| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
236
   |
Posted - 2015.06.21 20:14:30 -
[1] - Quote
Is there some way to permanently opt out of burner missions?
If there isnt one already then im requesting that a permanent opt out option be added, it is getting tiresome rejecting burners. Just today i had to reject 6 burner missions in a row to get a normal one.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E.
3448
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 20:37:22 -
[2] - Quote
It would be nice to be able to permanently opt out of many types of missions. For example, many people will not do "faction kill missions". Some don't like drone missions. However, at the moment, there is not any way to do these things.
Know a Frozen fan? Check this out
Frozen fanfiction
|
Gregor Parud
Ordo Ardish
1373
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 20:58:40 -
[3] - Quote
Yes, the automated grinding isn't automated enough yet, it still takes some brain cells and decisions. This will not stand! |
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10244
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 21:01:52 -
[4] - Quote
We need a better way to gain empire standing than mission.
=]|[=
|
Xercodo
Xovoni Directorate
4223
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 21:07:14 -
[5] - Quote
We also need a method to repair concord stranding.
If you go working for a pirate factions you can eventually repair all the other standings except for CONCORD. You're permafucked
The Drake is a Lie
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
470
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 23:12:52 -
[6] - Quote
To be fair, none of us are opposed to the addition of burner missions, but I feel that the fact that there is (unlike regular missions) no adverse penalty to declining the several burner missions you typically get per normal mission should be considered.
No offense, but how is this any different than when people bitched up and down about your char's AUR total listed on your wallet screen? You know, the one that is no longer displayed anywhere on the wallet screen? A simple toggle for agents to skip burner missions can't be that unreasonable of a request either. At the very least, isn't this a better option than asking for people who like to run them to bite the bullet for the rest of us and have CCP significantly reduce their likelihood of being offered?
+1
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
470
|
Posted - 2015.06.21 23:19:47 -
[7] - Quote
Xercodo wrote:We also need a method to repair concord stranding.
If you go working for a pirate factions you can eventually repair all the other standings except for CONCORD. You're permafucked
I'm not entirely sure as I have no expertise in that arena, but I believe running missions for non-pirate agents in low sec is a possible answer (unless there are no such agents in low sec/outlaw space?). Unless I'm mistaken, shwacking officer spawns also nets a sec increase. There' s also those new NPC's that drop the tags you can trade for sec increases as well.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Otso Bakarti
Filial Pariahs
276
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 00:27:52 -
[8] - Quote
Hey. This is digital technology. What do you expect, options? 
I survived Win95
|
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
492
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 05:43:34 -
[9] - Quote
Just be happy you are able to decline them without penalty of cooldown, and move on. |
Nevil Oscillator
206
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 08:22:20 -
[10] - Quote
There is a way to do it
Overview Settings: Un-check the box next to Pirate Faction Ship |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
38412
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 08:27:37 -
[11] - Quote
Nevil Oscillator wrote:There is a way to do it
Overview Settings: Un-check the box next to Pirate Faction Ship
Um, really?
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Nevil Oscillator
206
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 08:28:52 -
[12] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Nevil Oscillator wrote:There is a way to do it
Overview Settings: Un-check the box next to Pirate Faction Ship Um, really?
Sorry My mistake it is NPC Pirate |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
38413
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 08:35:23 -
[13] - Quote
Nevil Oscillator wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Nevil Oscillator wrote:There is a way to do it
Overview Settings: Un-check the box next to Pirate Faction Ship Um, really? Sorry My mistake it is NPC Pirate
How do your overview settings affect what missions you get offered?
I have no clue when it comes to most PvE. It doesn't really seem all that logical but not everything in the game is, so interested to know.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Nevil Oscillator
206
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 08:40:51 -
[14] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Not being stupid. I have no clue when it comes to most PvE. It doesn't really seem all that logical but not everything in the game is, so interested to know.
Its to do with they way you have to go back to doing level 3 missions after you lose your battleship.
Level 3 doesn't have burner missions. Problem solved.
|
La Rynx
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
247
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 09:12:16 -
[15] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:Yes, the automated grinding isn't automated enough yet, it still takes some brain cells and decisions. This will not stand!
Well, yes, just thought the same...
"Time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time."
Forum Main
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
11483
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 12:46:05 -
[16] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Is there some way to permanently opt out of burner missions?
If there isnt one already then im requesting that a permanent opt out option be added, it is getting tiresome rejecting burners. Just today i had to reject 6 burner missions in a row to get a normal one.
Wrong forum section for this, but +100 from me. Burner missions are "no penalty for declining" , you should be able to opt out completely as they are optional.
No, we shouldn't be able to opt out of other types of missions like faction missions, the cool down/standings loss mechanics are built around the penalties for declining too many, but burner missions have no decline penalty. It's annoying to have to click through so many burners when you have no intention of running burners at all. |
Tarsas Phage
Freight Club
403
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 13:30:11 -
[17] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Is there some way to permanently opt out of burner missions?
If there isnt one already then im requesting that a permanent opt out option be added, it is getting tiresome rejecting burners. Just today i had to reject 6 burner missions in a row to get a normal one.
Yes, clicking that one Reject button must be so tiring.
Perhaps you could use the exercise. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
11483
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 13:38:03 -
[18] - Quote
Tarsas Phage wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Is there some way to permanently opt out of burner missions?
If there isnt one already then im requesting that a permanent opt out option be added, it is getting tiresome rejecting burners. Just today i had to reject 6 burner missions in a row to get a normal one. Yes, clicking that one Reject button must be so tiring. Perhaps you could use the exercise.
Clicking 1 isn't tiring. Clicking 3, 4,5,6 and 7 isn't tiring either. Just annoying as hell.
When it was just one kind of Burner mission (Frigs), it wasn't bad, maybe on click through every few normal missions. Now there are three kinds (frigs, frig teams, and now Cruiser/BCs). If they add battleship burners it will get worse. CCP should have included a way to opt out of Anomic missions before adding Team and Base versions, that they didn't (and haven't) is simply bad/lazy game design. |
Velarra
402
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 15:13:59 -
[19] - Quote
Xercodo wrote:We also need a method to repair concord stranding.
If you go working for a pirate factions you can eventually repair all the other standings except for CONCORD. You're permafucked
Would make for an amusing use of DED Connections. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
1226
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 15:59:02 -
[20] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Is there some way to permanently opt out of burner missions?
If there isnt one already then im requesting that a permanent opt out option be added, it is getting tiresome rejecting burners. Just today i had to reject 6 burner missions in a row to get a normal one. Wrong forum section for this, but +100 from me. Burner missions are "no penalty for declining" , you should be able to opt out completely as they are optional. No, we shouldn't be able to opt out of other types of missions like faction missions, the cool down/standings loss mechanics are built around the penalties for declining too many, but burner missions have no decline penalty. It's annoying to have to click through so many burners when you have no intention of running burners at all.
and I have no intention of running most of those pesky annoying normal missions, and the standings mechanics have yet to mess with my ability to do so. it is annoying to have to click decline on the super boring missions. Seriously for most missions I think I spend more time in warp, which I don't really mind as it lets me forum post, but to sit there and shoot at a ton of NPCs for a crap payout... no thanks, about as fun as mining.
@ChainsawPlankto
|
Xercodo
Xovoni Directorate
4225
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 16:29:07 -
[21] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Xercodo wrote:We also need a method to repair concord stranding.
If you go working for a pirate factions you can eventually repair all the other standings except for CONCORD. You're permafucked I'm not entirely sure as I have no expertise in that arena, but I believe running missions for non-pirate agents in low sec is a possible answer (unless there are no such agents in low sec/outlaw space?). Unless I'm mistaken, shwacking officer spawns also nets a sec increase. There' s also those new NPC's that drop the tags you can trade for sec increases as well.
Sec has been separated from the standing for a while now. The point is to specifically work for a pirate faction and have a way to get back out of it.
CONCORD doesn't have ANY agents so you're stuck. No options at all.
The Drake is a Lie
|
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
470
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 20:40:53 -
[22] - Quote
My apologies then, I was unaware they isolated CONCORD standing from a char's sec status. In that case, yeah, you don't really have a whole lot of options. That's a little alarming, to say the least.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Nevil Oscillator
206
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 20:57:41 -
[23] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:My apologies then, I was unaware they isolated CONCORD standing from a char's sec status. In that case, yeah, you don't really have a whole lot of options. That's a little alarming, to say the least.
You have an option, don't be a pirate. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
38499
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 21:14:19 -
[24] - Quote
Nevil Oscillator wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:My apologies then, I was unaware they isolated CONCORD standing from a char's sec status. In that case, yeah, you don't really have a whole lot of options. That's a little alarming, to say the least. You have an option, don't be a pirate.
I don't think you understand how Concord standings work, nor why you might want good standings, not only the repair of bad ones.
This shows as much understanding as suggesting overview settings affect what missions are offered.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1518
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 21:34:53 -
[25] - Quote
Not a bad suggestion since declining caries no penalty. Don't see any reason why not to have it. |
Nevil Oscillator
206
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 21:37:29 -
[26] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Nevil Oscillator wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:My apologies then, I was unaware they isolated CONCORD standing from a char's sec status. In that case, yeah, you don't really have a whole lot of options. That's a little alarming, to say the least. You have an option, don't be a pirate. I don't think you understand how Concord standings work, nor why you might want good standings, not only the repair of bad ones. This shows as much understanding as suggesting overview settings affect what missions are offered.
I don't know what Concord Standings do.. but if you have a problem with my statement explain why not being a pirate is not an option ?
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1518
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 21:41:40 -
[27] - Quote
Nevil Oscillator wrote:I don't know what Concord Standings do.. but if you have a problem with my statement explain why not being a pirate is not an option ?
It's not that it isn't an option, but rather that it's not an even remotely balanced option when compared to the standings repair options available to pretty much every other NPC org in the game and further overtly eliminates ones ability to partake in a nicely sized chunk of content. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
237
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 21:41:53 -
[28] - Quote
Gregor Parud wrote:Yes, the automated grinding isn't automated enough yet, it still takes some brain cells and decisions. This will not stand!
what decisions are you talking about that require so much brain power, its a matter of spamming i dont want burner missions and being annoyed at having to do so.
Of course im looking at things from my own intellectual gifts, perhaps it is a mental stretch for you to push a button.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
38499
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 21:43:05 -
[29] - Quote
Nevil Oscillator wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:Nevil Oscillator wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:My apologies then, I was unaware they isolated CONCORD standing from a char's sec status. In that case, yeah, you don't really have a whole lot of options. That's a little alarming, to say the least. You have an option, don't be a pirate. I don't think you understand how Concord standings work, nor why you might want good standings, not only the repair of bad ones. This shows as much understanding as suggesting overview settings affect what missions are offered. I don't know what Concord Standings do.. but if you have a problem with my statement explain why not being a pirate is not an option ?
Being a pirate isn't necessarily what gives you bad standings with Concord.
Mission runners can develop bad standings with Concord, just because they run missions for the wrong faction. Nothing to do with them being pirates, just running missions.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
237
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 21:44:55 -
[30] - Quote
La Rynx wrote:Gregor Parud wrote:Yes, the automated grinding isn't automated enough yet, it still takes some brain cells and decisions. This will not stand! Well, yes, just thought the same... How about an "Auto Win" Button? Go into mission, which you might win since you maxed out you mission boat and press "Auto Win". No longer need for that time consuming fight stuff... 
Another mentally challenged person that finds pushing an 'i don't want burner missions" mentally strenuous. Wow, EVE is full of stupid.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
237
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 21:47:04 -
[31] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:Just be happy you are able to decline them without penalty of cooldown, and move on.
You might be happy with a life full of accepting things passively even if you dont like them but I at least make an effort to change things in my life that i dont like.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
237
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 21:49:58 -
[32] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Is there some way to permanently opt out of burner missions?
If there isnt one already then im requesting that a permanent opt out option be added, it is getting tiresome rejecting burners. Just today i had to reject 6 burner missions in a row to get a normal one. Wrong forum section for this, but +100 from me. Burner missions are "no penalty for declining" , you should be able to opt out completely as they are optional. No, we shouldn't be able to opt out of other types of missions like faction missions, the cool down/standings loss mechanics are built around the penalties for declining too many, but burner missions have no decline penalty. It's annoying to have to click through so many burners when you have no intention of running burners at all.
Wasnt sure where to put the request so i put it here thinking that the Mods would move it if I had placed it in the wrong area.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
237
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 21:52:56 -
[33] - Quote
Tarsas Phage wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Is there some way to permanently opt out of burner missions?
If there isnt one already then im requesting that a permanent opt out option be added, it is getting tiresome rejecting burners. Just today i had to reject 6 burner missions in a row to get a normal one. Yes, clicking that one Reject button must be so tiring. Perhaps you could use the exercise.
Perhaps you could learn to read !!
I had to push that reject button 6 times not just once and im pretty sure they will be adding more burners in the future meaning more times when you will be pushing that button numerous times to get back to normal missions.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Nevil Oscillator
206
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 21:55:03 -
[34] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:
Being a pirate isn't necessarily what gives you bad standings with Concord.
Mission runners can develop bad standings with Concord, just because they run missions for the wrong faction. Nothing to do with them being pirates, just running missions.
Really.. which ones ? and what does Concord Standing affect ? |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
22044
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 22:19:32 -
[35] - Quote
[OP]: Nope. Nope. Nope. Ummmm no. No. No. No. Errrrrr..hmmm.. better not. Nope. Nope. Nuh uh. Noooope. Ho ho... definitely not. Nope. Nope. Maybe. Nope. LOL NO. Did that. Nope. Nope. ..How about.... this one.
[Mission agent]: What makes you think you can cherry pick the work around here? YOU work for ME scrub! Get out of my office!
[OP]: How dare you! CCP will hear about this! I pay (amount) of (currency) per (time period) and have (#) of accounts! Im entitled to have things my way!
[Mission agent]: Hmmm. You have a good point. Here, take this card.
[OP]: What is this?!?!? All it asks is 'Can I have your stuff?'
[Mission agent]: Its UaE's business card.
*OP storms out of the office
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
38499
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 22:25:01 -
[36] - Quote
Nevil Oscillator wrote:Really.. which ones ? and what does Concord Standing affect ?
On the second bit first, Concord standing affects your ability to use services just the same as standing with any corporation/faction is affected.
For example, highsec CONCORD stations, and by extension, highsec systems where there are only CONCORD stations (like those in the Sanctum constellation in Genesis), become very unattractive for mining as no one will be able to refine properly in them. The new POS mechanics (no standings required to construct) help overcome that, but not everyone wants to own a POS and that doesn't help NPC Corp characters. Similar effects occur for other station based services. Jump clones is the other impact, though I wouldn't personally rate that as significant.
Similarly, having standing below -5 (standing with Concord, not sec status) opens you up to being attacked by the Concord equivalent of faction police (not the same as Concord police that respond to criminal activity). So poor standings with Concord make it difficult to operate in and around Concord held systems.
There are 58 Concord held systems, with a good percentage of those being in highsec. Anyone wanting to operate in/around Yulai for example, also has to deal with Concord Assembly owning Kemerk, Ourepheh, Manarq, Tar, Tekaima, Tarta, Zoohen, Pakhshi and Emsar. Ourepheh is only 2 jumps from Dodixie. Bad standings basically lock highsec players out of those systems because they'll be attacked if they hang around there. Freighter movements, slow missioning ships, incursions ships, etc. basically have to avoid those systems if they have low Concord faction standings.
As to how, running pirate faction missions (eg. to gain LP for BPCs, implants, etc.) reduces standings to Concord.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1518
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 22:32:19 -
[37] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:[OP]: Nope. Nope. Nope. Ummmm no. No. No. No. Errrrrr..hmmm.. better not. Nope. Nope. Nuh uh. Noooope. Ho ho... definitely not. Nope. Nope. Maybe. Nope. LOL NO. Did that. Nope. Nope. ..How about.... this one.
[Mission agent]: ok.
Fixed.
This is pretty much how skipping multiple burner offers works right now. No threats to quit, no loss or opposition from the agent, no transfers of stuff. Just a bunch of extra clicks. |
Unsuccessful At Everything
The Troll Bridge
22046
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 23:21:45 -
[38] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:[OP]: Nope. Nope. Nope. Ummmm no. No. No. No. Errrrrr..hmmm.. better not. Nope. Nope. Nuh uh. Noooope. Ho ho... definitely not. Nope. Nope. Maybe. Nope. LOL NO. Did that. Nope. Nope. ..How about.... this one.
[Mission agent]: ok. Fixed. This is pretty much how skipping multiple burner offers works right now. No threats to quit, no loss or opposition from the agent, no transfers of stuff. Just a bunch of extra clicks.
It was the way agents should be....
Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?
|
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
1518
|
Posted - 2015.06.22 23:40:33 -
[39] - Quote
Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Unsuccessful At Everything wrote:[OP]: Nope. Nope. Nope. Ummmm no. No. No. No. Errrrrr..hmmm.. better not. Nope. Nope. Nuh uh. Noooope. Ho ho... definitely not. Nope. Nope. Maybe. Nope. LOL NO. Did that. Nope. Nope. ..How about.... this one.
[Mission agent]: ok. Fixed. This is pretty much how skipping multiple burner offers works right now. No threats to quit, no loss or opposition from the agent, no transfers of stuff. Just a bunch of extra clicks. It was the way agents should be....
Considering most of the mission pool is not burner missions, it effectively is. What is being asked for is the ability to skip the few parts that aren't. |
Nevil Oscillator
206
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 00:04:39 -
[40] - Quote
Nevil Oscillator wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:
Being a pirate isn't necessarily what gives you bad standings with Concord.
Mission runners can develop bad standings with Concord, just because they run missions for the wrong faction. Nothing to do with them being pirates, just running missions.
Really.. which ones ? and what does Concord Standing affect ?
Scipio Artelius wrote:
As to how, running pirate faction missions (eg. to gain LP for BPCs, implants, etc.) reduces standings to Concord.
Pirate faction mission are not as you put it ,, simply running missions for the wrong faction
|
Paranoid Loyd
5925
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 00:16:34 -
[41] - Quote
Someday you will learn to just ignore him Scip.
"Gankers are just other players, not supernatural monsters who will get you if you don't follow some arbitrary superstition. Haul responsibly and without irrational fear." Masao Kurata
Fix the Prospect!!!
|
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
38506
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 00:18:49 -
[42] - Quote
Paranoid Loyd wrote:Someday you will learn to just ignore him Scip.
Maybe. The problem is some people might actually Google something down the track that brings up this thread and they might mistakenly take those posts as good advice.
Piracy doesn't on its own affect standings with Concord at all as far as I am aware. It affects security status, which can be bought back quite easily.
Concord standings are much harder to adjust if someone takes them down running the wrong missions and then finds that good standings might be useful.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
5975
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 00:27:25 -
[43] - Quote
Removed some off topic/troll posts.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
1438
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 10:10:09 -
[44] - Quote
Tarsas Phage wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Is there some way to permanently opt out of burner missions?
If there isnt one already then im requesting that a permanent opt out option be added, it is getting tiresome rejecting burners. Just today i had to reject 6 burner missions in a row to get a normal one. Yes, clicking that one Reject button must be so tiring. Perhaps you could use the exercise.
Imagine every so often you need to click "undock" 2-6 times before actually being allowed to undock. That **** would be pretty annoying. |
Baljos Arnjak
Dark Praetorian Order
88
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 15:24:38 -
[45] - Quote
What CCP really needs to do is separate Burner missions into a new category of agent.
So normal missions have their normal agents and burner missions have burner agents, maybe call them Bounty Hunter agents or something. Then those that want to do burners and only burners can, and people who want to do normal and only normal missions can. Those that want to do both just hop in a shuttle and run over to where you do burners or vise versa.
This is something that has been brought up a few thousand times that they should have done from the get-go. |
Trader Hansen
Failure Assured
Fail Nation
3
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 16:21:08 -
[46] - Quote
What CCP needs to do is completely overhaul the entire mission system. It was pretty poor when they introduced it years ago, and it hasn't gotten better with age. But they won't, because it's not pushing players to low-sec/0.0 so isn't part of The Vision(tm). |
Xercodo
Xovoni Directorate
4226
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 16:46:28 -
[47] - Quote
Baljos Arnjak wrote:What CCP really needs to do is separate Burner missions into a new category of agent.
So normal missions have their normal agents and burner missions have burner agents, maybe call them Bounty Hunter agents or something. Then those that want to do burners and only burners can, and people who want to do normal and only normal missions can. Those that want to do both just hop in a shuttle and run over to where you do burners or vise versa.
This is something that has been brought up a few thousand times that they should have done from the get-go.
This.
I want a "Headhunter" agent where I can do these harder missions.
They could be like level 4.5 missions.
Or maybe make them into 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, and 4.5 level missions
The existing frigate burners be toned down to let newbs do them and cut back on their rewards to keep them from being too farmed.
Do the same for the cruiser burners, make some BC burners, and make some battleship burners and you're solid.
The Drake is a Lie
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
11535
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 17:02:21 -
[48] - Quote
Trader Hansen wrote:What CCP needs to do is completely overhaul the entire mission system. It was pretty poor when they introduced it years ago, and it hasn't gotten better with age. But they won't, because it's not pushing players to low-sec/0.0 so isn't part of The Vision(tm).
I looked at your post and noticed it's tinfoil tone, then glanced over and noticed your corp and alliance. It fits. |
Nevil Oscillator
206
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 17:27:21 -
[49] - Quote
This is such a carebear whimsical gripe. Total adds maybe 10 seconds to your mission time per day.
Why not ask for something really useful like a hotkey for salvage drones instead of having to use a context menu.
The current drone controls have been proven to cause tennis elbow and rickets. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
239
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 20:16:43 -
[50] - Quote
Nevil Oscillator wrote:This is such a carebear whimsical gripe. Total adds maybe 10 seconds to your mission time per day.
Why not ask for something really useful like a hotkey for salvage drones instead of having to use a context menu.
The current drone controls have been proven to cause tennis elbow and rickets.
Why dont you ask for it and I'll ask for things that i actually care about.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Nevil Oscillator
206
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 20:30:32 -
[51] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Nevil Oscillator wrote:This is such a carebear whimsical gripe. Total adds maybe 10 seconds to your mission time per day.
Why not ask for something really useful like a hotkey for salvage drones instead of having to use a context menu.
The current drone controls have been proven to cause tennis elbow and rickets. Why dont you ask for it and I'll ask for things that i actually care about.
You care about your time being wasted or just being offered missions you don't want to do because you find it insulting that they offered it to you ?
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
239
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 20:33:39 -
[52] - Quote
Nevil Oscillator wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Nevil Oscillator wrote:This is such a carebear whimsical gripe. Total adds maybe 10 seconds to your mission time per day.
Why not ask for something really useful like a hotkey for salvage drones instead of having to use a context menu.
The current drone controls have been proven to cause tennis elbow and rickets. Why dont you ask for it and I'll ask for things that i actually care about. You care about your time being wasted or just being offered missions you don't want to do because you find it insulting that they offered it to you ?
Da fuk are you talking about?
Take your crazy some place else and let the adults with their faculties in order do the talking here.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Nevil Oscillator
206
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 20:47:04 -
[53] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Da fuk are you talking about?
Take your crazy some place else and let the adults with their faculties in order do the talking here.
I don't see your issue as unique, there are lots of things in Eve that could be faster.. but this is the one you care about.. I do have a point, it's been made.. good luck |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
470
|
Posted - 2015.06.23 21:38:23 -
[54] - Quote
Kind of funny how many people here like to pretend like they should be so up in arms and offended that anyone would stoop to such levels as to asking for such a thing. How dare someone else ask for something that would be an improvement for them but not me, right? It'd be one thing if was something that would be a detriment to others, but I guess since this would largely be something mission runners would like, that makes this a bull-**** request anyways, huh? Makes me wonder how many people actually know what is -- or that there even is -- a difference between "convenience" and "laziness".
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Nevil Oscillator
208
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 05:08:59 -
[55] - Quote
Sobaan Tali wrote:Kind of funny how many people here like to pretend like they should be so up in arms and offended that anyone would stoop to such levels as to asking for such a thing. How dare someone else ask for something that would be an improvement for them but not me, right? It'd be one thing if was something that would be a detriment to others, but I guess since this would largely be something mission runners would like, that makes this a bull-**** request anyways, huh? Makes me wonder how many people actually know what is -- or that there even is -- a difference between "convenience" and "laziness".
I think you are imagining some kind of passionate tone in our replies maybe even a delek or something,.
You are the doctor, you will get burner missions like everyone else or you will be exterminated.
Burner missions are mixed with the other missions which means you can't just go to a burner mission agent and have as many burner missions as you like.
Perhaps it is like that for that reason.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
240
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 06:23:10 -
[56] - Quote
Nevil Oscillator wrote:Sobaan Tali wrote:Kind of funny how many people here like to pretend like they should be so up in arms and offended that anyone would stoop to such levels as to asking for such a thing. How dare someone else ask for something that would be an improvement for them but not me, right? It'd be one thing if was something that would be a detriment to others, but I guess since this would largely be something mission runners would like, that makes this a bull-**** request anyways, huh? Makes me wonder how many people actually know what is -- or that there even is -- a difference between "convenience" and "laziness". I think you are imagining some kind of passionate tone in our replies maybe even a delek or something,. You are the doctor, you will get burner missions like everyone else or you will be exterminated. Burner missions are mixed with the other missions which means you can't just go to a burner mission agent and have as many burner missions as you like. Perhaps it is like that for that reason.
Dude, this is the second time today i have read a post from you where you quote someone but your response has little or nothing to do with what the person said.
The only thing you said that is relevant to the quote is that Sobaan seems to think and i believe rightly so, that there is a whole lot of troll going on in this thread where really little or not controversy should exist. They are trolling because they like trolling; the discussion is irrelevant to them they just hop from thread to thread trolling as they go so yes there is a harsh tone in some of the posts that is unwarranted given the rather mundane request being made.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Nevil Oscillator
208
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 11:56:35 -
[57] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Dude, this is the second time today i have read a post from you where you quote someone but your response has little or nothing to do with what the person said.
t.
Dude Burner missions are like they are so you can't farm them.. that's all I said and it is entirely relevant to this topic.
If you want to crap on your own thread by pulling out the troll card rather than having an answer that is entirely up to you. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
243
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 06:57:03 -
[58] - Quote
Nevil Oscillator wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Dude, this is the second time today i have read a post from you where you quote someone but your response has little or nothing to do with what the person said.
t.
Dude Burner missions are like they are so you can't farm them.. that's all I said and it is entirely relevant to this topic. If you want to crap on your own thread by pulling out the troll card rather than having an answer that is entirely up to you. I wouldn't mind seeing CCP remove the right to decline burners without penalty.
okay you are 3 for 3 on confusing as hell commentary. wtf does framing burners have to do with rejecting them forever. You cant farm a burner if your NEVER RUNNING THEM !?!?
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Tyler Nietzsche
Weyland-Yutani Pan Galactic
87
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 07:03:35 -
[59] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
okay you are 3 for 3 on confusing as hell commentary. wtf does framing burners have to do with rejecting them forever. You cant farm a burner if your NEVER RUNNING THEM !?!?
Adding the burner missions to level 4 agents was a lazy move by CCP. It was ok after the first batch of missions, but now its getting annoying. They could have treated it as on opportunity to add some new interesting things to the game, or at least other agents. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
243
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 08:28:29 -
[60] - Quote
Tyler Nietzsche wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
okay you are 3 for 3 on confusing as hell commentary. wtf does framing burners have to do with rejecting them forever. You cant farm a burner if your NEVER RUNNING THEM !?!?
Adding the burner missions to level 4 agents was a lazy move by CCP. It was ok after the first batch of missions, but now its getting annoying. They could have treated it as on opportunity to add some new interesting things to the game, or at least other agents.
im going to guess based on your comfusing as hell comment that you are actually nevil oscillator posting on an alt. im not sure how to put this but you do know that my request is intended to remove the annoyance of burner mission rejection spam for those that choose to never run them.
in short, you are some how arguing at the same time both for and against my proposal, hence my confusion.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Tyler Nietzsche
Weyland-Yutani Pan Galactic
87
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 08:37:46 -
[61] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
im going to guess based on your comfusing as hell comment that you are actually nevil oscillator posting on an alt. im not sure how to put this but you do know that my request is intended to remove the annoyance of burner mission rejection spam for those that choose to never run them.
in short, you are some how arguing at the same time both for and against my proposal, hence my confusion.
I agree that it is getting annoying due to the sheer amount of them, and suggesting that there are more alternatives to solve the problem than for / against your suggestion. |
Scipio Artelius
The Vendunari
End of Life
38587
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 08:50:23 -
[62] - Quote
Tyler Nietzsche wrote:I agree that it is getting annoying due to the sheer amount of them, and suggesting that there are more alternatives to solve the problem than for / against your suggestion.
I think declaring it as trolling is a little bit harsh.
This is General Discussion, where things can be discussed in general terms and often are from a broad range of different angles.
Specific ideas that are proposed normally go in Features & Ideas Discussion, where generally the discussion around an idea tends to remain more focused (not always, but generally).
So if people are discussing the general aspects of something and looking beyond what the OP began as, that's simply because that is what this forum is for.
Normally an ISD would move this type of thread to F&I, but so far it hasn't happened. Doesn't make people trolls for using the forum the way it was setup for use.
Come Win At Eve - Join The Vendunari
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
243
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 09:00:42 -
[63] - Quote
Tyler Nietzsche wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
im going to guess based on your comfusing as hell comment that you are actually nevil oscillator posting on an alt. im not sure how to put this but you do know that my request is intended to remove the annoyance of burner mission rejection spam for those that choose to never run them.
in short, you are some how arguing at the same time both for and against my proposal, hence my confusion.
I agree that it is getting annoying due to the sheer amount of them, and suggesting that there are more alternatives to solve the problem than for / against your suggestion.
Awesome i understood your point. What other options do you propose we consider?
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Tyler Nietzsche
Weyland-Yutani Pan Galactic
87
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 09:05:35 -
[64] - Quote
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:Tyler Nietzsche wrote:Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
im going to guess based on your comfusing as hell comment that you are actually nevil oscillator posting on an alt. im not sure how to put this but you do know that my request is intended to remove the annoyance of burner mission rejection spam for those that choose to never run them.
in short, you are some how arguing at the same time both for and against my proposal, hence my confusion.
I agree that it is getting annoying due to the sheer amount of them, and suggesting that there are more alternatives to solve the problem than for / against your suggestion. Awesome i understood your point. What other options do you propose we consider?
Adding new agents for burner missions, as in my original post. Adding them as (even more) valuable rats at the end of new expeditions. Inventing new game play like touring the galaxy (hack / entosis random nullsec stations to find them). Making new exploration combat sites with them. Limit them to certain areas, or put them in an area for a certain time like incursions). The options are infinite. |
Barrogh Habalu
Forever Winter
Absolute Zero.
882
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 10:47:25 -
[65] - Quote
Baljos Arnjak wrote:What CCP really needs to do is separate Burner missions into a new category of agent.
So normal missions have their normal agents and burner missions have burner agents, maybe call them Bounty Hunter agents or something. Then those that want to do burners and only burners can, and people who want to do normal and only normal missions can. Those that want to do both just hop in a shuttle and run over to where you do burners or vise versa.
This is something that has been brought up a few thousand times that they should have done from the get-go.
Abusable. Burners are very profitable once you have the setup to do them. Right now it's balanced somewhat by the fact that you occasionally need to play that 3 chapters long Event Horizon reference or take standing hit. With separate agent you will be able to eventually switch to farming them exclusively. You can then make them not free to be declined, but it's just a matter of time before people will bring all those unified setups and, well, see above.
Meanwhile, they still need to be more lucrative to justify working towards being able to complete them. |
Tyler Nietzsche
Weyland-Yutani Pan Galactic
87
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 11:03:46 -
[66] - Quote
Barrogh Habalu wrote:Baljos Arnjak wrote:What CCP really needs to do is separate Burner missions into a new category of agent.
So normal missions have their normal agents and burner missions have burner agents, maybe call them Bounty Hunter agents or something. Then those that want to do burners and only burners can, and people who want to do normal and only normal missions can. Those that want to do both just hop in a shuttle and run over to where you do burners or vise versa.
This is something that has been brought up a few thousand times that they should have done from the get-go. Abusable. Burners are very profitable once you have the setup to do them. Right now it's balanced somewhat by the fact that you occasionally need to play that 3 chapters long Event Horizon reference or take standing hit. With separate agent you will be able to eventually switch to farming them exclusively. You can then make them not free to be declined, but it's just a matter of time before people will bring all those unified setups and, well, see above. Meanwhile, they still need to be more lucrative to justify working towards being able to complete them.
So, you need the old level 4 missions to "get in the way" of farming them. First they are "very profitable". At the same time you say they need to be more lucrative?
Why not balance them on their own merit, and let people who enjoy them run them? |
Nevil Oscillator
208
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 15:05:07 -
[67] - Quote
Tyler Nietzsche wrote:
So, you need the old level 4 missions to "get in the way" of farming them. First they are "very profitable". At the same time you say they need to be more lucrative?
Why not balance them on their own merit, and let people who enjoy them run them?
You lose ships in a burner if your setup is wrong, in a L4 you mostly just warp out and try again/buy a bigger more expensive ship.
And oh good after doing that we don't want to be pestered with burner missions, I have a 36 day training queue for large weapons already , don't distract me with all this rubbish about frigates..
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10389
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 15:19:01 -
[68] - Quote
Maldiro , believe it or not you have just been neviled.
you feel that sort of angry confusion bubbling deep down?
thats the effect he cultivates extremely well, its sort of like trolling but waaaaaay more obtuse.
its the normal response to him so dont worry.
=]|[=
|
Nevil Oscillator
208
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 15:24:01 -
[69] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
its sort of like trolling but waaaaaay more obtuse.
Trolling is for nobodies
|
Ralph King-Griffin
Devils Rejects 666
The Devil's Warrior Alliance
10390
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 15:27:49 -
[70] - Quote
Nevil Oscillator wrote:Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
its sort of like trolling but waaaaaay more obtuse.
Trolling is for nobodies
and being deliberately obtuse for pages and pages and pages is what exactly?
Edit: dont get me wrong now, i love that you leave people so bewildered and inexplicably angry without fail, its rather amusing.
=]|[=
|
Nevil Oscillator
208
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 15:53:23 -
[71] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
and being deliberately obtuse for pages and pages and pages is what exactly?
.
Exactly what they deserve.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
243
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 22:00:08 -
[72] - Quote
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:Maldiro , believe it or not you have just been neviled.
you feel that sort of angry confusion bubbling deep down?
thats the effect he cultivates extremely well, its sort of like trolling but waaaaaay more obtuse.
its the normal response to him so dont worry.
LOL, SWEET !!!
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Cancel Align NOW
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
511
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 00:59:13 -
[73] - Quote
I would like to tick a box that permanently removes all mordus and blood raider missions as well as burners. I'll support your cause OP as our goals are aligned. |
Nevil Oscillator
209
|
Posted - 2015.06.26 05:42:26 -
[74] - Quote
Cancel Align NOW wrote:I would like to tick a box that permanently removes all mordus and blood raider missions as well as burners. I'll support your cause OP as our goals are aligned.
Not quite,
At least the OP is on about missions he has the right to decline, therefore considers them spam, I agree he has a point regarding that, even if it is such a minor point that it is difficult to seriously consider agreeing with him. |
Atomic Virulent
Dark Matter Industrial
127
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 01:24:11 -
[75] - Quote
I've run hundreds of lvl IVs on my forum banned account since they were introduced...
I have not, to this very second, ever been offered a burner mission. Perhaps CCP does account tagging like Blizzard does where your account has a randomly generated attribute that will increase or decrease your drop chances.. this is true, I've had 3 Blizzard devs confirm it. |
Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
474
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 03:19:08 -
[76] - Quote
Atomic Virulent wrote:I've run hundreds of lvl IVs on my forum banned account since they were introduced...
I have not, to this very second, ever been offered a burner mission. Perhaps CCP does account tagging like Blizzard does where your account has a randomly generated attribute that will increase or decrease your drop chances.. this is true, I've had 3 Blizzard devs confirm it.
Well, then I must one of the "lucky" ones. I probably get them about as often as a regular mission. Every few missions I get a string of anywhere between three to five burners. Considering how much the UI still to this day lags, it's rather annoying. Today was the first day I actually got a couple agents to offer one regular mission, then a burner if I declined the regular, then another regular instead of the usual several burners back to back. I will say I hope CCP doesn't just reduce the burner offers, that just steps on the toes of people who do actually like running them.
I have admit Nevil Oscillator makes a point of where requesting for a opt-out of burners lies as far as priorities. He is correct that it isn't high on anyone's list..hell, it's not honestly on everyone's list. There are bigger issues worth tackling. Whether such an addition is easy to apply or whether it deserves what is likely critical dev time, none of us can really control. It is what it is.
It's a sound solution for a minor issue a few of us have to deal with and one that hopefully would be that easy and simple to implement. Is it needed? No. Would it be a nice option for some of us (including, yes, myself)? Yes.
"Tomahawks?"
"----in' A, right?"
"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."
"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
1235
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 04:07:02 -
[77] - Quote
Nevil Oscillator wrote:Cancel Align NOW wrote:I would like to tick a box that permanently removes all mordus and blood raider missions as well as burners. I'll support your cause OP as our goals are aligned. Not quite, At least the OP is on about missions he has the right to decline, therefore considers them spam, I agree he has a point regarding that, even if it is such a minor point that it is difficult to seriously consider as important
the way standings mechanics work at a certain point declining a rather large subset of missions is a viable strategy.
@ChainsawPlankto
|
Nevil Oscillator
210
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 06:01:57 -
[78] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
the way standings mechanics work at a certain point declining a rather large subset of missions is a viable strategy.
Does that work ? reducing your standings by declining missions too often , for the purpose of gaining standing with their enemies ?
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
1235
|
Posted - 2015.06.28 06:53:03 -
[79] - Quote
Nevil Oscillator wrote:Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
the way standings mechanics work at a certain point declining a rather large subset of missions is a viable strategy.
Does that work ? reducing your standings by declining missions too often , for the purpose of gaining standing with their enemies ?
nope, that doesn't work. when you decline you only lose standings. but you can decline a lot of missions and stay high enough you can take missions from the agent. the decline penalty is small, where gains from completing missions are large. there are a bunch of missions I just find boring, and a bunch that just don't pay enough, so I always decline them, but can continue to pull other better missions.
@ChainsawPlankto
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |