| 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 donĘt 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! |
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.)
|
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!
|
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] |