| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ErrorS
   |
Posted - 2005.12.23 01:14:00 -
[1]
Edited by: ErrorS on 23/12/2005 01:20:37
Edited by: ErrorS on 23/12/2005 01:16:34
LV1 - Frigates / New Destroyers / New players in general
LV2 - T2 Frigates / Destroyers / New player cruisers
LV3 - Good Cruiser pilots / T2 Frigates
LV4 - Battlecruisers / T2 Cruisers
LV5 - Solo T2 Battlecruisers / Battleships - Skilled pilots only
LV6-LV10 - Different group size / skill levels required
am I wrong to think that this might be better for the game? I ditched my Crow and even Cormorant for LV2s because a few were a bit too hard (not impossible) .. so I brought my Harpy.. and of course, the only missions I've got so far have been really really easy. I can't find a proper ship for level 2 missions.
It just seems like you never know what difficulty the mission you're going into will be based on levels. I've had a couple level 2s that were harder than Level 3s I do in my Ferox. Sometimes I'll go into a LVL3 that's pretty tough in my Ferox, other times I'll say "that was it?" to myself, thinking how I could have finished it in a Destroyer.
I'm NOT complaining that missions in general are too hard or too easy. I just wish we weren't confined from level 1 to level 4, because mission difficulty seems to scale much more than the mission levels do.
So why aren't they like this? They should be set up like Complexes. The hardest being a level 10 mission that are whole corperation efforts/extremely skilled players at the very least. Level 1s for newbs and level 5 for solo BS players (with a bit less rewards than we have for current LV4s)
So yeah, they should be scaled like complexes.
________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
ErrorS
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 01:26:00 -
[2]
Edited by: ErrorS on 23/12/2005 01:26:23
I also suggest that the levels be based on security status, it just makes sense that less secure systems would need bigger ships for the missions.
1.0 to 0.9 - Level 1 Missions
0.9 to 0.8 - Level 2 Missions
0.7 to 0.6 - Level 3 Missions
0.5 to 0.3 - Level 4 Missions
0.3 to 0.1 - Level 5 Missions
0.1 - Level 6 missions
0.0 - Level 7 and up, 10 being on the outskirts of the universe.
I'm just thinking as people 'grow up' in Eve. Most new frigate pilots are going to stick to high security space, even new cruiser pilots wont want to go below 0.5 sec space. Solo T2 ships, battleships and small corperations should be just fine in all low sec space (this should be the most popular) and the bigger corps/alliances with better pilots might stick to the outter regions.
So?
________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
mrg29
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 03:20:00 -
[3]
Edited by: mrg29 on 23/12/2005 03:20:52
i quite like your idea of having more difficulty levels and spreading things out more - whether it needs 10 lvls is questionable tho. the jump from lvl2 to lvl3 and lvl3 to lvl4 is quite tough atm and there is a wide spread of difficulties within existing lvls just now.
i am completely against the idea of restricting higher lvl agents by system sec status tho. there is already alot of content in the game that is restricted to people in the bigger corps and alliances and adding higher levels of agents into that mix would just be taking it too far. the existing system of calculating rewards and bonuses based on sec lvl of system is sufficient imo.
|
MWEI
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 03:37:00 -
[4]
And thats exactly how complex rating work.
|
Trelennen
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 03:38:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Trelennen on 23/12/2005 03:40:22
 Originally by: ErrorS
Edited by: ErrorS on 23/12/2005 01:26:23
I also suggest that the levels be based on security status, it just makes sense that less secure systems would need bigger ships for the missions.
Well it doesn't really make sense to me, but maybe I just can't see what would give that sense  .
Adjusting the rewards with sec status of systems is really enough imho, and there should be some of each level in both high sec and low sec.
And btw, how would you deal with pirate agents? Reverse thing? (if we consider pirates are more of a threat for empire corp in low sec 'cause less CONCORD presence, empire should be a greater threat for pirates corp in high sec) Then you'd have low level pirate missions in 0.0 and high level in high sec. If the repartition is the same than for empire agents, or if all pirate agents are in 0.0 like now, your system would not be coherent, so I'd say this would not be a good idea .
The OP's idea is terrific imho though, and I really sign for it!
From what I can see, basicaly level 1 and 2s would be sensibly like before RMR, level 3s like too, except for harder missions being pushed to level 4s prolly, current level 4s pushed to level 5, and group missions over level 5.
We could consider some 'group missions' under level 5 either on particular agents or with a specific option to get them, for small groups of new players (like 'group level 3' for a small gang of good cruiser pilots and T2 frigs - eg. small gang of pilots who can do 'solo level 3s', etc.)
edit: well, that part is not needed in fact, as in my example 'group level 3' would simply be level 4s
Originally by: DarK
The cluetrain obviously doesn't stop at this station anymore...
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 11:32:00 -
[6]
If you limit 0.0 to high-level agents only you're discouraging a lot of people from moving out there
|
OniNoShinji
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 12:15:00 -
[7]
I think missions need to be scaled back. by this I meen mix up harder missions with the low level agents, and adjust difficulty by sec level of space. I like how the system is now but it bothers me that there such a huge difference in difficulty from agent level. you should be forced to analyse the mission and decide wether you need to run it, obtain help, or just decline it
For instance a level one agent may periodically give level two missions, and rarely give level 3. However, keep the way the missions get harder as you travel in to less secure space.
I also think that missions should mix up what ships would be best to run in. some missions should require a fast mover to intercept a target, some would need a tank, some would require ECM, Etc. this would force players to change ships and loadouts dramatically. Thus giving a more stratigic aspect to agent running.
bottom line is i should feel a little fear every time i accept a mission, and should have to do my home work to succeed.
|
NetHawk
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 14:24:00 -
[8]
Edited by: NetHawk on 23/12/2005 14:25:05
Why does there seem to be a fascination with missions in low sec on this forum? Leave a range of missions in high sec and low sec. Forcing someone to have to deal with pirates so they can run missions would make them 100 times harder. Now you dont just have to deal with that 'impossible' mission, but you have to get through a gate camp. That just sucks.
I really like the idea of having a different scale if you will for group missions (like lvl 6-10). It be a great idea to actually count on missions being done by groups so that maybe you need to tackle 2 different objectives at the same time (maybe even in different systems). Imagine that blockade mission with your team needing to actually succesfully complete the blockade in 3 different areas or systems at once? Sounds pretty cool to me 
|
ErrorS
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 15:32:00 -
[9]
0.1 to 0.4 isn't THAT bad. I don't see how anyone who doesn't want to get in a fight can die in low sec in a battleship or battlecruiser to be honest.
________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
Uggster
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 15:57:00 -
[10]
Originally by: ErrorS
0.1 to 0.4 isn't THAT bad. I don't see how anyone who doesn't want to get in a fight can die in low sec in a battleship or battlecruiser to be honest.
0.4 - 0.1 Is, in fact, WORSE than 0.0 cos you have all the weekend pirates that dont want to stray from their money making agents and easy ganks and also you dont have the protection of an alliance that you oftain have in 0.0.
|
ErrorS
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 18:07:00 -
[11]
Just stay away from belts? You're not going to find a group of battleships tanking sentries that are able to down another BS or BC through the gate/station in low sec. Most of the time gate campers will ignore a BS or heavily tanked BC.
just basing this on personal experience, by the time i was in a battleship I didn't have to worry about 0.1 to 0.4 space.. I understand it's not like that for everyone.
So, forgetting about the security thing, would it be a waste to push to have missions work like this? more like complexes in terms of levels?
________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
Trelennen
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 18:43:00 -
[12]
Originally by: ErrorS
Just stay away from belts? You're not going to find a group of battleships tanking sentries that are able to down another BS or BC through the gate/station in low sec. Most of the time gate campers will ignore a BS or heavily tanked BC.
just basing this on personal experience, by the time i was in a battleship I didn't have to worry about 0.1 to 0.4 space.. I understand it's not like that for everyone.
So, forgetting about the security thing, would it be a waste to push to have missions work like this? more like complexes in terms of levels?
Go tell this to Erula campers, who destroyed loads of level 4s fitted BS (even faction ones). But yeah, campers don't touch BS and heavily tanked BC, right. Campers shoot on anything going through the gate, and 5 sniper BS will obliterate nearly anything pretty fast...
If we forget the security thing, having more agent levels, with a more scaled difficulty increase, would be a must, and is definitely needed (and more agents in more places, to avoid having overpopulated systems because the only few good agents are in this system ).
Originally by: DarK
The cluetrain obviously doesn't stop at this station anymore...
|
Joerd Toastius
|
Posted - 2005.12.23 20:04:00 -
[13]
It'd certainly make sense to use the quality system to provide a better gradation of difficulty, so a -20 L3 is only a small step up from a +20 L2
|
ErrorS
|
Posted - 2005.12.24 03:21:00 -
[14]
so.. why isn't this getting very much attention?
________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
Epsillon
|
Posted - 2005.12.24 03:46:00 -
[15]
Because as great an idea as it is, it probably won't happen for a very long time, if at all.
_____________________
"They arent giggling about his spelling, they are giggling at the fact that he's a ******* moron" - DrunkenOne |
mrg29
|
Posted - 2005.12.24 06:50:00 -
[16]
Originally by: ErrorS
so.. why isn't this getting very much attention?
there is going to be a big overhaul of agents and missions in kali, there was a sticky from zrakor for awhile looking for ideas.
so who knows what missions might look like in a couple of months time.
|
Spy4Hire
|
Posted - 2005.12.24 07:01:00 -
[17]
Get the idiots off the gates by increasing the whalloping range of sentries and I'd give a big thumbs up to high level agents in low sec only... but as someone said, the idiot gate****ers make enjoying challenging Missions a chore.
Force them to move away from the gate (nice how the new faction ammo lets them snipe from further away than every before... Way to go CCP) and actually track you down, only to find the gate to your mission locked and requiring a key that only you have.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |