| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Kaasta Karrde
   |
Posted - 2005.06.15 12:20:00 -
[31]
Why should they be unsoloable?
The thing I hate about group play on missions is the fact that one of your group will get ALL the rats attacking him while the others are relatively safe. If Rats attacked the entire group then it would be a bit more fun to group mission.
No fun for me if another guy is tanking and I'm shooting at rats that don't fight back.
|
MacMillan
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 12:26:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: Kaasta Karrde
Why should they be unsoloable?
The thing I hate about group play on missions is the fact that one of your group will get ALL the rats attacking him while the others are relatively safe. If Rats attacked the entire group then it would be a bit more fun to group mission.
No fun for me if another guy is tanking and I'm shooting at rats that don't fight back.
A very good point. Hopefull its one of the things they will address in Kali....
|
Gungankllr
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 12:28:00 -
[33]
Originally by: The Enslaver
L4 missions should be unsoloable imo. Raven nerf isn't sufficient, as L4's are still easy in Apocs.
L4 missions began as being meant for groups to do.
When CCP realized there was no reason why people would want to do missions in groups, they changed their stance on the subject. What I mean by that is there was nothing ingame to promote cooperation between players other than sharing ISK from Bounties.
As long as there is no mechanic for encouraging cooperation between players, (i.e. all members getting LP and faction bonuses for completing said mission) nobody will want to group to do missions.
I would absolutley love to have some sort of incentive for local mission runners to band together, and do L4 missions in groups.
You're entitled to your opinion on L4 missions, but until there is something ingame to sponsor cooperation between players, L4 missions should remain something a solo player can do.
L5 missions (when they are released) should be unsoloable in the extreme, akin to doing a high-level complex.
What that means, is missions would be structured for different shipclasses.
Level 1: Newer players in Frigate-sized ships
Level 2: Experienced players in Frigate-sized ships or newer players in Cruiser-sized ships.
Level 3: Experienced Cruiser Pilots and newer players in Battleships.
Level 4: Experienced players in Battleships.
Level 5: Key word is "Blob".
That is basically how it works now, with the exception of L5 missions as they have not been implemented.
If you say L4 missions should not be soloable, then what is your recommendation for how the different levels should escalate?
www.hadean.org
|
Waga
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 12:33:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Waga on 15/06/2005 12:34:14
IF team-mission, then make a new categori of agents that allows corps "accesed" admiral to take missions.
that could be an idea..
|
Gungankllr
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 12:36:00 -
[35]
Another thought would be to have Command Agents give missions that are group or small fleet-action oriented, while internal security and security agents would continue to focus on solo-type missions (or solo-able missions)
www.hadean.org
|
The Enslaver
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 13:04:00 -
[36]
L1-3 is fine, L4 introduces too much ISK into the economy.
It makes empire too profitable, therefore destroying the balance of risk vs reward.
It would be ok for L4's to stay, IF they are modified to not give out ISK rewards (on rewards and bounties), to halt the insane inflation, and for most missions to require groups. Instead of ISK, just boost the NPC loot a little and give higher item-based rewards from normal missions.
--------
FireFoxx80: If you think you can do a better job, go find yourself a datacentre to host a box, get a copy of Visual Studio, and STFU. |
Kaasta Karrde
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 13:30:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Kaasta Karrde on 15/06/2005 13:29:57
And getting rid of rewards AND bounties DOESN'T destroy risk v reward? 
So lvl4s are ok as long as they aren't actually worth doing ? 
Don't agree with ANY of that tbh.
|
X'Alor
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 15:03:00 -
[38]
One point worth making. Currently my mission group and primary playing partners are all real life friends and we live in same town.
One gallente runner
two amarr runners
One caldari/khanid runner
Those are our main characters, that doesn't include alts and their ajendas.
Add to that 3 more amarr
Now as rl friends we can completely trust each other to work together ..... one thing hard to find in eve.
We group and totally split everything currently and running khanid missions we do it for one reason (well two) but primarily it simply for location location location.
One person incharge of loot stacking, selling meta named and garbage sorting. he tracks sales of meta loot and is incharge of all spliting of sales. he has the market skills.
I do all recycling for corp standing bonus, I do all ship building, ship selling, spliting of proffits from sales.
I also split all ISK reward bonuses.
We also make all offers known before declinine as with khanid it's mostly implants.
We run group fours with khanid. they run solo 3's when not grouping for 4's with their racial lvl 3's.
If all standings were to be shared.
We will not be able to continue running group lvl 4's AT ALL because of sharing standings.
Sharing of the rewards and bounties and LP and security increase I totally agree with. But sharing of the standing increases will ruin the rest of my group lvl 4 buddies standings.
Khanid is a friend of caldari which makes them a partial enemy of gallente due to how standing increase/decreases work not to mention a full enemy of amarr. Every khanid increase gives me slight caldari increase which gives me slight gallente decrease.
So if we group up for khanid missions cuz it's a central location to everyones individual lvl 3's. For each group mission we do, it will slightly decrease their standings towards the factions they individually work for.
It doesn't affect me as the caldari khanid runner but it will decrease everyone elses standings with their racial factions.
thus would have no incentive for us to continue to group up and jam missions with their rl friends.
which is one reason why we play and group, cuz no matter race and or personal objectives ....... standings aside we can group up and enjoy the game together.
Probably the biggest reason why we each have played and payed for 2 years cuz we can group without affecting our personal standings.
Sharing everything BUT the standings would be better than including that.
I really really hope for our group sakes that they do NOT make sharing of standings part of that ajenda.
That would toally ruin our group and our Eve.
There are a lot of cross racial group players in eve and sharing of the standings would totally ruin their grouping possibility too.
Anything that would limit cross racial grouping would be a very bad thing for Eve.
|
Memnoch67
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 15:18:00 -
[39]
Originally by: jeangrey
hmmmmm... growl...
i must admit that i am not too keen on the new chages to missles one bit....
before all you apoc and mega pilots with uber skill sets start talking about the pvp balance which this change is suposed to bring, just hear my point of view.
i`m quite a new player. only just breaking the 7 mil skill barrier, and i have at the momment the ability to solo most lvl 4 missions (caldari navy in empire).
these new missles changes will pretty much negate my ability to do that.
now i know that the new missle skills will kind of re-balance this problem. but that means training all the new missle (specialisation) skills.
whats wrong with that i hear you say?
as a new player it is difficult/impossible to ever catch up with the veterans, i totaly understand this, hence the need for specialistation. but some of us have other key skills that are stil to do in the training ladder, making all the missle players now train up loads of rank 2-4 skills to get back to the standard they are ALREADY at seems unfair to me.
why not make the new skills affect t2 missles and launchers but leave the ones as they are at the momment?
anyone wishing to have the best missles must train the new skills, as they do with any of the large guns etc.
but it would not have a the massive impact on all the caldari agent runners that this new patch will.
sure change the speed of the missles, but why change the damage and hit ratio?.
its a guided missle, of course its going to hit every time. thats why they cost so much as ammunition in comaprison to all the other ammo types. making a torpedo not do as much damage to a smaller ship seem ridiculous to me. baring in mind that npc`s already fire loads of deffender missles at you as it is. having to constantly refit your ship to attack different ship types is just stupid. and will only add more time needed to what is already a long winded process.
also there is now need to change the difficulty of lvl 4 missions. make them the last of the solo-able missions, i was under the impression that the lvl 5 missions would be the ones that required teamwork to complete. the rewards on the lvl 4 missions are to small to make it worth while 2 or 3 people teaming up to do them.
just bear in mind that everone pays real money to play this game, changeing things that are not in my opinion broken, is not the way to go.
people like me that cant play this game as much as they would like due to rl shouldnt have there entire style of play changed like this.
just my little whinge.
i do see the posible benifits that this missle change will bring to the pvpers, but not everone does pvp.
these views are my own. and in no way reflect the views of my corp. this is also my first forum post so go easy on me eh?
i entirely agree... making lvl 5's group n keeping lvl 4's soloable should be the way to go, and if u say that lvl 4's r soloable to higher skill players... well what about the majority of the eve population? the ones that dont have sp in the 7 digits range... the idea of a 3.5 lvl agent seems worthy if ccp is truly that intent upon making lvl 4's harder
and as for all u people who say missions ruin the econmy... be quiet, just cause u have millions, if not billions, does not mean that all that extra money isnt direly needed by the poor.... missions are the other resort to turn to if mining, manufacturing, or pvping isnt ur taste... and persnally i think pvping is harder than lvl 4 missions at times cause for all u kno u could have just attacked a player with his convoy of 2yr vet corp buddies following him to his mission... at which point u get popped n all the money u made from pvping feels a significant drop as u g2 bu a new hac or bs...
------------------------------
- Wolves, Jaguars and Rifters, oh my! -
"The Simmmmmmmmpsonnnnnnnssss...."
|
V
~(_8(|) *Heavenly voice proclaims^* |
Memnoch67
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 15:27:00 -
[40]
Originally by: X'Alor
Sharing everything BUT the standings would be better than including that.
I really really hope for our group sakes that they do NOT make sharing of standings part of that ajenda.
That would toally ruin our group and our Eve.
There are a lot of cross racial group players in eve and sharing of the standings would totally ruin their grouping possibility too.
Anything that would limit cross racial grouping would be a very bad thing for Eve.
first off, role-playing wise, it makes sense that if u do missions for ur agent's enemy ur agent likes u less... but i get what's being said... to solve that, what if there was a "keep silent" option where u get no status changes wahtsoever except for what u kill.. kinda like under cover agent operations that ur best buddy agent back home doesnt kno about so u can do caldari missions for ur buddy even though u do gallante missions urself
------------------------------
- Wolves, Jaguars and Rifters, oh my! -
"The Simmmmmmmmpsonnnnnnnssss...."
|
V
~(_8(|) *Heavenly voice proclaims^* |
The Enslaver
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 15:37:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Kaasta Karrde
Edited by: Kaasta Karrde on 15/06/2005 13:29:57
And getting rid of rewards AND bounties DOESN'T destroy risk v reward?
So lvl4s are ok as long as they aren't actually worth doing ?
Don't agree with ANY of that tbh.
Can you read?
I said to CHANGE THEM, to give ITEMS instead of ISK, and BETTER LOOT instead of BOUNTIES.
Hard to understand?
--------
FireFoxx80: If you think you can do a better job, go find yourself a datacentre to host a box, get a copy of Visual Studio, and STFU. |
Vigilant
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 15:52:00 -
[42]
Originally by: The Enslaver
Originally by: Kaasta Karrde
Edited by: Kaasta Karrde on 15/06/2005 13:29:57
And getting rid of rewards AND bounties DOESN'T destroy risk v reward?
So lvl4s are ok as long as they aren't actually worth doing ?
Don't agree with ANY of that tbh.
Can you read?
I said to CHANGE THEM, to give ITEMS instead of ISK, and BETTER LOOT instead of BOUNTIES.
Hard to understand?
So your saying Lvl 4 missions should drop 0.0 Loot ? Vice all the ISK ?
Just clarifying .....
|
X'Alor
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 15:56:00 -
[43]
Kinda on that topic and hate to mention it but just for example sake. God i know this will get the waaaa out but .....
Grouping in WoW. Group leader has group loot options, round robin, free for all, roll on named and such.
What if that was an optional thing and we could select the degree of sharing while grouped.
What I mean is something off our escape tab menu. Make it an individual settings thing per character.
Share group standing
Share Group LP
Share Group Security
Share group bounty
that way we could choose exactly what we want to share and those selections only work when ganged or grouped.
That would allow people to run with, who ever, where ever.
Not sure how to make that work tho. If group leader set it up then it would cover the group and no choices.
If it was per individual then a gallente runner could de select share standings and run with a group of caldari. Problem with that would be in a 2 person group..... what if group leader deselects all and group helper selects all. I guess the group helper would get it all in that case.
Ut oh wait a minute......... that could be used to repair standing problems people may have.
|
Memnoch67
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 16:15:00 -
[44]
Originally by: X'Alor
Kinda on that topic and hate to mention it but just for example sake. God i know this will get the waaaa out but .....
Grouping in WoW. Group leader has group loot options, round robin, free for all, roll on named and such.
What if that was an optional thing and we could select the degree of sharing while grouped.
What I mean is something off our escape tab menu. Make it an individual settings thing per character.
Share group standing
Share Group LP
Share Group Security
Share group bounty
that way we could choose exactly what we want to share and those selections only work when ganged or grouped.
That would allow people to run with, who ever, where ever.
Not sure how to make that work tho. If group leader set it up then it would cover the group and no choices.
If it was per individual then a gallente runner could de select share standings and run with a group of caldari. Problem with that would be in a 2 person group..... what if group leader deselects all and group helper selects all. I guess the group helper would get it all in that case.
Ut oh wait a minute......... that could be used to repair standing problems people may have.
it could work like the trade does - when the group is initiated, all members decide, and if it changes, it would require that the other members agree
------------------------------
- Wolves, Jaguars and Rifters, oh my! -
-.-
o.-
o.o
o.0
0.o
O.O
>.<
X.X BOOOM |
X'Alor
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 16:38:00 -
[45]
still it's an idea. I have no idea how that fits or would work with eve progamming but optional would be very nice for everyone to actually choose how and where they share.
It would kinda be a nice feature set up that way. you could direct things towards your groups roles if you guys do it that way.
It definitely would allow for much more group options if we could individually choose what we want to share.
If you select no, it simply passes you over.
i dunno, sharing is a big deal, otptions and controls on who gets what would be kinda nice tho.
And the WoW reference is only in regard to grouping and group looting for an example.
And definitely not saying anything about controling can drops. can drops are free for all and always should be.
|
Ronin Woman
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 18:10:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Zrakor
We aren't totally destroying soloability of level 4 missions in this patch, but they are gradually becoming harder, and for some who could barely do them pre-patch they probably will be 'unsoloable' after the patch.
With Kali we expect the mission rewards to be sharable, including standing gain, and that's when we truely intend to make the biggest difficulty overhaul.
THIS is the part I have a problem with from Dev's
The mindset that players MUST group to play this game in order to experiance it fully. And it is not just missions. This same attitude or thought process is prevalent through out the different aspects of Eve.
Not everyone can spend several hours per day every or most days playing Eve.
Not everyone who is in a corp can get a like minded group organized.
Not everyone is comfortable with asking strangers to gang.
I could go on but you get the point and for every point it is true that there are a lot of players that prefer only group activities. What would be helpfull imo is when changes are made that there be provisions for the solo player to participate. An example:Since this is a mission blog-
Lvl 3/4/5 missions are written requiring the player to check a box to the agents question re: "Flying solo today Ronin?"
Gangs would get the full version. Solo players would get a doable version of the mission if they have the skills.
It's a win/win and the casual player does not feel like a second class citizen of Eve paying first class prices.
just my 0.02 Isk worth 7 thanks for listening- I feel better now. |
Kaasta Karrde
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 19:47:00 -
[47]
Originally by: The Enslaver
Originally by: Kaasta Karrde
Edited by: Kaasta Karrde on 15/06/2005 13:29:57
And getting rid of rewards AND bounties DOESN'T destroy risk v reward?
So lvl4s are ok as long as they aren't actually worth doing ?
Don't agree with ANY of that tbh.
Can you read?
I said to CHANGE THEM, to give ITEMS instead of ISK, and BETTER LOOT instead of BOUNTIES.
Hard to understand?
Yes I can read 
What does that solve?
Ppl get better loot. Ppl sell better loot. Ppl get lots of ISK.
So they're still getting major money from lvl4 missions. What problem are you solving by ******* with the way it works? Apart from making me wait for my stuff to sell before I get the money that is...
|
BATT
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 19:49:00 -
[48]
I think i will clean up all the frigates and cruisers with a Cerberus or an Eagle and come back to finish off the big bugs with a raven.
May take a bit longer ,but those level 4 will be done solo period.
BTW,id like to see the introduction of NPC destroyers and battlecruisers for missions..that would be nice..instead of keeping on nerfing, why dont you guys at CCP add more stuff to kill.
We need a **** load of npc..double the numbers of ships on all groups etc..add a few deadspace stages on each missions.
we need some fun :)
|
The Enslaver
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 20:04:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Kaasta Karrde
Yes I can read
What does that solve?
Ppl get better loot. Ppl sell better loot. Ppl get lots of ISK.
So they're still getting major money from lvl4 missions. What problem are you solving by ******* with the way it works? Apart from making me wait for my stuff to sell before I get the money that is...
The main problem with L4 missions is they are causing massive inflation, as has been pointed out in this thread.
Now:
inĀflaĀtion
A persistent increase in the level of consumer prices or a persistent decline in the purchasing power of money, caused by an increase in available currency and credit beyond the proportion of available goods and services
Ref: Dictionary.com
So basically, what I'm saying is that the majority of the problem, Inflation, can be solved by stopping the increase in available currency that L4 missions are providing.
Risk Vs Reward is a secondary, but still very important concern. That is mostly solved by the increases in difficulty (although a further increase, and moving ALL Kill-Based L4's to <0.5 is a good idea).
--------
FireFoxx80: If you think you can do a better job, go find yourself a datacentre to host a box, get a copy of Visual Studio, and STFU. |
The Enslaver
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 20:07:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Vigilant
So your saying Lvl 4 missions should drop 0.0 Loot ? Vice all the ISK ?
Just clarifying .....
Trust me, if L4's got that instead of ISK rewards they would whine a lot - loot in 0.0 is crap. People that think that loot from normal 0.0 spawns are good are most likely clinically insane.
What I suggest is a serious increase in standard module drops - so instead of for instance a 1 million reward, you'd loot a normal large gun from a can. That sort of thing - it can be reprocessed and the minerals sold, etc. This would help stabilise the low end mineral market AND stop inflation. Clever eh?
--------
FireFoxx80: If you think you can do a better job, go find yourself a datacentre to host a box, get a copy of Visual Studio, and STFU. |
BATT
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 20:46:00 -
[51]
""People that think that loot from normal 0.0 spawns are good are most likely clinically insane.""
No need to insult everybody, many people never done missions in 00 ,so they just don't know..that doesn't mean
they stupid ,retarded or need help.
|
Vilserx
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 22:20:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Kaasta Karrde
The thing I hate about group play on missions is the fact that one of your group will get ALL the rats attacking him while the others are relatively safe. If Rats attacked the entire group then it would be a bit more fun to group mission.
Agree with this.
Although we don't know how hard these new missions are going to be, say for example, you have 5 insta-aggroing BSs and entire rat fleet. Even if you have a sizeable group, a ship is likely to go down quite quickly before the rats can be destroyed.
There's a difference between risk vs reward and certain death vs reward.
Let's have another hypothetical example.
Rat X is sitting there, where Player 1 warps in. Rat X aggros player 1, along with the rest of the rats. Player 2 warps in on Rat Y which is currently 150km away from player 1, but rat Y, in the current mechanics, would ignore Player 2 and instead head for player 1 which makes no sense.
---------------------------
VSX EVE Design |
Kaasta Karrde
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 22:21:00 -
[53]
Originally by: MacMillan
Originally by: Kaasta Karrde
Why should they be unsoloable?
The thing I hate about group play on missions is the fact that one of your group will get ALL the rats attacking him while the others are relatively safe. If Rats attacked the entire group then it would be a bit more fun to group mission.
No fun for me if another guy is tanking and I'm shooting at rats that don't fight back.
A very good point. Hopefull its one of the things they will address in Kali....
Just to follow this up...
I want to know why as a player I'm being put in a position where I am going to have to group missions against rats that don't have adequate AI to make group missions viable.
The rats follow a very simple pattern at the moment. Either first ship to warp in get swarmed or first ship to attack the rats gets swarmed. Where does this take into account that the player might have another 5 ships with him? Where does it take into account what ships are in the player's group? Where does it take into account that the player is 60km away from the rats firing slow torps while his group are closing into good range without ANY danger?
Say I'm in a cruiser and my mates are in Ravens and we warp into say... 6 cruisers and 3 Battleships... And i fire first to aggro them.. Is it REALLY even slightly realistic that the entire swarm will chase me down while letting the two Battleships happily spam them with high damage torpedoes? Err....no.
Adjust the rat AI to take tactics and numbers into account THEN make us group missions.
|
Gamer4liff
|
Posted - 2005.06.15 22:46:00 -
[54]
Originally by: The Enslaver
Originally by: Kaasta Karrde
Edited by: Kaasta Karrde on 15/06/2005 13:29:57
And getting rid of rewards AND bounties DOESN'T destroy risk v reward?
So lvl4s are ok as long as they aren't actually worth doing ?
Don't agree with ANY of that tbh.
Can you read?
I said to CHANGE THEM, to give ITEMS instead of ISK, and BETTER LOOT instead of BOUNTIES.
Hard to understand?
Wouldn't that just make teh 0.0 people whine more that their rare modules wern't worth as much because so many people got them in empire?
|
Memnoch67
|
Posted - 2005.06.16 14:56:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Memnoch67 on 16/06/2005 14:57:34
Originally by: Gamer4liff
Originally by: The Enslaver
Originally by: Kaasta Karrde
Edited by: Kaasta Karrde on 15/06/2005 13:29:57
And getting rid of rewards AND bounties DOESN'T destroy risk v reward?
So lvl4s are ok as long as they aren't actually worth doing ?
Don't agree with ANY of that tbh.
Can you read?
I said to CHANGE THEM, to give ITEMS instead of ISK, and BETTER LOOT instead of BOUNTIES.
Hard to understand?
and then we'd have an inflation of a different sort where instead of isk losing its value, the items would, n everyone would run aroundw ith cheap top of the line items...
------------------------------
- Wolves, Jaguars and Rifters, oh my! -
-.-
o.-
o.o
o.0
0.o
O.O
>.<
X.X BOOOM |
The Enslaver
|
Posted - 2005.06.16 15:24:00 -
[56]
Good lord.
Right, I'm talking about refineable loot drops, not continuous drops of Siege Arbalests and 1400mm scouts, which should be lowered compared to what it is now.
--------
FireFoxx80: If you think you can do a better job, go find yourself a datacentre to host a box, get a copy of Visual Studio, and STFU. |
Gungankllr
|
Posted - 2005.06.16 15:57:00 -
[57]
I LIKE PIE DAMMIT1111!!!one
Seriously, this topic on agent rewards has been beaten to death so much I can barely read the agents forum anymore about it.
For all of you that are griping and moaning about agent missions doing to much "Insert earth-ending topic here" find another thread to troll in please.
The ORIGINAL intent of this thread was the poster asking about how the difficulty of L4 missions changing post-patch.
KTHXBYE
www.hadean.org
|
Yeux Gris
|
Posted - 2005.06.16 17:23:00 -
[58]
ALl i have to say on this matter is...
Raven...
Indy with target painters and he can grab loot at same time :)
Easy peasy!
Who let the cows out?! mOo. mOo. mOo.. mOo mOo...!
WTB 8x 280mm Scout Howies. Will pay 20% more than Naga's current price |
Deileon
|
Posted - 2005.06.16 21:25:00 -
[59]
Originally by: The Enslaver
Trust me, if L4's got that instead of ISK rewards they would whine a lot - loot in 0.0 is crap. People that think that loot from normal 0.0 spawns are good are most likely clinically insane.
Ehh. I've seen a lot of good loot from 0.0 spawns. Named large turrets/launchers etc. Much much better than the empire/mission drops.
They say bananas are a dish best served cold... |
The Enslaver
|
Posted - 2005.06.16 22:45:00 -
[60]
Anywhere good enough to make up for the standings gains, loyalty points, ISK rewards, etc?
Didn't think so. 
--------
FireFoxx80: If you think you can do a better job, go find yourself a datacentre to host a box, get a copy of Visual Studio, and STFU. |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |