open All Channels
seplocked Missions & Complexes
blankseplocked The PvE Experience Agent Missions Level 1 to Level 5
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

Author Topic

Sturmwolke
Posted - 2009.07.06 18:11:00 - [91]
 

Edited by: Sturmwolke on 06/07/2009 19:07:22
Just like to add a couple for things for the record :

* The aggression triggering should also be more realistic. Granted some things in EVE can be illogical, but NPC ships sitting idly oblivious to a firefight happening in the same room is carrying it too far.

* Certain L3 such as Angel Extravaganza has this ungodly spawn distance in some rooms. In order to aggro the idle NPCs to get the gate unlocked, you'll need to move some distance. If you're a standard BC with 60-70km locking range, thats 40-60km round trip from the gate and back. So again, have mission designers watch the distances from where it turns from reasonable and exciting to frustrating.

* Agent compatibility info is misleading. For example "You need an effective faction, corp, or personal standing of at least 2.85 to use this agent" for standard mission agent. What really applies here are either faction or personal standing. Corp standing is useless when you want to work with an agent, even if it exceeds the agent requirement.

* I rarely find the "Relationship" tab info (under Standings) useful. For first timers, it's a mind boggling jumble.

* R&D agent statement "You need a minimum effective corp standing of at least 0.80, in addition to an effective faction, corp or personal standing of at least 2.80 to use this agent" leads to a LOT of confusion as evidenced from the forum posts asking about them that pops out now and then. Word it with better clarity so that it's almost idiot proof.

* There is no proper one-stop ingame database lookup for agents and stuffs. I would welcome some sort of GalNet database interface which you can access ingame with all the proper functions that you see from from eve-agents.com. You can even extend this to other things like systems information and such.

* The faction standings capping is not really apparent unless the players had read in depth on the standings mechanics. Even old returning players may sometimes forget. Example, a Minmatar/Gallante negative cap of -5/-2 respectively when working for Amarr (as long as you don't shoot their combat ships in missions). I don't have any suggestions here except pointing out that it's good to have an intuitive indicator showing the standings cap and perhaps a friendly alert to players that comitting further combat ship kills will take it over the cap. The same goes thing goes for positive cap as well, but instead of an alert, you get an indicator that tells you it's been maxed out, depending on the faction you're working with.

* Pirate faction standings blackhole. Granted only handful would want to work for them, so I'm not sure whether it's for any real gain or just for the RP sense. Else just keep it simple and remove all pirate faction agents ala Concord Twisted Evil

* Amarr/Caldari standings vs Minmatar/Gallante standings recovery is rather unbalanced when you look at the anti-faction missions offered. Recovery is not impossible for Minmatar/Gallante due to SOE, but for Amarr/Caldari there is a possibility that you fall down the standings blackhole due to the anti-Mordus/Khanid/Ammatar missions. End summary, I would echo the call to make anti-faction missions a player choice rather than forcing them to reject it .... or eliminate them from the L1-4 pools, but leave them in the L5 pool.

* A statistics of no. of NPCs killed or no. of missions completed etc. etc. More or less for the odd bragging rights amongst missioners Very Happy

* I want several medals for having contributed in killing lots of NPCs pirates for the Amarr faction. It'd be nice to have a short streaming cut-scene played where you get the medal from the Empress. Amarr victor !!!

* Mission runner personal rating system based on the statistics. Rating could be used to brag even more or gain better missions or access to a super-epic arc mission.

That's all for moment.

Solostrom
Posted - 2009.07.06 18:30:00 - [92]
 

Which Mish I Love

I <3 Blockade, Gone Berserk, AE4!

What I don't like...
1) The predictability
2) The massive ewar spammage, ewar is nice don't get me wrong but getting perma-jammed in Guristas is absolutely annoying. Seriously, 10 min of none stop jam. Sometimes it gets so bad that I just simply go AFK for awhile and wait for them to knock it off. Ditto the damps and Tracking Disruptors.
3) Massive Attack < rename it to slightly irritating annoyance
4) WC4 and the flight of boredom!
5) Mish with 9981723490123 objects that lag my computer! Some objects are nice, spamming the whole thing with pretty clutter is not.
6) The bright clouds in WC4 and Blockade... seriously... hit dimmer switch.
7) There are L3 mish with neut towers... I don't know of any L4 with them! Moar neut towers please!

As a side element... new players totally don't understand just how easy it is to completely screw up their Empire Faction standings. Either tone down the penalties (bad plan) or insert several Level 1 Mish that go to great lengths to describe just how this works.

Steve Thomas
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2009.07.06 18:33:00 - [93]
 

1) A way to better mix the type of missons (for exaple I would love to have a mix of 10% mining 20% Courior (Use them to haul my orders around on the emty side)20% "Multi part" mission mini arcs and 50% kill

2) way to select the dificulty of missions (the current set would be the default you can set it to hard-/-very hard-/-darn near imposible

3) Exploration/escort missions

4) add in more missions so it does not seem like we are doing the same mission 3 times in a row

5) minabel roid belts in mission

5a) better hostile respawns in missions with roid belts with somewhat better AI so they know to go after thoes hulks way over there just to keep things interersting while mining.


Sturmwolke
Posted - 2009.07.06 18:55:00 - [94]
 

Can't edit the previous post, ran out of characters. One more thing :

* Fix the interface labels to explicitly say "Corporation Standing" and "Personal Standing". Old timers don't see an issue here, but players less familiar with EVE will be wondering ... ok hmm ... where do I find them? Does Standings (in the Character Sheet) mean personal standings? How do I know which is which? Where do I find Corporation standing? Is that the standing under CORP that I see in Standings? ... do you see the confusing maze of words here, yes?

My suggestion, simply re-label the "Standings" (in the Character Sheet) to "Personal Standings". Do the same for the corporation interface as well. To be honest, it's just a band-aid. The whole interface needs serious revamping for better clarity and most importantly, as idiot proof as possible.

1200 baud
Posted - 2009.07.06 20:05:00 - [95]
 

It would be interesting to see what the breakdown of missions run would be by level. Are 90% of the missions run lvl 4, if so why develop any more lvl 1-3 missions. Based on what I've seen I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers were close to:
lvl 1: 15%
lvl 2: 5%
lvl 3: 5%
lvl 4: 80%

The lvl 1 bump is due to new players, with a realistic guess to the rate which decide that missions are boring and are not worth the "grind" aspect and move to other professions or quit.

Eagi Aenea
Posted - 2009.07.06 20:57:00 - [96]
 

I would like to see:

* A list of missions I can choose from when I talk to my agent.
* A way to scale mission difficulty up so that there's some point to taking a gang along.
* A way to opt out of Faction missions, or a change to the standing mechanics so I can recover from driving my Amarr rep into the ground now, if I decide to become a sympathizer later.

* I don't mission in lowsec. It's not cost effective. Gatecamps are bad enough in a mission fit ship, don't make me a 30 minute sitting duck for a return that's less than the cost of a new hull. I'm not asking for a free ride, just make it suck less.

Kratznotzt
Posted - 2009.07.07 06:02:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Eagi Aenea

* I don't mission in lowsec. It's not cost effective. Gatecamps are bad enough in a mission fit ship, don't make me a 30 minute sitting duck for a return that's less than the cost of a new hull.


I agree completely with this, I've maybe done 10 fight missions in low sec and lost one battlecruiser (mission gear)and one destroyer (salvaging gear) to pirates camping the gate. And no, I didn't go back for the wreck. It was almost a year between the two incidents. Now I automatically decline all missions to low sec areas. It's simply too expensive to do missions in them.

skye orionis
Posted - 2009.07.07 15:24:00 - [98]
 

I'd really like to see the mechanics behind mission availability reworked, right now every pilot gravitates towards the highest quality agents, and runs away from any prospect of entering low sec. So everyone ends up in mission hubs rather than spread through the universe.

The servers should keep track of how popular an agent is and popular agents have their quality reduced so that the missions are less rewarding. Actually I think quality is the wrong word here, and should be replaced with 'mission backlog'. Mission Backlog is different than quality because agents with large backlogs would offer larger rewards and be less picky about the pilots they employ (i.e. they give missions to people with lower standings).

We all agree NPC AI needs to be better, but I'd really like to see NPC's retargetting when new pilots warp into the space, this would mean NPC's attacking pirates who scan down mission runners in low sec. There's nothing worse than being shot down by a pirate who only has enough DPS because the rats are helping them. This change might help reduce the fear of missioning in low-sec.

Cosmos missions need reworked, there's just too much in the way of loot stealing griefers to do them properly, most people end up just buying mission items off contracts.

Combat avoidance missions - I'd really like to see some missions that encourage non-combat tactics to complete, e.g. - navigate this debris field while cloaked (civillian cloaking device maybe?), perhaps more ewar delivered by pod pilots rather than NPCs.

Missions with variable rewards depending on optional goals.

Shanz3m
Posted - 2009.07.07 16:26:00 - [99]
 

some sort of protection missions would be good where ships are under attack, with its propulsion systems are damage requiring you to hold off the attackers for a set amount of time until they can get them working again.

Freighter under attack

One of our Freighters has been attacked whilst trying to unload supplies at a nearby star base, repair the Freighters armour so we can get its propulsion systems back online. Small amount of friendly sentry guns/NPC's helping to protect the freighter, bonus if 70% of friendly NPC's survive

20% Freighter armour left when you arrive
40% Freighter armour second wave attacks
80% Freighter armour third wave
100% Final wave protect it until it can dock

Could also be adapted for miners requiring assistance, so more ships need protecting with lower HP than the freighter requiring you to better manage which ship to help. Maybe allow these ships to be added to something similar to the fleet information boxes so that you can see how much health each ship has without have to keep locking multiple targets all the time.

Vilserx
Posted - 2009.07.07 17:52:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Mara Rinn
Edited by: Mara Rinn on 06/07/2009 04:56:18
Dear CCP Navigator and friends,

Go pick up a copy of X-Wing, X-Wing vs TIE Fighter, or X-Wing Alliance and run through the storyline. Now compare the mission types you have there to the mission types we have in EVE presently. What's missing?

  • Escort missions (as opposed to Attack of the Drones, where the ship we're supposed to be escorting is blown up before we arrive)

  • Interception missions (where the NPCs will run away if we don't stop them)

  • Strategic attack missions (disable this system of that capital starship, you have 2 minutes from now)





Am I the only who HATES the token escort/timed missions in any game?

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2009.07.07 18:19:00 - [101]
 

isk/lp payout based on sec status of system really needs to go. there is no added risk that deserves extra payout for running missions in 1.0 or .6 or .5. lowsec/0.0 should keep their added rewards however. and the payout should be based on where the mission is run not where the agent is located.

get rid of the neut tower gimmick for level 5s. ohh you have to use rr and can't pimp tank, oh wait solo nighthawk lols

either get rid of highsec level 5s or add highsec level 5 agents.

more anti faction missions, could use another source of the 500k tags. between EA 1-4 I got 14 500k tags, and 41 750k tags.

remove meta 0 loot from the loot tables, however if you are going to do this also rework mining. (at the very minimum still have some belts worth mining more then 2 hours after downtime)

as for mission difficulty I'm mostly happy. I really don't want to think too much when running missions.

overall ai in missions will mostly be wasted cpu cycles. unless you make it so missions are unsoloable, which imo would be a really bad idea. some sort of group mission basically against sleeper quality ships that belong to npcs, say level 4.5missions.

as for drone shooting, have npcs switch to drones to lower the effectiveness of the afk domi/ishtar, but not enough that another ship can't kill a frig in a somewhat reasonable amount of time. although drone tanking could be lols Laughing

as for running them I love the ones that either pay out well, or have really good loot, or a good combo of both. as long as the gates aren't too far apart having one room or 5 rooms really doesn't make too much of a difference.

some level 3.5 missions would be cool, designed for hacs

and a few 100 more missions. and no making 25 missions, and changing the npc type to make it 100 doesn't count.

AHHHH forum ate my post, luckily the back button recovers it.

Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2009.07.07 18:20:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Vilserx
Originally by: Mara Rinn
Edited by: Mara Rinn on 06/07/2009 04:56:18
Dear CCP Navigator and friends,

Go pick up a copy of X-Wing, X-Wing vs TIE Fighter, or X-Wing Alliance and run through the storyline. Now compare the mission types you have there to the mission types we have in EVE presently. What's missing?

  • Escort missions (as opposed to Attack of the Drones, where the ship we're supposed to be escorting is blown up before we arrive)

  • Interception missions (where the NPCs will run away if we don't stop them)

  • Strategic attack missions (disable this system of that capital starship, you have 2 minutes from now)





Am I the only who HATES the token escort/timed missions in any game?



no...

**** that **** Mad

Kaila Fate
Posted - 2009.07.07 23:59:00 - [103]
 

Edited by: Kaila Fate on 08/07/2009 00:19:22
My opinion on missions.

In general I like the way the missions work.

Some tweaks to AI would be fine, but when I get home from work and decide to blow up some npc ships to unwind I don't want my ability to play contingent on grouping up with other people. I like to play solo most of the time. I don't expect to be able to do everything in the game by myself. But missions up to and including level 4 should be available to EVERYONE.

I also very much don't want to have to think excessively. I do that enough at work. I want to just sit there and have my brains dribble out my ear while I watch the pretty enemy ships go boom. That said, I do understand others desires for more challenging/interactive missions, which brings me to my next point.

I think this would be a good way to approach all the different aspects of mission running enjoyed by the various players in Eve, rather than clicking on your agent, having him offer you a mission and sighing when you get another "blow up the worthless drone frigates" mission, and either having to grind through it or take a standing hit when you pass it up, would be to have a mission board, have 3-5 missions being offered at a time to choose from.

Make one of those missions a 'group mission' where a person couldn't possibly hope to do them on their own, and make the rewards suitably higher. The missions on the board would have timers, so that at certain points they would refresh, and as one is finished another would take it's place.

Make two of the missions 'interactive missions' with increased AI and suitably increased rewards.

Make one a faction mission.

But leave two of the missions as they are, for those of us who just want to drool a little and forget that we have to go back to work the next morning. It would be great to have a little extra choice. Make the higher risk missions pay better rewards, but possibly also have the chance for failure, rather than a 'bonus if completed in time' reward, have a time limit on it risking a standing loss.

I love this game for the myriad options you can explore. Missions should be the same.

I also agree that missions should be more... segregated. I would be tempted to run high m3 courier/mining missions with my alt, but I don't want to have combat missions popping up from some supply clerk, and being forced to quit doing missions or take a standing loss.

I do think the LP store could use a revamp, more suitable rewards based on the corp/division.

I would also like to say, that while I understand peoples concern with those who blitz/farm missions, reducing loot and making it that much harder for the casual player is NOT the proper way to deal with it.
I will second all those who've already pointed out that they make worry free profits with their market traders, why should my mission runner who already makes a fraction of the isk in the same time frame be further penalized? Find a way to curtail farming, rather than penalizing all the players who just want to run a few honest missions.

I will further add that LEVEL 4 MISSIONS DO NOT BELONG IN LOW SEC. I'm sorry, but I run missions because I don't care to pvp most of the time, and all pushing missions into lowsec will do is force people trying to run them to put up with griefers.

My final point for this post, something that has annoyed me from the start, is that if a person comes into your mission and steals your LOOT, they are flagged to you and you can attempt to fight them, if however, they come in and steal your SALVAGE which in most cases is more valuable to me than the loot, I CAN DO NOTHING.

I get the argument that there is supposed to be risk in Eve, I'm ok with that, but answer me this, where is the risk for the guy stealing my salvage? He is getting something, for nothing. I have no recourse against him. All I'm asking for is for stealing to be stealing. If he steals my salvage, flag him as a criminal so that I can at least try to defend my ki

Kaila Fate
Posted - 2009.07.08 00:09:00 - [104]
 

Edited by: Kaila Fate on 08/07/2009 00:20:46
Ok, so not my final point.

I would really love to see npc ships being susceptible to jamming/webbing/nos etc.

As I stated previously I don't care much for pvp most of the time, and I'd like a chance to use some of those types of equipment.

And to whoever mentioned that they don't want more powerful/valuable rewards, just special shiny ones. Gold star. I would love to see unique storyline loot that isn't more powerful, just more interesting. Maybe with some fun flavor text in the description.

Thurman Lucidious
Posted - 2009.07.08 16:38:00 - [105]
 

Edited by: Thurman Lucidious on 08/07/2009 16:39:09
I have to say I'm unhappy with the mission system. The agent types seem to be in name only, I've had encounter missions that request mining...well I'm not set up for mining in a Merlin decked out with weapons! It's almost like EVE is forcing us into certain roles from the start, when clearly the game is about finding your own path. I've lost faction points a couple times because I've gotten missions that are for mining from either encounter or courier agents.

Seperation of these tasks needs to happen in order to prevent players from coming to "dead ends".

Another HUGE problem is the integration of the agents. Starter agent should give you contacts to other agents and those agents should give you agents to go see after that etc. This still leaves options of places to go and see, yet gives the gamer some sort of direction. Look, I played WoW for a long time, and for however many people complain about it their game mechanics are great. They lead the player through a story, yet there's lots of things to explore. All I'm saying is that you folks need to lead the newer characters a little more into the universe. You need to break them into the universe easily by slowly increasing mission difficulty and slowly driving them into low sec space.

For instance, I had a mission the other day that had me in low sec space as a LVL 1 character and I got jumped by a couple Gallante player pirates...it was hardly a battle, and in fact before I had a chance to even react I was dead... three hits from weapons and I was toast. This more than anything else will hurt your account base, and people won't stick around.

Sure we all love PvP, that's why I'm here, but there needs to be more support for new players and helping them understand the game mechanics that are so drastic. This is evident by your forums, look at all of the basic questions on a regular basis. This is where your development team should be looking. I see questions like "How do I do this, or that" all the time, there should be missions designed to teach the player every aspect of the game, then combine these tasks into larger mission strings. You've started to do this somewhat within the game, but clearly more work needs to be done, and I should ever have an instance where I've got an encounter in the first part of a mission string, then I'm asked to haul 10x's more ore than I have cargo space for. In D&D terms, that's like asking a Rogue to tank in a battle...that's just not how the character is designed.

Anyways this is just my $.02 on the game as a whole and the PvE environment...it needs work.

Aethrwolf
Caldari
Podrratu
Posted - 2009.07.08 17:27:00 - [106]
 

chiming back in based on a couple things others have posted.

Group missioning.. instead of special missions for fleets (I think lvl5"s were intended that way) how about automatic scaling for mission based on the size of the fleet you are in? Such as an extra spawn group for every fleet member other than the person accepting the mission. It is my understanding that Sleepers already do this to a certain extent, if so the mechanic is already there to implement this. scaling would encourage players working together, while not penalizing those who choose to solo.


loot drops as parts for meta items as opposed to complete modules... I think a mix would be better at least to start. a few modules and some parts. Named mission rats should almost always drop SOMETHING, btw. structure loot drops should be more common.. perhaps a good place for meta item bpc's?

System security scaling should be done a bit more gradual. The "hey, your safe (relatively speaking) in 0.5, but if you go to 0.4 you're on your own, kid" is what keeps a lot of ppl out of lowsec, the change is just too drastic. Theres no good way to ease yourself into pvp.

mission segregation by agent.. too many of the same missions from agents in different divisions. too many missions given out that dont match agent divisions.

interbus storyline agent? something to fix empire standings

Pirate faction standings.. needs to be a way to fix them. Perhaps concord rats in nullsec pirate faction space?

Duff Lite
Posted - 2009.07.08 18:00:00 - [107]
 

Edited by: Duff Lite on 08/07/2009 18:02:52
I'm a new player, so I'll throw in my thoughts from a few-month-old newbie point of view.

I see a lot of great ideas in this thread, but an alarming number of 'make missions harder' remarks from the vets. As a newer player, many current missions (I'm only doing level 3 atm) ARE hard. Sure they get easier when you have a loaded marauder, but if you have that then you've already made your money.

Anyway onto my suggestions:

* Do away with the level 1-5 thing and expand the scale (maybe to levels 1-10 or something). This would allow a better sense of PvE progression without the huge leaps and bounds of the current L1-5 setup. In the current system all a vet gains from doing L4 missions with an awesome ship is mission speed, and thus EVERYTHING revolves around how fast a mission is completed and becomes a race. What a larger scale would do would allow the newer players who are just getting used to their battleships to do.. say... level 7 missions, while the pimped out vets do harder level 8 missions and get more rewards from it. This way both the newer and older player are being challenged.

* AFTER having done that, now you can rebalance and retune the missions to make them more dynamic and interesting for all players. Increase the challenge a bit, but also increase the rewards.

* Take away a lot of junk loot that industrialists should be producing and instead add more random chances for faction loot. This would stop the market from being flooded with recycled minerals and give the industrialists more stuff to make for profit.
(**If you did this you may also need some sort of mining revamp or the economy would get thrown for a loop**)

* Either improve the the faction missions dramatically, remove them entirely, or make it much easier to regain lost faction. Almost everyone I know who isn't new to the game declines EVERY faction mission. Obviously the rewards aren't worth the faction loss (and it's ridiculous how much you can lose even from doing level 1s as a newbie who doesn't know any better). You don't have to make it easy to gain good faction, but maybe just make it easier to regain faction up to 0 or something. As it is right now it is downright painful to recover faction and punishes newer players who really are never warned about faction loss in the first place.

* Do away with the sec status reward modifiers while giving incentives to low and null sec mission runners. One idea is to just make the rewards better (2 or 3 times better for instance). Another idea is to give a larger chance for special spawns in low or null sec missions. Another to create more missions that are more appealing and are only available in low or null sec.

* Mostly do away with the QL levels. I say 'mostly' because if you do away with them entirely, then everyone would just end up missioning at the agents closest to trade hubs.

* Add more agents and balance out existing facions somewhat. I find it kind of ridiculous how prevalent Caldari Navy agents are when compared to Amarr Navy agents (of which there are hardly any L4s in high sec and the few that are there are bad).

Anyway just some random ideas I hammered out from a newer players perspective.

Kel Urion
Posted - 2009.07.08 18:08:00 - [108]
 

Dear CCP,

Thank you for starting this thread. I believe by far the biggest issue is repetition. Everything around missions is just too predictable. I'd love to see randomized missions. Even very simple things such as randomized number of NPCs, trigger or equipment of enemies would already help a lot. An example for a game that was highly replayable due to its randomized levels is Diablo. I will simply quote from Wikipedia to illustrate my point:

"Diablo is highly replayable thanks to its randomly generated level layouts, monsters, and items. In addition, in single player mode there are only three core quests as the rest of them are drawn from several pools, making it impossible to complete every quest in one playthrough of the game. Either way, only the last two quests are compulsory (although it is necessary to complete the voluntary missions to gain experience and items, and to learn more of the backstory). Given this arrangement, no two playthroughs of the game are ever exactly alike."

Related to that is the behavior of NPCs. They don't update their strategy due to changing circumstances. It is common to play missions by sending in a heavily tanked ship first, and once all the NPCs are attacking it everybody else warps in and can pretty much do whatever they want because they get completely ignored. Maybe it would be possible to make the different ship classes fight each other if there are multiple player ships? So you would have frigates attacking frigates, cruisers vs. cruisers and the battleships against each other.

Best,
Kel


Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2009.07.08 19:55:00 - [109]
 

Perhaps will restate things already said by others ...

Rat spam ... Too many rats. I'd prefer to see less rats, but those that remain be stronger and of course with higher bounties.

Instead of 3 warp scrambling frigs five cruisers and two BS, how about 3 BS, one or two of them wrap scrambling or what not. The trick to this of course not having the bigger rats always using their special ability, be it scrambling, target jamming, damps or whatever. It's not fun to find your self in an unsolvable puzzle.

Fewer rats would also cut down on all the drops that impact both mining and production assuming the drop tables remained as is. An increase in salvage drop would however likely be necessary. Also, less wrecks and rats to keep track of in space would reduce load on the solar system process.

I'm sure most people would like it rats, the big ones mentioned above, came in a lot closer, which would be reasonable if they were going to scramble, but from a purely selfish standpoint, i miss torp explosions.

Jarvis Hellstrom
Gallente
The Flying Tigers
United Front Alliance
Posted - 2009.07.09 14:29:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: Aethrwolf
Group missioning.. instead of special missions for fleets (I think lvl5"s were intended that way) how about automatic scaling for mission based on the size of the fleet you are in? Such as an extra spawn group for every fleet member other than the person accepting the mission. It is my understanding that Sleepers already do this to a certain extent, if so the mechanic is already there to implement this. scaling would encourage players working together, while not penalizing those who choose to solo.



This is a truly fantastic idea. While perhaps not 'random' enough for some, it would ensure a reasonable balance so that both fleets and solos can all have the same amount of fun without it being either next to impossible or a walkover.

Genius Aethrwolf!

Deej Montana
Caldari
Outbound Flight
Posted - 2009.07.09 18:30:00 - [111]
 

Things I like about current missions:

Ability to log in and do one or two, then go back to RL responsibilities
Ability to solo the majority of missions (Not always in the mood to form a fleet with corpies, corpies aren't always available, etc.)

Things that need some work:

Repetitiveness
Huge numbers of NPCs in some missions to make up for the lack of better NPC AI
Damn near impossible to regain lost faction standings
Accepting low sec missions is nearly a death sentence (Due to being fairly static and in a mission-fit ship, ease of being scanned out, gatecamps, etc)
NPCs that ignore mission intruders, making their job much simpler and much less risky
LP Store needs some serious reworking (Needs more unique items unavailable from the market)
NPCs that don't "play by the rules" (e.g. cruisers firing heavy missiles at ridiculous ranges, immunity to certain EWAR)
Guristas missions that give HORRIBLE loot compared with other factions

My main concern is that in an effort to give missions some variety and greater challenge for older, higher-skilled players that you don't make them a huge chore for the lesser-skilled, more casual types like me. It's all about balance. That said please seriously consider the suggestions of Kaila, Aetherwolf and Duff. These ideas make a lot of sense, IMO, and would go a long way towards more challenge yet maintaining the casual "fun factor".

D1098
Minmatar
Republic University
Posted - 2009.07.09 19:35:00 - [112]
 

I have been doing missions for "Isawara Kammon" Accounting for the Chief Executive Panel
The missions are fantastic! Look into this agent.
The missions are usually in 5 missions strings. All of the missions are different.
I have not been doing repetative kill 100 frigates flying around me in swarms. They are great missions.
1. Fly two jumps away come back with an item.
2.Use that item to go unlock something and bring back said item.
3.Go locate something out in deadspace come back after located.
4.Go out and kill 3 enemies guarding a starbase that you just found.
5. Destroy said starbase.
Very very fun!
The rewards are garbage, but it is level one I hope that level 2 and 3 are just as good. With better reward.
Must say though....can I have level 4 and 5 accounting?

For all those saying they don't like the missions switching up. You sir/maam are boring.
If you have a ship fitted for war, have a second ship for hauling/mining.
I have been running my missions with two ships. A stabber set up for the killing parts of the missions and a slasher for quick travel and transport.
If you switch agents alot get a third freighter to haul the two ships around.

I do like the idea of having missions linked better.
I would like to be able to play a mission with my buddy and actually know where and what without just clicking (warp to fleet member) 20 times.
A "share mission" option before starting not after completing would be prefered.

Celia Therone
Posted - 2009.07.09 20:48:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: D1098

For all those saying they don't like the missions switching up. You sir/maam are boring.
If you have a ship fitted for war, have a second ship for hauling/mining.
I have been running my missions with two ships. A stabber set up for the killing parts of the missions and a slasher for quick travel and transport.
If you switch agents alot get a third freighter to haul the two ships around.


The thing is that missions don't scale linearly. An iteron 1 is fine for level one missions and takes a trivial amount of time to get into. As I recall you can do level 3 couriers (1000 cubic meters) in a cargo pimped Vexor cruiser. Level 1 mining missions only take a few minutes in an easily trained mining frigate.

However a level 4 courier storyline asks you to move 40,000(!) cubic meters through numerous jumps. Unless you've devoted six weeks or so purely to training industrials you'll probably have to fly four or even five round trips (even more if you have to pass through low sec as you'll want to switch cargo expanders for warp core stabilizers). I think I flew more than 40 jumps back and forth for one of these missions.

Even if you get that iteron 5, stuff it full of expanders and cargo rigs you still have to do two runs and you can't move your mission ships in it like you can when you run level 1 missions.

Ice mining missions have you mine, what, 20 blocks of ice at ten minutes per block per ice harvester (max of 3 harvesters). And the second mining barge can't tank worth a damn, so you need serious training time to do this mission (or a friend).

The mining missions call for over a jet can worth of ore which will take a non-specialist miner an hour+ to get.

The gas harvesting missions aren't quite as bad but they're up there. And you have to blow about 50 million isk on training and items just to be able to do them. At least gas harvesting is a level 1 skill.

And once you've trained up ice harvesting, mining and gas harvesting you find that all of these missions offer really poor rewards compared to combat missions and there's a real limit as to how fast you can complete them whereas with combat missions you can eventually cruise through them really quickly. Couriers are a little different as you can get really fast storylines with couriers so they pay off in reputation even if they aren't necessarily that great in isk and lp.

So now you need an iteron V, a hulk, a makinaw, a battleship, a fast courier (slasher?) and perhaps a gas mining battlecruiser. Now your agent gives you two faction missions in a row and you have to move agents eight jumps. That gets really old, really quickly.

As someone who has done all of the above mission types, I have to say it takes a particular sort of person not to cringe when they get the second and third ice harvesting missions of a play session.

Koada
Posted - 2009.07.09 21:16:00 - [114]
 

Hi there, I myself am still very new to EVE Online but the mission side of EVE appeals to me more than most other things I have tried.

Input that I can give from my point of view maybe incorrect or "nooby" but its how I perceive things from that point of view still learning about the game as I play. Some things that have passed my mind while I've been playing are not so much the need to change current missions but the need to add more types and varieties. A few things I could suggest would be:

Escort Missions: The player enters a deadspace mission and is asked to escort a freighter or industrial ship from point A to B, maybe via C. A mission like this could include NPC friendlies to help players as they first experience these missions types and then be forced in harder levels to protect this ship themselves maybe even to the an extent that they are required to use ECM and/or remote reppers or shield transfer systems. Keeping them long enough to not drag out and intense enough to keep the pilot on their toes would create a great new aspect to missions.

Group Missions: EVE Online is a huge game and the fact that this game does very little to encourage social interaction early on within missions is a surprise to me. I'm not saying you should look to other games for ideas but it seems an obvious path to try to get all of these players to interact in some way more than local and corporation chatter.

These group missions could be given by an agent who the player is lead to, by a previous chain of missions. The player would be told that help will be required and how much help they will require. The reward will be significant enough to encourage players to join together to complete it. However this brings up a problem within itself due to the fact that players cannot have a mission each which they can complete together. I think down the line there needs to be some type of upgrade to the mission system which encourages players with the same missions to complete them together instead of forcing them to repeat missions that are exactly the same.

For example, some time ago I helped a corp mate get to the same portion of Epic Arc as myself and then we continued on together, mission by mission. However we quickly found out that for both of us to progress forward in the Epic Arc we were required to complete each mission twice and after several missions I was put off the process and found other things to do.

I do not know how easy this would be for you to implement but I would love to see something like this. Bringing players together and not forcing them out on their own so much. It would encourage team play, help players meet friends within the game, help them understand the basics of missions in a more comfortable situation and open their eyes more to the possibility of pirates or "ninjas".

---

Aside from these two suggestions only small thing I can suggest would be to largely increase the missions to create a huge variety of missions. In the few months I've been playing I have already repeated several missions again and again and for people like me who are not a huge fan of the grind this can be a killer for the game and put people off entirely.

Players need things to do while they wait for their skills to gather. Missions are an obvious choice for a new player and they need to be plentiful. Even more so then they are already. However you've all done an amazing job so far and I appreciate and look forward to the new and exciting things you can do for the Mission lovers out there.

Thanks

Ey'up Miduck
Posted - 2009.07.09 21:21:00 - [115]
 

I decline the missions that nerf other empire faction standings. eg: Minmatar missions against amarr or caldari. They nerf your standings too much. Trying to develop your standing for one race whilst keeping others above zero at the same time is almost impossible - and requires delicate balancing of missions run across races.

For mission runners, developing faction standings is one of the main measures of progress over time.

Aethrwolf
Caldari
Podrratu
Posted - 2009.07.09 21:38:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
Originally by: Vilserx
Originally by: Mara Rinn
Edited by: Mara Rinn on 06/07/2009 04:56:18
Dear CCP Navigator and friends,

Go pick up a copy of X-Wing, X-Wing vs TIE Fighter, or X-Wing Alliance and run through the storyline. Now compare the mission types you have there to the mission types we have in EVE presently. What's missing?

  • Escort missions (as opposed to Attack of the Drones, where the ship we're supposed to be escorting is blown up before we arrive)

  • Interception missions (where the NPCs will run away if we don't stop them)

  • Strategic attack missions (disable this system of that capital starship, you have 2 minutes from now)





Am I the only who HATES the token escort/timed missions in any game?



no...

**** that **** Mad


I think that if escort missions were introduced they would quickly become the #1 mission type turned down. All it would take was one disconnect or system crash resulting in a failed mission to say never again.

ONT101
Posted - 2009.07.10 06:59:00 - [117]
 

Edited by: ONT101 on 10/07/2009 15:17:18
Edited by: ONT101 on 10/07/2009 15:09:00
Edited by: ONT101 on 10/07/2009 14:46:35
I like the ARC mission , and here some things I wuld love to see.

GROUP MISSIONS at lvl 1 lvl 2 lvl 3.


A dynamic aggro table (running some lvl 3 with a friend and its impossible to pull aggro from first player that warps in, NPC needs to se my threat lvl to them and change target to me if I'm the only one doing damage to them).


The use of "line of site" solid objects in mission area need to play a bigger part (maby fights inside buildings) tanking by using
enviroment to your advantige.


A STOP to agents at same lvl repeating same mission (getting offered "Damsel in disstres" for the 7th time has to go).A filter
that prevents any agent from offering any mission you have done, unless you turn the filter off.


A STOP to "deliver this to" missions past lvl 1, unless it involves low sec where ther's some danger involved.


And mission lvl 1-100 instead of lvl 1 -20 to lvl 1 +20 and so on, theres 100 lvl's right now .Its just confusing.And a clear progression of difficulty and reward (no higher lvl mission can pay less than lower lvl).


Group missions 2-6 players at every mission lvl ( a "boss" ship that needs multiple ships to kill).


Less fights with multiple "thrash mobs" more fights with 1 hard enemy that need 2-6 players to take down at lvl 1, lvl 2, lvl 3.


A fee for storage at stations ( I know I will get allot of love for this one hahahahah)it makes no sens that players get that service for free, in a hardcore capitalist environment lol.


A base price for a skill, but a cost at every new lvl of that skill (you pay for every lvl of training in real life, unless
you live in a communist country).


A parallel universe (lol instance), a cenario where 2-6 players enter a solarsystem and have to fight to get in to different stations, get special gear there to help finish a bigger battle somwere in that solar system.







Zarlis
Gallente
Posted - 2009.07.10 10:09:00 - [118]
 

1. Faction kill missions, get rid of them as all they are is a nub trap where the unsuspecting screw their faction before they understand how the game works.

2. Mission loot is fine. It provides a steady supply of minerals into hisec that allows you to build stuff which is a good thing. Mining is dead (and dead boring) so please keep ignoring the people who want it resurrected as the corpse still stinks.

3. We need a new type of agent that give out level 4 missions with level 4 rewards but are locked specifically to a maximum ship level. eg. a hard mission that only allows cruisers and that means the gate is locked to HACs. or even one that only allowed T1 frigs but blocked AFs. There would need to be a newby warning on the mission so that they didn't get pulped.
Flying new ships is good and this would help break the normal progression through to Battleships but allow people to make a decent income while flying whatever ship they want.

4. A progression point beyond Battleships and level 4 would be good if you cant implement the idea above. ie move level 5 to hisec and have a new ship type that fitted between a battleship and carrier. Either that or make a new licence for people with rep above a certain level to use carriers in hisec. The licence could be handed out by the agent and allow you light a cyno. Using the carrier to attack anyone but the sanctioned mission mob could mean that you got concorded to stop people using them for wars.

Jarvis Hellstrom
Gallente
The Flying Tigers
United Front Alliance
Posted - 2009.07.10 14:33:00 - [119]
 

More immersion stuff:

Quite frequently you fly out to a deadspace complex to find things like signature blocking/scan jamming units which are preventing the agent from finding out things. Usually that's why he's sending the mission runner in the first place.

However these things don't work for players. Even when in that mission space you're easy/peasy to scan out and find etc. This is not good as it amounts to one set of rules for the backstory and an entirely different set of rules for the players.

Think in terms of this - right now there are all these pirates and enemy fleets etc. etc. in space. The agent might (or might not) know about them but they're everywhere. Slave raiders, Blood Raiders, Gurista pirates etc. etc. yet the Navy can find and kill none of them. Many of these same folks have even set up hidden bases and the like without anyone's knowledge.

Yet - no player can do this.

New players enter the game, just as I did myself and much of their early introduction to the universe is through mission immersion. Imagine how weird it is to find someone else in a mission space which your agent told you was 'unscannable'. Huh? Totally immersion breaking.

To be honest, one of the best things that CCP could do is 'close the gap' between their NPCs and their players. For missions, this means NPCs that fight like players, win like players and LOSE LIKE PLAYERS. Nail an NPC frig with three heavy neuts - it should be as dead in space as any interceptor flown by a player. If the Navy cannot find that complex, than a player should have a brutally hard time finding it as well - after all that's the agent's job and he spends all day doing it (presumably). If all he needed to do was toss some probes to a capsuleer and tell him to come back in ten minutes with book marks to every incursion in a system he should DO that. And that fact that he can't damages a player's enjoyment of the universe of EVE. The rules shouldn't change.

This really impacts everything - missions and PvP and all matter of stuff, but it would go a long way toward fixing a lot of things in the game beyond just missions. Sov issues in 0.0? If the player empires had the same limitations and the NPC empires, and some of the same problems, they would have more to do than just blob all the time. Players AND NPCs could do the things that mission NPCs do requiring resources and the like to deal with.

Flipping back to missions, the players running the missions should feel like they are 'in' the mission the agent gave them. If the place is hard to find or locked, it should be just that - hard to find, or very difficult to get into. However those that do should also find it rewarding.

Mission invasion is difficult for high sec players. Reality means that a lot of players (myself occasionally included) just like to grab a mission and run some PVE fun for an hour or so before dinner after a hard day's work. While I might (and often do) have a PvP ship handy, you cannot mission in them. Making the rules the same would fix some of that but mission invasion should be HARD. Not impossible, this is EVE, but hard. What's more it should be dangerous to the invader as well as the runner, which is why Sleeper style AI is required as a bare minimum.

Create more immersion, make the rules more the same from NPCs to PCs and, I truly believe, a lot of the problems with missions and many other peripheral problems will fix themselves. They might well generate other problems, of course, but at least they'd be DIFFERENT problems from the ones we've had sitting in our laps for so long.

Hope that helps a bit.

ONT101
Posted - 2009.07.10 14:43:00 - [120]
 

Cant edit post,so here some more things I would love to see.

A STOP to agents at same lvl repeating same mission (getting offered "Damsel in disstres" for the 7th time has to go).A filter
that prevents any agent from offering any mission you have done, unless you turn the filter off.

A STOP to "deliver this to" missions past lvl 1, unless it involves low sec where ther's some danger involved.

And mission lvl 1-100 instead of lvl 1 -20 to lvl 1 +20 and so on, theres 100 lvl's right now .Its just confusing.And a clear progression of difficulty and reward (no higher lvl mission can pay less than lower lvl).

Group missions 2-6 players at every mission lvl ( a "boss" ship that needs multiple ships to kill).





Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only