| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Soljisk
Logistical Anomaly
   |
Posted - 2008.03.23 20:25:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Soljisk on 23/03/2008 20:25:55
Edited by: Soljisk on 23/03/2008 20:25:34
Edited by: Soljisk on 23/03/2008 20:25:16
Ok this is easy enough solution that everybody and their grandma can agree with. The lag in the missioning systems is just stupid.
All the systems in EVE and the missioners pile up on the highest quality agents. Simple enough solution make more higher quality agents and spread them out. Leave it to the mission nubs to spread themselves out because common sense will eventually tell them to.
I don't like to mission, I hate missioners, but I hate the lag they generate even more, it's like a 2 fold problem. Spread them out so I can kill them easier without lagging out.
|
Tamia Clant
New Dawn Corp
New Eden Research
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 20:29:00 -
[2]
Or you could make it so agent quality is reduced if he's giving out many missions in a small amount of time. Would make perfect sense from an RP perspective, if he's giving out that many missions he's going to run out of decent jobs sooner or later.
If an agent becomes unpopular, his quality will slowly start rising again.
Looking for queue-free research slots? Click here!
|
Soljisk
Logistical Anomaly
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 20:32:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Tamia Clant
Or you could make it so agent quality is reduced if he's giving out many missions in a small amount of time. Would make perfect sense from an RP perspective, if he's giving out that many missions he's going to run out of decent jobs sooner or later.
If an agent becomes unpopular, his quality will slowly start rising again.
Yeh i like your idea also
|
Emily Spankratchet
Pragmatics
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 20:45:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Soljisk
Leave it to the mission nubs to spread themselves out because common sense will eventually tell them to.
There's the flaw in your plan - the people in the mission hubs clearly have no common sense. If they did, they'd be in much emptier systems with agents only a couple of quality points lower. Or not working for the Caldari Navy.
The Caldari faction already has far more high quality level 4 combat agents than any other faction. Making more high-quality agents is just pandering to the idiots.
|
Xaen
Caritas.
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 20:47:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Soljisk
Edited by: Soljisk on 23/03/2008 20:25:55
Edited by: Soljisk on 23/03/2008 20:25:34
Edited by: Soljisk on 23/03/2008 20:25:16
Ok this is easy enough solution that everybody and their grandma can agree with. The lag in the missioning systems is just stupid.
All the systems in EVE and the missioners pile up on the highest quality agents. Simple enough solution make more higher quality agents and spread them out. Leave it to the mission nubs to spread themselves out because common sense will eventually tell them to.
I don't like to mission, I hate missioners, but I hate the lag they generate even more, it's like a 2 fold problem. Spread them out so I can kill them easier without lagging out.
This has been suggested a thousand times before. They don't care enough to bother.
-
Support fixing the UI|Suggest Jita fixes|Compact logs |
Soljisk
Logistical Anomaly
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 21:20:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Soljisk on 23/03/2008 21:21:32
Originally by: Emily Spankratchet
Originally by: Soljisk
Leave it to the mission nubs to spread themselves out because common sense will eventually tell them to.
There's the flaw in your plan - the people in the mission hubs clearly have no common sense. If they did, they'd be in much emptier systems with agents only a couple of quality points lower. Or not working for the Caldari Navy.
The Caldari faction already has far more high quality level 4 combat agents than any other faction. Making more high-quality agents is just pandering to the idiots.
Then clearly CCP needs to implement a system where the agent says they are too busy with other clients and refers them to another random agent?
|
Kerfira
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 21:43:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Kerfira on 23/03/2008 21:44:46
The solution is two-fold:
1. Remove agent quality level completely. It was intended to provide a 'progression ladder', but since you can reach the standings for a high-quality agent in about 2 weeks, and then stay at that high-quality agent for the rest of your average 7 months eve life, it's a useless feature. A progression ladder consisting of the 5 agent levels is good enough.
2. Remove the effect of system security on mission rewards (money/LP) and replace it with this instead:
High-sec: 1x Reward
Low-sec: 2x Reward
0.0: 3x Reward
This'll make all L4's in the same security zone (high-sec, low-sec, 0.0) give the same reward, and avoid the clustering of people with the 'best' agents....
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
EVE isn't designed to just look like a cold, dark and harsh world, it's designed to be a cold, dark and harsh world.
|
MilowFV
Echo Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 22:30:00 -
[8]
I alway liked the idea of self correcting problems. A system where agent qality went up and down based on the number of mission he/she gave out would be good I think.
|
Joe Starbreaker
Starbreaker Spaceways
Nex Eternus
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 22:41:00 -
[9]
Originally by: MilowFV
I alway liked the idea of self correcting problems. A system where agent qality went up and down based on the number of mission he/she gave out would be good I think.
The current system is the fairest.
You can earn X return on your time by doing L4 missions under normal conditions, or you can earn X+y return on your time by suffering from lag, griefers, suicide attacks, and salvage thieves.
Or you can earn X+y+Z return on your time by missioning in low-sec or 0.0, but it requires a major investment in teamwork to defend your space.
|
Caligulus
Legion of Lost Souls
|
Posted - 2008.03.23 23:47:00 -
[10]
It doesn't really matter what gets suggested. There have been a thousand simple logical solutions that would solve the problem and yet CCP and it's bloated staff of incompetent developers do absolutely nothing.
The developers of this game will be its demise.
-------------------------------------------------
**** You're out of your mind!
**** Well that's between me and my mind. |
Tek'a Rain
Collegium Mechanicae
|
Posted - 2008.03.24 00:23:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Caligulus
It doesn't really matter what gets suggested. There have been a thousand simple logical solutions that would solve the problem and yet CCP and it's bloated staff of incompetent developers do absolutely nothing.
The developers of this game will be its demise.
a lovely, bitter post. Remember, no one is forcing you to stay, so vote with you money, and make sure to leave me your stuff before you go.
other ideas in this thread: promising, most of them. especially getting rid of quality levels or at the least changing the mechanic.
|
J'Mkarr Soban
Proxenetae Invicti
|
Posted - 2008.03.24 00:46:00 -
[12]
To be honest, get rid of quality and levels. Have the quality of mission you get scale directly to your standing towards the corp. That way all agents could offer all mission 'levels' and people could pick a system with the prettiest background.
-----------------------------
"Oh, we're sorry, you had the 'NakedAmarrChicks' bit flagged in your account somehow."
"Wait, why was there even a flag for that to begin with?"
"..." |
Rawr Cristina
Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.03.24 00:55:00 -
[13]
Originally by: MilowFV
I alway liked the idea of self correcting problems. A system where agent qality went up and down based on the number of mission he/she gave out would be good I think.
this
...
|
Cipher7
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.03.24 01:14:00 -
[14]
Just make an agent button at every NPC station.
When you press that button, you get in contact with that corp's central command, and they give you missions appropriate to your standing with them.
The payout would be commensurate with the sec rating of the system you are missioning in, and every mission location would be in that system.
To push people out into lowsec/00, raise all mission payouts and mission npc bounties by %15, then add a %15 tax to NPC corp members.
By joining a corp with %5 tax you are actually gaining %10 profit over time, which encourages people to get involved in pvp and actually gives a financial incentive for doing so.
|
Annaphera
The Green Machine
|
Posted - 2008.03.24 01:43:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Cipher7
Just make an agent button at every NPC station.
When you press that button, you get in contact with that corp's central command, and they give you missions appropriate to your standing with them.
Not a bad idea on the face of it, but I think you'd find the systems right next to the starting systems would suddenly be loaded with more lag than Jita. You're removing ANY incentive to move away, and making it impossible for new people to do so, in one stroke.
Originally by: Cipher7
The payout would be commensurate with the sec rating of the system you are missioning in, and every mission location would be in that system.
First part sounds good, see my comment above on the second.
Originally by: Cipher7
To push people out into lowsec/00, raise all mission payouts and mission npc bounties by %15, then add a %15 tax to NPC corp members.
By joining a corp with %5 tax you are actually gaining %10 profit over time, which encourages people to get involved in pvp and actually gives a financial incentive for doing so.
This is where the idea falls flat. You are not going to get risk-adverse and risk-neutral people (or anyone who feels they are unready for PvP) to move into an extremely high-risk area (low sec) with a 10% increase in payouts. You, in company with so many before you, are attacking the wrong side of the equation. If you want to motivate those with lower tolerance for risk, don't increase the reward, reduce the risk! Before you yell, I'm not advocating a massive low sec nerf...but tools need to be given to the mission-runners to balance the risk.
Make no mistake, the issue with getting more people into low sec is convincing them that they can handle the huge risk, not dangling a bigger carrot in front of them. What good is a bigger isk pay-out if they aren't likely to live to spend it?
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |