open All Channels
seplocked Missions & Complexes
blankseplocked Are agent mission resources we should compete on?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.09.06 11:36:00 - [1]
 

In EVE there are a lot of different resources. For many of them, there is a strong competition.
Even asteroids in highsec used to be source of competition, I remember the rush after every downtime to mine the freshly spawned most valuable rocks.
Competition about roids in empire has not produced any fight as far as I know, it has only encouraged miners to spread across the empire systems, while we know that other resources (moon minerals, good rats, good high end roids and even wormhloes stuff) has given birth to many wars or battles.

It's quite much part of EVE philosophy: you have to fight over resources, or to share them, or maybe you can move to another spot.

Now look at the agent mission system. Missions are given to everyone that meets the standing requirements. An agent will never say "I have nothing for you, all is ok".
This means that there will never be competition about missions, that is no competition between mission runners.

Now I ask, imagine they put a limit to the number of mission an agent can give every hour. What can happen?

  • Mission runners will move to less frequented mission hubs.

  • There will be competition about the best agents. Possibly, empire wars between mission running corporations, and more griefing of mission runners.

  • Low sec lvl4/5 agent mission will suddenly acquire value, and access to those agents will become something valuable, something that will be worth fighting for.

  • This does not mean that more single player carebear will go there, but that small corporations with a good spirit and organization could take control of stations in lowsec for a short period and take all the lvl4/5 missions they can do, in a little group.

  • In order to increase the inclination toward risk of individuals, maybe it could be necessary to increase the NPC corp tax.

  • Some mission runners will whine about the mission rate cap, and the possible rise in NPC corp taxes. They can move to another mission hub, go down to lvl3 agents, make their own corp or join one (and that is still the best way to enjoy EVE).



Obviously, I'm not saying that agents should give just 5 missions per hour. The limit should be tweaked depending on how much "HTFU" you want the situation to require.

CCP Shadow


C C P
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2010.09.06 11:49:00 - [2]
 

Thread moved to Missions & Complexes.

Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists
Posted - 2010.09.06 13:38:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Glyken Touchon on 06/09/2010 13:41:51
In some form or another, this has been suggested quite a few times.

Rather than turn people down, I think that the payouts should reduce according to the "overuse" of the agent.

I also think that the agent quality attribute has a lot to answer for when it comes to making mission hubs. instead of the 41 different qualities, change it to 5 in the same way as standings.

I would also like to see a maximum no. of agents of each level per station:
1x L5
1x L4
2x L3
3x L2
4x L1

Tutorial, event, storyline, etc would be in addition to this, and would really help spread people out


Sendraks
The Spice Weasels Must Flow
Posted - 2010.09.06 13:47:00 - [4]
 

I think the most likely scenario is that people will just quit.

The incentives for players to disperse more widely over eve-space already exist, they're just ignored for the most part. Players who live habitually in certain mission running systems at present, despite the obvious advantages to missioning elsewhere, will most likely just quit rather than move.

This isn't going to get people organised and out into lo-sec to run missions. The risk vs reward issue is still what it is and reducing the availability of hi-sec missions is not going to foster a mentally of "go west young man" amongst players. The lo-sec mission running corps/groups are already out there running the missions, the ones who aren't motivated to go now will most likely not go as a result of this kind of change. They'll either find another way to earn ISK or quit. It would certainly annoy PvPers logging in their mission running alts to find they can't quickly earn a few million ISK to make up for their recent losses. Not something that will exactly encourage more PvP, although perhaps you might see people fighting increasingly in cheaper and cheaper set-ups.

I see what you're saying and I think there is the seed of a good idea here, it just needs some refinement.

Perhaps rather than go from a digital state of missions to no missions, there is more of a sliding scale. Perhaps the Q level of agents should just decrease over time (to reflect the lack of importance to the pirate threat in that system), while the Q level of agents elsewhere rises due to lack of player presence. That might get people moving around hi-sec more and introduce a bit more competition around the "honeypot" systems, with perhaps a few groups trying to control the resource by discouraging player presence. Ofc that will only work so far, as there is little you can do about players in NPC corps.

Even with the agent Q level in systems like Dodixie, Motsu, Rens etc dropping to below 0, I doubt you'd see that much movement. The player created markets based around those systems are not likely to move in a hurry or be persuaded to shift on a regular basis. Still it would be interesting to watch.

Gerry Mack
Posted - 2010.09.06 14:21:00 - [5]
 

I've often felt that ore quality is left out of the equation. eg, instead of producing an extra 5 or 10% of minerals it should produce higher quality. This higher quality would give the items produced greater characteristics.

Trit could give greater hull or armour strength while different quality zyd could give varying degrees of lightness thus agility. Instead of 3 qualities, there could be 6 with the best ores only found in remote regions or in the different WH classes.

Soon, no 2 ships would be alike and there would be a scramble to spread out for the better quality. This could also be applied to the ammo, guns, basically anything manufactured. It would make the prospect of building and the buying of items much more complex and performance would vary greatly.

Don't tell me this wouldn't make a better incentive for exploring and settling of outlying systems. Carebears would have to rethink staying in hisec when the more adventurous were cornering the markets.

Comments?

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.09.06 15:45:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Sendraks
I think the most likely scenario is that people will just quit.



Uhm well, no. As far as people are not forced to go into lowsec, I think that looking for a less populated mission hub is quite easy, and moving your stuff is easy too.
Miners usually move around in empire to find some good roids, why mission runners should not?

But you are right about the fact that if mission runners must move continously it would an unfair pain in the arse.

Originally by: Sendraks

The incentives for players to disperse more widely over eve-space already exist, they're just ignored for the most part. Players who live habitually in certain mission running systems at present, despite the obvious advantages to missioning elsewhere, will most likely just quit rather than move.



I have a different perception of the situation, see above. I don't think that forcing people to move would make them quit... it will maybe make their lifes more various and interesting.

Originally by: Sendraks

This isn't going to get people organised and out into lo-sec to run missions. The risk vs reward issue is still what it is and reducing the availability of hi-sec missions is not going to foster a mentally of "go west young man" amongst players.



Yes, as I said mission runners that don't want to fight will never go into lowsec.
This mechanic in lowsec would actually introduce a resource worth to fight over.

Originally by: Sendraks

Perhaps rather than go from a digital state of missions to no missions, there is more of a sliding scale. Perhaps the Q level of agents should just decrease over time (to reflect the lack of importance to the pirate threat in that system), while the Q level of agents elsewhere rises due to lack of player presence. That might get people moving around hi-sec more and introduce a bit more competition around the "honeypot" systems, with perhaps a few groups trying to control the resource by discouraging player presence. Ofc that will only work so far, as there is little you can do about players in NPC corps.
Even with the agent Q level in systems like Dodixie, Motsu, Rens etc dropping to below 0, I doubt you'd see that much movement. The player created markets based around those systems are not likely to move in a hurry or be persuaded to shift on a regular basis. Still it would be interesting to watch.


I'm not actually sure about what is affected by agent quality. If the mission type is affected too, I think that this could work, but only if the mission type is heavily affected... The mean hourly income should be heavily affected by this mechanism. Perhaps, lvl4 mission agent could actually downgrade to lvl3 missions in some cases.

ChrisIsherwood
Posted - 2010.09.06 18:13:00 - [7]
 

Part of the problem with this is having to keep rebalancing this. E.g., 427 (made up) agents might be right for 350,000 subscribers but how many should CCP add if subscribers increase to 400k? or 300k?

And while people could move, the most flexible people have already moved. The people currently clustered around popular agents may not be the most flexible. Most probably would accept it, but some/a few customers saying that CCP deliberately changed what I like and there are many places to spend my entertainment dollars so I shall leave. ( Or its an alt that is no longer worth the hassle of keeping the account open.)

So this would increase CCP's cost and lower its revenue. If CCP were starting over, then a dynamic mission system would probably be preferable. But a change now would get a lot of pushback, would be used as a stalking horse for the nerf missions crowd. And any change like this has the risk for CCP to swing too hard or soft.

Kizahhan
Posted - 2010.09.06 22:31:00 - [8]
 

Sounds like just another lame attempt to get more people into low sec ( and past your gatecamp ) and stick it to the carebears.

People will get bored and quit long before they move to low sec, because if they cant find missions they cant buy new ships to pew pew with.

If you really want new people in low sec turn down the grief for a few weeks and lure them in ( then kill them )

TheMahdi
Posted - 2010.09.07 01:15:00 - [9]
 

In way, LP is competitive. Since ISK/LP rates depend on market competition and over supplying of certain LP store items reduces profitability.

I remember atleast 3 times I've changed corps/agents because of ISK/LP rates changing, since I only focus on the corps that give certain BPCs and 80% of my mission income comes from LP, this is atleast something.

However, I would like to see agents handled better and perhaps have a variable quality.

Spineker
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.07 01:30:00 - [10]
 

You have no clue about missions.

But let's be clear, without Mission runners who is going to buy the pathetically priced mods from 0.0 et al? All those stupid prices on stuff called faction loot.

5 missions an hour? You have no clue what you're going on about.

Just more crap to force people to play "their way" Get over it the majority will never go low sec without a fun factor. Running missions is already like a damn job to start with.

So I tell you what make it 5 missions and hour, I could careless since some missions take over an hour to complete. If you had any clue of the subject you would already know that.

Missions have been nerfed constantly for 7 years go find something else to complain about.


Spineker
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.07 01:35:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Spineker on 07/09/2010 01:37:13
And yes forcing people to low sec will make them quit. That is all we have seen for years is forcing people into things they just don't want to do.

Games don't work that way, not everyone wants to be ganked by 12 year old so-called "pirates" with their 5 billion isk ship. Trust me I have acted like a 12 year old pirate..

What most don't understand is that mission runners spend billions on otherwise useless mods sold by low sec folk who run plexs or such and such. I don't because it is not worth it but many buy Gisti and Domination and et al. faction loot and run it on mission ships.

No way in hell would I use anything but a drake to PVP maybe a HAC

Spineker
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.07 01:39:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: TheMahdi
In way, LP is competitive. Since ISK/LP rates depend on market competition and over supplying of certain LP store items reduces profitability.

I remember atleast 3 times I've changed corps/agents because of ISK/LP rates changing, since I only focus on the corps that give certain BPCs and 80% of my mission income comes from LP, this is atleast something.

However, I would like to see agents handled better and perhaps have a variable quality.


Yes and mission runners PVP all the time on the market with stuff they get. You have to compete (PVP) with LP to get the most bang for the isk.

Spineker
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.07 01:44:00 - [13]
 

Or are you saying 5 missions an hour period? There was near 50,000 players on today.

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2010.09.07 02:12:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Mara Rinn on 07/09/2010 02:14:19
My thoughts haven't changed much in the last year since my suggestion about allowing mission offers to be tradable items. There are other ideas on that thread that would be worth reviewing before commenting further on this thread.

The basic gist of my idea is to have missions become equivalent to datacores, with pilots talking to agents to collect "points" which are redeemed for "mission briefings". The pilot can then opt to sell the briefing or activate the briefing, eg "Mission Briefing - Angel Extravaganza" might end up selling on the market for millions of ISK, while "Mission Briefing - Surprise Surprise" might end up selling for a few tens of ISK.

Put a "cap and trade" system in place, capping a character's mission income at about 2 per hour per agent (a Q20 agent might produce more missions, a Q-20 agent will produce far fewer). The various connections skills would impact the number of agents a pilot can talk to.

This will also serve to limit the efficacy of RMT ISK farmers - they will have to subscribe more accounts in order to get more missions, or they will have to participate in trade.

The missions-as-tradable-items idea might require more missions to be created, such that each security level of space has different sets of tradable mission items, so one could not - for example - take a bunch of missions they bought from a lucrative level 4 lowsec agent and sell them for activation in hisec.

The actual activation could be a matter of travelling to your favourite agent, handing over the briefing, at which point the agent enters into the mission offer dialogue as is currently extant (with the usual "agent sends you to the least populated system in the constellation" mechanics).

Cap and trade. it doesn't work for emissions, but maybe it will work for missions? :)

(edit: removed level from income example to prevent confusion, removed stray comment about depleting pool of missions per agent)

Spineker
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.07 02:36:00 - [15]
 

I got an idea... Leave it alone?

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2010.09.07 03:39:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Spineker
You have no clue about missions... 5 missions an hour? You have no clue ... I could care less since some missions take over an hour to complete. If you had any clue of the subject you would already know that.


You must be doing it wrong. Other people on this forum are advertising income in excess of 60M ISK/hr from solo mission-running. Read the forum, see if you can figure out what you're doing that has hamstrung your mission completion times, and fix it.

Including declined missions, I think my record to date has been about 8 mission offers in one hour, from the one agent.

Quote:
Running missions is already like a damn job to start with.


If missions are a chore, why keep doing them? For the income? Certainly not for the fun!

If you're doing it for the income, why not work up to the point where your three accounts can farm mission briefings, then you can sell the mission briefings on the market to make ISK without having to run those hour-long missions that are too much like a damn job.

If you're doing it for the fun, with income as a nifty side-effect, why not participate in a cap-and-trade market where you buy extra missions? You can compete for the missions that are fun to run, rather than being forced to relocate to a different agent in order to avoid the unentertaining missions?

You could save up your mission rations from during the week to splurge on a weekend of intensive mission-running, selling off the unattractive missions on the market for some pin money. If you're happy learning things the hard way, taking hours to complete missions, you'll have surplus missions to sell on the market.

My main motivation for proposing this alteration to the mission distribution system is that I believe there are many people running missions 23 hours a day, 7 days a week, injecting far too much ISK and LP store items into the market. In order to control these LP store haemorrhages I wish to control the sheer number of missions run. Ideally such a control will benefit those people only playing for what I consider a "reasonable" number of hours per day (ie: no more than me, LOL), without being unfair to people who play in "sprints" such as those who play for an hour a night during the week, but then spend most of Saturday evening glued to the computer (not that this behaviour is good for your body, but I'm not going to be too preachy).

In effect, this would be buffing missions for folks who measure mission completion in hours per mission (because you can sell your unused missions), while nerfing missions for folks who run dozens of missions per day (they'll have to start buying their missions).

I believe this provides CCP with an additional means to control RMT and the ISK faucet of NPC bounties.

TehFailGuy
Posted - 2010.09.07 03:54:00 - [17]
 

I don't think the OP knows what Loyalty Points are.

Spineker
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.07 05:12:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: TehFailGuy
I don't think the OP knows what Loyalty Points are.


I dont think the OP has any idea about missions so much so someone else needs to answer for him.

Spineker
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.07 05:19:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Mara Rinn
Originally by: Spineker
You have no clue about missions... 5 missions an hour? You have no clue ... I could care less since some missions take over an hour to complete. If you had any clue of the subject you would already know that.


You must be doing it wrong. Other people on this forum are advertising income in excess of 60M ISK/hr from solo mission-running. Read the forum, see if you can figure out what you're doing that has hamstrung your mission completion times, and fix it.

Including declined missions, I think my record to date has been about 8 mission offers in one hour, from the one agent.




No I dont do it wrong and those claiming to do 60Misk/hr are not even remotely the norm. Or those who claim 100m isk an hour.

Are you serious do you even have a remote idea of what you are talking about? Declining 8 missions in an hour are you serious before you make an ass of yourself I will let you edit that.

Anyone who declines 8 missions in an hour will no longer have that Agent because your stats with that agent will be damn near null. You can decline one mission every 4 hours without being hit huge with negative stat!

If you demand a nerf of something at least understand what you are talking about before talking.

Isk faucet? Be serious I can chain rat in 0.0 and make more isk than a mission runner.

If you are going to whine nerf please have a clue about what you are talking about. The moment CCP makes any of these stupid ideas reality is the moment they lose many players.

Spineker
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.07 05:24:00 - [20]
 

Edited by: Spineker on 07/09/2010 05:25:41
Cap and Trade... Such a liberal "lets beat up on someone we don't Like" statement.

Its not fair! Boohoo learn the game

The moment CCP makes missions worth 2mil an hour will be the day 50,000 people unsub their accounts.

Troll is as troll is, unless your serious then at that point... LMAO

PamManderson
Posted - 2010.09.07 05:28:00 - [21]
 

OP means the agent will only give out 5 missions per hour and mission runners will have to run all over the place to find an agent with a mission.

Then a total blood bath will happen and all the carebears will be forced to fight over control of agents. We then all move to low sec seeing the error of our ways and all is good in EvE until low and 0.0 lag esplodes the server and we all have to start over
THE END


Spineker
Caldari
Posted - 2010.09.07 05:32:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: PamManderson
OP means the agent will only give out 5 missions per hour and mission runners will have to run all over the place to find an agent with a mission.

Then a total blood bath will happen and all the carebears will be forced to fight over control of agents. We then all move to low sec seeing the error of our ways and all is good in EvE until low and 0.0 lag esplodes the server and we all have to start over
THE END




LOL perfect story. You only left out "we don't make 10 billion isk an hour killing mission runners".

What they dont understand is the simple fact that the majority of players are highsec and will never go low sec.

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.09.07 08:53:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Camios on 07/09/2010 08:59:25
Actually seems that someone got mad... lol.

Quote:
OP means the agent will only give out 5 missions per hour and mission runners will have to run all over the place to find an agent with a mission.


Lol, who said that? learn2read.
You're funny to read, go on please.

Quote:
What they dont understand is the simple fact that the majority of players are highsec and will never go low sec.


Who ever wants you to go to lowsec.
It seems that mission runners are the most whining part of the playerbase. Do you actually deserve our attention so much?

One of the problem of mission runners is that intensive mission running is boring. You get often the same mission, and with eve-survival.org missions are no more a challenge.
You do it just for the money...
Wouldn't it be better a more challenging mission system that gives you more interaction, more variability, more fun? It will probably come at a price.
In my vision, mission runners should be able to become agents for their beloved faction and create content for others, while earning some isk for this.


My point is that with a really competitive mechanic over agent mission, lowsec stations could become something worth fighting over. And mission running would lose its privileged status as a profession. I repeat, miners have to compete about roids, alliances over moons, while mission runners don't have to compete about missions, and the variability of LP value... lol. It's just a fraction of the mission runner income. Moreover, it's just the same competition that affects all economical activities: it's the market. But other activities have other forms of competition.

Why mission running is so special? It's almost a singler player game inside an MMO, it's very different from any other activity. To the detriment of the mission running profession.

And don't teach me how to run missions, it seems that you cannot teach anyone how to get fun in this game.


Originally by: Mara Rinn

...



There is wisdom here.





Sendraks
The Spice Weasels Must Flow
Posted - 2010.09.07 09:35:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Camios
I'm not actually sure about what is affected by agent quality.


While I appreciate your enthusiasm, you should probably know what you are talking about before making suggestions.

Agent quality, which ranges from 20 to -20, determines the ISK and LP you get from an agent for the missions you do. This attribute is further modified by your agent, corp and faction standings, as well as your social skills.

Originally by: Camios
If the mission type is affected too, I think that this could work, but only if the mission type is heavily affected... The mean hourly income should be heavily affected by this mechanism. Perhaps, lvl4 mission agent could actually downgrade to lvl3 missions in some cases.


I could see the value in this, but the time scale for change would have to be quite long in order for it to be a meaningful mechanic, rather than simply an irritation to the playerbase. Irritations will just make players quit.

The speed of change would be influenced by the number of players running missions for any given agent and as the qual value dropped down (until it dropped to shift an agent from lvl 4 to 3), the qual value of less frequented agents elsewhere would increase. For a busy agent, maybe one or two weeks per qual drop, should be plenty. Certainly enough time to give the forward planning players time to move on and seek out new systems to mission in.

Sendraks
The Spice Weasels Must Flow
Posted - 2010.09.07 09:48:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Sendraks on 07/09/2010 09:48:24
Originally by: Camios
Who ever wants you to go to lowsec.


It would seem you do, judging by what you say later in your post. But we'll come to that.

Originally by: Camios
One of the problem of mission runners is that intensive mission running is boring.


This is a presumption. Lets not make changes purely based on opinion and generalisation eh?

Originally by: Camios
You do it just for the money...

Yes, the reason being people want the money to fund PvP. No money = no PvP.

Originally by: Camios
Wouldn't it be better a more challenging mission system that gives you more interaction, more variability, more fun?


Completely agree and there are countless suggestions on these forums as to how missions could be made more interesting and challenging. Not to mention more worthwhile to do in lo-sec.

Originally by: Camios
It will probably come at a price.

If you're making missions more challenging, then you've already got your "price." You don't need an additional "price" on top of challenging, otherwise there is no point in making them more challenging.


Originally by: Camios
My point is that with a really competitive mechanic over agent mission, lowsec stations could become something worth fighting over.


Here we are in lo-sec again. As I've already said, the motivated parties are already doing this out in lo-sec. You won't compell many more people into lo-sec with your proposed changes. Forcing people into lo-sec because all the hi-sec agents no longer give lvl 4 missions will just mean people quit. Simple as that. PvP will die on its arse as well for the most part.

To motivate people out of hi-sec and into lo-sec, requires a fundamental change to the content of missions, not a shift in mission rewards that basically amounts to the classic pirate whine of "move lvl 4 missions into lo-sec." That is, ofc, unless the formula for shifting agent quality and mission lvl, always meant that there would be lvl 4 missions in hi-sec.

Originally by: Camios
Why mission running is so special? It's almost a singler player game inside an MMO, it's very different from any other activity. To the detriment of the mission running profession.


I fail to see why it is to the detriment of the mission running profession. Mission running makes all sorts of things possible. It provides money for PvP. It provides a market outside of PvP for the industrialists to make money in. It provides people who like to min-max their ships a stable environment to test their builds in. It brings faction items into the marketplace and down in price, so they're no longer the purvue of the ultra rich alliances in null sec.

Originally by: Camios
And don't teach me how to run missions, it seems that you cannot teach anyone how to get fun in this game.


You appear to be the one trying to teach people about how they should be having fun, when people are enjoying themselves already. Which isn't to say there can't be improvements, but what you're proposing is awfully similar to a lot whines there have been in the past to stitch up mission runners.

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2010.09.07 11:00:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Spineker
No I dont do it wrong and those claiming to do 60Misk/hr are not even remotely the norm. Or those who claim 100m isk an hour.


Flying solo I manage to pull in about 30M ISK/hr, in a cruise Raven.

Quote:
Are you serious do you even have a remote idea of what you are talking about? Declining 8 missions in an hour are you serious before you make an ass of yourself I will let you edit that.


I'm talking about mission completion and handin, including declining a mission in the middle of it - so it's not like I was shopping around to find agents to feed me the easy missions. But you just keep trolling.

Quote:
Isk faucet? Be serious I can chain rat in 0.0 and make more isk than a mission runner.


Mission runners don't have to abandon ratting in order to attend CTA, nor do they have to mission in groups if there's a red in local.

I've managed somewhere around 60M ISK/hr ratting in nullsec with a Drake. That was every day for a week in the hour or so immediately after DT, the rest of the week was spent in roaming gangs actually trying to control the space we were in.

So please don't try telling me that I don't know what I'm talking about? Thanks :)

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.09.07 11:40:00 - [27]
 

On pure principle? Yes.
How? No idea. Crying or Very sad

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2010.09.07 12:00:00 - [28]
 

So come up with something almost too embarassing to mention in public, and see which bits of it people shoot holes through. Then take the remainder and keep adding to it, testing it in the shooting gallery of public opinion, and eventually you'll either have a bullet proof idea or a really kinky dress!

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.09.07 13:23:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Camios on 07/09/2010 13:29:46
Edited by: Camios on 07/09/2010 13:28:31
Originally by: Sendraks
Originally by: Camios
One of the problem of mission runners is that intensive mission running is boring.
This is a presumption. Lets not make changes purely based on opinion and generalisation eh?


Not my opinions
Originally by: Spineker
Running missions is already like a damn job to start with.

Everybody get fun doing what they think is fun.
EVE PVE is quite boring, and in terms of "game quality" missions are quite low.
Missions in EVE: you have just to kill rats, you don't need to care of the lore, what the agent tells to you, what the rats say in local. Just grind. There is nothing interesting when you run the same mission ten times per day. You just stick to eve-survival.org and stop.

For these reasons, PVE is far more complex and interesting in other mmos than in EVE, that is praised for its small group PVP.
Originally by: Sendraks
Originally by: Camios
You do it just for the money...
Yes, the reason being people want the money to fund PvP. No money = no PvP.


So there is a sort of blackmail in action: you have to be bored to get fun.
There are more ways to do money than mission running. I repeat, why other money maker professions (mining, production, invention ecc) must suffer heavy competition while mission running must not? (except the one coming from market when you sell your stuff, that is just part of what other professions suffer).
Originally by: Sendraks
Originally by: Camios
It will probably come at a price.
If you're making missions more challenging, then you've already got your "price."

I actually mean that. "more challenging" means more difficult to get your reward. So your beloved isk/hour ratio will decrease.
Originally by: Sendraks

You won't compell many more people into lo-sec with your proposed changes. Forcing people into lo-sec because all the hi-sec agents no longer give lvl 4 missions will just mean people quit. Simple as that.


well I know this, in fact (IF YOU READ)
Originally by: Camios

Yes, as I said mission runners that don't want to fight will never go into lowsec.
This mechanic in lowsec would actually introduce a resource worth to fight over.

Originally by: Sendraks

PvP will die on its arse as well for the most part.


Quoting for big LOL. People used to fight with t1 frigates in the past...
The whole idea that people need only the top gear to do PVP is wrong, since numbers and RL skills can compensate. EVE PVP is balanced with this in mind.
Originally by: Sendraks

To motivate people out of hi-sec and into lo-sec, requires a fundamental change to the content of missions, not a shift in mission rewards that basically amounts to the classic pirate whine of "move lvl 4 missions into lo-sec." That is, ofc, unless the formula for shifting agent quality and mission lvl, always meant that there would be lvl 4 missions in hi-sec.


Well, this is actually true. So QFT.
Originally by: Sendraks
Originally by: Camios
Why mission running is so special? It's almost a singler player game inside an MMO, it's very different from any other activity. To the detriment of the mission running profession.

I fail to see why it is to the detriment of the mission running profession.

If you look at other professions, like mining and production, you'll see that there is market competition about selling the stuff you got/produced, exactly like mission running.
But miners must compete to have access to the best roids, insutrialists must compete over the market for raw materials, and must get to research their BPOs and need a free production line.
All these "competition" aspects are absent from the mission running profession, this make mission runnig less complex and less deep than it could be at least in terms of multiplayer interaction.

Sendraks
The Spice Weasels Must Flow
Posted - 2010.09.07 13:50:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Camios
Not my opinions


That's irrelevant. It's still opinion, not fact.

Originally by: Camios
Everybody get fun doing what they think is fun.


Agreed. Ideally EvE should be a game where everyone is doing what they think is fun and finding it fun,

Originally by: Camios
EVE PVE is quite boring, and in terms of "game quality" missions are quite low.


That you find EvE PvE boring is an issue for you, not for many others, who don't find it boring. That missions are of "low quality" I would agree with, simply because they follow quite a simple formula and recent additions to the game, show that there is no reason why mission NPCs can't be more interesting.

Originally by: Camios
So there is a sort of blackmail in action: you have to be bored to get fun.


I agree. However, just because the ways to fund PvP combat are not as "fun" as PvP combat for everyone, isn't an argument for changing those methods in and of themselves.

Originally by: Camios
There are more ways to do money than mission running. I repeat, why other money maker professions (mining, production, invention ecc) must suffer heavy competition while mission running must not? (except the one coming from market when you sell your stuff, that is just part of what other professions suffer).


You do realise that mission runners are who are giving the players in those other sectors their enormous profits don't you? Yes, they are competing with each other, but that's their choice. However, speaking as a trader and a miner, the competition is not as bad as you make it out to be. Certainly I don't find myself drifting from belt to belt in search of material, frustratingly finding each one empty. Nor am I struggling to find decent buy orders or finding people willing to buy at the prices I set. Ofc, a lot of this is thanks to the mission runners, whose steady supply of ISK keeps the market moving and makes that part of the game enjoyable.

Originally by: Camios
I actually mean that. "more challenging" means more difficult to get your reward. So your beloved isk/hour ratio will decrease.


No reason why increased challenge should change the isk/hour ratio, especially if you tweak the rewards upwards. Indeed, with more challenging missions meaning more ship losses, the market will struggle to supply the mission running ships player crave. Prices go up, but player ISK is going down. Then we shift back to all the ISK and all the power being in the hands of the few super rich alliances and corporations. Bad times.

Originally by: Camios
Quoting for big LOL. People used to fight with t1 frigates in the past...
The whole idea that people need only the top gear to do PVP is wrong, since numbers and RL skills can compensate. EVE PVP is balanced with this in mind.


People fight with T1 frigates still. However, EvE now is not EvE of the past. Lack of mission income will drive part of the player market into having to use increasingly cheaper ships, which will naturally mean the balance of power shifts even more so to those already rich alliances and corps who can draw upon their 0.0 resources to fund PvP. The rich get richer, the poor poorer etc etc

Ultimately the argument that "everything else has competition, but mission running doesn't, so mission running should" is a non-argument. Just because x,y,z aspects of the game have a competition element does not mean that mission running should.

Could missions at all levels be more challenging and interesting, without simply resorting to NPC blobs? Yes.
Could missions be better structured and designed to make players more inclined to do missions in low sec? Yes.
Should missions be changed so players have to fight over the best agents? I don't see any particular reason why they should.


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