open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Ganking Missions - Needed changes
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Reggie Stoneloader
Poofdinkles
Posted - 2007.11.28 00:59:00 - [31]
 

Considering the value of the mission runner's ship and the payout of the average mission, the runner can afford lost a ship maybe once for every twenty missions he does. Any more than that, and it's not worthwhile for them to keep doing it. If mission ganking becomes as easy and reliable as belt ganking, which is what you're suggesting here, then you'll see as many missin runners as you see miners in low-sec, which is to say about one per ten solar systems.

I'm not saying I like missions, and maybe this would be a good way to make people stop running them, as long as you get rid of high-sec level 4 agents, but don't pass this idea off as "balance".

Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
Posted - 2007.11.28 01:41:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader
If mission ganking becomes as easy and reliable as belt ganking, which is what you're suggesting here, then you'll see as many missin runners as you see miners in low-sec, which is to say about one per ten solar systems.



I differ with him on what exactly needs to be fixed here, and where the balance should lie. But he's not suggesting anything remotely close to making kills as easy in missions as in belts. To do that, he'd have to propose having mission sites appear and be warpable on the overview, removing deadspace, throwing out the scan penalty, getting rid of gates and pockets, and probably a few other things.

Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
Posted - 2007.11.28 02:06:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Endless Subversion
Edited by: Endless Subversion on 27/11/2007 00:37:52
Quote:
Well, like I said, if it's happening a lot, that's bad. If it's happening just occasionally, I don't care.

Regardless, for me it gets back to the frequency question. Is it common, uncommon, or very rare for a gas cloud to spawn right at the warp-in point? Is it common, uncommon, or very rare for a site to be so full of gas clouds that a cloaker just can't navigate through it?


Why does the frequency that they are at warp in points matter to you? What's an acceptable rate where regardless of player skill you get uncloaked and what would this be based off of?


Since you asked...The main thing is that you shouldn't be 100% certain your cloak will hold on that warp-in every time. If you activate that acceleration gate, it should be a moment of uncertainty, and even a little bit of danger. Will the cloak hold? What if the target is done clearing the pocket and in weapon range and not afraid to take a shot at you? What if there are some NPCs left and still ready to aggro? What if you get some lag on the warp in? Should you maybe fit a little tank?

If your cloak holds every time, you still have obstacles to overcome to kill the target, and doing so may not even be possible, but you can always evaluate the situation in near-perfect safety.

I simply don't like that. I'm not a big fan of the all-or-nothing implementation of cloaks in this game either though, so perhaps I'm biased.

Endless Subversion
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2007.11.30 01:16:00 - [34]
 

I noticed that CCP changed a beacon location in 1(?!) mission.

Anyone know why?

Endless Subversion
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2008.01.03 21:10:00 - [35]
 

Bump, this still needs fixing

Dijall
Posted - 2008.01.04 17:08:00 - [36]
 

I've experienced a number of these problems myself.

I really think that some missions shouldn't be ungankable due to game mechanics, and thus requiring no player awareness or skill for the mission runner to be safe!

Endless Subversion
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2008.01.26 18:36:00 - [37]
 

I know people is missions don't want to me more vulnerable, but I think that some missions are against CCP's wishes in terms of vulnerability. I'd like to see some more conversation about this subject.

Avaleric
Amarr
SC Special Circumstances
Posted - 2008.01.26 19:10:00 - [38]
 

...uhm, are you complaining that there are some missions where you cannot gank the mission runner???

LOL - ok, I'll agree with your requests if aggro code is changed to that mission rats target whatever player ship is closest to them - THEN we'll talk...

Endless Subversion
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2008.01.27 02:57:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Avaleric
...uhm, are you complaining that there are some missions where you cannot gank the mission runner???

LOL - ok, I'll agree with your requests if aggro code is changed to that mission rats target whatever player ship is closest to them - THEN we'll talk...


We aren't playing grab4ss here. There is no tradeoff. CCP wants low sec missions to be vulnerable to ganking. Currently some aren't. This needs a fix.

Sir Cyco
Caldari
The Arcanum
Posted - 2008.01.31 03:45:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Endless Subversion

CCP wants low sec missions to be vulnerable to ganking. Currently some aren't. This needs a fix.
Do you work for CCP?You throw around their wishes and wants like they are telling you personally.Where does it say CCP wants ALL low sec missions to be gankable?You have admitted it yourself some arent,therefore; some are.Maybe before you get upset and blame CCP,you might reconsider your tactics.I know Eve isnt perfect but handing you easier victims isnt going going to make Eve any better for anyone but you and worse for most.

Endless Subversion
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2008.02.01 00:35:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Endless Subversion on 01/02/2008 00:36:55
Originally by: Sir Cyco
Originally by: Endless Subversion

CCP wants low sec missions to be vulnerable to ganking. Currently some aren't. This needs a fix.
Do you work for CCP?You throw around their wishes and wants like they are telling you personally.Where does it say CCP wants ALL low sec missions to be gankable?You have admitted it yourself some arent,therefore; some are.Maybe before you get upset and blame CCP,you might reconsider your tactics.I know Eve isnt perfect but handing you easier victims isnt going going to make Eve any better for anyone but you and worse for most.


*snip - Please post respectfully, Mitnal

Your argument is that some low missions should be invulnerable because some aren't? Are you sure you want to put something like that in writing? It's quoted now, you've lost your chance to delete it before others can see it.

You suggest me reconsidering my tactics. How would I reconsider in missions where they are invulnerable? Should I have a long, stern talk with them? I certainly can't warp disrupt and kill them, they aren't catchable in some missions.

Again, I'm only asking for 'easier' victims in the context of some being impossible. I want possible victims, and that is what mission runners in low sec are supposed to be, possible to kill.

Ghostwarden
Posted - 2008.02.01 01:53:00 - [42]
 

I'm fine with most of your requests under one condition....

The mission NPC's have a STRONG OR AUTOMATIC chance of agroing any palyer that warps into a mission in progress.

I've been jumped before and honestly if I hadnt had 5 NPC battlecruisers wailing on me as well as the ubertanked Drake and Megathron I might have stood a chance of getting at least one of them before dying.

Ghost

Sir Cyco
Caldari
The Arcanum
Posted - 2008.02.02 07:06:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Endless Subversion

*snip - Please post respectfully, Mitnal

Your argument is that some low missions should be invulnerable because some aren't? Are you sure you want to put something like that in writing? It's quoted now, you've lost your chance to delete it before others can see it.
Thats not my arguement at all.Please show me where I said that.
Originally by: Endless Subversion
You suggest me reconsidering my tactics. How would I reconsider in missions where they are invulnerable? Should I have a long, stern talk with them? I certainly can't warp disrupt and kill them, they aren't catchable in some missions.
I did suggest you reconsider you tactics,do you really expect me to do it for you?I am not the EFT of tactics,give thinking for yourself a try.The 1st time I tried level 4 Worlds Collide I thought it was impossible,but after changing my tactis and training some skills, I now solo it w/ impunity.
Originally by: Endless Subversion
Again, I'm only asking for 'easier' victims in the context of some being impossible. I want possible victims, and that is what mission runners in low sec are supposed to be, possible to kill.
The 1st part of that statement is true"Again, I'm only asking for 'easier' victims".Just because your tactics are faulty doesnt make it impossible.You just want CCP to remove or change anything that might challenge you.Like when you said in another thread that Self Destuct needs changing because it deprives you of kill-mails and loot.By definition that is what a self destruct is for.

Reggie Stoneloader
Poofdinkles
Posted - 2008.02.02 07:25:00 - [44]
 

You're using a subset to represent the whole in your argument. "Low-Sec Missions", taken as a unit, are not invulnerable to attack. People who are running low-sec missions take their chances when they do so. Sometimes the risk is greater, sometimes it is less. Even if you warp in 100km away from them and are unable to cloak and they see you, which is the worst-case scenario you describe, they might not be able to escape you, because the rats are scrambling them and you've dampened their sensors while you mosey over to attack. In those cases, if they're paying attention and they killed the scrambling rats and they gimped their setup by fitting WCS, they've got a better-than-average change of getting away from you. That is your complaint.

But the fact that the difficulty of the gank fluctuates, and even that it occasionally spikes to such high difficulty that the odds are actually in favor of the victim's survival, does not mean that your task is impossible, or that low-sec mission running is some kind of afk isk fountain. If they keep at it, and you keep at it, you'll eventually win, and you only need to succeed once to make up for fifty failures. Conversely, they have to enjoy fifty successes to break even on a single loss.

It should be possible for low-sec mission runners to be engaged in non-consentual PvP in the course of their profession, and it is. It should be possible for a savvy mission runner to escape the ganker some of the time, and it is. It should be harder for you to harvest other players than it is for players to harvest NPCs, and it is. No change is called for.


Pages: 1 [2]

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only