open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked Bloggers #54, So my Agent called and has this offer...
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (25)

Author Topic

Dr Aryandi
Posted - 2007.02.21 23:21:00 - [31]
 

The ideas sound promising...there is a fundamental change I would like to see in missions though - and it makes them much more 'PvP'.

At the moment missions are instanced - you go to your agent and he creates a mission for you on the spot. He always has a mission for you, even if 500 go to him at once.

A much better way would be to create the missions...and then various agents and palyers would be bidding for your services to fix the missions.

In an area of space where not many people are missioning agents would keep putting the rewards up and up - desperate for someone to come and get rid of the guristas camping their stargate. On the other hand in motsu the agent would start turning around and saying 'you know what, after we massacred their thousandth fleet the sansha have all gone'.


So spawn the missions, have a number of agents with those missions start offering them on a list. You can then review the list of available missions. The longer a mission is not accepted the higher the reward grows.

Now so long as the number of missions spawned across the galaxy is balanced correctly the mission rewards would even out - harder missions would not be accepted until the reward had risen to be worth it. Mission runners would have to spread ourselves out because our agent starts running out of worthwhile jobs for us to do, etc.

Oh and I don't think you need to move all the level 5+ to low sec. Simply balance them so that without capital ships they are extremely difficult - and also make them much rarer in high sec.

Ressen Omna
Panoramic Perspective
Posted - 2007.02.21 23:21:00 - [32]
 

This summer is next week, right? Wonderful plans, can't happen soon enough.

The Speaker
The Clue Factory
Posted - 2007.02.21 23:22:00 - [33]
 

I sense many carebear capital ships being reduced to smoking wrecks once this kicks in. :)

Mistress Suffering
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2007.02.21 23:22:00 - [34]
 

Creating yet more opportunities for people to gank mission-runners will not improve EVE. Such engagements are already vastly lopsided in favor of the attacker. In order for missions to be reasonable, they have to create a decent level of challenge for a ship that is outfitted for the purpose of doing that mission. Now added an attacker to the equation where you're already nearly matched against the forces trying to kill you and you're just hosed.

PVP is great, but ganking mission runners has nothing to do with PVP. Unless these changes solve that issue, they will simply suck. Forcing people to mission in cap ships doesn't change it, it just means that now me and a dozen friends can gank capital ships in lowsec for fun. That might be humorous for the attacker, but it only takes doing this once or twice for that mission runner never to play again and mission-running becomes a dead end.

Hunin
Minmatar
Infinity Enterprises
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.02.21 23:29:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Agillious
Originally by: Zigg Omelo
NO LVL 5 IN LOW SEC SPACE.Take it to 0.0

CCP this is your chance to breathe some life into 0.0 and make more ppl move there

Otherwise, lmao at getting this done for the summer.... LaughingLaughing


Show me a space of 0.0 space that isn't already dominated by player entities, and I'll agree to this proposal. Otherwise, all you are doing is hording the best toys (high level missions, high level complexes, moon harvesting, outposts, etc.) for the people that have played the longest.


I completely agree with you. 0.0 space is completely restricted by the large player alliances. Why is it restricted? It is restricted because there are few jump gates from lowsec to 0.0 space. Take the region I live in, Catch. Catch is a border region and there are only 2 entrances to lowsec space from this region. This creates a bottleneck for the entrances to 0.0 for the strongest alliance.

Imagine if there were 10 entrances to Catch (or any border 0.0 region) from both high sec and low sec. Now instead of camping 2 systems, a player alliance has to camp 10 systems. This is almost impossible for any alliance. It will allow more people in to 0.0 systems because the bottleneck systems are increased substantially.

Farrellus Cameron
Sturmgrenadier Inc
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2007.02.21 23:31:00 - [36]
 

All of that sounds amazingly awesome. One request I have though is please don't make any "OMGWTFBBQ-just happened to my ship" moments where with literally no warning a mini-DD goes off or a hundred ships suddenly appear and instantly jam you. I think its a bit of a cop-out to create some random encounter that's pretty much guaranteed to instantly pop your ship. That's not creativity, its sadism, and a BS way to create "risk" in PvE.

I'm fine with generating some uber-situation where you might have trouble surviving, but frakking warn the people so at least they can decide whether to try it or bail out. Like a message saying "doomsday activiating in 20 seconds...."

The true risk will be putting lvl 5-6 in low sec so that you run the risk of other players attacking you. Even when players attack you though you have some advanced warning.

Swap DePortrait
Caldari
Posted - 2007.02.21 23:32:00 - [37]
 

You need like 8.00 standing to do level 4's so your gonna fit 5/6/7 in 2.00 standing?:|

Koronos
Interstellar eXodus
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2007.02.21 23:33:00 - [38]
 

I agree with Kaptein Trefot.

I think this:
> Slowly involves the "PvE" player in more "PvP" EVE activity.

displays a flawed mindset, and not for the first time. Everyone is different, everyone likes different things, let people play the game how they want to play it, rather than continually channeling them into how _you_ think it should be played.

Me? I'm all about the pvp. But not everyone is.

Koronos

Humpalot
Posted - 2007.02.21 23:35:00 - [39]
 

Don't forget the newbies!

It is easy to forget that not everyone has 10+ mil SP and been playing for a year or more. For many, if not most, new players missions are an easy start to EVE to earn them some ISK so they can progress a bit. If you remove bounties on NPCs you will severely limit a new player's ability to "level up" as it were. Perhaps keep bounties in for L1 missions then make L2 a bit less and L3 some token bounty and L4 and up none. The bounties in L1 missions are already low enough that it wouldn't attract senior players to them just to make a bit of cash but for the new players it means a lot.

And some have already mentioned the issues with trying to drag players in to low sec. While a good ambition as it stands few will bother and I do not see how this improves things. The issue remains that a PvE setup ship is not well prepared to deal with PvP setup ships. Pirates are already thick in low sec even with most Empire players knowing better than to go bother in there. Now you want us flying cap ships in? No way...not as it is today. Consider the cost of a cap ship and think how many missions need to be run to equate to losing just one of these (fittings and all). I do not know what all rewards will be offered in the new system but I expect it'd take dozens of missions to make thinking that losing just one would be worthwhile. Heck, even losing a T2 setup BS is worth more than a few dozen missions. As it is today if you run 20-30 missions in low sec your chances of getting ganked at least once is very good. Just not worth the aggravation.

On the whole I like the proposed changes. Worries me a bit that cap ships are what the BS was three years ago (i.e. the end all, be all goal of playing in EVE). Guess we'll have to see.

PDoggy
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2007.02.21 23:38:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: PDoggy on 21/02/2007 23:34:59
HEY DEVS I AM USING ALL-CAPS AND BOLD AND UNDERLINE AND CENTER AND EVEN COLOURS TO ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE READ THIS POST


Sorry about that but I know you have to skim these threads when they get mega-huge, I just want to ask something here: won't somebody think of the newbies?! Dreads and carriers are very useful ships and carriers are already fine PvE ships - but this increasingly disturbing focus on supercapitals and bringing capital ships to the masses is not wise in the long run. It still takes (lacking good support skills and with a set of +4 implants a newbie wouldn't be able to get from the get-go, realistically) about a year to train into a carrier or dreadnought. Putting a focus on capital-class missions will take away from at least one area where newbies have been able to shine through diligence, research, thought, and I'll admit it - grinding. As the prospect of multiple titans being fielded simultaneously by one alliance and one-click warfare becomes more and more likely, newbies are already being turned away from the PvP side of the game (at least on the huge scale). Maybe the current war will change this, but the inevitable hardcore 0.0 carebear period that will follow either side's victory will lead to more and more titans, and consequently, ships smaller than an appropriately tanked dread being near-worthless or having very situational and occasional use on the field. Tanking a BS for one doomsday is reasonable enough, two is iffy, and two of different kinds gets to the point of a non-feasible setup. With more and more immune to e-war supercapitals coming into play, the lauded "jump into EVE and be useful from day one as a tackler!" will be no more. There are many possibilities to avoid this by nerfing/changing the supercapitals themselves but that isn't what this is about. My point here is that EVE appears to be becoming progressively more and more hostile to new players - throwing in the PVE towel too will probably bring in fewer subscriptions, and less money for you in the long run. As an MMO, EVE will have to die off eventually, but why accelerate the process by making it more and more newbie-unfriendly?

(PS devs if you read this post please tell me so I won't be so worried about this, since it doesn't seem to get brought up enough)

Ky Vatta
Majority 12
Posted - 2007.02.21 23:38:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Ky Vatta on 21/02/2007 23:35:37
ughThis idea of moving missions into lowsec, or even 0.0.....I don`t think it`ll go down well with Empire-dwellers, as it is increasing their chance of their being involuntarily victims of PvP, while they are trying to do PvE....
In other words, being forced into PvP, just because they wish to do higher level agent missions...

Hunin
Minmatar
Infinity Enterprises
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.02.21 23:41:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Agillious
I can see whines on the horizon.

To me, placing the entire production of T1 and T2 items in player hands only opens the market for abuse. As an example, look at the T2 cartels that currently exist. They have monopolies on T2 BPO's and use that monopoly to set prices. Prices, that are (again, in my opinion) too high for the module. An NPC outlet for luxury items helps price check the player market.


I disagree with this statment. Currently T1 items are low priced is not due to NPC station selling them. T1 items have a low price because almost anyone can make them. The blueprints are relatively cheap to purchase from NPC stations and the production costs are low.

Why are T2 items priced much higher? The blueprints are restricted to only a select few people. Instead of researching the BPOs and making copies, players are making the items themselves and monopolizing the economy. If T2 blueprints were as common as T1 blueprints, then the monopoly of the current T2 BPO holders will be broken. Players will start making the T2 items first for themselves and their corporations and then selling them on the market.

Invention is CCP's solution to making T2 blueprints more common. I think CCP should go one step further and allow invention to create T2 BPOs as well as copies. This will let the researchers to add value to their T2 copies allowing them to compete evenly against the current T2 BPO holders. The less skilled researchers will still be able to make T2 BPCs and sell the items made from these blueprints at a higher cost. This gives invention a tiered system in the T2 market much like the T1 market. If this is done, then the T2 items will become more common and eventually lower the market price and break the monopoly of the current T2 BPO holders.

umop 3pisdn
Minmatar
Fnck the blob.
Posted - 2007.02.21 23:51:00 - [43]
 

That blog wins entirely, harder missions, missions in low sec, allowing cap ships, making them team focussed, making them worth peoples time.... thats everything that eve needs right now PVE wise... it would be awesome if missions became enjoyable/profitable to the point where they mostly replaces belt ratting (warp, tank shoot, warp, tank/shoot... aaaaall day)

Ky Vatta
Majority 12
Posted - 2007.02.21 23:52:00 - [44]
 

NeutralTrue..one thing I have noticed on contracts (used to be on escrow), is that fewer and fewer Tech 2 BPCs are being sold....

Griefer Troll
Troll Industries
Posted - 2007.02.21 23:56:00 - [45]
 

what i want to know is if you can clear a complex stage by dropping a cyno and doomsdaying remotely with a titan.

umop 3pisdn
Minmatar
Fnck the blob.
Posted - 2007.02.21 23:57:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Hunin
Originally by: Agillious
Originally by: Zigg Omelo
NO LVL 5 IN LOW SEC SPACE.Take it to 0.0

CCP this is your chance to breathe some life into 0.0 and make more ppl move there

Otherwise, lmao at getting this done for the summer.... LaughingLaughing


Show me a space of 0.0 space that isn't already dominated by player entities, and I'll agree to this proposal. Otherwise, all you are doing is hording the best toys (high level missions, high level complexes, moon harvesting, outposts, etc.) for the people that have played the longest.


I completely agree with you. 0.0 space is completely restricted by the large player alliances. Why is it restricted? It is restricted because there are few jump gates from lowsec to 0.0 space. Take the region I live in, Catch. Catch is a border region and there are only 2 entrances to lowsec space from this region. This creates a bottleneck for the entrances to 0.0 for the strongest alliance.

Imagine if there were 10 entrances to Catch (or any border 0.0 region) from both high sec and low sec. Now instead of camping 2 systems, a player alliance has to camp 10 systems. This is almost impossible for any alliance. It will allow more people in to 0.0 systems because the bottleneck systems are increased substantially.


Although i agree about the bottlenecks being a problem, everything else in the previous post is plainly wrong. Almost all 0.0 alliances allow residents and would happily allow you to pay to live in their space and run missions. More npc stations might be good for some areas of 0.0 as well.

If you can run a level 5, you're probably older than me, age is meaningless once you pass around 5mil sp... (depending on where it is... but 1mil learning +4mil combat is not that much) 0.0 is a sweet playground to be in, perhaps though... agents in 0.0 need to be looked at not as caldari/gallente/thukker/qaufe but as neutral entirely... so that I dont have to run missions in enemy space just because my agent was spawned their.... Other than that.. its all going to be sweet.

hotgirl933
Posted - 2007.02.22 00:13:00 - [47]
 

good move u can never have to much asset inflation and if it allows quicker ship and item turnaround and more ships to be thrown into PVP this is a reasonable side impacting anti grind influence

umop 3pisdn
Minmatar
Fnck the blob.
Posted - 2007.02.22 00:14:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: PDoggy
Edited by: PDoggy on 21/02/2007 23:34:59
HEY DEVS I AM USING ALL-CAPS AND BOLD AND UNDERLINE AND CENTER AND EVEN COLOURS TO ATTRACT YOUR ATTENTION PLEASE READ THIS POST


*Crap about noobs not liking eve cos they cant run level 5/6/7's right away*


Dude you are so wrong... I cant fly a cap ship, but this will give people a reason to want too.. carriers at the moment = alts sitting in pos's assigning fighters and dreads are corp owned pwn machines for the yawn fest that is pos warfare.

What about all those 1-2-3 year olds in empire still running level 4's.. what about all the people in 0.0 right now belt ratting all god damn day until they want to cut themselves just to get some isk together for pvp... thats what this is about, more and more people can fly hacs/cap ships now... look at goonswarm if you want a good example... the player base as a whole is moving up in SP, this wont leave the noobies behind at all, i quit missions and moved to low sec when i got to level 3 missions because they were too much of a jump from level 2 missions at that time... the new plan is to streamline things, make it easier on the noobies and keep vets interested at the same time... your point about doomsdays ruining eve may have some merit but it is NOT stopping people in small ships getting into 0.0 for the war against blob, you can take a DD in a BS just fine if you're ready for it.
You are right about more than 1 dd hitting a fleet and you are right about the bull**** EW proof cap ships though.

Re read the blog... its not looking good for empire *****s but it is looking good for eve in general (once they remove titans, that is... Wink)

DriveCrash
Cote En Noir
Posted - 2007.02.22 00:19:00 - [49]
 

I love these changes.

To people saying put level 5 missions in 0.0... that's stuipid. The point he made was to populate low sec more. Currently people avoid low sec more than they do 0.0. It's silly yes, but it's true. I think it would be great to move 4, 5, and 6 agents to low sec. Level 7 agents, yes possibly move them to 0.0, but at the same time you have to consider 0.0 is very territory driven. Alot of corps aren't going to have access to 0.0, and would have to completely miss out on corp group missions, which would be a bad deal. As the 0.0 wars escilate and it becomes more large alliances, it gets less and less accessable to "mission running" empire corps.

I do like the idea of some how getting agents in outposts. I think that would be best change since sliced bread. Have it so the owning holding corp if they have high enough standing with a particular npc corp, can request for agent(s) to setup shop in thier outposts. This could also be writen in for more storyline effect of agents and mission running, as well as promote roleplay corps in 0.0 (which is rare if at all) And frankly, I like roleplay, and would like to see more of it. And more of the player built structures have effect on the npc storyline of the game.

But overall, I love the ideas, I'm looking forward to less ships, but bigger ones the most. I have a horriable time with my pc chunking in level 4's where there are just too many ships on screen.

However I question if a highly skilled BS pilot would be able to break an NPC capital ship tank? If not, that makes the jump from the the nerfed level 4's, which could be run with BC's and weak bs's to level 5's being capship or bs fleet required. It would make a huge gap in the mission system agian like we currently have between level 3s and level 4s, only worse imo. level 6 should be dread + support, or bs fleet. It makes sense and I like the idea of missions you need a group of your friends to complete.

Keep up the thinking, but dont spend so much time in the thought processes that nothing gets put into action =/

-DriveCrash

Agillious
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.02.22 00:26:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: umop 3pisdn
Originally by: Hunin
Originally by: Agillious
Originally by: Zigg Omelo
move lvl5 agents to 0.0

Show me a space of 0.0 space that isn't already dominated by player entities, and I'll agree to this proposal. Otherwise, all you are doing is hording the best toys (high level missions, high level complexes, moon harvesting, outposts, etc.) for the people that have played the longest.

I completely agree with you. 0.0 space is completely restricted by the large player alliances. Why is it restricted? It is restricted because there are few jump gates from lowsec to 0.0 space. Take the region I live in, Catch. Catch is a border region and there are only 2 entrances to lowsec space from this region. This creates a bottleneck for the entrances to 0.0 for the strongest alliance.

Imagine if there were 10 entrances to Catch (or any border 0.0 region) from both high sec and low sec. Now instead of camping 2 systems, a player alliance has to camp 10 systems. This is almost impossible for any alliance. It will allow more people in to 0.0 systems because the bottleneck systems are increased substantially.

Although i agree about the bottlenecks being a problem, everything else in the previous post is plainly wrong. Almost all 0.0 alliances allow residents and would happily allow you to pay to live in their space and run missions. More npc stations might be good for some areas of 0.0 as well.

If you can run a level 5, you're probably older than me, age is meaningless once you pass around 5mil sp... (depending on where it is... but 1mil learning +4mil combat is not that much) 0.0 is a sweet playground to be in, perhaps though... agents in 0.0 need to be looked at not as caldari/gallente/thukker/qaufe but as neutral entirely... so that I dont have to run missions in enemy space just because my agent was spawned their.... Other than that.. its all going to be sweet.

Yay, quote chains!

On the subject of residents... sure, 0.0 alliances do allow residents, currently, because the only thing a resident can do in 0.0 right now is mine or hunt NPC's. And so any assumptions made about current alliances and residents is only plainly valid in those scenarios, not ones that involve agents. Once you illuminate "plainly wrong" I'll do the same with "plainly valid".

You mention adding aditional NPC stations... Current 0.0 alliances wouldn't go for this, and I don't think its in their best interest to go for it. Adding NPC stations makes it that much harder to hold sovereignty. Why? NPC stations = neutral bolt holes. More NPC stations means it would be easier for pirates and invading armies to set-up shop.

Honestly? Given the current paranoia that pervades alliance politics, it would be suicidal on an alliance's part to allow single players or small corps residency to run missions. An opposing alliance simply creates a horde of alt corps that ferry in war materials, and presto! Instant forward base, not to mention free intellignece on enemy troop movements.

If the best agents get seeded where the fewest have access, its creating the T2BPO lottery all over again, just with agents. No thanks.

Hektor Ramirez
Outer Ring Tourist Information Center
Posted - 2007.02.22 00:32:00 - [51]
 

Edited by: Hektor Ramirez on 22/02/2007 00:31:27
This is good news, I've been waiting for a blog like this, thank you. I'm curious how all this will turn out. It'll be fun to see who's brave enough to take a capital ship into one of the new missions without knowing what to expect.

Kvarium Ki
Igneus Auctorita
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.02.22 00:38:00 - [52]
 

I'd like my corporation to be abble to hire an agent from an NPC corp and station him at one of our outposts in 0.0

Player corporations could accumulate loyalty points towards an npc corp and spend those loyalty points on "renting" the agent.

Perhaps you could even station your agent at an npc station as long as the station owner is friendly towards the corp of the agent you want to install there.

I think that would help spread agent runners around a lot.

I like the ideas you've put forth.

KK.

Toria Nynys
Minmatar
Posted - 2007.02.22 00:46:00 - [53]
 

This is full of promise, so long as people in charge of implementation keep an eye out on risk/reward.

Adding risk to missions via surprise PvP (read: nearly guaranteed loss of your ride) is great, so long as it's possible to make at least or more than the cost of said ship in a couple of missions, not dozens or hundreds.

Doing missions in teams won't solve the gank issue, becase the pirates can just 'do' the mish runners in bigger blobs. They have the advantage of knowing what force to deploy (covert ops ships come to mind as the easiest scouting method) while the mish runners can't possibly estimate the size of a pirate invasion. You can't just dock and log every time local swells -- it's no fun, and in a popular mish running location it'll be impossible to tell the gankers from another mish running team.

Why do people mine out entire empire systems of scordite in Hulks? Because to them the added income of mining in lowsec/nosec outweighs the loss of a 550M ship + fittings.

Now. Think carefuly how rewarding a mission must be to risk a guaranteed eventual loss of a several billion ISK ship + fittings before trying to bulldoze anyone older than a month into lowsec.

Lots of thought, lots of effort and the feature may be completely unused because like much of 0.0, the risk/reward equation doesn't ballance for a great amount of people (a.k.a. carebears).

And if empire missions are 'nerfed' more with a loss of bounty ISK, well. Forcing mish runners into empire scordite mining may not turn out to be optimal for continued CCP revenue.

Oh, and being a faceless grunt in a hierarchy in a giant alliance to have access to game content -- once again, a lose. Yes, it models real life, but most of us are drones in RL. Games are an escape. Don't turn Eve into a second job.

Fergus Runkle
Minmatar
Truth and Reconciliation Council
Posted - 2007.02.22 00:59:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Kaptein Trefot
Edited by: Kaptein Trefot on 21/02/2007 23:33:44
Edited by: Kaptein Trefot on 21/02/2007 23:23:04
There is a lot of carebears in this game and the only universal issue that angers carebears is an attempt to force your game-play upon them. There are a lot of high sec mission-runners and those ppl simply donít want to play the PvP game you are offering in low sec and 0.0.

If your 'idea' of how you intended this game to be is more important than your business, than this is the way to go. If you want the player-base in eve to grow, you should definitely rethink the consequences of these changes to high sec missions.

Force a playing style on a carebear and it will be the last time you see him.


This man is correct.

I like most of the blog I disagree with

a) reducing the difficulty of level4's - this does not need to be done, there should always be a varience in difficulty across a particular level.

b) making level5's low sec only - simply people will not do them, even in a group if they suspect they are going to be ganked on the way there, during or on the way back.

Leave the difficulty of level4's alone, make it possible to share the payouts of ALL missions at all levels and introduce some level5's to high sec. Please.

Helmut Rul
Posted - 2007.02.22 01:07:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Helmut Rul on 22/02/2007 01:13:06
Edited by: Helmut Rul on 22/02/2007 01:10:07
A lot of the suggestions on the blog sounds great, However is still seems like CCP belives that they can force people into low-sec and this i belive is an major error.

While low-sec certainly needs to become more than EvEs dumping grounds for pirates that hunger for an easy gank, It will certainly not be populated if people feel that they are being used as sacrifices to appease pirates and gatecampers.
Lot of players would probably rather leave than continue playing a game that they feel forces them into the role of victims.

Currently many players use ships worth 2 billions or so to do the missions fast and with a minimum of risk, this is no more wrong than alliances using titans or Blobs , It is simply a mechanism for quicker and better earning that every player strives for.

Despite the cost of such ships they are however sitting ducks against a pirate or a gang of pirates that manages to get the drop on them in a mission, Every advantage is held by the pirate: they get to choose the moment to pounce, They get an victim that allready fights against NPCs, Their victim might already be warpscrambled and their victim is often the fattest catch imaginable, loaded with tech II and officer mods.

Mission ships are often the result of months that their players have invested in EvE, And they are used simply because not using them gives you a subpar earning ability, Even if you as a mission runner had a guarantee that you could not be blown up more than once per month that still would not be enough to ensure that you could actually make money in low-sec,particulary if higher level missions get harder.

Doing missions in pairs or small groups would not solve any problems either 1: the payouts would have to be increased accordingly 2: the pirates would still have the luxury of dictating both if they should engage and when.

Equally hopeless is the idea that missioners should get together and chase the pirates from their system, There is no real way to lock down a system to ensure that pirates cannot get inside the system and it is also impossible for someone that actually wants to do missions to be able to police a system and simultanously do missions, If the pirates gets chased out by missioners they will be back in an hour or two after the posse have returned to their missions.

The only possible scenario would be to have an dedicated security force that were able to camp all the gates into the system after you somehow had managed to cleanse the system for interlopers beforehand and even then pirates could manage to get into the system but they would have to work hard for it, Unfortunately there is no way missioning as it currently is could in any way possible pay for this.

To summarise: Make people WANT to go to low-sec do not FORCE them there, Until CCP gets an idea for what they can place in low-sec that may tempt people to go there low-sec will be virtually uninhabited. If you are big enough and organized enough you do not stop over in low-sec unless there is a reason to do so and being the targets of any number of pirates that want their gank is not a role most people choose.

Miri Tirzan
Caldari
Clan Korval
Posted - 2007.02.22 01:09:00 - [56]
 

Once again social engineering raises it head in Eve. Even though most the player base is not into PvP combat, the dev's are going to nerf missions in highsec to try and force players into low sec. Anyone else think that trying to force the paying customers into a play style they don't want just might be bad for the game?

If you want to add level 5 and above missions in low sec and nosec, fine, but why nerf highsec and that part of the player base? Why nerf the solo players? The greatness of Eve was that there was room for any play style, but now your going to force people into "PvP combat" to help them learn to enjoy it. Does that sound ******ed or what?

If you want people in low sec, how about addressing the issues raised by the highsec dwellers and actually put in something that makes it worth the risk of going out where the gank squads live?

Kaalen
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.02.22 01:11:00 - [57]
 

Thank you, thank you, thank you and thank you.

High level agents in low sec only is exactly what needs to be done. Carebears can make a decent sum of money in high sec if they want, but to sink their teeth into the REAL money they need to take a little risk, it's about time that the balance was restored and those that take that risk get the reward. No-one is forcing any play style on anyone.

Also, the one thing that excites me the most about this is that mission rewards can be split amongst several players. I have wanted this for a very long time as EVE has always been about teamwork and playing with friends for me, and yet I really enjoy the occasional mission. So again, thank you! Something to be excited about now that all the important stuff has been delayed.

Taizu Lilith
Minmatar
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
Posted - 2007.02.22 01:14:00 - [58]
 

I already do Level 4s in low sec.. I do many of them in less than 2 hours in my partially T2 fitted Typhoon. The long ones (which might take me closer to 6 hours) I don't do (unless I want the challenge). To make level 4s easier would make them rediculous. To break some level 4s off and make them level 5s, that would be OK. And honestly, on the missions I take, I have the spots open to fit a PvP fitting (well, I often do fit a Cap charger instead of a Cap Booster, but that would be the only change).

As far as using PvP fittings in Missions, that sounds like a great idea. Make so that if you are suppose to kill someone, if he is losing, he tries to warp off (making you fail the mission). So you need to pack a Warp Scrambler to beat the mission (or something).

I like the idea of facing capitals... one thing is to not make all difficult missions in 0, there are very few places where 'neutrals' can go in 0, and a lot of Empire Corps would enjoy harder missions I think (I did some sort of Extravaganza recently with some freinds, was quick and fun, while I know that by myself it would have taken too long for me to do most the time). The Empire Factions (Minmatar, Amarr, Caldari, and Gallente), should have their level 6 and 7 missions in Sec space (maybe low sec, but still).

SonOTassadar
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2007.02.22 01:17:00 - [59]
 

I have a few comments about the new system. Before I get into my big concerns, I would like to say this: these are very, very good changes. I can't wait for them.

1) Being useful early on. X amount of data sheets, small arms, antibiotics, veldspar and scordite mining crystals are essentially useless. During the time when you're running lower level agents, this is about all you can obtain for mission rewards. Is this going to be changed? There's a thousand-million better options, in my opinion. Even simple things like offering named items for a player's ship could be an LP reward. A pilot wants to run missions, and the agents, if they were real people would like them to continue to run missions, and to not die, and all that, so it would make sense to have offers available that boost the ability of their ships, whether it be named cargo expanders or heavy missile bays.

2. Agent Offers Every now and then I hear you guys saying that you want a "store", so to speak, with your agents and their offers. Where a player can pick and choose from a variety of different items. Is this still planned?

3. The Implant Market Was it your guys intention to crash this market? If not, implant offers need to be made more difficult to obtain, and I don't mean simply "more loyalty points". You guys seem to be on a roll with tying in several different professions into everything, and that is pretty fun, so perhaps implant offers could take more than just LP, and require other things.

4. Agent Quality This is one of the primary reasons why trade hubs are formed. If you're going to add more levels for agents, do we really need agent quality anymore?

5. Gang rewards Most MMOs have this problem. Hell most RPGs have this problem. It's simply easier to do it yourself. Organization is the main reason why gangs are slower than solo, and there's nothing anyone can do about it. If the total LP from a reward is 200, and 4 people join your gang, dividing it equally among them for 50 LP each is the wrong answer. Please, give a bonus of some sort to provide incentive for people to group up to complete missions.

Shevaresh
Posted - 2007.02.22 01:22:00 - [60]
 

My thoughts on this:

This sounds interesting, but there better be a good reward.

I run L4 missions. Currently, it's barely worth it to run them in highsec; taking my ship into lowsec isn't going to happen, period. Too many pirates there; I've lost umm.. probably around 10-15 ships to pirates in lowsec, and that's not why I play the game.

The above poster (the one talking about PvP fittings vs PvE fittings) was perfectly correct. When I'm set up to PvE, I can't PvP very well if at all. Oh, sure, I can defend myself to the point of keeping myself from getting killed, but I can't kill the pirates.

When I run L4 missions, I average an hour per mission, and the loot was sucking until very recently. I'd say that I make 10, 15m per mission, not counting the faction ones.

I'm an intermittent player. I a 0.0 alliance/corp recently, in part because I felt that I wasn't actually helping them fight - almost all of the time I did play, I spent trying to earn ISK to afford to play the game at all (GTC's). The rest of the time, I was getting blown up in small gangs.

Running L4 missions is already a pain; I can barely tank a fair portion of the missions (T2-shield tanked Raven) without help of a friend. Of course, my friends and I aren't always on, so I've been running missions with a group; 15m/3 ways.

If you move missions to Lowsec, make them worth it. I'm not talking double the rewards; I'm talking vastly decreased mission difficulty *and* increased mission rewards. Example:
Assuming they are supposed to be equivalent to current L4 missions, make L5 missions doable with difficulty in a T1 BC, but fairly easy in a BS. This gives the BS the ability to fit PvP fittings, and able to kill players.

Other ideas:

force mission NPC relocking when more ships arrive. ie, if I'm doing a mission and another ship warps in, make the rats have a 50% chance (more if there are more ships) of delocking me and targetting the new guy(s). If I'm forced to fit for PvE, force them to as well.

Give us support fleets: Spawn friendly mission NPCs that shoot at the people we target; the NPCs would not warp with us except via gate. Allow us to gang with them and assign them targets.

All I would like to add is that if highsec becomes completely and totally useless to me, so does EVE. I will kill all three of my accounts, and no you cannot have my stuff.

I would just like to add: I play BF2 for PvP. I play EVE to hang out with friends. EVE PvP is way to slow for my tastes.


Pages: first : previous : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (25)

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