| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Sylthi
Coreward Pan-Galactic
   |
Posted - 2008.08.15 09:57:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Sylthi on 15/08/2008 10:04:03
Your points / my thoughts:
1) Great idea. UNfortunately, CCP has been trying this for YEARS. I don't see them suddenly getting good at it, in spite of what they claim is coming.
2) Could care less what they do here. Why? Because they will never make the pay outs high enough (for me) to have a PvE fitted ship sitting in low/no sec for as long as you have to have it there to run a mission. Gankers WILL eventually find you, and you WILL loose more ships than the missions are worth. It will always be that way. PvE and no/low sec (imo) just don't go togther. More power to the people who can manage it, but not this player. Low/no sec is for PvP, and that is the way it should stay.
3) I think this is a great idea as long as it works SPECIFICALLY like this: Illiminate T1 loot from the tables and have the SAME amount of named loot drop.
4) Can't comment here. I don't run FW missions. FW, as a whole, really doesn't do much for me anyway.
5) Absolutely agree. Mining mission improvments/experiments could lead to an overall improvment of the base mining process that has been needed for years anyway.
6) This is NOT the answer. CCP simply needs to improve the functionality of Eve to ACCOMODATE the load. Why should the player base have to make sacrifices/changes because CCP can't adapt to our needs?
7) Absoulte bullshyt. Such a move will only serve to drastically diminish Eve's playerbase; potentially mortally wounding CCP's income and ability to sustain itself in the long run.
8) Neutral. Its always been that way. What's the problem?
I support that these items get attention under the conditions I listed above.
*
* |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 10:29:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Jowen Datloran on 15/08/2008 10:29:56
1) Missions need to be made more dynamic and unpredictable
Could be interesting to have the possibility of escalation build into some missions. Other possibilities could be:
- to have optional objectives, giving extra reward.
- a choice in how to complete the mission, which have effect on the next
- finding a new agent within the mission
2) Mission pay-out in Low-Sec and 0.0 needs improvement
Perhaps make certain good missions only available through low sec agents.
3) Module loot has a negative impact on the economy by making t1 production obsolete and injecting too many minerals into the economy
Yes, it does. Get rid of tech 1 drops but increase LP and money rewards.
4) Missions in Factional Warfare require improvements
Maybe put in NPCs from both sides in the missions.
5) Mining missions require improvements
I don't find them that bad, but there is room for improvement.
6) Agents are static, resulting in overloaded mission hubs, desire to have agent quality made dynamic
Then I would rather prefer quality removed completely.
7) Level 4 missions in their current form do not belong in high-security space
I think they do. Mission running is the biggest isk faucet in the game and as such needs to have unrestricted access for all players. If established players could somehow prevent newcomers to even come near any kind of decent isk producing activity it would hugely widen the gap between those who already have a lot and those who have little. This game design is needed as EVE do not have a level/material wealth cap.
Of course established players will in their own interest often try to promote gimping newcomers and the newcomers will not argue against them as they are not even playing the game yet. Luckily CCP has more perspective than that.
8) Standing is being monopolized by missions (no ways to get standing outside of mission running, with the exception of FW standing)
This would be nice. Especially a way to get out the "black holes" (when your standing is low beyond repair).
I would also like to see agents (especially pirate agents) that could be found at static hidden complexes.
----------------
Mr. Science & Trade Institute
|
Tuleingel
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 12:43:00 -
[63]
Not supported bcos of point 7. Without that might even sign this.
|
Red Raider
Caldari
Airbourne Demons
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 16:43:00 -
[64]
 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. |
Jarvis Hellstrom
The Flying Tigers
United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 16:44:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Malcanis
Edited by: Malcanis on 11/08/2008 15:22:30
I absolutely support the concept that missions need to be made more varied, dynamic and intersting. Fewer, smarter rats with more realistic fits using tactics that would encourage players to use fits closer to modern PvP setups, and require greater player skill. would go a long way to solving many of the problems of misison-running.<snip>
EVERYTHING Malcanis has in this post (even the stuff I snipped for brevity) I completely support and totally agree with.
It'll make the game more role-play as well and if these changes were to come about I'd actually pull the dust cover off my mission BB.
Not because I'd make more ISK - because it would be FUN.
Oh - to clarify I think missions should be extremely variable within the expected range for a mission of that level. In other words, some might turn out to be a cakewalk and others literally impossible even for the best mission runner to try without friends of the same caliber. Meaning other frigate/DD pilots for L1s or more BB or BB support vessels in L4s.
This should not be known by the agent or the runner in advance. Yes - sometimes you should have to warp out going 'Ow - I can't do this alone!'. Intelligence is always an inexact thing (I used to be in USAF Intel when I was in the service) and misintel by the agent both up and down should play a big part in missions.
May God stand between you and harm in all the Empty places you must walk
(Old Egyptian Blessing) |
procurement specialist
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 18:24:00 -
[66]
yes it needs looked into.
Quote:
5) Mining missions require improvements
they're boring just like mining is - not sure what the issue is really.
it takes a massive amount of mining to complete them and their payout is much less than simply selling the ore would have been. they at least need to pay you base price of the minerals it would refine to. also mining agents give a startling number of kill missions for a probable barge pilot.
|
Mara Rinn
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.08.30 14:13:00 -
[67]
1) Missions need to be made more dynamic and unpredictable
I don't agree. Boring missions mean people losing interest and finding something else to do.
However, NPCs that occasionally retarget and start firing on people entering mission space will encourage mission-runners to take ships into missions that are more suited to PvP play, and thus encourage them to move to the more profitable level 5 missions in lowsec.
A simple solution would be for NPCs to target the most recent arrival within range. This is still predictable enough for mission-runners to be able to grind their ISK up to support their GTC and lowsec/nullsec play, while simultaneously reducing the risk to mission runners by giving them an advantage over pirates.
The ISK must flow, for mission runner to go.
2) Mission pay-out in Low-Sec and 0.0 needs improvement
It's not so much the payout that needs improvement as much as the risk that requires reduction. A mission-runner engaged in a mission is extremely vulnerable to pirates first due to the fact that they're in a mission-running setup, not a PvP setup, and second the fact that they're already engaged in combat with a fleet.
The mere presence of a mission runner in a lowsec system will attract pirates. It's a given that pirates will intrude.
Perhaps if NPCs were to retarget when other people enter mission space, there might be some redress to the risk vs reward of lowsec missions of any level.
3) Module loot has a negative impact on the economy by making t1 production obsolete and injecting too many minerals into the economy
I agree. Remove unnamed T1 loot from NPCs. Remove mineral loot from drones, let them drop rig materials instead.
4) Missions in Factional Warfare require improvements
I am not engaged in FW, but from what I've heard agents will sometimes send solo pilots on missions 20 jumps into enemy territory. That doesn't sound particularly appealing to me.
5) Mining missions require improvements
Mining is about ISK/hr. If the mining mission doesn't pay out equivalent to what the miner could make in the same time by just mining, why would they run the mission?
Add losec ores to hisec mining missions, for example. This provides an incentive for people to scout out mining mission deadspaces to mine those ores. This would make mining itself more interesting.
In fact, I'd go so far as to remove all ores apart from veldspar from hisec belts, and put the other stuff exclusively into deadspaces that either belong to missions (mining or combat) or exploration sites.
The devs have already stated that they were looking at moving belts to non-system space anyway. Why not just take them away altogether and put ores into mission/exploration deadspaces?
6) Agents are static, resulting in overloaded mission hubs, desire to have agent quality made dynamic
Two thumbs up for this suggestion. Agent quality should decrease as they hand out more and more missions. Agent quality should increase every downtime. The decrease should be enough that they will degrade from day to day if they hand out more than 1100 missions a day. That's enough to sustain 50 concurrent mission runners who can complete one mission an hour.
7) Level 4 missions in their current form do not belong in high-security space
Bulldust. Malcanis can't come up with any better reason than some equivalent of "they're cramping my style."
8) Standing is being monopolized by missions (no ways to get standing outside of mission running, with the exception of FW standing)
Perhaps empires could put bounties on the heads of people who are disliked by that faction? This gives the mission-runner-haters a means to address their "too many level 4 mission runners in hisec" concerns.
The bounty could increase in value (both ISK and standings adjustment) as the deviation from 0 becomes greater.
|
Ard UnjiiGo
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2008.08.30 19:35:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Ard UnjiiGo on 30/08/2008 19:36:12
In agreement.
I also agree with other posters that low-sec doesn't need an incredible boost and that high-sec needs a significant nerf to combat mission rewards.
I don't believe the best answer is to remove content (L4s moved to low-sec) from the folks that will never leave high-sec. I'd hate it if CCP removed all the mission runners from low-sec  .
I believe a very good tool to accomplish both a buff of low-sec and a nerf of high-sec missions can be found described and debated here: Auto-Balancing Missions.
Nice to see that the CSM rep talking about this (and doing so with what appears to be an open mind) is the one that I feared would have the most closed mind to addressing the current imbalance between high-sec and low-sec.
Signed,
Ard
Proud low-sec dweller since my rookie days.
|
Herring
Caldari
Alcatraz Inc.
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 05:01:00 -
[69]
Shameless plug for my 0.0 agent idea
To be used in conjunction with any highsec agent nerf.
It also wouldn't be a bad idea to tie variable quality agents with FW areas (if you're losing, the quality goes down; winning, it goes up).
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |