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 : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : last (25)

Author Topic

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2007.02.22 14:39:00 - [181]
 

Originally by: Toria Nynys
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.



Quoted for emphasis.

Par'Gellen
Gallente
Neon Cranium
Posted - 2007.02.22 14:42:00 - [182]
 

Originally by: Shadowsword
Originally by: Toria Nynys
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.



Quoted for emphasis.
Quoted twice for emphasis! I could not have said it better myself!

Lunhara Darkblade
Posted - 2007.02.22 14:47:00 - [183]
 

All the changes look good can't wait for them to be introduced.

My corp often love to run level 4 mission nights as a group so the split rewards will be great.

If there are no bounties however will the loot tables be sorted.

As it stands now if I don't make any isk from bounties I make bugger all selling the loot.

I don't mind looting by I don't like salvaging so will we see better loot to sell? Maybe even faction loot in the highest level missions such is found in some complexes, though it should not drop everytime the mission is run just have a chance of dropping.

Also will belt rats also lose their bounties?

Hathi
Task Force Zener
Posted - 2007.02.22 14:55:00 - [184]
 

Edited by: Hathi on 22/02/2007 14:57:54
No problems with Lvl 5 etc in lowsec, provided Lvl 5 is new and not a rebranded Lvl 4....

As for the reduced isk & increased LP's. Fair enough, provided the fixed cost items also decrease in value, ie skills & clones.

The problem with the risk v reward calculation is that it needs to account for the casual and hardcore gamer. I don't mind seeing people in 2B isk ships etc, they can afford them. I do mind needing to do missions/mine/rat solid for over a week(s) to replace a clone or BC; that's about 5 hours/week incase someone was wondering. Who wants lowsec when the loss is too great? Maybe look at the balance & decrease the RISK of losing? No need to adjust the hazard - ie pirates. You want PVP, fine, give us a chance to recover in a sensible timeframe.

Marchant LaCroix
Gallente
Ma-Ven Industries
Posted - 2007.02.22 14:56:00 - [185]
 

As a general update on Missions I think this is an excellent expansion of the current system. However, there are a few things that worry me about the design so I will give you a hand with that by pleading that you make sure there are distinct differences in distance between group. As with 'Stop the Theif'lvl4 that I was flying with a friend of mine last night, it is difficult to not agro a full group when they spawn after the first spawn. This was ok as I was ready for the alpha and had been tanked accordingly but.... for higher level missions this may not even be possible without an obscenely big tank.

Second point of note being an avid fan of the exploration update could we also see some additions to the lower level missions of hacking and archaeology for the solo missioner?

Zarch AlDain
GK inc.
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:12:00 - [186]
 

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.


You are joking right? I am in and out of 0.0 all the time, with no permission from any local alliance!

All it takes is a little patience, a few precautions and knowing what you are doing.

Kalev Kalevipoeg
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:15:00 - [187]
 

oh great, after beeing fed up with all the "player sh***t" i thought i can have a nice quiet pencion playing eve as solo game using pve only and what i get ? yet another way to be forced into "community" and "pvp", man, leave us soloers alone and go pick on somebody else!

tho i do like some changes.

hydraSlav
Synergy Evolved
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:16:00 - [188]
 

Lot's of changes, and some of them are very needed (such as forcing the risk factor in the rewards by moving the agents to low-sec, group benefits, shared LP).

One thing bugs me though. You are talking about fighting NPC Dreadnoughts, Carriers and Motherships even in lvl4 missions (and player Capitals are allowed on lvl5 and above missions). The NPC Capitals are there to replace large number of smaller spawns thus improving the performance, however difficulty is going to remain about same (easier actually). That's all nice and stuff... but once i see a mission Domi killing a Carrier or even a Mothership.... that's gonna kill all immersion again.... And are they gonna use fighter drones with NPC capitals? If not, that's gonna be some really pathetic capitals.

Erick Thrakrar
TSB - HALO
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:17:00 - [189]
 

A lot of people are rightly concerned that mission running ships are an easy prey for pirates in low-sec.

So how do we get mission runners to spend some time in low-sec, with possible pvp encounters, yet avoid turning them into victims?

IdeaHere's my idea: Introduce a new structure which we, for a lack of a better term, will call a "Private CONCORD base".
This structure can be put up in a low-sec system by a corporation (similarly to how you set up a POS).
Setting up the structure requires multiple people and some time (maybe 1-2 hours). While setting up the structure, these people could get attacked by other players.

Once the structure is up however, the corp owning it will receive CONCORD protection in this system as if they were in high-sec.
The structure cannot be destroyed, but will disappear after some time (maybe a week).


This way low-sec mission runners could work in a protected environment, but they have to run some risk to create that safe environment.
The advantage here is that the mission runners can be in pvp capable ships while setting up the CONCORD base, and then switch to their mission setups once it's done.

Magnum III
Journey On Squad
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:19:00 - [190]
 

L4 missions on up to get into faction warfare?

I'm sick fo new content always being for the top 10% or so.

**********************************************
Dev Blog

"We're adding more Agent levels

There, I said it. Let's get it all into the open so we can start focusing on the finer points of it. This is part of a bigger strategy of the colonization of EVE, attempting to tie the higher levels of gameplay into the various aspects of EVE. The key points we feel are important here are:

Level 4 will become closer to Level 3 in difficulty, the jump up will not be as drastic as it is now.
Level 5 will be the new level, consisting partly of the most difficult Level 4 missions, but mainly new missions.
New missions in Levels 4 and up will focus on the escalating warfare between the Empires and factions. This incidentally enables you to engage Dreadnoughts, Carriers and Motherships.
Levels 5 and up are all in 0.4 security and below.
Level 6 will be a brand new Agent Level,
Levels 5 and 6 will be open to certain capital ship classes (possibly all, including those moved from 4 to 5),
Level 7 is still a possible addition, also a brand new agent Level,
Level 7 would be open to all ship classes, except Titans."
*******************************************************

From what is see in this blog is that in order to get into Faction Warfare we have to get to L4 missions?

So new players and new PC's will have to go through all that just to get to this more fun content? That stinks.

And these missions last long amounts of time, so what about people who just want to be a bit more casual?

What is so wrong with having some simple missions for Faction warfare?

What if I do not want to pay the out of hand prices for a Battleship? Or what if I took the long amount of time to get one then loose it?

You can't just make content for the top 10% of players or just content for their main's even.

Par'Gellen
Gallente
Neon Cranium
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:28:00 - [191]
 

Originally by: Erick Thrakrar
A lot of people are rightly concerned that mission running ships are an easy prey for pirates in low-sec.

So how do we get mission runners to spend some time in low-sec, with possible pvp encounters, yet avoid turning them into victims?

IdeaHere's my idea: Introduce a new structure which we, for a lack of a better term, will call a "Private CONCORD base".
This structure can be put up in a low-sec system by a corporation (similarly to how you set up a POS).
Setting up the structure requires multiple people and some time (maybe 1-2 hours). While setting up the structure, these people could get attacked by other players.

Once the structure is up however, the corp owning it will receive CONCORD protection in this system as if they were in high-sec.
The structure cannot be destroyed, but will disappear after some time (maybe a week).


This way low-sec mission runners could work in a protected environment, but they have to run some risk to create that safe environment.
The advantage here is that the mission runners can be in pvp capable ships while setting up the CONCORD base, and then switch to their mission setups once it's done.
Along those lines I'd love to see the ability to hire a CONCORD escort into low sec. Wouldn't really work for 0.0 since it could be abused for intel gathering but would be perfect for low sec. I think it would be very fun to hire some guards for protection while missioning or mining or whatever. Why not just hire some other players? Because I don't trust ANY of you! LOL

Lord WarATron
Amarr
Shadow Warri0rs
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:41:00 - [192]
 

Originally by: Garr Anders
Overal it sounds good, with it's little up and downs, but IMHO opinion you need a more interesting agro system for your NPCs.

NPCs should:

1.) and most important, be able to switch targets
2.) re-act to different ship types, which are in the mission area
3.) re-act to different module types, depending on from what ship type it comes
4.) retreat and reengage


Currently it's one player take all aggro and tank, and the other players take out what is shooting the tank.

If NPC ships react to incoming fire, dependig on the damage and from what (player)ship type, you'll have NPC destroyers that shoot the player BS tank, and get taken damage by a player frig, switch their target to the player frigates rather than just wasting their ammo to the tank.

Also if a player cruiser is using support modules to a player ship, it should get primary for all frigs and BC to take out this player support ship, same for player ECM ships.




Correct. At the moment, pve is in imbalace of tank and gank. You fit a tank, and as long as you can tank the rats, your teammates can just fit a gank setup to quickly kill the rats. What needs to happen is a mixture of tank and gank so that when a gang enters a missions, they all have a mixture of tank and gank. If NPC's switch targets intelligently, there will be no more RAMBO style solo efforts which is what is the main problem with missions at the moment.

Jungle Jim
The Black Rabbits
Fatal Persuasion
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:45:00 - [193]
 

Originally by: Par'Gellen

Now, as you can see, the real problem are the "Gank PvP"s.
  • "Combat PvP" on "Combat PvP" = No problem. PEW PEW PEW! Everyone's happy!
  • "Combat PvP" on "Gank PvP" = No problem. PEW PEW PEW! Everyone's happy!
  • "Combat PvE" on "NPC" = No problem. PEW PEW PEW! Everyone's happy except the NPC's but they aren't real and pay no subs so who cares?
  • "Gank PvP" on "Combat PvE" = Big problem. "Combat PvE" is very unhappy. "Gank PvP" is happy. Canceled subs. Much forum whining/gloating.
Solution: Make things harder on the "Gank PvP" types so that they aren't really the one's profiting at virtually no risk to themselves. Not to mention ****ing off paying customers.

PvP has it's place. Ganking however belongs nowhere.


Its the ganking that causes the PvE types to work together and come PvP (the swines that just ganked them)... and they like it... Just come visit Mito for a week and you'll see what I mean. Take that away and bad things will happen!

Arzal
Animosity.
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:46:00 - [194]
 

ok, when i first saw this i thought "GREAT!" but after some thinking I started wondering about people who fly arround in faction battleships and setups worth billions of isk? i know i for one wouldn't risk that in lowsec, but on the other hand i would want to fly it... so where does that put them? ok fine, say keep doing level 4s... but if they are getting easyer they won't need the ships or find it challenging at all...

I think generally it is a good idea, just move some of the harder level 4s into 5s and keep some of them in high-sec, keeps a decent playerbase. but i think the level 5+ for gangs is a great idea.

OverKill
Caldari
Allied Mineral and Technologies
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:49:00 - [195]
 

I'll pop my head out of the shadows and throw in my two isks.

All the changes look good except for the no bounty part.

With this feature disabled, those of us who do agent missions for money will lose out on another path of earning revenue, not to mention this will make an already complex game even harder for new style players. I don't see this as an option to retain, nor expand, the existing customer base as there is a LARGE amount of people that will be affected by this. Not everyone participates in the politics and intrigue in 0.0 space and large alliance conflicts.

Yes, you can make a lot of money running agent missions but the time involved to solo them (even with all powerful uber mods) is fairly intensive and in fact mining in lowsec or 0.0 space can easily outpace the amount of isks earned by those who collect bounties from each dead NPC.

Gank and Tank setups? Sure, but that goes for PvP as well as PvE... you know how many times I've passed warp bubbles with a guy setup strictly for EW, another as the heavy hitter and another one as tackler? Its all about allocation of resources and personnel. So some people do it in PvE and others do it in PvP, its all about getting the job done.

Anyways, the short versions is: I don't feel this is a solution to "isk inflation" nor do I feel its a good idea removing mission bounty pay.

Diss Champ
Amarr
VentureCorp
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:58:00 - [196]
 

To understand where missions should go, it is good to understand where we stand. My own experience may help this understanding.

I ran a mission corp in empire for a while. I have quite high standings, I've done missions in high sec, low sec, and even 0.0. I discovered when I got to 0.0 that:
1. You earn more ISK ratting in 0.0 than you can doing lvl4 missions. This is including the ISK of stuff gained from LP, but not including special cases like the single time you're allowed to run COSMOS missions.
2. It's safer (i.e. less ship losses) to rat in 0.0 than do lvl4 missions. Even the loss of ships to badly timed lag in lvl4 missions is higher than not warping to the POS when hostiles show up in 0.0. Doing missions anywhere besides high sec (even controled 0.0 which is in turn much safer than low sec) is several times as dangerous as 0.0 ratting.
3. It's cheaper to rat in 0.0 than do lvl4 missions. Low skillpoints low cost battleship setups rat effectively. Some lvl4 take very expensive setups to run solo, whereas anyone can rat solo with an eye on local.
4. Anyone can go rat. Getting good missions requires a grind of standing first, and a certain amount of social skillpoints is assumed in the above comparison (ie, the special connections skills trained up).

All this being the case, higher level missions would be nice. But the factors that exist which make 4s poorly competive look to be exacerbated by some of the proposals:
1. Since mission setups and PVP setups are not compatible, putting missions in low sec makes the risk/reward tradeoff even worse.
2. Since bounties are currently the main income for missions, and the value of LP produced items relatively small, removing bounties makes the risk/reward tradeoff worse.
3. The LP store will will have everyone buying the few decent LP/ISK ratio items, and drop the price on the items fairly fast, leaving no decent LP/ISK ratio items. So it doesn't fix number 2.

The one thing misions have going for them now, is that the standing is useful for some side tasks, like jump clones, getting into COSMOS missions, lowering broker fees, and refining. All these are things where one runs missions for a while, gets the standing, and then has no reason to continue running missions relative to heading to 0.0. If the design goal is to get everyone into 0.0, that's fine. But if you want to create higher end mission content, you really need to make that content have a risk/reward ratio that makes it competitive with other parts of the game. Either crank up the reward massively to make it greater than relatively risk-free activities like mining and ratting if you're going to put in in low security, or make it lower risk than those activities if the reward is going to remain lower and make it like the blueprint based industries where you have a huge capital investment which you will almost certainly not lose but which returns a steady income.

Trying to make it high risk while not providing attendent reward isn't a good idea.

Par'Gellen
Gallente
Neon Cranium
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:59:00 - [197]
 

Originally by: Jungle Jim
Originally by: Par'Gellen

Now, as you can see, the real problem are the "Gank PvP"s.
  • "Combat PvP" on "Combat PvP" = No problem. PEW PEW PEW! Everyone's happy!
  • "Combat PvP" on "Gank PvP" = No problem. PEW PEW PEW! Everyone's happy!
  • "Combat PvE" on "NPC" = No problem. PEW PEW PEW! Everyone's happy except the NPC's but they aren't real and pay no subs so who cares?
  • "Gank PvP" on "Combat PvE" = Big problem. "Combat PvE" is very unhappy. "Gank PvP" is happy. Canceled subs. Much forum whining/gloating.
Solution: Make things harder on the "Gank PvP" types so that they aren't really the one's profiting at virtually no risk to themselves. Not to mention ****ing off paying customers.

PvP has it's place. Ganking however belongs nowhere.


Its the ganking that causes the PvE types to work together and come PvP (the swines that just ganked them)... and they like it... Just come visit Mito for a week and you'll see what I mean. Take that away and bad things will happen!
By definition "Combat PvE"s aren't interested in that kind of thing and going "Anti-Pirate" only feeds the ganktards. What you suggest is counter productive (i.e. you make it worse by trying to fight them).

Juntos
Lions Of Judah
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2007.02.22 16:04:00 - [198]
 

Edited by: Juntos on 22/02/2007 16:02:34
Edited by: Juntos on 22/02/2007 16:00:37
I absolutely agree with Toria Nynys, don't see the point in quoting again :)

But would like to add that it strikes me that with the removal of agent rewards and bounties there will be very little ways of injecting isk into the economy of Eve.

I understand the need to reduce the inflation but if there is no way to earn isk, except from other players then with players with millions or even billions of isk becoming inactive and the only way of earning isk being from other players then the market would actually shrink quite quickly.

Also, if there are no bounties, does this mean that there will be better loot drops, more named stuff etc.

Why are the higher level missions only for the bigger ships, why can there not be higher level missions for t2 frigs and cruisers, and cov-ops and so on.

I understand that for CCP this game is all about pvp, but for us it is about relaxing and having fun and sometimes we like to carebear. If the devs don't want us carebearing then why give us missions in the first place?

The only way most of us can afford to combat pvp is to run missions etc to get isk and stuff to buy ships to pvp with. And I agree that reducing the difficulty of lvl 4 missions and making the higher ones only in 0.4 and below is nuts. There is no way on this planet that I am taking my 200mil+ isk of pve setup Raven into low sec space whilst the current gank squad gate camping is happening and it takes me a month to get the isk to replace, if I can do lvl 4 missions without it.

swoj
The New Order.
Posted - 2007.02.22 16:08:00 - [199]
 

Originally by: Primus Remors
Forgot to add that LP pool will make it harder if not impossible to get some of the needed low LP offers such as starbase charters. And as such the idea should not be implemented automaticly. A pool of LP that you could transfer the LP you want sounds alot better idea though.


The blog did mention that LP will be used in a new store style system to cash them in for rewards, you won't have to wait on offers, just go to the shop and pick your reward.

Magnum III
Journey On Squad
Posted - 2007.02.22 16:10:00 - [200]
 

I need to have a BC to play in Faction Warfare?

But it took me 1 month playing every day to make enough isk to be ABLE TO buy a BC.

If I bring it in low sec, I'll loose it the 1st time I'm engaged and I will be ganked.

So If I do a Faction Warfare mission, I will not try to get any ware near another player because I will loose 1 month of hard work.

So what’s the point on PvP gankings if you can not win ever?

And what is the point of Faction warfare when it becomes, run away hide time.

PvP for me is just Gank v Me the player.

If I could even get to fight some one that is not 10 time more powerful then me, that would be something.

I feel no joy in ganking someone way lower then me either.

I tried to PvP but they will not play unless they got some ship that took a year to get.

BOTTUM LINE IS, I would like to get into the War but if it is just going to be a way to make me cannon fodder then no thanks.

I can see you guys are just thinking of what can you do for the richest players. If not then please say something.

When I 1st played this game I was hoping to get an outpost, what a dumbass I was to think I could do that, haha, the only thing is you said we could do it then I see what you really meant.

We can see the top one % do these things and if we get permission we can use THEIR STUFF.

Come on this stinks, I want to have fun too. Level some of it down please.

Doxs Roxs
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.02.22 16:31:00 - [201]
 

This sounds interesting.

Quote:
Level 4 will become closer to Level 3 in difficulty, the jump up will not be as drastic as it is now.
Level 5 will be the new level, consisting partly of the most difficult Level 4 missions, but mainly new missions.
New missions in Levels 4 and up will focus on the escalating warfare between the Empires and factions. This incidentally enables you to engage Dreadnoughts, Carriers and Motherships.
Levels 5 and up are all in 0.4 security and below.
Level 6 will be a brand new Agent Level,
Levels 5 and 6 will be open to certain capital ship classes (possibly all, including those moved from 4 to 5),
Level 7 is still a possible addition, also a brand new agent Level,
Level 7 would be open to all ship classes, except Titans.
Sounds great!

Quote:
The Loyalty Point system will be turned into a more store-type mechanism, almost how many envision a black market (and in essence it is), thus creating a high-level ISK sink.
You would now earn Loyalty Points on the corporate level, allowing you to move easier to other agents in the same corporation.
Really nice stuff!

Quote:
Mission rewards can be split among a group.


Actually, this should have been a no brainer 3 years ago. This is the SINGLE most important feature the agent mission system needs. At the moment agent missions are single player instances in a MMO. I really cannot stress how important this fix is to a multiplayer game like this.

Dont forget to make it worthwhile though, we need people feel they actually gain isk by working together. Incidently, groups of players will also be more safe from pirates.


PVP aspects to mission running are needed
Something that I think is really needed is the introduction of PVP aspects to mission running.
Id like to see the NPC ships warp out of the fight to recharge their shields/armor etc unless warp scrambled.

Make NPC ships use real ship resistances and real modules. If you need help setting up NPC ships with fittings I am pretty sure the community would be wery helpful and I would even go so far as to say it would be a great base for a contest. (they dont have to drop the modules they use though, Im just saying its silly they have uniform resists)

This would mean that all players would start using more PVP like setups for their mission running ships from the beginning. This in turn will mean that people will learn ships weaknesses and strengths from the beginning by fighting real ships with real setups. Venturing into real PVP combat might not be quite as intimidating if you recognize the ships and their strengths and weaknesses.
This would also fit perfectly with your intentions to reduce the number of NPC ships.

Introduce dynamic mission difficoulty
If you really want to spice things up you could introduce dynamic amounts of NPCs on each mission. Perhaps you could base it on the number of ships in gang and the amount of SP each character has. Dont forget to introduce ships that actually come into missions using warp, the "pop" of spawning ships is something that has bugged me for quite some time.

Regards

/Doxs

Adam Coyle
Caldari
Vesa Supply Corp
Posted - 2007.02.22 16:47:00 - [202]
 

At first I though great and finally.
But after a while I got some questions.

Why remove the need for Battleships in difficult Lv4 missions by removing those missions and put them in lvl5?

Is lvl5+ the path to factional warfare? If so, was not faction warfare to be mostly between empire factions introducting players to PvP?
I do not like the fact that Lvl5+ is only for low sec, there are a number of corps today that try to do missions together as a corp but in empire space. Some do it just to be able to hang out together and not have to bother with PvP surprises. Some do it to train new players into tactical combat.
If you remove high level missions in high sec you remove this entry level of co-orporation.
I say, let Lvl5+ missions be in high sec in addition to low sec. And let the use of capital ships be as it is today a low sec feature but able to take part in these Lvl5+ missions (in low sec only).
This way, the Lvl5+ missions in high sec will require co-operation and maybe open the minds of some players to take part in those extremly dangerous 0.0 complexes.

Removing bounty in high level missions?
Today the easiest way of sharing mission reward is to be part of a gang.
If you remove bounties (like it is in rouge drone missions and against other empire factions) you introduce the need for dedicated lootes and haulers to be able to make any kind of money that can later be shared. The problem with that is the need to keep track of who was part in what part of the mission and also the long path of turning all that loot into money.
(I am assuming that the removed bounty is replaced with compared rewarding loot)
As it is today, the veterans mostly just scans through the collected loot and claims a few things. Rest of the stuff usually is given to the younger players. Why? Since the veteran players have been able to take part in the mission from start to finish and so forth have got his share in bounties, while the younger players usually have to abort and repair or stay back while the veteran players take care of the too dangerous elements.

I say try to keep it close the the story line;
Very high level Guristas missions very rarely can make it into core level Caldari space (they are taken care of long before they get that dangerous). But high level Gallente vs Caldari can be a reallity in the near future on the border between these factions.
But please balance the standing loss from shooting down NPCs. A frigate is a frigate and should be the same standing loss regardles of faction. As it is today, some empire frigates gets you a standing loss compared to a pirate battleship.

Brian Kith
Elite Underworld Special Forces
OWN Alliance
Posted - 2007.02.22 16:56:00 - [203]
 

I see a lot of discussion about the impact of these changes on newbies, and as one of those newbies I'm very happy to see that the longer term players are cognizant of those issues.

Here's my $.02 on the whole thing.

I think the problem that you're running into here is a systematic problem. Most "new" players simply can't afford to lose a ship. Any ship! Yes, insurance helps, but it doesn't always cover the entire hull cost, let alone the various items.

As I said, I am new to the game. However, I recently experienced my first lost ship, a Cormorant. In the overall scope of things, I realize a Cormorant isn't much of a ship, but look at it from the point of view a new player.

I lost my Cormorant, and I was fully insured. It *still* took me over two hours of running around to get back to the point I was before I lost the ship. Find the hull. Find the fittings. What fittings did I have? Gah - they are scattered all over the friggin universe!

All told, the loss of a single, low calibre ship cost me about 35 percent of my savings and two plus hours of time. Sure, I realize that three million ISK is pocket change to an established player, but it was 35 percent of my entire bank account as a new player!

This is a systematic problem. I can only imagine what the cost would be to a player who had a capital ship. Sure, they have more means to deal with it, but the real challenge is the percentage of their total bank. Players can't afford to lose their "best" ship, they just can't.

Is there a solution? I dunno. I hope so. Making smaller ships more valuable in large scale PvP is a pretty important part of this I think. In this way, a pilot wouldn't always be risking his "best" ship in those battles. Maybe an established player can't afford to lose his Capital ship more than once, but he won't bat an eye at losing a Merlin or 20. The thing is that the Merlin must have VALUE in the battle.

I know that everyone "wants" to be in their Capital ship. They also don't want to lose it. The smaller ships need to be far more valuable. Not in terms of ISK, but in terms of real tactical value to the PvP encounter.

It truly has little to do with new player versus veteran. A veteran in a Merlin will still destroy a new player in a Merlin, the skill set owned by the veteran player will make him far more powerful. The problem is that the Merlin flown by a veteran will still have no real value in a large battle when compared to a Battlship flown by the same veteran.

Adam Coyle
Caldari
Vesa Supply Corp
Posted - 2007.02.22 16:59:00 - [204]
 

Quote:
Mission rewards can be split among a group.


Great, but I hope this is not only money we are talking about?
The ISK reward from doing missions are often not much compared to bounty and loot.
What I am hoping for is sharing of standing increase for that agent/corporation/faction.

Since today if you have done a wrong choice in the early days of mission running and not keept the standings between the factions in balance you have little way of repairing that damage.
But if I can introduce a friend that have bad standings towards my agent and say "Hey I am going to do your mission with my friend, you can trust me :-)", that opens up a whole new world for those old players.

Darkenral
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:05:00 - [205]
 

Very Very Poorly thought out IMO.

L4 will be morphed into L3.5's = silly.
L5 = the old L4's but in low sec = silly.
L6-7 ok I guess.

Taking my 3+ Billion CNR (Full faction across the board) into low sec to get ganked by a couple of cov ops - frigs - and disposable t1 bs's ........how STUPID do you think people are?

L5's should be in high sec to give current mission runners a challenge. Period. Nobody wants to run something like the current difficult L4's in a gang. The rewards already suck.

CCP obviously has no understanding of the playerbase, or is unable to write content for PVE + PVP concurrently. So forcing people in PVE boats to PVP is the answer?

MEH 2/10

Good thing my sub is expiring soon. No you cant have my stuff.

Dark

Thalera Saldana
Minmatar
Oxymorons from Outer Space
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:07:00 - [206]
 

Originally by: Oveur
Level 4 will become closer to Level 3 in difficulty, the jump up will not be as drastic as it is now.
Level 5 will be the new level, consisting partly of the most difficult Level 4 missions, but mainly new missions.
New missions in Levels 4 and up will focus on the escalating warfare between the Empires and factions. This incidentally enables you to engage Dreadnoughts, Carriers and Motherships.
Levels 5 and up are all in 0.4 security and below.
Level 6 will be a brand new Agent Level,
Levels 5 and 6 will be open to certain capital ship classes (possibly all, including those moved from 4 to 5),
Level 7 is still a possible addition, also a brand new agent Level,
Level 7 would be open to all ship classes, except Titans.


Don't nerf existing contentExclamation

Please leave L4's as they are. By all means add L5's to Low Sec as an incentive for me to go there, but don't remove my ability to run L4's in high sec as I can now. The harder L4's are the ones where you risk losing your ship and are more fun (Angel Extravaganza bonus room = good risk, good reward: if you are very lucky you may get faction stuff, but equally a small mistake or bit of lag and its bye bye ship).

Please stop with the factional warfare rubbishExclamation

Any mission against another Empire faction is an auto-reject, I don't want to have to wade through more of them. The reason for this? If you wreck your faction standing below -2 there is currently no way of getting it back. If you want to add this at least add a way for us to get back in good graces (it can be hard and expensive, but there should be some mechanism for this). The same goes for pirate missions - I would like to try these, but currently Guristas and Angels are -lots and innaccesible.

Thal

Anglachel83
hirr
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:12:00 - [207]
 

Quote:

Level 4 will become closer to Level 3 in difficulty, the jump up will not be as drastic as it is now.


lvl 4 are good as they are. it's lvl 3 that are too strong. actually for low-middle skilled pilot, only drake/ferox can do all lvl 3. other races must relay on more strong ships than BCs class. Or call friends help.


Quote:

Level 5 will be the new level, consisting partly of the most difficult Level 4 missions, but mainly new missions.
Levels 5 and up are all in 0.4 security and below.


another nerf. doing in low sec, what people do in high. mission in low sec = pirates, pirates, pirates. now people have to fight the npc, and the pirates.

Quote:

You earn your ISK by selling to other pilots. We're very aware of ISK inflation and this is a step in preventing that.


you could start nerfing rats in 0.0 to prevent inflation. ratting in 0.0 is the most easy isk earning in eve.
not just nerfing the (already nerfed) high-sec missions.

Par'Gellen
Gallente
Neon Cranium
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:13:00 - [208]
 

Originally by: Thalera Saldana
Please stop with the factional warfare rubbishExclamation
Agreed. All I see when I read "Factional Warfare" is "Bork your standings even faster with another NPC faction that you may NEED LATER!" Seems kinda ******ed...

Sun Win
Mutually Assured Distraction
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:15:00 - [209]
 

The #1 thing that CCP can do for mission runners is to make missions where PVP fitting make sense. The reason that I think this is important is that mission runners and NPC hunters are inherently at a disadvantage when pirates warp in on them as they already have aggro from Rats. Why compound that by getting mission runner to fit ships that are sitting ducks in (unwanted) PvP?

This means:
-MWDs become legal in more (or all) mission
-Scrams become necessary for holding down (some) rats
-There are less Rats and they are more deadly
-Rats have somewhat less predictable damage/resists
-NOS should be effective on RATS
-Ewar should be effective on RATS etc.

Imagine how great it would be if for higher level missions, fleet or small gang style tactics were required, where it made sense to bring along some tacklers, some ECM and some sniping ships? Imagine if missions were more like training grounds for PvP instead of this weird specialization that, if anything teaches people bad habits for PvP?

Sprzedawczyk
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:16:00 - [210]
 

PvP elements in missions are a must.
Only when PvP and PvE fittings a were a bit similiar, PvEs will have a chance in low sec.


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : 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