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 : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (25)

Author Topic

Callistus
Reikoku
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:18:00 - [211]
 

Edited by: Callistus on 22/02/2007 17:19:05
Originally by: Darkenral

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


CCP has a vision for a great PVP based game, it seems to me a vocal minority of the playerbase don't understand this and want risk-free reward from running lvl4 missions solo in high-sec. It is not that CCP doesn't understand the playerbase, its that empire carebears are playing the wrong game.

Originally by: Sun Win
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?

This I agree wholeheartedly with. If I'm out npcing I almost always do it in a pvp fitted ship, partly because I'm lazy and can't be arsed to swap fittings all the time, but mainly because I don't like the idea that if I do get jumped I'll be unable to fight back.

(I should point out though that nos do work on npcs, it gives you energy and nossed npcs tank less)

HEBDA
Caldari
Lazy Old Logistics Associates
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:20:00 - [212]
 

I disagree, because you are nerfing a playstile (pve) that dont interferes or grief the other (pvp -in terms of combat)
EVE has reached a high mark with the big war of this days, and without nerfing mission runners...
If people who is newbie is nerfed, hardly will continue in the game.
Many people who is whinning for nerfing pve has reach his status in that way. Is a problem of Bad Memory???
Boost expert people don'mean nerf new, i think.
Is also a problem of respect. why YOUR style of game is better than mine??
Is like to say: you like Mozart, youre a looser, music is AC/DC...
Is a matter of taste..

Seems like the unbrained teenagers (who allso full whith his whorin, trollin etc the forums) are winning the real battle of this days, not south vs North, but PvPr's Vs "Carebears" (why this is so despective??)

Greatness of EVE for me is i have a sandbox where evrybody can play in his own way...

Sadly, CCP wants only a part of their players and seems to provoque the others go out...

At last is more than a Game...it's just a bussines...we'll see

I really don't care ....can you have my stuff???Twisted Evil

Caius Sivaris
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:25:00 - [213]
 

Originally by: Storm Mage
The main problem I am seeing with this is the low sec areas that have good agents where I run are populated in pirates with motherships.


Calling bull**** on that one... Who are they? AFAIK there are only two pirate motherships in game (Miz Cenuij and The Establishment guy whose name I forgot).

And you say they are both stalking you? Ever considered moving? Is your whole argument based on that gross exageration?

Malena
Shiva
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:28:00 - [214]
 

I really like the proposed mission levels and changes... I would suggest also beefing up the level 2 so there is a steadily increasing factor...right now there isn't much difference between a 1 and a 2, a little bit of difference between 2 and 3, and a boatload between 3 and 4, shifting that all around would be a good thing.

My only problem is the manner in which players will be forced to compete on the market. Right now it is not only skill intensive to put more than a few orders up, but it is a PITA to keep them competitive and make any money off it. So having that be the primary source of income is going to lower the fun factor, because people will be having to mess with the market, rather than being out messing with each other or NPCs. I wholeheartedly agree that inflation needs to be addressed, but I would ask that you be very careful with this area.

Par'Gellen
Gallente
Neon Cranium
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:32:00 - [215]
 

Edited by: Par''Gellen on 22/02/2007 17:29:12
I'd like to put forth a fundamental question.
What exactly do the gankers and devs have against the "carebear" portion of the playerbase? I mean seriously, what have carebears ever done to you that causes you to hate them so much? In the case of the gankers this is simply puzzling. In the case of the devs it's downright crazy since such a large portion of their income comes from them.

Anyone know?

Seraph Resheir
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:35:00 - [216]
 

:: does a jean luc picard :: Make it so!

Cevin North
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:35:00 - [217]
 

*looks at 8 pages of replies and thinks oofff, here comes another one*

I do like the idea about adding more levels of complexity to eve missions, but i got a problem with having to fly trough the deathzone of eve. Dont get me wrong, i get your whole idea about eve being a PVP game, but hey, i like my ships in one piece, unless i know i can buildup enough capital quickly enough to loose a few ships and fittings.

That i have to fly into low security as being one of those nice little carebears you can expect hell will start becouse we dont come alone. (and yeah thats probebly what you want to acomplish with this, i got that idea)

The general concern i got is pushing people to quickly down a line will end up in mass destruction of capital. On one side by creating a gigantic war inbetween pirate and carebear companies, and on the other hand marketwise becouse you destroy their source of income.

If this is done to quickly, you get the same as the euro did in europe, and my idea is, that su...

Most of us are definetly in for more and bigger challanges and i love to take a carrier out on missions, but i do realise that i can only fly what i can afford to loose, and does this mean that i can afford to loose more with the same playtime? If so, count me in...


An idea i do have, if you want to make missions more challangeable, and more PVP alike... Get a race to try and concour some of the space of another race by hiring corporations for battle. This can be a low or high sec system, but im sure you smart people can develop this out.

Nyx Opet
Caldari
NibbleTek
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:37:00 - [218]
 

tbh i think missions should operate more like regular pvp. so, a group a people doing a mission would be set up to also defend against pirates. the advantage should go to the defender, not the attacker.

for instance, how about npc's which warp away to be repaired at another location within the grid if not scrammed? npc's would need a good buff to strength though, on par with an average player. or npc's switching targets (intelligently) to aid players when pirates show up? or npc cruisers having priority shooting player cruisers, npc bs's priority to player bs's? basically making the combat more like homeworld 2 :) the problem is with pve setups losing to pvp setups, which isnt fun.

Soporo
Caldari
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:49:00 - [219]
 

Missioning in lowsec:

Frankly, I wont do it with a ship costing more than 20 million, UNLESS you make the NPCS aggro on any newcomer who enters the instance/mission. AND make the rewards in line with the risk.

I might POSSIBLY try to get some corpies to join, but then again, they wont get any bounties or standings increase out of it, so why should they make 10 jumps to join me?

Nerf mission bounties??
WTF, I hope to hell you will jack up the rewards, as is, as you well know, the current mission drops are idiotically slim.
I also suspect a LOT of low end minerals are/were generated from missioning drops.

I dunno, we'll see how it all plays out, but personally, casuals and n00bs probably arent gonna bother.


Garr Anders
Minmatar
The Red Circle Inc.
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:50:00 - [220]
 

Edited by: Garr Anders on 22/02/2007 17:49:56
Originally by: Nyx Opet
tbh i think missions should operate more like regular pvp. so, a group a people doing a mission would be set up to also defend against pirates. the advantage should go to the defender, not the attacker.

for instance, how about npc's which warp away to be repaired at another location within the grid if not scrammed? npc's would need a good buff to strength though, on par with an average player. or npc's switching targets (intelligently) to aid players when pirates show up? or npc cruisers having priority shooting player cruisers, npc bs's priority to player bs's? basically making the combat more like homeworld 2 :) the problem is with pve setups losing to pvp setups, which isnt fun.


One big difference in gang/fleet encounters in PvP is the targeting and the calling of primaries.

NPC aggro behaviour is just managing the priority order of targeting.

If you look at different gang/fleet/ship setups you ll have to check on what you call primary and why you call it primary, if you can break it down to a certain mod or ship or combination attach an "aggro mod" to both to "simulate" the threat, now check out as much as possible different fleet/ship setups and check if your current "aggro mods" for that module/ship/combination is right and if not rebalance it.

*edit*
also calling primary is usually taking also into account your own gang/fleet/ship setup, so take this into account in regards of calculating aggro for NPCs as well.

Ogul
Caldari
ZiTek Deepspace Explorations
United Front Alliance
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:53:00 - [221]
 

First, say NO to another lvl 4 mission nerf.

PVE in general and mission running in particular will always be a grind, you will not find a way to change this. Needing capital ships and/or a group of friends just to be able to grind is bad, mkay?

000Hunter000
Gallente
Missiles 'R' Us
Posted - 2007.02.22 17:55:00 - [222]
 

Originally by: Par'Gellen
This entire blog just leaves the majority of the playerbase thinking "Oh great. They are adding something else I'll probably never do..."


QFT, the real people that will benefit are (surprise surprise) the big alliances that can field fleets of capships and guess what they will do? they will just lock the system they are running in shut to others.

This will only increase the gap between the people who are allready in low sec and the people in empire, it will most definitly not draw more people into low sec.

I reread the blog and keep comming up with the same conclusion, it is just one more attempt from ccp to force people to move, and as all the others it will fail miserably, giving only the big controlling alliances another way to earn more iskies.

Anyways i will simply do what most veteran eve players do when ccp comes up with another nutball scheme... adapt... sigh... Confused

Wild Xenria
Gallente
Space Locusts
Posted - 2007.02.22 18:03:00 - [223]
 

Edited by: Wild Xenria on 22/02/2007 18:04:23
I love the idea of higher/harder missions, but why does it have to be cut and dried lvl 5 (basically current lvl 4s, plus a bit) have to ALL be in low sec?
Surely some and some would benefit everyone and leave the choice up to the player.
Thats what I've found best in all games, give people a choice.
Guild Wars got boring because after a while it forced you to make a party in order to get through an area(because of difficulty). I hope eve doesnt go down that route too much, as I love being able to just gang with who I want (ie friends) rather than who I must in order to survive the area.
(Obviously that doesnt mean I want all missions to be solo-able, but if I had to be in a gang to survive getting to a mission that I could do on my own... that wouldn't be fun.)

I think it all comes down to what different people percieve as fun. It would be brilliant if there was a compromise and everyone could live and let live (whilest decimating npcs on missions of course Twisted Evil.
*edit forgot to say, if lvl 4's came down to nearly lvl 3 hardness.... whats the point of having both? I know lvl 4's can be done solo or in a small group, I believe it's standings that hold up players moving onto lvl 4's, not sp, particularly now there are rigs Very Happy.

Sprzedawczyk
Posted - 2007.02.22 18:10:00 - [224]
 

To sum it up:
What PvEers really need is:

1) making PvE more like PvP, which means more 1v1 fights, the need to use EW, scramblers and maybe even NOS. Improve rewards accordingly.
2) Provide rewards for grouping. It is a pain to assemble and manage a group, reward us.

Optional:
3) Make sure you can do your mission in 15 minutes chunk. IF it's arc mission, let the arc wait a day.

Zeno Kang
Amarr
Ministry of War
Posted - 2007.02.22 18:17:00 - [225]
 

The player pirates must also have to deal with uncertainty and have to fit their ships accordingly. They need to incur the same risk as the missions player.

Let the missions player use some of those new LPs to contract with NPC mercenaries out there in low sec and in 0.0 space.

A couple of NPC interceptors with webs and scramblers can warp in to assist when the missions player gets flagged with player aggro in a mission deadspace zone. Once the mercs have responded, or after "x" days have passed, then the merc contract is completed.

Let the player pirates also have to install some PvE fittings, and/or fly around in gangs.


Corrino Irulan
Minmatar
Posted - 2007.02.22 18:22:00 - [226]
 

The dev blog is full of good ideas but bad implementations as it is today.

I can fully agree to nudging the mission runners to low-sec and 0.0, however, what is suggested here is dragging them into it kicking and screaming. I'm sure a good part of the playerbase will cancel their subscriptions over this ... so +1 CCP Devs and -1 CCP Investors ... now guess who has the final word at the end of the fiscal year Rolling Eyes

The devs are lowering the threshold for players between lvl 3 and lvl 4 mission which is a good thing and on the other hand they increase the threshold between lvl 4 and lvl 5 missions to a ridiculous height. How can you honestly expect mission runners to make this jump to lvl 5 ... simple ... they won't.

Imo lvl 5 missions need to be kept in high sec but should be insanely difficult to complete for gangs with at least 7 players. Make lvl 5 missions a 'MUST find large and diverse gang or die' experience and make them far less profitable than a lvl 6 in low sec or 0.0 At least then you have a smaller threshold to lvl 6 missions and potentially more players will make the transition to low sec to take their shot at the riches out there.

Just stop with the 'let's throw them in at the deep-end bs' ... it's counter-productive and will most likely have negative repercusions in the long run for the whole player-base.

EvE has always been about balance between PvE and PvP and this plan as it looks now will push things seriously out of balance. It is in need of some serious adjusting.

ugh


000Hunter000
Gallente
Missiles 'R' Us
Posted - 2007.02.22 18:28:00 - [227]
 

Originally by: Wild Xenria
(Obviously that doesnt mean I want all missions to be solo-able, but if I had to be in a gang to survive getting to a mission that I could do on my own... that wouldn't be fun.)


Thats how i invisions L5's just really really tough missions that u cannot possibly do solo but really need to do in a group, have them both in hi and low sec just like L4's just have the low sec give more reward for the added risk.

Gawd i'd love to do dangerous misions with my corpmembers but it would be a lot nicer if we could atleast do them without having to have to worry about ****ers warping in on us.

Agillious
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2007.02.22 18:30:00 - [228]
 

Edited by: Agillious on 22/02/2007 18:28:31
Some observations...

Look, I have no delusions on being able to change a Dev's mind. I see these changes as coming, and I think that people claiming this is going to ruin the game for them need to suck it up and adapt a little. This could be the greatest thing ever to affect Mission Runners... if handled correctly.

Now instead of everyone and their mission running mother crying about how CCP is moving their cheese, why don't people focus on what could improve the system they're proposing instead?

Yes, there will be people that don't want this change. I think CCP posted this blog with that understanding. Now on to improvements!

1) Mission AI:
  • NEEDS to behave similar to how PC's behave now! Examples to follow, but the thought is, if Missions required PvP setups, then mission runners wouldn't be as vulnerable to Piwats. Its been said above, and should be implemented as such Cool

  • High Value NPC rats (BCs and up, mebbe elite cruisers, maybe just Elite rats in general) should re-assess priorities when a new target appears. This includes, but isn't limited to New PC ships warping in, launch of drones, launch of fighters

  • High value NPC's should have a chance of warping out and escaping. Of course there needs to be adequate notice of this from the mission briefing

  • Should use and be vulnerable to NOS

  • " ECM

  • Should use drones... I mean c'mon!



2) Mission rewards: I love the idea of separating out classes of rewards for different mini-professions. Something along the lines of removing +4, +5, and +6 implants from mission rewards and place them with NPC belt rats and Pirate factions out in 0.0, BUT and this is a HUGE but, give +7 implants to the empire factions. The RP behind this is the empires have a huge tech base to innovate from, why not make their rewards the top tier, but they save all their +4, +5 and +6 implants for their own officers. Offer Tech 2 lewtz through mission agents. Offer tech 2 BPC's through mission agents. This helps compensate for the loss of ISK bounties, and means that new players won't be forced to pay exhorbant Tech 2 cartel prices on the open market.

That's what I have for now... let's see what comes, eh?ugh

roBurky
StateCorp
Huzzah Federation
Posted - 2007.02.22 18:37:00 - [229]
 

Originally by: 4rc4ng3L
For me the main reasons i dont do agent missions is repetition and the time it takes to move up the agent ladder. I'v almost been playing two years now and have not gotten past a lvl 1 agent


I agree with this. I've tried several times to get into doing missions. But I'm always dying of utter boredom before I reach level 2s.

Really, I'd just scrap the standings requirements for the different levels of agents, and have standing just affect the quality of agent I have access to, or what kind of loyalty offers I'm allowed to receive.

Masu'di
Es and Whizz
Hedonistic Imperative
Posted - 2007.02.22 18:37:00 - [230]
 

sounds good,

but please don't stop agent offers requiring narcotics for agent offers, or you will put the drug dealing "mini profession" out of business Wink

i noticed that agents no longer give out drugs as part of rewards, which is going to start pushing drug prices up a lot soon. maybe this should be looked into?

Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
Posted - 2007.02.22 18:42:00 - [231]
 

I'd like to hear more about how L4 missions are going to be changed, and the reasoning behind doing so. I'm not against the idea, but it's hard to evaluate it without more information.

I'm all for LoSec getting some love, and I don't sympathize with the exaggerations about pirates and "ganktards" going on this thread. But on the surface I think it's a bad move to make L4s less difficult than they are now, as that takes away the most challenging content for those people who want to run missions relatively free from worrying about PvP, even though I don't run L4s personally, and I think of myself as being mostly a LoSec mission runner, ratter, and pirate.

If L4s were just being introduced for the first time, I'd feel differently. But the cats out of the bag now, and people will want to keep what they have. As I said though, I'd like to hear more.

Regardless of all that, I hope also that this revitalization of LoSec is only part of a coordinated effort. Other things that need attention are an overhaul of the bounty system; some support for pirate hunting as a profession; revamped mining/ratting/industry rewards; and possibly some additions to the game that make it more possible for careful, attentive, solo or small group mission runners to protect themselves from pirating; as well as all the proposed changes alluded to in the "Need for Speed" blog. Basically I'd like to see more tools put in the hands of players to protect and police themselves.

As far as the rest of the changes go, the devil is in the details, but it looks good so far. Especially the ideas about LPs, sharing mission rewards, and tying higher level missions to faction warfare. As I'm completely uninterested in Cap ships myself, I just hope to benefit indirectly.

Thanks very much for the blog. It was especially nice that it was PvE focused and yet contained a clear restatement of the PvP focus of the game.

matrix666
Gallente
X.S. Industries
TSOE Consortium
Posted - 2007.02.22 18:43:00 - [232]
 

I like alot of it, but lvl 5 agents should be in empire as well. Making people go low sec in faction bs's to get the same level as they have now is unfair, it should be choice.Shocked

Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
Posted - 2007.02.22 18:44:00 - [233]
 

Originally by: Sun Win
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

<snip>


You *really* don't want that, not in LoSec. Wink

Gut Punch
Shade.
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2007.02.22 18:54:00 - [234]
 

I want to ask all of you this question:

How many of you will take your uber l33t faction BS that is T2 fitted to the brim into low sec or 0.0 for these new missions?

I can tell you now that there is no way in heck that I'm going to take anything larger than a BC out into low sec/0.0 loaded for PvE. If we extend the current cost of my PvE BS and loadout and the current payoff scale given for missions into the proposed new missions. The risk/reward is weighted too heavily on the risk part. The benifit of taking one of these new missions better be equivalent to the full cost of my ship within 5 missions or forget it.

Darkenral
Posted - 2007.02.22 19:07:00 - [235]
 

Edited by: Darkenral on 22/02/2007 19:06:31
Edited by: Darkenral on 22/02/2007 19:05:08
Originally by: Callistus
Edited by: Callistus on 22/02/2007 17:19:05
Originally by: Darkenral

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


CCP has a vision for a great PVP based game, it seems to me a vocal minority of the playerbase don't understand this and want risk-free reward from running lvl4 missions solo in high-sec. It is not that CCP doesn't understand the playerbase, its that empire carebears are playing the wrong game.


So what your saying is its only a sandbox when you play in a predetermined fashion. Not much of a sanbox then is it?

Last I checked the EVE FAQ:

Players who wish to explore peaceful paths may continue to upgrade their ships to bigger and better cargo vessels with high-end defenses, purchase advanced mining or research equipment and continue to develop their characters by specializing in their preferred skills. Others may elect to pursue a more dangerous path such as piracy, smuggling or bounty hunting.

Whatever, its a nerf to mission runners in it's current form. Not wholly unexpected tbh after all the QQ about mission runners over the last 18mos.

Dark




10bears
Posted - 2007.02.22 19:34:00 - [236]
 



Oveur, how long did it take you to think this up? About as long as it took to type it out I suspect.

This would be just another rob from the poor and give to the rich.



Darkon Icensun
Gallente
Synergy Evolved
Fallen Souls
Posted - 2007.02.22 19:37:00 - [237]
 

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

Level 5 will be the new level, consisting partly of the most difficult Level 4 missions, but mainly new missions.
New missions are a good thing.

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.
Will there be a way to balance our faction standings, ie neutral factions?

Levels 5 and up are all in 0.4 security and below.
Mixed feelings on this. You are limiting the hardest missions to an area that is totaly hostile. Hope the rewards are VERY HIGH because the risk sure is.

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),

Ok.

Level 7 is still a possible addition, also a brand new agent Level,
Ok.

Level 7 would be open to all ship classes, except Titans.
Ok.

The majority of these new missions will not have ISK bounties on NPCs, they will be Loyalty Point focused or Mini-Profession based. You earn your ISK by selling to other pilots. We're very aware of ISK inflation and this is a step in preventing that.
So you are going to remove isk bounties from belt rats also right?!? There are plenty of mini profession based income for belt ratting as well.

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.
Interesting, will have to see this myself before I can say anything.

You would now earn Loyalty Points on the corporate level, allowing you to move easier to other agents in the same corporation.
Nice! How about Faction level as well?

New missions can utilize "Escalating Paths", where you have multiple encounters. These can be optional encounters, encounters required to complete the mission, and random bonus encounters that may not be given or require an unknown prerequisite be met.
"Escalating Paths" also allow for more interesting Courier and other hybrid missions on all Agent Levels.

Ok.

New missions will utilize Exploration and Mini-professions to further expand reward abilities.
So a greater time sink to make isk at missions. Sigh, ok.

[i]There will be new Agents to be distributed by hand, for better load distribution. This help thin the crowded agent hotspots.
Nice!

New missions will be focused on fewer NPCs, utilizing the big ships and structures as focal points to provide better server and client performance.
Nice!

Mission rewards can be split among a group.
Very Nice! LP as well?

Encourages colonization of low security, the higher population providing pirates with more, but tougher (capital-ship-driving-group-flying) pilots.
Said capital-ship-driving-group-flying pilots probably remember said pirates from when pirate took pilot out the last time and capital-ship-driving-group-flying pilot will stop if he sees said pirate criminal flagged at a gate.
Slowly involves the "PvE" player in more "PvP" EVE activity.[/i]

Will never happen the way you want it. PVE pilots don't want PVP. That is why they PVE. Eve has a whide base of customers that don't have to time to sink into grouping with others on a regualar basis. Thus they are never going to travel into an area where groups of pirates are waiting to gank them in a mission. Trying to forcing people into PVP is not going to make it happen. Keep all your customers happy and allow both styles of play.


Anglachel83
hirr
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.02.22 19:44:00 - [238]
 

Originally by: Sun Win
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?


Originally by: Sprzedawczyk
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.


best posts here.

Originally by: Callistus

CCP has a vision for a great PVP based game, it seems to me a vocal minority of the playerbase don't understand this and want risk-free reward from running lvl4 missions solo in high-sec. It is not that CCP doesn't understand the playerbase, its that empire carebears are playing the wrong game.


and ratting in 0.0, in totally safe ally system is not equally carebear and risk-free awarding?

Grainsalt
Lorentzian Traversable Corporation
Posted - 2007.02.22 19:45:00 - [239]
 

Originally by: Auron Shadowbane
if you introduce capital ship "rats" in missions, what about adding them to 0.0 asteroid belts too?

maybe push battleships down to lowsec (increase income for lowesec people) and make the high-end spawns in 0.0 fly capitals?


make ratting a more trilling thing to do too :)!


I fully endorse this product.

Gwynn Worvan
Gallente
Etherware Heavy Engineering
Posted - 2007.02.22 19:50:00 - [240]
 

Okay, so hereīs something for the ppl screaming "You need to bring your fat ***es to Low sec if you want the cash!!!"... How about this, letīs make a system which requires you to run 10 lvl4 missions before you are allowed to pirate for a day? Since it is apparently perfectly acceptable to force PVP upon PVEīers, shouldnīt the opposite be equally acceptable??

Seriously though, new missions sound good... Moving lvl 4īs to lowsec sounds bad... Making group lvl 5īs in lowsec sounds better, though i would request a fix to the drone sigs, so they arenīt instant giveaways for probers....

Oh, and the changes to LPīs sound really interesting Smile


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