Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 00:24:00 -
[1]
Mission Load Balancing Woes
In Tyrannis, CCP corrected Load Balancing, which should have resulted in mission runners being sent into less-populated systems. Unfortunately, the feature renders many agents invalid and negatively affects lowsec missionrunners. The following problems are a result of this feature:
Being sent into Lowsec
A disproportionate amount of players are being sent into low-sec from highsec systems several jumps away. This results in players abandoning agents near lowsec systems and balling up deeper into highsec, overloading the few good agents that are left.
Lowsec Runners sent out of System
Lowsec missionrunners are being sent out of system much more often, increasing risk considerably, or forcing them to decline too much missions and running out of agents.
No More Safe L5s
While it was an oversight that allowed L5s to be run in highsec, the consequences of removing this option may result in a drastic decrease in L5s being run. It would be a waste if this content fell into disuse alltogether.
Solutions
* Highsec agents should never pick lowsec systems as destination, as lowsec missions will always be declined anyway. * Lowsec agents should strongly favor the current system over neighbouring systems, as lowsec missionrunners will likely decline missions out of system. * Keep monitoring L5 missionrunning activity closely.
---
|
Musical Fist
Gallente The Unknown Bar and Pub Elysium Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 00:47:00 -
[2]
What makes you think they arent monitoring lvl5 mission runners? They monitor everything else.
This 'idea' (makes a change heh) only makes missions worse than they are, when people decline missions they have to decide if its worth it for example they may have that boring mission coming up within 4 hours, a courier mission or something that sends them into lowsec.
Your idea just allows more rejects, plus as a lvl 4 mission runner I HOPE that CCP make it so that 50% of lvl 4 missions do take you into lowsec but also increase bounty / meta item drop rate.
/Not supported, as a (temp) carebear I am already shocked at how easy mission running is.
Oh and if you are in lowsec you know the risks anyway 'limit to the system' WTF, theres no bubbles in low sec making it impossible to get paranoid dockers.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 01:06:00 -
[3]
"Load balancing" should only be applied if there is actually significant load. Thus agents in systems such as Dodixie, Motsue and Emolgranlan will end up sending people out of the system more regularly.
As it happens, Vir Honn in Emolgranlan is sending me to Ammold more often now, which is a good thing. There are around 80 people in local when I'm running missions during Australian peak time (ie: two hours before/one hour after downtime). Apart from being sent to Ammold more regularly, I haven't noticed any change in mission locations.
I don't feel that level 5 agents should ever have given out missions in hisec.
[Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Daan Sai
OHiTech
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 03:24:00 -
[4]
Agreed, this is going to lead to more concentration away from lowsec borders.
L5 missions is a sad casualty. Most of us were running them as a break from the tedium of the never changing L4s, and as they take longer to get and run the rewards are not that much greater over time, if at all, than L4s. An unnecessary nerf IMHO. The infrequent highsec L5s were also a viable option for less frequent players with limited hours of play.
--------------------------------- Internet Submarines is Serious Business ---------------------------------
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 07:42:00 -
[5]
I agree that there should be some limit in how far afield the agents expect you to go. But highsec agents never, ever sending you to lowsec? Even if it's an agent in a pocket? That's just absurd. Put 90% of missions in a 1-jump radius, and let people use their cancellation on the other 10%.
The bit about lowsec missions being concentrated more strongly in the same system does make sense to me. But that's not enough to make me support this.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 07:45:00 -
[6]
Do you agree that the issue bears further discussion?
That's what "support" means - you support the discussion going on, if not the idea. Enough people "supporting" the discussion means the CSM get to pick it up as an item for one of their meetings.
[Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 08:21:00 -
[7]
All L5s should be in lowsec exclusively. They should never be allowed in high sec. Ever.
Second, all lowsec agents should never send a mission runner to a high sec system. Ever.
Third, if mission runners are 'balling up' around agents that are so deeply embedded in high sec that they don't send players to lowsec then simply move all L4 agents around so that they're evenly distributed near large sections of lowsec so that every agent will send players to lowsec equally well. -
Originally by: Bellum Eternus That is the beauty of Eve, it's a crucible in which great minds are formed and the rest are ground to dust.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Furb Killer
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 08:46:00 -
[8]
If low sec agents should send you to high sec, then the other way around it should also be true.
Load balancing should indeed only be active in high load systems.
|
Nick Bete
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 09:53:00 -
[9]
Can the usual suspects please for once just STFU...? We get it, you hate anyone who plays differently than the way you feel the game should be played and want everyone else's style of play nerfed. Got it. Now go away.
Supported. |
Venkul Mul
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 12:14:00 -
[10]
This change need to be discussed? Yes
All the proposal Ankhesentapemkah has done in the OP are good? No
So, support for the CSM asking to CCP what really they think they are doing to and for PvE and how they are reasoning when they implement changes like the Gallente experimental storylines or making agents bordering low sec less interesting that those in already crowded mission hubs.
|
|
saftre5
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 12:40:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Third, if mission runners are 'balling up' around agents that are so deeply embedded in high sec that they don't send players to lowsec then simply move all L4 agents around so that they're evenly distributed near large sections of lowsec so that every agent will send players to lowsec equally well.
You really don't get it, do you? If people are missionrunning in highsec, they will not go into lowsec with their expensive PvE setups because the risk then is far greater than the possible rewards. You will never get more players in lowsec by force, it has to be by choice.
So to correct your third point: all highsec agents should never send a mission runner to a low sec system. Ever. If someone running missions wants to do so in low sec, they can easily find themselves an agent there.
On the topic of L5s, I think it would be a good idea to have L5s available in highsec so players looking for just a PvE challenge can find one without having to deal with a significant PvP challenge on top of it. Make these agents Q-20 for all I care, just give us the challenge.
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 13:36:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Furb Killer If low sec agents should send you to high sec, then the other way around it should also be true.
Load balancing should indeed only be active in high load systems.
This is common sense, now to figure out a way to teach CCP this most beneficial of skills.
When two different security rated systems are used, why not let reward for a given mission be based on the lower of the two? Would make high-to-low missions a lot more viable (ie. less need to decline) while having only a minor impact in high->high and low->low scenarios.
Lvl5's to high-sec should be a big no no, huge oversight if they do indeed exist.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 14:13:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Mara Rinn
I don't feel that level 5 agents should ever have given out missions in hisec.
|
Liang Nuren
Parsec Flux War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 15:56:00 -
[14]
Well, I'm going to support this since missioning is something of a cluster **** right now. But, L5s should never have been in high sec.
-Liang -- Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire |
Addicted User
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 16:18:00 -
[15]
No More Safe L5s
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 16:38:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Mara Rinn Do you agree that the issue bears further discussion?
That's what "support" means - you support the discussion going on, if not the idea. Enough people "supporting" the discussion means the CSM get to pick it up as an item for one of their meetings.
In theory, perhaps. In practice, Ankh is a CSM and can raise whatever issues she wants to. I don't think she has ever created an issue and then not raised it at a meeting in the year she was on CSM(the same as most other CSMs), so I assume it'll go on and get discussed further no matter what I say. Hence, I'll just throw in my two cents on the topic generally.
|
mkmin
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 16:40:00 -
[17]
I'm supporting this, because as it is now it makes the game less fun. Also, I'm not particularly against lvl 5's in highsec. My attempts to get highsec lvl 5's resulted in 6 days of farming an agent and it only turning out a mission that requires a rattlesnake supported by an basilisk, or a good sized fleet. Maybe more important than lvl 5's in highsec, what's needed is some interesting PVE. And no, 'making it require an interceptor and throwing you into camped 0.0' does not count as interesting. I want to throw in a request for a dev blog documenting how many missions of what type are run for each faction, including the epic arcs.
|
regti onlat
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 16:46:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Nick Bete Can the usual suspects please for once just STFU...? We get it, you hate anyone who plays differently than the way you feel the game should be played and want everyone else's style of play nerfed. Got it. Now go away.
Supported.
|
Stil Harkonnen
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 17:02:00 -
[19]
I think it's completely fair to have all level 5 missions be run in lowsec. Highest mission, and if i'm correct they have capitals in them? Anyways, it makes sense for them to be run in lowsec.
Level 4 agents now kinda suck if they are anywhere near lowsec. If my border agent doesn't send me to egghelende, it sends me THROUGH egghelende to odette, or stegette. It just isn't feasible for me to take my ships through egghelende. I know the pirates there and know what they are capable of.
people saying"get over it" and "get protection" are full of ****. It is very difficult to run a mission and avoid pirates who have probes out at all times, or at least a probing alt in system. They will be on you in no time. It may be POSSIBLE to successfully defend against pirate attacks in lowsec, but it's much more cost efficient to just go further into highsec.
With that being said, the risk goes up, but having to either split the reward with other pilots, or hire help, causes the reward to go down. Risk vs reward there is borked. Much more efficient to just go to highsec, do them solo, and get it all to yourself.
|
Sayael
N0IR.
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 22:45:00 -
[20]
I support this partly.
The load balancing in lowsec is total crap. If 14 people in local is considered to be such heavy load that I get 8 missions in a row 3 jumps away then there is definitely something wrong.
L5s should only be in lowsec. They were designed to be a boost for lowsec and if it was intended that there where highsec L5s then there would be agents in highsec.
For high agents 1-2 jumps from lowsec border I think they should still give you some missions in lowsec and not only missis in high.
|
|
Ophelia Ursus
|
Posted - 2010.05.31 23:24:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
No More Safe L5s
While it was an oversight that allowed L5s to be run in highsec, the consequences of removing this option may result in a drastic decrease in L5s being run. It would be a waste if this content fell into disuse alltogether.
Stop trying to piggyback bad/contentious ideas onto otherwise innocuous proposals. While some parts of what you want are reasonable, your proposals are insufficiently granular. The complaint about lowsec agents sending people out of the agent system is somewhat justifiable, but I will not support highsec L5s. And while I can see a case for highsec agents primarily giving out highsec missions, people go to agents near lowsec in part because of the superior LP/isk payouts associated with running missions for agents based in 0.5 and 0.6 systems. If these agents will never send you into dangerous space, it's rather hard to justify those superior payouts, no?
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 01:08:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Ophelia Ursus Stop trying to piggyback bad/contentious ideas onto otherwise innocuous proposals. While some parts of what you want are reasonable, your proposals are insufficiently granular.
Agreed.
The "level 5 agents sending people to hisec" was a problem before "load balancing". By inclusion of the "No more safe level 5s" statement, Ankhesentapemkah has inadvertently turned this into a "hisec level 5s" thread instead of a "missions send us too far away from home base" thread. I've contributed to that too, so guilty as charged, Your Honour.
My own opinion is that hisec agents should be allowed to send you to/through lowsec, while level 5 agents should not send you hisec. Why is this my opinion? I see no problem with lowsec level 1-4 agents sending you to hisec, since plenty of other people are getting the same privilege by running hisec missions from hisec agents. There are no level 5 agents in hisec, so they should not be able to send you to hisec.
If people want those +5 implants, they can organise a fleet to go run the missions to get them. This ties in with Ankhesentapemkah's suggestion about telling level 1-4 missions to HTFU.
I'm a carebear mission runner & miner, for what it's worth.
[Aussie players: join ANZAC channel] |
Bailey Remi
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 01:32:00 -
[23]
The load balancing is odd. I like the idea in theory, (and think its stupid in lowsec), but like the guy said, he was getting sent several jumps in lowsec with 14 people...same thing is happening in hisec in some systems. Is 20 too many in a hisec system? This would be a good function in hubs, but in random systems that have traffic of 20-50 people, I find it unnecessary.
Maybe have it scale with a higher chance (hisec obviously) the more people in system, but have no effect on traffic of under says 50 people in system?
|
Ankhesentapemkah
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 08:54:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Mara Rinn The "level 5 agents sending people to hisec" was a problem before "load balancing". By inclusion of the "No more safe level 5s" statement, Ankhesentapemkah has inadvertently turned this into a "hisec level 5s" thread instead of a "missions send us too far away from home base" thread. I've contributed to that too, so guilty as charged, Your Honour.
Agreed, I've removed the L5 part and will raise it as seperate issue if necessary.
---
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 09:40:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Venkul Mul on 01/06/2010 09:48:24
Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
Originally by: Mara Rinn Do you agree that the issue bears further discussion?
That's what "support" means - you support the discussion going on, if not the idea. Enough people "supporting" the discussion means the CSM get to pick it up as an item for one of their meetings.
In theory, perhaps. In practice, Ankh is a CSM and can raise whatever issues she wants to. I don't think she has ever created an issue and then not raised it at a meeting in the year she was on CSM(the same as most other CSMs), so I assume it'll go on and get discussed further no matter what I say. Hence, I'll just throw in my two cents on the topic generally.
The problem is that without enough support the majority of the CSM that is PvP oriented and PvE averse will dismiss Ankh suggestions without ever really discussing them.
So while I didn't agree totally with Ankh original suggestion it is worth to support the discussion.
With the removal of the part about level 5 it is now way better.
To add some suggestion:
I would like a way to get harder missions in high sec but I agree that there should be a set of missions reserved to low sec.
Probably the better system would be to make low sec specific missions that can be done with smaller ships but are challenging enough and have a mission completion reward high enough to make them interesting.
Maybe the use of smaller ship could be enforced by limitations on the warpgates.
Naturally this will require better NPC AI and less ships. At the same time the high sec missions would have more ships [than low sec, not more than today!] (but still with a better AI) and a lower completion payout, making them more appropriate for the use of large sized ships and/or groups of players.
That should give more challenging missions in high sec and feasible missions in low sec.
|
Kell Braugh
Minute to Midnight
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 10:21:00 -
[26]
As someone who runs missions, regularly, in high sec, low sec and 0.0. I'd just like to say you made some pretty big assumptions that are incorrect.
I just did 30 low-sec missions (not counting 2 faction missions), 4 sent me out of system. Only the faction mission sent me into high sec. That isn't very disproportionate.
Quote: Highsec agents should never pick lowsec systems as destination, as lowsec missions will always be declined anyway.
Step back for a second here. This is an RPG-- so really, i think the backstory and environment is critical in all game design choices.
Is it the agent or the invading pirates that choose the location of the attacks they make that the agent needs your help in? Its the pirates, those people, as you said once that "can rot in lowsec where murderous vermin belongs."
How can you keep a straight face and tell pirates to rot in low sec, then turn around and complain that your agents go tell you to fight said pirates in low sec?
If there is a better example of someone being a hypocrite, please, let me know.
|
Liandra Xi
Amarr Volatile Nature Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 10:24:00 -
[27]
Not supported, the risk is what makes the game fun and provides carebears for pirates to kill.
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War Monks of War.
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 11:05:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus All L5s should be in lowsec exclusively. They should never be allowed in high sec. Ever.
Second, all lowsec agents should never send a mission runner to a high sec system. Ever.
Third, if mission runners are 'balling up' around agents that are so deeply embedded in high sec that they don't send players to lowsec then simply move all L4 agents around so that they're evenly distributed near large sections of lowsec so that every agent will send players to lowsec equally well.
QFT
The thread itself is surely not supported. ---[center] Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist |
Cpt Branko
Retired Pirate Club
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 11:54:00 -
[29]
Tbh, I'm OK with people not being sent to lowsec as a rule by border agents, but: - no L5s in highsec - no sending people to highsec from low-sec agents - no point in sending people who run missions in low-sec 3 jumps away since 15 people really does not overload the server
So, tentatively supported.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Bunyip
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.06.02 04:38:00 -
[30]
Now that the bit about L5s in HS has been removed, I support this proposal. While I would like to see L5 agents in high-sec, it's not gonna happen.
As the above poster stated, no HS missions to LS, no LS missions to HS, no L5 agents or missions in HS. Low-sec missions should be revised to allow for small, fast ships and/or PvP-type ships in them, or other mission-appealing options (keyed gates in missions, missions outside of the normal scan range, etc).
For now, supported.
"May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |