| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Marie Trudeau
Gallente
Decouverte S.a.r.l.
   |
Posted - 2008.08.23 13:10:00 -
[211]
The most sensible route would be some kind of rationing system: whether a daily cap, or some sort of sliding scale of "agent availability" or something of the sort that prevents the blitzers and farmers from grinding up very high amounts of ISK, but at the same time allows the more typical mission runner (who is typically the casual player) enough missions to earn ISK and stay interested in the game.
Nerfing mission rewards by half or something like that will simply drive the mission runners from the game, period. It's not so simple to say: hey, why does the ISK matter, you like running missions, right? ISK matters because this is EVE Online. ISK is what allows you to progress in this game, to do more interesting things, fly more interesting ships. A mediocre ISK return for mission runners (which is basically a thinly veiled attempt ot ghettoize them) would simply drive many of them away from the game.
I am not a mission runner myself. While I run a level 4 every now and then, I find them boring and repetative, and I find the market a much nicer way to make a lot of ISK. But for certain if you monkey with missions in a ham-fisted way as some of the posters have been suggesting (namely, by either whacking the income from them by half or more, or removing level 4s from high sec in toto), all you will achieve is driving a good number of the casual players from the game. Perhaps that's desirable (a lot of EVE players simply despise the casual carebears, we are adult enough to be honest about that, aren't we?), but if it's the desire, then we should be up front about that with CCP and the CSM.
|
Karentaki
Gallente
Fighting While Intoxicated
|
Posted - 2008.08.23 14:13:00 -
[212]
 Originally by: Judas Jones
Edited by: Judas Jones on 22/08/2008 14:32:10
I love this whole risk vs reward crap i see being flung about, much like a dead donkey. I wonder how many people that are complaining about this have alts that partake in the whole scamming buisness which has 0 risk for all reward. Setting up dodgy contracts, buy orders and running scams on alts...
You people also seem to forget that not everyone can commit endless amount of time to go exploring, during the week, they might get 2 hours a day and maybe some fleet time at the weekend, thats it, so they cant afford not to have a "stable isk" income, becuase without it, they simply won't bother witha sub fee.
Furthermore, theres a large portion, according to CCP figures, the largest portion of Eve's population, that currently engages in these missions so any kind of negative tinkering is going to potentially cost CCP the majority of there income.
You're bitter you've been scammed, and you think that whining here will make up for your lac of common sense? Sorry, it doesn't work like that.
Also, you seem to think that someone who plays 2 hours a week should get the same ISK as someone who plays 20 hours a week? It doesn't work like that either!
Finally, tbh, if nerfing missions gets rid of people like you, that's just Darwinism in action 
Quote:
EVE is like a sandbox with landmines. Deal with it.
|
oilio
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.23 16:01:00 -
[213]
This is a bad idea.
Big thumbs down.
No point in re-stating the arguments against it.
Nerf L4s or move them into low sec and Eve will lose players. Eve will lose LOTS of players, and I will most likely be one.
People will have a harder time making ISK to buy timecards. People will have a harder time funding their PvP ships (so less PvP).
People will leave (so less PvP).; |
Opertone
Caldari
SIEGE.
The Border Patrol
|
Posted - 2008.08.23 16:11:00 -
[214]
for those who have too much reward
can i have 100 mill per day and not do an missions at all?
do you have a slightest idea how contested 0.0 is? even if you have full blue system, people will be chaining belts day long
do you want 0.0 to be the only option in eve? so that all hi-sec population moves to 0.0 and starts chaining belts?
this idea is inspired by rubbish thoughts... one of them is 'omg, let's nerf carebears'
|
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.23 16:27:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Opertone
for those who have too much reward
can i have 100 mill per day and not do an missions at all?
do you have a slightest idea how contested 0.0 is? even if you have full blue system, people will be chaining belts day long
do you want 0.0 to be the only option in eve? so that all hi-sec population moves to 0.0 and starts chaining belts?
this idea is inspired by rubbish thoughts... one of them is 'omg, let's nerf carebears'
Your entire post reads like support for nerfing high sec, until your last two lines.
|
Reithan
Dead 2 Rights
TransWarp Ventures
|
Posted - 2008.08.23 17:12:00 -
[216]
Risk vs. Reward and Supply vs. Demand in Missions is non-existant.
I'd like to see it that Agents have a given 'pool' of missions they can give out each day. Like maybe
50 of Mission1
100 of Mission2
25 of Mission3
10 of Mission4
1 of Mission5
That way, when you do it mission it's removed from the pool for that day, but stays in the pool if you refuse it. This way there's competition in missioning.
I mean, all the dev are always on their kick of "anything you do in EVE is PvP, because you're competing with someone else for limited resources." And for the most part, they're right - except for missions.
-----------------------------------------------
|
oilio
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.23 19:44:00 -
[217]
Originally by: Reithan
Risk vs. Reward and Supply vs. Demand in Missions is non-existant.
I'd like to see it that Agents have a given 'pool' of missions they can give out each day. Like maybe
50 of Mission1
100 of Mission2
25 of Mission3
10 of Mission4
1 of Mission5
That way, when you do it mission it's removed from the pool for that day, but stays in the pool if you refuse it. This way there's competition in missioning.
I mean, all the dev are always on their kick of "anything you do in EVE is PvP, because you're competing with someone else for limited resources." And for the most part, they're right - except for missions.
TIMEZONES!!!!
How dumb are you?
If you ration missions like that, then the players who can play immediately after downtime clean up, and everyone who comes online later gets nothing.
My guess is that you either have no job, or you live in a timezone where 11:00 GMT is primetime for your playing habits. |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.23 20:33:00 -
[218]
Originally by: oilio
Originally by: Reithan
Risk vs. Reward and Supply vs. Demand in Missions is non-existant.
I'd like to see it that Agents have a given 'pool' of missions they can give out each day. Like maybe
50 of Mission1
100 of Mission2
25 of Mission3
10 of Mission4
1 of Mission5
That way, when you do it mission it's removed from the pool for that day, but stays in the pool if you refuse it. This way there's competition in missioning.
I mean, all the dev are always on their kick of "anything you do in EVE is PvP, because you're competing with someone else for limited resources." And for the most part, they're right - except for missions.
TIMEZONES!!!!
How dumb are you?
If you ration missions like that, then the players who can play immediately after downtime clean up, and everyone who comes online later gets nothing.
My guess is that you either have no job, or you live in a timezone where 11:00 GMT is primetime for your playing habits.
The pool of missions can be filled gradually through the day to avoid that.
Vote against the nano nerf! |
Reithan
Caldari
Dead 2 Rights
TransWarp Ventures
|
Posted - 2008.08.23 22:06:00 -
[219]
Originally by: oilio
TIMEZONES!!!!
How dumb are you?
If you ration missions like that, then the players who can play immediately after downtime clean up, and everyone who comes online later gets nothing.
My guess is that you either have no job, or you live in a timezone where 11:00 GMT is primetime for your playing habits.
Well, it's already how they do it for NPC trade goods which are used by players to make isk.
So, if it works for one NPC controlled isk faucet, why not the other, too?
-----------------------------------------------
|
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 20:01:00 -
[220]
Originally by: Esmenet
The pool of missions can be filled gradually through the day to avoid that.
So the farmers would be running WC's, GE's, and AE's all day while the casual gamers get stuck with the crappiest missions. Problem not solved just changed to benefit the farmers even more than it currently does.
Just allow people to only run so many missions with a given agent regardless of high sec or low sec to stop the farming and you will resolve a lot of problems. If someone wants to run 20 accounts so they can get 60 alts to run missions all day from an agent then isn't that to the benefit of CCP? Which would be us in the long run!
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out. |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 20:07:00 -
[221]
Originally by: Red Raider
Originally by: Esmenet
The pool of missions can be filled gradually through the day to avoid that.
So the farmers would be running WC's, GE's, and AE's all day while the casual gamers get stuck with the crappiest missions. Problem not solved just changed to benefit the farmers even more than it currently does.
Umm what gives you that idea?
Vote against the nano nerf! |
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 21:19:00 -
[222]
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Red Raider
Originally by: Esmenet
The pool of missions can be filled gradually through the day to avoid that.
So the farmers would be running WC's, GE's, and AE's all day while the casual gamers get stuck with the crappiest missions. Problem not solved just changed to benefit the farmers even more than it currently does.
Umm what gives you that idea?
The very system that makes you think its ok. The NPC market. If your hot on your game you can catch, buy up, and fill all the best orders and move on while nearly worthless orders are all thats left. The orders are there for all to see and has been proposed that the missions could possibly be there for all to see as well. Even if they are not, why would a mission runner not just skip missions he/she doesn't like in hopes of getting better missions from the pool? The people who cause the problem would in fact do just that because its all about farming to them and not just casually playing the game.
Yes randomly pulling missions will reduce the chances of a person getting a primo mission. Then you have the limit on the number of missions you can reject, but if your farming you reject until you cant, blitz the one your stuck with, and keep hunting for better missions. Also, how do you stop all the missions from simply being consumed? Well you add them into the game like the market. That doesn't work either. If all the missions are consumed during a given period then the farmers will know when the recharge happens and will be on the ball to blitz the top missions away from the casual players and still be just as big a problem as they were before. So lets get this straight, the only option that cant be abused under this idea would be to randomly give out an infinite number of missions right?
If we are randomly going to hand out an infinite supply of mission then what are you changing again?
Thats how the system is now.
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out. |
c4 t
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 22:04:00 -
[223]
as much as i dont like the concept of high security level 4 missions... the isk must flow.
i dont think making the reward much higher outside of empire would justify the potential losses. even if the bears worked in groups, i doubt they could ever muster the numbers required to oust people trying to destroy their ships. that or the point at which they do dominate their threats their profitability is reduced such that running missions in highsec alone would be the same/better/marginally worse.
____________________________________________________________________
mostly harmless |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |