Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bunyip
|
Posted - 2008.12.25 20:17:00 -
[1]
Hello all,
This is the second in the series of proposals to bring before CCP in Reykjavik, this one referring to the 'mission hubs' that everybody both loves and hates.
The old days of specific mission hubs being filled with players and mission thieves won't pass away, but they can be diminished somewhat by removing the agent quality modifier. This way, any level 4 agent will be just as effective as any other level 4 agent, with possible exception to the security status of the system. This will also make starting out easier, and allow you to keep the same agent throughout your time at the given level, not having to pack up and move to get better rewards from a higher-quality agent.
Level 1 agents will be available to everybody with a corporate standing of -2 or higher, while subsequent levels open up at the following standings:
* Level 2 - Standing 1.0 or higher * Level 3 - Standing 3.0 or higher * Level 4 - Standing 5.5 or higher * Level 5 - Standing 8.0 or higher
The agent's rewards - in terms of ISK rewards, mission difficulty, and LP rewards - will increase as he grows to trust you more and you do more missions for him. This will slowly coax you into the next level of missions, since your missions will grow more difficult as you successfully complete more of them.
Another aspect that needs attention is the rampant salvage or loot thieves in the missions. The way I see it, the corporation is hired or petitions Concord for responsibility to clean up one outbreak of thieves, and that right passes on to the mission-runner when he accepts the given mission. This means that anybody who is not in your fleet that enters your deadspace immediately starts blinking red as if they had stolen from you or your fleet, even before their first looting or salvage attempt. This gives the player a chance to combat the thieves if he feels powerful enough to defeat them.
The values are spaced out to allow for entry into missions from people with adequate experience with ship combat, but still allowing for a fairly rapid progression. Constructive criticism is welcomed, and this idea can be modified to make it work better.
"May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table. |
Rezerwowy Pies
Sadistic Influence
|
Posted - 2008.12.25 20:20:00 -
[2]
very good idea
|
ian666
Lamb Federation Navy
|
Posted - 2008.12.25 20:53:00 -
[3]
|
Treelox
Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party
|
Posted - 2008.12.25 21:18:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Bunyip Another aspect that needs attention is the rampant salvage or loot thieves in the missions. The way I see it, the corporation is hired or petitions Concord for responsibility to clean up one outbreak of thieves, and that right passes on to the mission-runner when he accepts the given mission. This means that anybody who is not in your fleet that enters your deadspace immediately starts blinking red as if they had stolen from you or your fleet, even before their first looting or salvage attempt. This gives the player a chance to combat the thieves if he feels powerful enough to defeat them.
This does not need to be addressed. This "mechanic" currently works as intended and should not be fixed. The simple solution is already in place, do not run missions in systems where everyone else and their cousin is.
As to the rest of your idea, it is OK, but a proposal I far more favor is one where agent quality declines if he gets used by a many people, where an agent who does not get used often has his quality increase over time. This would cause people not to all bunch up at the same places, this would encourage more people to move around a bit, this would stimulate new trade hubs, and also cause players to move around eve a bit with the eb and flow of agent quality. --
|
LaVista Vista
|
Posted - 2008.12.25 21:45:00 -
[5]
We already raised a major issue about missions. Read the minutes from our last CCP meeting from a few months ago.
So that's a nay.
|
FunzzeR
Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.12.25 21:48:00 -
[6]
Edited by: FunzzeR on 25/12/2008 21:49:00 If I remember correctly a similar idea was already brought to CCPs attention, and they vetoed the idea.
EDIT: Beaten by La Vista
|
Concorduck
|
Posted - 2008.12.25 22:16:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Bunyip Another aspect that needs attention is the rampant salvage or loot thieves in the missions. The way I see it, the corporation is hired or petitions Concord for responsibility to clean up one outbreak of thieves, and that right passes on to the mission-runner when he accepts the given mission. This means that anybody who is not in your fleet that enters your deadspace immediately starts blinking red as if they had stolen from you or your fleet, even before their first looting or salvage attempt. This gives the player a chance to combat the thieves if he feels powerful enough to defeat them.
This just got you my support. Easier killing of careless mission runners, hurray!~ -----------------------------------------
Originally by: Crumplecorn Contact the CSM about it, voting themselves into disbandment wouldn't be pushing the boundaries of absurdity for them.
|
Britney Lodzik
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.12.25 22:41:00 -
[8]
Originally by: LaVista Vista We already raised a major issue about missions. Read the minutes from our last CCP meeting from a few months ago.
So that's a nay.
so you failed because few monts later and still nothing was changed
|
Gone'Postal
Aztec Industry
|
Posted - 2008.12.25 23:07:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Gone''Postal on 25/12/2008 23:08:56
Originally by: Britney Lodzik
Originally by: LaVista Vista We already raised a major issue about missions. Read the minutes from our last CCP meeting from a few months ago.
So that's a nay.
so you failed because few monts later and still nothing was changed
If you think a few months is long enough for CCP to take idea(s) from the CSM, think of how to change it, plan it, assign work, get feedback and the whole other things a project like this would take..
You fail.
Got Mine?
|
Britney Lodzik
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.12.25 23:15:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Gone'Postal Edited by: Gone''Postal on 25/12/2008 23:08:56
Originally by: Britney Lodzik
Originally by: LaVista Vista We already raised a major issue about missions. Read the minutes from our last CCP meeting from a few months ago.
So that's a nay.
so you failed because few monts later and still nothing was changed
If you think a few months is long enough for CCP to take idea(s) from the CSM, think of how to change it, plan it, assign work, get feedback and the whole other things a project like this would take..
and you have some expirience with making and modifying games like eve too? its far less complicated than you think, specially that those decisions are taken by few people on one meeting, then implementing idea which in this case is quite simply and does not need many of ccp's human desources.
|
|
Concorduck
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.12.25 23:17:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Gone'Postal Edited by: Gone''Postal on 25/12/2008 23:08:56
Originally by: Britney Lodzik
Originally by: LaVista Vista We already raised a major issue about missions. Read the minutes from our last CCP meeting from a few months ago.
So that's a nay.
so you failed because few monts later and still nothing was changed
If you think a few months is long enough for CCP to take idea(s) from the CSM, think of how to change it, plan it, assign work, get feedback and the whole other things a project like this would take..
You fail.
Yeah, because it takes 5 years to do stuff, while CCP is doing fancy walk in station. it's not a CSM problem, CSM IS the problem. -----------------------------------------
Originally by: Crumplecorn Contact the CSM about it, voting themselves into disbandment wouldn't be pushing the boundaries of absurdity for them.
|
Gone'Postal
Aztec Industry
|
Posted - 2008.12.25 23:26:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Concorduck
Yeah, because it takes 5 years to do stuff, while CCP is doing fancy walk in station. it's not a CSM problem, CSM IS the problem.
It may indeed take 5 years and I dislike the idea of the CSM as well. However I know any idea that makes it ingame must go over a logical process (since its software development) and CCP have already showen that not much can be done in a few months.
+ Britney, Not for eve no, but software development yes, However since you stated the time frame you must know more about CCP's workload then I do.
Got Mine?
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |