open All Channels
seplocked Missions & Complexes
blankseplocked Level 4 Missions + A Raven .. A Joke
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

Author Topic

mahhy
MASS
Posted - 2005.04.08 12:58:00 - [181]
 

Originally by: Slithereen
No one is saying you can do more with PvP than in missions.


Originally by: Slithereen
The introduction of missions probably saved the game by transforming it. A lot of people would have left the game including myself. There is only so much you can do with hunt, mine, and do PvP. The game needs higher goals and more different and varying forms of activity.


Question

Personally I believe that higher goals and varying forms of activity should be provided by the players in an MMO, or at the least in this MMO.

Originally by: Slithereen
But what you're saying that missions have no risk is PLAIN WRONG.

If it can kill your ship, it is a risk.


With all the information given to you in the missions briefings, the people around you you can ask about a specific mission, the LVL4 in game chat channel, the forums, Eve-I.com and probably about a billion other bits of information available; you still think missions are risky?

I simply don't agree with that. I think theres so much information available ahead of time that theres no risk at all. Then of course once you've actually completed the mission a few times its even easier than zero risk.

To me losing a ship isn't risky. I've lost a BS to NPCs before... because I was AFK and forgot my hardners and reps. It was a big spawn, I was scrambled, I was webbed. It wasn't risky. I was stupid.

Slithereen
Amarr
Posted - 2005.04.08 13:01:00 - [182]
 


Quote:
Personally I believe that higher goals and varying forms of activity should be provided by the players in an MMO, or at the least in this MMO.


The various forms of interaction in this game is not determined by players, but by this game's code. I can't for example, forage around the station. It is all in the hands of the devs.

mahhy
MASS
Posted - 2005.04.08 13:03:00 - [183]
 

Originally by: Slithereen
Quote:
So the fact that more and more people are running missions doesn't perhaps say to you that the reward available in missions, versus the risk is a bit out of whack? When according to you basically every other profession in Eve is suffering because of agent missions, they "saved" the game?



Oh?

EVE is a grind game. PvP does not make money, except for few pirates and mercenaries but you cannot have everyone be a pirate or mercenary otherwise you don't have a food chain. By the way, pirates and mercs have to mine, farm and mission to make their ends meet.


You're the one that stated that pretty much every other profession in the game was suffering because of missions. You even quoted the increase in mineral prices because more and more miners were running missions.

I was simply asking you how you can defend the out of whack reward versus risk in missions with your own statements in mind. Can you?

Originally by: Slithereen
So what grind do you have left? Mining, trading, NPC farming and missioning. Mining is a joke. If mining made more money than any profession, the game would bored itself to death. NPC hunting and chaining is only a step above mining in boredom. Trading is even more boring than mining. So you are left with missions.


Boring to you does not mean boring to me. Or anyone else.

Originally by: Slithereen
Missions can be highly repetitive but that can be corrected by increasing the challenge, raising the randomness and increasing the variety of missions, all of which can be hotfixed into the servers without a patch.
Still a bit boring, but hey, preferable than mining, trading and NPC farming.


And the changes are mapped by the players in what? 2 minutes after DT?

mahhy
MASS
Posted - 2005.04.08 13:05:00 - [184]
 

Edited by: mahhy on 08/04/2005 13:10:30
Originally by: Slithereen

Quote:
Personally I believe that higher goals and varying forms of activity should be provided by the players in an MMO, or at the least in this MMO.


The various forms of interaction in this game is not determined by players, but by this game's code. I can't for example, forage around the station. It is all in the hands of the devs.


I think your seriously restricting your view of what this MMO (or probably any other) can be. The vast majority of content in my mind is what the players, corps and alliances are doing. The games just a framework for all that to play out on, nothing more.

edit: to make that point a bit clearer, content and goals are completely separate concepts from interactions and what interactions you can or can't perform based on the games mechanics.

Slithereen
Amarr
Posted - 2005.04.08 13:11:00 - [185]
 


Quote:
With all the information given to you in the missions briefings, the people around you you can ask about a specific mission, the LVL4 in game chat channel, the forums, Eve-I.com and probably about a billion other bits of information available; you still think missions are risky?


the mission briefings don't give that much information, in particular if its deadspace. You are only given a location.

I also notice missions being altered or adjusted time to time by hotfixing them in the server. Devs continue to fine tune certain A class missions. They tweak some if they are too hard, tweak up if they proved a bit easy.

And still people die. Like I said, CCP has the stats.

Quote:

I simply don't agree with that. I think theres so much information available ahead of time that theres no risk at all. Then of course once you've actually completed the mission a few times its even easier than zero risk.



Wrong. YOu have not seen the briefing for a deadspace mission. It tells you zilch.

Quote:

To me losing a ship isn't risky. I've lost a BS to NPCs before... because I was AFK and forgot my hardners and reps. It was a big spawn, I was scrambled, I was webbed. It wasn't risky. I was stupid.


You lost a ship, you are in a risk. In a risk free situation, you can do something stupid, lose attention, sleep off, and you won't die. That is no risk.

Your logic is like saying, an acrobat who walked the wire thousands of times faces no risk because he or she has done it so many times they know it by heart. Or a professional racing driver faces no risk because he has raced hundreds of time across a track and knows it well.

Guess again.


Slithereen
Amarr
Posted - 2005.04.08 13:16:00 - [186]
 


Quote:
You're the one that stated that pretty much every other profession in the game was suffering because of missions. You even quoted the increase in mineral prices because more and more miners were running missions.

I was simply asking you how you can defend the out of whack reward versus risk in missions with your own statements in mind. Can you?



Yes. Mining is a flexible profession. The less miners are in the game, the more the remaining few makes more money. That's because mineral prices float.

Same with trading and manufacturing.

If prices are out of whack but by whose standards are they out of whack? if the population can absorb these prices, they are not out of whack. Battleship prices are still way below the original NPC prices (240 mil for an Apoc) when they first came out of the game. Ship prices have risen only by 20% despite that incomes have risen over a hundred percent.



mahhy
MASS
Posted - 2005.04.08 13:17:00 - [187]
 

Originally by: Slithereen

Quote:
With all the information given to you in the missions briefings, the people around you you can ask about a specific mission, the LVL4 in game chat channel, the forums, Eve-I.com and probably about a billion other bits of information available; you still think missions are risky?


the mission briefings don't give that much information, in particular if its deadspace. You are only given a location.

I also notice missions being altered or adjusted time to time by hotfixing them in the server. Devs continue to fine tune certain A class missions. They tweak some if they are too hard, tweak up if they proved a bit easy.

And still people die. Like I said, CCP has the stats.



And the other sources of information available?



Originally by: Slithereen
You lost a ship, you are in a risk. In a risk free situation, you can do something stupid, lose attention, sleep off, and you won't die. That is no risk.

Your logic is like saying, an acrobat who walked the wire thousands of times faces no risk because he or she has done it so many times they know it by heart. Or a professional racing driver faces no risk because he has raced hundreds of time across a track and knows it well.


I wouldn't have lost a ship if I hadn't made a mistake. Thats predictability. In a situation involving players it might not have mattered what I had or hadn't done, I might still have died. Thats risk.

We're going to have to agree to disagree here, at the very least on the definition of risk in this game.

So, how about the fundamental problems caused by introducing large amounts of ISK into "safe" space, through "safe" means (quoted because we disagree on what safe is)? The problem of less and less people even trying to live in 0.0? The problem of less and less people doing anything other agent missions?

Slithereen
Amarr
Posted - 2005.04.08 13:21:00 - [188]
 


Quote:

I think your seriously restricting your view of what this MMO (or probably any other) can be. The vast majority of content in my mind is what the players, corps and alliances are doing. The games just a framework for all that to play out on, nothing more.


I'm not. But it needs a lot more than what it has now in order to grow.

Slithereen
Amarr
Posted - 2005.04.08 13:24:00 - [189]
 



Quote:


And the other sources of information available?



What other sources of information can there be?

You keep forgeting this is an SQL database running here. Every bit of statistics are being recorded and reported to CCP daily. T

So people saying this and that, thinking that CCP does not know the exact data, is wrong.

Slithereen
Amarr
Posted - 2005.04.08 13:26:00 - [190]
 

Edited by: Slithereen on 08/04/2005 13:26:31
Quote:

We're going to have to agree to disagree here, at the very least on the definition of risk in this game.


No. There is only one practical definition of risk here, and that is CCP's. And I believe I am following CCP's definition and their actions have been consistent to that.

mahhy
MASS
Posted - 2005.04.08 13:29:00 - [191]
 

Originally by: Slithereen

Quote:

I think your seriously restricting your view of what this MMO (or probably any other) can be. The vast majority of content in my mind is what the players, corps and alliances are doing. The games just a framework for all that to play out on, nothing more.


I'm not. But it needs a lot more than what it has now in order to grow.



Shocked

Which is what I stated something like 2billion pages ago. The in game infrastructure needs to be in place first, then let the players build their empires/stories/content around that.

Thats entirely the POINT.

The discussion around risk vs. reward is simply a way of pointing out how level 4 missions have damaged that idea by removing people from the one place where they can actually truly create their own game, 0.0.

mahhy
MASS
Posted - 2005.04.08 13:31:00 - [192]
 

Edited by: mahhy on 08/04/2005 13:36:22
Originally by: Slithereen


Quote:


And the other sources of information available?



What other sources of information can there be?

You keep forgeting this is an SQL database running here. Every bit of statistics are being recorded and reported to CCP daily. T

So people saying this and that, thinking that CCP does not know the exact data, is wrong.


What in the world does statistics and logging in an SQL database have to do with the definition of risk? How does that have anything to do with the other sources of infmation available to every single agent runner regarding the missions they're running?

Data collected by CCP has zero to do with anything in this topic, and as far as I know you're the only one to even suggest it does...

Slithereen
Amarr
Posted - 2005.04.08 13:40:00 - [193]
 


Quote:
So, how about the fundamental problems caused by introducing large amounts of ISK into "safe" space, through "safe" means (quoted because we disagree on what safe is)?


Risk is always defined by what CCP believes it so not what you believe.

CCP believes that a lot of money are drained off by inactive players or quitting players. CCP also expects there will be plenty of money sinks in the game, like new ships and technologies.

Quote:
The problem of less and less people even trying to live in 0.0?


Is that really a problem? It's a problem for you. But it's not a problem for other people.

In the United States I don't see the US government seeing the unequal distribution of people all over the country to be a problem. It's like saying we need to get people out of the cities and into the deserts.

Will CCP gain more subscriptions if they got more people in 0.0?

If CCP wants 0.0 space to be more populated, it needs to:

1) Open more highways and gates into 0.0
2) Open more stations
3) Bring empire agents out
4) Make LPs transferrable
5) Reduce the cost of POS operation
6) Beef up pirate mission variety and rewards
7) Overhaul the map functions
8) Lessen scanning time
9) Get rid of logging abuses.
10) Make safespots easier to scan for.
11) Get rid of instamarks---make PvP in character not out of it.


Quote:

The problem of less and less people doing anything other agent missions?


How is that a problem?

People have the right to have some fun. This is a game, not a sociological experiment. You really need to focus on fun over time ratio.

The bottomline in this game is that people should do what is most fun to them and be in the place which has the most fun in them.


Slithereen
Amarr
Posted - 2005.04.08 13:42:00 - [194]
 


Quote:

The discussion around risk vs. reward is simply a way of pointing out how level 4 missions have damaged that idea by removing people from the one place where they can actually truly create their own game, 0.0.


Wrong. People can happily create their own game in empire space. You are the one who thinks that everything has to revolve in 0.0 space. It does not have to be.

If people are happy running missions in empire space, let them be.

What we don't need is people telling them how you are supposed to enjoy this game.

Slithereen
Amarr
Posted - 2005.04.08 13:46:00 - [195]
 


Quote:
What in the world does statistics and logging in an SQL database have to do with the definition of risk?



Because CCP actually knows how many player ships are destroyed and lost in missions. Number by number, chart by chart.

Quote:

How does that have anything to do with the other sources of infmation available to every single agent runner regarding the missions they're running?



Other sources? I don't rely reading the web or any source outside of the game itself to find out what the mission is. That's like cheating or playing a walkthrough. And I don't do that even with single player games.

In deadspace missions, you don't get any data at all... There is no order of battle. The only information you have is someone else's experience or your own.

Slithereen
Amarr
Posted - 2005.04.08 13:52:00 - [196]
 


Quote:
wouldn't have lost a ship if I hadn't made a mistake. Thats predictability.


No. You make a mistake because you are human. And you are going to make more mistakes in the future because of your biological nature.

mahhy
MASS
Posted - 2005.04.08 13:54:00 - [197]
 

Originally by: Slithereen
Risk is always defined by what CCP believes it so not what you believe.


Eh? CCP writes the dictionaries of the world? Wink

Originally by: Slithereen
In the United States I don't see the US government seeing the unequal distribution of people all over the country to be a problem. It's like saying we need to get people out of the cities and into the deserts.


0.0 is only a desert because the necesary tools to actually live there singly or as a group are not really available to anyone except perhaps the pvp'ers. We pretty much only need ships and guns although we'd like some extra tweaks as well. Its everyone else thats been completely left out, more or less.

Originally by: Slithereen
1) Open more highways and gates into 0.0
2) Open more stations
3) Bring empire agents out
4) Make LPs transferrable
5) Reduce the cost of POS operation
6) Beef up pirate mission variety and rewards
7) Overhaul the map functions
8) Lessen scanning time
9) Get rid of logging abuses.
10) Make safespots easier to scan for.
11) Get rid of instamarks---make PvP in character not out of it.


All things thought of and suggested by other people before, and partly what I'm talking about.

Originally by: Slithereen
The bottomline in this game is that people should do what is most fun to them and be in the place which has the most fun in them.


Actually I believe that this is supposed to be a mostly player driven game. Agents and missions have no place in that idea, so if I was right then all those people playing this game for agents would be playing the wrong game. But thats an opinion.

The fact that Exodus failed however is not an opinion, and goes directly to illustrating what CCP would like to see out of this game. I'm not CCP and I can't claim to know exactly what they think, but when you have CCP employees admitting that Exodus more or less failed at bringing people out to 0.0, that is a problem. And it seems pretty obvious to me that the increased reward in Empire space, with its lovely low risk/no risk environment was one of the primary, if not the primary cause of that failure.

Anyhow, I'm done arguing with you. From my point of view it seems that you only want to interact with NPCs. I could be wrong, but if I'm not then honestly I think this is the wrong game for you. I don't mean that offensively...

The bottom line to me is that people have all sorts of ideas of what they'd like to see Eve be, and you and I obviously have vastly different ideas.

Slithereen
Amarr
Posted - 2005.04.08 13:59:00 - [198]
 


Quote:
Eh? CCP writes the dictionaries of the world? Wink


No. But they wrote this game, and they have an operative definition of risk for their own. Unless you work for CCP, your and mine opinion does not matter.



mahhy
MASS
Posted - 2005.04.08 13:59:00 - [199]
 

Edited by: mahhy on 08/04/2005 14:00:05
Originally by: Slithereen

Quote:
What in the world does statistics and logging in an SQL database have to do with the definition of risk?



Because CCP actually knows how many player ships are destroyed and lost in missions. Number by number, chart by chart.


I see no direct connection between ship destruction and risk. I also see no direct connection between number of ship kills and risk. I could as easily argue that simply because theres more people in empire, theres a higher number of stupid people running missions, and causing their ships destruction through their own stupidity. I won't be cause I have nothing to back up that claim, I don't know anything about any eve players general level of intelligence. But I could state it and say that they are related.

edit: nice arguing with you Slith... this really is my last post, stuff to do Very Happy

Slithereen
Amarr
Posted - 2005.04.08 14:02:00 - [200]
 


Quote:
0.0 is only a desert because the necesary tools to actually live there singly or as a group are not really available to anyone except perhaps the pvp'ers. We pretty much only need ships and guns although we'd like some extra tweaks as well. Its everyone else thats been completely left out, more or less.


0.0 is a desert because deserts don't have enough places to live on. You cannot build a community without houses and infrastructure. And you can't build infrastructure if they're too expensive to operate in this case.

There are other fundamental problems that needs to be addressed and one of them is how to sufficiently protect your territory from "regionless alliances" which are essentially, empire based PvPers marauding into alliance space.


Slithereen
Amarr
Posted - 2005.04.08 14:09:00 - [201]
 

Edited by: Slithereen on 08/04/2005 14:09:57
Quote:
Anyhow, I'm done arguing with you. From my point of view it seems that you only want to interact with NPCs. I could be wrong, but if I'm not then honestly I think this is the wrong game for you. I don't mean that offensively...


As for now, I personally want to be left alone for my own reasons. I never advocated anything that would affect your style of play, so keep out of mine, although personally I would never advocate my style of play either. I will change my style when I am good and ready.

But always remember this is a game based on free will.

Dutschetss Vilhelmena
Caldari
Ordo Rosa Crux Templaris
Posted - 2005.04.08 22:00:00 - [202]
 

Make Level Fours harder? Are you people daft? Even turning down all deadspace missions, most of them are impossible except for the mega transports. the L4 kill missions are suicide. period. Anyone who thinks they are easy is not playing the same game I see every night.

And who thinks that taking instas away would improve the game? for who, the campers?
Look, I'm sure those of you with two years of skills laugh about those of us who only have one year or less, but we pay the bills too.

The last time I lost a ship it was a game bug during a mission, and the GM's were very unsympathetic despite Concord killed me on behalf of Serp rats... not their problem, not part of the mission.

If this game gets any harder I think you will lose the paying customers, and leave only the icelanders. But you knew that already, eh?

I agree that the game has to have hard edges.... but when the rules bend for pirates night after night and never for simple missioners, you have to wonder why the game is balanced to favor the icelander pirate clans?

Eh?

Dutch

Dianabolic
Reikoku
Posted - 2005.04.08 22:34:00 - [203]
 

Originally by: Dutschetss Vilhelmena
Make Level Fours harder? Are you people daft? Even turning down all deadspace missions, most of them are impossible except for the mega transports.


What an absolute load of rubbish. Everyone I know that does L4 missions, does them solo. All of them, except for a couple who team up to do extraveganza.

You're doing something wrong.

Dianabolic
Reikoku
Posted - 2005.04.08 22:37:00 - [204]
 

Originally by: Slithereen
What other sources of information can there be?


These forums?

Other forums?

Other players?

Players change their behaviour, npc's do not.

anter
Posted - 2005.04.08 23:46:00 - [205]
 

Edited by: anter on 09/04/2005 07:35:03
Why is this thread still open? Same people are just repeating themselfs... Rolling Eyes

These who are not doing level 4 missing or dont have standings for it want them nerfed. They also have friends or friends friend who does billions of isks per day.

These who do level 4 missions tell that its nowhere near that much, but what do they know? They are actually running missions unlike these who heard about level 4 missions from someones cousins friends friend.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]

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