Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Douglas Nolm
Minmatar Secret Service Ushra'Khan
78
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 10:27:00 -
[121] - Quote
Simyaldee, check my character age, I joined FW at a few weeks old, I'm still relatively low skilled, especially for the kind of ships to do missions with (I only just trained SB and can't use the covert ops cloak yet). I haven't built up standings for L4 missions yet either, and I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything. Even in themepark MMO's you don't expect to be doing the highest level content right away, so why do you expect it to be possible in EvE?
But keep posting, your tears are going really nicely with the plex farmer tears that have been so abundant since Kronos went live. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
156
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 10:37:00 -
[122] - Quote
L4 FW missions are not high level content by any stretch of the imagination, and never were. |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
272
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 11:18:00 -
[123] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Well, that depends entirely on what the gameplay reasons for the missions actually are.
If the intention of the missions is to draw players in small soloish ships all over the warzone, which is as mentioned all that is important to me and is I believe the intent, then you're clearly wrong.
If the intent of FW missions is MOAR MISSIONER PVE, then you're right. But I doubt that is the case. This is kind of the crux of it IMO.
You claim the first is the purpose of the missions, some of us claim the second. I haven't seen anything one way or the other that would definitively push things one way or the other.
I feel that L4 missions are intended as PvE for FW players. Thus I feel the ship and SP investment should be roughly comparable to regular L4 kill missions, taking into account the increased risk for operating in the warzone. I therefore want L4 mission difficulty increased to somewhere between Amarr and Gallente level currently.
Your position for everyone in bombers is reasonable given your take that FW missions = bring solo to the warzone. We just don't agree that you're right about the purpose of L4 missions.
And yes, L4 missions are relatively high end content. Just not to bittervets like us. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
156
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 11:53:00 -
[124] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Well, that depends entirely on what the gameplay reasons for the missions actually are.
If the intention of the missions is to draw players in small soloish ships all over the warzone, which is as mentioned all that is important to me and is I believe the intent, then you're clearly wrong.
If the intent of FW missions is MOAR MISSIONER PVE, then you're right. But I doubt that is the case. This is kind of the crux of it IMO. You claim the first is the purpose of the missions, some of us claim the second. I haven't seen anything one way or the other that would definitively push things one way or the other. I feel that L4 missions are intended as PvE for FW players. Thus I feel the ship and SP investment should be roughly comparable to regular L4 kill missions, taking into account the increased risk for operating in the warzone. I therefore want L4 mission difficulty increased to somewhere between Amarr and Gallente level currently. Your position for everyone in bombers is reasonable given your take that FW missions = bring solo to the warzone. We just don't agree that you're right about the purpose of L4 missions. And yes, L4 missions are relatively high end content. Just not to bittervets like us.
You are right in that the only thing I am looking at here is the effects on the lowsec ecosystem. From my standpoint, anything that encourages or incentivizes large numbers of small craft flying around the warzone is a good thing.
I think questioning whether bombers are appropriate or not is totally valid.
The problem I have with the "but there is still L1-L3" argument is I don't think they provide enough incentive. L4 provides clearly too much though now, no question.
So I see this as a fairly simply problem of reducing current reward for L4 (and balancing Gallente, though as stated I know nothing about the Cal/Gal zone personally. I defer to you guys on suggestions for up there.)
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
273
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 13:24:00 -
[125] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:You are right in that the only thing I am looking at here is the effects on the lowsec ecosystem. From my standpoint, anything that encourages or incentivizes large numbers of small craft flying around the warzone is a good thing.
I think questioning whether bombers are appropriate or not is totally valid. I'm all for discussing the lowsec ecosystem. Just better to bring our assumptions / goals out into the light instead of saying "nuh uh!" back and forth - so props to you.
First, I feel there's already plenty to incentivize lots of small soloable ships in low sec. FW plexes are still primarily run in frigates / AFs / destroyers solo, and the new Mordus rats has teams of guys in small fast ships out roaming around looking for them. The rebalance of the pirate faction ships - frigates and cruisers especially - has also led to a resurgence in solo / small gang use in lowsec.
At least, those are my anecdotal experiences.
To me, FW missions are designed to provide a purer PvE experience for FW pilots, in contrast to FW plexes - which IMO are designed more to incentivize PvP. If FW missions are designed to be FW PvE content to supplement the LP income from plexing, especially when at higher tiers where fewer systems are available to plex in, then IMNSHO they should be designed to follow the same progression (roughly) as regular L4 combat missions. That would mean requiring significant tank / DPS to complete - though given the higher exposure to PvP in lowsec, I fully agree that they should remain more assassination style. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
156
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 14:44:00 -
[126] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:You are right in that the only thing I am looking at here is the effects on the lowsec ecosystem. From my standpoint, anything that encourages or incentivizes large numbers of small craft flying around the warzone is a good thing.
I think questioning whether bombers are appropriate or not is totally valid. I'm all for discussing the lowsec ecosystem. Just better to bring our assumptions / goals out into the light instead of saying "nuh uh!" back and forth - so props to you. First, I feel there's already plenty to incentivize lots of small soloable ships in low sec. FW plexes are still primarily run in frigates / AFs / destroyers solo, and the new Mordus rats has teams of guys in small fast ships out roaming around looking for them. The rebalance of the pirate faction ships - frigates and cruisers especially - has also led to a resurgence in solo / small gang use in lowsec. At least, those are my anecdotal experiences. To me, FW missions are designed to provide a purer PvE experience for FW pilots, in contrast to FW plexes - which IMO are designed more to incentivize PvP. If FW missions are designed to be FW PvE content to supplement the LP income from plexing, especially when at higher tiers where fewer systems are available to plex in, then IMNSHO they should be designed to follow the same progression (roughly) as regular L4 combat missions. That would mean requiring significant tank / DPS to complete - though given the higher exposure to PvP in lowsec, I fully agree that they should remain more assassination style.
I just keep coming back to thinking that AssFrigs are perfect for this. Look at it this way - the training time is similar to highsec mission runners getting in to (badly fit) BCs or BSs, the ships themselves are designed to fight the racial enemies (T2 shield/armor resists, etc), and having significantly more of them soloing around lowsec would be very good for everyone. It would maintain the current accessibility of FW to lower SP pilots even up through the L4 missions, and if balanced correctly would also be extremely fun to run in that ship (as they are now for Minnie and apparently Caldari). It fits the assassination theme well, too.
I agree that the relative impunity bombers have is potentially a problem. I have fun hunting them, but they are in general pretty safe. So that can be fixed by a game mechanic (anti-cloak in missions) or by simply excluding them from the allowed ships list on the missions.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2272
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 15:17:00 -
[127] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Nah, that just means the Gallente mission balance is broken, which we all agree on. All three others can solo them in small ships. Nice try though. Wouldn't they have fixed that in the 6+ years FW has been in existence then? I think you are reading too much into the game designers' intentions.
They just made the same missions for every race, counted up the dps of the rats to make it hard for a small ship to tank all that dps directly, and then filled the missions with race specific rats. The unintended consequence of their implementation is that ships can hit at range and can therefore easily tank the short range dps of the Amarr/Gallente rats, and td's (Amarr Rats) don't affect missile boats whereas ecm affects everybody.
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
273
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 15:21:00 -
[128] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:I just keep coming back to thinking that AssFrigs are perfect for this. Look at it this way - the training time is similar to highsec mission runners getting in to (badly fit) BCs or BSs, the ships themselves are designed to fight the racial enemies (T2 shield/armor resists, etc), and having significantly more of them soloing around lowsec would be very good for everyone. It would maintain the current accessibility of FW to lower SP pilots even up through the L4 missions, and if balanced correctly would also be extremely fun to run in that ship (as they are now for Minnie and apparently Caldari). It fits the assassination theme well, too.
I agree that the relative impunity bombers have is potentially a problem. I have fun hunting them, but they are in general pretty safe. So that can be fixed by a game mechanic (anti-cloak in missions) or by simply excluding them from the allowed ships list on the missions. I think that pretty much anyone who doesn't rely on / exploit the hell out of L4 missions at high tier in SBs would be willing to see SBs unusable for L4s. I think that banning cloaks / SBs outright is a bit heavy-handed, and removes some interesting gameplay when it comes to being the hunter rather than the hunted. We've already seen that kind of impact in plexes - don't want it to extend too far into the rest of the ecosystem.
Balancing towards AFs is an intriguing idea. Designing missions that can be accomplished in well-piloted AFs while not being trivially easy to complete in larger / higher SP ships might be a challenge. At the moment, the BS rats in some missions almost require a shield gank fit AF to break, which leaves the armor tanked AFs out in the cold. Moreover, I feel that trying to balance the missions towards accessibility via small, relatively cheap ships still breaks my desire for mission progression / investment to mirror that of other L4s. Putting easily replaced 40m ships at risk isn't the balance point I'd be looking for. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2272
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 16:00:00 -
[129] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:To me, FW missions are designed to provide a purer PvE experience for FW pilots, in contrast to FW plexes - which IMO are designed more to incentivize PvP. This is incorrect as well. Missions were supposed to be another potential pvp type of experience where the player had to make multiple (at risk) jumps through low sec, warp to a beacon that is there for all to see, and then complete the objective.
The initial issue with missions was that if you failed one your standings would go all to heck - so nobody did them. Then they over buffed missions with the "pick your mission system" update where you could turn down as many missions as possible. Guys would ask for missions until they all ended up in Nennamaila (for example) where the Gallente Militia lived.
Then they nerfed that feature a bit to where we are today.
Unintended Consequences: Cloaky ships: "afk cloak" makes it really easy for the mission runner to complete missions against all but the most determined opponent.
Picking up Several Missions at One Time: The original intent was that the player would pick up a mission, go run it, and then return to mission base to turn the mission in. By picking up several missions at once, it makes it really easy for the mission runner to simply move on to the next one if the current mission is camped.
Because of those two unintended consequences, Missions feel like "pure PvE" instead of the PvP/PvE mix they we |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1292
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 16:31:00 -
[130] - Quote
XG
I don't recall anything where a dev specifially said missions were supposed to be more pvp than they are now.
I don't recall a dev saying you should, or should not, be able to do them in a stealth bomber.
Making missions "pvp" where you have to tank lots of rats just means the only side that can run them is the side that can blob off a system. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2273
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 16:49:00 -
[131] - Quote
Cearain wrote:XG I don't recall anything where a dev specifially said missions were supposed to be more pvp than they are now.
I don't recall a dev saying you should, or should not, be able to do them in a stealth bomber.
Making missions "pvp" where you have to tank lots of rats just means the only side that can run them is the side that can blob off a system. This is all my guess at what their intentions were - which is a much more informed guess than others in this thread. So take it for what it's worth.
The assumptions are that if they didn't want to make missions PvPish, 1) they wouldn't force the player to make 10+ (on average) jumps to get to the missions and 2) they wouldn't show the mission on a beacon in local for all to see.
wrt Stealth Bombers - Read into it what you want. I just told you how (I think) they designed the missions. The L4 missions were NOT designed with stealth bombers or other frigs in mind. They also designed the missions as "head shots" compared to regular L4 missions. More time travelling, less time in mission. |
Baron' Soontir Fel
Justified Chaos
165
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 16:50:00 -
[132] - Quote
Cearain wrote:XG
I don't recall anything where a dev specifially said missions were supposed to be more pvp than they are now.
I don't recall a dev saying you should, or should not, be able to do them in a stealth bomber.
Making missions "pvp" where you have to tank lots of rats just means the only side that can run them is the side that can blob off a system.
That's like saying CCP never said cloaks and stabs were detrimental to FW for the past couple years so they shouldn't be a problem.
One major thing stands out for these PvP intended missions, and that's the fact that missions are open for anyone and are visible to anyone in the overview. Even DED sites don't pop up on the overview. |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1292
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 22:51:00 -
[133] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Cearain wrote:XG I don't recall anything where a dev specifially said missions were supposed to be more pvp than they are now.
I don't recall a dev saying you should, or should not, be able to do them in a stealth bomber.
Making missions "pvp" where you have to tank lots of rats just means the only side that can run them is the side that can blob off a system. This is all my guess at what their intentions were - which is a much more informed guess than others in this thread. So take it for what it's worth. The assumptions are that if they didn't want to make missions PvPish, 1) they wouldn't force the player to make 10+ (on average) jumps to get to the missions and 2) they wouldn't show the mission on a beacon in local for all to see. wrt Stealth Bombers - Read into it what you want. I just told you how (I think) they designed the missions. The L4 missions were NOT designed with stealth bombers or other frigs in mind. They also designed the missions as "head shots" compared to regular L4 missions. More time travelling, less time in mission.
Yes the missions pop up on the overview and that does indeed indicate they want some pvp element. But that is not the question. I don't think they ever indicated they want them to be *more* pvp than they currently are. I think DJ FunkyBacon is right to call this pve and to ask the pve design team for some changes.
Like you said they are designed to be head shot quick missions so you can get in and out and avoid getting caught by other players. You don't sit there all day farming rats and therefore need to have a blob to seal off the system.
I have no reason to think missions are not currently working as intended. The fact that they have changed them several times and had a major revamp of faction war yet did not make them more difficult to do in stealth bombers strongly suggests I am right. If I recall, Hans didn't like that you could do them in stealth bombers so I assume he brought it up.
Anyway I happen to think the missions for the minmatar faction are fairly well designed, except the ones where you need to return with something. Those missiosn are just a waste. Like all pve in eve if i do too much of it I will eventually want to claw my eyes out, but they were fun for a bit.
And I although I haven't done missions for amarr in a very long time you could not do them solo in a stealthbomber. The target painters and missiles were too much. I did them in a drake. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
159
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 23:11:00 -
[134] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote: Picking up Several Missions at One Time: The original intent was that the player would pick up a mission, go run it, and then return to mission base to turn the mission in. By picking up several missions at once, it makes it really easy for the mission runner to simply move on to the next one if the current mission is camped.
Yeah totally. I don't mind the ability to pick up more than one at a time, but things would be much better if they despawned when you left the system. Knowing (as a hunter) that the player was in-system if a beacon was up would make it much more dangerous for the mission runner. That would be great. The current tactic of popping them all then doing safe ones (which is obvious to everyone maybe the third time they do missions) is a significant factor that would be good to axe. |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1292
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 23:14:00 -
[135] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Well, that depends entirely on what the gameplay reasons for the missions actually are.
If the intention of the missions is to draw players in small soloish ships all over the warzone, which is as mentioned all that is important to me and is I believe the intent, then you're clearly wrong.
If the intent of FW missions is MOAR MISSIONER PVE, then you're right. But I doubt that is the case. This is kind of the crux of it IMO. You claim the first is the purpose of the missions, some of us claim the second. I haven't seen anything one way or the other that would definitively push things one way or the other. I feel that L4 missions are intended as PvE for FW players. Thus I feel the ship and SP investment should be roughly comparable to regular L4 kill missions, taking into account the increased risk for operating in the warzone. I therefore want L4 mission difficulty increased to somewhere between Amarr and Gallente level currently. Your position for everyone in bombers is reasonable given your take that FW missions = bring solo to the warzone. We just don't agree that you're right about the purpose of L4 missions. And yes, L4 missions are relatively high end content. Just not to bittervets like us.
I think getting decent skills to fly a stealth bomber to run fw missions is not really easier than the skills to run level 4s in high sec. You had to train the fairly useless electronic upgrades skill to levle 5, as well as the frigate skill to level five. Torpedoes are a large weapon. And SBs aren't exactly easy to fit either.
I don't think getting into a navy raven to run level 4s in high sec takes much longer. I think I was running level 4 missions in about a month after I started eve. Back then I did the whole "learning skills" bit too.
It seems to me that to run faction war missions in a stealth bomber you have to train longer than you do to start running level 4 missions in high sec. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
159
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 23:37:00 -
[136] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Veskrashen wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Well, that depends entirely on what the gameplay reasons for the missions actually are.
If the intention of the missions is to draw players in small soloish ships all over the warzone, which is as mentioned all that is important to me and is I believe the intent, then you're clearly wrong.
If the intent of FW missions is MOAR MISSIONER PVE, then you're right. But I doubt that is the case. This is kind of the crux of it IMO. You claim the first is the purpose of the missions, some of us claim the second. I haven't seen anything one way or the other that would definitively push things one way or the other. I feel that L4 missions are intended as PvE for FW players. Thus I feel the ship and SP investment should be roughly comparable to regular L4 kill missions, taking into account the increased risk for operating in the warzone. I therefore want L4 mission difficulty increased to somewhere between Amarr and Gallente level currently. Your position for everyone in bombers is reasonable given your take that FW missions = bring solo to the warzone. We just don't agree that you're right about the purpose of L4 missions. And yes, L4 missions are relatively high end content. Just not to bittervets like us. I think getting decent skills to fly a stealth bomber to run fw missions is not really easier than the skills to run level 4s in high sec. You had to train the fairly useless electronic upgrades skill to levle 5, as well as the frigate skill to level five. Torpedoes are a large weapon. And SBs aren't exactly easy to fit either. I don't think getting into a navy raven to run level 4s in high sec takes much longer. I think I was running level 4 missions in about a month after I started eve. Back then I did the whole "learning skills" bit too. It seems to me that to run faction war missions in a stealth bomber you have to train longer than you do to start running level 4 missions in high sec.
Agree, I made that point up above too, wrt Assault Frigates.
Another thing to keep in mind is that if you want to keep the assassination flavor of the missions, realize that if you beef them up you are probably just going to be replacing SBs with disposable sh!tfit T1-fit ganknados, which are even easier and faster to train in to and fit.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2274
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 00:32:00 -
[137] - Quote
Cearain wrote:I have no reason to think missions are not currently working as intended. . It's true then. CCP hates Gallente! Thanks for the verification. |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
273
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 03:25:00 -
[138] - Quote
Cearain wrote:I have no reason to think missions are not currently working as intended. The fact that they have changed them several times and had a major revamp of faction war yet did not make them more difficult to do in stealth bombers strongly suggests I am right. If I recall, Hans didn't like that you could do them in stealth bombers so I assume he brought it up. Per CCP Fozzie during the FW Roundtable at FanFest, they don't like people running them in Stealth Bombers, and he would like to add things such as webbing towers to the missions to prevent it. Doing so is infeasible at the moment due to their content tools.
In short: your assumptions are completely wrong, and you should feel bad.
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
273
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 03:28:00 -
[139] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Cearain wrote:I think getting decent skills to fly a stealth bomber to run fw missions is not really easier than the skills to run level 4s in high sec. You had to train the fairly useless electronic upgrades skill to levle 5, as well as the frigate skill to level five. Torpedoes are a large weapon. And SBs aren't exactly easy to fit either.
I don't think getting into a navy raven to run level 4s in high sec takes much longer. I think I was running level 4 missions in about a month after I started eve. Back then I did the whole "learning skills" bit too.
It seems to me that to run faction war missions in a stealth bomber you have to train longer than you do to start running level 4 missions in high sec. Agree, I made that point up above too, wrt Assault Frigates. Another thing to keep in mind is that if you want to keep the assassination flavor of the missions, realize that if you beef them up you are probably just going to be replacing SBs with disposable sh!tfit T1-fit ganknados, which are even easier and faster to train in to and fit. And, as I pointed out earlier, it's not just training time - it's ship investment as well. Using 90-100m ganknados is more of an investment, and you're at a higher risk of loss, than bombers or AFs.
Using 250m Ravens to run L4s in Empire space for 50m/hour is a whole different prospect than using 40m SBs to make 600m/hour with similar risk of loss.
|
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
2667
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 03:40:00 -
[140] - Quote
i don't know much about pve but i noticed several times that you can apparently finish FW lv4 missions without npc agro. For example the mission with the force field in the middle seems to be very popular under my wartargets since you can just park your SB below it and hit the primary objective. If a player enters you cloak (no npc agro.. no lock so you can cloak) in safety 100+km away from the warpin.
I only saw (and even recorded it) in FW missions against amarr NPCs - i don't know if there is a difference in npc agression between factions... but i believe amar rats not agressing at all could be considered a balancing issue. But i bet farmers love it (and since it doesn't influence sov i don't really care tbh). eve style bounties (done) dust boarding parties imagine there is war and everybody cloaks - join FW |
|
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1293
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 03:41:00 -
[141] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Cearain wrote:I have no reason to think missions are not currently working as intended. The fact that they have changed them several times and had a major revamp of faction war yet did not make them more difficult to do in stealth bombers strongly suggests I am right. If I recall, Hans didn't like that you could do them in stealth bombers so I assume he brought it up. Per CCP Fozzie during the FW Roundtable at FanFest, they don't like people running them in Stealth Bombers, and he would like to add things such as webbing towers to the missions to prevent it. Doing so is infeasible at the moment due to their content tools. In short: your assumptions are completely wrong, and you should feel bad.
Thanks for the post at least you heard it from a dev.
Webbing towers huh? That should really make people want to pvp. After all who doesn't want to pvp when you are webbed by 4 or 5 webbing towers.
Did he say what people should be doing missions in if not stealth bombers? Will he be happy if players are using navy ravens?
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
273
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 04:17:00 -
[142] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Thanks for the post at least you heard it from a dev. Webbing towers huh? That should really make people want to pvp. After all who doesn't want to pvp when you are webbed by 4 or 5 webbing towers. Did he say what people should be doing missions in if not stealth bombers? Will he be happy if players are using navy ravens? It didn't get that specific. Just that they were aware of the balance issues across the factions, and weren't happy with the prevalence of things like bombers being used to make fuckloads of isk essentially risk free. The idea of webbing towers was one he brought up, audience members offered up fast webbing frigs as well. The idea of splitting the factions to prevent cross-plexing and awoxing was also mentioned to widespread approval. Pretty much everyone was in agreement that the missions were too easy and risk/reward was out of whack; consensus was for harder missions like Gallente have rather than making them all easier.
The long pole in the tent at the moment is content tools. Without those, existing missions aren't really going to be rebalanced. The plex fixes really only modify a few database entries - NPC rep amount and rep speed, beacon location and radius. Those are relatively easy to pull off and (as we've seen) have had a pretty major impact. CCP will be doing another balance pass for FW, but given that FW was the focus of so much dev time in 2012 we're not getting special priority until it's less of a heavy lift devtime wise. |
Veikitamo Gesakaarin
Pyre Falcon Defence and Security Imperial Outlaws.
1601
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 10:02:00 -
[143] - Quote
The real issue I have with easy to run in stealth bomber lvl4 FW missions is that the LP gained from them by mission running farmers massively devalues the LP gained from plexing. I can look at Jita prices for a lot of faction ships and see that FDU LP ships such as Comet, VNI, Navy Domi etc. tend to maintain consistent prices. Whereas everytime STPRO/TLF/24IC hit tier 3 or 4 and higher their LP store item prices drop rapidly due to all the mission farmers crashing their prices due to an oversupply with all the LP they can accumulate doing easy to run lvl4 FW missions.
Plex farmers with wcs/cloak frigs are annoying but at least you can force them out of a plex and deny them that LP from it, if not destroy them if you run mwd/dual scram fits especially now with the 30km cloak changes in plexes. You can't force a bomber out of a lvl4 mission and take that LP for yourself, which I suppose would be an interesting concept: Having a way for the opposing side to cause a mission failure for the farmer. I certainly wouldn't mind it if in FW missions where you have to kill the Commander or whatever, if opposing militia enters the site then you have a limited amount of time to force them out otherwise the Commander warps off, says thanks for saving him to the guy, and the mission is failed. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
914
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 10:57:00 -
[144] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Per CCP Fozzie during the FW Roundtable at FanFest, they don't like people running them in Stealth Bombers, and he would like to add things such as webbing towers to the missions to prevent it. Doing so is infeasible at the moment due to their content tools.
In short: your assumptions are completely wrong, and you should feel bad. Sounds like a classic case of wanting to hammer a nail using a screw driver.
Q: What is the one thing bombers has problems doing? A: Killing things smaller than a moon.
Include the escort cruisers/frigs in the "must kill to complete" list and bombers instantly become non-viable for most missions. No need to add silly webbing towers and what not. NB: Can probably still be done in a bomber if a person is married to his cloak but the time/ammo expenditure will make earnings lower than lvl1's in high sec
By the by, that extra time means beacons are up for longer than 45-60s which will inevitably lead to more pew .. doubly so if the much asked for poison pills are added on top thus making fighting for ones missions a near must rather than allowing people to just move and pop another elsewhere. Poison pill could be substituted by the automatic time-out that is already part of the mission system, just make it much shorter (as in 30 mins or so) counting from the time the missions is popped .. same effect as the pill, just using already existing mechanics so the we-lack-content-tools excuse should no longer be available |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1293
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 13:18:00 -
[145] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:Veskrashen wrote:Per CCP Fozzie during the FW Roundtable at FanFest, they don't like people running them in Stealth Bombers, and he would like to add things such as webbing towers to the missions to prevent it. Doing so is infeasible at the moment due to their content tools.
In short: your assumptions are completely wrong, and you should feel bad. Sounds like a classic case of wanting to hammer a nail using a screw driver. Q: What is the one thing bombers has problems doing? A: Killing things smaller than a moon. Include the escort cruisers/frigs in the "must kill to complete" list and bombers instantly become non-viable for most missions. No need to add silly webbing towers and what not. NB: Can probably still be done in a bomber if a person is married to his cloak but the time/ammo expenditure will make earnings lower than lvl1's in high sec By the by, that extra time means beacons are up for longer than 45-60s which will inevitably lead to more pew .. doubly so if the much asked for poison pills are added on top thus making fighting for ones missions a near must rather than allowing people to just move and pop another elsewhere. Poison pill could be substituted by the automatic time-out that is already part of the mission system, just make it much shorter (as in 30 mins or so) counting from the time the missions is popped .. same effect as the pill, just using already existing mechanics so the we-lack-content-tools excuse should no longer be available
It's just difficult to know what they are trying to accomplish.
Do they think if people are forced to bring battleships they will pvp more? Sort of like XGs idea that missions should be a pvp pve mix?
Are they upset that they can be run solo and think missions should only be run by a large group that can lock down a system - like I imagine low sec incursions work? I think goons used to run them. Do people still do low sec incursions? If so who? I really don't know.
Its just not clear what they want to accomplish so its hard to say what they should do to accomplish it.
If they think risk/reward is off kilter then reducing the reward seems the easiest fix.
Vesk
I don't agree with you that fw missioning has the same risk as high sec. There are allot of things players can do if they want to gank fw mission runners. And anyway you can't (or at least you couldn't) run amarr mission in a solo sb. I used a drake or a myrm. I think I lost many more sbs than mission drakes or myrms. Get in the mission hit the mwd to get away from the warp in and you are just as safe just stay aligned. But that was before the new warp changes. Does the mwd cloak trick still work? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
274
|
Posted - 2014.06.10 13:43:00 -
[146] - Quote
Re: forcing folks to kill more NPCs, especially smaller ones
It's not a bad idea, but you'd have to balance things out a good bit. Currently, there's literally dozens of NPCs in each mission. Forcing you to kill them all significantly increases your completion time, hence exposure in the mission itself, hence PvP risk. I feel the current times are about right (more or less) in terms of balancing exposure in the mission.
Re: Cerain:
My impression of what they're trying to accomplish seems to be removing the incentive / ability to use FW as a low risk, low investment LP machine. The plexing changes forced folks to use bigger boats and significantly impacted AFK plexing income. Forcing folks to fly bigger / more expensive / higher skill ships to complete missions would have a similar impact on the mission LP farmers - make it harder to multibox, increase risk of loss, increase required investment.
At least that's my take on it.
Personally, I feel you're wrong on mission risk Cerain - I feel you're at a lower risk of losing a mission bomber to NPCs than you are a low skill BS to an empire L4. Those at least have web/scram rats and the like, which all but one FW mission lack. |
Rinai Vero
Moira. Villore Accords
304
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 01:24:00 -
[147] - Quote
Lots of good discussion so far. +1 for balancing FW missions in the direction of being as difficult for all factions as Gallente missions currently are.
My main gripe about FW missions is that NPC aggro mechanics directly discourage players hunting each other. I'm aware of the "standings tank" issue, but the current fix for that is inelegant to say the least. It doesn't make any sense for the NPCs to defend hostile faction players who are killing them. I've had to bail repeatedly from targets I've had tackled and under my guns in missions. Nothing is more frustrating than having that player simply ignore me while the NPCs do their work for them, blithely continuing to launch torpedoes at the NPC Battleship. |
Zarnak Wulf
In Exile. Imperial Outlaws.
1745
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 02:10:00 -
[148] - Quote
Low sec PVE is very difficult to get right. If you make it too hard so that only a BS can do it ala high sec then it is going to get ignored. A perfect example of this is low sec Incursions. I know no one who does them. People log on, see the Incursion, and groan. The last Incursion in my sector of low sec I spent playing XCom.
Similarly if it's too easy it will have the hell abused out of it. Keep any changes simple. Cut rat ewar. Change objectives to kill all the things and not just one ship. Cut the number of rats and spawns. Get rid of anything that entails 'shoot x structure for 10 minutes.' I need to be able to run missions in something resembling a PvP boat. It needs to put an emphasis on speed. And the rewards need to be high enough to compensate the occasional loss of my ship.
Lastly the tags are a mess. Many faction items will never see the light of day as the sheer number of tags needed for them makes them a nonstarter compared to deadspace items. |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1295
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 02:49:00 -
[149] - Quote
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
Lastly the tags are a mess. Many faction items will never see the light of day as the sheer number of tags needed for them makes them a nonstarter compared to deadspace items.
I was sort of hoping some good tags would drop from the plex rats we need to shoot. Amarr has some decent tags in one of the plexes. It would be nice if we occassionally got a good tag in some of the other plexes. Caldari have no good tags at all. I'm not sure what drops for gallente or minmatar. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
276
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 03:10:00 -
[150] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Zarnak Wulf wrote:Lastly the tags are a mess. Many faction items will never see the light of day as the sheer number of tags needed for them makes them a nonstarter compared to deadspace items. I was sort of hoping some good tags would drop from the plex rats we need to shoot. Amarr has some decent tags in one of the plexes. It would be nice if we occassionally got a good tag in some of the other plexes. Caldari have no good tags at all. I'm not sure what drops for gallente or minmatar. Tag value really depends on the turnins they're associated with, more than anything. Caldari Navy Captain Is and IIs were pretty worthless until Kronos, when the FN Drone Navis came out for example. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |