Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express Burning Horizons
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 09:31:00 -
[91]
I disagree with the original post.
Thoughts expressed are mine and mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect my alliances thoughts. |
Dianabolic
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.07.06 10:22:00 -
[92]
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.
Fully agree. Reikoku Diplomatic Forums
|
Raven Timoshenko
Flying While Intoxicated The Threshold
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 14:49:00 -
[93]
Edited by: Raven Timoshenko on 07/07/2008 14:49:18 /signed
|
Exlegion
New Light Hydra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 15:17:00 -
[94]
I don't know if it has already been discussed, but I propose that:
Agent quality becomes directly proportinal to agent standing. In other words, all agents start out with low quality towards an individual. But as you grind missions with them their quality goes up along with your standings toward them. So agent quality would be based on individual standings toward the player.
That means I can pick *any* agent anywhere and eventually work standings high enough not to worry about switching to a higher quality agent say, in Motsu or Saila. Now rewards and LP would still be significantly higher in lower security systems. But agent quality depends on how long you've run missions with that specific agent.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
isAzmodeus
Low Security Military Excursions
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 22:30:00 -
[95]
I fully support removing agent quality and making the level of reward a function of social skills and your standing towards that agent. --------------------------------- The Seven- Blowing up someone near you. |
Uglok
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 04:14:00 -
[96]
I think the ultimate factor here is not that there are a few places where there are the best quality agents, but the fact that the best quality agents have such poor distribution.
For example: Take a look at the Amarr Imperial Navy. They have a *lot* of level 4 agents. A lot of them are also quality 20. The problem? Around 8-12 of these agents are distributed between TWO systems. Not Constellations. Not Regions. Two SYSTEMs.
Internal Security: Hamen Banela, Level: III, Quality: 20 Yahyerer
Gahta Zahashir, Level: III, Quality: 20 Yahyerer
Ahvasa Aradoh, Level: IV, Quality: 20 Yahyerer
Jabha Dinuhar, Level: IV, Quality: 20 Yahyerer
Melmaja Gaku, Level: IV, Quality: 20 Yahyerer
Sazaktid Nafir, Level: IV, Quality: 20 Yahyerer
Now ask yourself, WHY are there so many high quality agents in a single system, all in the same branch? I'm sure there are other tends out there.
I feel that dynamic agents may only cause other issues in the game, namely agent hub griefing. A lot of players run missions because they enjoy doing so, and it's a nice way to make ISK with a limited amount of risk, but the risk is still there. If dynamic agents are made, what is to prevent a corporation to log-in just after Downtime, suck it dry, and continue to do so to prevent players from making ISK?
I think the way to help with lag is to simply distribute agents over a wider field. There are a lot of agents that are far too close to eachother. I think there should be a balance of agents, especially level 4 agents, between high sec and low sec. As it is now, high sec is laggy due to the very poor placement of the limited number of level four agents. If there were more level four agents spread around with varying levels of quality (But nothing too high, that's for low-sec I'd like to think), then people will stop flocking to the "best" agent and instead go for the second best. After all, 5-10 points of quality wont make or break an agent for missioning.
However, if you must have dynamic agents, then do it along with this idea of better placement of agents for mission runners. And have it only lower the quality by a small number. For example:
Lets say Agent A in System A is widely used because he's a quality 10 agent. Agent B in System B isn't widely used because he's a quality 2 agent, and obviously people want more bang for their ISK, so they go to Agent A. The dynamic quality shouldn't take Agent A all the way down to -20 quality, but it should take him down maybe to 0 at the most, or if you must -5 or so, making Agent B more viable. As traffic lets up, Agent A's quality rises and Agent B's doesn't fall due not having as big of a draw as Agent A. Thus their qualities even out, being more attractive to players and allowing things to balance out.
|
Aidan Ordway
Amarr 32nd Amarrian Imperial Navy Regiment
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 06:46:00 -
[97]
I've also discovered a trend that a few other corporations have also followed.
The Ministry of War has three level four, quality 20 agents on the same station as well, all of them Internal Security.
I don't care if they're all in 0.1 systems, just put them in DIFFERENT ones!
|
Molock Saronen
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 10:12:00 -
[98]
|
Dihania
Gallente Mucho Dolor
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 14:37:00 -
[99]
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?
And if all agents have quality, and all NPC corporations have agents in all divisions, then doesn't that make all NPC corporations generic ?
1. I believe lvl and quality should be based on system security status (not new I guess - hehe), but differences in quality should be greater / system. 2. Also spread the agents more into space. 3. We should have no lvl 4 agents in systems above 0.5, no lvl 3 agents in systems above 0.7 4. The diffs between agents should be great, lvl1 -> lvl2 -> lvl3 -> lvl4 -> lvl5 while: 5. Skills and quality should make the path from lvl(X) to lvl(X+1) more linear
. EVE: "The Hand-holding Age". I need isk!Accepting donations. Renting sig space.Taking various jobs. |
Fenderson
Einherjar Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 15:30:00 -
[100]
this would reduce a lot of lag with basically no downside.
DO YOU PLAY POKER???? Join ingame channels "DOA Poker" and "Eve Online Hold'em" |
|
Attas
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 15:49:00 -
[101]
Supported
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 17:31:00 -
[102]
Their rating like much of the information granted for free in EVE should be hidden and if possible dynamic.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Lord Testament
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 17:45:00 -
[103]
removing qualitiy signed
|
Hamfast
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.09 19:20:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Dihania
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?
And if all agents have quality, and all NPC corporations have agents in all divisions, then doesn't that make all NPC corporations generic ?
1. I believe lvl and quality should be based on system security status (not new I guess - hehe), but differences in quality should be greater / system. 2. Also spread the agents more into space. 3. We should have no lvl 4 agents in systems above 0.5, no lvl 3 agents in systems above 0.7 4. The diffs between agents should be great, lvl1 -> lvl2 -> lvl3 -> lvl4 -> lvl5 while: 5. Skills and quality should make the path from lvl(X) to lvl(X+1) more linear
I suspect your #3 would be one way to reduce a lot of lag... all those mission runners limited to level 2 and 3 agents because they have no desire to be targets for Low Sec Pirates/Mission Jumpers will find other things to spend their time doing... I know it would help me move to another game all the faster...
I could see limiting max quality (with dynamic quality levels) based on the posted security level of a system, but not beyond that.
as for the Serenity Steele comment... Giving all NPC Corps all agent types would make no sense... Why would Transtellar Shipping need a mining agent? While some agent divisions could or should be found in all NPC corps (Admin, Security... a few others perhaps) there is no viable reason that all corps would have all divisions... but a spread of agents over many systems of varied (or varying) quality for all appropriate divisions would be good.
--------*****--------
Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter...
So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
|
Hrian d'Rich
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 12:11:00 -
[105]
I do think that this is a nice idea actually.
|
Astria Tiphareth
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.07.10 12:52:00 -
[106]
Valid topic for discussion, even if CCP come out with a different way to deal with it. ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties... |
Mantees
Hikage Corporation Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 07:39:00 -
[107]
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
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.
I support the idea -- OGRank.com - EVE Online - MMORPG News |
Mahke
Carrion Crows
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 07:48:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Galenea Moreau
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.
You will not solve the missioner-blob by removing agent qualities -- in fact, you will make it worse. What makes the hubs so popular isn't just high-quality agents, but lots of high quality agents together, which lets you dismiss missions with low returns without slowing yourself down: this is even more important than the high quality.
Quality even provides an alternative to blobbing: instead of working a hub, you can work a single high quality agent near the lowsec border in return for less lag. By removing quality, you remove this option, and basically force people to bunch in the multi-agent hubs even more (which are better than single good agents, but balanced by lag) by increasing incentive to do so, because it just makes multi-agent hubs that much better relative to everything else.
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 09:20:00 -
[109]
Originally by: DeadRow 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.
This is a case of wishfull thinking, imho. If you remove agent quality, players will still filter their "agent place" by system security statut and number of level 4 agents. And they will find one or two systems that are perceived to be better than the others.
It won't make them spread out, it will just move the blob elsewhere.
It also has one big drawback. Currently you have two kind of high-sec mission-runners:
- The biggest part that don't think too clearly, shall we say, that stay in motsu/dodixie/saila, whine about the lag, but don't try to do anything about it.
- The smartest and smallest part that has put it's finger out of it's butt, analized the situation, and went elsewhere in places where it wasn't lagged out by the first kind.
If you remove agent quality, not only will it do nothing to solve the blobbing part, but it also will force the smart kind to move away again. ------------------------------------------
|
Foulque
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 09:59:00 -
[110]
|
|
Jennifer Celeste
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 17:30:00 -
[111]
approving this...lag in mission systems is horrible.
|
Molpadia Devaux
Minmatar Excessive Intoxication
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 12:11:00 -
[112]
I do not favor removing agent quality, I am in favor of making the quality dynamic.
All agents start as level 1 quality -20, to the player.
Doing more missions for an agent increase the quality ( and eventually the level). As does standing with the NPC corp, and that corp's faction.
Once the standing with an agent reaches say 9.5, the level and quality do not increase, you need to change agent.
The new agent takes your standing with their NPC corp and Faction into account to set the starting point for level and quality.
Standings are per division, you must start with level 1, -20 for each division.
Multiple agents in the same division at the same station would be moved, or removed.
The current starmap agent ID system would be replaced by a notification ( character sheet maybe ) as to what your starting level would be with a new agent in the same or other division.
|
Marcus Gideon
Gallente Excessive Force
|
Posted - 2008.07.27 15:18:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Jennifer Celeste approving this...lag in mission systems is horrible.
I disagree with this idea... because of the same reason stated above.
"Players don't want Variety, they want THE BEST."
And they will seek out the best agent to make them money, no matter where they have to go to do it. That's why the lag is so bad, and why there are so many places being called "mission hubs". So taking away the Quality, and making them all equal, will mean that everyone will find the best system based on Sec, and everyone will gather there. Find a dead end 0.5, surrounded by 0.6+, and you're guaranteed to make tons of money without any risk of dying in a Gate Camp.
This dynamic idea, where Quality gets worse as you continue to do missons, is also a lame idea. It sounds "balanced", but it doesn't sound "plausible".
Agents are hired on by their parent corporations, to work out of a particular location. They make friends with the locals, and listen to the rumors being told over drinks in the station bar. Then when a capsuleer comes along, they see if you have a decent reputation for performing missions well. If you come well recommended, then they offer the job. When you get back, they put in a good word for you, and you move on to bigger and better missions.
I think the key to breaking up mission hubs... is limiting the missions. How many people have had to Rescue the Damsel a couple times a day, or a couple days in a row. Wouldn't it be nice if the brat stayed rescued for a little while?
I think a fix is to sprinkle around a few more agents, and then make their missions run dry after a while. That way, you are eventually forced to move onto another system anyways... not because you graduated to a better agent or higher level missions, but because you did everything that was needing done in that area.
AND... if you use up a Q20 agent, then the best nearby might just be a Q10 or Q2... once again giving use back to those lower Quality agents who "didn't get the prime location assignments". They are still working for the corporation, just not out of Paris or Las Vegas. --- Don't take my rantings personally. I may just be arguing the topic, unless you're saying something stupid, and then I mean every word. "People don't want Variety. They want THE BEST" |
Kheir
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 10:50:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Kheir on 30/07/2008 10:51:11 I didn't go threw reading it all, at work at the moment, but I don't think you should remove the quality rating. Instead make it that once you get to a certain security rating all agents for that empire are equal quality, makes something to work for and would still reduce lag spreading out missioners and and still keep the present system.
Edit - guess this idea was already proposed.
|
Dev Rom
Masterminds Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 19:49:00 -
[115]
Edited by: Dev Rom on 30/07/2008 19:58:40 I do missions to relax myself. I do pvp in nullsec to excite myself. I think it's bad to force to go mission runners to lowsec systems where they risk their ships. And it is bad to eliminate missions only because of lag. I can ask to eliminate pvp for the same reason, don't I? No, it would be bad to kill missions as it would be bad to kill pvp. So, aside the omnipresent lag (new hardware will help), the mission hubs will lose lag only if mission runners will find new systems. I totally agree to clean the laggest systems. One suggestion is to let contact my agents from systems far away from the agent homesystem based on standing. A pilot could ask for mission in lowsec, simply calling that agent from a lowsec system. If my standing will be enough I can even ask my agents for mission in null sec, and maybe that mission would be more risky and hard. So there will be no need for quality, but only level and system security. No difference between 1.0 and 0.5 (really NO difference), but if I'm a militian (factional warefare), mission in enemy systems would pay. Callin' agents from away and nullfing the reward difference between 1.0 and 0.5, would kill mission hubs and let enough space for future improvements on the mission-game-system.
I am not your carpet ride, I am the sky.. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |