You need to check out LCO before you even thing Mr.Kidd's face is different.

I don't think Agents should repeat missions in one day (downtime) per pilot.

Other pilots, fleet members, whatever can increase this cycle amount.

But still should be 1 whole mission cycle per pilot to be honest.

Want to skip a mission? No problem! Won't get it back til tomorrow.

This will accomplish reducing cherry picking missions for isk/hour. This will also help encourage fleet activity (let's not be anti social people!) as well as encourage local to interact with one another (pick up fleets for mission running!).

Oh look! Another nerf HS thread.

It's not a nerf highsec thread since more then ample missions would remain in highsec.

It is a "nerf" to people that do nothing but overload tradehubs like Jita and never move beyond the starter systems. Cant see how that's a bad thing.

While I know you're trolling, the idea does have some merit. As it stands, missions are nothing but glorified ratting. However, with the changes to exploration (all probes available from the start) and introduction of new hacking systems, they could be so much more, having more in common with epic arcs than with missions today.

Imagine this scenario:

A player starts at Amarr, learning that a relic was stolen from a local monastery. There are two possible leads: a guy in Mendori claims he knows someone who knows someone, while a small fight with Concord left a few wrecks in Boranai. The player can choose which route to pursuit, either having to travel - and possibly needing to do another mission - or trying to hack the wrecks in order to recover the necessary info. Eventually he needs to cross into low sec or possibly even NPC null, either through regular or through special temporary "smuggler jump bridges" to catch the culprit. Obviously, the further down this road he'd go, the better the rewards, with final fights even having a chance at deadspace mods, but in order to do so, he would need to take increasing risks as well.

Similarily for distribution missions, you could get easy missions to bring two people from A to B (with possible destination C if B was destroyed in the mean time) or a mission to smuggle something from a low sec system through a set of smuggler gates that are unlikely to have empire presence. Safety not guaranteed. :p

Imo, such changes would turn missions from what are essentially isk grinders to enjoyable activity, while at the same time encouraging people to visit null/low sec for more than just PI / FW / whatever.

It's not a nerf highsec thread since more then ample missions would remain in highsec.

It is a "nerf" to people that do nothing but overload tradehubs like Jita and never move beyond the starter systems. Cant see how that's a bad thing.

Call it what you like, its a nerf HS thread. I doubt many don't move beyond starter systems. From what I have seen of high sec over the past 9 years is that people mission in an area to raise faction and set up a pos, then continue missioning for one or two corps in that area. Whats wrong with that?

That's right.

There is IMO to much "stable" content in EVE PVE and the ICe change is a pretty good idea.

But it wasn't the 1st or only idea. EVE has been moving away from static content for a long time. It used to be that DEDs were found in one place and people went there to farm them. The CCP made most of them and finally all of them move around and have to be hunted down.

Wormholes and Incursions are perfect examples Wormhole systems might stay in one place but their entrances and exits sure as hell don't lol. And incursions themselves move here and there and the incursion community follows right along behind them like groupies following a Sansha Rock band lol.

I simply believe that ALL pve content should encourage and require mobility rather than stagnation. it doesn't have to be "cross-sec" mobility ie no one is being forced out of high sec, but the easy "log on, run mission/mine with no effort at all other than logging on, then log off" should go.

Call it what you like, its a nerf HS thread. I doubt many don't move beyond starter systems. From what I have seen of high sec over the past 9 years is that people mission in an area to raise faction and set up a pos, then continue missioning for one or two corps in that area. Whats wrong with that?

Am just amazed this troll thread hasn't been locked.

In what sense of the word "troll"?

As in:

This is a good idea that I don't like and it makes me feel bad. I also lack the vocabulary to form a decent post with a reason I don't like something so I'll just type "troll"..

Your post is a fine example of 'troll'.

In Internet slang, a troll (/-êtro-èl/, /-êtr+Æl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[3] The noun troll may also refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted."

It's actually a fair question. Why is this post, or his reply, a 'troll'?

I got this from wiki:



At best, this counts as a 'troll' because it's might not be the right forum. Though the discussion on limited availability and limited supply source is better placed in General Discussion, the concept of the idea and suggestion is better suited for F&I. I posted in GD to spawn conversation on the former, not the latter.

I was quite serious in my original post, and the few follow up statements. I have neither insulted anyone, nor was in 'inflammatory or extraneous'. And by it's very naming, I was not off-topic in 'General Discussion', as this is very much about EvE.

I would argue that, if anything, your reply and many of the replies in protest of this thread have fit that description more aptly.

Another thing CCP could do is completely remove mission agents from the game for a month, while they decide which idea is best to implement going forward.

My thought here is that with no missions at all, the naysayers will embrace the idea of standing in line for a mission.

You know, you have convinced me.

Let's get CCP to install this mechanic immediately.

Of course, that will also mean limiting all mission agents, across the entire game.
And of course, all Sanctums/ Havens/ belt rats in null sec and low sec must be lowered to a spawn rate of 1 per hour / system as well. Oh, and might as well throw in FW plexes spawning at one per system / hour.

So as soon as CCP alters the null sec spawn rates and FW rates (and what the heck, why can't wh anom spawn rates also join the nerfing fun), then they should alter the mission offer rate.

I think you're on to something, but I think I have a better idea. Hear me out...

Each agent at every station can only have a dialog up with 1 person at a time. If the agent is busy, you literally have to step in line behind the other pilots. While you are in line, you can chat with your fellow players in line.!

A more dynamic mission system would be nice.

There's something silly about the same guy hiring you to go out and kill a pack of pirates....


...and then telling you to do it again, ad infinitum. It's silly.

A more dynamic mission system would be nice.

There's something silly about the same guy hiring you to go out and kill a pack of pirates....


...and then telling you to do it again, ad infinitum. It's silly.

It would be interesting if NPC organizations were a bit more "alive", with active relationships, economic concerns, supply needs, etc., that missions could revolve around, and if the missions themselves were a bit less straightforward.

IIRC (I haven't played it in quite a while) The mission system in X3 is kind of like this - if a factory station asks you to bring them some energy cells, it's because they actually need energy cells.

And why do they always know the exact coordinates of the objective? It might be interesting if you actually had to find your mission objective (there could be some new tools to help with this) instead of just receiving a bookmark for the exact location.

A finite supply of missions that are more involved and take longer, but give better pay (per mission) would probably be an improvement over the farm-the-same-agent-until-the-end-of-time status quo.

Agreed. Once you've done a mission, you have to wait for the next downtime to get offered it again.

Starves off repetition as well as making you feel a lot like you're pretty much playing a computer game

It's a good idea because it creates a more dynamic universe, where people don't settle down in one system and then stays there for years on end,

The problem with constantly nerfing the moderately profitable and easy income sources is that you then make it even more difficult for PVP pilots to fund themselves. Explo isn't so profitable anymore (it was really good income to run radars in low sec before odysseey) which is fine 'cause EVE is about adapting, but if you nerf missions as well you need to be mindful of the people who don't want to spend several hours earning up income to buy a Vexor that they're just going to welp any way. Too many people in low sec are risk averse babies who won't engage without drastically superior fleet comps, the last thing that needs to happen is to give them even less incentive to take a fight they may conceivably lose.

What did i just read that's the stupidest idea i read here from long time

Am just amazed this troll thread hasn't been locked.

Its a troll for his use of insulting language (lack the vocabulary) in an attempt to get an emotional response...The initial post I felt to be disengenuous as anyone must know CCP would not implement such an idea. That was my take on it at any rate. I must have been really bored today to put so much effort into a silly thread.

Another thing CCP could do is completely remove mission agents from the game for a month, while they decide which idea is best to implement going forward.

My thought here is that with no missions at all, the naysayers will embrace the idea of standing in line for a mission.

That idea there goes against both human nature and the concept of sovereignty. Alliances "settle down" in areas of null-sec, and then work to keep their space for themselves. Making it home. Spending trillions of isk to do so.

Why is it just high-sec subscribers whom you think should be forced to move around?