| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
   |
Posted - 2008.08.11 16:26:00 -
[1]
I like the idea of diversifying missions to make them more interesting and dynamic instead of the "You VS Blob" current version. Lower the number of NPC's, make them harder, make their drops better but remove the basic tech 1 stuff, and raise the bounty's accordingly.
Missions need to have the highest payout in low-sec. They can be farmed in relative safety in .0 of done correctly and supported by an alliance so making them pay huge sums in .0 wont fix anything, not to mention that most NPC corporations are going to have much more interest in making low sec more secure before they concern themselves with .0 so they would offer the most incentive in low-sec.
I would love to see roid belts in high sec removed completely and replaced with mining missions ONLY. This would slow the roll of the macro miners because they couldn't park in belt for a few hours at a time. This would direct more miners to low sec and .0 in search of better mining without completely eliminating empire mining. It would also force flippers and gankers to search for prey a little more than just flying from belt to belt.
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out. |
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 20:30:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Ethaet
Originally by: Red Raider
I would love to see roid belts in high sec removed completely and replaced with mining missions ONLY.
This would direct more miners to quit eve
Fixed it for you.
Well yeah.
Now I am not saying keep mining missions as they are, just that the current form of mining is way to easy and profitable for macro miners. I would be happy to see mining missions yield larger quantities of the existing ore's as your agent level goes up so that the reward is very similar to mining except that it takes more interaction on the part of the miner.
Of course, if your a macro miner you would be upset or even leave if you take the belts out of empire and make them have to actually PLAY the game. I don't see a problem with all those people closing their accounts at all.
So would you be among the ranks of those who would be upset or leave Ethaet?
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out. |
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 16:57:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Red Raider
Now I am not saying keep mining missions as they are, just that the current form of mining is way to easy and profitable for macro miners. I would be happy to see mining missions yield larger quantities of the existing ore's as your agent level goes up so that the reward is very similar to mining except that it takes more interaction on the part of the miner.
In many ways we should be happy that there are macrominers, as its pretty much the only positive side of mining when you compare it to missioning. The veld prices would have to increase a lot to compete.
Mineral prices are low BECAUSE of the macro miners. Supply vs demand my friend. The problem is they are artificially low because a macro miner doesn't place a price on his or her time since they are not actively wasting it. They only place a price on the mineral which means actually mining, as oppose to macro mining, is far less rewarding than it should be.
Yes this would make everything else more expensive, but I have no problem with that as it would bring mining more into a reward balance with missions. It would also be a significant boost to low sec and .0 mining because those area's would be easier to mine than grabbing missions in high sec.
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out. |
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 17:05:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Ethaet
I don't mine, so it makes no difference to me, but I am sure miners wouldn't want to have to waste time and isk to scan things out, or get a mission every time they wanted to mine, scanning being hugely time, isk and skill intensive and mining missions needing a. an agent and b. luck (getting the right mission)
As for missions for groups, they already exist, they are called l5s. It is just that risk vs reward for them is broken even before you factor in pirates, l5s need a big increase in reward (again)
When did I mention miners scanning things out? They can if they want to mine someone else's mission but if they want to mine they can just get a mission of their own.
The whole point is to give some downside to high sec and make mining more difficult for macro miners inside empire space where they are safe more or less. You can still mine, you just need to work at it just like mission runners do in high sec. We can make more money ratting and running in .0 but we choose not to because the risk is higher and some people simply don't want to risk it regardless of the reward. Getting an agent is easy, getting the right mission is easy. Just make one type of agent entirely mining missions and problem solved.
I agree that lvl 5's are basically pointless, the additional risk involved comes no where near the reward from what we can currently tell.
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out. |
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 16:43:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
1) Missions need to be made more dynamic and unpredictable
Agreed
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
2) Mission pay-out in Low-Sec and 0.0 needs improvement
Agreed
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
3) Module loot has a negative impact on the economy by making t1 production obsolete and injecting too many minerals into the economy
Yes and No. Removing all loot means creating a dynamic in the game that is directly oppose to mission runners and no one else. Removing all basic tech 1 loot drops from ANY source would be preferable since you can loot farm in complexes far better than you can in missions.
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
4) Missions in Factional Warfare require improvements
Agreed.
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
5) Mining missions require improvements
SUPER AGREED!!!
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
6) Agents are static, resulting in overloaded mission hubs, desire to have agent quality made dynamic
I dont really agree with this but only because I feel its unnecessary and will still be abused. There are certain area's where a large number of lvl 4 agents are gathered together in close proximity so the population would move to these area's and spread out the quality difference and still drive down the total server performance. Not going to say no to this either just don't really care.
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
7) Level 4 missions in their current form do not belong in high-security space
Agreed with your view of how lvl 4's should be managed in high sec rather than removed all together.
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
8) Standing is being monopolized by missions (no ways to get standing outside of mission running, with the exception of FW standing)
Agreed.
Oh and thanks for qualifying your position rather than getting on the forum and trying to brow beat people into submission on a topic your clearly biased on. If you know who I am talking about. 
A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out. |
| |
|