Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xebov Darklight
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 00:05:00 -
[31]
I Support this, the Remove of the Quality would spread the Mission runners over larger areas so the lag gets reduced. The only Reason why ppl move to the high quality is they get a small isk more from them.
|
Illrae Pyou
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 00:13:00 -
[32]
Originally by: El'Niaga I see no reason to remove agent qualities.
I do.
|
Judas Jones
Black Company
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 00:29:00 -
[33]
I'd prefer better agent re-locations and more pratical variance between them like mission rewards but thats probably not possiable with the current mission system which is stale and un-creative.
|
Ryusoath Orillian
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 01:12:00 -
[34]
clever idea. i would also recommend a slight boost to the rewards of level 1-3 missions some of them are very badly paid.
|
Kivin San
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 02:02:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Kivin San on 25/05/2008 02:05:41 This is one of a dozen possible solutions to the agent mess. Granted, if CCP just added a handful of high quality agents in quiet areas, that could fix it, too. For example, add four to ten additional agents for each faction which meet the following criteria:
Level 4 High quality 0.5 sec or higher No adjacent lowsec
It wouldn't give us anything we don't already have (Actually, I think Minmatar are the only faction that don't have any agents that meet all four bullets. I can't prove that without a little work, though.) - and would cut the population in mission hubs down significantly.
|
Kivin San
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 02:08:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Xebov Darklight ...they get a small isk more from them.
Wrong. The quality difference is tremendous. Such that going from a -4 Agent to a +13 agent is a 330% LP reward difference for me.
|
Gwendion
No Quarter. Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 02:19:00 -
[37]
I would support a Varied Agent level based on your own personal standing with that one agent. So that the more you do with that one agent, the better he gets for you, modified by the various skills of course. -----------------------------------
|
BlondieBC
7th Tribal Legion
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 03:04:00 -
[38]
Bad idea. Makes things too generic.
If worried about mission hubs, make agent quality dynamic. The more an agent is ignored, the more she will pay.
If overbooked, she gets cheap. Just like real life.
Just make sure to have a premium for low sec agent on quality.
|
Havohej
The Defias Brotherhood DEFI4NT
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 03:53:00 -
[39]
I think that if the quality were removed altogether, it would just make mission runners stick to 100% highsec space, which really doesn't do anything about making popular mission systems less crowded.
However, if it were done in such a way that agents in lowsec still offered better rewards, it might be a step in the right direction.
Originally by: techzer0 I'm invincible until proven wrong
|
SpidrWeb
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 03:57:00 -
[40]
|
|
Slickdrac
JET FORCE Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 07:26:00 -
[41]
I support the dynamic agents, at first, every agent is 20 quality to you, then as you do missions for them, the quality drops, don't do missions for them, the quality goes up. This would make people travel a bit for their missions, and if you made it strict enough, then you'd have them running around between -20 agents in high sec, while they have +20 agents in low sec, encouraging more travel to low sec. To make it sweeter, you could have the low sec agents quality go up faster than the Hi-sec agents.
I am EXTREMELY against simply removing the qualities, this solves absolutely nothing and creates more problems. What lvl 4 caldari agent is closest to Jita? That's your new mission hub. That is the only thing that removing quality will do. I suck at forums |
Pliauga
Militek Industries
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 08:39:00 -
[42]
I support DYNAMIC AGENT QUALITY.
---------- DRONE love rulez!! 'mkay?! LONG range/"OUT OF SYSTEM" artillery |
Nicholas Barker
MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 08:55:00 -
[43]
Originally by: procurement specialist why not move the agents?
because then you just shift the problem to another area. ---
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.05.25 09:02:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Pliauga I support DYNAMIC AGENT QUALITY.
quoting 'dis because I am down. -----------
|
Tenebrion Darkness
Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 00:45:00 -
[45]
Hmmm, a lot of good suggestions. The scaled rewards based on # of mission runners looks best to me.
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 01:00:00 -
[46]
Can anyone suggestion solutions to the distribution problem that don't require changing agent quality?
|
Tenebrion Darkness
Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.05.26 01:02:00 -
[47]
Besides redistribution?
|
Galenea Moreau
Trioptimum Violent-Tendencies
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 12:25:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Serenity Steele Can anyone suggestion solutions to the distribution problem that don't require changing agent quality?
Not really when the agent quality has such a significant effect on the rewards received. Whilst there is that disparity between agents you will always have a significant proportion of mission runners that will 'brave' the lag to use the highest quality agent available.
I have to say that I'd never considered the dynamic agent quality idea before and it has a lot of merit on the surface but in the end I suspect it will have the same effect as making all agents have equal quality be that -15, 0 or +15 which will be to spread out the mission runners evenly and there for to within a few ISK have equal rewards. So why not just do away with the fancy coding and make them all equal with a DB level, one time fix? Same effect several hundred man hours less work then put those man hours towards fixing other nice stuff
|
Allaria Kriss
Elipse Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 14:52:00 -
[49]
If you make all agents the same quality, people will still clump together in systems, only they will move to systems with convenient markets for their loot and salvage, plus systems where they can easily buy ammo and missiles. This will simply cause even more lag around market hubs, as people will gravitate closer to those for the above reasons.
Dynamic agent quality is interesting and supportable by me, but rather complicated. The only fair way to do it would be to have it dynamic based on the number of missions run BY THAT PLAYER for that agent. This has its own downside; it will cause difficulty for people missioning for corporations that don't have a lot of agents of a particular type at a particular level. Still, it has merit, if it's feasible.
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 16:42:00 -
[50]
Edited by: James Lyrus on 28/05/2008 16:45:29 Agents are an infinite resource, therefore clumping happens at the highest pay/QL.
Removing quality levels across all agents would help this.
However as a more comprehensive approach, it would be better I think, to look at dynamic quality levels.
There's a huge variety of factors that determine the desirability of an agent. Proximity to lowsec, proximity to hubs, proximity to other agents, faction, region, corp. So many things it's almost impossible to accurately meaure what is a 'better' agent.
I'd therefore suggest the best way of dealing with this is some manner of dynamic quality level shifting, such that the pay scales of agents adjust in direct proportion to their popularity.
I'd also like to see this include low security space - as it stands, low sec agents are rarely used, because the disparity of agent pay compared to high security space makes it not worth it - the difference in pay between the same QL in a 0.4 or a 0.5 is negligable, but the risk is vastly increased.
This is _partially_ impacted by the security status multiplier, but in practice the vast majority of the mission reward comes from bounties, loot and salvage. I'd actually like to see a more intensive shift towards agent reward, and away from ship bounties and loot drops, along with this.
But broadly, I support the issue that the agent quality system needs revisiting. Removal would be an acceptable workaround, but the change also presents an opportunity that it would be a shame to miss. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? |
|
Heroldyn
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 16:47:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Heroldyn on 28/05/2008 16:46:54 i am voting in favour of the op in order to express my dislike in regards to the "dynamic quality" idea.
i cannot be botherd to move every week because some other people decide that my agent is cool.
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 16:56:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Heroldyn Edited by: Heroldyn on 28/05/2008 16:46:54 i am voting in favour of the op in order to express my dislike in regards to the "dynamic quality" idea.
i cannot be botherd to move every week because some other people decide that my agent is cool.
You don't have to. The QL will drop, and everyone else will move on. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? |
Heroldyn
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 17:01:00 -
[53]
Originally by: James Lyrus
Originally by: Heroldyn Edited by: Heroldyn on 28/05/2008 16:46:54 i am voting in favour of the op in order to express my dislike in regards to the "dynamic quality" idea.
i cannot be botherd to move every week because some other people decide that my agent is cool.
You don't have to. The QL will drop, and everyone else will move on.
it is my experience in mmo games, that most people will spent more time for less value, than what i feel acceptable. examples for that are the courier contracts or the recent t2 pricedrops through invention.
therefore i feel that people would propably not move on. at least not enough to keep the agent quality on a level i can accept.
|
TimMc
Genos Occidere
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 17:02:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Nexus Kinnon 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.
This is CCPs idea and I support it.
|
Pirc Balar
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 18:34:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Serenity Steele Can anyone suggestion solutions to the distribution problem that don't require changing agent quality?
Changing the current agents is not at all an attractive solution in my view. Perhaps as one of the other posters suggested additional agents could be added. Perhaps these agents could be dynamic as others have suggested (changing in quality/type). |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 18:38:00 -
[56]
Absolutely agree that static agent qualities should go. They serve no purpose and merely cause everyone to funnel into the system with the 'best' agents.
Simply make all L4 agents in hi sec the same. All L4 agents in low sec pay more.
Now, I know, someone is going to say "But what about trying to raise your standing! We need the low quality agents so we can raise our standing!"
Not really. As long as -2 can access level 1 agents, they can raise their standing high enough to use all level 2 agents. From there, they can raise their standing high enough to use all level 3 agents. From there, they can go high enough to use all level 4 agents.
There is no reason for low quality level 4 agents. You can get up to the level to use high quality level 4 agents just as easily running level 3 missions from good level 3 agents as running level 4 missions from bad level 4 agents.
If some sort of dynamic agent quality calculator is to be implemented, that's fine, but the current situation where most agents are just plain objectively worse than other agents so everyone crowds into a few systems is bad :) |
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 19:26:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Pirc Balar
Originally by: Serenity Steele Can anyone suggestion solutions to the distribution problem that don't require changing agent quality?
Changing the current agents is not at all an attractive solution in my view. Perhaps as one of the other posters suggested additional agents could be added. Perhaps these agents could be dynamic as others have suggested (changing in quality/type).
That essentially defeats the point of doing so - as long as there's static 'best' agents, you will have static, overloaded mission runner superhubs. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? |
Protrade
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 19:29:00 -
[58]
Qual 20 in lowsec Qual -20 in Highsec :D Answer solved. Maybe Qual 0 for agents on the border of lowsec. _____________________________________
Wealth is not determined by assets or liquid isk. It is determined by the amount of caracals in your possession. |
Zorda
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 20:01:00 -
[59]
no
|
Squirrrel
Squirrrel Industries
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 20:55:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Squirrrel on 28/05/2008 21:01:33 Support dynamic agents.
As more people take on L4's, since they currently settle in one system for the duration from then on, it will only get worse. Plus, if people need to move to get to the better agents, there may be a market for couriers to move items from location to location.
Add small rental fees (not like corp hangar fees) to stores items in a local hangar to further try to stop people hoarding items, this would also help the courier market. (slightly off-topic, but releated.)
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |