open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Possible solution on risk vs reward on lvl 4
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

McRoll
Minmatar
Heatseekers
Posted - 2010.02.26 17:02:00 - [1]
 

I believe I found a good idea on how the current lvl4 missionrunning problem could be solved.

Lets point out the problems first:

Many people are not really satisfied with lvl 4's. For some, people gain too much money compared to too little risk on lvl 4's. A large chunk of minerals on the market comes from lvl 4 loot which shouldn't be this way. Mining should be the primary way to achieve minerals. Lowsec and nullsec people complain about carebears who don't want to leave their safe highsec home and can get comfortably rich there. On the other hand, the risk of doing missions in lowsec isn't worth it for many people compared to the reward. Once you have achieved a certain skillset and fly a well- fitted battleship, missions become incredibly dull and easy.

Missions are the "end- game" for many highsec people however and shouldn't be ignored. Simply moving them to lowsec doesn't cut it, the bears won't follow there, they either quit or farm 3's.

So I figured, it might be a good idea to change the difficulty and not only the given rewards according to the quality of the agent. More exactly, the higher the quality of an agent is, the tougher the NPC's get. With each lvl of the agent, the NPC tanks a bit more and deals a bit more damage. The difficulty of a mission between a very low (q-18) and a very high (q+18) should be around twice as hard. Means, the mission of the q-18 agent remains as it is now and the mission of the q+18 agent gonna have NPC's which tank twice as much and deal twice the damage of the low- quality agent.

The bountys and the loot of the NPC's remain unchanged. What changes, is the payout in ISK and the LP reward. If the mission of the high quality agent is gonna take 2x the time (because the NPC's tank 2x more damage), the reward in LP and ISK increases accordingly so the player is gonna make around the same amount of ISK/h as he is doing now. In addition to this, the high quality agent should give a little bonus to encourage the player to take the higher risk in a high- quality mission. It should be only a small bonus of course, because no one wants the high- end missionrunners to get even more money than theyre getting now.

Also, the agents in lowsec should be adjusted because the risk running lowsec missions increases exponentially, in addition to the pirates, the mission difficulty increases. This could be done via additional LP or ISK reward.

So, why could this be a good idea? Here are the pros:

-High-end-missionrunners get a challenge in addition to a small profit increase now
-new players or players with bad skills are still able to run the lvl 4's as the lower quality agents remain practically unchanged
-as the difficulty increases step by step, all agents are gonna be used and the playerbase spreads more evenly around highsec because everyone can now choose the right difficulty according to his ship and skills. Huge missionhubs get less populated.
-Teamplay is encouraged, the harder lvl 4's might require 2 less skilled players to complete them
-While the ISK/h remain roughly the same, the focus switches more towards the completion of the mission and the ISK reward+LP. This discourages farming of a mission (not killing the last NPC and fly the same mission every day once)
-because of the longer mission completion time, the amount of minerals from loot is gonna decrease slightly, which is basically a mining buff
-Right now, the fit on a ship for missions follows only one direction: as much DPS as possible with as much tank as needed. With the increased damage in missions we gonna have different fits for different missions, ships like the Rattlesnake might be used more for the heavy DPS missions. More variety is always good.
-expensive officer tanks and/or other modules serve an actual purpose now, instead of bored missionrunners who don't know where to spend their money on.
-increased risk on the high q- missions balances missionrunning more with other ISK- making activities

Thoughts?


darius mclever
Posted - 2010.02.26 17:12:00 - [2]
 

+1 on harder lvl4s

McRoll
Minmatar
Heatseekers
Posted - 2010.02.26 17:32:00 - [3]
 

Another thought:

If it would be too difficult to implement that change for whatever reason, once could simply replace the usual NPC's with their elite variants. For example changing one "Gistum breaker" for "Arch Gistum Breaker" or something like that. The higher the mission quality, the more elite NPC'S are there. Should be able to implement quickly and easily and have roughly the same effect.
The loot should also remain the same (I believe the elite variants dont drop better loot?)

Of course ISK and LP reward should be adjusted accordingly.

P3rv3rt
Posted - 2010.02.26 18:01:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: P3rv3rt on 26/02/2010 18:06:26
loot should be removed from ALL missions, ore and equipment should come from industrials, boost the LP/ISK rewards to compensate for ore removal

+ boost mining vessel capability to ensure the supply is abundant, maybe t3 mining barge which is twice as good as hulk with twice the mining range and cargohold bay.

in the end everyone is happy

McRoll
Minmatar
Heatseekers
Posted - 2010.02.26 18:40:00 - [5]
 

I dunno, sounds too drastic to me. There surely are guys who use their mission loot to manufacture ammo n stuff from that, also some industrials might use it too. Also, that would decrease ratting if no loot is dropped there too. Think it would be too complicated to implement drop chances for every NPC in different areas.

Think the longer mission times gonna compensate enough for this and it would just move from one extreme to other.

Illectroculus Defined
No Bull Ships
Posted - 2010.02.26 19:05:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: P3rv3rt
Edited by: P3rv3rt on 26/02/2010 18:06:26
loot should be removed from ALL missions, ore and equipment should come from industrials, boost the LP/ISK rewards to compensate for ore removal



Nah, having no loot would make no sense at all, instead, I'd like to see the reprocessing mechanism adjusted so that unless you train up scrapmetal processing you're going to be getting much poorer refine rates from mission loot.

Denuo Secus
Posted - 2010.02.26 19:12:00 - [7]
 

I like that idea. Missions are too easy. Pick a NH, passive tank it...almost nothing can touch you. Boring! More risk and reward plz.

Removing loot (and increasing bounty) would be cool for me. Looting is like mining. Doesn't interest me very much (my humble opinion). I just do it because most of the reward comes (often) from loot. Sometimes it's the only reward (drone missions, empire faction missions). When the agent sends me into a kill mission I want to kill evul enemies and earn a fair reward for it. Maybe introduce agent divisions with pure kill missions without loot? So the player could choose..

Also removing the MWD penalty in deadspaces would help alot to make missions more fun. Atm mission runners are forced to use long range fitting. There are exceptions but mostly you're better off with long range.

I really see no reason in suppressing MWDs. Blasters + MWD + cap booster in missions! Navigating and kiting damage....at the end missions would become a bit more like PvP and much more fun.

McRoll
Minmatar
Heatseekers
Posted - 2010.02.26 19:29:00 - [8]
 

Didnt't they already implement it in plexes?

And yes I'd like to see it too.

Istvann
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.02.26 20:04:00 - [9]
 

I am one of those people that use items I get off missions to make my ordinance. I agree with making the missions a little harder. Some are quite easy. Just don't take away the loot unless there is a substantial increase in rewards and LP.

Are you thinking off taking away any salvage as well?

Red Raider
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.02.26 20:33:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Illectroculus Defined
Originally by: P3rv3rt
Edited by: P3rv3rt on 26/02/2010 18:06:26
loot should be removed from ALL missions, ore and equipment should come from industrials, boost the LP/ISK rewards to compensate for ore removal



Nah, having no loot would make no sense at all, instead, I'd like to see the reprocessing mechanism adjusted so that unless you train up scrapmetal processing you're going to be getting much poorer refine rates from mission loot.


I like this better than the OP but the alternative is empowering macro miners even more than they already are. Remember not all of them are ISK sellers but macro mining to fund being bad at just about everything else they do.

The issue is with loot doubling the value of running the mission. As it is some level 4 missions can take over an hour to run and I think people fail to realize that mission runners are combat pilots that want a more casual experience and instant gratification instead of dedicating hours of their life roaming low sec for a single fight or living their lives based around the .0 alliance operations calendar.

Mining is due for an overhaul that requires intuition and skill according to CCP. When and if that happens and it negates the use of macro miners then by all means nerf the crap out of scrap reprocessing.

Illectroculus Defined
No Bull Ships
Posted - 2010.02.26 20:50:00 - [11]
 

Ahh but macro miners make most of their money from low end minerals so, when low end minerals are expensive they make more money. So you need to drive down the cost of low end minerals, but there's a mechanism that puts a price floor on the mineral basket - insurance. So, when the supply of mid-high end minerals increases then the drop in cost means that the low ends get pushed up in price to ensure that the mineral basket remains the samer price. As a result, hi-sec miners can make *more* money.

Now if reprocessing modules returned a lot less high end minerals then their prices would rise and the insurance floor would result in the low ends dropping in price, therefore making veldspar and scordite less profitable and increasing the value of more exotic ores.

One of the big problems I have is that risk-reward for mining is broken and there's almost no incentive to take more risk.

Nobani
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.02.26 22:03:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Nobani on 26/02/2010 22:04:11
Originally by: Istvann
I am one of those people that use items I get off missions to make my ordinance. I agree with making the missions a little harder. Some are quite easy. Just don't take away the loot unless there is a substantial increase in rewards and LP.

Are you thinking off taking away any salvage as well?


Rewards and LP need to be nerfed for high-sec missions. Some guy (no link right now) figured you could make 70M/h running high-sec missions in a T2/faction fit Golem. Try doing something similar in 0.0 and you end up like this guy.

Red Raider
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.02.26 22:13:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Illectroculus Defined
Ahh but macro miners make most of their money from low end minerals so, when low end minerals are expensive they make more money. So you need to drive down the cost of low end minerals, but there's a mechanism that puts a price floor on the mineral basket - insurance. So, when the supply of mid-high end minerals increases then the drop in cost means that the low ends get pushed up in price to ensure that the mineral basket remains the samer price. As a result, hi-sec miners can make *more* money.

Now if reprocessing modules returned a lot less high end minerals then their prices would rise and the insurance floor would result in the low ends dropping in price, therefore making veldspar and scordite less profitable and increasing the value of more exotic ores.

One of the big problems I have is that risk-reward for mining is broken and there's almost no incentive to take more risk.


Actually this brings up a good point though I think your reasoning is flawed. The demand vs supply of low end minerals drives the price far more than insurance does which is why the price went up substantially after Unholy Rage. Either way, if reprocessing of modules resulted in much less high end mineral production then a lot of balance would be restored to the entire economy. The low sec miners are going to scream though since they often build certain items, stuff a freighter full of them, haul them to highsec, and then reprocess them for much more minerals then what they could have hauled in their ship in raw form. Fine with me though since the trade off is nerfing mission running returns and making mining, especially in lower sec and null much more valuable.

Combine that with changes to the scrap skill. For that matter, I wouldn't even mind the scrap skill being broken out into mineral types and so on and should take more commitment to the industrial side of things to get the optimal reward out of it rather than be mission farming 4's in a Golem four months after starting the game. I assume to be a good industrial player having access to an Orca/Hulk/POS/Freighter are a requirement and that takes longer, more ISK, more time, more work, and the returns by the time you are fully operational will take years to match what the mission runner accumulates assuming he doesn't go after datacores and starts doing industrial work as well which many do.

McRoll
Minmatar
Heatseekers
Posted - 2010.02.26 22:19:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Nobani
Edited by: Nobani on 26/02/2010 22:04:11
Originally by: Istvann
I am one of those people that use items I get off missions to make my ordinance. I agree with making the missions a little harder. Some are quite easy. Just don't take away the loot unless there is a substantial increase in rewards and LP.

Are you thinking off taking away any salvage as well?


Rewards and LP need to be nerfed for high-sec missions. Some guy (no link right now) figured you could make 70M/h running high-sec missions in a T2/faction fit Golem. Try doing something similar in 0.0 and you end up like this guy.


Please read the OP before commenting. With increased mission difficulty and increased mission completion time the isk/h would remain roughly the same as they are now.

If you nerf the lp/isk reward and increase mission difficulty without compensation it will be a nerf to lvl 4 and the amount of outrage and tears will be unheard. Of course the values of LP and ISK of missions need to be adjusted so there wont be any fantasy numbers of isk/h.

I am interested what you think of the scaling of mission difficulty in general. The loot/mineral problematic is only one aspect of it.

Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Posted - 2010.02.26 22:34:00 - [15]
 

Quote:
Rewards and LP need to be nerfed for high-sec missions.

Complaining about carebear mission runners making more isk without the risk that what your putting yourself through? Could of sworn that was done already with easier probing for ninja looters in Apoc and an NPC tax cut that forces players to make a solo corp which can then get a wardec Rolling Eyes.

My personal opinion is just increase the LP requirements of items or use some kind of LP tax from the corpRolling Eyes. I hate bureaucracy, got a driving ticket couple months ago and it was an additional $50 USD over the ticket price to take a state sanctioned class while the class itself cost another $35 (extra $85 Mad). That $50 was a "processing fee" as they called it for the stupid thing so I could take the class and not have my insurance go up Neutral. Its like an extra $5 to just sit down at a resturant you were already going to pay for food and tip;

"Mam, my food cost 10 plus 2 for tip, why is this 17?"
"Sir, thats the fee for processing your table to sit down at."
"#$&@! this, I am never comming back."
"Have a nice day!"

Red Raider
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.02.26 22:36:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Nobani
Edited by: Nobani on 26/02/2010 22:04:11
Originally by: Istvann
I am one of those people that use items I get off missions to make my ordinance. I agree with making the missions a little harder. Some are quite easy. Just don't take away the loot unless there is a substantial increase in rewards and LP.

Are you thinking off taking away any salvage as well?


Rewards and LP need to be nerfed for high-sec missions. Some guy (no link right now) figured you could make 70M/h running high-sec missions in a T2/faction fit Golem. Try doing something similar in 0.0 and you end up like this guy.


This figure is always blown way out of proportion. I have been running missions for years and never seen anyone get anywhere near anything like that running combat missions.

I would say 40 million an hour in a Golem with max skills, crazy implants(full crystals, etc.), and tricked out would be doable but as it sits now that guy is a sitting duck just for undocking. Hell I would lose the sec status to gank a person flying that much ISK around.

The missions can take you several jumps away which nerfs that hypothisis to begin with because I have yet to see it considered in any of the "OMGWTFTRILLIONSOFISKIES" estimates floating around. Also the biggest returns on LP are not from combat missions but from SOE gear yet people calculate those insane returns on SOE LP for CN LP which is completely off. Targets don't sit still and do have resists thus the damage estimates are always vastly over stated. Last, the recent adjustments to rigs has significantly lowered the value of salvage which for some reason still makes it into these estimates of just how amazing OP mission running is.

Everything can be made to look good on paper if you exclude reality from it.

Red Raider
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.02.26 23:05:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: McRoll
I am interested what you think of the scaling of mission difficulty in general. The loot/mineral problematic is only one aspect of it.


I'll bite.

Make it so that it takes a random amount of time between 10 minutes and two hours for the lasers to cycle but it's constantly filling your cargo hold with random amounts of minerals and reduce the cargo hold size to 1000m3 max on any mining barge/exhumer. Then add a small bonus of about 10 percent of the total yield of that cycle upon completion of the cycle. This way you are forced to pay attention all the time or lose tons of minerals but have incentive to complete a cycle.

That's mission running. If I walk away to deal with the honey do list I lose my rewards on the big good missions that actually add up like AE's or WC's. People will also come in while your gone and kill anything left, steal mission objectives, salvage and loot anything left behind. So your grand idea is to make a mission that can take over an hour to run take over two hours to run? That's not casual gaming and it will destroy mission running as a whole because that's what most mission runners are. If you can spend 12+ hours a day on EVE or even constantly be looking in on it at work and such you can make a hell of a lot more ISK and never even undock.

Mission running provides a lot to the total economy because a lot of players are casual players. I have no problem nerfing reprocessing to curb the effects of mission running on the economy but your solution is to force people out of the playstyle entirely and into a sub class of income earners restricted to the people who spend all or a majority of their free time playing EVE who already make way more ISK than mission running. Hell you already have this playstyle for mission runners in lvl 5 missions which reward insane amounts of LP.

McRoll
Minmatar
Heatseekers
Posted - 2010.02.27 00:29:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: McRoll on 27/02/2010 00:33:59
Edited by: McRoll on 27/02/2010 00:32:55
That's not true. My proposal was to increase mission difficulty step by step, according to the quality of the agents. If you are a casual missionrunner, you will stick to the lower quality agents where nothing changes for you at all ( except that you get less LP and ISK reward). When your skills get better and you fly a better ship, you can advance to the better quality ones. With a decent ship, it doesnt take anywhere near an hour to complete a mission and I'm not talking about marauders. Of course if you want to afk domi with 400 DPS than you will take some more time.

Also, if a mission would take longer, the time spent would be compensated by the reward. You just run one mission in the time you would run 2 and get about the same money.

Edit: Can't comment on lvl 5 though because I never ran one yet. If you apply my proposal on those, it might get way too hard, they might need another solution. Or jsut leave them as they are, I dont see people complaining about them. LvL 4 whines are very common on the other side.

Tason Hyena
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2010.02.27 01:13:00 - [19]
 

What would be the defense though against people with better ships skipping the high-end, difficult level 4s and just running the easy ones faster?

McRoll
Minmatar
Heatseekers
Posted - 2010.02.27 01:30:00 - [20]
 

Well, they would complete them faster and gain more through bountys but less through reward and LP. ISK/h wise wouldnt change that much. One could argue that they could get more loot and salvage by completing them faster but keep in mind that looting and salvaging takes time in that they could run another mission.

In the end it comes down to personal preference, some people wouldnt want to risk their expensive ship and just run the easier ones while some will prefer the challenge and get (slightly) more for their risk.

Remember that there would be also something in between, not only the 2 extremes from very low to very high. If it would be very profitable, people would run lvl 3' s in their marauders.

The most important part would be fine-tuning between mission difficulty and reward. I just believe that my idea is a good solution because there is something for everyone, from a newbie who just starts lvl 4 to the high end mission runner. And I think that lvl 4 as they are now need to be changed, this is definitely better than just move it to lowsec.

Red Raider
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.03.01 21:06:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: McRoll
Edited by: McRoll on 27/02/2010 00:33:59
Edited by: McRoll on 27/02/2010 00:32:55
That's not true. My proposal was to increase mission difficulty step by step, according to the quality of the agents. If you are a casual missionrunner, you will stick to the lower quality agents where nothing changes for you at all ( except that you get less LP and ISK reward). When your skills get better and you fly a better ship, you can advance to the better quality ones. With a decent ship, it doesnt take anywhere near an hour to complete a mission and I'm not talking about marauders. Of course if you want to afk domi with 400 DPS than you will take some more time.

Also, if a mission would take longer, the time spent would be compensated by the reward. You just run one mission in the time you would run 2 and get about the same money.

Edit: Can't comment on lvl 5 though because I never ran one yet. If you apply my proposal on those, it might get way too hard, they might need another solution. Or jsut leave them as they are, I dont see people complaining about them. LvL 4 whines are very common on the other side.


Let me explain this. You notice how your skill training is based on time and not effort? The point is to reward you for what you choose to do with your time when you are online with an equal opportunity as someone else with the same amount of SP's in the exact same skills. It's about YOUR skill, YOUR choices, and YOUR effort with all else being equal.

Your proposal is to rebalance mission running along the lines of agent quality. So that means 3 options;

(option 1) longer mission time from higher ql agent = higher reward vs time.
(option 2) longer mission time from higher ql agent = lower reward vs time.
(option 3) reward vs time remains = regardless of ql but time required changes to longer based on ql.

Well option 1 doesnt change a thing and in fact makes it worse since hardcore mission farmers(especially the ones botting) don't care about the time constraints but the reward and this = more reward so I don't think that's what you want is it? Worse is that it would proportionately reward people with more time to give to EVE than the casual gamer which as I already pointed out is contrary to EVE's existing model.

Option 2 would send all the mission runners to the lowest level quality 4 agents and either not change anything or make it worse than it currently is due to the possibility of higher income on easier missions.

Option 3 wouldn't change anything at all. People looking for a challenge would get a bit more challenge but that's it. So we should ask CCP to increase server load to do a quality check on the agent based on the players standings with the corp, faction, relationship, and skills every time a mission is generated and then create new NPC tables based on 40 variables across hundreds of missions just so people can continue to complain about mission running income.

Now that we have that cleared up lets try taking a look at the cause instead of the result. Mission running in and of itself isn't necessarily all that amazing of a profession until you add in loot and salvage. Salvage has been nerfed in value but the supply is important to the economy and that has not changed since it is the main source of tech I salvage. So then you get to loot. This is where things get out of hand. Not because of the value of the loot itself but because of the mineral value of low meta loot and the vast quantities generated by mission running. This indirectly nerfs the crap out of mining especially in area's where the mining risk vs reward is based off of minerals you can get from reprocessing mission loot.

Any other attacks on mission running need to be better defined since the profession by itself isn't going to make anywhere near the amounts people claim and can be accomplished or outpaced by many other professions.

Kel Nissa
Posted - 2010.03.01 23:49:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Red Raider
Originally by: Nobani

Some guy (no link right now) figured you could make 70M/h running high-sec missions in a T2/faction fit Golem.


This figure is always blown way out of proportion.


This.

By the way, you forgotten to factor in that in the reality its not possible to get only good missions, so the real numbers drop even lower.

Soon Shin
Posted - 2010.03.02 00:21:00 - [23]
 

Give up already. This must be the 100th topic about level 4's and risk vs reward. Its been like this for a while and I highly doubt its going to change. How do you think +60% of EVE's mission running population will say when you play around with their source of income. CCP will not ignore such a large share of their players just like that.

Novs Slave
Posted - 2010.03.02 02:11:00 - [24]
 

Im ok with lvl4 missions and don't complain about the loot.. loot tables are a total crap.

McDaddy Pimp
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.03.02 08:36:00 - [25]
 

I have always despise lvl4s, not only they are boring, I think it makes me dumber every time I turn in a mission... until our corp started doing sleeper sites

I think everybody already know they are pretty hard, but also they are actually fun. Doing a RR BS fleet against some sleeper BS actually feel like PVP.

In other words, give sleeper AI to lvl4 NPCs, will solve the lvl4 40mil/hr problem and people will actually enjoy doing them.

Lets be honest, lvl4s now are no more exciting then mining, instead of shooting rocks, you shoot red boxes then gives pretty explosion which you already seen a million times.

Valandril
Caldari
Ex-Mortis
Posted - 2010.03.02 10:33:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Valandril on 02/03/2010 10:34:24
Originally by: Kel Nissa
Originally by: Red Raider
Originally by: Nobani

Some guy (no link right now) figured you could make 70M/h running high-sec missions in a T2/faction fit Golem.


This figure is always blown way out of proportion.


This.

By the way, you forgotten to factor in that in the reality its not possible to get only good missions, so the real numbers drop even lower.
It's not, just rewards + LP give you about half of 70m/h, and then there is loot + salvage.
And all this without any risk whatsoever (and pve is no risk in eve, nor it will every be for more than a month because then people will figure out "the safe" way to do it).
Hi sec missions NEED a serious nerfing because they beat best 0.0 profit-wise which is just plain wrong (which is even more true with removal of static plexes and ccp beeing yet to give something back for that)

Lone Provider
Posted - 2010.03.02 10:37:00 - [27]
 

ehhhh......thats why there is lvl5 missions, now if they were easy and boring you may have a case, but as it stands there is something more challenging than lvl4s.
I do like the idea of AI in all NPCs

Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
Posted - 2010.03.02 13:00:00 - [28]
 

Simpler solution is lvl4 agents in Sov 0.0 outposts, make them all Q 20, and sec status of a system will bump it even higher. Tag it to Military Index lvl 5 or something. Poof, agent in station.

After some consideration, I used to think the rats droped too much loot and messed up mineral markets. However, much of the 0.0 economy runs on rat loot.

Dantes Revenge
Caldari
Posted - 2010.03.02 14:30:00 - [29]
 

Better yet.

Remove all missions and NPC rats from the game completely and let it be PVP only if you want to have fights.Rolling Eyes

I've done level 4's in highsec and I've done 0.0 ratting and I know you can make nearly twice as much ratting in 0.0 as you can from mission running in highsec, even with a high quality agent. Plus, I have not seen a hauler in a level 4 mission that is carrying nearly 5 times the Tritanium that an Indy can carry with a full rack of expanders.

I know a few people who only play this game because they enjoy the missions. They do level 4's but don;t make anywhere near 70 million/hour. I don't know where that figure came from, it was probably one of those amazing guesses by some numb nut who's never done level 4 missions. Let me tell you, as a mission runner in the past, I know it's hard to push it up to 35m/hour and that's with a string of good missions.

Almost every one of my friends left the game after the missile nerf because they had worked hard to get a Golem just to have its main weapon put on the junk pile. I could clear a L4 mission in far less time with a Paladin than it took a Golem to do it after the nerf.

Everyone said, "Fit a Target Painter". Duh! Golem = Shield tank, Target Painter = Mid Slot. Or did they just conveniently forget that fact? They nerfed the gun tracking at the same time IIRC but I could easily fit a mid slot mod to counter that one on my Armor tanker.

Like it or not, there are a lot of PVE players in this game. Take a good look at the population count in highsec if you want proof of that. Considering the number of players who play mostly for the missions, if you make them too hard, it will only serve to alienate even more people from the game.

RootEmerger
Posted - 2010.03.02 15:09:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: McDaddy Pimp

In other words, give sleeper AI to lvl4 NPCs, will solve the lvl4 40mil/hr problem and people will actually enjoy doing them.

Lets be honest, lvl4s now are no more exciting then mining, instead of shooting rocks, you shoot red boxes then gives pretty explosion which you already seen a million times.


Yepp, sleepers are pretty fun, but before enhancing all the npc with that ai you'll need to scrap gallente ships and redo them from zero.... blasterships and droneships are a definite no-no against sleepers.


Pages: [1] 2

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