open All Channels
seplocked Missions & Complexes
blankseplocked Utterly ******ed level (mission) design concept
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Bal' Hed
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.01.25 14:02:00 - [1]
 

Hey, i'm designing a level for a game. Games are fun! You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to design the levels so that after you've completed a section, you can spend an exciting awesome super happy fun time crawling towards the gate to the next section at 130 m/s!!! Ten minutes of super-fun excitement! Who would rather do anything else but watch as all of nothing occurs the WHOLE time? YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY im a developer!!!!!
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!

Osric Wuscfrea
Gallente
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.01.25 14:08:00 - [2]
 

Deana Troi:

I sense hostlity Captain...ugh

Laerelyn Love
Posted - 2007.01.25 14:10:00 - [3]
 

Naw, just frustration. l4 missions need a little fixing...ugh

CCP Zrakor

Posted - 2007.01.25 14:57:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Zrakor on 25/01/2007 14:54:21
I know you would rather travel instantly to each new section, in fact I think a lot of people would like to simply be able to spawn pirates next to them on demand. However that does not make it good level design :).

If you are referring to the mission Unauthorized Military Presence which had an extremely long flight time between beacon and gate, that was in fact a bug which the creator of that mission has fixed (I think he did it for the Revelations 1.3 patch, if not then expect it in 1.4).

But there always will be some flight time, no matter how we design the levels. It's just a part of the gameplay. If we had no 'downtime' such as this, then we would have to nerf the bounties on the mission rats somewhat and rebalance the whole thing.




Drek Grapper
Minmatar
Posted - 2007.01.25 15:44:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Drek Grapper on 25/01/2007 15:49:16
Originally by: Bal' Hed
Hey, i'm designing a level for a game. Games are fun! You know what I'm going to do? I'm going to design the levels so that after you've completed a section, you can spend an exciting awesome super happy fun time crawling towards the gate to the next section at 130 m/s!!! Ten minutes of super-fun excitement! Who would rather do anything else but watch as all of nothing occurs the WHOLE time? YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY im a developer!!!!!
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!


I have a better idea...create a mission where u make the pilot warp in on top of the spawn (all of them in 'kill' range- about 20 or 30 of them) and then just for fun surround his landing site by 6 or 7 huge asteroids and a very thick gas cloud. See if he can get out alive. And then just to top it off...let him suffer the inevitable lagfest when after 20secs the spawn attacks without provocation. Its great mission design. I would like to shake the mans hand.

Its LV4 Vengeance by the way and i lost an uninsured Maelstrom. EmbarassedDidn't stand a chance. I mean fine, make them hard...but considering the serious lag suffered in alot of the 4's, at least give him some sort of chance. Like, drop the asteroids, the warp 'on top' of the spwan or even the 'attack' without provacation. Sheesh a bit of common sense eh?

Drek.

And sorry, i had to get that off my chest...

Egil Kolsto
Caldari
Collwood Collective
Posted - 2007.01.25 15:51:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Zrakor
Edited by: Zrakor on 25/01/2007 14:54:21
I know you would rather travel instantly to each new section, in fact I think a lot of people would like to simply be able to spawn pirates next to them on demand. However that does not make it good level design :).

If you are referring to the mission Unauthorized Military Presence which had an extremely long flight time between beacon and gate, that was in fact a bug which the creator of that mission has fixed (I think he did it for the Revelations 1.3 patch, if not then expect it in 1.4).

But there always will be some flight time, no matter how we design the levels. It's just a part of the gameplay. If we had no 'downtime' such as this, then we would have to nerf the bounties on the mission rats somewhat and rebalance the whole thing.






There are one or two missions I have done lately that has quite a fair travel way. Pirate Slaughter has like 80km or so the last version I did and the challenge is always if I can make it to the gate before everything is dead. Unauthorized is just LONG. Good to hear a distance patch is on its way, thanks Zrakor for letting us know!

Bal' Hed
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.01.25 16:56:00 - [7]
 

Okay, so everything can't be perfect. I can understand that. But you're telling me that moving a beacon a little closer would make the game off balance? I'm not in a position to refute that. I honestly have no idea what minor or major fixes and modifications could do to disrupt or otherwise influence the global market. Far be it from my ramblings to cause yet ANOTHER zydrine crash.
Anyhow, the mission i was crawling toward a beacon during while writing my original post was Smuggler Interception L4, Blood Raiders. It wasnt the most evil of them all, but i seem to remember doing the whole BS traveling towards the beacon thing SOOO many times that I got frustrated.

Jet Collins
Dynamic Endeavors
Posted - 2007.01.25 19:22:00 - [8]
 

I though the long travel times between gates was done to prevent some of the ore farming that is taken place in missions. There where some missions I found that had great ore but there is no way I was going to travel over 100km in a barge just to get it.

As for the missions that have large roids surrounding you on warp in, I also they are part of the plan. If you where a prirate wouldn't you want the attacking party to warp into a situation like that and not open space where the attacker can be in a compforatable situation and take control. Its part of the game it makes it more difficult, and interesting. I like it deal with it, learn to adbapt and over come like the rest of us. Stop nerfing hard missions. I like Stop the thief before the nerf.

What does bug though is the empty roid that surrounds the gate in War suituation 3 of 3. Making it quite a pain to get in range of the gate one and 2 just attempting to warp while bumping off the roid for 20 minutes.I have not done this mission in along time so not ever sure if it is still around or fixed or not.

Rooker
Lysian Enterprises
Posted - 2007.01.25 20:57:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Zrakor
Edited by: Zrakor on 25/01/2007 14:54:21
I know you would rather travel instantly to each new section, in fact I think a lot of people would like to simply be able to spawn pirates next to them on demand. However that does not make it good level design :).



I know you would rather attempt to look clever than address the concern, but that doesn't make a proper response :)

Wow, that's fun, if a bit useless. Anyway, adult time now.

80-100KM distance between gates also is "not good level design". Especially for people who've decided not to use easy mode (Raven) and have to move around to keep rats at optimal turret range. Half the time I end up 150 - 200KM away from the gate.

Then there's people who warp out because their tank broke. Or people who do missions together and a support ship draws too much fire and leaves. Or they get hit by a lag bomb when they warp in and half the armor is gone before they can control anything.

These widespread gates seem to be more common in lvl 4 missions, which means they're being done in a battleship usually. Battleships are slow. Even if you sacrifice tank for an afterburner, it takes too long to get to the next stage. So, as fun as being a wise ass is, why don't we discuss the problem instead? :)

Drek Grapper
Minmatar
Posted - 2007.01.25 22:16:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Rooker
Originally by: Zrakor
Edited by: Zrakor on 25/01/2007 14:54:21
I know you would rather travel instantly to each new section, in fact I think a lot of people would like to simply be able to spawn pirates next to them on demand. However that does not make it good level design :).



I know you would rather attempt to look clever than address the concern, but that doesn't make a proper response :)

Wow, that's fun, if a bit useless. Anyway, adult time now.

80-100KM distance between gates also is "not good level design". Especially for people who've decided not to use easy mode (Raven) and have to move around to keep rats at optimal turret range. Half the time I end up 150 - 200KM away from the gate.

Then there's people who warp out because their tank broke. Or people who do missions together and a support ship draws too much fire and leaves. Or they get hit by a lag bomb when they warp in and half the armor is gone before they can control anything.

These widespread gates seem to be more common in lvl 4 missions, which means they're being done in a battleship usually. Battleships are slow. Even if you sacrifice tank for an afterburner, it takes too long to get to the next stage. So, as fun as being a wise ass is, why don't we discuss the problem instead? :)


/signed twice Very Happy

Cmndr Griff
Viziam
Posted - 2007.01.25 22:58:00 - [11]
 

Look its space, travelling takes timeVery Happy. It's important that Level 4 missions do take some time, but surely there are other ways that the time could be filled as opposed to crawling along to a beacon for what feels like an eternity?

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2007.01.25 23:05:00 - [12]
 

If the time sink of the gates absolutely has to stay, I would suggest them not opening immediately after the last enemy dies, but X minutes after the last enemy dies. And located somewhere close to the warp-in point.
That way the runner will have to suffer the timesink once, but if he has to warp out in the next room, he won't suffer it again.
But tbh I would just remove the timesinks altogether, all it does for me is not accepting the missions that have them. And I doubt that is the point.

Heikki
Gallente
Erasers inc.
Controlled Chaos
Posted - 2007.01.26 00:33:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Bal' Hed
crawling towards the gate to the next section at 130 m/s!
Rather than issue from designer's part, isn't that quite moronic to go in mission with about the slowest fitting in Eve?

Some often proposed solutions:
- Reject missions you find too boring/difficult
- Get a faster ship / sacrifice something for speed

Or, whine on forums with 'give me FreeISK button' post..

-Lasse
knowing that if OP was serious wouldn't post flamebaits

Morp p'LLoran
Silver Snake Enterprise
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.01.26 02:02:00 - [14]
 

The distance's is fine - you reach the next gate or are fairly near about when you kill the last spawn on all the new missions . I do this using a Raven (low-sp) or Domi(high-sp)in amarr, gallente and minny space.
If you are using anohter ship for the 'challenge' - it was your choice. If you have to stand still to kill the spawns and only then move - it's your choice. You had to warp out? - tough - you buggered up, most of the missions are easy enough.
The dev's can't make every mission to suite every type of ship and setup, and the gates are there as a time-sink to prevent the super-uber farming of lvl 4's.
Their other alternative to balance hi-sec isk making rates is to move lvl 4's or hi-qual agents to low-sec. Would you prefer that?

Hesod Adee
Dark-Rising
Posted - 2007.01.26 02:31:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Jet Collins
I though the long travel times between gates was done to prevent some of the ore farming that is taken place in missions. There where some missions I found that had great ore but there is no way I was going to travel over 100km in a barge just to get it.


You know what I would do if I decided that ore farming in missions was a problem ?

I'd replace the roids with veldspar or unminable roids of a similar size.

Ereinion Erinsal
Posted - 2007.01.26 02:40:00 - [16]
 

Heh, Ammar have 3 - 4 med spots. My abbadon has to have 2 ECCM and 2 Cap rechargers. No space for afterburner =(.

Danthomir
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.01.26 06:21:00 - [17]
 

World of Walkcraft. Need I tell you more? Courier missions are like a roller coaster ride compared to some of the quests there.

Also, EVE gives you the nice speedometer/distance to target, so a bit of mental math later you've got an ETA and some spare time on your hands.

XenoPagan
Posted - 2007.01.26 08:10:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Ereinion Erinsal
Heh, Ammar have 3 - 4 med spots. My abbadon has to have 2 ECCM and 2 Cap rechargers. No space for afterburner =(.

When I have smoked two cigarettes and I'm still not near destination, then my patience snaps... so I sacrificed 1 eccm for AB on my Abba :)


Billbo Fagends
Posted - 2007.01.26 08:12:00 - [19]
 

Make space for an afterburner, I fly a rail mega for missions, with only 4 mids and I can also end up 200km's from a gate. I wouldn't dream of flying without an ab in missions. We are talking about mission running, all level 4 mission runners end up fitting faction gear to their chosen platform, unless they are running in low sec then they usually avoid longer missions anyway unless grouped. My mega does 430 m/s with a faction ab and traveling 80k really doest take that long, if you find your self too far out, why not try warping out and back to the start point, at times it can be quicker than attempting to fly 250km's on an ab. Yes it can be a drag in multi room missions, if you need to pop back to pick up extra ammo or warp out but it is hardly poor mission design, imho it is just a poor mission running setup.

Andrue
Amarr
Posted - 2007.01.26 08:36:00 - [20]
 

Although the distances are annoying (I fly a Raven so can't even fit an A/B) they do serve a purpose. They allow skillful, better equipped players or gangs to complete the mission more quickly. Those players can head straight to the gate as soon as they enter and with luck will be able to activate it just as the last NPC is popped which is a reward for being uber.

The less skilled, less well equipped, solo player has to take his time and consequently the mission takes longer.

Andrue
Amarr
Posted - 2007.01.26 08:37:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Morp p'LLoran
The distance's is fine - you reach the next gate or are fairly near about when you kill the last spawn on all the new missions . I do this using a Raven (low-sp) or Domi(high-sp)in amarr, gallente and minny space.
If you are using anohter ship for the 'challenge' - it was your choice. If you have to stand still to kill the spawns and only then move - it's your choice. You had to warp out? - tough - you buggered up, most of the missions are easy enough.
The dev's can't make every mission to suite every type of ship and setup, and the gates are there as a time-sink to prevent the super-uber farming of lvl 4's.
Their other alternative to balance hi-sec isk making rates is to move lvl 4's or hi-qual agents to low-sec. Would you prefer that?
Agreed..although I do like the early poster's idea of allowing you to warp back in on top of the accel gate for pockets you've cleared.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2007.01.26 09:31:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Zrakor
Edited by: Zrakor on 25/01/2007 14:54:21
I know you would rather travel instantly to each new section, in fact I think a lot of people would like to simply be able to spawn pirates next to them on demand. However that does not make it good level design :).

If you are referring to the mission Unauthorized Military Presence which had an extremely long flight time between beacon and gate, that was in fact a bug which the creator of that mission has fixed (I think he did it for the Revelations 1.3 patch, if not then expect it in 1.4).

But there always will be some flight time, no matter how we design the levels. It's just a part of the gameplay. If we had no 'downtime' such as this, then we would have to nerf the bounties on the mission rats somewhat and rebalance the whole thing.



this is the first time I am really disapponted by one of your replies Zrakor.

Threatening another nerf on mission rewards to block a legitimate complain is not a good move.

Let's be honest: the ones influenced by the travel time aren't the ones playng missions for farming isk and LP.
Those kind of players simply refuse the missions where the time sinks are in effect, or have access to gear so good tey can cut down the travel time with no significant reduction in combat efficency.

The ones influenced are those trying to play the mission as most of them (I think) are intended, destroying all the opposition, not only some specific target.

I feel that this time sinks trend in mission is more hurting than helping. It kill diversity as the only system to overcame some of time sinks is to use only the best PvE ships (Raven and Drake) to complete them faster (an so skilling Caldari).

Some of the new ones seem specifically built for those long range missile missile spawning ships.

Getting hit by [b]standard[b] missiles at 120 km range Exclamation in a megatron is not fun as that ship need to sacrifice module slots to lock at that range (at least 2), and other slots to shot decently.
A Raven can hit perfectly at that range sacrificing only 1 slot for a sensor booster.

I suggest you (CCP) should think about trying to build at least some mission where missile ships are disavantaged against gun ships.

Andrue
Amarr
Posted - 2007.01.26 11:45:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Andrue on 26/01/2007 11:42:37
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Zrakor
<snipped by Andrue>


this is the first time I am really disapponted by one of your replies Zrakor.

Threatening another nerf on mission rewards to block a legitimate complain is not a good move.
I think you need to learn how to read written communication a bit better. He is not threatening to do anything. He's just telling you the way it is (from his POV). He's saying that designers have a choice - increase the time required or decrease the rewards.

This is entirely reasonable. All computer games (multiplayer or otherwise) are time sinks. The designer's main task is to balance the rewards players are getting against the time they spent on the task. L4 missions will have a CCP chosen reward per unit time spent on them. If you reduce the travel distance you reduce the time spent on the mission so you have to compensate by reducing the rewards. It's just the way it is.

You can argue whether travel distances are a good way to increase the time or not (con:boring; pro:skilled/better equipped players/groups can complete the mission faster) but you have to accept that in PvE it all comes down to reward over time. Change one and you have to change the other.
Quote:
Let's be honest: the ones influenced by the travel time aren't the ones playng missions for farming isk and LP.
Those kind of players simply refuse the missions where the time sinks are in effect, or have access to gear so good tey can cut down the travel time with no significant reduction in combat efficency.
What's wrong with that? You're saying that there is an aspect of Eve's game play which some players chose to avoid and other players fit the right equipment to solve. That applies to everything in the game right down to "some people chose not to pay a subscription, while some people do".

Quote:
The ones influenced are those trying to play the mission as most of them (I think) are intended, destroying all the opposition, not only some specific target.
Everyone is influenced equally. It's just that some players adapt, some avoid the problem and others whine on the forums.

Quote:
I feel that this time sinks trend in mission is more hurting than helping. It kill diversity as the only system to overcame some of time sinks is to use only the best PvE ships (Raven and Drake) to complete them faster (an so skilling Caldari).
In other words there is an aspect of Eve which benefits from using better equipment and better skills. Gosh, what a novelty.

Quote:
Some of the new ones seem specifically built for those long range missile missile spawning ships.

Getting hit by [b]standard[b] missiles at 120 km range Exclamation in a megatron is not fun as that ship need to sacrifice module slots to lock at that range (at least 2), and other slots to shot decently.
A Raven can hit perfectly at that range sacrificing only 1 slot for a sensor booster.
So why don't you use a Raven?
Quote:

I suggest you (CCP) should think about trying to build at least some mission where missile ships are disavantaged against gun ships.
I suggest that you (human) think about why you are paying a subscription to play a game that requires you to think about what you are doing and choose appropriate tactics and equipment to solve a problem.

Wicked Spider
Posted - 2007.01.26 12:01:00 - [24]
 

regardless of the ship setup i think 50km should be the furthest distance one should have to travel in a mission

those without speedy setups will have some easier time and those with fast ships/modules - it will not matter much to them anyway

cyberamarr
Posted - 2007.01.26 13:33:00 - [25]
 

i dont have a problem to fly 100km at 150m/s to the next gate as long as i have something to shoot at. the problem is that all enemies are destroyed after the first 20km and then ...nothing ...80km afk flying =/

CCP Zrakor

Posted - 2007.01.26 14:00:00 - [26]
 

Well I do realize that 80km is a bit much. 30-40 should generally be considered the max, unless it's done with the intention of having the player use afterburners or a fast ship setup.

But I definately do understand your concerns and I'll keep an eye out for missions with overly long distances between beacon and gate. I just meant in my original reply that you shouldn't expect them to go away entirely, but I will take a look at missions where the distance is so long that it makes the mission frustrating.

Sendraks
The Spice Weasels Must Flow
Posted - 2007.01.26 14:02:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Morp p'LLoran
The dev's can't make every mission to suite every type of ship and setup, and the gates are there as a time-sink to prevent the super-uber farming of lvl 4's.


The problem with this is that the mission design only suits a few ship types out of dozens. This is a fundamental flaw of missions and also of those particular ship types in the mission environment.

The best solution has already been posted, which would be for the gate to spawn once the last ship in the area has been destroyed. In fact, the gate should spawn next to the mission runners ship, thus balancing the travel time to the gate for all vessels. If that wasn't possible, the alternative would be to have the "locked" gate next to the warp in point for the area, so even if a ship had to move around a fair bit to engage targets with turrets, it wouldn't take much time to warp out, warp back in again and reach the gate.

That would normalise the times between the easy-mode mission running ships and everything else out there.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2007.01.26 14:29:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Andrue
Edited by: Andrue on 26/01/2007 11:42:37
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Zrakor
<snipped by Andrue>


this is the first time I am really disappointed by one of your replies Zrakor.

Threatening another nerf on mission rewards to block a legitimate complain is not a good move
Originally by: Andrue
Edited by: Andrue on 26/01/2007 11:42:37
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Zrakor
<snipped by Andrue>


this is the first time I am really disapponted by one of your replies Zrakor.

Threatening another nerf on mission rewards to block a legitimate complain is not a good move.

I think you need to learn how to read written communication a bit better. He is not threatening to do anything. He's just telling you the way it is (from his POV). He's saying that designers have a choice - increase the time required or decrease the rewards.

This is entirely reasonable. All computer games (multiplayer or otherwise) are time sinks. The designer's main task is to balance the rewards players are getting against the time they spent on the task. L4 missions will have a CCP chosen reward per unit time spent on them. If you reduce the travel distance you reduce the time spent on the mission so you have to compensate by reducing the rewards. It's just the way it is.


I am returning your suggestion to learn to read written communication better. Say that Zaknor is threatening a reward nerf if the time sinks are reduced is exactly what he is doing.

The term used as nothing to do with a opportunity of the nerf or not. Saing: ďIf you donít stop using my lawn as a parking lot I will call the police.Ē is perfectly legal and reasonable, but it is a threat.
The action will have consequences.

As Zaknor usually present a good argument and not a dictat from high I am a bit disappointed that this time he hadnít done that.

Quote:

You can argue whether travel distances are a good way to increase the time or not (con:boring; pro:skilled/better equipped players/groups can complete the mission faster) but you have to accept that in PvE it all comes down to reward over time. Change one and you have to change the other.
Quote:
Let's be honest: the ones influenced by the travel time aren't the ones playng missions for farming isk and LP.
Those kind of players simply refuse the missions where the time sinks are in effect, or have access to gear so good tey can cut down the travel time with no significant reduction in combat efficency.

What's wrong with that? You're saying that there is an aspect of Eve's game play which some players chose to avoid and other players fit the right equipment to solve. That applies to everything in the game right down to "some people chose not to pay a subscription, while some people do".
Quote:
The ones influenced are those trying to play the mission as most of them (I think) are intended, destroying all the opposition, not only some specific target.
Everyone is influenced equally. It's just that some players adapt, some avoid the problem and others whine on the forums.



The thing I feel it is wrong is that the system chosen to keep the time balanced with reward is not influencing the people that try only to get the mission done with by the fastest route and that are totally uninterested in every other consideration but the ones that try to experience the full impact of the mission.

So the end results is to keep the two extremes widely separated. If the average reward for hour for a level 4 wanted by CCP is 20 millions, the distribution should be a gaussian curve with the 20 mil as the central point and most of the time vs rewards result falling in the area of 25 to 15 millions/hour, and only the most skilled or most inept falling outside of that range.


Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2007.01.26 14:31:00 - [29]
 

The current system instead seem (as I havenít the full data, but CCP should have them) to favor a different distributions, one where there are 2 cusps. One at 10 millions or less for the ones not running through the missions and accepting most of them, the other at 50 or more for the ones doing only the fast missions.

As apparently the intention of CCP is not to get this results, as they are increasing the time sinks, I suggest they need to value if the chosen system is the right one.


Quote:
Quote:
I feel that this time sinks trend in mission is more hurting than helping. It kill diversity as the only system to overcame some of time sinks is to use only the best PvE ships (Raven and Drake) to complete them faster (an so skilling Caldari).

In other words there is an aspect of Eve which benefits from using better equipment and better skills. Gosh, what a novelty.

Quote:
Some of the new ones seem specifically built for those long range missile missile spawning ships.

Getting hit by [b]standard[b] missiles at 120 km range Exclamation in a megatron is not fun as that ship need to sacrifice module slots to lock at that range (at least 2), and other slots to shot decently.
A Raven can hit perfectly at that range sacrificing only 1 slot for a sensor booster.
So why don't you use a Raven?
Quote:

I suggest you (CCP) should think about trying to build at least some mission where missile ships are disavantaged against gun ships.

I suggest that you (human) think about why you are paying a subscription to play a game that requires you to think about what you are doing and choose appropriate tactics and equipment to solve a problem.


First, I am Gallente, so for starter I have learned to pilot Gallente ships. I suppose not being Caldari is a sign of stupidity in PvE
Second, I suppose by you vehemence that you feel somewhat threatened by my suggestion of adding some missions where gun using ships fare better than missiles using.
Why?
I am not suggesting to delete current missions, not to touch missiles or missile using ships, only to add some more mission, something anyone doing PvE can enjoy.
If my suggestion would be implemented, you will somewhat damaged?
The need to refuse some mission or changing your modules will lower too much you isk producing?


Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2007.01.26 14:34:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Zrakor
Well I do realize that 80km is a bit much. 30-40 should generally be considered the max, unless it's done with the intention of having the player use afterburners or a fast ship setup.

But I definately do understand your concerns and I'll keep an eye out for missions with overly long distances between beacon and gate. I just meant in my original reply that you shouldn't expect them to go away entirely, but I will take a look at missions where the distance is so long that it makes the mission frustrating.


TY for the explanation.
This is why I like your replyes.
Even if your opinions are different for mine, you use good arguments.
So, if my reply was too rude, I offer my apologies to you.


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