open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Agents Made Easy
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (14)

Author Topic

Vincent Gaines
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2011.05.16 20:12:00 - [211]
 

So...

You nerfed Anoms and payouts in 0.0 and essentially boosted ALL agents in hisec?

what the hell.

Kiyohime Ronuken
Posted - 2011.05.16 20:12:00 - [212]
 

Assigning player intelligence by the sec status of the systems they game in has always been an invalid argument of generalizations and name-calling. Enough of this, already. This is not a thread for name calling - nor should any exist.

I'd love nothing more than to see low-sec made more playable, 0.0 made less mind-numbing for the carebears (yay - fighter takes out last rat BS... woo - strip miners cycle) and ALL regions given something that WILL challenge all of us who choose to PVE: CONTENT.

Hormus
Posted - 2011.05.16 20:13:00 - [213]
 

Well, I want more ppl playing this game, and leaving it less often. If that is what CCP is trying (and I guess they do, for them it's business) then it's ok with me and should be with everyone else - more players means better for everyone, whatever he does and wherever he plays. Hey, nullers, why do you mind if, instead of 5/3/2 h/l/n sec it will be 7/3/2? Better for you: your stuff will sell for more! And real nullers stay there for other reasons than profit - if they're not, let them go to high sec.
I don't have the necessary data to evaluate what will happen, so I trust CCP works towards this cause: MORE PLAYERS.
I liked the variety, though - 21 agent classes were not necessary, but I liked not knowing what mission would come next...
I think that if multipart missions remain, it will be ok though. Or otherwise, give a few percent of possibility of a non-usual type of missions e.g. mining agents give 94% mining, 3% courier and 3% combat. Why not?
Dynamic quality wasn't something that needed metagaming, though. All info needed was right there, on the Corp info. And mission runners had to use strategy (on a basic level) to evolve our standings. What need is there now for high corp standings?
What I want is more realism: make all kinds of agents. Make vanish those that don't get many players. On expensive moons, put a new NPC station. Make corps more dynamic: merge, split, new, bankrupt... Increase the difference between factions and corps, agents are a good way to do it. And many more...

Concluding for the new changes: mixed thumbs up and down, for different reasons from other players - as it should be.

Kadesh Priestess
Scalding Chill
Posted - 2011.05.16 20:14:00 - [214]
 

Originally by: Kiyohime Ronuken
Assigning player intelligence by the sec status of the systems they game in has always been an invalid argument of generalizations and name-calling. Enough of this, already. This is not a thread for name calling - nor should any exist.
Did anybody say 'player intelligence vs reward', huh?

Ghorrn Kranthil
Posted - 2011.05.16 20:18:00 - [215]
 

hm... sorry, but i cannot really see any sense in this change.
if u delete some skills just to replace them a lower amount of the same skills of the same effect... that is just a bit of sorting, ok... spring cleaning, perhaps?
but making agetn quality equal everywhere... i still remember when i was looking for agents i could use, the quality barriers were a great obstacle (how many time i have swon onto that! :-D ), but it made me travel to different locations on my way to l4 agents and thus i saw many systems i'd otherwise never looked into. i think, agent quality is an important item in the game's complexity that should not be taken away...
about the agents' division... i cannot see why there should be 100% of fixed mission types. again, it always made me use swearwords when my combat agents made me do courier missions, but "so what?"! in my opinion mixing mission types in a modest way adds to the realism of the game rather and should not be handled as "too complex" for us players...
maybe ccp wants to make a great spring cleaning action, but i retain it rather useless and subtracting due complexity and game experience from eve.
besides... if ccp starts reviewing (that is, displacing, deleting, creating...) agents everywhere... maybe that many systems & stations, be it carebear-highsec or slaughterhousemaniacs-lowsec these changes would suffer from big effects also: imagine less ("redundant") agents, so more players in station/system to get missions there.. market hubs would potentially have to move, player poses might become useless for changes in market...
for me, too much side effects for only undusting a system that could also stay like it is.

Reten Kip
Everset Dropbears
Posted - 2011.05.16 20:28:00 - [216]
 

The agent changes as a theory are fine, but damnit CCP, will you fine tune it rather than just swing the nerf sledge and see what happens?

Gallente (and Minmitar) are taking it in the shorts with their SoE agent getting shot in the face, while Caldari is getting boosted with their SoE agent becoming combat. How can you possibly justify Caldari needing a PvE boost? What could possibly make you think that Gallente need another nerf?

Chip Packer
Posted - 2011.05.16 20:30:00 - [217]
 

Congrats on the proposed changes. Anything that reduces unnecessary complexity and opaqueness is good. I think the increase to accessibility while increasing the rewards is good compromise and I for one look forward to it. This will incent much more missioning by newer players along with a more rewarding experience, thereby allowing them to advance more quickly in the game.

Please leave the level 4s in highsec. Remember, not all of us are interested in low sec or 0.0. Those players need to have a rewarding game experience too.

Next, rationalize the leveling system for skills too.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.05.16 20:43:00 - [218]
 

Originally by: Furb Killer


Heavily nerfing main 0.0 income in several ways while boosting main high sec income: Never go full retard



@Degasser Nacs, what are you trying to say? Because it is just a fact that 0.0 income is heavily nerfed and that this is a significant boost to high sec income. Also how is boosting risk free income while nerfing risky income (like it or not, 0.0 is alot riskier than high sec) making eve harder?


Have you tried out the effects on Sisi to see if it boost income?

I have done some testing, same mission with the same agent.

The result is that I get less isk and more LP.
But the LP value is linked to demand for the items that I can buy in the LP store, it is not a fixed value.
Almost certainly the overaboundance of LP will decrease their value.

Then most people were already using the Q 18 agents so the actual increase from Q 18 to Q20 will be almost meaningless.

So I doubt there will be a real increase in payout for missions after a period of adjustment. Probably the net effect will be a wash.


Kiran
Minmatar
Knights of Azrael
Anti-Social Outcast
Posted - 2011.05.16 20:44:00 - [219]
 

Null Sec was nerfed I think due to the main alliances using bots to run sanctums and havens, they only have themselves to blame on this. (And yes they have admited to this.)

I have lived in Null Sec and can say I am not impressed with Sov holding or the alliances that hold it. I would rather live in NPC space whether its High Sec or Null Sec.
Low Sec is full of pillocks, so I wont be going there.

I like the sound of this new update. But time will tell i guess, will make running missions in Null Sec easier.

Adamantor
Caldari
Legendary Knights
Vorpal's Edge
Posted - 2011.05.16 20:54:00 - [220]
 

Edited by: Adamantor on 16/05/2011 22:00:05
Edited by: Adamantor on 16/05/2011 20:58:14
Not a good change for the long term game. Complexity adds depth and the agent mechanic wasn't really that complex. In the time spent making this change, some drill-downs into agent types and missions could have been added to agent info, giving new players an easy way to learn how agent types and quality worked.

I also think removing the 'depth' of agent quality is bad. Before, you had high end agents you could strive for, now L4 opens all L4 agents. This change shallows the mission mechanic.

This also removes the need for going to low-sec or null-sec for Q20 agents. Yes, it's easier for newer players or players who lack standings, but it also removes the carrot of even attempting those Q20 agents. Again, Risk vs Reward is diluted.

Lastly, the simplification of agent types isn't horrible but making them 100% mission types is bad. Now, courier missions can be completely bypassed. When I started playing, I found courier missions interesting and began to train in a industrial ship in that hub to complete them. This also lead me to train some non-combat skills. Again, depth, diversification can be a good thing.

If the goal was to dilute some null sec agents, why not consider a dynamic agent where the more pilots running missions for an agent lowered the payout - this could have even go as far limiting the number of missions available in a given time. This would have the result of pushing more pilots out of commonly run mission hubs. You could also adjust some agents Q level, add agents, or remove agents to balance this more dynamically. This type of mechanic could even lead to more fighting (competition) for top agents in low/null?

For the record, I was also against the removal of learning skills for many of the same reasons. I realize EVE needs players, but I'd challenge anyone to point to this mechanic as being so complex that new players simply left the game over it. Perhaps CCP believes this is one of the many overall complexities that drive players away? I'd have to disagree if that's the case.

I'm not a veteran (2 year player) and I don't usually run low-sec or null-sec missions so I'm not personally impacted by the change but I still think it's the wrong change and a dilution of the rich and complex game that EVE is.

I'd love for CCP to elaborate on their new found 'wisdom' for the changes that have been coming. If they continue to dilute their core game in an effort to get new players, they'll find the core players deciding to the game isn't going in the direction they hope - Deeper, and more challenging.

Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp.
Posted - 2011.05.16 20:54:00 - [221]
 

Dynamic agent quality would have been a better solution, but this'll do I suppose.

Gondebine
Posted - 2011.05.16 20:57:00 - [222]
 

Originally by: Fuel Technician
what a load of crap..........

So all that grinding i did to get standings with corps that have 3 lvl 4 agents in one station was for nothing, and you are going to remove some of them so that i end up with only one agent!, i use this station to avoid faction missions not courier ones!

I also have standings with corps with good quality lvl 4 agents where the standings were hard to get because they have very few agents, i did this to avoid missioning in the mission hubs, seems i also wasted my time here too!

Why are you making EVE so easy, the attraction for me (with my 3 acc) is/was it's complexity.

overall pointless and demeaning changes



Originally by: Scandal Caulker
Oh, I just noticed the title of this thread!

"Eve made easy"

There! I fixed it for you CCP.

Idiots



Originally by: Fix Lag
"Adding complexity in an already-complex game" is terrible justification for removing anything when the basic premise of the game is that it is much more complex (and therefore in-depth) than its competitors.

Also, you seem to have forgotten to nerf mission running to match the anomaly nerf. Pretty sure I'll be running missions in highsec for income after this change if it does what I think it does.



Originally by: Ghorrn Kranthil
hm... sorry, but i cannot really see any sense in this change.
if u delete some skills just to replace them a lower amount of the same skills of the same effect... that is just a bit of sorting, ok... spring cleaning, perhaps?
but making agetn quality equal everywhere... i still remember when i was looking for agents i could use, the quality barriers were a great obstacle (how many time i have swon onto that! :-D ), but it made me travel to different locations on my way to l4 agents and thus i saw many systems i'd otherwise never looked into. i think, agent quality is an important item in the game's complexity that should not be taken away...
about the agents' division... i cannot see why there should be 100% of fixed mission types. again, it always made me use swearwords when my combat agents made me do courier missions, but "so what?"! in my opinion mixing mission types in a modest way adds to the realism of the game rather and should not be handled as "too complex" for us players...
maybe ccp wants to make a great spring cleaning action, but i retain it rather useless and subtracting due complexity and game experience from eve.
besides... if ccp starts reviewing (that is, displacing, deleting, creating...) agents everywhere... maybe that many systems & stations, be it carebear-highsec or slaughterhousemaniacs-lowsec these changes would suffer from big effects also: imagine less ("redundant") agents, so more players in station/system to get missions there.. market hubs would potentially have to move, player poses might become useless for changes in market...
for me, too much side effects for only undusting a system that could also stay like it is.



QFT

Gondebine
Posted - 2011.05.16 20:59:00 - [223]
 

Originally by: Adamantor
Edited by: Adamantor on 16/05/2011 20:58:14
Not a good change for the long term game. Complexity adds depth and the agent mechanic wasn't really that complex. In the time spent making this change, some drill-downs into agent types and missions could have been added to agent info, giving new players an easy way to learn how agent types and quality worked.

I also think removing the 'depth' of agent quality is bad. Before, you had high end agents you could strive for, now L4 opens all L4 agents. This change shallows the mission mechanic.

This also removes the need for going to low-sec or null-sec for Q20 agents. Yes, it's easier for newer players or players who lack standings, but it also removes the carrot of even attempting those Q20 agents. Again, Risk vs Reward is diluted.

Lastly, the simplification of agent types isn't horrible but making them 100% mission types is bad. Now, courier missions can be completely bypassed. When I started playing, I found courier missions interesting and began to invited in a industrial ship in that hub to complete them. This also lead me to train some non-combat skills. Again, depth, diversification can be a good thing.

If the goal was to dilute some null sec agents, why not consider a dynamic agent where the more pilots running missions for an agent lowered the payout - this could have even go as far we limiting the number of missions available in a given time. This would have the result of pushing more pilots out of commonly run mission hubs. You could also adjust some agents Q level, add agents, or remove agents to balance this more dynamically. This type of mechanic could even lead to more fighting for top agents in low/null?

I was also against the removal of learning skills for many of the same reasons. I realize EVE needs players, but I'd challenge anyone to point to this mechanic as being so complex that new players simply left the game over it.

I'm not a veteran (2 year player) and I don't usually run low-sec or null-sec missions so I'm not personally impacted by the change but I still think it's the wrong change and a dilution of the rich and complex game that EVE is.

I'd love for CCP to elaborate on their new found 'wisdom' for the changes that have been coming. If they continue to dilute their core game in an effort to get new players, they'll find the core players deciding to the game isn't going in the direction they hope - Deeper, and more challenging.


Also QFT

Norrin Ellis
Venture Racing
Posted - 2011.05.16 21:00:00 - [224]
 

I find this to be a wonderful, customer-oriented solution to unnecessary complexity. When I want variety, now I will know exactly which agents will deliver the sort of work that I'm looking for, and I have a lot more control over my game experience.

Thank you for the changes, CCP!

Scyth Darkhope
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2011.05.16 21:02:00 - [225]
 

Now these changes aren't bad locally, although one could make the argument that streamlining is bad.

However, globally, even if I actually agreed with the null sec anom nerf, these changes completely shift the risk vs reward. We will see increasing numbers of mission running alts in completely safe (if they are not complete morons), like null sec people did pre-dominion.

Moreover, the opportunity to reward extra incentives to run missions in low-sec, which will be itself nerfed with the change to unprobable ships...

Integra Arkanheld
Posted - 2011.05.16 21:16:00 - [226]
 

As social skills are changed, it might be a good moment to remove the DED connection skill as it is not used. Or put the book in the market...

ttawohm
Posted - 2011.05.16 21:31:00 - [227]
 

Originally by: Cyno Me'in
What about COSMOS agents? I have been grinding away at my faction standings to do the 9.3 required mission and hopefully get a BPC for a shiny new faction BS. Guess anyone that can do a lvl 4 for your faction can do that now.


Yes what about COSMOS Agents and Event Style agents? I'm gonna be very disapointed my hard work on going through these missions is now an abortion.

Ginger Lynn
Posted - 2011.05.16 21:49:00 - [228]
 

Originally by: Care Bear King
Love the changes, of course.

In a moment of selfless honesty,
I'll suggest doing this instead:

For all agents (including R&D):
High Sec Agents: Access as -20; Pay as -20
Low Sec Agents: Access as -20; Pay as +20
Null Sec Agents: Access as -20; Pay as 0

Note: Keep the impact of system security on
payouts or everyone will move to 1.0 systems.

It seems like you're missing a golden
opportunity to slip in long needed changes.


Qouted for truth.

CyberGh0st
Minmatar
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
Posted - 2011.05.16 21:55:00 - [229]
 

Edited by: CyberGh0st on 16/05/2011 22:25:07
To everyone saying this is a buff to highsec, I don't see it, this is just as much a buff to lowsec and 0.0, because all lower quality agents are now qua 20.

For me, it is a buff to lowsec, because my main lowsec agent will go from qua 19 to qua 20.
And I will have another agent in the same system going from qua 9 to qua 20 and going from Administration to Security, meaning +24% chance to get encounter missions, a nice buff I'd say.

I find these improvements ok, even if I had to grind courier missions and low level agents to get where I am now, and newbies will get it easier ( if they want to work for the same corp as me ).

After some more thought, the new system will no longer encourage players to find a new ( better ) agent. In that regard it is a loss, altho players will be relocating when they "level up" :p And currently lvl 4 vets will only relocate because of other factors ( pirates in lowsec, overcrowded in highsec, etc ), because once they reach their endgoal agent, they have no reason to change. In that regard, people may change agents more at "endgame" but less while "leveling up" in the new system.

I think a less drastic revision may be better :

3 quality tiers : qua 0 - qua 10 - qua 20
This way you feel like having progressed when you go from 0 to 10 for example, plus you have to find a new agent and relocate, which is a good thing imho.
Still this will allow for more qua 20 agents and thus more spread out populations.

6 divisions :
Security : 100% Encounter
Advisory : 50% Encoutner - 50% Courier
( For the players that like a mix of Encounter and Courier )
Mining : 100% Mining
Distribution : 100% Courier
Production : 50% Mining - 50% Distribution
( For the players that like a mix of Mining and Distribution )
Research : 100% Research


Still slightly positive to the new system, altho my proposal would be more interesting I think YARRRR!!



quygen
Minmatar
Acting Neutral
Posted - 2011.05.16 21:58:00 - [230]
 

Originally by: Solomon XI
Break up the 0.0 powerblock's so that we can do missions in 0.0 NPC space without getting podded @ the undock and we'll talk about doing missions in NPC null-sec.

I think no alliance should be allowed to hold SOV over more than 10 systems. Period. Eliminate powerblock alliances and over-sized NAP orgies.

0.0 is NOT fun anymore.


And what keeps them form breaking up in smaller alliances and do exactly the same?

quygen
Minmatar
Acting Neutral
Posted - 2011.05.16 22:05:00 - [231]
 

Originally by: Ginger Lynn
Originally by: Care Bear King
Love the changes, of course.

In a moment of selfless honesty,
I'll suggest doing this instead:

For all agents (including R&D):
High Sec Agents: Access as -20; Pay as -20
Low Sec Agents: Access as -20; Pay as +20
Null Sec Agents: Access as -20; Pay as 0

Note: Keep the impact of system security on
payouts or everyone will move to 1.0 systems.

It seems like you're missing a golden
opportunity to slip in long needed changes.


Qouted for truth.

Roq Godslayer
Posted - 2011.05.16 22:05:00 - [232]
 

Can you please help me understand something? Wasn't the agent quality used to determine whether or not you could use a specific level agent? How do you now level up from a Level 1 agent to a Level 2 agent, etc? Also, does this mean you can use just 1 agent for an entire level before moving a new agent for the next level? If so, I like that. I hated moving my stuff from one agent to the next.

LordElfa
Gallente
Golden Lyon Warriors
Posted - 2011.05.16 22:06:00 - [233]
 

•The old system was not complicated, it was "needlessly" complicated.

•This is not a buff. I've checked on SiSi and on my main agent, 10.0 standings and security to 5, I'm making less LP and isk.

Any other BS tears you guys wanna cry in here?

98% of the posters in this thread need to go down to the Rx store and get more tampons.

Nea Star
Posted - 2011.05.16 22:09:00 - [234]
 

Originally by: Adamantor
Edited by: Adamantor on 16/05/2011 20:58:14
Not a good change for the long term game. Complexity adds depth and the agent mechanic wasn't really that complex. In the time spent making this change, some drill-downs into agent types and missions could have been added to agent info, giving new players an easy way to learn how agent types and quality worked.

I also think removing the 'depth' of agent quality is bad. Before, you had high end agents you could strive for, now L4 opens all L4 agents. This change shallows the mission mechanic.

This also removes the need for going to low-sec or null-sec for Q20 agents. Yes, it's easier for newer players or players who lack standings, but it also removes the carrot of even attempting those Q20 agents. Again, Risk vs Reward is diluted.

Lastly, the simplification of agent types isn't horrible but making them 100% mission types is bad. Now, courier missions can be completely bypassed. When I started playing, I found courier missions interesting and began to invited in a industrial ship in that hub to complete them. This also lead me to train some non-combat skills. Again, depth, diversification can be a good thing.

If the goal was to dilute some null sec agents, why not consider a dynamic agent where the more pilots running missions for an agent lowered the payout - this could have even go as far we limiting the number of missions available in a given time. This would have the result of pushing more pilots out of commonly run mission hubs. You could also adjust some agents Q level, add agents, or remove agents to balance this more dynamically. This type of mechanic could even lead to more fighting for top agents in low/null?

I was also against the removal of learning skills for many of the same reasons. I realize EVE needs players, but I'd challenge anyone to point to this mechanic as being so complex that new players simply left the game over it.

I'm not a veteran (2 year player) and I don't usually run low-sec or null-sec missions so I'm not personally impacted by the change but I still think it's the wrong change and a dilution of the rich and complex game that EVE is.

I'd love for CCP to elaborate on their new found 'wisdom' for the changes that have been coming. If they continue to dilute their core game in an effort to get new players, they'll find the core players deciding to the game isn't going in the direction they hope - Deeper, and more challenging.


This.

Quote:
I find this to be a wonderful, customer-oriented solution to unnecessary complexity.


<- WOW is that way bro Rolling Eyes

LordElfa
Gallente
Golden Lyon Warriors
Posted - 2011.05.16 22:22:00 - [235]
 

•Again, difference between complex and needlessly complex. The old system wasn't "deep" or some such ****, it was convoluted and poorly thought out, as was skills training. Streamlining something that adds extra steps for no damned reason is not the same as dumbing something down.

This is no different than when they added the "jump to 0" option, or perhaps you whiny ****ers would like to go back to bookmarking every gate and station so its more "complex".

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2011.05.16 22:24:00 - [236]
 

Originally by: Kadesh Priestess
Originally by: Kerfira
There's no REAL difference between 0.5 and 0.9

Suicide ganking is much easier in 0.5, so that's not actually true.

So exactly as I said... No REAL difference for the large wast majority of mission runners!

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2011.05.16 22:33:00 - [237]
 

When you are looking at the mission system, how about you compensate for the player ship HP buff, and the buff provided by the introduction of rigs.

Both of these buffs were NOT compensated by similar buffs of mission NPC's, and had the effect of making missions easier.

In addition, the restructuring of triggers, spawn locations (warp scramblers are now far away and slow), and NPC speed has also made missions much easier over the years.

I suggest a 25% increase in NPC HP, and a 25% increase in NPC firepower to make up for this. If this is done, then you'll go a long way towards balancing mission income compared to other sources of ISK.
These numbers should be a guideline, since some missions need WAY higher buffs in NPC firepower. When you can run a level 4 without turning on your shield booster even once, there's something seriously wrong...

Sidus Sarmiang
GoonWaffe
Posted - 2011.05.16 22:44:00 - [238]
 

Nerf nullsec.

Buff highsec.

EVE is a hardcore sandbox game about running repetitive PvE missions hell yeah.

LordElfa
Gallente
Golden Lyon Warriors
Posted - 2011.05.16 22:48:00 - [239]
 

Edited by: LordElfa on 16/05/2011 22:49:23
•It is not a buff, its actually a nerf. Can any of you actually read because I feel like I'm talking to either walls or dogs in here.

ORCACommander
Posted - 2011.05.16 23:02:00 - [240]
 

will we still have effective qualities greater than 20 after taking skills into account?


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (14)

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