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. |
|
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
400
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 03:57:00 -
[31] - Quote
also missions need to be changed to follow the new sovereignty system rather than the old one. |
DJ FunkyBacon
Eve Radio Corporation
286
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 04:03:00 -
[32] - Quote
exiik Shardani wrote: 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....
Believe me when I tell you that I'm advocating for a lot more this year than FW PVE content. This is one of many possible efforts here, but to this point I've been unsure of how much of an issue this one is to most people.
Please keep the feedback coming guys, and spread the word. I'll have more stuff later on other issues, but at this point, the best way to help with these issues is to spread the word to your fellow militia mates and keep the constructive posts, like have been in this thread so far, coming. CSM9 Factional Warfare/Lowsec Representative Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado. http://funkybacon.blogspot.com http://twitter.com/FunkyBacon |
Odysseus Olacar
Biohazard. WINMATAR.
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 05:00:00 -
[33] - Quote
1. FW missions are vitally important to isk making in FW. Allot of people complain about a lack of Bs or BC fleets but for Winmatar personally, high LP and relatively easy isk making at T4 allows us to do this. ( Even in Amarr Millita. ) Allot of what I am seeing is " It's too easy to do FW missions etc etc. However keep in mind the process of even getting to T4 to make those missions worth while it is easily 1-2 months of plexing and grinding systems.
2. The imbalance is easy to see, Target paints make Amarr missions hard, Damps make Gallente missions hard forcing you to fly bigger or be super awesome in an SB. I'm passive about the difficulty of the missions because the harderd the Gal/Amarr missions are generally means that their LP is worth more as opposed to Minmatar missions.
What to do?
The biggest issue I see, and is being discussed here is that LP PAYOUT IS TOO HIGH FOR HOW EASY IT IS>. and that few groups spend a long time grinding systems and plexing then countless others mooch off of the efforts with minimal work in the actually FW mechanics of space.
So a solution or something for a change; what if there was a system that could "count" FW efforts. For example, a system that can calculate the amount of Plexes, Ihubs, or WT killed a Corp/Alliance participated in. And using that calculation award that Alliance/Corp an LP payout bonus that shows their participation in FW. The bonus would of course be capped at a certain point.
Maybe an easy way to think of it is like there is a Militia wide Tier level, but what if your Corp/Alliance had one too?
Another thing to consider:
Making missions require bigger ships or gangs would be difficult because 1. Pirates would be all over those likes bees to honey. And while it may bring fights, it may completely prevent you from finishing the mission resulting in standings loss, or you loose your whole fleet then you spend the next week trying to gain LP just to make up for the ships you lost.
2. Gate camps suck.
3. If LP becomes significantly harder to come by Fights and the size of Fights in FW may GREATLY down scale because no one has the isk to afford those ships or willingness to risk them.
4. As easy as FW missions are the "Climb" to get there is hard. This cannot be forgotten when considering how to change FW missions. |
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
7288
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 05:13:00 -
[34] - Quote
3. bombers. Or just don't change it. If people want "harder" just for harder sake, there is always the other faction to join. This keeps FW open for lower SP characters. |
IbanezLaney
The Church of Awesome Circle-Of-Two
1191
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 05:55:00 -
[35] - Quote
The imbalance is only perceived because the reality of LP/isk per hour made is being ignored.
That said - I do believe it should also be possible for you Gals and the Amarr to run L4 missions inefficiently in SBs just like a few dumb people in Minmatar and Caldari do. I 100% believe in sharing the stupid people between all militias.
The fact that is ignored whenever this topic comes up is that while it is possible to run some of the L4 missions in an SB - It is a stupid way to do them. Their LP per hour is quite pathetic. (I tried it once in a Manticore and instantly went 'F**K THIS' and got in a Drake and later used Tengus.)
A Gallente militia farmer using their T3 cruiser are making a lot more LP per hour than the Caldari Stealth Bomber farmer. So the Risk vs Reward aspect is working fine.
To really farm Caldari FW missions we ran them in T3 gangs - Just like the Gallente do to farm FW mission. I would suggest that the Gallente are generally making the same amount of LP while farming in their T3s as the Caldari are when farming in T3s. (But the Gals make more isk as their LP is more valuable - Maybe you could ask CCP to nerf Gal LP payouts to balance that? )
You can equate people running L4s in SBs to people who mine to make isk. While they do make some isk - it is not a lot and they could have made more by doing something else.
Mirana Bacon - Could you ask CCP if you can have some figures on how much LP the average Galmil mission farmer in a T3 makes compared to a Calmil mission farmer in a SB in an hour at an equal tier?
Then ask for the figures if they both use T3s so that people can judge if there really is an imbalance. Docked since 2009. |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
401
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 06:39:00 -
[36] - Quote
Odysseus Olacar wrote:
Making missions require bigger ships or gangs would be difficult because 1. Pirates would be all over those likes bees to honey. And while it may bring fights, it may completely prevent you from finishing the mission resulting in standings loss, or you loose your whole fleet then you spend the next week trying to gain LP just to make up for the ships you lost.
2. Gate camps suck.
3. If LP becomes significantly harder to come by Fights and the size of Fights in FW may GREATLY down scale because no one has the isk to afford those ships or willingness to risk them.
you never loose standings by letting a fw mission expire. Pirate already try to intercept amarr militia mission gangs and usually result in them getting heavy losses. just fly bigger stuff in bigger groups
3. it will take a few years for the stockpiles everybody in militia has built up to run out of. And then things will be back to normal, expensive ships will once again feel like a kick in the balls when you loose one instead of 'o i have 3 more archons in station' |
Theroine
Justified Chaos
89
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 06:51:00 -
[37] - Quote
I think pushing the anti-missile mod that has been talked about for ages would be one way to address the missile spam issue. Instead of making it a targeted mod, like TDs, maybe it could function as some sort of missile guidance jamming system against all incoming missiles. Bigger brains could figure out the details.
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2258
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 08:23:00 -
[38] - Quote
IbanezLaney wrote: (But the Gals make more isk as their LP is more valuable - Maybe you could ask CCP to nerf Gal LP payouts to balance that? ) . Um, yeah, sorry we didn't push to the highest tier possible so all the leeches, err "farmers", could ruin our isk/lp payout. Our bad.
|
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
173
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 09:36:00 -
[39] - 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. no. I flew in minnie fw using 2 cerbs and a phoon and farmed 40mil lp. I preferred the bigger ships. 2. there is none. scrubs are gonna fly bombers, but they suck at doing missions properly tbh. The imbalance is that minmatar has been at tier 4 for so long, which personally makes 0 sense to me. The l4 missions aren't a big deal until you get to the higher tiers, and I suspect that CCP didn't intend for any one faction to sit on tier 4 for a month at a time. 3. bigger ships for sure. It is possible to go out in a keres and go on a rampage of bombers, but I miss the old camping days where pirates would chill on gates and just massacre anything bigger then a shuttle that came through, which could really lead to some great fights. Now in FW it seems that most of the fights happen on an acceleration gate to some plex, which tends to mean its geared alot more towards frigs. Mind you, I don't think alot of that comes from l4 missioners but it would be nice to see people forced into bigger ships to bring some more life back to fw lowsec and the accompanying pirate gatecamps that were so common in the past. |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
244
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 11:26:00 -
[40] - Quote
What if:
The agents gave "missions" to capture offensive plexes in certain systems, instead of having to deal with npcs/structures?
For example:A lvl2 minmatar FW mission agent might give a mission like: "Go and capture a small plex in Ashged." Upon completion of mission you'll get #ISK #LP. Bonus for completing in # hours is #ISK #LP
This way the missioner gets some additional LP by the mission itself, and the plex capture LP. Mission levels indicate plex sizes.
L1 missions -> capture novice L2 missions -> capture small L3 missons -> capture med L4 missions -> capture large
Since plex capturing difficulty is same for all races atm, this will remove the racial imbalance. Missioners will make additional isk and help warzone.
An option would be for the agents to give defensive plexing missions if a systems contest amount is over 75%. Also rewards might be in form of opposing militia tags instead of ISK and LP. Just thinking out loudly. Feel free to point the major flaw that I am certainly not being able to see in it. |
|
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
149
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 12:04:00 -
[41] - Quote
I'm going to disagree with some of the above.
FW's stated goal is to be an introduction to PvP for low-SP pilots. Given that, I think it is entirely reasonable that the missions should be doable solo, and in T2 frigates. It is one of the main charms of FW missions, in fact.
It would make a lot more sense to me to make them all doable in Bombers and/or AssFrigs, solo, and if anything, scale the reward.
They should absolutely NOT require fleeting up, or BC+ ships to run, at least in my opinion. Leave them accessible to solo low SP pilots. |
exiik Shardani
Terpene Conglomerate
5
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 13:06:00 -
[42] - Quote
Lelob wrote: 3. bigger ships for sure. It is possible to go out in a keres and go on a rampage of bombers, but I miss the old camping days where pirates would chill on gates and just massacre anything bigger then a shuttle that came through, which could really lead to some great fights. Now in FW it seems that most of the fights happen on an acceleration gate to some plex, which tends to mean its geared alot more towards frigs. Mind you, I don't think alot of that comes from l4 missioners but it would be nice to see people forced into bigger ships to bring some more life back to fw lowsec and the accompanying pirate gatecamps that were so common in the past.
why militias fights only at plex? because (Amarr wz) PL,SC and others pirates do there no hotdrops or there can be "cruiser fight instead of PL BS blob" ;-)
FW really need stop use FW farming alt's who farm for main account like this PL guy ;-) I am absolutely sure he don't contribute with taking iHubs ...
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
261
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 14:50:00 -
[43] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:I'm going to disagree with some of the above.
FW's stated goal is to be an introduction to PvP for low-SP pilots. Given that, I think it is entirely reasonable that the missions should be doable solo, and in T2 frigates. It is one of the main charms of FW missions, in fact.
It would make a lot more sense to me to make them all doable in Bombers and/or AssFrigs, solo, and if anything, scale the reward.
They should absolutely NOT require fleeting up, or BC+ ships to run, at least in my opinion. Leave them accessible to solo low SP pilots. PvP accessibility for low SP pilots does not necessitate access to L4 missions in bombers or assault frigates. Beware Malcanis' Law here.
Low SP pilots can make more than enough to sustain their PvP losses by plexing. Even now, you can run 4x novices per hour easily, making 40k LP at tier 2. That's at least 40m per hour, which is solid income for folks losing ships in the 2-10mil isk range on average.
FW L4 missions should require something on par to regular L4 missions in terms of skill / ship investment. If newbros want to run FW missions, the L1-L3 should be perfectly doable in assault frigates and the like. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
150
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 15:33:00 -
[44] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:I'm going to disagree with some of the above.
FW's stated goal is to be an introduction to PvP for low-SP pilots. Given that, I think it is entirely reasonable that the missions should be doable solo, and in T2 frigates. It is one of the main charms of FW missions, in fact.
It would make a lot more sense to me to make them all doable in Bombers and/or AssFrigs, solo, and if anything, scale the reward.
They should absolutely NOT require fleeting up, or BC+ ships to run, at least in my opinion. Leave them accessible to solo low SP pilots. PvP accessibility for low SP pilots does not necessitate access to L4 missions in bombers or assault frigates. Beware Malcanis' Law here. Low SP pilots can make more than enough to sustain their PvP losses by plexing. Even now, you can run 4x novices per hour easily, making 40k LP at tier 2. That's at least 40m per hour, which is solid income for folks losing ships in the 2-10mil isk range on average. FW L4 missions should require something on par to regular L4 missions in terms of skill / ship investment. If newbros want to run FW missions, the L1-L3 should be perfectly doable in assault frigates and the like.
What is the actual benefit to anyone for making the missions not doable in T2 frigates, though? I don't think there is really a problem there that needs solving, aside from the racial balancing.
Some people want a reason to do fleet PvE in FW, it seems. That seems silly to me, but whatever floats your boat. For stuff like that, why not add a FW-specific version of Incursions instead?
The missions serve a useful purpose besides the cash. They draw players very deep into the opposing territories. Making the higher level ones require coordination or having a much higher bar to entry would suck in that it would reduce the frequency of that dramatically.
Sure, I can understand not wanting it to be only bombers. I personally have a lot of fun hunting and killing mission runners in bombers, but people in FW not liking their stealth is at least arguable. So make some have deterrents to bombers but still allow Assfrigs or faction cruisers to be able to solo them.
And, lastly, running the L4s in frigs is fun now. A lot of fun. Actually the only fun PvE I have seen in Eve. It would be a shame to kill that. |
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
209
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 15:43:00 -
[45] - Quote
I don't have a problem going either way (easy mode/slightly harder mode) as long as the risk/reward is in line, at the moment the risk/reward is out of wack though. BLFOX is currently recruiting |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
261
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 15:53:00 -
[46] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:What is the actual benefit to anyone for making the missions not doable in T2 frigates, though? I don't think there is really a problem there that needs solving, aside from the racial balancing. Comes down to risk / reward. At the moment, you gain far far too much for putting so little on the line.
Noone complains about how much LP the Gallente farm in their Ishtars and Proteus. We put isk on the line to make isk, is all good. We're also generally at a lower tier than the hardcore farm alliances, netting about 250k LP/hour or so running L4s at Tier 3. We generally have to tank 500-600 DPS and deal with ECM on top of it, plus be able to move around the warzone and still project enough damage to kill the objectives. That requires more SP and ship investment, and the risk / reward is therefore more balanced.
Contrast that to making 400-600k LP/hour essentially risk free in tankless bombers when running L4s for TLF at Tier 4/5. No need to tank at all, since the Amarr guns will never hit you. DPS is hella easy to project with that bomber, 400+ is easily achievable if not more. It takes minimal skill and isk investment to achieve. As a result, the risk / reward is way out of whack.
To give you another comparison, few people have a serious issue with Incursions as LP/isk makers. You're putting billions worth of ships on the line, they take significant time and isk investments to get right. People are less happy about AFKtar ratting in sov null, because the time / isk investment you need to make to gain those rewards is out of whack.
Make sense?
|
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
151
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 15:53:00 -
[47] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:I don't have a problem going either way (easy mode/slightly harder mode) as long as the risk/reward is in line, at the moment the risk/reward is out of wack though.
Agreed. So, combining a few posts, I think:
- The missions should be balanced so all races can complete any FW kill mission solo in T2 frigs or faction cruisers.
- The reward scaling should be fixed, because as much as I like having an alt that can pull in several hundred thousand LP an hour, it's just wrong.
- CCP should consider adding a FW-based Incursion like mission system that requires fleet action. This could actually be very cool, if PvE is your thing.
|
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
152
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 15:59:00 -
[48] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote: Comes down to risk / reward. At the moment, you gain far far too much for putting so little on the line.
I understand and agree with your point, I just disagree with your solution :) |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1291
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 16:01:00 -
[49] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:I don't have a problem going either way (easy mode/slightly harder mode) as long as the risk/reward is in line, at the moment the risk/reward is out of wack though.
I agree with this. The reward should be in line with eve economics generally and plexing in particular. If for example ccp puts a timer rollback in plexes and does some other changes where every plex captured requires about one or 2 pvp fights then mission rewards would be way out of whack.
To the extent they add risk to plexing they should decrease the reward for running missions. Otherwise those lp you gain from doing the more pvp focused plexing jobs will be too watered down to be worth trading in. Hopefully that will be a problem ccp needs to correct soon.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
403
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 16:53:00 -
[50] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:I'm going to disagree with some of the above.
FW's stated goal is to be an introduction to PvP for low-SP pilots. Given that, I think it is entirely reasonable that the missions should be doable solo, and in T2 frigates. It is one of the main charms of FW missions, in fact.
It would make a lot more sense to me to make them all doable in Bombers and/or AssFrigs, solo, and if anything, scale the reward.
They should absolutely NOT require fleeting up, or BC+ ships to run, at least in my opinion. Leave them accessible to solo low SP pilots. it IS accessible to low sp pilots its called lvl1 lvl2 lvl3 missions. being in fw doesnt mean you ONLY do lvl4 missions.
FW already has t2 frigate t2 destroyer accessible missions. the lvl4s are the ones that need to get harder all around. |
|
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
152
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 17:03:00 -
[51] - Quote
Flyinghotpocket wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:I'm going to disagree with some of the above.
FW's stated goal is to be an introduction to PvP for low-SP pilots. Given that, I think it is entirely reasonable that the missions should be doable solo, and in T2 frigates. It is one of the main charms of FW missions, in fact.
It would make a lot more sense to me to make them all doable in Bombers and/or AssFrigs, solo, and if anything, scale the reward.
They should absolutely NOT require fleeting up, or BC+ ships to run, at least in my opinion. Leave them accessible to solo low SP pilots. it IS accessible to low sp pilots its called lvl1 lvl2 lvl3 missions. being in fw doesnt mean you ONLY do lvl4 missions. FW already has t2 frigate t2 destroyer accessible missions. the lvl4s are the ones that need to get harder all around.
Why? Why not just scale the rewards better? That's the real problem. |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
403
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 17:11:00 -
[52] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Flyinghotpocket wrote: it IS accessible to low sp pilots its called lvl1 lvl2 lvl3 missions. being in fw doesnt mean you ONLY do lvl4 missions.
FW already has t2 frigate t2 destroyer accessible missions. the lvl4s are the ones that need to get harder all around.
Why? Why not just scale the rewards better? That's the real problem. the rewards are scaled just fine.
the real problem that has been for years is the ewar imbalance. 2 of the races had to up their ships as they went up to higher level missions while other races like minmatar and caldari can stay in their lvl3 ship and run them.
if lvl4s were all accessible to stealth bombers the farming cycle would get even worse. Without serious dev time to actually make a enemy objective camping stealth bombers for 12 hours is not viable at all. or make missions follow the current sov system like they are supposed to. |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
263
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 17:40:00 -
[53] - Quote
Have to agree with FHP here. In general, L4s pay about twice as much per hour as offensive plexing. Given that L4s are much harder to do than plexes, that relative reward balance is ok in my opinion.
The PvP risk is higher in plexes, but the isk/time investment is lower. That kinda balances out.
What's out of whack is how easy two of the factions have it compared to the others, due to racial Ewar and weapon selection. That needs to be fixed, and given the historical preferences in FW mission running I'd say that scaling the difficulty up to Gallente or at the very least Amarr level would be better. |
Baron' Soontir Fel
Justified Chaos
161
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 18:03:00 -
[54] - Quote
First of all, make it balanced in difficulty between all the four races. That should be the main priority here.
Second of all, decide whether you want lvl FOUR missions able to be run in a stealth bomber.
In my opinion: People don't run high sec level four missions in a stealth bomber, they use BS's or HACs or T3s. Why should low sec be any different? If you have low SP, run novice plexes or run level 1 or level 2 missions. You don't need a lot of money to sustain yourself at a low SP level since you have low SP and can't fly that many ships in the first place. As you gain SP, you can fly bigger stuff, and therefore plex bigger sites, and run higher level missions.
And don't give me crap about not being able to solo novice plexes as a newbie. I did it in Kestrels and Condors with a month of SP.
Just because FW is accessible to new Eve pilots, it doesn't mean EVERYTHING in FW should be accessible to new pilots. There are plenty of newbro things to go around without having them be able to complete large plexes or level 4 missions solo. |
Iudicium Vastus
Incognito Holdings and Savings
282
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 19:52:00 -
[55] - Quote
Baron' Soontir Fel wrote:People don't run high sec level four missions in a stealth bomber, they use BS's or HACs or T3s. Why should low sec be any different? .
Because so few hisec lv4 missions are of an assassination type of objective. They are mostly destroy-all-the-npcs, while containing several rooms full, and the acceleration gates don't unlock until the room is cleared. And unless you're under a hisec wardec, you don't need to worry about traveling in your BS since there are no random/neutral gatecamps that'll get you.
But in lowsec, FW, there are pirate+wartarget gatecamps. In addition there is an assassination type of feel and objective to many of the missions, which does makes sense to be all cloak and dagger about it in a SB. Also, exactly how often do you see BSs (solo) going around the WZ for any reason? There are a few, but nothing like all the ravens and apocs you see in hisec for mission running. Anything bigger than cruiser steps into wz territory to die or hub bash. Nothing more. Nerf stabs/cloaks in FW? No, just.. -Fit more points -Fit faction points -Bring a friend or two with points (an alt is fine too) |
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate
388
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 20:08:00 -
[56] - Quote
Who says you have to do the mission solo? This is a MMO after all. |
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
173
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 20:30:00 -
[57] - Quote
Iudicium Vastus wrote:Baron' Soontir Fel wrote:People don't run high sec level four missions in a stealth bomber, they use BS's or HACs or T3s. Why should low sec be any different? . Because so few hisec lv4 missions are of an assassination type of objective. They are mostly destroy-all-the-npcs, while containing several rooms full, and the acceleration gates don't unlock until the room is cleared. And unless you're under a hisec wardec, you don't need to worry about traveling in your BS since there are no random/neutral gatecamps that'll get you. But in lowsec, FW, there are pirate+wartarget gatecamps. In addition there is an assassination type of feel and objective to many of the missions, which does makes sense to be all cloak and dagger about it in a SB. Also, exactly how often do you see BSs (solo) going around the WZ for any reason? There are a few, but nothing like all the ravens and apocs you see in hisec for mission running. Anything bigger than cruiser steps into wz territory to die or hub bash. Nothing more.
This is just plain wrong. I took my phoon and with a cloak, mwd, ec-600s and mjd you are basically uncatchable in amarr/minmatar lowsec. In fact, most of the gates have nobody on them anyways with the exception of the odd roaming gang, so with a cloak+mwd there is no real danger in taking gates. The only danger I ever encountered was with the odd dude trying to beat me in warp to a mission and catching me there for a gang or something.
For some reason the meta in lowsec fw seems to be to not bother with bs despite the massive incomes you can make and the relatively low risk in doing so. It is insanely easy too considering you can just land inside of a l4 mission, mjd off and anyone trying to come into your plex has almost no chance of catching you while you are 100km off.
Why do people want to dillute the lp/isk so much so that anyone can do them with just a frig/cheap cruiser? It hardly seems like people who can't fly bigger ships are going to be needing all that extra isk anyways and it's hardly fair or fun that someone in a bomber in fw can make more isk/hour than someone in a carrier doing sanctums in nullsec. All you get are a bunch of farmers who train up an alt for 1-2 months and then make obscene bank while contributing nothing to the pvp enviroment of fw. I'm honest enough to say that is exactly what I was doing for the last month (ableit in bigger ships cuz it was more profitable) and it's downright broken that the only place more profitable then l4 fw missions is in wh's.
If you want a simple fix to missions, just add webs into the l4 fw missions that can reach out to 150km. Alternatively, add a bunch of elite frigs with mwds that go 3-4k/s that have webs and points.
For one more orientated to pvp, change the way that missions work and make them basically like storyline agents but based on pvp. If you get a kill in fw against the opposing factions, you can then start talking to agents who give out lucrative missions.
edit: In any case, it is absolutely broken that I can farm 30bil out of fw in a month almost risk free. |
Baron' Soontir Fel
Justified Chaos
161
|
Posted - 2014.06.05 21:09:00 -
[58] - Quote
You realize people run FW missions in T3's and HACs right? Just as expensive iskwise and skillwise. |
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
7356
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 06:22:00 -
[59] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote: Some people want a reason to do fleet PvE in FW, it seems. That seems silly to me, but whatever floats your boat. For stuff like that, why not add a FW-specific version of Incursions instead?
See, that makes more sense. Rather than screwing with something, making it less accessible, why not add something new into FW such as the incursion system in some form. People want bigger harder battles, and I agree with that, but not from changing the existing play that works. Balance it out for bombers across the board etc sure (or just don't change it at all), but add something new to FW that is harder, such as something based on the incursion system. I know it's been mentioned before... including my input and support previously. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
154
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 08:28:00 -
[60] - Quote
I think Webvan sums it up well.
|
|
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
245
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 08:59:00 -
[61] - Quote
Webvan wrote:Estella Osoka wrote:Who says you have to do the mission solo? This is a MMO after all. Because a mission isn't a raid. EnB, SWG etc (internet spaceships examples) you didn't need to find more players so you could do a mission. Missions are just generic quests in every other game, same mechanics/coding, and have been in graphical mmo's since the 90's. Now say for incursions, that's more old-school raid style (open world etc), takes more players, and more waiting around etc. So the way it is, it's more traditional for an mmo, even for those games that mostly focused on forced-grouping (e.g. early EQ1), yet still had missions/quests that players could do solo and in small groups when wanted. And remember, just because you do something such as scaling up missions to be harder/more people required, doesn't necessarily produce players to be doing those missions any longer, and may have the opposite effect.
If you want to do missions solo there are l1's l2's even l3's. You can do them.
|
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
154
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 09:24:00 -
[62] - Quote
"I don't like the fact that people can solo something they can currently solo. My narrow definition of what is permissible in an MMO does not include this! NERF SOLO!" |
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
7369
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 09:37:00 -
[63] - Quote
Deerin wrote:If you want to do missions solo there are l1's l2's even l3's. You can do them. Why? I already fly frigs on regular lvl4 security missions, why the heck now do factions missions need to be so much harder? You don't really even try to make a case here, just a strong-arm comment at my post, no substance. |
Eyeslikethunder Umtai
The Great Harmon Institute Of Technology
1
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 09:49:00 -
[64] - Quote
I feel the theme of missions suits stealth bombers
It's normally kill 1-3 large targets and involves a trip to other end of low sec Which currently favours amarr / minmatar due their smaller low sec area I have been told their journeys are shorter
On the risk /reward they are equal basically to medium plexes which can be done in destroyers and t2 / faction frigs (I even did one in atron yesterday ) but don't provide system control as a bonus and require a long journey through low sec from pick up station
As someone who does lvl 4 missions In high sec you can do these in bomber 3 an hour i manage And i have never used a ship over 70 million to do them they don't involve long trips in low sec (normally 1 jump in high sec)and rewards are just below t1 missions which is normally the level half the factions are in at any point
I do wonder if their rewards should not be tiered as they don't provide a bonus to system control so why should they benefit from it
I have both killed stealth bombers and died in mine so there is risk insta lockers can shoot them down which are quite common in low sec
I do like the Fw incursion idea above it would create a nice corp activity |
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
7369
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 10:13:00 -
[65] - Quote
Deerin wrote:
If you want to do missions solo there are l1's l2's even l3's. You can do them.
Actually from your previous post in the thread, you more want missions just removed all together, then extend the plexing system to give out plexing missions. So I don't see why you are saying this here now with what I said, unless you are going back on your previous post and now think that the current mission system should remain... your postings are confusing, sorry.
I still hold to the opinion that adding new things is always better than overwriting or removing old things that work fine. Adding an incursion type system would be nice, adding more to do in FW and with greater challenge, as you removed from my quote. Keeping FW low-SP friendly is a really good thing imo, and flying frigs is really nice. Your previous idea may have merit with plexing... if you still hold to that I'm not sure... but not necessarily something good by removing existing missions.
imo new-more is always better than remove-more and or rewriting things, that constant hamster wheel. More things to do in the game, added, not constantly overwriting things. Harder, more challenging things to do should be an add, and I agree on that point, more challenge, but not at expense of removing things, or making things unfriendly to low-sp in this case and is already established. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
154
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 10:29:00 -
[66] - Quote
Once again, Webvan speaks for me. Well put. |
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
245
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 10:49:00 -
[67] - Quote
Webvan wrote:Deerin wrote:If you want to do missions solo there are l1's l2's even l3's. You can do them. Why? I already fly frigs on regular lvl4 security missions, why the heck now do factions missions need to be so much harder? You don't really even try to make a case here, just a strong-arm comment at my post, no substance.
Don't compare apples to oranges. Doing regular L4's in a frig is extremely time consuming and not someting a low SP character can do. Even then the isk it will yield is nothing compared to what you can gain with a FW L4 mission, which can be easily done a lowish skilled SB.
Sadly, FW in its current form is a means for mains in null / large alliances to fund their activities via low skill alts. You can make enormous amounts of money with minimal risk....and I find it very unfair.
Reducing the rewards of L4's to continue to fly frigs/sb's is pointess....as it is already avaliable in form of lower level missions.
In fact as I stated earlier, I believe best way to do it get rid of pve FW missions altogether. Let the agents give you missions to capture a specific plex in a specific enemy system. When you do, you get additional bonus to your normal LP gains. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
154
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 11:00:00 -
[68] - Quote
Look, it's simple.
There's only two things wrong with FW missions, otherwise they are *fine as is*.
First, the Gal/Cal ones are apparently not balanced with the Min/Amarr.
Second, the rewards are disproportionately large at Tier 4.
So just fix those two things. Make the Gal/Cal ones doable like the Min/Amarr ones, in T2 frigs; then make the reward scaling more sane.
They serve a useful purpose, are fun as is in frigs, and it is not bad to have SOME lucrative reward for a low SP L4; just not as much as it is now.
I'm sorry, but the insistence on removing the ability to solo them in frigs in this thread sounds like very standard MMO-crowd "Nerf Solo" whining to me.
If there is a strong desire for FW raid PvE content then I strongly feel that adding it as a new feature rather than bludgeoning current content into it is the way to go. |
Bad Messenger
Nasranite Watch Heiian Conglomerate
784
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 11:02:00 -
[69] - Quote
just remove fw missions, no point to have those at all. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
154
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 11:04:00 -
[70] - Quote
Bad Messenger wrote:just remove fw missions, no point to have those at all.
Actually it pains me to be defending PvE but there is. It incentivizes players to fly much farther into enemy territory than most usually do. |
|
Templar Dane
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
232
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 11:14:00 -
[71] - 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.
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.
That would be pretty dumb because even with an active defender, the guy isn't gonna camp that mission all ******* day long. Eventually you get so many open missions in system that overview looks crazy.
Now, I suppose you could put an alternate completion objective in the mission that if the opposing militia takes out.......then you fail the mission outright. I could live with this.
|
Deerin
Murientor Tribe Defiant Legacy
245
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 11:46:00 -
[72] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:and it is not bad to have SOME lucrative reward for a low SP L4; just not as much as it is now.
But this is already in the game in form of FW L2-L3's. Doable in assault frigs in pvp fits even. You get some lucurative reward, but not as much as L4's. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
154
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 12:08:00 -
[73] - Quote
Deerin wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:and it is not bad to have SOME lucrative reward for a low SP L4; just not as much as it is now. But this is already in the game in form of FW L2-L3's. Doable in assault frigs in pvp fits even. You get some lucurative reward, but not as much as L4's.
Well, no, actually it's already in the game for L1-L4. It is the desire to nerf soloing the last one that is both sad and predictable.
Meh, who cares. Bring on your blingy killmails, then :) |
Webvan
All Kill No Skill
7387
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 12:31:00 -
[74] - Quote
Bad Messenger wrote:just remove fw missions, no point to have those at all. heck, between this and the above post (line of discussion I was in), remove plexing too. Someone is making ISK, it can't be good, right? We can go back a couple years to where FW was so borked just about no one bothered. Back when CCP was more focused on WiS barbie dolls etc and FW roundtable discussions were a joke. I'd like to see more added to FW, not removed. I was a huge fan/player of the SWG galactic civil war (FW) pre-nge/pre-cu, was a great system. EVE FW surpasses early Ultima Online FW, but still has a ways to go as far as a sandbox FW system in general.
Yeah, I'm no sucker to be taking a BS into low for the most part, passing through many system to run missions, driving an ice cream truck. AF/SB does fine in regular lvl4 security missions, provided we are talking assassination targets like in FW, not a lot of targets to take out. AF will do those regular lvl4 security missions, but it takes a while for a BS or cruiser to do those too, just not as long. This would be pretty much a pirates dream come true, holding up FW missions to last very long. Risk vs reward, plus fun factor, SB does well in that. If it's a matter of some abusing it, I don't see is as a matter of screwing it up for everyone else. I don't like nerfs, I don't like systems being removed. Balancing is fine, but should be in line with the idea that it becomes more accessible, not less. Adding new things for what people want with more challenge, I could stand behind. Not anything like that, unless you just hate FW and want to see it die again.
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
264
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 13:30:00 -
[75] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Deerin wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:and it is not bad to have SOME lucrative reward for a low SP L4; just not as much as it is now. But this is already in the game in form of FW L2-L3's. Doable in assault frigs in pvp fits even. You get some lucurative reward, but not as much as L4's. Well, no, actually it's already in the game for L1-L4. It is the desire to nerf soloing the last one that is both sad and predictable. Meh, who cares. Bring on your blingy killmails, then :) I don't think people really want to nerf things to the point where you can't solo.
I also don't think people want to change the assassination style missions. They make sense in a lot of ways, lore wise and environment wise.
But if L4 rewards are going to remain where they are, then the difficulty needs to be increased. Running them in 40mil boats to make 300mil+ per hour is simply out of whack. Force people to do something other than sig tank the things, and it'd be a lot more balanced.
Aside from the ECM issues, I feel that Gallente missions are about in the right place. Get the rest of the factions up to that level and I think we're good.
Other than that, revisiting / smoothing the Tier system in some way would be a good thing. Drives too many imbalances. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
155
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 14:08:00 -
[76] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Deerin wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:and it is not bad to have SOME lucrative reward for a low SP L4; just not as much as it is now. But this is already in the game in form of FW L2-L3's. Doable in assault frigs in pvp fits even. You get some lucurative reward, but not as much as L4's. Well, no, actually it's already in the game for L1-L4. It is the desire to nerf soloing the last one that is both sad and predictable. Meh, who cares. Bring on your blingy killmails, then :) I don't think people really want to nerf things to the point where you can't solo. I also don't think people want to change the assassination style missions. They make sense in a lot of ways, lore wise and environment wise. But if L4 rewards are going to remain where they are, then the difficulty needs to be increased. Running them in 40mil boats to make 300mil+ per hour is simply out of whack. Force people to do something other than sig tank the things, and it'd be a lot more balanced. Aside from the ECM issues, I feel that Gallente missions are about in the right place. Get the rest of the factions up to that level and I think we're good. Other than that, revisiting / smoothing the Tier system in some way would be a good thing. Drives too many imbalances.
Nah, this is actually a pretty prototypical cry for nerfs. Humorously so, actually. We have a case here where all that really needs to be done, as you note, is to relax the ridiculous Tier 4 LP reward scaling to a more sane level, and maybe throw the Cal/Gal region an NPC EWAR/missile damage reduction.
Instead, we have people adamantly insisting that T2 frig soloing L4s has to end because REASONS, then waving the "Risk/Reward" flag as if it supports their argument, which would only be true if the Reward were required to be constant, which of course it isn't.
It's just like any other MMO nerf thread, really.
But like I said, meh. Go for it. It only tangentially affects me via my FW alt anyway. |
Charlie Firpol
Noob Mercs Monkeys with Guns.
218
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 14:47:00 -
[77] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Veskrashen wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Deerin wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:and it is not bad to have SOME lucrative reward for a low SP L4; just not as much as it is now. But this is already in the game in form of FW L2-L3's. Doable in assault frigs in pvp fits even. You get some lucurative reward, but not as much as L4's. Well, no, actually it's already in the game for L1-L4. It is the desire to nerf soloing the last one that is both sad and predictable. Meh, who cares. Bring on your blingy killmails, then :) I don't think people really want to nerf things to the point where you can't solo. I also don't think people want to change the assassination style missions. They make sense in a lot of ways, lore wise and environment wise. But if L4 rewards are going to remain where they are, then the difficulty needs to be increased. Running them in 40mil boats to make 300mil+ per hour is simply out of whack. Force people to do something other than sig tank the things, and it'd be a lot more balanced. Aside from the ECM issues, I feel that Gallente missions are about in the right place. Get the rest of the factions up to that level and I think we're good. Other than that, revisiting / smoothing the Tier system in some way would be a good thing. Drives too many imbalances. Nah, this is actually a pretty prototypical cry for nerfs. Humorously so, actually. We have a case here where all that really needs to be done, as you note, is to relax the ridiculous Tier 4 LP reward scaling to a more sane level, and maybe throw the Cal/Gal region an NPC EWAR/missile damage reduction. Instead, we have people adamantly insisting that T2 frig soloing L4s has to end because REASONS, then waving the "Risk/Reward" flag as if it supports their argument, which would only be true if the Reward were required to be constant, which of course it isn't. It's just like any other MMO nerf thread, really. But like I said, meh. Go for it. It only tangentially affects me via my FW alt anyway.
Why reduce the gains from lvl 4s when you could just do lvl 3s instead? There is no reason to decrease the income from lvl 4s, just make them harder.
I dont understand why you try to defend that so hard. It makes 0 difference for you if your lvl 4s get nerfed or you get "forced" into lvl 3s. But making lvl 4s harder would open a new playstyle, for the guys with enough balls to do the harder lvl 4s ini more expensive/slower ships for the old income.
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
212
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 14:50:00 -
[78] - Quote
just balance the risk/reward. Which way you go (harder or easier with corresponding risk) will have proponents and opponents. I personally prefer the higher risk/reward end of the spectrum but at the end of the day don't care that much as long as a good risk/reward balance is found. BLFOX is currently recruiting |
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate
390
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 14:54:00 -
[79] - Quote
Webvan wrote:Estella Osoka wrote:Who says you have to do the mission solo? This is a MMO after all. Because a mission isn't a raid. EnB, SWG etc (internet spaceships examples) you didn't need to find more players so you could do a mission. Missions are just generic quests in every other game, same mechanics/coding, and have been in graphical mmo's since the 90's. Now say for incursions, that's more old-school raid style (open world etc), takes more players, and more waiting around etc. So the way it is, it's more traditional for an mmo, even for those games that mostly focused on forced-grouping (e.g. early EQ1), yet still had missions/quests that players could do solo and in small groups when wanted. And remember, just because you do something such as scaling up missions to be harder/more people required, doesn't necessarily produce players to be doing those missions any longer, and may have the opposite effect.
EVE is not EnB or SWG. EVE is a PVP-centric MMO. Just because that is the way it was done in other MMOs does not mean that is the way it should be done in EVE.
Because people have been able to do missions solo in hisec has really screwed this game over. It causes people to assume that hisec should be a safe area, and ganks and mission invasion shouldn't be allowed. It also puts them in the mindset that all missions should be soloable, even L5s. The only PVE content in the game that isn't soloable are incursions and some of the cosmic anoms. All the missions in EVE need to be rethought and fixed so that players have to do them in pvp fits with other players. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
155
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 15:20:00 -
[80] - Quote
Charlie Firpol wrote: Why reduce the gains from lvl 4s when you could just do lvl 3s instead? There is no reason to decrease the income from lvl 4s, just make them harder.
I dont understand why you try to defend that so hard. It makes 0 difference for you if your lvl 4s get nerfed or you get "forced" into lvl 3s. But making lvl 4s harder would open a new playstyle, for the guys with enough balls to do the harder lvl 4s ini more expensive/slower ships for the old income.
Ahh, I think I see your confusion, I might not have been clear. I never said "reduce the income of the L4s to be the same as current L3s". I suggested making them more sane, instead of the current top tier scaling factor (what, 225% for T5 and like 175% for T4? I forget and am lazy.) They should still be lucrative, more so than highsec L4s, even if doable quickly in frigates. The risk is substantially greater even if the rats are easy. The rats have little to do with the danger here, after all.
The *only * reason I care about this is that they do draw players out to, frankly, be targets. If you take away the ability to solo L4s what I see happening is far fewer players doing missions in general, which I think would be unfortunate, as it pulls them all over the warzone.
I agree with everyone that the risk/reward is currently out of whack. Completely. With plexing too, for that matter. |
|
exiik Shardani
Terpene Conglomerate
5
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 15:29:00 -
[81] - Quote
L4, L4 run run run ...... , but you all forget, how much work it is mean for militia's who off plex, shoot iHub's and donating there LP to reach fu... Tier 4 -> only then farmers (null players alts -> contribute nothing to reach Tier 4 or help militias bro with something) start farm...
Missions can only be good reward for ppl, who actively support militia faction and help reaching tiers!
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
336
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 15:29:00 -
[82] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote: But like I said, meh. Go for it. It only tangentially affects me via my FW alt anyway. So, you have a farmer alt. How is your farmer liking the plexing changes?
Oh btw, the distinction is not between Gal/Cal v Min/Amarr, but between Gal & Amarr v Cal & Min. But I suppose your farmer alt is Cal or Min so you really don't care to read this thread precisely, and basically like things the way they are, right?
Back to the OP, personally I'm a bit meh, but for different reasons than the guy above. I haven't done a single FW mission since I've been in FW. Plexing has stocked me just fine with pvp and lp. Missions are sorta stupid imo, since they don't affect the warzone but only a personal lp balance.
Also, I don't know whether or not to be thankful for the difficulty of Gallente missions. Never appealed to me to go up against ecm and missile spamming rats. But that has kept mission farming hordes out of Galmil.
I suppose if fairness between the militia missions becomes the goal then I'd rather have them adjusted up for the Cal and Min (while getting rid of the ecm-ing rats, the dumbest mechanic in a computer game). This would provide more chances of juicier Tengu kills than piddly bomber kills.
Oh, also, having my own militia rats swich off of the caldari mission runner I'm attacking and shoot me instead is incredibly ********. CCP needs to fix that asap. CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, please give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals. |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
264
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 15:33:00 -
[83] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Charlie Firpol wrote: Why reduce the gains from lvl 4s when you could just do lvl 3s instead? There is no reason to decrease the income from lvl 4s, just make them harder.
I dont understand why you try to defend that so hard. It makes 0 difference for you if your lvl 4s get nerfed or you get "forced" into lvl 3s. But making lvl 4s harder would open a new playstyle, for the guys with enough balls to do the harder lvl 4s ini more expensive/slower ships for the old income.
Ahh, I think I see your confusion, I might not have been clear. I never said "reduce the income of the L4s to be the same as current L3s". I suggested making them more sane, instead of the current crazy top tier scaling factor. They should still be lucrative, more so than highsec L4s or the current L3s, even if doable quickly in frigates. The risk is substantially greater even if the rats are easy. The rats have little to do with the danger here, after all. The *only * reason I care about this is that they do draw players out to, frankly, be targets. If you take away the ability to solo L4s what I see happening is far fewer players doing missions in general, which I think would be unfortunate, as it pulls them all over the warzone. I agree with everyone that the risk/reward is currently out of whack. Completely. With plexing too, for that matter. Now I understand a bit better what you're looking for. It looks like folks are pretty much agreed on the following (and correct me if I'm wrong...)
1. Risk / reward for L4s is currently way out of whack. 2. Part of this is due to the ridiculous rewards at high Tier levels. 3. Part of this is due to the ease of completing assassination style missions when racial EWAR and weapon systems allow sig tanking in bombers / AFs. 4. The assassination style of the missions is good because it keeps exposure time to run the mission to a reasonable level, given the general hostility of the warzone environment. 5. Keeping them soloable is good because it means more folks out and about as targets.
It seems like the only area of contention, then, is whether to tune the missions to require shinier stuff - HACs / T3s / etc - or whether to rune them all down to be doable in Stealth Bombers. Given what CCP Fozzie was saying during FanFest, I'm betting that the latter option is probably not viable in CCP's eyes. And let's be honest here - even making 100m/hr essentially risk free in a bomber is kinda out of whack. My personal feeling is that if they tuned down the ECM a tad, Gallente missions are pretty well tuned risk/reward wise in the mid Tiers.
So, points for discussion:
1. Where should mission rewards be balanced towards? Roughly Tier 2? Tier 3? Somewhere else? 2. What kinds of ships should be needed to run them? 3. What kinds of things could be added challenge-wise to prevent or minimize bomber alt abuse or similar shenanigans? |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
264
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 15:35:00 -
[84] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:[Oh, also, having my own militia rats swich off of the caldari mission runner I'm attacking and shoot me instead is incredibly ********. CCP needs to fix that asap. Known issue, and CCP spent a couple weeks trying to track down the bug and fix it. Was apparently a complete nightmare.
I'd expect it to remain until such time as the content tools get released.
|
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
155
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 15:42:00 -
[85] - Quote
Deacon Abox wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote: But like I said, meh. Go for it. It only tangentially affects me via my FW alt anyway. So, you have a farmer alt. How is your farmer liking the plexing changes?
No, mission runner actually. It's just not very important to me, hence tangential.
As for the plexing changes - I see those more as a whack to Astero bot hunters than anything, but that's another story :)
Deacon Abox wrote: Oh btw, the distinction is not between Gal/Cal v Min/Amarr, but between Gal & Amarr v Cal & Min.
I'm actually just saying Cal/Gal in terms of the Cal/Gal FW area, which I know almost nothing about, because the Amarr still seem to do fine, but now that you mention it, I have never flown missions as Amarr so I don't really know there either. My knowledge of mission running in FW is indeed purely TLIB.
Deacon Abox wrote: This would provide more chances of juicier Tengu kills than piddly bomber kills.
Agree that this would be an upside :) |
Charlie Firpol
Noob Mercs Monkeys with Guns.
218
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 15:44:00 -
[86] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:They should still be lucrative, more so than highsec L4s or the current L3s, even if doable quickly in frigates. The risk is substantially greater even if the rats are easy. The rats have little to do with the danger here, after all.
The *only * reason I care about this is that they do draw players out to, frankly, be targets. If you take away the ability to solo L4s what I see happening is far fewer players doing missions in general, which I think would be unfortunate, as it pulls them all over the warzone.
I agree with everyone that the risk/reward is currently out of whack. Completely. With plexing too, for that matter.
Hunting stealth bombers doing lvl 4s is even harder than hunting plexing alts. There is really no risk when doing lvl 4s in a stealth bomber. True, you get more people out there doing missions when they are this easy and this lucrative but they could just as good be not there. They-¦re not more than another name in the local channel and you basically never have any interaction with them unless you hunt them and they start trolling you in local. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
155
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 15:49:00 -
[87] - Quote
Charlie Firpol wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:They should still be lucrative, more so than highsec L4s or the current L3s, even if doable quickly in frigates. The risk is substantially greater even if the rats are easy. The rats have little to do with the danger here, after all.
The *only * reason I care about this is that they do draw players out to, frankly, be targets. If you take away the ability to solo L4s what I see happening is far fewer players doing missions in general, which I think would be unfortunate, as it pulls them all over the warzone.
I agree with everyone that the risk/reward is currently out of whack. Completely. With plexing too, for that matter. Hunting stealth bombers doing lvl 4s is even harder than hunting plexing alts. There is really no risk when doing lvl 4s in a stealth bomber. True, you get more people out there doing missions when they are this easy and this lucrative but they could just as good be not there. They-¦re not more than another name in the local channel and you basically never have any interaction with them unless you hunt them and they start trolling you in local.
Actually they are pretty fun to kill and one of my (my main that is, this toon's) favorite challenges. I just got one the other night.
But you have a good point here. How would you feel about them being doable in AssFrigs or cruisers, but there being a bomber deterrent of some kind?
I basically just want to see them effective in pulling good numbers of small solo-ish ships around the warzone. |
Charlie Firpol
Noob Mercs Monkeys with Guns.
219
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 15:56:00 -
[88] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:
Actually they are pretty fun to kill and one of my (my main that is, this toon's) favorite challenges. I just got one the other night.
But you have a good point here. How would you feel about them being doable in AssFrigs or cruisers, but there being a bomber deterrent of some kind?
I basically just want to see them effective in pulling good numbers of small solo-ish ships around the warzone.
I guess anything that can-¦t fit a covert ops cloak is good. Well, if someone uses a 600mil cloaky T3 for those missions thats okay for me too.
Oh and no stabs! God I hate stabs |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
265
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 15:58:00 -
[89] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:But you have a good point here. How would you feel about them being doable in AssFrigs or cruisers, but there being a bomber deterrent of some kind?
I basically just want to see them effective in pulling good numbers of small solo-ish ships around the warzone. AFs would be ok I suppose, but balancing that would be tricky I think. The easiest way to prevent Bombers from being able to run them is to include fast webbing frigates. Which means your AF wouldn't be able to sig tank either, and it wouldn't take long for an AF to melt under a room full of fire.
I'm all for solo targets, and generally run missions solo in a Proteus. Putting 200-400m on the line to make 120-300m/hr depending on tier seems about right in terms of investment. AFs, being in the same league as Bombers in terms of skill and isk investment, would still be way out of what risk/reward wise. Hell, there was one guy talking about how he runs Caldari L4s in a T2 fitted Merlin ffs. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
155
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 16:06:00 -
[90] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:But you have a good point here. How would you feel about them being doable in AssFrigs or cruisers, but there being a bomber deterrent of some kind?
I basically just want to see them effective in pulling good numbers of small solo-ish ships around the warzone. AFs would be ok I suppose, but balancing that would be tricky I think. The easiest way to prevent Bombers from being able to run them is to include fast webbing frigates. Which means your AF wouldn't be able to sig tank either, and it wouldn't take long for an AF to melt under a room full of fire.
There's other ways. One that comes to mind is that you would substantially increase the risk to bombers by applying the recent cloak changes in plexes to the FW missions too, for example. They would not be able to cloak up once off the button in the mission and would have to immediately blitz it, instead of closing cloaked first. This would work in some but not others.
You could also make the mission despawn if you leave the system, killing the trick of popping all your missions before running them. If the beacon was only up when the player was in the system it makes a much more prime target for other players.
|
|
Verlyn
Sisters of Xambu
19
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 16:22:00 -
[91] - Quote
CCP, if you go ahead and put a damp on my current way of being able to make enough isk to bring PVP to FW,
Then consider this option as well:
Up the LP reward considerably for PVP kills in FW.
I would welcome any change done to FW missioning to balance it out, only if that change above happened in tandem.
Because right now, getting kills in FW is purely fun value, but the actual skill and real experience it takes to be successful at it is given way less ingame reward than it deserves, imo. |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
265
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 16:24:00 -
[92] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:There's other ways. One that comes to mind is that you would substantially increase the risk to bombers by applying the recent cloak changes in plexes to the FW missions too, for example. They would not be able to cloak up once off the button in the mission and would have to immediately blitz it, instead of closing cloaked first. This would work in some but not others.
You could also make the mission despawn if you leave the system, killing the trick of popping all your missions before running them. If the beacon was only up when the player was in the system it makes a much more prime target for other players.
The reward scaling would obviously still need to be fixed as well. None of these actually raise the difficulty of completing the mission, or increase the risk of losing the ship to the mission NPCs. While they do marginally increase the risk from PvP, I don't feel that's nearly enough to balance things. It still leaves SBs as the primary mission running boat for 3/4 of the factions.
In short, if the mission design doesn't raise the risk of losing a small, fragile ship that relies on sig tanking, it's not a decent fix in my opinion. Unless that risk is from the mission design itself - i.e. not requiring any PvP intervention at all - the status quo won't adjust.
Scaling down the rewards would work to a point, but plexing puts a floor on it. Anything more than about a 30% or so decrease in mission rewards makes plexing more attractive from a time / risk / ship investment. And, of course, it wouldn't change ship selection or mission running behavior.
Unless the mission design itself increases the risk of loss, nothing changes.
|
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
155
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 16:27:00 -
[93] - Quote
Verlyn wrote:CCP, if you go ahead and put a damp on my current way of being able to make enough isk to bring PVP to FW,
Then consider this option as well:
Up the LP reward considerably for PVP kills in FW.
I would welcome any change done to FW missioning to balance it out, only if that change above happened in tandem.
Because right now, getting kills in FW is purely fun value, but the actual skill and real experience it takes to be successful at it is given way less ingame reward than it deserves, imo.
So much this. I think they didn't because it is too obviously easy to game, though, by making an alt in the other faction. |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
265
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 16:47:00 -
[94] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Verlyn wrote:CCP, if you go ahead and put a damp on my current way of being able to make enough isk to bring PVP to FW,
Then consider this option as well:
Up the LP reward considerably for PVP kills in FW.
I would welcome any change done to FW missioning to balance it out, only if that change above happened in tandem.
Because right now, getting kills in FW is purely fun value, but the actual skill and real experience it takes to be successful at it is given way less ingame reward than it deserves, imo. So much this. I think they didn't because it is too obviously easy to game, though, by making an alt in the other faction. They can't increase the PvP LP past where it is for Tier 5, because Goons.
They have looked at potentially smoothing the LP payout across tiers for PvP kills, so that on average it's higher than at the moment. |
JAF Anders
Quantum Cats Syndicate Repeat 0ffenders
209
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 17:15:00 -
[95] - Quote
DJ FunkyBacon wrote: 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; I earn most of my FW LP through missions, LP availability affects many individual income streams and contributes to what resources are available to LP-dependent pilots. 2) The most significant factor is EWAR, followed by NPC damage application 3) I'd prefer the "bigger boat" philosophy in conjunction with better payouts
Notes: - I'd prefer less EWAR influence and better NPC damage application so that future iterations on EWAR may go forward with less impact on FW. - I'd prefer that missions represent high-end PvE content rather than another kind of low-end. The pursuit of excellence and stabbed plexing alts. |
Flyinghotpocket
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
405
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 17:21:00 -
[96] - Quote
Lelob wrote:
This is just plain wrong. I took my phoon and with a cloak, mwd, ec-600s and mjd you are basically uncatchable in amarr/minmatar lowsec. In fact, most of the gates have nobody on them anyways with the exception of the odd roaming gang, so with a cloak+mwd there is no real danger in taking gates. The only danger I ever encountered was with the odd dude trying to beat me in warp to a mission and catching me there for a gang or something.
For some reason the meta in lowsec fw seems to be to not bother with bs despite the massive incomes you can make and the relatively low risk in doing so. It is insanely easy too considering you can just land inside of a l4 mission, mjd off and anyone trying to come into your plex has almost no chance of catching you while you are 100km off.
Obvuiosly the only way we could actually catch you and kill you was on the warp in or in the missions where you cant light a cyno. We camped you 2 or 3 times and each time that we were forced to camp the gate you brought a cyno group. So yeah the current meta is to let battleships go because you just get cyno'ed by PL ironicly. Or catch them and kill them in the mission, like we did with your mission group.
Lelob wrote:
If you want a simple fix to missions, just add webs into the l4 fw missions that can reach out to 150km. Alternatively, add a bunch of elite frigs with mwds that go 3-4k/s that have webs and points.
he nailed it on the head. Proper Ewar balance between the races. amarr missions need the 150km web at least a 100km neut. O yeah and maybe this thing where the amarr npcs actually hit ships would be nice too. That way it can stay RPy and not have amarr ships with jammers and damps orrr we can go the other route and give every race a little bit of each ewar and make it equal all around.
Basically proper ewar balance between all the races up to the amarr mission level because the gallente level is way to hard.
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
268
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 17:31:00 -
[97] - Quote
Flyinghotpocket wrote: Basically proper ewar balance between all the races up to the amarr mission level because the gallente level is way to hard.
Nah, ya'll are just spoiled is all
|
March rabbit
Federal Defense Union
1517
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 18:05:00 -
[98] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Bad Messenger wrote:just remove fw missions, no point to have those at all. Actually it pains me to be defending PvE but there is. It incentivizes players to fly much farther into enemy territory than most usually do. if you do it in SB.... i'm not sure it makes any good for PvP overall The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1291
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 18:12:00 -
[99] - Quote
exiik Shardani wrote:L4, L4 run run run ...... , but you all forget, how much work it is mean for militia's who off plex, shoot iHub's and donating there LP to reach fu... Tier 4 -> only then farmers (null players alts -> contribute nothing to reach Tier 4 or help militias bro with something) start farm...
Missions can only be good reward for ppl, who actively support militia faction and help reaching tiers!
This may be a promising idea. What if in missions you could only earn 5xs the amount of lp you donate to system upgrades? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
269
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 18:25:00 -
[100] - Quote
Cearain wrote:exiik Shardani wrote:L4, L4 run run run ...... , but you all forget, how much work it is mean for militia's who off plex, shoot iHub's and donating there LP to reach fu... Tier 4 -> only then farmers (null players alts -> contribute nothing to reach Tier 4 or help militias bro with something) start farm...
Missions can only be good reward for ppl, who actively support militia faction and help reaching tiers!
This may be a promising idea. What if in missions you could only earn 5xs the amount of lp you donate to system upgrades? Right. Let's add more complicating mechanics that don't actually address the mission imbalance issue in order to not even really in any way shape or form change the perception of some people benefiting from Tier upgrades without contributing. |
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
213
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 18:31:00 -
[101] - Quote
Mission imbalance between the factions is something that I assume will be hard to sort out.
Quick fix for risk/reward - Tie mission running payouts to Tier2 and have them ignore warzone control.
Then when you have time come back and rework FW missions. BLFOX is currently recruiting |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1291
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 18:31:00 -
[102] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Cearain wrote:exiik Shardani wrote:L4, L4 run run run ...... , but you all forget, how much work it is mean for militia's who off plex, shoot iHub's and donating there LP to reach fu... Tier 4 -> only then farmers (null players alts -> contribute nothing to reach Tier 4 or help militias bro with something) start farm...
Missions can only be good reward for ppl, who actively support militia faction and help reaching tiers!
This may be a promising idea. What if in missions you could only earn 5xs the amount of lp you donate to system upgrades? Right. Let's add more complicating mechanics that don't actually address the mission imbalance issue in order to not even really in any way shape or form change the perception of some people benefiting from Tier upgrades without contributing.
I don't think you understood the idea.
It addresses the mission imbalance issue by basically being a 20% nerf to mission lp income.
It addresses the "benefit without contribution to tier" issue by directly requiring contribution.
edit: Ok I was thinking of the wrong imbalance issue. You are right this would not address the imbalance between the factions I think that is pretty much a given that should be corrected. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
269
|
Posted - 2014.06.06 18:35:00 -
[103] - Quote
Cearain wrote:I don't think you understood the idea.
It addresses the mission imbalance issue by basically being a 20% nerf to mission lp income.
It addresses the "benefit without contribution to tier" issue by directly requiring contribution. I fully understand the idea. I just think it's crap is all, and doesn't actually impact anything we're trying to address. If you want to reduce mission income, then reduce mission income. This mechanic just adds a back-assward way to ensure that folks have an even easier time maintaining tier level than before. It does nothing to balance missions across factions or disincentivize farming or risk averse activity.
|
edeity
Holy Amarrian Battlemonk I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
11
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 02:09:00 -
[104] - Quote
I just want to encourage you all to keep fllying missions in stealth bombers or caracals. |
Savesti Kyrsst
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
8
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 02:42:00 -
[105] - Quote
Amarr missions definitely do not need t3s. They are fine in Caracals.
I think a good compromise would be that some missions be kept/made doable in stealth bombers, across factions. Others will require something bigger.
I advise people keep warping frigates into my alts' missions without looking at the caracals to check if either have rapid lights. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
155
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 03:55:00 -
[106] - Quote
This is one of those times I wish we could post KMs. Hunting mission runners is fun. |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1291
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 04:36:00 -
[107] - Quote
There are some ingenious ways to catch them. Not that I have caught them that way. I have been the one caught though.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Sakkar Arenith
Amarrian Vengeance Team Amarrica
78
|
Posted - 2014.06.07 16:58:00 -
[108] - Quote
Stealth Bomber frigates running Level 4 LP missions is a plague of the entire FW system.
Against Amarr and Gallente NPCs in particular those things prevent a viable no risk way of earning shitloads of ISK, at NO RISK.
Unlike the farmers, I dont want the Minmatar and Caldari NPCs nerfed, but rather the other two buffed strongly..
Level 4 missions should not be possible to be run in something smaller than a BC or HAC, and even those face very little real danger, but stealth bombers present a 100% no risk grind, which is silly and detriments the entire gameplay.
MAtter of fact those missions, just as the Plex npcs shouldnt only require you to deal sufficient dps, but also make you tank a significant amount, to prevent SB and stab faggotry. |
Simyaldee
The Great Harmon Institute Of Technology
84
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 08:37:00 -
[109] - Quote
Ok. I'll take this one.
I'll start with something that everyone seems to agree with. Each of the Racial Militia's missions need to be equal in difficulty. I personally believe this should be achieved by simply removing all Racial EWAR. Removing all missiles and replacing them with turrets instead. To allow all of these missions to be attempted in Stealth Bombers. (Keep Reading, don't freak out yet till you hear my reasoning.)
There seem to be two separate camps with decent overlap.
Camp 1: Faction Warfare Missions provide too much LP for too little Risk. This is amplified by the ability to do them in stealth bombers, and by their scaling rewards at high tier levels. Missions should only be accessible by high skill ships and/or have their LP payout nerfed.
Camp 2: Faction Warfare missions are decent and fairly balanced as they are now. Running them in fancier ships can be more efficient then running them in Stealth Bombers. Limiting Stealth Bombers would also be limiting them to new players. Other then changing them to be racially equal, missions should remain easy.
Before I state my position, and the reasons behind it, I will say this. I funded the first two or so years of my EVE career solely on the reward from FW Missions. I used those rewards to fund, what I think, is a very decent PvP and FCing Career. So note this and try to point out any outright Bias which I might have that openly clouds my judgement.
As I briefly stated above. I believe Faction Warfare Missions should be soloable in stealth bombers when decently fit and flown. BUT, because these missions provide no benefit for or against the tier level(barring donations from mission running, which is shadowy and hard to prove at best) their reward should be set to the base Tier 2 level and disconnected from the Tier system all together.
It is too easy/ not risky enough/ too ISK efficient to run missions in a bomber
This is very difficult to address correctly with a forum post, but I'll try and keep it brief.
Why must a level 4 Faction Warfare mission have the SP pre-requisite of, at least, a Faction Cruiser? The arbitrary reason usually given is that, because it currently is not enough Isk vs Reward to fly a stealth bomber to earn the amount of LP it currently does.
Ok, then. Lets take your average level 4 High Sec Mission, and your average Level 4 Faction Warfare Mission at the base Tier 2 level rewards.
High Sec Level 4 Required: A minimum of a BS at low SP and a BC at High SP. Required training to get to BS level ships skills with weaponry can take a minimum of 10 days. With 20 days allowed for miscellaneous skills a level 4 can be successfully completed with a month of SP training. I know because I personally could do Level 4's when I was only a month old, albeit fairly slowly.
You must kill all the rats and accomplish whatever miscellaneous stuff is needed for you to complete the mission. Mission time: Bad Skills about 30 minutes-1 Hour. Good Skills 30-15 Minutes roughly. Salvaging and looting in a BS can take an additional 10-20 minutes.
Reward: Loot/Salvage/LP/Isk rewards can net you approximately 30-40 million for a decent mission.
Risk: None, like literally none. If you don't overpimp your mission boat with Faction Mods without Buffer gankers will leave you alone. Smart play means its also hard to lure you with things like duels etc. Rats trying to kill you is also extremely unlikely because of the buffer provided by ships gives you ample time to warp out.
Faction Warfare Level 4
Required: Can be run with a stealth bomber with relatively minimal skills. Using EVE Mon and an alt with no skills whatsoever. It takes approximately 30 days to fit a Stealth bomber with all the T1( You must kill a up to 7ish rats(ca't remember the exact number of Indys) or a couple reloads worth of torpedoes for the twp structure killing missions. For Level 4's these can take anywhere from 10 minutes to 1 hour at the extremes depending on the mission.
Reward: At the base Tier 2 level. The Average Payout for a Level 4 is 20kish LP plus a couple million ISK per mission. This can amount to anywhere from 30Million Total Isk to 60 Million Total ISK depending on the market values of LP. Obviously the extremely high payout of 90K LP at Tier 4 is too large of a disparity to be ignored, which is why I insist it be dropped to base Tier 2 Rewards.
Risk: Exponential. Route takes ten jumps usually, at minimum, most of them through Hostile Space. All the missions are run in Hostile Space. Specifically for bombers the risk for being killed by the rats is also fairly high. Even when fit with an MSE and flying defensively, you are paper thin. Not to mention your defensive options are nil. I have seen enterprising people kill Stealth Bombers in noob frigates. And, Stealth Bombers, while having a moderate agility advantage over bigger ships, must keep orbiting. All ships, no matter the SP must keep an eye on local and D-scan to prevent ambush.
Because of word limits I'll give a follow up post.
Member, Fighter and FC for The Great Harmon Institute of Technology-á
|
Simyaldee
The Great Harmon Institute Of Technology
84
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 08:40:00 -
[110] - Quote
Now, as stated in the above post. The actual rewards for a Level 4 High Sec Mission, and a Level 4 Faction Warfare mission at base Tier 2 rewards, do not have a massive disparity in either the SP required, or the actual money earned. But the actual risk partaken by a Faction Warfare missioner is vastly worse.
There are a couple elements of Risk when it comes to Faction Warfare Missions. Theres the risk from the NPC's and the risk from other players.
The Risk from NPC's is far higher for stealth bombers then it is for anything else. Tanking the DPS long enough to kill the rats is trivial in pretty much anything above and including Faction Cruiser level. While sometimes you can die in a Bomber before you can even warp off because your tank is so thin.
The Risk from players is harder to pin point. On one side, the Stealth Bomber is cheaper and easier to replace. Not as juicy for pirate to go after and is more agile and near impossible to catch while moving through gates.
All the other fits, should routinely fit cloaks for safe travel, unless you enjoy the look of those point notifications on your screen, and are only slightly easier to catch on gates. They are both very juicy and can attract more unsavoury people. But they can also fight off smaller ships and tacklers, while a bomber cannot.
Saying arbitrarily that "you need such and such SP to run such and such" without taking in the purpose of said 'such and such' thing is a bad argument.
Sometimes people don't want to PvP. Sometimes people just need to grind ISK quickly. Being in Faction Warfare makes you a target everywhere. Effectively completely cuts off half of Empire space, and makes running Missions in Highsec a lot more dangerous.
Faction Warfare missions prvoide a unique PvE Experience that gives people a choice other then simply grinding plex after plex after laborious plex.
And for those of you who demand that a large amount of SP is required for plexes to be 'fair'. Remember you already have access to PvE opportunites that low SP characthers don't. A large majority of exploration in both, low and null. Wormholes, Level 5's, Incursions, Manufacturing, not to mention that nearly EVERY freaking money earning opportunity benefits immensly from added SP.
I weep everytime options for New Players are automatically dismissed by the 'bittervets', because somehow it doesn't fit the 'risk' of EVE.
I also find it tremendously Ironic that people who cried out that Stabbed-Cloaky Farmers were a 'playstyle' that simply needed to have 'consequences' are now demanding the immediate death of Stealth Bomber missioning.
Well Mission 'Keep it Brief was a complete failure'. Member, Fighter and FC for The Great Harmon Institute of Technology-á
|
|
Colt Blackhawk
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
290
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 08:57:00 -
[111] - Quote
Hi I was doing fw (farming warfare) almost 2 years and left some months ago but I still have 2 bomber mission farming toons for minmatar, caldari and amarr.
Tbh it is okay to do these missions in bombers. The interceptor buff made these missions really hard and I was hunting mission runners myself with interceptor for great fun. With Kronos updates and no possibility to cloak in missions any more CCP already nerfed facwar missions a lot. Main issue is the total imbalance.
1.) Minmatar missions are waaaaaay to easy. I mean okay they are pvp wise really hard because amarrian pvpers hunt them like mad but minnies have really the easiest missions of all factions. Amarr npcs are slow, have sh.. tracking and use tracking disruptors vs bombers^^ 2.) Amarr missions have a good balance atm. What makes them quite easy is that minnie militia is bear militia and so amarrian mission runners barely get hunted by pvpers. The target painters and the speed of the npcs is really hard sometimes. Amarr missions are fine. 3.) Caldari missions. Well the damps hurt. The gal npcs have almost no range so you can even orbit at 30km quite safe plus gal rats lack hitpoints somehow. In comparison to minmatar rats (amarr missions) the gal rats melt like ice in the sun. 4.) Gal missions. Never did them cause rumours say they are not doable in bomber.
Conclusion: Make caldari slightly and minmatar missions A LOT harder to be on par with amarr. Gallente missions...well I am not expert on that. [09:04:53] Ashira Twilight > Plant the f****** amarr flag and s*** on their smoking wrecks. |
Baron' Soontir Fel
Justified Chaos
164
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 20:43:00 -
[112] - Quote
That people are somehow not seeing that new players can do novice/small plexes solo and level 1 - 3 missions solo baffles me. It really is annoying to think that new players should be able to complete level 4s solo with very little SP. |
Douglas Nolm
Minmatar Secret Service Ushra'Khan
76
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 21:22:00 -
[113] - Quote
Baron' Soontir Fel wrote:That people are somehow not seeing that new players can do novice/small plexes solo and level 1 - 3 missions solo baffles me. It really is annoying to think that new players should be able to complete level 4s solo with very little SP.
This!
There is plenty for a new player to do in FW if they just want to farm, uhh I mean pve. You don't expect someone who's just finished their trial account to be out doing L4 missions in highsec, so why should people expect to join the militia and straight away be doing L4 missions and soloing large pieces in their multistabbed noobships? Especially as new players shouldn't be losing ships that are so expensive they need L4 mission rewards to replace them. Ok, sure it would be more efficient, but you gotta start at the bottom. If they were made harder it would also put a dampener on the farmers that sell standings too.
|
Simyaldee
The Great Harmon Institute Of Technology
86
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 23:02:00 -
[114] - Quote
Baron' Soontir Fel wrote:Words.
Douglas Nolm wrote: Words quoting Baron's words
You guys are absolutely right. The proportionate money making potential between a High SP player and a Low SP player is WAY to low. I mean the only money making activities in EVE which are restricted significantly from Low SP Characters are, Wormholes, most if not all Low Sec Exploration, pretty much all Null Sec Exploration, Null Sec Anomalies, Level 5's, Incursions, Tech 2 Manufacturing, Capital Manufacturing, Most of T1 Manufacturing, Reactions,Research, or basically ANYTHING to do with a POS.
And I mean its not like EVERY MONEY MAKING ACTIVITY in EVE benefits significantly from higher SP levels, including Faction Warfare Missions. And I mean Low SP Players have a bunch of stuff to do already right?
Like Mining, Plexing and Level 3-4ish High Sec Missions or Level 1-3 Faction Warfare Missions. I mean its not like any of those activities require a significant investment of time for relatively little reward. Am I right?
Why should we deem to allow Lower SP Players to make a decent reward at very high risk(at Tier2 Reward Levels). I mean, WE took our knocks and endured an unfairly balanced mission system. Therefore WE deserve to be able to reap the rewards. If the newbie scrubs want in; They have to try and convince us High SP Characters who usually have our money earning systems set up optimally, to plod along with them and allow the noobs to feed off the scraps of our generosity, or get a bunch of newbie players together and try to figure it out for themselves. Because that ALWAYS works out great.
I mean, being a new player in EVE Online is already ridiculously easy? right? Member, Fighter and FC for The Great Harmon Institute of Technology-á
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
272
|
Posted - 2014.06.08 23:57:00 -
[115] - Quote
Simyaldee -
We get what you're saying, we just disagree.
I disagree that there is any significant risk of loss to NPCs for using bombers in Minmatar or Caldari missions. With minimal SP and brainpower, that risk is basically zero.
I also feel that the disparity between the assets at risk in your examples - BS vs. SB - is also part of the problem. Noone has an issue with people using HACs or T3s or BCs for L4 missions - proper fits run in the 150-400m+ range. The issue is with being able to complete them in 40m ships with essentially zero risk of loss.
L4 missions, of any kind, should demand a certain level of investment in SP and ships to run well. L4s should require you to put a reasonable level of assets at risk, and have a reasonable risk of loss, compared to the rewards given. This is true for every mission type that I know of. For 3/4 of the factions, this is broken with respect to FW missions.
I vehemently disagree that L4s should be soloable with low SP (or high SP!) characters in stealth bombers. The risk / reward is completely out of whack. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
156
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 01:35:00 -
[116] - Quote
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.
So, fix the rewards at ~T2. Problem solved. |
Baron' Soontir Fel
Justified Chaos
165
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 02:32:00 -
[117] - Quote
I find it baffling to suggest that plexing is not an alternative to missions for FW. I have literally never done a mission, and yet I was able to PLEX and pay for all my ships in FW after the first month. A single novice plex gives you ~10mil isk for 10 minutes (@ T2). My solo frigate fits at the time, with 1-2 months of SP, was a Rocket Kestrel that costs 6mil ISK and Condors that cost 5 mil ISK. New pilots aren't in huge need for large amounts of ISK just because they can't fly larger ships.
Once you can fly destroyers, very very easy to do, you can fight in small plexes and take them. My most flown Destroyer fit costs 8mil ISK. that means one small plex nets me almost two of these fits.
FW is very new pilot friendly. The presence of novice plexes, the LP system, the militia mechanics, the lower tier missions. Just because new players wouldn't be able to run level 4's doesn't mean they wont't play or won't be able to contribute to fleets, fights, or general militia presence. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
156
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 04:31:00 -
[118] - Quote
Baron' Soontir Fel wrote:I find it baffling to suggest that plexing is not an alternative to missions for FW. I have literally never done a mission
Sorry, but that is where I stopped reading. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2272
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 06:17:00 -
[119] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote: 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.
There ya go. That's not the intention of the missions. If it were, then Gallente missions would be soloable by small ships. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
156
|
Posted - 2014.06.09 06:55:00 -
[120] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote: 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.
There ya go. That's not the intention of the missions. If it were, then Gallente missions would be soloable by small ships.
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. |
|
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. |
|
Feodor Romanov
Caldari Special Forces OLD MAN GANG
5
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 09:51:00 -
[151] - Quote
The 4 lvl FW missions is the main reason why cal mil is still exist. Your suggestion to "balance" it will ruin caldari militia. |
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc. Praetoria Imperialis Excubitoris
914
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 09:52:00 -
[152] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote: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.... Let me spin a yarn and then add some more stray thoughts:
The few weeks I ran missions for Amarr back in the day, I did it in a PvP fit dual-prop-rep Sacrilege and except for the handful of missions where I had to travel a bazillion miles to target, my completion times were roughly bomber time + 50% or there about .. that is a whopping 90-120s per mission (measured at gate activation). That included killing the elite cruisers accompanying the BS target which had to be done to control incoming dps, burst tanks really are sub-par against sustained damage That same Sacrilege later proved itself against a swarm of lighter ships (I however failed .. damn weapon burn-outs!) in what I still consider my best and most fun fight ever.
As for current times being "about right"; Plexing LP yields has been accepted as being too high relative to risk/time involved resulting in consequent "NERF!", then how can 5+ times that yield with equal or lower risk ever be considered right? Missions yields ~10k+ LP (was 20k+ once upon a time) and takes 1-2 minutes .. to get that kind of payout from plexes you have to spend 10-20 minutes. We could double, triple or MOAR! the time missions take to complete and still come out ahead as missions not only give LP but more often than not spawn in friendly (ie. enemy can't dock) systems due to the way system occupancy favours flipping the entire warzone to maximize that infernal tier and is thus generally safer to engage in than O-plexing (which is where the plexing LP is).
In short: Forcing the destruction of smaller rats as well as the BS rat not only helps to equalize income (adding time and requiring appropriate ship) potential twixt the various FW activities, but the hit to farmability will lower the number of run missions -> individual mission payout increases -> viable revenue stream for PvP'ers (remove missions from tier modifier and that viability goes interstellar).
NOTE: I do not advocate cleaning the rooms, quite the contrary. Mission target BS almost all have an elite escort consisting of 1-2 frigates and 1-3 cruisers (if I remember correctly) .. those are the ones I want added to the kill list, can even change them vanilla rats and still achieve the goal of making bombers mostly obsolete. |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
276
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 10:56:00 -
[153] - Quote
Veshta Yoshida wrote:In short: Forcing the destruction of smaller rats as well as the BS rat not only helps to equalize income (adding time and requiring appropriate ship) potential twixt the various FW activities, but the hit to farmability will lower the number of run missions -> individual mission payout increases -> viable revenue stream for PvP'ers (remove missions from tier modifier and that viability goes interstellar).
NOTE: I do not advocate cleaning the rooms, quite the contrary. Mission target BS almost all have an elite escort consisting of 1-2 frigates and 1-3 cruisers (if I remember correctly) .. those are the ones I want added to the kill list, can even change them vanilla rats and still achieve the goal of making bombers mostly obsolete. See, this would be a lot more reasonable IMO - Kill a BS plus a few smaller ships, and we're good. Adding things like small fast webbing ships to current missions would have the same impact IMO - you'd have to either kill them off or be able to tank the room while webbed. I absolutely agree that forcing folks to kill a wider variety of sig sizes would help things.
Veshta Yoshida wrote:As for current times being "about right"; Plexing LP yields has been accepted as being too high relative to risk/time involved resulting in consequent "NERF!", then how can 5+ times that yield with equal or lower risk ever be considered right? Missions yields ~10k+ LP (was 20k+ once upon a time) and takes 1-2 minutes .. to get that kind of payout from plexes you have to spend 10-20 minutes. We could double, triple or MOAR! the time missions take to complete and still come out ahead as missions not only give LP but more often than not spawn in friendly (ie. enemy can't dock) systems due to the way system occupancy favours flipping the entire warzone to maximize that infernal tier and is thus generally safer to engage in than O-plexing (which is where the plexing LP is). A couple things here -
1. When talking about times being about right, I was talking about time in the mission pocket itself and the resultant PvP exposure. Spending 2-5 minutes (depending on whether you're killing 1 BS, 6 Industrials, or a structure...) fully exposed to anyone in the system who cares to drop by seems pretty reasonable.
2. Total times when calculating reward / time need to include everything from mission pickup, running the mission, and completing it. Even when you're running multiple missions, a set of 13-15 can take anywhere from 2-3 hours to complete depending on warzone terrain and ship type. So we need to be looking at that total time rather than just time in the mission when balancing things out IMO. For instance, in GalMil space I can pick up and run 11 missions in about 2-2.5 hours, for about 225k LP/hour at Tier 3. Running 15 missions in the same amount of time would be a 35% increase in LP/hour, which is part of why Minnie missions are so popular.
3. I don't believe the LP/hour from plexing was the reason for the plexing nerf in Kronos. If you're bringing an appropriately sized ship into the plex, with a PvP fit, the additional rat spawns add a negligible amount of time to completion IMO - maybe 20% or so at the most. The changes most heavily impact using stabbed or cloaky alts to farm them AFK - so the changes generally force more time at keyboard, and more appropriate - PvP, higher risk of loss - fittings. If that's the direction CCP takes with mission changes I'll be a happy man.
Of course, I don't think that much of this will happen until the content tools get updated, since it'll require a huge amount of devtime without them. Given Crius is right around the corner and with the industry changes having been pushed back, I'm thinking winter at the earliest and most likely 2015.
But hey - the Kronos changes have already changed the game for FW, so I'm content to wait for a while. |
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate
392
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 16:08:00 -
[154] - Quote
Note: If you add webbing towers or webbing frigates, it will negate the feasibility of doing it in a Assault Frig and possibly a cloaky T3. Additionally, Gallente and Amarr missions will still be harder due to the EWAR. |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
276
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 16:30:00 -
[155] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:Note: If you add webbing towers or webbing frigates, it will negate the feasibility of doing it in a Assault Frig and possibly a cloaky T3. Additionally, Gallente and Amarr missions will still be harder due to the EWAR. EWAR balance is something that will have to be addressed one way or the other, regardless of the addition of webbing frigates. I'm not terribly keen on the idea of AFs being able to solo L4s anyway, so losing that potential scenario doesn't concern me too much. Opinions vary, of course.
Dead Men Tell No Tales already has web/point frigates, which haven't proved to be much of a problem for T3s yet. Most of the fime I just face-tank the entire mission anyway in my Proteus; dual-rep cloaky Proteus can face-tank about 1100DPS so IMO missions can be done in survivable ships that can run around the warzone at an acceptable level of risk. |
Baron' Soontir Fel
Justified Chaos
165
|
Posted - 2014.06.11 17:28:00 -
[156] - Quote
Feodor Romanov wrote:The 4 lvl FW missions is the main reason why cal mil is still exist. Your suggestion to "balance" it will ruin caldari militia.
Ruin Caldari farmers maybe. The actual Caldari militia will still remain.
There's a pretty good reason why Caldari has always had a huge number advantage over the rest of the militias in pure numbers, and it wasn't pvp'ers. |
Feodor Romanov
Caldari Special Forces OLD MAN GANG
5
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 12:58:00 -
[157] - Quote
Baron' Soontir Fel wrote:Feodor Romanov wrote:The 4 lvl FW missions is the main reason why cal mil is still exist. Your suggestion to "balance" it will ruin caldari militia. Ruin Caldari farmers maybe. The actual Caldari militia will still remain. There's a pretty good reason why Caldari has always had a huge number advantage over the rest of the militias in pure numbers, and it wasn't pvp'ers.
Every PVPer farms ISKs. Most of new PVPers do not want to learn caldari ships for pvp and for PVE they want to learn mostly drones. that is hard work to make them join calmil. The main motivation to join calmil for now is more easy money. They can spend less time in PVE and have more free time for PVP. So if FW gal/cal missions will have equal or near equal difficulty, some new pvpers will quit and many will not join calmil in the future. The result of such changes will be less farmers and pvpers in calmil and more of them in other militias. I don't now about other alliances but such changes will definitely hit OMG's recruitment. |
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate
395
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 18:46:00 -
[158] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Estella Osoka wrote:Note: If you add webbing towers or webbing frigates, it will negate the feasibility of doing it in a Assault Frig and possibly a cloaky T3. Additionally, Gallente and Amarr missions will still be harder due to the EWAR. EWAR balance is something that will have to be addressed one way or the other, regardless of the addition of webbing frigates. I'm not terribly keen on the idea of AFs being able to solo L4s anyway, so losing that potential scenario doesn't concern me too much. Opinions vary, of course. Dead Men Tell No Tales already has web/point frigates, which haven't proved to be much of a problem for T3s yet. Most of the fime I just face-tank the entire mission anyway in my Proteus; dual-rep cloaky Proteus can face-tank about 1100DPS so IMO missions can be done in survivable ships that can run around the warzone at an acceptable level of risk.
Assault Frigates can solo some L4 missions in highsec. So keeping with that theme, an AF should be able to do it in FW L4 missions. I don't like the webbing tower idea, I think webbing frigates would be preferable. Webbing towers could be easily primaried by a SB and killed in 2 volleys. An assualt frigate would have a hard time with webbing towers, but could deal with the webbing frigates. That would make it balanced in my opinion, as it would give AFs a chance in doing FW L4s, but kill off the solo bomber runs. |
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order Repeat 0ffenders
940
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 18:58:00 -
[159] - Quote
Feodor Romanov wrote:Baron' Soontir Fel wrote:Feodor Romanov wrote:The 4 lvl FW missions is the main reason why cal mil is still exist. Your suggestion to "balance" it will ruin caldari militia. Ruin Caldari farmers maybe. The actual Caldari militia will still remain. There's a pretty good reason why Caldari has always had a huge number advantage over the rest of the militias in pure numbers, and it wasn't pvp'ers. Every PVPer farms ISKs. Most of new PVPers do not want to learn caldari ships for pvp and for PVE they want to learn mostly drones. that is hard work to make them join calmil. The main motivation to join calmil for now is more easy money. They can spend less time in PVE and have more free time for PVP. So if FW gal/cal missions will have equal or near equal difficulty, some new pvpers will quit and many will not join calmil in the future. The result of such changes will be less farmers and pvpers in calmil and more of them in other militias. I don't now about other alliances but such changes will definitely hit OMG's recruitment.
Well since your alliance is home to corps like VK, space devils and conoco, which in my experience are almost completely focussed on farming in stabbed cloaky frigates and make up about half of OMG's numbers, i can imagine these changes are a problem.
EDIT: just checked OMG, looks like those corps have already left. Interestingly those corps used to make up aroumd 3/4 of OMG's numbers lol |
exiik Shardani
Terpene Conglomerate
7
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 21:39:00 -
[160] - Quote
cut all ewar from FW missions and all will be balanced then you have more time to balance FW LP shop, prices in LP shop (mainly FU tags)...
anyway when you lowering incomes from FW then many ppl (include PvP players) leave FW. it is similar like Kronos changes, there is much less fights at medium plexes :-( ... |
|
Baron' Soontir Fel
Justified Chaos
168
|
Posted - 2014.06.12 21:47:00 -
[161] - Quote
Feodor Romanov wrote: Every PVPer farms ISKs. Most of new PVPers do not want to learn caldari ships for pvp and for PVE they want to learn mostly drones. that is hard work to make them join calmil. The main motivation to join calmil for now is more easy money. They can spend less time in PVE and have more free time for PVP. So if FW gal/cal missions will have equal or near equal difficulty, some new pvpers will quit and many will not join calmil in the future. The result of such changes will be less farmers and pvpers in calmil and more of them in other militias. I don't now about other alliances but such changes will definitely hit OMG's recruitment.
I highly suggest you go back and read what you wrote. You literally said CalMil gets easy money through missions and therefore, if CCP balances the missions CalMil will lose players because there's no other reason to stay.
Those people are the farmers, not PvP'ers.
Welcome to balance buddy
edit: I haven't had less fights at mediums, just more of my frig/dessie fights have been in smalls + novices. Mediums are relegated to brawling dessies and cruisers.
It's just the current meta that dissuades cruisers from being used due to the overabundance of cheap t1 frigs that can just swamp a cruiser. |
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate
397
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 17:47:00 -
[162] - Quote
Feodor Romanov wrote:Baron' Soontir Fel wrote:Feodor Romanov wrote:The 4 lvl FW missions is the main reason why cal mil is still exist. Your suggestion to "balance" it will ruin caldari militia. Ruin Caldari farmers maybe. The actual Caldari militia will still remain. There's a pretty good reason why Caldari has always had a huge number advantage over the rest of the militias in pure numbers, and it wasn't pvp'ers. Every PVPer farms ISKs. Most of new PVPers do not want to learn caldari ships for pvp and for PVE they want to learn mostly drones. that is hard work to make them join calmil. The main motivation to join calmil for now is more easy money. They can spend less time in PVE and have more free time for PVP. So if FW gal/cal missions will have equal or near equal difficulty, some new pvpers will quit and many will not join calmil in the future. The result of such changes will be less farmers and pvpers in calmil and more of them in other militias. I don't now about other alliances but such changes will definitely hit OMG's recruitment.
People will still join CalMil. Some people like to keep their Jita access. |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
281
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 18:20:00 -
[163] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:Assault Frigates can solo some L4 missions in highsec. So keeping with that theme, an AF should be able to do it in FW L4 missions. I don't like the webbing tower idea, I think webbing frigates would be preferable. Webbing towers could be easily primaried by a SB and killed in 2 volleys. An assualt frigate would have a hard time with webbing towers, but could deal with the webbing frigates. That would make it balanced in my opinion, as it would give AFs a chance in doing FW L4s, but kill off the solo bomber runs. You mean variety in mission design, such that you might have to choose your missions based on the ship you can bring? HERESY!
I'd support that kind of design goal. I just can't get behind a design paradigm that attempts to keep things farmable in bombers. |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
505
|
Posted - 2014.06.13 21:41:00 -
[164] - Quote
Responding to the OP.
Make all missions harder and require bigger/tougher ships or a make the missions have a variety of different optimal ship types to complete. I've got no problem having maybe one L4 being optimal to use a bomber for example for the sake of variance - but when all the missions can be ran in a bomber or similar cheap/low risk ship thats just wrong.
I'd argue that some of the standings hits taken should be reduced to be more in line with normal missions, and there should definitely be more variety both in types of missions and the rewards provided (Storyline missions for faction item/implants anyone?).
Other than that I think Gallente missions being more difficult right now is a good balance encouraging people (often newer lower skilled pilots) to collect LP from plexes primarily and missions being farmed hard (often by the vets with shiny ships) when the LP value makes them worthwhile. It caters for all sorts and not just farmers.
I'd also argue the LP values will never properly recover after the last set of LP changes (there is too much LP about!), so now the main importance is to redress the tags required and dropped by missions for specific LP store items - People need more viable ways to spend that LP.
Right now only 2 tags cover everything worthwhile (that requires tags) from the LP store - thats interesting in one way as it boosts the cost of those navy modules, but is an artificial way to control the price due to the cost of the tags. Perhaps a tag converter or something so the useless ones that all get sold to NPC buy orders can be put towards the high end navy LP store kit too.
Just my opinions, which might be out of touch after not |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1306
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 13:31:00 -
[165] - Quote
Simyaldee wrote: Reward: At the base Tier 2 level. The Average Payout for a Level 4 is 20kish LP plus a couple million ISK per mission. This can amount to anywhere from 30Million Total Isk to 60 Million Total ISK depending on the market values of LP. Obviously the extremely high payout of 90K LP at Tier 4 is too large of a disparity to be ignored, which is why I insist it be dropped to base Tier 2 Rewards.
The problem with not letting the higher tiers effect missions is that missions pull farmers off of plexes. If someone is at tier 4 and they can make more isk deplexing than running missions everyone will just join the winning side and there will be no reason to think the losing side can catch up.
The nice thing about missions is it lets the farmers farm without effecting occupancy.
It has come up here:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4719074#post4719074 Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2283
|
Posted - 2014.06.17 14:11:00 -
[166] - Quote
Each faction should reward the players who do nothing to achieve their goals. Buff missions.
|
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1321
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 17:25:00 -
[167] - Quote
any news on this issue? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
394
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 17:39:00 -
[168] - Quote
Cearain wrote:any news on this issue? As folks have previously said, no L4 mission balance will be done until they get their new content tools online. Too much effort / work / reauthoring to make it worthwhile otherwise. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2414
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 18:04:00 -
[169] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Cearain wrote:any news on this issue? As folks have previously said, no L4 mission balance will be done until they get their new content tools online. Too much effort / work / reauthoring to make it worthwhile otherwise. Extremely difficult L4 missions give Gallente too much of an advantage. (tm) |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
394
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 18:30:00 -
[170] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Extremely difficult L4 missions give Gallente too much of an advantage. (tm)
We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
(with apologies to Frank Herbert and David Lynch) |
|
Andre Vauban
Quantum Cats Syndicate Repeat 0ffenders
335
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 18:38:00 -
[171] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Extremely difficult L4 missions give Gallente too much of an advantage. (tm) We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..." (with apologies to Frank Herbert and David Lynch)
My lord, I suspect an incredible secret has been kept on this region: that the Gallente exist in vast numbers - vast. And it is they who control Black Rise. QCATS is recruiting:-á https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3896299 |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
396
|
Posted - 2014.07.25 19:02:00 -
[172] - Quote
Andre Vauban wrote:Veskrashen wrote: We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
My lord, I suspect an incredible secret has been kept on this region: that the Gallente exist in vast numbers - vast. And it is they who control Black Rise. And as they chanted below him, a horrifying thought passed through X Gallentius' mind...
"My name has become a Killing Word!" |
Arla Sarain
58
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 08:29:00 -
[173] - Quote
Balancing missions? Sure. Under what criteria? dunno - current suggestions seem to be kneejerks.
Making mission into a PvE/PvP mix puts the person who is doing the mission at a disadvantage. Those are not plex rats anymore...
Putting more stuff to kill is against what CCP thought of these missions - they are deep in enemy space; there is already risk in that you're moving 20j through potential gatecamps into potentially wartarget full systems. Them being short is part of the design.
IMO they should still be able to be done in a stealth bomber with some effort. But remove all the gates - they give too much of a heads up to the person running the mission on whether someone is coming their way. By the time a person lands, aligns, accelerates and warps the bomber had 30s to get his ass out.
Give the rats higher tracking and range up to 130km. No javs, no sitting at 60km with 3 sebos whilst safely avoiding fire. Basically less carebear fits. |
Colt Blackhawk
Ordo Drakonis Nulli Secunda
302
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 10:31:00 -
[174] - Quote
Seems ccp fixed a lot with kronos concerning fw missions. No more cloaking in missions has made fw mission farming a lot harder plus bombers are inty fodder. Actually all these bombers can be farmed down with inties quite easily so I think it is almost fixed now. [09:04:53] Ashira Twilight > Plant the f****** amarr flag and s*** on their smoking wrecks. |
ALUCARD 1208
Spiritus Draconis Drunk 'n' Disorderly
371
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 10:51:00 -
[175] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote:
IMO they should still be able to be done in a stealth bomber with some effort. .
You do realise all races part from gallente can be done in a bomber right gals have to use T3s with eccms in the mids cos of jams
GÖÑ HIGH FIVES GÖÑ-á |
Arla Sarain
58
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 10:59:00 -
[176] - Quote
ALUCARD 1208 wrote:
You do realise
Yes I do.
Actually Amarr don't get to do it well. |
Colt Blackhawk
Ordo Drakonis Nulli Secunda
302
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 11:04:00 -
[177] - Quote
ALUCARD 1208 wrote:Arla Sarain wrote:
IMO they should still be able to be done in a stealth bomber with some effort. .
You do realise all races part from gallente can be done in a bomber right gals have to use T3s with eccms in the mids cos of jams
You realise how much ccp and fozzie love the gals? Just pointing on op comet, op ishtar, op algos etc. Better pray ccp doesn't fix it for the gals because if they do gal fw lv4 will be doable in noobship with civilian gatling rail. [09:04:53] Ashira Twilight > Plant the f****** amarr flag and s*** on their smoking wrecks. |
Gordin Brott
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
17
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 11:15:00 -
[178] - Quote
Not all level 4 FW missions are created equal, even within a particular faction. One reason they're currently so easy to blitz on the Minmatar/Caldari sides is that people have a tendency of picking and choosing those which can be easily run without risk in a stealth bomber, and declining the rest until they get a 'good' one. Locking each agent for 24 hours if a mission is declined should rattle things a bit. |
Arla Sarain
58
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 11:31:00 -
[179] - Quote
Gordin Brott wrote:Locking each agent for 24 hours if a mission is declined should rattle things a bit. Or you could just stop it with the band aids and the consequential unintended favoritism juggling the whole mission system from one extreme to the other. Cos god knows it will turn from Cal/Minnie easy mode to Gal/Amarr.
The issue people have is that SBs can run these missions for some factions, but not others.
1)Put the warp in beacon into the rat spawn. 2)Remove gates 3)Improve range and tracking of rats so that stealth bombers need to get closer. 4)Get rid of ewar rats. Every time a rat ECMs you for 20s 5 times in a row God kills 7 kittens.
What this does: + with 100km max warp in distance you are not in range to Javelin kite, or close enough to speed tank. + no gates makes you vulnerable to get jumped on by inties with a lot less warning. I get the impression people underestimate the time it takes to get through an acceleration gate. + Better tracking/range forces SBs to get close to rats -> closer to warp in beacon.
Options: fly a cheap hull that is relatively easy to skill into but be at great risk of losing it to inties or counter cloaked SBs/asteros or even other cov ops.
Or fly the odd battleship and do the mission at your leisure. Apart from being frigate blob bait. Cos really, that's the only reason why people ask big ships to be compulsory in lvl 4 mission in this thread - to put more BSs in the warzone that have to go 20j out with no backup so that the defending faction can get expensive kill mails with no possible losses.
But atleast this gives some flexibility in how you would want to lose your ship.
P.S. Just remove missions. |
Cromwell Savage
Quantum Cats Syndicate Repeat 0ffenders
186
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 12:39:00 -
[180] - Quote
Arla Sarain wrote: The issue people have is that SBs can run these missions for some factions, but not others.
1)Put the warp in beacon into the rat spawn. 2)Remove gates 3)Improve range and tracking of rats so that stealth bombers need to get closer. 4)Get rid of ewar rats. Every time a rat ECMs you for 20s 5 times in a row God kills 7 kittens.
From personal experience with my fits running Minnie and Cal FW missions in bombers...1 and 3 won't completely 'fix it' unless you introduce webs (or up the DPS).
As is, I can AB+local rep pretty much anything when missioning. Some more than others with a heavy dose of caution, but for the most part doable. Granted, my mission fits are a bit "shiney", but still immensely cheaper than what I need to run Gal missions... |
|
Arla Sarain
58
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 12:50:00 -
[181] - Quote
Cromwell Savage wrote:Arla Sarain wrote: The issue people have is that SBs can run these missions for some factions, but not others.
1)Put the warp in beacon into the rat spawn. 2)Remove gates 3)Improve range and tracking of rats so that stealth bombers need to get closer. 4)Get rid of ewar rats. Every time a rat ECMs you for 20s 5 times in a row God kills 7 kittens.
From personal experience with my fits running Minnie and Cal FW missions in bombers...1 and 3 won't completely 'fix it' unless you introduce webs (or up the DPS). As is, I can AB+local rep pretty much anything when missioning. Some more than others with a heavy dose of caution, but for the most part doable. Granted, my mission fits are a bit "shiney", but still immensely cheaper than what I need to run Gal missions... How close do you get?
As of now if you just orbit at 60km with an AB the rat blob starts approaching you at max 400m/s. They can't even hit you NVM get close.
Once you are forced to get into the 30-40km range thats when it starts getting heated because the frigate rats chip away at what little buffer you have. After that its just one wrong turn, angular speed under 0.01 and a battleship rat blaps you.
1 and 3 is to force the SB close to the beacon and make it easier to be caught by a player aggressor. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2415
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 13:58:00 -
[182] - Quote
Colt Blackhawk wrote:You realise how much ccp and fozzie love the gals? Just pointing on op comet, op ishtar, op algos etc. Better pray ccp doesn't fix it for the gals because if they do gal fw lv4 will be doable in noobship with civilian gatling rail. Our greatest accomplishment was getting our plants (chatgris, Fozzie, and Yttr) jobs at CCP. It was a bonus that Fozzie landed a job as ship balancer. But, as they say, fortune favors the bold. Maybe you guys will figure it out some day and get your own guys into CCP. |
Moonlit Raid
State War Academy Caldari State
195
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 14:25:00 -
[183] - Quote
I'm totally with the OP, FW missions should require tech 3's or battleships just like high sec lvl 4 missions. If brute force isn't working, you're just not using enough. |
Rahelis
Viziam Amarr Empire
91
|
Posted - 2014.07.26 16:23:00 -
[184] - Quote
All four militas should by right have the same level of difficulty in FW missions.
It does not make sense to have the easiest FW missions in minmatar, then caldari and the most difficult in amarr and then gallente.
I am not insulting fellow militas, I only want to point out the obvious.
The minmatar and caldari militas consist of farmers mostly - the gallente milita is the best in terrms of organization and force projection - some gal leader chars wrote something about the hard gal missions and the need to get organized in this forum.
The caldari milita is the biggest, but consits of many farming corpses (1000 char corp "Altruism" for example).
The contrast is too big and it is only made up by bad game design.
Ewar is totally unbalanced - the only thing to balance all four milita mission is to remove Ewar as a whole form FW missions.
The rats need same dps - but should have different ranges and weapons and tanks. according to their races.
The best measure for balanced FW missions would be the same type of ship beeing able to run all four militas missions in the same amount of time.
|
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
168
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 09:40:00 -
[185] - Quote
10 pages of whining and I am still unclear on what problem you folks are actually trying to fix here. How does mission farming harm you (or FW?)
Frankly, this all sounds like sour grapes. Missions have no effect on FW victory points or anything else for that matter. If you want to "fix" FW, fix the unbalanced effect plex farming has on system stability, which is what really makes it hard for the underdog to flip systems. Missions are a nonissue, when it comes to the problems with FW today.
Hunting mission runners is fun. The button changes in kronos made it much easier. Hop in an intie and give i a try, if you haven't recently. When mission runners could recloak in-mission and had near impunity, sure, maybe it was too easy. But they fixed that.
|
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
48
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 11:16:00 -
[186] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:10 pages of whining and I am still unclear on what problem you folks are actually trying to fix here. How does mission farming harm you (or FW?)
it was started as a rebalance thread, racial ewar make missioning for specific factions extremely unbalanced between them. then it become the old "lets bash pve".
|
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
168
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 11:28:00 -
[187] - Quote
Sara Tosa wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:10 pages of whining and I am still unclear on what problem you folks are actually trying to fix here. How does mission farming harm you (or FW?)
it was started as a rebalance thread, racial ewar make missioning for specific factions extremely unbalanced between them.
oh yeah, that part I got, and that's reasonable. The races should be equally capable of SBing these things.
Sara Tosa wrote: then it become the old "lets bash pve".
As much as I will typically approve of bashing PvE in Eve, this thread seems to be simple, straightforward butthurt that people can make money in FW because... well, it's not exactly clear why. Some people seem to be upset that FW missioners are used to fund non-FW activities, particularly cap ships and above.
So, sour grapes. It boils down to the classic MMO "I do not like the way that other guy is having fun so IT MUST BE STOPPED."
Tough crap. HTFU and let others have their fun, and even better, hunt them down while they do it. It has no detrimental effect on FW whatsoever. |
Ashlar Vellum
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
115
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 13:18:00 -
[188] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote: As much as I will typically approve of bashing PvE in Eve, this thread seems to be simple, straightforward butthurt that people can make money in FW because... well, it's not exactly clear why. Some people seem to be upset that FW missioners are used to fund non-FW activities, particularly cap ships and above.
So, sour grapes. It boils down to the classic MMO "I do not like the way that other guy is having fun so IT MUST BE STOPPED."
Tough crap. HTFU and let others have their fun, and even better, hunt them down while they do it. It has no detrimental effect on FW whatsoever.
True enough, but don't forget that there are still people who use fw not only to print lp for their caps 24/7. The more farmers farm the more you need to farm in the end to fund your pew-pew. So why people shouldn't be salty about things that impact them in the negative way?
Also there's this one problem - one solution thing. When doing lvl4s in anything but the bomber is counterproductive. Don't you think that there should be more than one viable solution for any task, especially in the sandbox. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
168
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 13:39:00 -
[189] - Quote
Certainly. Scroll back up a few pages and you'll see me suggesting to balance them to be doable in AFs for all races too.
I still reject the idea that FW mission cash influx a priori harms FW. That seems like a non sequitur.
Now, the plex farming feedback loop benefitting the dominant side, on the other hand - that's an actual problem. |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
399
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 15:42:00 -
[190] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Certainly. Scroll back up a few pages and you'll see me suggesting to balance them to be doable in AFs for all races too.
I still reject the idea that FW mission cash influx a priori harms FW. That seems like a non sequitur.
Now, the plex farming feedback loop benefitting the dominant side, on the other hand - that's an actual problem. I still feel like they need to be harder than AF level, but that's me. I feel like being able to potentially pull in 350k+ LP/hour in an AF is excessive - that's something you can only do with L5s in lowsec in a capital from what I can see. Even hitting the 175k+ at tier 3 is pretty massive, and better than anything other than L5s or incursions.
Make them hard, don't make them easy.
As far as FW being an isk farm, I do feel it's impacted FW negatively. Just look at the problems we see in Caldari, Minmatar and Amarr militias. Far too many folks just in it to use it as an LP ATM to fund the rest of the play, leaving those of us who actually want to fly and fight in FW picking up the pieces.
The Kronos changes have already had a huge impact in lowering the farmer count, which has had a very positive effect on FW overall IMO. Balancing missions upwards would have similar impacts I think. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..." |
|
Ashlar Vellum
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
117
|
Posted - 2014.07.27 16:29:00 -
[191] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Certainly. Scroll back up a few pages and you'll see me suggesting to balance them to be doable in AFs for all races too.
Still a ton of work could be done; like adding more missions that are harder to do in a bomber (I'm talking about the one where you need to bring back an item), more consequences for declining missions in a quick succession, make agents offer you less popular missions first and more frequently etc.
Miriya Zakalwe wrote: I still reject the idea that FW mission cash influx a priori harms FW. That seems like a non sequitur.
I guess we will agree to disagree on this one.
Miriya Zakalwe wrote: Now, the plex farming feedback loop benefitting the dominant side, on the other hand - that's an actual problem.
Absolutely. I think the problem lies in an unreasonable amount of safety on top with bad game mechanics that's rewards semi-afk gameplay, but this is a discussion for another topic.
|
Baron' Soontir Fel
Justified Chaos
229
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 04:12:00 -
[192] - Quote
So many people not in FacWar still believe its dominated by farmers. Kind of aggravating to keep seeing it brought up when its a shadow of the problem it once was. |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
168
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 06:50:00 -
[193] - Quote
People running FW missions have no effect whatsoever on the PvP aspects of FW, except as presenting themselves as targets for the occasional KM. Missions neither affect system status nor victory points. They may as well not even exist when compared to the rest of FW action as they are completely separate and unrelated. It literally doesn't matter how many people are running missions for LP, except perhaps for LP item prices in the market. Otherwise there could be 10x or 100x the current number of mission runners in FW and all that would change is an increase in nice KMs for the people hunting them.
So, other than racial balance issues, sour grapes mixed with maybe a bit of elitism. |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1321
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 16:24:00 -
[194] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Certainly. Scroll back up a few pages and you'll see me suggesting to balance them to be doable in AFs for all races too.
I still reject the idea that FW mission cash influx a priori harms FW. That seems like a non sequitur.
Now, the plex farming feedback loop benefitting the dominant side, on the other hand - that's an actual problem.
The effects of the missions are somewhat complicated. For example, a decent argument could be made that gallente and Amarr benefit from having harder missions. This is because it makes plexing for lp comparatively better. Moreover our lp does not get watered down so much. (although the fw stores share so many items the impact would be debatable)
I think the real problem with missions being the lp printing machine they are now is it removes any incentive to fight to gain the "tiers" ccp implemented. Everyone who is even remotely knowledgable about fw can put an alt in minmatar and run their missions. So why bother trying to get a higher tier if you are amarr?
If the missions were nerfed so that you could gain much more lp from plexing then the whole "tier system" of the occupancy war would have some economic relevance. Now it's just very hard to care.
BTW I am not saying nerfing missions is going to fix fw. But I do think it is part of the problem why fw is so stagnant outside the occasional home system invasion for lulz. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
258
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 16:34:00 -
[195] - Quote
The Gal/Cal war zone is anything but stagnant if you are active in it. BLFOX is currently recruiting |
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
51
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 16:37:00 -
[196] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Certainly. Scroll back up a few pages and you'll see me suggesting to balance them to be doable in AFs for all races too.
I still reject the idea that FW mission cash influx a priori harms FW. That seems like a non sequitur.
Now, the plex farming feedback loop benefitting the dominant side, on the other hand - that's an actual problem. The effects of the missions are somewhat complicated. For example, a decent argument could be made that gallente and Amarr benefit from having harder missions. This is because it makes plexing for lp comparatively better. Moreover our lp does not get watered down so much. (although the fw stores share so many items the impact would be debatable) so you means that running plexes is so ****** that you need to nerf everything else to get people doing it? I dont think so.
Quote: If the missions were nerfed so that you could gain much more lp from plexing then the whole "tier system" of the occupancy war would have some economic relevance. Now it's just very hard to care.
no, just no - people running missions wont get you less LP from plexes - missioning dont count for system victory points, wont change a faction tier in any way - its just a way for fw people to make money and be targets. looks like biggest problem with people running missions is that people jugdging them just dont know how fw system work. |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1321
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 17:10:00 -
[197] - Quote
Sara Tosa wrote:Cearain wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Certainly. Scroll back up a few pages and you'll see me suggesting to balance them to be doable in AFs for all races too.
I still reject the idea that FW mission cash influx a priori harms FW. That seems like a non sequitur.
Now, the plex farming feedback loop benefitting the dominant side, on the other hand - that's an actual problem. The effects of the missions are somewhat complicated. For example, a decent argument could be made that gallente and Amarr benefit from having harder missions. This is because it makes plexing for lp comparatively better. Moreover our lp does not get watered down so much. (although the fw stores share so many items the impact would be debatable) so you means that running plexes is so ****** that you need to nerf everything else to get people doing it? I dont think so.
I am not saying nerf "everything else." FW mission running pays stupid amounts of lp and not only makes the entire tier system irrelevant but ruins other lp stores as well.
But yes plexing and the occupancy war would become economically relevant if mission lp was nerfed. More people would then plex. More people in plexes will mean more pvp in plexes. And this is good for faction war.
Quote: If the missions were nerfed so that you could gain much more lp from plexing then the whole "tier system" of the occupancy war would have some economic relevance. Now it's just very hard to care.
no, just no - people running missions wont get you less LP from plexes - missioning dont count for system victory points, wont change a faction tier in any way - its just a way for fw people to make money and be targets. looks like biggest problem with people running missions is that people jugdging them just dont know how fw system work.[/quote]
When Missions are paying out 5xs as much lp as you can get from doing occupancy plexing the value of the lp from occupancy plexing is watered down so much its not worth doing at all.
Thanatos Marathon wrote:The Gal/Cal war zone is anything but stagnant if you are active in it.
Its like arguing whether a mile is a long distance or a short distance. I look at dotlan and see most systems in fw space have had no kills in the last 3 hours. The system with the most kills most often is tama which has a high sec entry that is gatecamped. These kills have little to do with fw.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
258
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 17:20:00 -
[198] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Thanatos Marathon wrote:The Gal/Cal war zone is anything but stagnant if you are active in it. Its like arguing whether a mile is a long distance or a short distance. I look at dotlan and see most systems in fw space have had no kills in the last 3 hours. The system with the most kills most often is tama which has a high sec entry that is gatecamped. These kills have little to do with fw.
Maybe your issue is that you are only looking at the past three hours, and you are disregarding fights that include Faction Warfare players (tama/nourv is basically perma camped by Gal Mil pilots if Perunga is online and he isn't involved in something else) if it doesn't occur in a plex.
I would challenge you to find an area in eve outside of Black Rise/Placid that provides more constant PVP (ships exploding) in the last year, let alone one that provides that much pewage and still has tons of solo/micro gang and isn't just station/gate camping. I have to actively force myself to avoid pew pew if I want to do anything else in game, otherwise I would just be constantly flying around and blowing crap up (and getting blown up myself).
Black Rise Placid BLFOX is currently recruiting |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
400
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 18:09:00 -
[199] - Quote
Links for the warzone maps as a whole:
Cal/Gal Min/Amarr
Looking at the Min/Amarr zone, all the action seems concentrated on the pipe from Kamela to Bosboger. I'm assuming that's continued skirmishing between the major groups that live in Huola and Auga / Sieside, with the majority of kills in the major chokepoints.
Kills appear to be spread out a lot more in the Cal/Gal warzone, with the overwhelming majority of systems seeing at least 40+ kills per day. Higher concentrations center on PERUNGA-vile (aka Tama), as well as near Heydelies and the Kehjari - Nenna pipe. This is probably due to the more spread out nature of our warzone, with fewer chokepoints, more systems, and corps basing out of several warzone systems (on both sides).
In other words, the lack of activity in the majority of the Min/Amarr warzone has more to do with geography and a lack of folks basing in warzone systems than L4 mission or plex imbalances.
TL;DR: You're still doing it wrong. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..." |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1321
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 18:26:00 -
[200] - Quote
Thanatos Marathon wrote:Cearain wrote:Thanatos Marathon wrote:The Gal/Cal war zone is anything but stagnant if you are active in it. Its like arguing whether a mile is a long distance or a short distance. I look at dotlan and see most systems in fw space have had no kills in the last 3 hours. The system with the most kills most often is tama which has a high sec entry that is gatecamped. These kills have little to do with fw. Maybe your issue is that you are only looking at the past three hours, and you are disregarding fights that include Faction Warfare players (tama/nourv is basically perma camped by Gal Mil pilots if Perunga is online and he isn't involved in something else) if it doesn't occur in a plex. I would challenge you to find an area in eve outside of Black Rise/Placid that provides more constant PVP (ships exploding) in the last year, let alone one that provides that much pewage and still has tons of solo/micro gang and isn't just station/gate camping. I have to actively force myself to avoid pew pew if I want to do anything else in game, otherwise I would just be constantly flying around and blowing crap up (and getting blown up myself). Black RisePlacidEDIT: For those looking to get in on the fun
I think 3 hours is decent amount of time to play a computer game in a day. But again we can maybe you think that is a short time. No kills in the majority of "warzone" systems.
As far as gallente making tamma the most violent system due to gate camping, well that could be but I don't think its relevant to my point that tiers are basically irrelevant.
As far as the rest of eve being very extremely boring, I will agree.
In any event I think we are getting away from the topic. Would you agree that if fw missions were nerfed relative to plexing then more people would plex? Do you agree that more people plexing would mean more people fighting for plexes? Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order Repeat 0ffenders
1029
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 18:48:00 -
[201] - Quote
Cearain wrote: In any event I think we are getting away from the topic. Would you agree that if fw missions were nerfed relative to plexing then more people would plex? Do you agree that more people plexing would mean more people fighting for plexes?
Well, while we are at tier 4 im sure mission running will pick up pace. However, during the last month at tier 2 i didnt personally see, or hear more than 2 people on comms talk about running a set of missions. Ive done 2 sets of missions myself this year.
Cant speak for the min/amarr wz but its generally a non issue over here. Which is why it comes as no surprise to see you fixate on it.
It is a nice mechanic to generate LP should the enemy failscade leaving no offensive or defensive plexing to be done. Generally the reward levels of all LP sources manage themselves through supply and demand at the market level. i am neutral to the idea of a mission LP nerf, or an uncoupling of missions from the tier system. There are good arguments for both sides.
As for the number of kills per system per hour, to answer your question on behalf of the gal/cal warzone, its fine. Which is lucky really since there is no solution to it if it were a problem. |
Sara Tosa
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
52
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 20:32:00 -
[202] - Quote
Cearain wrote: I am not saying nerf "everything else." FW mission running pays stupid amounts of lp and not only makes the entire tier system irrelevant but ruins other lp stores as well.
But yes plexing and the occupancy war would become economically relevant if mission lp was nerfed. More people would then plex. More people in plexes will mean more pvp in plexes. And this is good for faction war.
sorry but this dont compute. people have whined for years that only pvp'ers sholud be in plexes, that they dont want people to farm them for lp and now your excuse to nerf missions is "so more people will want to farm them for lp"? did you think about it throughly?
Quote: If the missions were nerfed so that you could gain much more lp from plexing then the whole "tier system" of the occupancy war would have some economic relevance. Now it's just very hard to care.
people should run plexes to "win the war", not to make lp. lp are an added bounus but if you make them the main focus you get farming and system bouncing like before kronos.
Quote: When Missions are paying out 5xs as much lp as you can get from doing occupancy plexing the value of the lp from occupancy plexing is watered down so much its not worth doing at all.
so basically you are in fw only for the isks. why you dont like missions then? from what you're saying they should be better for you than plexing. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
48
|
Posted - 2014.07.28 21:45:00 -
[203] - Quote
it use to be equal, where all factions being the same amount of effort, then they changed the agro mechanics. Easiest way is to undo that change for FW missions.
I don't run them unless the faction is tier 4, before the major changes I had 4 corps (one in each faction) that all could run missions so I could pick and chose the most profitable faction when I went to run them.
In the thread there were some that claimed a SB was slower than a T3. Can I get an explanation on that? I've tried to fit a(any) t3 to be able to 500-550 dps at 70km, warp cloaked at 5.5au/s all before implant and have been coming up short.
|
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
169
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 00:11:00 -
[204] - Quote
Cearain wrote: In any event I think we are getting away from the topic. Would you agree that if fw missions were nerfed relative to plexing then more people would plex? Do you agree that more people plexing would mean more people fighting for plexes?
No, of course not. That's total speculation, a complete nonsequitur, and in my opinion ridiculous. If you think the primary reason that the Amarr militia cannot flip systems is that the Amarr are too busy missioning, you need to spend more time in the war zone.
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
404
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 00:21:00 -
[205] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:In the thread there were some that claimed a SB was slower than a T3. Can I get an explanation on that? I've tried to fit a(any) t3 to be able to 500-550 dps at 70km, warp cloaked at 5.5au/s all before implant and have been coming up short. I'd use an SB for any Min / Cal / Amarr mission, really. No reason not to at all - you can sig tank the rats and don't have to deal with jams.
You use T3s for Gallente because of missiles and jams.
Cloaky T3s can hit 450-500dps pretty easily with close range fits, if not more. Proteus and Tengu can hit 4.9 AU/sec warp speed as well. Oh, and you can have that plus a 500+ DPS tank in the same package.
We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..." |
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
169
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 00:55:00 -
[206] - Quote
Really, if anything, the problem with FW now is that there is *too much* plexing. The reason that the Farmatar are an unbreakable brick is that once they hit T4, a vast armada of deplexing farmers have kept the systems easily controlled. Meanwhile, the Amarr would need to take a disproportionate number of plexes to compensate. If the recent weeks have shown anything, it is how utterly screwed they are.
Just like last year, this is going to continue until the Plex farmers are bored or rich enough.
Mission running is completely orthogonal to the problems facing FW. Totally unrelated. |
Cromwell Savage
Quantum Cats Syndicate Repeat 0ffenders
186
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 01:45:00 -
[207] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:
Mission running is completely orthogonal to the problems facing FW. Totally unrelated.
Not totally so. It's all about the LP...
Cut LP earned from plexing (which will cause massive, massive tears but has been way too generous for far too long) so that missions become the bread-n-butter (again) for earning LP...
|
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1321
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 03:58:00 -
[208] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Cearain wrote: In any event I think we are getting away from the topic. Would you agree that if fw missions were nerfed relative to plexing then more people would plex? Do you agree that more people plexing would mean more people fighting for plexes?
No, of course not. That's total speculation, a complete nonsequitur, and in my opinion ridiculous. If you think the primary reason that the Amarr militia cannot flip systems is that the Amarr are too busy missioning, you need to spend more time in the war zone.
What you quoted from me is 2 questions not an argument let alone a nonsequitur. But the answer to both questions is yes. And the answer is pretty easy to come to. Before inferno missions paid much more than plexes because plexes paid nothing but tags. After inferno there has been many more people running plexes and many more fights in plexes.
I never suggested Amarr spend too much time running amarr fw missions that is why they are not flipping systems. You might want to read what I actually wrote.
Most people in amarr don't care about tiers because it's easy to put an alt in minmatar and run missions. I have been in the warzone and there are allot of purifiers. They are allot of alts but the mains are not necessarily in minmatar.
You will occasionally get a push like huola for the lulz but thats about it. Its a rare person that cares about the entire tier system. I think the last person I knew that cared about it recently biomassed his character.
There are many reasons that amarr do not bother to plex and flip systems and gain tiers among them are: 1) is that it is very boring because if you really want to gain tiers you will run plexes as efficiently as possible and that means running them in quiet systems. 2) There really is no reason to gain tiers when you can just put an alt in minmatar and run their fw missions for lp and make much more of it than you ever could plexing.
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Really, if anything, the problem with FW now is that there is *too much* plexing. The reason that the Farmatar are an unbreakable brick is that once they hit T4, a vast armada of deplexing farmers have kept the systems easily controlled. Meanwhile, the Amarr would need to take a disproportionate number of plexes to compensate. If the recent weeks have shown anything, it is how utterly screwed they are..
Do you know what the calculation for lp for dplexing is?
Miriya Zakalwe wrote: Just like last year, this is going to continue until the Plex farmers are bored or rich enough.
Mission running is completely orthogonal to the problems facing FW. Totally unrelated.
If missions were removed and the only way to get fw lp was to run plexes you would see a very clear change in plexing and how militias fight for tiers.
I am not saying I think that would be a good idea necessarily, but I don't agree that missions have no effect on fw at large . Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order Repeat 0ffenders
1029
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 05:55:00 -
[209] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Cearain wrote: In any event I think we are getting away from the topic. Would you agree that if fw missions were nerfed relative to plexing then more people would plex? Do you agree that more people plexing would mean more people fighting for plexes?
No, of course not. That's total speculation, a complete nonsequitur, and in my opinion ridiculous. If you think the primary reason that the Amarr militia cannot flip systems is that the Amarr are too busy missioning, you need to spend more time in the war zone. What you quoted from me is 2 questions not an argument let alone a nonsequitur. But the answer to both questions is yes. And the answer is pretty easy to come to. Before inferno missions paid much more than plexes because plexes paid nothing but tags. After inferno there has been many more people running plexes and many more fights in plexes. I never suggested Amarr spend too much time running amarr fw missions that is why they are not flipping systems. You might want to read what I actually wrote. Most people in amarr don't care about tiers because it's easy to put an alt in minmatar and run missions. I have been in the warzone and there are allot of purifiers. They are allot of alts but the mains are not necessarily in minmatar. You will occasionally get a push like huola for the lulz but thats about it. Its a rare person that cares about the entire tier system. I think the last person I knew that cared about it recently biomassed his character. There are many reasons that amarr do not bother to plex and flip systems and gain tiers among them are: 1) is that it is very boring because if you really want to gain tiers you will run plexes as efficiently as possible and that means running them in quiet systems. 2) There really is no reason to gain tiers when you can just put an alt in minmatar and run their fw missions for lp and make much more of it than you ever could plexing. Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Really, if anything, the problem with FW now is that there is *too much* plexing. The reason that the Farmatar are an unbreakable brick is that once they hit T4, a vast armada of deplexing farmers have kept the systems easily controlled. Meanwhile, the Amarr would need to take a disproportionate number of plexes to compensate. If the recent weeks have shown anything, it is how utterly screwed they are.. Do you know what the calculation for lp for dplexing is? Miriya Zakalwe wrote: Just like last year, this is going to continue until the Plex farmers are bored or rich enough.
Mission running is completely orthogonal to the problems facing FW. Totally unrelated.
If missions were removed and the only way to get fw lp was to run plexes you would see a very clear change in plexing and how militias fight for tiers. I am not saying I think that would be a good idea necessarily, but I don't agree that missions have no effect on fw at large .
Ive not read the post i quoted. Could someone rate it on a scale of 1 to stupid for me to save some time? |
ALUCARD 1208
Spiritus Draconis Drunk 'n' Disorderly
372
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 07:04:00 -
[210] - Quote
its cearain no rating needed GÖÑ HIGH FIVES GÖÑ-á |
|
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1321
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 13:25:00 -
[211] - Quote
Sara Tosa wrote:Cearain wrote: I am not saying nerf "everything else." FW mission running pays stupid amounts of lp and not only makes the entire tier system irrelevant but ruins other lp stores as well.
But yes plexing and the occupancy war would become economically relevant if mission lp was nerfed. More people would then plex. More people in plexes will mean more pvp in plexes. And this is good for faction war.
sorry but this dont compute. people have whined for years that only pvp'ers sholud be in plexes, that they dont want people to farm them for lp and now your excuse to nerf missions is "so more people will want to farm them for lp"? did you think about it throughly? Quote: If the missions were nerfed so that you could gain much more lp from plexing then the whole "tier system" of the occupancy war would have some economic relevance. Now it's just very hard to care.
people should run plexes to "win the war", not to make lp..
You actually can't win the war. But you can try to be "winning." But its not an "either or" question. Some people might have wanted lp for plexing removed but that was never my issue, or what most people wanted. The problem is that you can hide and seek plex without fighting. Things like timer rollbacks and better intel about plex timers being run would prevent this. CCP said they will implement these changes and if they do it right fw will be fixed.
Sara Tosa wrote:Cearain wrote: When Missions are paying out 5xs as much lp as you can get from doing occupancy plexing the value of the lp from occupancy plexing is watered down so much its not worth doing at all.
so basically you are in fw only for the isks. why you dont like missions then? from what you're saying they should be better for you than plexing.
Again you assume people are only in the war for one and only one reason. Some people fight in fw for the a variety of reasons. I have/do run missions and have made/make billions of isk. I don't mind that people want to make billions of isk in fw. I just think that the large amount of lp made from missions effects peoples motivations to plex and gain tiers.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
258
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 13:56:00 -
[212] - Quote
Why do you keep posting? BLFOX is currently recruiting |
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
404
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 14:03:00 -
[213] - Quote
Cearain wrote:I just think that the large amount of lp made from missions effects peoples motivations to plex and gain tiers.
Tiers, in and of themselves, have no impact on warzone control. The one and only reason to push for higher tiers is to increase LP income overall.
Fun fact: You can control every single system in the warzone and still be at Tier 1.
If Tier was directly related to percentage of total systems held, rather than primarily being determined by how many upgrades your side dumps LP into, then I'd say that it had some connection to plexing and warzone fluidity. But it doesn't.
Warzone fluidity is determined by one thing and one thing only: how many folks are willing to push systems to vulnerable and flip them. Farmers don't bash hubs, friends... folks with real ships and real guns do.
I will grant that higher tier motivates more plexing, but those who would plex rather than mission will do so regardless of tier. Same for the reverse. Simple fact is that all else being equal, you get about 2x the LP/hour running missions than running plexes... probably more with the respawning rats these days. You'd have to nerf missions to pay less than plexing to cause a significant shift, and doing so would just release the plague of farmers back into plexes - which would basically undo all the good from the Kronos changes. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..." |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
719
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 14:09:00 -
[214] - Quote
I don't see many FW people mentioning that these missions are still far too profitable and too easy, risk-free bombers or not.
I guess this is just one of those horrific broken things like wormhole space that will never get fixed properly, because a bunch of people exploit it and would cry on the forums, which ccp sees as a bad thing.
also the rat AI changes that prevent pvpers from killing mission runners, when is that being fixed? it's absolutely awful. in the extremely rare event that I can find someone stupid enough that their bomber isn't completely pvp immune, I have to warp out in hull because I'm getting trashed by 30 rats. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2423
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 14:16:00 -
[215] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:I don't see many FW people mentioning that these missions are still far too profitable and too easy, risk-free bombers or not. It's a small price for CCP to pay for generating 90% of Eve's content this summer.
|
Thanatos Marathon
Black Fox Marauders Repeat 0ffenders
258
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 14:33:00 -
[216] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:Cearain wrote:I just think that the large amount of lp made from missions effects peoples motivations to plex and gain tiers.
Tiers, in and of themselves, have no impact on warzone control. The one and only reason to push for higher tiers is to increase LP income overall. Fun fact: You can control every single system in the warzone and still be at Tier 1. If Tier was directly related to percentage of total systems held, rather than primarily being determined by how many upgrades your side dumps LP into, then I'd say that it had some connection to plexing and warzone fluidity. But it doesn't. Warzone fluidity is determined by one thing and one thing only: how many folks are willing to push systems to vulnerable and flip them. Farmers don't bash hubs, friends... folks with real ships and real guns do. I will grant that higher tier motivates more plexing, but those who would plex rather than mission will do so regardless of tier. Same for the reverse. Simple fact is that all else being equal, you get about 2x the LP/hour running missions than running plexes... probably more with the respawning rats these days. You'd have to nerf missions to pay less than plexing to cause a significant shift, and doing so would just release the plague of farmers back into plexes - which would basically undo all the good from the Kronos changes.
One of the reasons for the Tier3 push was to counter squid VP numbers (it worked).
BLFOX is currently recruiting |
Estella Osoka
Deep Void Merc Syndicate
422
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 15:07:00 -
[217] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:I don't see many FW people mentioning that these missions are still far too profitable and too easy, risk-free bombers or not.
I guess this is just one of those horrific broken things like wormhole space that will never get fixed properly, because a bunch of people exploit it and would cry on the forums, which ccp sees as a bad thing.
also the rat AI changes that prevent pvpers from killing mission runners, when is that being fixed? it's absolutely awful. in the extremely rare event that I can find someone stupid enough that their bomber isn't completely pvp immune, I have to warp out in hull because I'm getting trashed by 30 rats.
Awww, you can't catch a mission runner running a FW mission because of rats. How cute. Working as intended.
Rats switching aggro is one of the better things that happened to missions. Now you don't have one guy speed tanking all the aggro, while his alt comes in and kills the mission objective. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
723
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 15:13:00 -
[218] - Quote
Estella Osoka wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:I don't see many FW people mentioning that these missions are still far too profitable and too easy, risk-free bombers or not.
I guess this is just one of those horrific broken things like wormhole space that will never get fixed properly, because a bunch of people exploit it and would cry on the forums, which ccp sees as a bad thing.
also the rat AI changes that prevent pvpers from killing mission runners, when is that being fixed? it's absolutely awful. in the extremely rare event that I can find someone stupid enough that their bomber isn't completely pvp immune, I have to warp out in hull because I'm getting trashed by 30 rats. Awww, you can't catch a mission runner running a FW mission because of rats. How cute. Working as intended. Rats switching aggro is one of the better things that happened to missions. Now you don't have one guy speed tanking all the aggro, while his alt comes in and kills the mission objective.
some guy speed tanking or mwding up to your bomber should draw much less aggro than your bomber, since they are not shooting any rats. it makes no sense the way it is now. |
MonkeyBusiness Thiesant
randomly named no tax corp v2
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 15:40:00 -
[219] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote: In the thread there were some that claimed a SB was slower than a T3. Can I get an explanation on that? I've tried to fit a(any) t3 to be able to 500-550 dps at 70km, warp cloaked at 5.5au/s all before implant and have been coming up short.
Cloaky ham tengu can get a little over 500dps - I suppose you could go faction bcs for a bit more. Not really sure what benefit there is though, it's definitely not quicker overall because you spend much more time warping around.
|
Veskrashen
Justified Chaos
404
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 15:55:00 -
[220] - Quote
MonkeyBusiness Thiesant wrote:Lady Rift wrote: In the thread there were some that claimed a SB was slower than a T3. Can I get an explanation on that? I've tried to fit a(any) t3 to be able to 500-550 dps at 70km, warp cloaked at 5.5au/s all before implant and have been coming up short.
Cloaky ham tengu can get a little over 500dps - I suppose you could go faction bcs for a bit more. Not really sure what benefit there is though, it's definitely not quicker overall because you spend much more time warping around. Fit a Grav Cap subsystem - you get 4.9 AU/sec, and better align times than a bomber. Same / better travel time on average.
And yes, Cal / MIn / Amarr missions are still far too easy for the risk / ship investment. The fact that Gallente LP store values are still as high as they are even after us being in Tier 3 for so long and Tier 4 for several days should give a hint at how much less they are run in comparison. We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..." |
|
Deerin
Federal Navy Special Forces
265
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 16:03:00 -
[221] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Mission running is completely orthogonal to the problems facing FW. Totally unrelated.
Then make it unrelated. Remove tier bonuses from mission LP payouts.
Or make it totally related. Get rid of all current FW missions and make the agents give plex capture missions.
Right now it benefits from bonuses while contributing nothing to warzone, No sir. If you want to reap the benefits of FW, please come and join the fight with your main, not with your 2 month old SB alt. |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1321
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 16:04:00 -
[222] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Estella Osoka wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:I don't see many FW people mentioning that these missions are still far too profitable and too easy, risk-free bombers or not.
I guess this is just one of those horrific broken things like wormhole space that will never get fixed properly, because a bunch of people exploit it and would cry on the forums, which ccp sees as a bad thing.
also the rat AI changes that prevent pvpers from killing mission runners, when is that being fixed? it's absolutely awful. in the extremely rare event that I can find someone stupid enough that their bomber isn't completely pvp immune, I have to warp out in hull because I'm getting trashed by 30 rats. Awww, you can't catch a mission runner running a FW mission because of rats. How cute. Working as intended. Rats switching aggro is one of the better things that happened to missions. Now you don't have one guy speed tanking all the aggro, while his alt comes in and kills the mission objective. some guy speed tanking or mwding up to your bomber should draw much less aggro than your bomber, since they are not shooting any rats. it makes no sense the way it is now.
You might think amarr rats wouldn't shoot amarr militia either. But the rats are almost as bad as the players at shooting their own team. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Deacon Abox
Justified Chaos
353
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 16:28:00 -
[223] - Quote
Cearain wrote: You might think amarr rats wouldn't shoot amarr militia either. But the rats are almost as bad as the players at shooting their own team. Apparently all the faction rats hate capsuleers of their own allegiance. Also, apparently, this is working as (un)intended, so it will stay that way in perpetuity. CCP, there are off buttons for ship explosions, missile effects, turret effects, etc. "Immersion" does not seem to be harmed by those. So, please give us a persisting-áoff button for the jump gate and autoscan visuals. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
49
|
Posted - 2014.07.29 21:02:00 -
[224] - Quote
Veskrashen wrote:MonkeyBusiness Thiesant wrote:Lady Rift wrote: In the thread there were some that claimed a SB was slower than a T3. Can I get an explanation on that? I've tried to fit a(any) t3 to be able to 500-550 dps at 70km, warp cloaked at 5.5au/s all before implant and have been coming up short.
Cloaky ham tengu can get a little over 500dps - I suppose you could go faction bcs for a bit more. Not really sure what benefit there is though, it's definitely not quicker overall because you spend much more time warping around. Fit a Grav Cap subsystem - you get 4.9 AU/sec, and better align times than a bomber. Same / better travel time on average. And yes, Cal / MIn / Amarr missions are still far too easy for the risk / ship investment. The fact that Gallente LP store values are still as high as they are even after us being in Tier 3 for so long and Tier 4 for several days should give a hint at how much less they are run in comparison.
thanks for the info. I had no intention of hanging up my bomber. and hams have bad range when you always start 50-100km off along with beacon change cant land cloaked anymore.
eft on the tengu is giving me only 0.6 sec faster align time for 0.6au/s slower than the bomber so more than likely a wash.
I guess I just really like hitting at 70 km with navy torps (start shooting as soon as I land). find that's the biggest time waster in missions, moving to the target. |
Moglarr
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry Templis CALSF
0
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 02:58:00 -
[225] - Quote
"If you find one factions missions are too easy, perhaps you should join that faction."
In seriousness, I don't run missions much. However, I think it is interesting, and cool, that different factions would have different flavours and play styles required to complete their missions. Which makes sense considering the different technologies each factions employ against their enemies. |
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3286
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 06:16:00 -
[226] - Quote
Removed some off topic posts. ISD Dorrim Barstorlode Captain Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department |
|
Miriya Zakalwe
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
169
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 11:36:00 -
[227] - Quote
Deerin wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Mission running is completely orthogonal to the problems facing FW. Totally unrelated. Then make it unrelated. Remove tier bonuses from mission LP payouts. Or make it totally related. Get rid of all current FW missions and make the agents give plex capture missions. Right now it benefits from bonuses while contributing nothing to warzone, No sir. If you want to reap the benefits of FW, please come and join the fight with your main, not with your 2 month old SB alt.
You seem to be confused. Tiers have nothing to do with warzone control. As posted above, it is possible to control nearly all systems in the war zone and still be at tier 1.
Tiers are gained by donating to ihubs. Which you would know, had you done it. This is usually done by mission runners (and to a lesser extent, plexers) so I would say that the missions are working as intended, tier-wise.
Nice try, though. |
Cearain
Goose Swarm Coalition
1324
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 18:44:00 -
[228] - Quote
Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Deerin wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Mission running is completely orthogonal to the problems facing FW. Totally unrelated. Then make it unrelated. Remove tier bonuses from mission LP payouts. Or make it totally related. Get rid of all current FW missions and make the agents give plex capture missions. Right now it benefits from bonuses while contributing nothing to warzone, No sir. If you want to reap the benefits of FW, please come and join the fight with your main, not with your 2 month old SB alt. You seem to be confused. Tiers have less to do with warzone control than they do with reinforcing systems. As posted above, it is possible to control nearly all systems in the war zone and still be at tier 1. Tiers are gained by donating to ihubs. Disproportionately, when compared to the effect of capturing systems, which you would know, had you done it. This is usually done by mission runners (and to a lesser extent, plexers) so I would say that the missions are working as intended, tier-wise. Nice try, though.
You can't get to tier 5 if you only have one system. The amount of lp you have to spend to hit higher tiers decreases as you gain more systems. I think it's misleading to argue there is a disconnect between warzone control and tiers.
I do not really care too much what ccp does with fw missions. But to the extent missions remain a much easier way to get the same lp as plexing then plexing and tiers will be of little interest. On the other hand if they removed missions entirely there would be more interest in plexing and tiers. But you would also likely see the warzone become even more lopsided.
It might be that you can make about 50% of the lp from plexing. But that likely assumes oplexing. When you get to higher tiers its much harder since generally you have fewer systems to offensive plex effeciently.
The economic factors do indeed effect the war. Its not a motivator for everyone, and it motivates some more than others. But it is not correct to think people are "either" in faction war solely for the isk or they are in it solely for some other reason.
Making missions effect system control is just caving in and endorsing fw as pure pve. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Crosi Wesdo
War and Order Repeat 0ffenders
1033
|
Posted - 2014.07.30 19:24:00 -
[229] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Deerin wrote:Miriya Zakalwe wrote:Mission running is completely orthogonal to the problems facing FW. Totally unrelated. Then make it unrelated. Remove tier bonuses from mission LP payouts. Or make it totally related. Get rid of all current FW missions and make the agents give plex capture missions. Right now it benefits from bonuses while contributing nothing to warzone, No sir. If you want to reap the benefits of FW, please come and join the fight with your main, not with your 2 month old SB alt. You seem to be confused. Tiers have less to do with warzone control than they do with reinforcing systems. As posted above, it is possible to control nearly all systems in the war zone and still be at tier 1. Tiers are gained by donating to ihubs. Disproportionately, when compared to the effect of capturing systems, which you would know, had you done it. This is usually done by mission runners (and to a lesser extent, plexers) so I would say that the missions are working as intended, tier-wise. Nice try, though. You can't get to tier 5 if you only have one system. The amount of lp you have to spend to hit higher tiers decreases as you gain more systems. I think it's misleading to argue there is a disconnect between warzone control and tiers. I do not really care too much what ccp does with fw missions. But to the extent missions remain a much easier way to get the same lp as plexing then plexing and tiers will be of little interest. On the other hand if they removed missions entirely there would be more interest in plexing and tiers. But you would also likely see the warzone become even more lopsided. It might be that you can make about 50% of the lp from plexing. But that likely assumes oplexing. When you get to higher tiers its much harder since generally you have fewer systems to offensive plex effeciently. The economic factors do indeed effect the war. Its not a motivator for everyone, and it motivates some more than others. But it is not correct to think people are "either" in faction war solely for the isk or they are in it solely for some other reason. Making missions effect system control is just caving in and endorsing fw as pure pve.
So many statements, so little point. |
Super Chair
project cerberus Templis CALSF
637
|
Posted - 2014.08.01 08:23:00 -
[230] - Quote
I will say that there is an imbalance in the missions. Caldari and Minmatar NPCs missile spam making running missions impossible for amarr/gallente bombers that wish to run them (IMO bombers shouldn't be able to solo FW LVL 4's regardless of faction). Another frustrating issue is EWAR from both gallente and caldari NPCs (damps and ecm). You can either be running the mission or just entered trying to catch a mission runner and you will be permajammed or damped to upwards of 1 min locktimes/under 10km lock ranges making any kind of action take ages. I'd either like to see all FW missions increase in difficulty, making it a group activity and be unsoloable or the other side of the coin is make all missions have missile spam and remove/reduce significantly annoying ewar. |
|
Mabego Tetrimon
Spiritus Draconis Drunk 'n' Disorderly
23
|
Posted - 2014.08.02 00:55:00 -
[231] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:I don't see many FW people mentioning that these missions are still far too profitable and too easy, risk-free bombers or not. and on with tears.... tears, SC tears, love that |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |