Bunyip
Center for Advanced Studies
   |
Posted - 2008.08.13 17:38:00 -
[1]
1) Missions need to be made more dynamic and unpredictable
If this can be done in a logical way, such as having a variable in missions, I'm all for it. Running Duo of Death vs 40 frigates would completely destroy a lot of setups. Having a slight chance of T2 NPCs in missions (increasing the chance as the mission level goes up) would make it tougher without destroying the missions.
2) Mission pay-out in Low-Sec and 0.0 needs improvement
There have been many ideas for this, so all I can say is that I agree. One idea I had was to make people coming into your mission that aren't a member of your corp or fleet automatically have the aggro timer while in the deadspace area. This wouldn't change much except allowing the mission runners a first-fire opportunity, and encouraging the PvP that many mission invaders crave.
3) Module loot has a negative impact on the economy by making t1 production obsolete and injecting too many minerals into the economy
Strongly agree. Increase the bounties of the NPCs and have them only drop meta items would make mining more profitable, and would re-open the market to player-manufactured items (basic T1). Aside from drones, I never even use any T1 items that I get from rats - it's either sold (as with smartbombs) or reprocessed. I don't have a problem with keeping drone loot the way it is, though.
4) Missions in Factional Warfare require improvements
I don't participate in FW, so I have no clue about that.
5) Mining missions require improvements
Yes, I completely agree. The idea of no roidbelts in high-sec could definitely tie in here, as well as increasing the amount of time and ore available in a mining mission. ("We need some of the ore in this belt. The rest of it we don't care what you do with.")
6) Agents are static, resulting in overloaded mission hubs, desire to have agent quality made dynamic
If this is implemented intelligently, I have no problem with this. Agent qualities do help you know how much standing you need to take them, but it does form mission hubs. I guess this matches real life though, as more people would travel to New York or Chicago for the big NPC rats than would head to West Virginia or Colorado.
7) Level 4 missions in their current form do not belong in high-security space
You were right in what you said about this one. The recent news article suggested that mission-running involved the most players in this game, and nerfing this would anger over 50% of the playerbase (as the QEN stated over 50% of people have no interest in PvP in this game).
8) Standing is being monopolized by missions (no ways to get standing outside of mission running, with the exception of FW standing)
I had an idea for this one. Manufacturing and loot drops aren't always sold. What if they could be traded to FW companies (even if the faction doesn't like you much) for standing increases makes RP sense and gives another way of achieving faction standing? The standing increase would have to be fairly minimal, but if you ran missions for Minmatar in Amarr space, you could give them the named loot drops in exchange for your ever-shrinking Amarr standing.
One other item you forgot to add:
9) Level 5 missions need improvement
The risk just doesn't match the reward in these missions. Since organized players (ie player corps) involve themselves in teamwork, having the possibility of dropping capital-level salvage might be a possibility here (where the salvage from level 5 missions can be used in making rigs for capital ships). In general, the benefits need to be boosted here as well (bounties, LP, reward, etc).
-Bunyip
"May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table. |