EVE Search - Faction Missions - Getting Abit To Much?

All Channels

Missions & Complexes

Faction Missions - Getting Abit To Much?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Beaty Swollocks Freelancing Corp	Posted - 2008.11.26 13:46:00 - [1] Ok when i say faction i mean Caldari//Amarr//Minmatar//Gallente , not pirate factions. Ok what is up with agents offering so many missions against said factions ? They likely hood of getting one of these now is up so much that i get stuck on them (i don't want to have to keep doing these). No i don't like doing them, getting one every now and then pre patch was fine but im getting so many in a short space of hours its just stupid. Was there something in the patch notes saying the likely hood of getting these has increased ? stealth mission 'nerf//boost' ? Now where im doing missions its going to screw me over big style if i keep killing amarr. If this stays as it is it maybe could have a effect on tags//fation stuff brought with tags? Or am i the only person experianceing this ?
Arrs Grazznic Poena Executive Solutions	Posted - 2008.11.26 15:21:00 - [2] Yo, Iva! How's it going? I've not seen a change in the frequency of Empire Faction missions post upgrade. I guess you've just hit an unlucky stretch on CCP's pseudo-random number generator. Cheers, Arrs
Qui Shon	Posted - 2008.11.26 15:32:00 - [3] Many of the new missions are anti-empire faction, including a storyline And why the heck am I offered so many anti-gallente missions working for Amarr corporation in Amarr space! Anti Minmatar okay, fine, sucks but not unreasonable. But if I accepted every mission offered my Gallente standings would drop about four times as fast as my minmatar standings. That's NOT fine. It's not a new "feature", but it did get worse with the new missions, as they have, at least for me, all been anti-gallente.
FT Diomedes Gallente Ductus Exemplo	Posted - 2008.11.26 15:54:00 - [4] We are in a period of factional warfare. Therefore, we have increased missions against hostile factions. If you don't want to serve your empire, go rat or mine somewhere. No one is making you run missions. It's a freakin' sandbox. ------------ Improvize. Adapt. Overcome.
Beaty Swollocks Freelancing Corp	Posted - 2008.11.26 16:10:00 - [5] /waves to Arrs. Im good buddy you ? Maybe i have hit a rut with getting them often, but seems way to often. Also to the 'FT D' bell end, there is FW agents and FW space and i am not useing a FW agent nor am i Flying in FW contested space, so kindly stfu and go troll somewhere else with you're generic 'WoW' crap.
Zo5o Longcat is Long	Posted - 2008.11.26 16:18:00 - [6] Hate to break it to ya, but last I heard CCP eventually wants the vast majority of missions to be vs. the major factions. Then again they also apparently want standings to be reversible once this occurs.
Beaty Swollocks Freelancing Corp	Posted - 2008.11.26 16:24:00 - [7] Originally by: Zo5o Hate to break it to ya, but last I heard CCP eventually wants the vast majority of missions to be vs. the major factions. Then again they also apparently want standings to be reversible once this occurs. You know that wouldn't be a problem at all matey if you could get out of the -5 hole (currently no way of going back after -5 right?). Seriously i wouldn't mind one bit if i was able to get back from -5.
Zo5o Longcat is Long	Posted - 2008.11.26 16:32:00 - [8] Quote: Seriously i wouldn't mind one bit if i was able to get back from -5. In before cold, dark universe, WOW in space, etc.
SemiCharmed Shaolin Legacy	Posted - 2008.11.26 16:50:00 - [9] Yes it is stupid, and i have been having the same thing. I get two good missions sometimes and them a get spammed with faction (ammar/caldari) hit missions. I would like to see a "I dont want to take part in any Ammar, Caldari ect missions" button. Your not the only one. -------------------------------------------- Remember Kids, Only YOU Can Prevent Fourm fires.
Beaty Swollocks Freelancing Corp	Posted - 2008.11.27 19:26:00 - [10] Maybe (i dunno what kind of impact it would have hence the MAYBE!) just maybe reduce the time alloted to be allowed to refuse missions without a sec hit ? Tho thinking about it that could have a bad effect as people would just pick n choose the good missions, meh i dunno
Kahega Amielden Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas	Posted - 2008.11.27 19:32:00 - [11] Quote: Seriously i wouldn't mind one bit if i was able to get back from -5. Diplomacy V, missioning for friendly factions (Sisters of EVE, for ex., if you have ** gallente standings). Although it's possible to get your standings so low with all of them that you can't really do much, it's quite hard. It should be changed in the future anyway. Originally by:** Catharacta My CNR runs on salvager tears.
Ruffles	Posted - 2008.11.29 17:35:00 - [12] It's not just that they are disproportionate, there are other more concerning implications. Many stations for varying factions (Minmatar) for example are in their two opposing factions space. A classic example would be Ylandoki, which has an excellent Level 4 Republic Security Services agent. However, it's hosted in Caldari space, which as you will know from the factions relationships means that for every single Amarr mission undertaken also gives a hit to Caldari. Eventually many agents stations will be inaccessible by the players doing missions for those agents, either forcing them to retreat to an area less hostile to them, agents lower quality or level, and a diminishing return to their funds. This ignores the time and effort that is required to build up a relationship and decent standing with the agent character itself. I know exactly what you mean in this regards, there seem to be far too many Anti-Amarr missions being offered me so far. Without sufficient way to balance things out, this is going to force people out of many areas of the Eve Universe. Whilst that may be the plan, I suppose not all people that play the game want to venture into 0.0, opinion will always vary. :) I do think that without the means to balance the losses, many of the original station and agent location assignments will become increasingly less accessible, and perhaps migration from player corporations in those regions as they are no longer able to support characters of all mixed factions. Either agent/station relocation may be needed at some point in the future, not forgetting that many of these were in place way way way before things like the faction warfare related changes that have occured in recent years.
Hyveres Caldari	Posted - 2008.11.29 18:32:00 - [13] Edited by: Hyveres on 29/11/2008 18:32:49 Edited by: Hyveres on 29/11/2008 18:32:21 Well I can second this one being forced to relocate occasionally -5 is kinda mehness. Its reached the point where for raw efficiency one should be looking for stations or systems that hold more than 1 L4 agent so you can do something when one of them throws 2 faction missions in a row at you.
Luc Delmas	Posted - 2008.11.29 18:43:00 - [14] It took me 1 1/2 hours to "use up" three agents tonight , and around three hours last night before I had to decline faction missions . I am spending almost as much time hurtling through space from agent to agent as running missions . This character started out specced for mining/manufacturing and I am now reconsidering that career as that was the primary reason for not wanting to be locked out of certain Empire areas .
Ottman Amarr LoneWolf Mining	Posted - 2008.11.29 23:41:00 - [15] well i must say mission running with those anti empire faction warfare stuff sucks, i dont want to be forced into kind of roleplay, and that with no warning from ccp side. all that was to read was about new missions come in, but not about those changes they have done. maybe there is going on kind of war between empires, but to tie us in over mission running without any given warning cant be it, because i cant see that i have joined faction warfare or that i am flying for the empire navy forces. i try to keep standings in balance, to have access to all four main empire faction space. with this roleplaying bull**** that force me to decide for one side i have to quit mission running, and that means also stopping active playing until ccp has undo that. what mean i will just sit in station and do skilling. and should i really pay for an mmo where i dont have the freedom to play it as i like it ? to our fellow other players i say this, gtc are not too bad, if you want to pause you dont have spend already a full year subscription over credit card, if ccp looses money they maybe learn the lesson, dont cut into the freedom of choice of us players ! MfG ottman
Ghoest	Posted - 2008.11.30 02:49:00 - [16] Its dumb. The main reason its dumb is it forces intense mission runner to go to the best hubs even more so than before. If you think corp is different than a guild or clan you have some insecurity issues.
Leandro Salazar Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2008.11.30 09:26:00 - [17] Anyone who whines about getting too many missions against empire factions should seriously consider playing Hello Kitty Online instead of EVE. I mean, we really get a **load of money out of those level 4 missions for very little risk. Missions against empire factions offer even better money, but actually add some consequences, which are still pretty much inconsequential if you are up to the intellectual challenge of being able to tell your head from your ass. And you still whine about it? Seriously. That gives the word carebear in its most derogatory form a whole new meaning. I am disgusted by people like that calling themselves missions runners. More like mission *****. Almost makes me want all L4s moved to lowsec just to spite moochers like you, even though it would kill my game as well. Bah I say. Bah. And if you are reading this, you have arrived at the signature without noticing...
Beaty Swollocks Freelancing Corp	Posted - 2008.11.30 19:19:00 - [18] Originally by: Ghoest Its dumb. The main reason its dumb is it forces intense mission runner to go to the best hubs even more so than before. This.
Beaty Swollocks Freelancing Corp	Posted - 2008.11.30 19:22:00 - [19] Edited by: Beaty Swollocks on 30/11/2008 19:26:36 Originally by: Leandro Salazar Anyone who whines about getting too many missions against empire factions should seriously consider playing Hello Kitty Online instead of EVE. I mean, we really get a **load of money out of those level 4 missions for very little risk. Missions against empire factions offer even better money, but actually add some consequences, which are still pretty much inconsequential if you are up to the intellectual challenge of being able to tell your head from your ass. And you still whine about it? Seriously. That gives the word carebear in its most derogatory form a whole new meaning. I am disgusted by people like that calling themselves missions runners. More like mission *****. Almost makes me want all L4s moved to lowsec just to spite moochers like you, even though it would kill my game as well. Bah I say. Bah. Quoteing a bell end. Cause of these changes i now have to leave my agent (gallente) who resides in enemy space (amarr space) cause i get so many of these missions i am being forced out to a major mission hub where these kinda mission don't really have much bearing. So stfu pls you don't know what you're talking about, it may not effect bell ends like you who huddle up in all the big busy mission hubs but you aint the only ppl who mission in this game.
Conq Er Sweetrock Mining	Posted - 2008.11.30 19:44:00 - [20] Originally by: Qui Shon Many of the new missions are anti-empire faction, including a storyline And why the heck am I offered so many anti-gallente missions working for Amarr corporation in Amarr space! Anti Minmatar okay, fine, sucks but not unreasonable. But if I accepted every mission offered my Gallente standings would drop about four times as fast as my minmatar standings. That's NOT fine. It's not a new "feature", but it did get worse with the new missions, as they have, at least for me, all been anti-gallente. Empyrean Age trailer @1:07 "We will take a side"
Meg Griffin	Posted - 2008.11.30 20:13:00 - [21] Originally by: Conq Er Originally by: Qui Shon Many of the new missions are anti-empire faction, including a storyline And why the heck am I offered so many anti-gallente missions working for Amarr corporation in Amarr space! Anti Minmatar okay, fine, sucks but not unreasonable. But if I accepted every mission offered my Gallente standings would drop about four times as fast as my minmatar standings. That's NOT fine. It's not a new "feature", but it did get worse with the new missions, as they have, at least for me, all been anti-gallente. Empyrean Age trailer @1:07 "We will take a side" And this is a good thing. It creates definite physical boundaries among empires where before I never really cared whose space I was in. Boundaries cause market inefficiencies and war. Market inefficiencies are good for business. War is good for business. QR was said to be the business and industry oriented expansion. I don't see a problem here.
chatgris	Posted - 2008.11.30 20:17:00 - [22] Originally by: Conq Er Empyrean Age trailer @1:07 "We will take a side" And what happenned to the sandbox style of eve? Concord still exists (in ALL portions of empire space), there are some of us who actually ENJOY trying to maintain order in high security space, keeping pirates out and keeping tensions between the factions at a minimum. I am taking a side, the side of law. The side that results in safety for citizens, that allows them to have a better economy, to produce more stuff efficiently. That's if you want to bring in the RP side of things. Gameplay wise? High sec is already tiny, and a lot of people live there (50% of eve players never leave high sec I believe was the figure in the last QEN?). It doesn't need to get any smaller. My forays into lowsec with an alt has resulted in being podded within 5 minutes almost every time. Not my idea of fun. Maybe when I have 10 million SP I might stand a chance. But not now. Additionally, amen to the previous posters about being forced into mission hubs... I run missions with a lone agent in enemy space. Sure, he's lower quality, but I get to avoid the lag and crowding of a major missioning hub, and that's worth it for me. BECAUSE I ACTUALLY ENJOY RUNNING MISSIONS. /supports the OP wholeheartedly
Ghoest	Posted - 2008.11.30 20:31:00 - [23] The people saying its good are apparently dont know much about missions. Its easy to get around. The problem is the ways you get around it arent good for the game over all. If you think corp is different than a guild or clan you have some insecurity issues.
Meg Griffin	Posted - 2008.11.30 21:16:00 - [24] Originally by: Ghoest The people saying its good are apparently dont know much about missions. Its easy to get around. The problem is the ways you get around it arent good for the game over all. You're going to have to go a little deeper than that. Please elaborate on this sinister mechanism that you see as a threat to the game and proof that people who support the 'balkanization' of EvE are somehow not right in the head.
Meg Griffin	Posted - 2008.11.30 21:21:00 - [25] Originally by: chatgris Originally by: Conq Er Empyrean Age trailer @1:07 "We will take a side" And what happenned to the sandbox style of eve? Concord still exists (in ALL portions of empire space), there are some of us who actually ENJOY trying to maintain order in high security space, keeping pirates out and keeping tensions between the factions at a minimum. I am taking a side, the side of law. The side that results in safety for citizens, that allows them to have a better economy, to produce more stuff efficiently. That's if you want to bring in the RP side of things. Gameplay wise? High sec is already tiny, and a lot of people live there (50% of eve players never leave high sec I believe was the figure in the last QEN?). It doesn't need to get any smaller. My forays into lowsec with an alt has resulted in being podded within 5 minutes almost every time. Not my idea of fun. Maybe when I have 10 million SP I might stand a chance. But not now. Additionally, amen to the previous posters about being forced into mission hubs... I run missions with a lone agent in enemy space. Sure, he's lower quality, but I get to avoid the lag and crowding of a major missioning hub, and that's worth it for me. BECAUSE I ACTUALLY ENJOY RUNNING MISSIONS. /supports the OP wholeheartedly The globalization you seek would destroy the very things you like. What do you think is the major consumer of all that stuff you like producing efficiently? War. War is the number one gold mine in the whole game. War is good for business. War is actually good for carebears in the long run.
Leandro Salazar Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2008.11.30 21:40:00 - [26] Originally by: Beaty Swollocks Quoteing a bell end. Cause of these changes i now have to leave my agent (gallente) who resides in enemy space (amarr space) cause i get so many of these missions i am being forced out to a major mission hub where these kinda mission don't really have much bearing. So stfu pls you don't know what you're talking about, it may not effect bell ends like you who huddle up in all the big busy mission hubs but you aint the only ppl who mission in this game. I don't run in a hub, and nor should any halfway smart mission runner. Your problem might be that Gallente agent distribution kinda sucks across the board and thus you might be forced to run in a hub regardless, but that is a different problem. The low-risk income from missions should be associated with penalties, and standing loss to factions hostile to the one you run for seems to be a good solution imho. And for people who absolutely must retain good standings with everyone for whatever reason, CCP should introduce missioning for Concord which then only pits you against pirates but gives summat gimped rewards. And if you are reading this, you have arrived at the signature without noticing...
chatgris	Posted - 2008.11.30 21:43:00 - [27] Originally by: Meg Griffin The globalization you seek would destroy the very things you like. What do you think is the major consumer of all that stuff you like producing efficiently? War. War is the number one gold mine in the whole game. War is good for business. War is actually good for carebears in the long run. Ok, first off lets separate RP and gameplay. RP wise, people produce far more than just war-goods. They can instead put resources towards fun things like game-simulators if order exists. They can produce more of everything as the costs of trade decreases, and competitive advantage kicks in. Quality of life increases. The empires work together since trade is very lucrative. Gameplay: In terms of war being good for carebears, war already exists out in 0.0. Those fighting in FW would probably be pvp'ing elsewhere and losing just as many ships if FW wasn't there. On the flipside, carebears are good for 0.0 people, who else would spend 100 million to a billion on a single deadspace fitting? Maybe a few very rich very crazy people, but I would bet that most of it is sold to carebears. So we have a symbiotic relationship that would exist regardless of faction hit missions and FW or not. This vision of a faction hit mission party is just halving the areas that carebears can play in, and promoting mission hubs with all their lag and server strain issues (both in terms of trying to have other agents to avoid faction hit missions, AND that I can't fly off into gallente space to use a nice, low lag caldari agent if I choose faction hit missions).
FT Diomedes Gallente Ductus Exemplo	Posted - 2008.11.30 22:35:00 - [28] Edited by: FT Diomedes on 30/11/2008 22:35:50 Originally by: chatgris Gameplay: In terms of war being good for carebears, war already exists out in 0.0. Those fighting in FW would probably be pvp'ing elsewhere and losing just as many ships if FW wasn't there. On the flipside, carebears are good for 0.0 people, who else would spend 100 million to a billion on a single deadspace fitting? Maybe a few very rich very crazy people, but I would bet that most of it is sold to carebears. So we have a symbiotic relationship that would exist regardless of faction hit missions and FW or not. This vision of a faction hit mission party is just halving the areas that carebears can play in, and promoting mission hubs with all their lag and server strain issues (both in terms of trying to have other agents to avoid faction hit missions, AND that I can't fly off into gallente space to use a nice, low lag caldari agent if I choose faction hit missions). FW is so maddening explicitly because it does involve lots of people who would not otherwise PvP. That's why FW fleets are not as well-organized as a 0.0 fleet. And FW certainly does increase the number of ships destroyed in Eve. As for the High Sec carebears support 0.0 warfare argument - this is only somewhat true. A really nice deadspace shield booster is not worth a billion ISK just because it is rare - it is worth that much because there is high demand for the module. There is high demand because it gives a real advantage in the "safe" profession of high sec mission running (although whether that advantage is real is unclear, I don't know of any single module that is worth a billion ISK initial investment, because it takes years to pay that off). No one would spend a billion on it if it had a high chance of being blown up. The price gets that high because there is high demand for it by mission runners. If all level 4 missions were moved to low sec, the prices on all those modules would crash to the level that people would pay for it to use for low sec missions. As for the last argument, that more anti-faction missions promotes lag in mission hubs. This is absurd. The lag in mission hubs is caused by everyone flocking to the "best" agents. There are TONS of agents in high sec space who are practically unused because they happen to work for a corporation other than the Navy (or another 95% combat mission corp). Even within the small category of agents who are 95% combat corps, there are tons who are unused because they are not in a 0.5 system, are too close to low sec or are not "high quality." If you want to solve this problem, make security status within high sec irrelevant and remove all apparent quality indicators from agents. Then make it so that there is not more than one "combat division" agent per system. Don't muddle up all these separate issues. CCP has increased the number of these missions because we are in a period of factional warfare. If you don't like that there are more anti-faction missions, for whatever reason, you are free to choose other options. Eve is a sandbox, so we are free to choose what to do, but the most important thing about it is that our actions have consequences. If you want to play a game without consequences, Hello Kitty Online is that way -> ------------ Improvize. Adapt. Overcome.
Qui Shon	Posted - 2008.11.30 22:58:00 - [29] Edited by: Qui Shon on 30/11/2008 22:58:30 Originally by: FT Diomedes As for the last argument, that more anti-faction missions promotes lag in mission hubs. This is absurd. The lag in mission hubs is caused by everyone flocking to the "best" agents. There are TONS of agents in high sec space who are practically unused because they happen to work for a corporation other than the Navy (or another 95% combat mission corp). No, see, it's not the "best" agents, as much as the best concentration of agents, so you can decline the ****ty missions, which include anti-faction, and still keep on missioning. And I repeat my pretvious question, because nobody has answered it. Where is the logic in-, or justification for Amarr missions resulting in five times as many Gallente standing hits as Minmatar standing hits, when Minmatar is supposed to be the main enemy of Amarr? The term "sandbox" and consequences such as being locked out from parts of the sandbox, don't go together very well. Restrictions and doors becoming shut, are against the nature of a sandbox. I'm not addressing whether such consequences are good or bad, but it's definitely not a characteristic to be filed under sandbox. "Consequences" are more like concrete, whereas sand can be remolded in an instant.
FT Diomedes Gallente Ductus Exemplo	Posted - 2008.11.30 23:05:00 - [30] Originally by: Qui Shon Edited by: Qui Shon on 30/11/2008 22:58:30 Originally by: FT Diomedes As for the last argument, that more anti-faction missions promotes lag in mission hubs. This is absurd. The lag in mission hubs is caused by everyone flocking to the "best" agents. There are TONS of agents in high sec space who are practically unused because they happen to work for a corporation other than the Navy (or another 95% combat mission corp). No, see, it's not the "best" agents, as much as the best concentration of agents, so you can decline the ****ty missions, which include anti-faction, and still keep on missioning. And I repeat my pretvious question, because nobody has answered it. Where is the logic in-, or justification for Amarr missions resulting in five times as many Gallente standing hits as Minmatar standing hits, when Minmatar is supposed to be the main enemy of Amarr? The term "sandbox" and consequences such as being locked out from parts of the sandbox, don't go together very well. Restrictions and doors becoming shut, are against the nature of a sandbox. I'm not addressing whether such consequences are good or bad, but it's definitely not a characteristic to be filed under sandbox. "Consequences" are more like concrete, whereas sand can be remolded in an instant. Why did the heir to the Amarr Empire invade Gallente space a few days ago? I have commented several times on these boards how I seem to always have more Level 4 missions against the Amarr, whether I work for a Gallente or Minmatar agent, than I do against the Caldari. Perhaps something similar is afoot on the other side - the Caldari and Amarr will always get more missions against Gallente than Minmatar. Perhaps it is intentional, perhaps not. What is clear as the FW storyline develops, it is clear that the Amarr and Gallente don't like each other very much at all. Which is borne out by the increasing numbers of missions against them. ------------ Improvize. Adapt. Overcome.

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.