| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
DJ FunkyBacon
Eve Radio Corporation
273
   |
Posted - 2014.06.04 14:18:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hey guys,
One of the things on the PVE side of FW that keeps getting brought to my attention is LVL 4 FW missions, and an imbalance between the ones that are run by the Gallente and Amarr vs the Minmatar and Caldari missions. The specific issue that I keep hearing is that Cal and Min missions can be run in Stealth bombers while Gal and Amarr missions need to be run in considerably better ships, often tech 3.
The reasons for the higher end ships that seem to be most common is the missile spam prevalent in the Gallente and Amarr missions. I've got a few other things on my list that were mentioned, but I'd rather hear directly from you guys as to what you think the issues are.
My questions for you in this regard are 3:
1: Do you feel this issue is important to you or people you fly with in FW?
2: What do you think is causing the imbalance between the faction missions where some factions can run their missions with SB while others need to bring a "bigger boat."
3: If some balance were to be brought across lvl4 FW missions, should it be geared towards everyone needing a "bigger boat," or everyone being able to run in stealth bombers?
This issue is one of a few on my plate at the moment. If there is a strong desire for change here it's something I plan to pass on and attempt to press the need to the dev team that handles PVE content. If the desire is not strong, and it appears the people who have brought this to me are a small minority, I plan to move on to other issues.
/discuss
CSM9 Factional Warfare/Lowsec Representative
Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.
http://funkybacon.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/FunkyBacon |
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders
Repeat 0ffenders
206
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 14:36:00 -
[2] - Quote
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:Hey guys,
My questions for you in this regard are 3:
1: Do you feel this issue is important to you or people you fly with in FW?
2: What do you think is causing the imbalance between the faction missions where some factions can run their missions with SB while others need to bring a "bigger boat."
3: If some balance were to be brought across lvl4 FW missions, should it be geared towards everyone needing a "bigger boat," or everyone being able to run in stealth bombers?
/discuss
1. Yes, very.
2. Missiles and types of ewar
3. Please go the bigger boat route. Risk vs Reward
One thing that wasn't mentioned on your question list also has to do with the differences between the layouts of the Gal/Cal and Min/Amarr WZs. Distance to travel to pickup/complete missions, etc.
In addition to your questions I would also like to add that I think Mission payouts should ignore warzone control and be hard set at T2 payouts.
BLFOX is currently recruiting |
Ashwind Houssa
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 14:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
1. Absolutely. If someone is out grinding missions for LP, they need to be at risk. Not uncloaked while running the mission, protected by a gate.
2. I have not run them, so my opinion is not informed. From what I can gather, the Amarr EWAR is not effective against SB's, but the Minmatar EWAR makes running a sig tanked SB very difficult.
3. Bigger boat. SB's are inherently unfun to play against, and given the massive reduction in risk, they should not be the primary choice for mission running.
Increasing PvP is a good thing, although I suspect many will not like the idea of their ISK faucet being turned down. No surprise there. |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
254
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 14:53:00 -
[4] - Quote
Based on what I heard at the FanFest FW Roundtable, CCP is aware of the mission imbalance, and how easy it is to farm for Minmatar and Caldari (and to a lesser extent Amarr). CCP Fozzie noted that he had considered adding in things like webbing towers to make sig tanking less viable, but that's not easy right now. He also noted that the current issue where Gallente NPCs will attack GalMil pilots was a bug that they spent a few weeks trying to hunt down and weren't able to fix.
I think the major issue at the moment is the content tools for authoring mission content. Once those get sorted I'm pretty certain CCP will dedicate some time to fixing FW missions. Until then we'll just have to enjoy the lowered farming influence, increased tag drops, and all the smexy 'roid belt hunting we get to do these days. |
Degnar Oskold
Justified Chaos
98
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 14:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
I don't mind the difference. It makes fewer mission farmers on the Gallente side, which inflates our LP value. |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe
Defiant Legacy
243
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 14:57:00 -
[6] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:DJ FunkyBacon wrote:Hey guys,
My questions for you in this regard are 3:
1: Do you feel this issue is important to you or people you fly with in FW?
2: What do you think is causing the imbalance between the faction missions where some factions can run their missions with SB while others need to bring a "bigger boat."
3: If some balance were to be brought across lvl4 FW missions, should it be geared towards everyone needing a "bigger boat," or everyone being able to run in stealth bombers?
/discuss 1. Yes, very. 2. Missiles and types of ewar 3. Please go the bigger boat route. Risk vs Reward One thing that wasn't mentioned on your question list also has to do with the differences between the layouts of the Gal/Cal and Min/Amarr WZs. Distance to travel to pickup/complete missions, etc. In addition to your questions I would also like to add that I think Mission payouts should ignore warzone control and be hard set at T2 payouts.
I began to type something but Thanatos hit all the imporant points already. Especially mission payouts ignoring WZ control part. I am a minmatar pilot and I think our L4 missions are WAY too easy atm. |
DJ FunkyBacon
Eve Radio Corporation
276
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 15:01:00 -
[7] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
One thing that wasn't mentioned on your question list also has to do with the differences between the layouts of the Gal/Cal and Min/Amarr WZs. Distance to travel to pickup/complete missions, etc.
Not ignoring the rest of what you said, but I need a little elaboration on this as it's not something I've had waved in my face as of yet. I know gal missions will usually run 10-13 jumps from the agent. Is there a big difference in travel in the other zone? I know it's smaller.
CSM9 Factional Warfare/Lowsec Representative
Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.
http://funkybacon.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/FunkyBacon |
Nyjil Lizaru
Aideron Robotics
29
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 15:07:00 -
[8] - Quote
As someone tweeted, the SB fits the 'assassination' feel of the missions. So I'd rather see that made viable for other factions. (plus I just really like stealth bombers)
I would also prefer to see the rewards reduced at higher tiers. Maybe not completely decoupled from control level, but perhaps less drastically influenced.
Nyjil's corollary to Malcanis' Law: -á "Any attempt by CCP to smooth the learning curve of EVE Online will be carried out via the addition of extra factors and 'features' such that there is a net increase in complexity." |
Takanuro
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
112
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 15:16:00 -
[9] - Quote
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:Hey guys,
My questions for you in this regard are 3:
1: Do you feel this issue is important to you or people you fly with in FW?
2: What do you think is causing the imbalance between the faction missions where some factions can run their missions with SB while others need to bring a "bigger boat."
3: If some balance were to be brought across lvl4 FW missions, should it be geared towards everyone needing a "bigger boat," or everyone being able to run in stealth bombers?
/discuss
1. YES.
2. Can't speak for Gallente pilots, but Amarr pilots have to deal with Target Painting and Missiles which are both threats to SB's.
3. I personally feel that this can go in 2 directions. (1) If CCP are happy that bombers are able to complete missions in 3-5 minutes then they shouldn't give the huge LP that they do, i.e 90K LP for some missions when Tier4. (2) If they want to leave the high rewards then force the use of bigger ships and make the missions more difficult to complete.
The way mission LP scales for Tier2 - Tier5 is crazy in my opinion and instead of increases like 75%, 150%, 225%, it should be something like 10% increase per tier.
Nice to know someone is looking at other issues in FW, in addition to the changes just made.
Yes, we're going to die, but you're coming with us!
|
MinutemanKirk
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Repeat 0ffenders
51
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 15:18:00 -
[10] - Quote
1. Yes. As missions are often a primary source of income for FW players this is something that has needed addressing for some time.
2. Damage type and EWAR. Missile spam is a problem because it is impossible to speed tank or get out of range of. Add to that the EWAR aspect (in particular ECM from Caldari) and you get the magic combination that makes it impossible for anything smaller than a cruiser to run and anything less than an Ishtar or T3 to run with any effectiveness.
3. Bigger than bombers (or at least solo bombers) but it should not require a ship with such a high skill level as HAC or T3's. Even if it took a BC it would be more acceptable (both in ISK and skill points) than the current requirements. |
|
|
Douglas Nolm
Minmatar Secret Service
Ushra'Khan
62
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 15:29:00 -
[11] - Quote
1. It's important to me, and those I fly with, only in the way it affects the value of our LP.
2. As has already been said, Caldari and Minmatar rats use effective ewar against most missioning ships, and missiles don't miss. I'm a minmatar pilot, and tracking disruption really doesn't affect me that much and I can fly fast enough for the Amarr lasers to miss me. Just an example of why our missions are so easy.
3. Definitely make them harder! The LP payout for missions is obscene! Make it so that instead of just a bigger ship, you need a small gang to complete them.
Personally I think FW missions should be removed completely. They have no effect on the warzone at all, except to devalue the LP of those who are there to fight the war. Mission farmers couldnt give a damn about how the war is going other than how it affects their LP payout. Come to MinMil channel and watch the farmers demand donations to hubs any time the tier looks like it will drop to 3.
Faction war should be about fighting for your chosen empire. If you want to PvE there are other factions to mission for, plus incursions, belt rats, null sec rafting, and sleeper sites. Nobody should be getting rich from FW. |
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders
Repeat 0ffenders
209
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 15:39:00 -
[12] - Quote
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:Thanatos Marathon wrote:
One thing that wasn't mentioned on your question list also has to do with the differences between the layouts of the Gal/Cal and Min/Amarr WZs. Distance to travel to pickup/complete missions, etc.
Not ignoring the rest of what you said, but I need a little elaboration on this as it's not something I've had waved in my face as of yet. I know gal missions will usually run 10-13 jumps from the agent. Is there a big difference in travel in the other zone? I know it's smaller.
a few things go into it. The general size of the different warzones (you can be sent further away in Gal/Cal), the layout of the warzones (the layout of Gal/Cal makes it harder to control a pipe of systems that are likely to get mission objectives in them) and the location of the agents (how many jumps to collect 10 missions).
BLFOX is currently recruiting |
Altaen
Calamitous-Intent
Feign Disorder
116
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 15:45:00 -
[13] - Quote
double post? please delete |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
255
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 16:02:00 -
[14] - Quote
I personally feel that upping the difficulty level, or structuring them to at least require higher SP ship investment, is the way to go. It's patently ridiculous that we can make 90k LP on a L4 mission in low sec in a Stealth Bomber, when L4 missions in any other area of space - to include nullsec - make a fraction of the LP and require a significantly higher investment in terms of ship types.
I'm ok with the assassination style of the missions - i.e. go here and kill this guy / these transports then bail - because it lends itself to mission running in hostile space. That's an aspect most other areas of space don't have to deal with on as constant a basis.
Adjusting the mission difficulty by adding in fast webbing frigates or the like would go a long long way towards balancing things I would think. Anything that makes small fragile sig tankers less viable would help.
The other big area to look at is smoothing or reducing the massive swing in LP payouts for FW Tier control. While I'm all for rewarding folks for controlling a large part of the warzone, Tier control is far more dependent on system upgrades than warzone control. In GalMil, the only reason we ever dump LP to maintain Tier is to maintain plexing and mission income - and we're probably the least focused on LP whoring among the various militias. |
Tiberius StarGazer
Thrall Nation
Brave Collective
442
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 16:08:00 -
[15] - Quote
A little bit of history on my part before I go into answering your questions.
I was in Caldari Faction Warfare soon after the 2012 nerf to LP and during the battle of Asakai, I ran only a few missions when with the Caldari but did so in a stealth bomber. Earlier this year I was in Amarr Faction Warfare and spent the majority of my time running level 4 missions (thanks to the standing I had built up while in Caldari.) I then turned pirate after becoming disillusioned with FW and spent some time hunting FW mission runners.
1. While currently this isn't a huge issue to me now, while I was in Amarr faction warfare and to a lesser extent Caldari (lack of skill and standing) Faction Warfare missions were my number one source of income, I felt in some situations that without the missions I wouldn't be able to run and compete on the wider stage with the pirates of lowsec and indeed the opposing militia. But this difference in the missions was very apparent to me, I found the Caldari missions far easier than the Amarr ones which forced me to use ships such as Vexor Navy ships to complete the missions correctly. Also as a Pirate, I found hunting mission runners in one type of racial missions are harder than another due to the fact that the stealth bomber was preferred.
2. Mainly the types of Ewar employed by the other races as previously mentioned.
3. I definitely appreciate the fact that this is a type of mission that the stealth bomber is unusually suited for and I would be hesitant to remove that from the game, it is a reasonably easy ship to train into, it falls into the training class of what I would expect to be the usual type of Faction Warfare pilot which is someone first moving into lowsec and is mainly focused on small gang frigate / destroyer / cruiser combat. However, as a conflict driver, as a content generator people hunting these mission runners find the whole experience very frustrating, often I have had to sit in a site with a cloaked ship waiting to grab a mission runner I had chased off. Agreed this provided an interesting cat and mouse mechanic, given I probably could spend the same amount of time hunting a lowsec DED site mission runner for a nicer kill and then steal the site which is much more rewarding than hunting a stealth bomber. So in line with that I would probably like to see more runners in cruisers to give opportunities for pirates and opposing factions to harass and stop the mission runners. (God bless the Astero is all I am going to say on that matter)
On balance, I would be very hesitant to make the ship requirements too high, using a T3 cruiser to run FW missions are, IMO, not in the spirit of the low entry barrier that FW offers, and putting too much on the line. You should, in essence be able to pay for the ship you are using in these sites in 3/4 runs and depending on the tier level that can be anything from 100m to 400m. (25,000 LP to whatever the T5 level is). It is hugely important the original mechanic of FW, which is the gated area restricting the types of ships and acting as a buffer for the person running the sites so they can make that choice of fight or flight. FW always has provided that barrier to aggressing pilots to allow the person in the site to make the decision of if this site worth staying in and finishing and fight or is this too dangerous and should I take that standing hit?
To that end, I feel that the time of these missions is too lenient. If you warp to a site to run it, and you are unable to complete it and have to warp out the site should vanish and the mission ends as a failure, this will encourage people to fight for their rewards more which is something that Faction Warfare plexing just does not do. But as a reward for sticking it out and taking the risk you should then of course get the appropriate reward. As extension to that line of thought, missions do not encourage ships to be PvP fit, which again discourages engagement because your PvE fit ship would never stand up to a fully PvP fit ship. They need to be redesigned to encourage more PvP fittings in these missions. The number of rats in the missions are totally pointless, there should be fewer, but harder to deal with. If anyone says these are all part of the whole tag mechanics, I would be very interested to see how many tag drops actually come from FW missions.
Just some of my thoughts on the matter, but overall, yes SB's a silly, yes encourage the use of other ships, and definitely encourage PvP encounters but in the tried and tested Faction Warfare controlled way.
Excuse the grammar and spelling I did this on fly during my lunch break at work and didn't have time to proof read it! |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1290
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 16:17:00 -
[16] - Quote
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:Hey guys,
One of the things on the PVE side of FW that keeps getting brought to my attention is LVL 4 FW missions, and an imbalance between the ones that are run by the Gallente and Amarr vs the Minmatar and Caldari missions. The specific issue that I keep hearing is that Cal and Min missions can be run in Stealth bombers while Gal and Amarr missions need to be run in considerably better ships, often tech 3.
The reasons for the higher end ships that seem to be most common is the missile spam prevalent in the Gallente and Amarr missions. I've got a few other things on my list that were mentioned, but I'd rather hear directly from you guys as to what you think the issues are.
My questions for you in this regard are 3:
1: Do you feel this issue is important to you or people you fly with in FW?
2: What do you think is causing the imbalance between the faction missions where some factions can run their missions with SB while others need to bring a "bigger boat."
3: If some balance were to be brought across lvl4 FW missions, should it be geared towards everyone needing a "bigger boat," or everyone being able to run in stealth bombers?
This issue is one of a few on my plate at the moment. If there is a strong desire for change here it's something I plan to pass on and attempt to press the need to the dev team that handles PVE content. If the desire is not strong, and it appears the people who have brought this to me are a small minority, I plan to move on to other issues.
/discuss
1) Its varies. For newer players who need isk it is pretty important but could be more important if plexing gets to be more pvp focuses. It is something that should be addressed.
2) I think the missiles and the ewar causes the imbalance. But it might be that certain factions have faster or better tracking guns. Stop the ewar and the missiles and it will probably be fixed. If its still a problem look at tracking.
3) Leave it stealth bomber friendly. The missions for the minmatar are great. I love stealth bombers and this pve is a good way to get people into low sec. Its really a good niche for this covert ops ship. Requiring bigger ships is just a bigger barrier of entry. Bigger ships also means people will just be more prone to gate camps or need to fit a cloak mwd (or stabs with a mobile depot).
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate
386
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 17:11:00 -
[17] - Quote
How many FW players actually farm the tags in these missions? I know I usually go in, kill the target, warp out.
On another note: I believe FW missions need to be totally rethought. Currently they are abused for easy isk/LP. FW missions should contribute to the cause, should not be easy, and should encourage PvP.
My suggestion is thus:
1. FW missions count toward system capture status.
- If the mission spawns in a system held by your militia, completing said mission reduces the capture status.
- If mission spawns in a system held by enemy militia, completing said mission increases the capture status.
- There will be friendly and enemy rats in the sites. This ensures there will be no huge advantage if someone wants to warp in and engage you. Only advantage will be if the mission owner can get in first and kill off the enemy rats. The enemy and friendly rats will not kill each other, both are there to provide a semblance of balance for pvp.
2. You have to kill all enemy rats. No easy assasination mission.
3. The mission site will still show in space.
4. No EWAR. At all. Ensures balance across the board and encourages pvp.
5. Mission difficulty would be the same as for regular missions.
- L1s can be done in T1 frigs, L2s in destroyers, L3s in cruisers, etc.
6. Sites would be gated and ship size restrictions would apply.
7. Capture percentage would be based on the mission level.
- L1s would give .7%, L2s 1.4%, L3s 2.1%, and L4s 2.8%
- Why you ask? Because it would give people a reason to kill/help the mission runner.
8. LP Payouts would be thus:
- L1 = double LP payout of a novice plex.
- L2 = double LP payout of a small plex
- L3 = double LP payout of a medium plex
- L4 = double LP payout of a large plex
- All affected by tier level. What would the missions entail?
Going in and killing 10-15 rats, maybe more. Types of rats would be based on the missions equivalent plex size. So a L1 would have the frig rat npcs, L2 would have destroyer rats, and so on. That would be my suggestion on FW missions. If anyone else has any other insight on something I missed, or something better, or an addition to the above; please chime in. |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1290
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 17:24:00 -
[18] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:
On another note: I believe FW missions need to be totally rethought. Currently they are abused for easy isk/LP. FW missions should contribute to the cause, should not be easy, and should encourage PvP.
...
I disagree. Leave fw missions a form of pve but don't let it mess with occupancy. We don't need occupancy to straight up be a race to see who can run more missions. FW occupancy is embarrassing enough.
Adjust the lp payout for missions as needed. When they make plexing more pvp (through rollbacks or whatever) the mission lp payout will likely need a reduction, it may need one now.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Repeat 0ffenders
284
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 17:34:00 -
[19] - Quote
1: Do you feel this issue is important to you or people you fly with in FW?
Yes. I think easy to farm missions creates a bad culture in a militia (see Caldari).
2: What do you think is causing the imbalance between the faction missions where some factions can run their missions with SB while others need to bring a "bigger boat."
For Gallente, the imbalance is caused by being jammed 90% of the time and hit with infinite range missiles that never miss. This requires you to fly a ship that can project damage while jammed (ie drones) and tank like a boss (ie Ishtar at the minimum).
3: If some balance were to be brought across lvl4 FW missions, should it be geared towards everyone needing a "bigger boat," or everyone being able to run in stealth bombers?
I think the missions should be made more difficult (ie no stealth bombers), but at the same time I think there would be massive revolts and damage to the FW ecosystem if everything was made as difficult as Gallente missions. I think the missions should still be possible to solo in a ship with more tank than a SB can offer, but not require HACS or T3's. As a result of the easier missions, the rewards should be nerfed (ie lower base LP, keep LP rewards on T1/T2 scale, whatever CCP decides is the best way to reduce the LP).
I think the system risk/reward system should push people to plexing over missions. Missions should really only be viable/desirable from a risk/reward standpoint when a faction is "winning" and doesn't have enough systems to support plexing in.
QCATS is recruiting:-á
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3896299 |
DJ FunkyBacon
Eve Radio Corporation
280
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 17:40:00 -
[20] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:How many FW players actually farm the tags in these missions? I know I usually go in, kill the target, warp out.
On another note: I believe FW missions need to be totally rethought. Currently they are abused for easy isk/LP. FW missions should contribute to the cause, should not be easy, and should encourage PvP.
STUFF
Absolutely 0 chance of this happening. I'd consider us lucky if I can drum up enough noise to press a balance pass, nevermind a complete rework. Some aspects of FW missions also need to stay the same and hold purpose. The long travel times make it hard for someone to "camp" an agent system or run locator agents on people running the missions. The short mission duration limits exposure. PVE mission ships =/= optimal PVP fits. If you want to catch these guys, you shouldn't have 20 minutes to go grab the most optimal ship in your hangar along with 6 of your closest friends and come back with them, you should be ready to dive in after them to kill that PVE ship in your PVP fit.
CSM9 Factional Warfare/Lowsec Representative
Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.
http://funkybacon.blogspot.com
http://twitter.com/FunkyBacon |
|
|
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance
Team Amarrica
400
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 18:15:00 -
[21] - Quote
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:Hey guys,
One of the things on the PVE side of FW that keeps getting brought to my attention is LVL 4 FW missions, and an imbalance between the ones that are run by the Gallente and Amarr vs the Minmatar and Caldari missions. The specific issue that I keep hearing is that Cal and Min missions can be run in Stealth bombers while Gal and Amarr missions need to be run in considerably better ships, often tech 3.
The reasons for the higher end ships that seem to be most common is the missile spam prevalent in the Gallente and Amarr missions. I've got a few other things on my list that were mentioned, but I'd rather hear directly from you guys as to what you think the issues are.
My questions for you in this regard are 3:
1: Do you feel this issue is important to you or people you fly with in FW?
2: What do you think is causing the imbalance between the faction missions where some factions can run their missions with SB while others need to bring a "bigger boat."
3: If some balance were to be brought across lvl4 FW missions, should it be geared towards everyone needing a "bigger boat," or everyone being able to run in stealth bombers?
This issue is one of a few on my plate at the moment. If there is a strong desire for change here it's something I plan to pass on and attempt to press the need to the dev team that handles PVE content. If the desire is not strong, and it appears the people who have brought this to me are a small minority, I plan to move on to other issues.
/discuss
1 this has been important since 2008
2 as many years of threads have been suggested the main imbalance is the ewar. balance the ewar so that either all races have heavy ewar and GOOD ewar. or no ewar at all
3 fw missions should be geared toward groupwork. heavy payout heavy risks.
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
255
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 18:16:00 -
[22] - Quote
Keep in mind that you *can* run at least 4-5 of the L4 FW missions in an Assault Frigate, even as Gallente... though it's far from optimal unless you're in a group of 3+. I'm ok with the idea of missions being accessible to newbros - I'm not ok with the idea that the highest end PvE content in FW should be equally available to low skill characters in shitfit bombers. Every other area of the game requires a significant investment to run L4s, and I feel that FW missions should as well.
For most areas of EVE that means battleships or marauders or HACs. That's not viable in FW with the way missions are currently distributed, so I'd prefer that the bar be set to roughly faction cruiser / HAC / T3 level. That's something achieveable in your first six months in the game, and I don't feel that making the massive income available via L4s at high tier available to newbros is really the best thing for the game.
ESPECIALLY given Malcanis' Law and Mynna's comments during the roundtable. |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1290
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 18:29:00 -
[23] - Quote
Andre Vauban wrote:1: Do you feel this issue is important to you or people you fly with in FW?
Yes. I think easy to farm missions creates a bad culture in a militia (see Caldari).
Minmatar likely have the easiest missions. They also have dominated fw occupancy more than any other faction since inferno. Before inferno it was pretty much all Caldari.
Just saying.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate
388
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 18:31:00 -
[24] - Quote
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:Estella Osoka wrote:How many FW players actually farm the tags in these missions? I know I usually go in, kill the target, warp out.
On another note: I believe FW missions need to be totally rethought. Currently they are abused for easy isk/LP. FW missions should contribute to the cause, should not be easy, and should encourage PvP.
STUFF
Absolutely 0 chance of this happening. I'd consider us lucky if I can drum up enough noise to press a balance pass, nevermind a complete rework. Some aspects of FW missions also need to stay the same and hold purpose. The long travel times make it hard for someone to "camp" an agent system or run locator agents on people running the missions. The short mission duration limits exposure. PVE mission ships =/= optimal PVP fits. If you want to catch these guys, you shouldn't have 20 minutes to go grab the most optimal ship in your hangar along with 6 of your closest friends and come back with them, you should be ready to dive in after them to kill that PVE ship in your PVP fit.
And you would be entirely correct, but we all know missions need to be changed. FW missions in particular should contribute to the war effort, encourage pvp, and encourage teamwork. Solo SBs doing L4 missions needs to die, and someone has already given the fix. Put webbing frigates in the missions. |
Kale Freeman
Dirt 'n' Glitter
I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
26
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 20:27:00 -
[25] - Quote
Remove the ewar inequalities with regards to bombers
Reduce the LP payout especially at high WZ tier. Possibly detach LP payout from WZ tier.
Anything more than that is probably too ambitious |
Cromwell Savage
Quantum Cats Syndicate
Repeat 0ffenders
179
|
Posted - 2014.06.04 20:59:00 -
[26] - Quote
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
My questions for you in this regard are 3:
1: Do you feel this issue is important to you or people you fly with in FW?
2: What do you think is causing the imbalance between the faction missions where some factions can run their missions with SB while others need to bring a "bigger boat."
3: If some balance were to be brought across lvl4 FW missions, should it be geared towards everyone needing a "bigger boat," or everyone being able to run in stealth bombers?
1 - Yes. Missions should be the bread-n-butter for earning LP.....not plexing.
2 - DPS application and ECM. I have personally run level 4 missions for Caldari, Gallente and Minmatar (no experience with Amarr). Cal and Min are stupid easy to solo in a stealth bomber. Gallente...not only do you have to tank the crap out of your ship to deal with the 'missile spam', but even having a sensor strength of well over 100 (113 on my fit) does not protect you from constant jams.
3 - Personally don't care in what direction it goes, as long as all are relatively balanced.
|
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate
99
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 01:41:00 -
[27] - Quote
What I find is that even with a T3 max ECCM skils and two ECCM I'm still getting jammed and this a annoying for me. I think that either all races should be able to run them with SB or none should. While some people have stated it does tend to make the LP higher on one side, the fact that one group and make it hand over fist cancles that out.
I also agree that they still need to be at a lower bar for newbros, but be fair to all the newbros not just one group.
Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
exiik Shardani
Terpene Conglomerate
5
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 02:17:00 -
[28] - Quote
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:Hey guys,
One of the things on the PVE side of FW that keeps getting brought to my attention is LVL 4 FW missions, and an imbalance between the ones that are run by the Gallente and Amarr vs the Minmatar and Caldari missions. The specific issue that I keep hearing is that Cal and Min missions can be run in Stealth bombers while Gal and Amarr missions need to be run in considerably better ships, often tech 3.
The reasons for the higher end ships that seem to be most common is the missile spam prevalent in the Gallente and Amarr missions. I've got a few other things on my list that were mentioned, but I'd rather hear directly from you guys as to what you think the issues are.
My questions for you in this regard are 3:
1: Do you feel this issue is important to you or people you fly with in FW?
2: What do you think is causing the imbalance between the faction missions where some factions can run their missions with SB while others need to bring a "bigger boat."
3: If some balance were to be brought across lvl4 FW missions, should it be geared towards everyone needing a "bigger boat," or everyone being able to run in stealth bombers?
This issue is one of a few on my plate at the moment. If there is a strong desire for change here it's something I plan to pass on and attempt to press the need to the dev team that handles PVE content. If the desire is not strong, and it appears the people who have brought this to me are a small minority, I plan to move on to other issues.
/discuss
1) yeah
2) balance, but if you want make it "more hard" , get there faction spawn chance... Is too much risky jump over 10 jumps from agent to mission. Much more than "null ratting with blues in local".
3) you can try create lvl5 FW mission for "bigger boat's" ;-)
What FW really need
1) rewards for ppl who actively fights, defend/attacks iHub's/systems, live at stations in FW area and donate LP's to iHubs -> maybe any kind of discount in LP shop? limit for FW missions per day? bonus for ppl who long time fight for militia?
2) make upgrading systems more useful -> like discount in LP store, FW system V upgrade make wide cyno jammer ....
3) rework items and prices in LP shops (there are many expensive things but nobody use/buy/sell it)
4) solve "Allies problem" -> one side change wz to allies wz due to easy farming there.
but donot forget many players are in FW because PvP with "LP earn bonus" (like waiting for fight inside plex etc...) When you remove rewards, many players will not have enough ISK's for PvP ships.... |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile.
Imperial Outlaws.
1731
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 02:54:00 -
[29] - Quote
I would much rather channel farmers into mssions that don't affect WZ control then make them super difficult. Balance them to the same difficulty. Make it so that the rats don't shoot friendly militia. Add a kill switch for the opposing militia to hit.
On a different note non FW missions in low sec are as hard as they are in high. High vs low should be different. NPC Corporations shouldn't straddle security zones as they do. You could have more fun with LP store diversity if they didn't. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2258
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 03:01:00 -
[30] - Quote
1. I'm in the minority. I like the current system just the way it is. Having hard missions makes my militia stronger and having easy missions makes the other factions weaker. Plus, ship quality can go down by quite a bit if missions are done in groups of 2 or more (MMO anybody?).
2. Required ship size to complete a mission solo. Infinite missile range, constant dps, ewar in particular.
3. Harder is better. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |