EVE Search - [Issue] Remove agent qualities

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] Remove agent qualities

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Tusko Hopkins HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2008.05.22 16:59:00 - [1] Do they make sense? They only cause people to go to the very same, highest quality agents only, causing crowd and lag. The required standing difference between low and high quality agents of the same level can be archieved very quickly so low level agents are very underused. I think quality should go completely to get agent runners more distributed spatially. First alternate to CSM.
Heartstone Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:01:00 - [2] I personally believe there should be more variation based on what you do to the rewards an agent can offer. So yeah sully support. ---
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:04:00 - [3] Originally by: Tusko Hopkins Do they make sense? They only cause people to go to the very same, highest quality agents only, causing crowd and lag. The required standing difference between low and high quality agents of the same level can be archieved very quickly so low level agents are very underused. I think quality should go completely to get agent runners more distributed spatially. If you're referring to the mess in Motsu, Aramachi, Saila, and the rest, the problem is that they're all rammed together into one constellation far more so than it is that people are always picking the best one. I'd be willing to shave a couple quality points for lag reduction, and I imagine a lot of other people would too. Don't destroy a system that works well for 99% of corps to fix CN. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Siona Windweaver	Posted - 2008.05.22 17:20:00 - [4] Good idea, but what about current quality skills? Skill reimbursment isnt an option in CCP's book imo. Other than that, i support the idea.
Hamfast	Posted - 2008.05.22 18:58:00 - [5] Better would be to make the quality dynamic based on the number of missions offered in the last 24/48/168/ hours... more missions offered the lower the quality... but half a loaf is better then none --------*****-------- Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter... So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
Marisal	Posted - 2008.05.22 18:59:00 - [6]
Jack Gilligan Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.05.22 19:06:00 - [7] Anything that would spread out the mission running to more than just the best agents is a no brainer, it'd help out with server performance and be good for everyone. My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of my corporation or alliance.
procurement specialist	Posted - 2008.05.22 19:10:00 - [8] why not move the agents?
Nexus Kinnon Synthetic Frontiers	Posted - 2008.05.22 19:28:00 - [9] Edited by: Nexus Kinnon on 22/05/2008 19:28:16 Originally by: Hamfast Better would be to make the quality dynamic based on the number of missions offered in the last 24/48/168/ hours... more missions offered the lower the quality... but half a loaf is better then none I think the OP's idea in conjunction with this would work.
DeadRow Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2008.05.22 19:40:00 - [10] Ridding agents of quality, or settings them all to 20 etc should be done, will make players not gather around a single system because its the best Q. Quote: Iz in ur base, implanting ur dudes

J'Mkarr Soban Proxenetae Invicti	Posted - 2008.05.23 08:41:00 - [11] I support this, with the caveat that levels should be removed too, and base the difficulty of missions and the rewards thereof on a more linear scale, from any agent. This would have the benefit of spreading agents around, and also making people move into lower and lower security rated systems to get the absolute best from their missions. -- These are my personal views and in no way represent the views of Proxenetae Invicti, which maintains a neutral stance stemming from the strong ethics demanded of its work.
Sariyah HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded	Posted - 2008.05.23 09:23:00 - [12] Yep, using low quality agent does not make absolutely any sense. Not sure what is a good solution but right now that's true, low quality agents just aren't used nearly at all except maybe getting another couple of points of standing.
Venkul Mul	Posted - 2008.05.23 09:40:00 - [13] Valid argument for discussion, plenty of suggestions in hundred of other threads, so the Council can look them (I suspect at leasto some of them know them very well), no need to repeat them again. supported
LaVista Vista Conservative Shenanigans Party	Posted - 2008.05.23 09:43:00 - [14] Very interesting idea, to lower quality as missions are given out. It could potentially solve the lag issue. It might decrease the amount of isk injected into the economy. I support taking this onto the council
gordon861 PROGENITOR CORPORATION Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.05.23 11:01:00 - [15] Rather than reduce the quality as the missions are handed out just base it off the number of missions handed out the previous week. Otherwise you'd get complaints that the people on just after DT are getting favourable treatment. I would just dump the quality all together and base the rewards on your personal standing with the agent/corp/faction. Originally by: CCP Arkanon I frown on employees being power players to the extent that their gameplay results in any sort of domination over others. I donÆt believe CCP employees should run the EVE universe.
Harla Branno Imperium Galactica Omega Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.23 11:04:00 - [16] Dynamic agent quality is only a temporary solution, they would even out after some time. So opening post is a better solution in my opinion. Supported.
Serenity Steele Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information	Posted - 2008.05.23 12:04:00 - [17] Originally by: J'Mkarr Soban I support this, with the caveat that levels should be removed too, and base the difficulty of missions and the rewards thereof on a more linear scale, from any agent. This would have the benefit of spreading agents around, and also making people move into lower and lower security rated systems to get the absolute best from their missions. If levels were remove and made to any agent, is there anything left to stop mission running becoming a generic grind-fest? ≡v≡ Strategic Maps now in Eve-Online Store
Serenity Steele Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information	Posted - 2008.05.23 12:06:00 - [18] Another question: If all agents are of the same quality (as suggested), and every NPC corporation has agents in every division (eg. surveying, security et.al) then doesn't that make all NPC corporations generic? Is it the case that all NPC corps have agents in all divisions?
Dav Varan	Posted - 2008.05.23 13:38:00 - [19] quality >>> population clumping >>> lag. Bin quality and allow players to spread out.
Thirzarr	Posted - 2008.05.23 13:41:00 - [20] Edited by: Thirzarr on 23/05/2008 13:41:30 I think it should be a very simple "Supply and Demand System". The Agent needs mission runners to do his missions for him. Now, the less pilots fly for the agent, the more he offers. This would in some way also fix the "low sec mission reward" as prices would go up until it finds a balance of "making lots of money". Oh yeah, and of course the other way round too: the more people fly missions the less the agent will pay. That should fix "certain systems" within a week.

Jameroz Echoes of Space	Posted - 2008.05.23 18:32:00 - [21] The quality system is stupid and so is the fact that security in high sec effects the rewards. I mean it doesn't make much difference if I work in 0.5 or 1.0 when the agent doesn't ever send me to low sec anyway. I don't really see that it's a good idea that some high sec agents send you to low sec and some don't. Our small corporation is recruiting Finnish players.
PartyPopper GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.23 18:40:00 - [22] Originally by: Thirzarr Edited by: Thirzarr on 23/05/2008 13:41:30 I think it should be a very simple "Supply and Demand System". The Agent needs mission runners to do his missions for him. Now, the less pilots fly for the agent, the more he offers. This would in some way also fix the "low sec mission reward" as prices would go up until it finds a balance of "making lots of money". Oh yeah, and of course the other way round too: the more people fly missions the less the agent will pay. That should fix "certain systems" within a week. Now this is an idea that sounds sensible, you could have an 'ideal number' for each agent beyond which the rewards start getting scaled down, and if balancing was required (you probably want more slots in hisec than losec, for example) you could just tweak these numbers for individual systems or agents. I don't really have any missioning experience since 2003, but if the idea is to spread out mission runners far and wide then this seems a very good way to go about it. The current quality system just forces everyone to go to the best agents and is basically pointless.
Galenea Moreau Trioptimum Violent-Tendencies	Posted - 2008.05.23 19:38:00 - [23] Edited by: Galenea Moreau on 23/05/2008 19:41:18 I've always though that the level of mission on offer should be inversely proportional to the security of the system you were in. I.E. 1.0 and 0.9 Systems have level 1 missions. 0.8 Have level 2 missions 0.7 Have level 3 0.6 Have Level 4 0.5 and below have Level 5 and FW. You can introduce a certain amount of flexibility into that if you want. It would have the effect of making the most dangerous missions in the most lawless areas and that kinda makes sence to me If you then make all the agents have equal quality the skills of the pilot and their standing have the biggest impact on the rewards and there would be no reason to clump together in a few systems with what are seen as the best agents but would encourage them to spread out with a natural progression into lower sec areas and into FW as well. I realise that none of these are easy or quick fixes but would it be better to put in a truely workable long term fix now rather than just shuffling a few agents aroung and watching the mission running hoards follow them causing lag in what ever system they turn up in. Hope that makes sence to people. It did to me but I'm not sure I've explained it very well. G.
Veryez	Posted - 2008.05.24 00:51:00 - [24] Not sure removing quality is best solution since that means nobody will run missions in losec. Might be better to make all agents in highsec equal to quality 10 and all agents in losec equal to quality 20. This also allows skills to come into play. Alternately, dynamic quality would be interesting and fun, not sure if this is possible, but might help spread the wealth. Anyway, support trying something to spread out mission hubs (rather than just moving agents which hasn't worked in the past).
Athre The HIgher Standard	Posted - 2008.05.24 01:59:00 - [25] Edited by: Athre on 24/05/2008 02:00:15 Originally by: Serenity Steele Another question: If all agents are of the same quality (as suggested), and every NPC corporation has agents in every division (eg. surveying, security et.al) then doesn't that make all NPC corporations generic? Is it the case that all NPC corps have agents in all divisions? not necessarily, because at the moment I have ZERO interest in any security missions. Give me mining, production, manufacturing and I'm happy. If all an NPC corp has is kill missions, I will not be getting faction with them any time soon, which then results in me being unable or unwilling to use their services because I refuse to refine in a station where I can not perfect refine. I am on the fence about changing the quality of agents. I would be all for spreading the good agents around to lessen congestion. I am actually against the lessening of an agents quality by the number of missions run (number of missions you run would be different but if its ALL missions run by that npc, it would hurt the majority of people who can not complete them 1st thing at the end of down time)
J'Mkarr Soban Proxenetae Invicti	Posted - 2008.05.24 10:11:00 - [26] Originally by: Serenity Steele Originally by: J'Mkarr Soban I support this, with the caveat that levels should be removed too, and base the difficulty of missions and the rewards thereof on a more linear scale, from any agent. This would have the benefit of spreading agents around, and also making people move into lower and lower security rated systems to get the absolute best from their missions. If levels were remove and made to any agent, is there anything left to stop mission running becoming a generic grind-fest? Of course, because they aren't that now This at least shifts the population, and it's based entirely on how you well you get through it. There would still be the standing requirements, and those standings are the only bases for what kind of mission you get (i.e. the difficulty, and thus the reward). -- These are my personal views and in no way represent the views of Proxenetae Invicti, which maintains a neutral stance stemming from the strong ethics demanded of its work.
El'Niaga Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.05.24 10:13:00 - [27] I see no reason to remove agent qualities.
Galenea Moreau Trioptimum Violent-Tendencies	Posted - 2008.05.24 23:52:00 - [28] Originally by: El'Niaga I see no reason to remove agent qualities. Because currently, weather correct or not, the quality of the agent is seen as being the sole reason for getting better mission rewards. Hence mission runners like pvp'ers want the maximum return on their time and therefore go for the best quality agent of the level and type they want to do. Now when we had 8000 people on the server having 75 people missioning in one system was ok. it was a little slow at times but it was workable. Now we have 35-40,000 people logged on and having 300 people in system chasing the best agent creates significant lag, not just for the mission runner but also for any through traffic. If you make all agents of equal quality there is no need to chase the big payoff and therefore the incentive for the mission runner is now in chasing the quiet system. It makes it easier for him to see pirates and war targets and FW enemies instantly and reduces the chance of getting lagged out in the middle of enemies aboud and loosing his marauder or faction battleship. In this respect EvE is a victim of it's own success as when it was a niche MMO with a small but dedicated following the system actually worked. Now unfortunately it does not.
Kuranta Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.05.24 23:57:00 - [29] Agent quality and the hordes of missioners in agent hubs is "carebear pvp". They get to fight the lag in order to use better agents.
Alphrenel The Black Rabbits	Posted - 2008.05.25 00:04:00 - [30] /signed, its just creates places like Saila :( ___________________________________ Best regards, ALPR CEO Alphrenel Alphrenel Productions - making nice videos for everyone!



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.