OoookGǪ top tip: if you want to make an impression and have your ideas taken seriously, start by having an above-zero accuracy in your claims.

GÇó Loot goes up and down in value as the market dictates. If loot value has gone down, it's because more people are running missions, which indicates that missions are better than ever.
GÇó The chances of getting faction drops is the same in highsec as everywhere else.
GÇó There are tons of benefits for grinding standings.
GÇó The epic arcs have been touched since 06 due to the simple fact that that they were released in '09GǪ and they've been updated numerous times since then.
GÇó Risk-reward is not a poor concept. It's in fact a very good concept for balancing income. That's why incursions are a lot riskier than L4s (as shown by he outright slaughter of unaware mission-runners who tried them in the early days).
GÇó If you want to PvP, go to where the targets are GÇö highsec is just as much a PvP arena as all other parts of space.
GÇó The reason there are predators in highsec is because that's where the shiny ships are.

Yes, this game is a sandbox, but more than that, it's a multiplayer sandbox. Multiplayer sandbox does not mean that you can do what you want GÇö it means everyone can do what they want, which includes them doing things (to you) that you don't want them to do. From a design standpoint, it also means that static content such as missions is pretty unimportant and that what really matters is to provide tools for the players to create their own content.

The reason very little effort goes into missions is because it's not really a worth-while investments. PvE content almost never is, because it's a consumable kind of content. Incursions are a perfect example of this: everyone flocked to them early on, but once they had tried them and figured them out GÇö once the content had been consumed GÇö the drop-off rate was enormous. Like all such content, it created a very brief but ultimately totally ineffective bump in interest and then just made more people leave. On top of this, creating this kind of one-shot content costs a lot, which means it's a highly questionable use of developer time. They simply do not offer any of the tools that constitute proper content for a sandbox-style game.

Instead, missions in EVE serve pretty much only one purpose: to inject ISK into the economy. Until CCP sees a good reason to adjust how much ISK is being injected, don't count on missions changing much.

All that said, what role do you feel you're being forced into? In what way have CCP nerfed missions and mission content?

Concept: provide the players with mechanics that allowed them to generate PvE content for other players.

I'm not carrying my nose high at all. I just wanted to find out if there was a thought process on bringing more life into missioning. I had no intention of putting anyone down or picking a fight in the forums. I didn't want to go this direction at all. I'm no "Forum Warrior" . I'd much rather just discuss the missioning aspect more. I didn't jump on your thread and start anything. If picking on people for posting here is what you like to do.... All hail your massive epeen.

...Any hope to see mission running re-vitalized?...

My idea of revitalization would be eliminate the tiers and change the goals. The goal of missions now is to get to L-4... that should change.

New players should be given reasons to run L-1s in Frigates for long enough that the skill up the appropriate supporting skills. L-1s should offer lowsec long story lines that are short low ISK risk operations. Help teach the new player that after a couple of months his frigates skill, while not equal to a ten year old vet, can make them competitive. Show them the loss of a ship isn't that big a deal if cost is keep manageable. Some will never like it, while many will.

Running L-1s in and Assault Frigate should be a viable income to a two-three month old player, but not worth doing for an older player.

Each Level should be about a learning a ship class... not a rush to Battleships.



Of course...I could be wrong.

LOL :) Thank you all. I must have come across here in a manor that I didn't relate to and/or understand. If I have come across as arrogant I sincerly apologise. Solstice Project I apologise to you as well. I didn't post here to fight or put anyone down. I am not very comfortable with my skill progression, and I haven't yet found a corp that I can call home. I am very new even for a toon that is 2011. I have a great deal to learn and am not trying to present myself as knowledgable in any way. I'm just trying to get a handle on the direction of game play that intrests me. Currently I'm pretty much just soloing missions. I try to make a few rigs of sell minerals or scraps. Trying to expand my perview here a little.

LOL :) Thank you all. I must have come across here in a manor that I didn't relate to and/or understand. If I have come across as arrogant I sincerly apologise. Solstice Project I apologise to you as well. I didn't post here to fight or put anyone down. I am not very comfortable with my skill progression, and I haven't yet found a corp that I can call home. I am very new even for a toon that is 2011. I have a great deal to learn and am not trying to present myself as knowledgable in any way. I'm just trying to get a handle on the direction of game play that intrests me. Currently I'm pretty much just soloing missions. I try to make a few rigs of sell minerals or scraps. Trying to expand my perview here a little.

Core difficulty to overcome: creating inherent (self)balancing mechanisms that keep players from creating exploitable designs (too large rewards for too little effort or time investment).

*lol*

Most new people have no clue about how they want to play the game.
Most get influenced in doing what they are told to do.

and you are going to do the same, telling people what they have to do, because you think, the way you play eve is the right way ....

and you are going to do the same, telling people what they have to do, because you think, the way you play eve is the right way ....

I just asked the wrong questions of the wrong folks.

I too took a look at all this the wrong way. I think what the folks on here were trying to do is get us out of the box we're in and embrace the game a little more.

First, mission assignation would be anonymous via NPC so nobody knows who's mission is he running.

Second, penalties for turning down missions and collaterals for taking on them.

Third, setting up a mission costs ISK + resource (points)

Fourth, missions can be failed (FAI, timed triggers, target evasion or target destruction)

Fifth, mission complexity and reward are balanced through "points", in a method that's been widely used in industry (mostly strategy and wargames). Player haves limited budget of points and also limited mission elements which cost points, and a miminum number of points must be spent accordingly to mission level. A top cap limits difficulty. Resource points, of course, are affected by player skills... this is EVE!

#1 and #3 makes no sense. Why does it matter who has created the mission, and why should it cost money to create one? Are you suggesting that they'll only be available once rather than added to the pool? All of that just makes the whole thing rare to the point of being pointless since the time required to create a mission would be immensely larger than runnign it.

#4 doesn't help against exploitation unless it is strictly enforced, in which case the opposite problem of griefing people through impossible missions arise.

#5 is just scratching the surface of the problem, which is one of timing and positioning, and it works both ways: having a high-bounty (=high point) ship drop in at extreme range once a minute makes for a trivially farmed mission, and using the same point budget to drop the player in the middle of an cloud of ECM/scram/web ships creates a murder hole.

Some of it could be solved by templating; some by having an over-time economy and some kind of threat calculation brackets that have to be fulfilled, but without supervision, it would have to be strictly templated, which in turn risks creating the same boring repetition as ever and once again falling into that peak+sharp drop formula that characterises most PvE content.

Forgive me if I'm out of line, but if this is a sandbox. Why is there so much effort on behalf of CCP nerfing missions and mission content to force people into other areas?

The new notes regarding the changes to the Marauder classes are interesting. For the last year I have been grinding missions while skilling up. What I have found is that the loot seems to go down in value, the chances of getting faction drops in high sec is almost at 0. There are no benifits to grinding standings, and the epic arcs are a far cry from epic and haven't been touched since about 06.
While I find the new ideas are grand, is there any way that the mission runners of EVE can get some luv? Someone poorly suggested it's a '"Risk = Reward " concept. That ; all high sec should amount to less income based on the risk. If that's the philosophy...then why is it less risky to run an incursion than to solo a Lvl 4. Keep in mind the incursion pays a great deal more.
If we are being forced into rolls that we don't wish to play; why not just mine , and not worry about skilling up. Just mine and that's all there is to it. If you want to PVP go to null or low. Don't have the preditors up in high to eat shiney ships.
Forgive me if I'm out of line, but if this is a sandbox. Why is there so much effort on behalf of CCP nerfing missions and mission content to force people into other areas?

I missed it. Where are the new notes on the Marauder Class?

I sure and honestly hope you'll enjoy all the increased PvP activity in your future.

Edit: accidentially a word

...then why is it less risky to run an incursion than to solo a Lvl 4. Keep in mind the incursion pays a great deal more.

My idea is to remove level 4s from low sec and buff low sec missions to give better rewards as follows;

Low sec level 1 = High sec level 2
Low sec level 2 = High sec level 3
Low sec level 3 = High sec level 4

This will give new players a choice. They can either stay in high sec and skill up a badly trained BS to run level 4s, or they can take their BC into low sec and get the same reward running level 3s. They will be able to cover the cost of a lost ship with just a few missions so the risk is more appealing and they will get into fights and find the game a lot more enjoyable, plus it will bring more targets into lowsec for gankers so there will be more enjoyable gameplay for all.

Wow somebody had the nerve to ask about "Missions" In GD. Massive Balls you have OP. My hat is off to you.

And this is why sometimes you shouldn't post with your main