| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xaryus
   |
Posted - 2008.05.28 21:13:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Xaryus on 28/05/2008 21:14:15
Fully agree that SOMETHING needs to be done about this to reduce the mission-runner clogging that occurs, quite logically so regarding the rewards.
--
Everyone is someone elses wierdo. |
Dr Cedric
The Nietzian Way
Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 22:42:00 -
[62]
Not sure if its been suggested anywhere else, but here goes:
Our characters are set in a univerese where lightyears can be traveresed in seconds, yet we still have to speak "face to face" (avatar to avatar even!!) to get a mission. That seems a bit wrong to me.
Set it up this way: You have crappy standing with a corp/faction, but you want to do mission for them to get some nifty gear. So you get on the phone and talk to someone to do some work. You can be wherever you want to be and ask for a mission in your neck of the woods. The higher your system security level, the less dangerous (and less rewarding) your mission will be. If you are in a 1.0 system, you might only be able to scrounge up 1 mission per day per agent you call up.
Now as you become more experienced and get better equipment you move out of your 1.0 sec system. Now the agent that you call up gives you more dangerous(rewarding) missions and you profit. Now you can do more missions per agent per day. You start to gain standing and your current contacts let you contact a better quality agent (this agent has better connections, or more insider info...whatever backstory you want). Now this better quality agent gives you more dangerous (rewarding) missions, but at a decreased rate, maybe back to the 1 mission per day per agent.
SO you have a mission running scenario in place where you set up shop in a location of your choosing, the system security determines mission rewards, and you have a decentralization of all the agents (to an extent, if CCP really wants there to be a spatial limit to your access to an agent), and different agent qualities really have a meaning.
Just a suggestion. maybe I'll copy paste into ideas discussion forum!
Dr Cedric
Dipolmatic Liason; Industrial Logistics Technician - The Nietzian Way
-My opinions and ideas do not necessarily represent those of my corporation or alliance- |
Athre
The HIgher Standard
|
Posted - 2008.05.28 23:13:00 -
[63]
 Originally by: Serenity Steele
Can anyone suggestion solutions to the distribution problem that don't require changing agent quality?
I believe the add 4-10 new agents with the 4 bullet idea may be ideal. By having the good agents spread around it will give people more of a chance to gravitate to other areas. Frankly I'm not sure 4 is enough, 10-15 may be more like it.
Just think of all those poor out of work DED and Concord agents still sitting in my address book from missions long ago hehe. (which may be yet another reason why Yulai is no longer the hub)
|
Oftherocks
Of The Rocks Corp
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 00:09:00 -
[64]
GOD YES!
|
Dr Trust
Honour Bound
Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 00:29:00 -
[65]
Well as a mission runner i agree but i also disagree, lets me try and eplain
i agree that having high quality agenst does mean that ppl end up being grouped in a few systems (this is not there fault money>time is the reason)
i dis agree about scrapping them all together as it does take time to get the better quality agenst , k so yes a -5 pays less then a +20 , its called experiance that get u that better paying agent just like in RL , and i dont like this dynamic agent quality lvl as someone has pointed out , why should i be penalised if others use the same agent as me?
my suggestion add some more high lvl/quality agents around the lower sec systesm ( 0.5 > 0.7) reduce the ones in system which are currently hubs
personlay i dont see why any agents other then lvl 1 are in 1.0 systesm yet i know of a lvl 4 in a 1.0 and 0.9, move them to lower sec space
maybe have the quality system looked at so that the quality goes up as the security lvl of the system goes down
eg
lvl 1 > 1.0 systems quality upto +5
lvl 1 > 0.9 systems quality upto +15
lvl 1 > 0.8 systems quality upto max
using that system on the lvl 4 would be like
lvl 4 > 0.6 systems quality upto +5
lvl 4 > 0.5 systems quality upto +15
lvl 4 > 0.4 systems quality upto max
which would me the top lvl 4 agenst have a larger risk then the crap ones
opse i rambled
Bound to Honour till Death
EX- TLSW
EX- CLS
EX- CORM
HoBo
Playing Eve since 2004 |
Professor Leech
Southern Light Entertainment
Black Scope Project
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 00:29:00 -
[66]
While I don't have so many issues with the quality system I do have issues with the way players cluster and find it difficult to work for other npc corps to cut the lag.
Unfortunately I find my self supporting this issue.
Originally by: Crawe DeRaven
this thread is obviously going places
|
Galenea Moreau
Trioptimum
Violent-Tendencies
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 08:33:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Dr Trust
snip
maybe have the quality system looked at so that the quality goes up as the security lvl of the system goes down
eg
lvl 1 > 1.0 systems quality upto +5
lvl 1 > 0.9 systems quality upto +15
lvl 1 > 0.8 systems quality upto max
using that system on the lvl 4 would be like
lvl 4 > 0.6 systems quality upto +5
lvl 4 > 0.5 systems quality upto +15
lvl 4 > 0.4 systems quality upto max
which would me the top lvl 4 agenst have a larger risk then the crap ones
That makes sence to me but if you keep the base random quality levels you will still have a 0.6 agent that is the 'best', a 0.5 that's the best etc While those exist they will still be hubs that attract people to clump together. This could help providing people are willing to risk mission running in low sec but most likely it will just have them clump at the best high sec agent available and in essence just relocates the hub.
However if you combine this with removing the random quality level of the agents so that all 0.6 agents have the same quality etc then there is no reason to chase the best agent as they would all be the 'best' 0.6 agent etc.
I appreciate the comment that was made earlier about people then clumping around the trade hubs instead if you flattened out the quality. I can see where they are coming from with that. It may be that some agents will need to be relocated and others added so as not ot overload the local trade hubs but if you have 5 equal agents in different systems surrounding the trade hubs then people will be tempted to spread out around the hub rather than being in it and that could also be a good thing as a lot more trade could be generated in that manor. Especially if you can design the agent layout to promote multiple smaller trade hubs around the micro mission hubs.
I'm not going to say that people won't be inconvenienced by this but a wholesale change is needed if everything isn't going to grind to a complete halt and adding extra agents in it's self will not solve the problem. In reality the problem isn't EvE, the problem is Human nature and that says I was as much as possible for as little effort as possible and that's what we are doing currently with the uber lagged mission hubs. I'm sorry folks but somethings got to change and since we won't EvE has to and in such a way to take us out of the lag equation.
|
AltBier
Blue.
Blue Federation
|
Posted - 2008.05.29 11:54:00 -
[68]
AGAINST
|
Galenea Moreau
Trioptimum
Violent-Tendencies
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 19:34:00 -
[69]
Originally by: AltBier
AGAINST
I'd really like to be able to say some thing civil in response to that well thought out response to the issue, but all I can think of is that it pretty much proves my point.
|
Mighty Ahti
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 21:06:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Mighty Ahti on 30/05/2008 21:06:02
Make quality increase the more you do you missions for the agent, and have a cap which would be equivalent to 20. Thus each agent would start at -20, and go up to 20 depending on how long you stick with them. Makes sense since the agent would pay you more for doing work after a longer while.
|
|
|
ceyriot
Induseng Enterprises
R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2008.05.30 21:49:00 -
[71]
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
Well, sure, But all the runners in say...Dodixie, will just stay there - theres no incentive to go anywhere else, and they're already where they want to be.
Support anyway.
Faction Store - Killboard |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.06.01 05:11:00 -
[72]
i agree compeltely, also remove the tie between sec difference for highsec, doing missions in a 1.0->0.5 is on the same magnitude of risk. lowsec missions should keep the increased rewards.
|
procurement specialist
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 17:06:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Mighty Ahti
Edited by: Mighty Ahti on 30/05/2008 21:06:02
Make quality increase the more you do you missions for the agent, and have a cap which would be equivalent to 20. Thus each agent would start at -20, and go up to 20 depending on how long you stick with them. Makes sense since the agent would pay you more for doing work after a longer while.
love that idea. just put everyone at -20 again to start with. they should have serious corp standings by this point anyway.
|
Theel Maas
Errant Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 18:09:00 -
[74]
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
This idea is better. I don't support the OP, but I support this. Agents should simply have a quality growth value that is reduced each time a mission is completed for that agent. This would allow underused agents to gain quality and popular agents to lose quality as their growth value adjusts. System security should determine the default growth value.
Then remove the +20/-20 caps set on quality and allow them to settle wherever the populace lets them. At that point low security bonuses on rewards is probably unnecessary and should be removed as well, allowing effective quality alone to determine your rewards.
This would also rectify the issues with level 5 agents, as these agents gain enormous levels of quality more players will make use of them.
We don't need another way of determining your personal relationship with an agent or corporation. We already have standings that adjust the effective quality of your agent on top of their innate quality and your negotiation skill.
If this did actually make all corporations the same from the perspective of the mission runner then LP rewards ought to be more fragmented and/or expanded upon in a distinct way. For example, shipping companies might offer faction expanded cargoholds, mining companies might offer faction lasers/crystals, etc. Currently 99% of distinction in LP stores is handled on the faction level, and that doesn't make much sense. Why Joint Harvesting hands out Amarr Navy Energy Turrets I don't know. That makes them seem more similar than anything else.
|
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 18:16:00 -
[75]
Guys, you don't need dynamic agent quality. It's pointless and will have the same effect as giving all agents in a security zone the same quality.
If all LVL 4 agents in hi sec are quality 0, the mission runner population will spread out evenly among all of them to reduce lag, which is exactly the same result you'd get in an optimal situation with dynamic agent quality, except that involves a lot more coding and work.
All that is necessary is to remove the fact that some agents are just objectively better than others.
|
Theel Maas
Errant Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 18:19:00 -
[76]
Part of the point of adjusting qualities is to avoid people globbing up at trade hubs. If quality was non-existant the systems within 5 jumps of Jita/Rens/etc. would become the most popular.
|
Arbor Down
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 19:21:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Arbor Down on 02/06/2008 19:21:33
I support the idea of having the quality system changed, but I don't know what would be best.
I always like the idea that you start running missions you are at -20. Then you add you the standings for agent+corp+faction+????? (negotiations) to get your agent standing.
So when you start running missions for a new agent/corp/faction you will have low quality. But over time you get more and more pay because the agent/corp/factions likes you more.
If you move agents in the same corp/faction you don't have to start over, because they know about you. But you do need to develop a relationship with that agent to get better pay.
This also rewards people who are willing to take a stand and work on their faction standings for one side, rather then trying to be on good terms with both.
Just my 2 isk.
Edit: to give support
|
Theel Maas
Errant Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 19:44:00 -
[78]
Standings and Negotiation already affect the effective quality of an agent and produce the result you seek. That is how it works now.
|
Arbor Down
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 21:05:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Theel Maas
Standings and Negotiation already affect the effective quality of an agent and produce the result you seek. That is how it works now.
You are correct, currently this is the forumla for effective quality:
Effective Quality = Base Quality + Personal Standing + (Negotiations Skill * 5)
I am suggesting that we remove the base quality, and then have personal standing (with the agent), and corp standing, and faction standing, along with negotiations creat all for the effective standing.
|
Lo3d3R
MAFIA
Pirate Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 21:36:00 -
[80]
another good point! keep it up.
___________________
Sexy Time:  |
|
|
Buck Starchaser
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 23:09:00 -
[81]
Having the main goal of agent progresion being to get to the one best agent where everyone else is... doesn't seem too bright. They probably did that because they can then move that agent to correct traffic problems. If all agents were of equal quality then people would tend to cluster where the best market access is. It's easy to move an agent but you can't really move the markets. You are smart and will probably go to one that's more peacefull but the majority (and you know it if you read the threads that are based on problems with the game) will insist on staying in their favorite lagy system while demanding something be done about the lag.
Another, harder option would be to inconvenience all the mission runners and make the agents only have a certain amount of missions available for everyone and have amount be based on lag in the system. When a peacefull system becomes the favorite of too many people and lag kicks in then all the sudden you can't allways get a mission there. Then you have to hike to the next available agent.
I supose the only really good thing to be said about my idea would be ammunition against whiney miners that say that mission runners have it so much better... but keep mining on, oblivious to the fact that if they know the other guy has it better, has the ability to train the skills and get the ship that guy has, and can improve themselves, but stay there and mine and gripe about mining, then they are foolish.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 02:11:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Ulstan
Guys, you don't need dynamic agent quality. It's pointless and will have the same effect as giving all agents in a security zone the same quality.
If all LVL 4 agents in hi sec are quality 0, the mission runner population will spread out evenly among all of them to reduce lag, which is exactly the same result you'd get in an optimal situation with dynamic agent quality, except that involves a lot more coding and work.
All that is necessary is to remove the fact that some agents are just objectively better than others.
no they will all move to the .5 sec agents 
need to change the way sec status factors into lp payout as well.
|
Ava Santiago
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 22:25:00 -
[83]
I am opposed to removing agent quality. The reason for opposing this is that it transforms the location of mission running to be more of a network effect. Mission runners will gravitate to running missions in a system convenient to a major market. Because of the network effects we would have even more mission runners, industrialists, pirates, and day traders in the same systems. It would increase lag and avatars in mission systems and make the problem worse.
Dynamic quality would be frustrating. Given the cyclical play cycles, it would be difficult to play during prime times. It would turn mission running into a hunt for an unused agent fest.. which in the end significantly reduces mission runner income and enjoyment. It could easily cost the mission runner more time than the current lag.
Currently, mission runners have the option to pick a new location. They have not. Until it looks like players are changing behaviors, the system may not need changing.
If fixing the mission hubs is the problem, move 50% of the high quality agents to low population systems. I suspect that the mission runners are in mission hubs due to network effects... and would not move. Defeating Metcalf's law is going to be difficult.
Concord doesn't provide consequences. Concord provides insurance payouts. |
waristina
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 23:05:00 -
[84]
I like the idea of the proposed Dynamic agent qualities. There still needs to be some thought to the way the reward system will work with low sec over high sec, but in general I think the system has a lot of merit...
you've got my thumbs up.
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
The ENTITY.
|
Posted - 2008.07.04 23:54:00 -
[85]
Agreed. Link to older suggestion for the same thing with a few additions.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=661549&page=1
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.07.05 00:23:00 -
[86]
Edited by: James Lyrus on 05/07/2008 00:24:52
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?
Yes.
But that only matters when the agent/missions are a finite resource - when it is, as it is now, in unlimited supply, then everyone moves to Motsu, because that's where the highest QL agent is.
I'd like to see dynamic quality level adjustment across _all_ sec levels. Because that's the only way to have the 'system' load distribute automatically - more desirable will diminish in quality until they stop being as desirable, and the population starts to spread out.
Ideally this will also include lowsec and backwater agents, such that the time/effort/reward in lowsec mission running will reach a point of being a viable tradeoff for time and additional risk of dodging pirates.
--
Crane needs more grid
249km locking? |
Jastra
Black Thorne Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.07.05 11:48:00 -
[87]
It would be fair to say, would it not, that every space station in the game would have a head of security, head of personnel, head of transport, it stands to reason that these guys might be junior or senior depending on where it is, but you could assume that lower security systems, or in hubs, would have better people in the role. I wonder if this was the original idea behind agent qualities....anyway. Serenitys differetiation comes from mining corps having mining heads, industry corps having industry heads, etc.
So the problem, as anyone who has run missions has found, is either move to low-sec, no-sec. Which is an option for some, for good rewards and probably a quiet system (you hope!), but not possible for all, or settle for a huge lag fest in Motsu or Alentene, etc, or move to a slightly lesser quality agent in a quiet system and actually be slightly penalised for having done your homework
The differentiator in all of these is the quality of the agent, no-one willingly goes and works for a negative quality agent unless you are working towards a better one. This system does not work, some of these agents possibly have hardly anyone working for them, which is surely a waste of processing resources somewhere in that big ol' eve mainframe
I notice that when I check my agent, she has an effective quality far higher that her stated quality, so some form of dynamic is already in place but I dont really see it has a lot of impact
A few questions got asked ...
Quote:
If levels were remove and made to any agent, is there anything left to stop mission running becoming a generic grind-fest?
Err, hello, thats exactly what they are, we wish for something better and more dynamic but for those of us who do a lot of missions they are that grind towards and end (ISK, standing, LP, whatever) - changing the quality of the agents wont make them more tedious
Quote:
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?
This should not be the case, there already is a system of mining and security, etc agents offering different types of missions in different corps, these should definately remain and possibly become more stratified.
Quote:
if CCP just added a handful of high quality agents in quiet areas, that could fix it, too
That wont work because you'll just move the clumps, they might be smaller but probably only for a while.
And finally, if you removed the quality, lowsec gets another gimp because who the hell will go to lowsec and mission if you can do it better and faster in highsec with a lot less risk.
So the problem isnt removing quality, it's measuring the reward and giving it out appropriately based on your personal risk in doing that mission, this is classic EVE, risk goes up with reward.
So, a long way around the discussion comes back not to quality, but to reward. If you set all the agents to the same quality, you have to do something about the rewards, so actually you probably dont want to remove the quality, since this is probably a lot of work for CCP to reprogramme, what you need is more equality in the high sec agents quality, lets face it, they;ve all been doing the job for years not, and they ought to get better or be fired.
Thus you get all lvl4 high sec agents are, ooh lets say q15, you get a nice spread out of people as they move to find different agents (though I suspect you will indeed need to add more agents over time)
However, your Lowsec agents move to all being, oh lets say q17, and your no-sec agents get a Q20
It doesnt have to be done just like this but the answer everyone is searching for is equal reward for doing the same thing but not having to suffer lag because of it. So maybe just more equality in the quality is the answer for highsec
|
Doc Extropy
Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.07.05 12:46:00 -
[88]
I agree with the idea of removing agent quality. Agent quality is a cause of cluttered systems and lag and has to go.
---
Skill queue now! Nerf skillpoint loss and half done skills! WE ARE PAYING CUSTOMERS AND DESERVE MAXIMUM COMFORT! |
Trabber Shir
|
Posted - 2008.07.05 14:41:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Serenity Steele
Can anyone suggestion solutions to the distribution problem that don't require changing agent quality?
I'll try answering this question: Yes.
Aside from lag the biggest thing I hear my fellow mission runners complain about is the tedium of moving a base on the rare occasion you move. I believe it may be possible (while causing great whining) to use the storyline mission system to capitalize on this.
Currently every 16 missions or so we get a storyline mission from a special storyline agent that is very nearby (seldom more than 2 jumps if operating from a hub). Typically we run the missions for the agent by visiting their home station for accepting missions and drop off objectives etc. but operating out of our own home station in terms of ammo supply, changing modules, the salvage ship ...
I propose the system be changed to force a major move every couple storyline missions. For this both the agents and missions would have to change as follows
The agent:
1. The agent should be a normal agent, not a special storyline agent.
2. The agent should be the same level as missions that led to the storyline.
3. The agent should be within 3 quality points of the average quality of the agents the player has been working for.
4. The agent should be in the same or similar division as the agents the player has been working for.
6. The player should meet normal standing requirements for the agent.
7. The agent should be far enough from the players main agent to be inconvenient.(no less than 4 jumps)
8. The agent should be in space with a similar sec rating (+/- 1).
9. The agent should be in a system that is less busy than the players primary agent.
The mission:
1. Must be long and multi parted. (preferably 10+ parts)
2. Must have parts that are worth 10 jumps to salvage(5 each way to get the salvage ship)
3. Should engage multiple rat factions in the series. (different damage and resists)
4. Should include several mission types. (throw in a mining or large courier, force them to bring their other ships)
5. Should have at least one deadspace complex that restricts ship sizes to too small. (frigate for lvl2, cruiser for lvl3, ...)
6. Should pay extremely well and have exceptional loot for its level. (hopefully reduce the whining a little)
7. Should have a more significant standing impact than standard storyline missions.
This type of storyline should not replace the current storyline missions entirely but rather happen every other storyline at the most frequent and the frequency of these relocation storyline missions should be a function of how crowded their current system is.
The logic behind this system is to try and force the mission runner to move most of his possessions (or at least ships) to a less busy system where there is less lag and an agent comparable to the one he has been using. Hopefully, the slight difference in agent quality will be less of an inconvenience to him than moving all his stuff back and, as a result, he will simply start using the new agent.
In addition, the requirement that the new agent be in a less busy system means that if you are already operating out of a low traffic system, you should almost never have this happen to you.
An obvious problem is identifying your home system, for this I would recommend just looking at the home systems of the agents that gave you the 16 or whatever missions that contributed to you getting the storyline and choosing the mode (the one that appears most often). The algorithm is not perfect and I'm sure if this got implemented CCP would come up with something better.
Another big problem with this is that it would require a lot of work by the designers and probably programmers.
Finally, the issue that kills this solution is that it will receive virtually no support from the mission running community, except for those of us that avoid the hubs anyway and wouldn't be affected.
So, all that to avoid modifying the agent quality system.
|
XLR Eight
Viziam
|
Posted - 2008.07.05 14:54:00 -
[90]
Good idea! I Likes!
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |