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.

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.

Firstly : Online Sandbox=An open world is a type of video game level design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives. Video games that include such level design often are referred to as "free roam" games.

I do howerver like the idea of making low sec missions work better. Maybe better drops also? Some attention needs to be on bringing the mission runner back into the game though in any case.

Why is there so much effort on behalf of CCP nerfing missions and mission content to force people into other areas?

Except the grind time for most level 3 and 4 missions is so long that doing them in lowsec would be very unappealing to most mission runners especially sitting in lowsec in a PvE optimised ship.

What we need for mission runners in lowsec is missions that are better tailored to lowsec so that players will fly them in PvP ships and then they won't feel as much of a need to dock up as soon as another pilot enters the system.

Some of the FW missions are already like that but overall they're few and far between.

You forgot the most important words: "as long as other players let you"

I think the matter of low sec missioning is a little off topic on the basis of this thread. I was wondering more about the massive amount of time and developement spent grinding for standings and running missions. There is a HUGE decrease in worth while results for the effort. That and no new anything on the mission front since it's primary inception!

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.

I just looked up the definition. I didn't bend it to fit an agenda

No.
CCP has proven time and again that throwing more money at people doesn't help.
You have the wrong perspective.

The issue is the players. A big part of the problem are the griefers (to quote Tippia)
who sit in rookiechats and -systems telling everybody that they shoudln't ever go to low,
because it's a deathtrap.

They tell them to run missions or mine for isk,
as if playing solo right from the start was a good idea.

Players' behaviour can be be steered best right from the beginning,
and these people do exactly that, with bad consequences for the whole population.

They did change the AI enough so that low skilled players loose more drones and lowby ships. So the end result was...More expence, less attractive to new players, oh yeah; less rewards.

Yeah, I've seen those people in the rookie channel and NPC corp chats. Still, I think this kind of reward would be too great for many mission runners to ignore.

Maybe there's a point behind that.
Have less new people run stupid missions but instead have them seek player
interaction to make money, aka actually playing the game.

See it from a new guys perspective. The first things many do is playing alone!
Alone! That's ridiculous!

*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.

Edit: Getting pushed into playing solo in Eve IS ridiculous.
If they WANT to play alone then they can do so,
but then they'll have a bad awakening once others play the game the way it works.
Together or against each other.


Also, regarding the crap above...

All skills cap at V.
There is no "max skilled player" in Eve.
If a noob bu y s a toon from 2003 he will still lose
against a week old noob who knows what he's doing.

Back on topic, revitalising missions is a waste of time.

Rant much? Anyway... Not very on topic.

If missions were modified in a way that they could incorporate PvP and player interaction, that would be a worthwhile change but I feel it would also be a very time consuming process and probably very difficult to implement successfully.

As a newer player, what exactly do you think a 2011 toon can do to a maxed skill PVP 2006 player?

I was adressing your words, as pointless as it is.

Anyhow... yes. Back on topic.
Revitalizing missions?

Yes. Make them closer to actual ship combat with actual risk of losing ships.
Missions are too much of an ISK farm and need revitalization by
putting them more in line with the actual game.

The issue is the players. A big part of the problem are the griefers (to quote Tippia)
who sit in rookiechats and -systems telling everybody that they shoudln't ever go to low,
because it's a deathtrap.

They tell them to run missions or mine for isk,
as if playing solo right from the start was a good idea.

Players' behaviour can be be steered best right from the beginning,
and these people do exactly that, with bad consequences for the whole population.

As a newer player, what exactly do you think a 2011 toon can do to a maxed skill PVP 2006 player?

Your a hero kiddo. LOL....

Plenty, there's a skill cap on each ship and weapon class, a maxxed 2006 PvP pilot in a cruiser or BC for example, is probably using 10% of his available skillpoints, because the rest are irrelevant to the ship and weapons. Where he does have an advantage, is his experience and knowledge of game mechanics, and exactly what the ship is and is not capable of doing.

SP is not that important, experience and knowledge are, it's the same for the ships, what you do with them is more important than the ships themselves.

"griefers" as you call them aren't wrong tho: low-sec is a deathtrap for new unprepared player.

You're such a brave and mighty forum warrior ...

Why if you are into the PVE aspect would you start off building PVP skillsets?

Whatever! lol... Refinining mission scrap has very little to do with PVP.

It also has very little to do with mission running. It's a mining skill.

lol again Solsice, really go find something better to do than beef in this thread. Tippia made the best post in here. If we start from there perhapts we can move along in here.

So now salvage has nothing to do with missioning?

Salvaging has nothing to do with refining scrap.

And no, it doesn't particularly have anything to do with missions either GÇö it has to do with extracting materials from wrecks, and wrecks can be created in a number of waysGǪ

You mission... You salvage...You get scrap... You grind with the corporation to get better refine... Do you not then refine the materials you have collected in your PVE enviroment?

With regards to PVP and skill points... Why if you are into the PVE aspect would you start off building PVP skillsets? So the 2011 PVE/Indi or /miner... Verses a 2006 PVP pilot. Not really the point here. I was trying to have a discussion about missions and got hijacked by a bored individual that needs to go start his own thread.

I think the matter of low sec missioning is a little off topic on the basis of this thread. I was wondering more about the massive amount of time and developement spent grinding for standings and running missions. There is a HUGE decrease in worth while results for the effort. That and no new anything on the mission front since it's primary inception!

The griefers are still wrong. You should go to lowsec, partly because it's a deathtrap. Learn to deal with it early on when it costs nothing GÇö that's the best way to prepare. It also massively increases your odds of coming across someone who will pick you up and actually teach you something other than GÇ£Don't do it! You're not ready!!GÇ¥

Ok how should i put this ...

Even if you are skilling for PVE content you still need guns to shoot rats you still need a tank and you still need to fit a ship

so

Engineering
Electronics
Navigation
Gunnery(or missiles)
Space ship command
Drones

are very relevant skills ....

The only difference between a pvp player and a PVE is the ability to ...what use a scram a TD


The main difference between a 2006 player and a 2011 player is choices

For example I can use all race and ship class (sub cap) because i have the SP but once i pick a ship out of my SP pool only a few buckets apply to said ship.

Still an noob with mining and indi, can run a good L4 mission ship and not be comparable to a soley dedicated PVP pilot even in the course of 2 or more years of focus.

As a newer player, what exactly do you think a 2011 toon can do to a maxed skill PVP 2006 player?

Separate from the PVP verse PVE issue... There were a couple good posts on topic. I am mostly curious to see if there will be any new ideas in the area of missioning. I guess given the direction of the posts there isn't much sunshine at the end of that tunnel. PVP is the general direction I guess folks are pushing for. Seems to make sence when the arguments for go the way these have gone. I hope to see more stuff on the actual PVE/Indi type of stuff and less on the PVP stuff for the future of the posts. I guess it's whatever it will be at this point.

If he can run a good L4 mission ship, he'll be able to run a good PvP ship as well, and the fact that he has also trained mining and industrials doesn't change this fact. In fact, if anything, it just reinforces it since those ships require the same core skills to work properly.

This is not a class-based game, where training one profession precludes you from doing other things.

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

Edit: accidentially a word

I posted on here with regards to finding out more information on missioning. Not to change my direction in the game. You started off offensive and have now go so far as to threaten PVP. LOL...Have fun doing whatever you want. Obviously it's all about you You can't take a hint when someone tells you to **** off.

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.

Okay your right... A mission Rattler verses a PVP hurricane is exactly the same thing, so is a Navy Raven PVE verses a Vigilant setup for PVP. LOL what are you smoking? And neither do Indi/Mining skills have a direct corelation to PVP. Hulkageddon ring any bells?

Okay your right.

A mission Rattler verses a PVP hurricane is exactly the same thing, so is a Navy Raven PVE verses a Vigilant setup for PVP.

LOL what are you smoking?

And neither do Indi/Mining skills have a direct corelation to PVP.

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

Harry has been trying to pvp me for a while now

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.

99% of replies to this thread: "EVE should only be a sandbox if it's my definition of 'sandbox' " or "sandbox doesn't mean you should be able to do what you want, it means I should be able to do what I want to you"

Eve needs more interesting missions. Small fleet based engagements that require a variety of roles, incorporating PVP elements such as alpha, tackling, and logistics. Something to fill the gap between solo missions and the larger fleet incursions.

They're already like that with the lp rewards. People still wont run them.

Because it's a sandbox.

It's not about "play however you want, solo".
It's about "play however you want, but with everybody else".

Nonetheless... please stop using the sandbox argument. It doesn't work that way.
Sandboxes don't center around the needs of individuals,
they work because of the interaction between players
and it doesn't matter if you want this interaction to happen or not.

I can't say I agree with this.

A sandbox game doesn't mean you have to play with others at all. Sandbox simply means there is no fixed route you have to head through, that once you're in your free to build and destroy sandcastles as you want. Maybe you want to build a massive twenty story sandcastle on your own and no one ever comes near you, you're still playing in the sandbox.

Mission runners are interacting with other players just not directly and via combat, they're buying the ammo and ships players build, the deadspace modules found out in nullsec and then giving back to others with faction ammunition, implants and modules from the LP store.

Missions could do with an overhaul, they're not really engaging or interesting to those running them and don't encourage co-operation or teaming up. Although I would rather not see a system which forces teamplay over solo, some people do enjoy just logging in and solo'ing a few missions.

CCP posted some ideas for a reinvented mission system in the missions forums a few months back and it got a lot of positive feedback. I would say the reason we don't see it is because of the time investment it would take during development and the amount of complaining and whining from the "EVE is only PVP" crowd.

It also has very little to do with mission running. It's a mining skill.

Mission runners are interacting with other players just not directly and via combat, they're buying the ammo and ships players build, the deadspace modules found out in nullsec and then giving back to others with faction ammunition, implants and modules from the LP store.