefits from everything spreading out. It's not only an issue about mission lag, since heavy load on some systems can have effects on nearby systems as well and affects people who only are passing by. A couple of days ago I spent several minutes waiting to get through the gates in Balle and Vylade, which are nearby to Dodixie, and the same when passing those systems on the way back.
Trade hubs is also something that might change. Places like Oursulaert and even Jita became trade hubs not only based on location but also due to the amount of stations and agents available. Active trade outside these places seems mostly to happen where the region's best L4 agent is û so if mission running was more spread out it would make the markets more interesting as well, as I think smaller producers and traders most likely will benefit if there are more openings where they don't have to compete with those who sit in one station and play the .01 isk game all day.
|
Matalino
Gallente Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 14:58:00 -
[15]
What about standings requirements?
Are those to remain static or will they adjust dynamicly as well?
It would be annoying at best to lose access to your favorite agent simply because his quality and therefor standings requirement went up while you were on vacation.
|
Asharee Intrefer
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 15:51:00 -
[16]
True, but personal standing builds up fairly quickly as it is, so that would work as a prevention for agent loss if you've been using an agent long enough that has become a favorite.
|
Dragon Lord
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 17:03:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Dragon Lord on 28/08/2008 17:04:09 Not a Bad idea but i think a better way to do it i by simple removing agent quality and instead use your standing toward the agent, his corp and his faction and the security level of the system to determine the lps and isk you get per mish, with the sec status having the greatest effect as it does already.
After all it make sence that you should get better rewards the more liked you are by agents etc.
|
Zo5o
Gallente Longcat is Long
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 19:02:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Zo5o on 28/08/2008 19:04:55
Quote: Not a Bad idea but i think a better way to do it i by simple removing agent quality and instead use your standing toward the agent, his corp and his faction and the security level of the system to determine the lps and isk you get per mish, with the sec status having the greatest effect as it does already.
After all it make sence that you should get better rewards the more liked you are by agents etc.
Then the .5 systems become the most clogged.
Take the sec status part out of your idea and have three basic agent qualities... one for hisec, one for losec, and one for nullsec.
There would still be some clogging in areas with lots of agents, and in agents close to trade hubs... but the clogging wouldn't be nearly as bad as it is now in some areas, and single agent clogging/lag zones like Emolgranlan would disappear.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 04:11:00 -
[19]
It wont eliminate Hubs.
If you think corp is different than a guild or clan you have some insecurity issues.
|
Jita Dancer
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 13:33:00 -
[20]
I think that rather than agent quality changing the DISTANCE to the mission site should get longer. So the server never gives a mission in a system that already has 30 (or some other arbitrary number) of active missions. So you call for a mission in a hub, you get a mission 5 jumps out. If you call for a mission in a backwater, you get a mission in that system.
1) People will naturally drift away from hubs because they become less profitable - I wouldn't misson in a hub if I had 4 or 5 jumps to every mission site 2) Every mission system would have a natural limit and therefore less lag (maybe - depending how the systems are linked to resources)
Scalable economic pressure to spread out. Sounds like a winner to me...
|
|
knobber Jobbler
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 13:39:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Asharee Intrefer True, but personal standing builds up fairly quickly as it is, so that would work as a prevention for agent loss if you've been using an agent long enough that has become a favorite.
The downside is the high quality agents create trade hubs along with them. Yes, it could mean less lag but it would also mean the core trade hubs of EVE would all dissolve which I think would be negative to the game as a whole. I don't like going to Jita or Motsu but its where I make a shed load of my cash and issue contracts.
|
OBeE1
TEAM GAY
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 00:29:00 -
[22]
Just make all agents high quality, problem solved. People spread out to systems all over the place lessening server load.
|
Trigos Trilobi
X-Fire
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 07:33:00 -
[23]
Make the amount of missions an agent can give limited. Every x minutes (based on agent quality maybe) an agent gets a new mission into his stock, a player can then choose whatever he wants from that list. The mission reward increases with time, the longer the agent needs to find someone to do the mission, the higher he's willing to pay.
This'd both balance load and adjust the rewards (both between different missions and between different agents) to a point where someone would eventually find it profitable. It'd also introduce sort of a PvP component in form of an auction into the the whole mission system; "pick this mission now, or wait until the reward increases and risk that someone else finds it profitable enough already?".
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |