EVE Search - Which candidate(s) support a reworking of missions?

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

Which candidate(s) support a reworking of missions?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kyra Felann Gallente Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.04.29 00:49:00 - [1] I think many agree that missions need to be changed--I think the main problems with them are that they are: Completely free from competition in an otherwise competitive game. Every other way of making money (even those that make less money) is subject to competition between players, and I believe that competition is at the heart of EVE. I think missions should be made competitive in some way and that player interaction (cooperative and competitive) should be encouraged. Broken in regards to risk/reward. Once a mission-runner has decent skills, he can make lots of money with virtually no risk. It's even possible to do some missions with some ship setups literally AFK for minutes at a time. I know because I've done so before. Compared to every other form of making money, it has the highest reward/risk ratio. Boring. I have nothing against PvE gameplay per se. In EVE, however, missions are boring and involve little thinking or tactics. I think they should be more like PvP battles and more challenging. They'll never be as exciting as real PvP battles can be, but it's something to strive for, IMO. I'd like to see NPCs have better AI (similar to Sleepers) and I'd also like to see fewer of them (but make them harder to beat). They're just a mindless grind to make money rather than having the interesting and challenging gameplay that they could. This isn't necessarily the biggest issue for me, but I do think it needs looking at, and I'm curious to see where the candidates stand on this issue. I think CCP has been overlooking this for too long now. Thanks for your attention!
Elise Randolph Habitual Euthanasia Dystopia Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 01:19:00 - [2] You can, in a way, compete doings missions. Or at least you can cause enough grief to have someone run missions somewhere else. Simply probe them down, shoot all spawns, warp off. Alternatively snipe mission objectives, steal loot, et cetera. Missioners can compete with mission rewards, loot, salvage, and the like; yea it's not quite as you envisioned but it does exist, albeit in a roundabout way. I think direct competition the way you described would have an adverse affect on the casual Eve player, which at its core is one of the main ideals that makes Eve so good - it is accessible even to casual players. I do agree with the rest of your points, however. One of my main qualms is risk versus reward, ideally I'd like to see low-sec significantly more profitable and high-sec slightly less so. Will it move everyone to low-sec? Of course not, but the promise (and delivery) of riches will motivate certain people out of high sec and have them create dynamic corporate environments. It's a change that isn't very difficult to implement, either. Regarding PvE - revamping all missions and giving them something like Sleeper AI will not happen overnight, and I really don't think it's something that I'd want. Nonetheless, I do think that PvE can be spiced up. Fleshing out the current mini-professions (that any schmo can become sufficient at in two weeks), I believe, will get more people out of the mission hubs - if only for short times. It will even create direct competition, as you envisioned for missions, by its nature. And something that I like, it will motivate different types of players to join forces and work together. At the moment there is no real need for a mission running corp; just grind out until you can afford a CNR and grind you way to riches. If a missioner in a corp in low-sec could make a lot more money, oh baby mission running corps that provide defense and form pacts with one another, or compete with one another, would be a necessity. Check out my campaign thread (http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1308223&page=1#3) on the subject and tell me what you think.
Lycanthis StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.04.29 01:19:00 - [3] Edited by: Lycanthis on 29/04/2010 01:22:58 Edited by: Lycanthis on 29/04/2010 01:21:35 Edited by: Lycanthis on 29/04/2010 01:21:16 As a CSM candidate I am happy to elaborate my opinions on missions. I agree strongest with your third point. Here are my views on each of your bullets. Missions are not completely competition free, there is always ninja salvagers and of course ninja mission objective looters. I assume by competitive you mean, for example, how miners have to compete with each other over limited roids in a belt. Short of limiting the amount of mission available and how many an individual can run, I cannot think of a way to make them more competitive.(FYI I'm not for limiting them in that way) There is as much risk from other players in missioning as there is anything else in high sec. There are some people who just like shooting red crosses all day and have no intentions of leaving high sec. That doesn't really do it for me, but no point in ruining their style of game play. PVE isn't some infectious disease that's out to destroy EVE. There is a good chance that even the most hot handed pvp god has a lvl 4 running alt somewhere. Maybe the reason I don't shoot red crosses in high sec all day is because I'm far to involved with watching this fresh paint dry. CCP should take time to spit shine missions and give us more epic arcs. Maybe even some of our vanilla missions with added sleeper AI Feel free to see where I stand and ask more questions in my campaign thread here edit the forums are annoying me
Kyra Felann Gallente Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.04.29 01:34:00 - [4] Edited by: Kyra Felann on 29/04/2010 01:45:07 Just a quick response: I don't see ninja-salvagers as being mission-competition, since salvage isn't directly part of the mission. It's just a side source of income commonly engaged in by mission runners. I've been on both sides--I've run tons of missions (most of the time I feel like shooting msyelf out of boredom and swear never to do any again), and I've ninja-salvaged, which is more fun, but usually less lucrative. Likewise, I wouldn't really consider mission griefers to be competition per se. There's usually not much reward to doing so--some people just like to annoy other people. I wouldn't consider that to be competition, though. What I was thinking was something like a given agent's quality slowly dropping the more missions s/he gives out per day. It could scale slowly, but after giving out, say 1000 missions in done day, the reward could drop significantly. The player could get a message informing them of how much the agent quality has dropped that day. There's also the possibility of just having each mission only have a certain number to give out per day, but I think that the former idea might work better. I think the main problem, though, is the sheer mind-numbing boredom of missions. I think mission-running needs to be less of a grind to be endured for money to spend on things that are actually fun, and more of something that can be enjoyed in its own right. Originally by: Lycanthis There is as much risk from other players in missioning as there is anything else in high sec. There are some people who just like shooting red crosses all day and have no intentions of leaving high sec. That doesn't really do it for me, but no point in ruining their style of game play. PVE isn't some infectious disease that's out to destroy EVE. There is a good chance that even the most hot handed pvp god has a lvl 4 running alt somewhere. Yes, but missions make significantly more money that most other high-sec activities (except trading, but that involves risk and considerable skill and research to do well at). You touched on what I think is one of the problems with PvE in EVE--it's just shooting mindless red crosses. It feels more like harvesting goodie-bags than actual combat. As I said, I have no problem with PvE per se, just with the mindless grind that often goes along with it. There are plenty of games (single-player and multi-player) that have fun, challenging, combat against computer opponents. I don't get why many MMOs, including EVE, are content to relegate it to a boring grind against mindless database entries that is to be endured rather than enjoyed. EVE eschews many of the un-fun MMO cliches, but it still has boring, mindless PvE combat that plagues the genre, IMO. EVE is primarily about PvP (by that I mean player competition in all its forms), but that doesn't mean it can't have fun PvE also. Thanks to those who have responded thus far.
Elise Randolph Habitual Euthanasia Dystopia Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.29 02:06:00 - [5] Edited by: Elise Randolph on 29/04/2010 02:07:15 Originally by: Kyra Felann Edited by: Kyra Felann on 29/04/2010 01:45:07 Just a quick response: I don't see ninja-salvagers as being mission-competition, since salvage isn't directly part of the mission. It's just a side source of income commonly engaged in by mission runners. I've been on both sides--I've run tons of missions (most of the time I feel like shooting msyelf out of boredom and swear never to do any again), and I've ninja-salvaged, which is more fun, but usually less lucrative. Likewise, I wouldn't really consider mission griefers to be competition per se. There's usually not much reward to doing so--some people just like to annoy other people. I wouldn't consider that to be competition, though. It isn't as direct, I'll give you that, but in a way it's competition. Quote: What I was thinking was something like a given agent's quality slowly dropping the more missions s/he gives out per day. It could scale slowly, but after giving out, say 1000 missions in done day, the reward could drop significantly. The player could get a message informing them of how much the agent quality has dropped that day. The problem with this is that it's entirely time based. Someone in a given time zone will benefit by doing nothing different other than living in a certain time zone. That doesn't strike me as a good change. I mean, I guess you could have an agent give the same mission out to two people and whoever finishes it first gets the bulk of the LP reward, which would fit your competition model, but I also think that would be a change for the worse. Quote: I think the main problem, though, is the sheer mind-numbing boredom of missions. I think mission-running needs to be less of a grind to be endured for money to spend on things that are actually fun, and more of something that can be enjoyed in its own right. I agree with this notion, it is mind numbing. My solution, however, is not to overhaul missions (which, realistically, is unlikely in the near future) but to spice up PvE. If someone can make more isk doing something else other than missions, they will be motivated to. You will always have the guy that runs missions and nothing else, that won't change, but for people like you and I we won't have to run missions. Quote: You touched on what I think is one of the problems with PvE in EVE--it's just shooting mindless red crosses. It feels more like harvesting goodie-bags than actual combat. As I said, I have no problem with PvE per se, just with the mindless grind that often goes along with it. There are plenty of games (single-player and multi-player) that have fun, challenging, combat against computer opponents. I don't get why many MMOs, including EVE, are content to relegate it to a boring grind against mindless database entries that is to be endured rather than enjoyed. EVE eschews many of the un-fun MMO cliches, but it still has boring, mindless PvE combat that plagues the genre, IMO. I see what you're saying, but I think a grind is necessary in Eve. It gives things value. A ship costs fifty million isk, but what is that? It represents, say, an hour of work. Losses like this are what make Eve so unique and awesome; when you die you actually lose something of value and it makes you SPACE MAD for awhile. You get the shakes while PvPing and you just barely survived. I know this is a little off topic, but essentially I think more people would enjoy the game more if they experienced this part of the game. Back on topic here, I think if you diversified the grind it would still keep this fundamental law of value, but it would be less mind-numbing. Either way, we agree on a few subjects - what I think are the most important ones - and I'd be happy to answer any further questions you may have.
Lycanthis StarHunt Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.04.29 02:13:00 - [6] Originally by: Elise Randolph It gives things value. A ship costs fifty million isk, but what is that? It represents, say, an hour of work. Losses like this are what make Eve so unique and awesome; when you die you actually lose something of value and it makes you SPACE MAD for awhile. You get the shakes while PvPing and you just barely survived. This is exactly what I was trying to explain to a friend who plays WOW, and why EVE is superior in every way. I know everyone says "internet spaceships are serious business", but the finacial/time impact of a loss makes it more "real" and for me more enjoyable. (after I stop being mad at myself for losing a ship to obvious bait)
Kyra Felann Gallente Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.04.29 02:24:00 - [7] Edited by: Kyra Felann on 29/04/2010 02:27:20 I concede that it would give an advantage to people in certain time zones and that's not good. It was just an example idea. I still think it's a problem when every other way of making money involves competing for limited resources, whereas mission-running involves resources being created out of nothing on demand, day in and day out, limited only by how much time each player is willing to spend running missions. Originally by: Elise Randolph I see what you're saying, but I think a grind is necessary in Eve. It gives things value. A ship costs fifty million isk, but what is that? It represents, say, an hour of work. Losses like this are what make Eve so unique and awesome; when you die you actually lose something of value and it makes you SPACE MAD for awhile. You get the shakes while PvPing and you just barely survived. I know this is a little off topic, but essentially I think more people would enjoy the game more if they experienced this part of the game. Back on topic here, I think if you diversified the grind it would still keep this fundamental law of value, but it would be less mind-numbing. I disagree that grind is ever necessary. Having to do un-fun things in order to have fun later (ie: grind) is the primary, fundamental problem I have with MMOs as a genre. Also, for money to have meaning, it doesn't have to be painful or boring to acquire. If it takes time to acquire, even if it's fun, it will have value and people won't like losing it. Also, I think how much money you can make should be tied to player skill rather than how much time they're willing to spend and how much boredom they're willing to endure. I do completely agree that the chance for real loss is a major part of what makes EVE what it is and I wouldn't have it any other way. I just don't think that grind is a necessary condition for loss and risk to mean something. Ideally, there'd be a wide selection of ways to make money, all of which are fun, and you can do whichever you feel like or are specialized in. I don't see why players should have to choose between enduring boredom for money or spending that money for the chance to have fun.
Bunyip Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2010.04.29 04:39:00 - [8] Originally by: Kyra Felann I disagree that grind is ever necessary. Having to do un-fun things in order to have fun later (ie: grind) is the primary, fundamental problem I have with MMOs as a genre. Also, for money to have meaning, it doesn't have to be painful or boring to acquire. If it takes time to acquire, even if it's fun, it will have value and people won't like losing it. Also, I think how much money you can make should be tied to player skill rather than how much time they're willing to spend and how much boredom they're willing to endure. That's your viewpoint, and you're welcome to it. However, I find missions to be cathartic after a tough day of work (whereas PvP would not be). A huge majority, I believe, concur with this. If you find missions boring, try doing some ice mining. There's a lot of thrill in watching your lasers s-l-o-w-l-y eat away at a chunk of cosmic ice [/sarcasm]. The only thing I could see to make missions more dynamic and interesting is to change the size of the ships in the spawn, while still being somewhat fair to those running missions. In this situation, you wouldn't know if you're gonna get a spawn of 5 battleships, 2 battleships and 6 cruisers, or a bunch of frigs (although limitations would have to exist). I cannot endorse this idea. "May all your hits be crits." - Knights of the Dinner Table.
Ankhesentapemkah Gallente	Posted - 2010.04.29 05:53:00 - [9] Missions under review Dynamic Missions --- Now running for CSM5. Campaign focus available here
Kyra Felann Gallente Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.04.29 20:35:00 - [10] Edited by: Kyra Felann on 29/04/2010 20:45:56 Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Missions under review Dynamic Missions I agree with most of what I read in those two links, except I don't see disrupting missions as a mechanical ISK-generation engine to be a con--rather, I see it as a plus. Originally by: Bunyip However, I find missions to be cathartic after a tough day of work (whereas PvP would not be). A huge majority, I believe, concur with this. And this mindset, along with CCP complacence toward it, is what will probably prevent missions from ever being fun and challenging. The fact that it's so easy to make obscene amounts of money of money while vegging out doing an essentially mindless activity, is the problem. CCP seems afraid to change this and instead leaves it as the mindless ISK-grind that it is. There is always mining if you want a mindless, relaxing way to make money, but I think even mining needs to be overhauled to require more player interaction (and also comparatively buffed to be a better source of income). I think EVE needs more gameplay where the player (and his/her brain) is actively involved, not less. There are plenty of mindless, relaxing games out there. I don't think EVE is really intended to be, nor should be one of them.

Mike Azariah	Posted - 2010.04.29 23:23:00 - [11] smiles Doesn't look like AI will be getting your vote anytime soon Originally by: Kyra Felann I think many agree that missions need to be changed--I think the main problems with them are that they are: Okay, let us look at this in order. You complain that there is no competition? Run a level 4 in Dodixie. See if you can finish it before the blackflies start buzzing around your head. (Ninjas) You say that 'once a mission runner has decent skills, he can make lots of money'. Isn't this true of every damn career path in Eve? Get better at it, have a better chance of success. I would call this a feature, not a problem. Eve has never promised a consistent risk/reward ratio (I'd love to see the math involved in even thinking such a thing might be calculable) There is risk in everything from mining to missioning to hunting in nullsec. But each has its own style of gameplay and there are people who could not imagine doing one of the other careers. Which leads me to the third point Boring? Then make it less boring, fly a L4 in a HAC, or even a couple of assault ships. Challenge yourself . . or don't, your choice. But please do not complain that someone else is having fun and you aren't or making isk doing something you do not want to do. That is like complaining that the people who pick up garbage shouldn't be paid because you think they didn't need to get an education for the job and it is boring anyway. 'nerf the garbage men' Bottom line? I admit bias, I am one of the people who mission, I don't seem to be tied into that mythical fountain of riskless isk that everypone speaks of, and sadly I seem to have fun doing what I do. Strange, eh? What I would like to see is the following. 1) More mission arcs of all walks and varieties 2) Missions that have advanced AI or unpredicatble odds, make people scared as they warp in not knowing what they will find (Yes I know that is called wormholes, I do those as well) 3) Retire some missions and write other new ones, make changes that will enlived the game. 4) A random mission site where you are truly playing with fire, not a clue how bad it will be till you get there. 5) Level 6 missions. Impossible for less than a small well coordinated gang. Only offered to corp fleets. Massive and dangerous that may even send you after sleepers in a mission spawned WH That is what I'd like to see so . . . unlikely you'll vote for me, but I still encourage you to vote, just the same. m
Ashina Sito Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2010.04.30 00:06:00 - [12] Edited by: Ashina Sito on 30/04/2010 00:06:15 Originally by: Kyra Felann Completely free from competition in an otherwise competitive game. Every other way of making money (even those that make less money) is subject to competition between players, and I believe that competition is at the heart of EVE. I think missions should be made competitive in some way and that player interaction (cooperative and competitive) should be encouraged. A comprehensive response would be far to long to post here. The short version is the the cure needs to be better then the disease and any real fixes would lead to other greater issues. Originally by: Kyra Felann Boring. I have nothing against PvE gameplay per se. In EVE, however, missions are boring and involve little thinking or tactics. I think they should be more like PvP battles and more challenging. They'll never be as exciting as real PvP battles can be, but it's something to strive for, IMO. I'd like to see NPCs have better AI (similar to Sleepers) and I'd also like to see fewer of them (but make them harder to beat). They're just a mindless grind to make money rather than having the interesting and challenging gameplay that they could. Boring is your opinion. Some people enjoy it, strange but true. Some people like to log in and grind though a few missions just to relax. I have done that myself before. Making PvE more like PvP is always a good thing but is rarely possible. Having the ability to defend yourself form a PvP perspective while doing PvE is great but it never works. You give your PvE to be gimpped at PvP. Sleeper AI is no answer here, it can be manipulated easily enough and puts greater restrictions on what kind if setup's and ships you can use. Fewer but tougher NPC's is a goal CCP has, you get less server load that way. (I use to run missions in Dodixie in a PvP fit ship just waiting for loot ninja's so show. I would shoot them and they would come back and then I'd kill their pirate ship. Ninja spawn rate is about 1 every 10 hours of missioning so was less then fun with the waiting part... lots of fun with the killing part though. ) Your last point here at missions being a mindless grind is true. As I said some people like it that way. If someone wants to think while playing Eve then they will go elsewhere. Anyone who bothers to think about making ISK in Eve see that you can make more ISK with less effort doing many other things. Missions are there for the people that need ISK and don't want to think. Originally by: Kyra Felann Broken in regards to risk/reward. Once a mission-runner has decent skills, he can make lots of money with virtually no risk. It's even possible to do some missions with some ship setups literally AFK for minutes at a time. I know because I've done so before. Compared to every other form of making money, it has the highest reward/risk ratio. I have a mission running alt that does missions semi-AFK in a Domi. I have to admit that it can be too easy sometimes. Even so there is a price to pay for doing it. Slow completion times means less ISK. I do disagree with your evaluation of risk/reward. There are many other activities that produce better results then running missions with little risk. I always see missions as a baseline of the minimum ISK value for my time. Missions are a sticky problem and there are no good fixes for them. Tyranis does bring a much needed change, the removal of Meta 1 Tech 0 loot from NPC drops. This will benefit the game as a whole. After the patch we can see how much the dynamics change and see what the next step could be. My CSM Election Announcement
Kyra Felann Gallente Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.04.30 06:22:00 - [13] Edited by: Kyra Felann on 30/04/2010 06:26:48 Originally by: Mike Azariah Okay, let us look at this in order. You complain that there is no competition? Run a level 4 in Dodixie. See if you can finish it before the blackflies start buzzing around your head. (Ninjas) That is where I run missions when I can muster the patience for it. I have 10.0 standings with that agent--check my standings in-game if you don't believe me. I've only had ninjas show up in my missions a few times--I'd say less than ten. It's not that bad. I honestly don't mind ninja salvagers anyway--I've done it myself. I'm usually too lazy to spend 30 minutes salvaging after spending 30-60 minutes doing the mission anyway. Also, as I said earlier, salvage is not a part of missions per se--it's just a possible side source of income. Originally by: Mike Azariah You say that 'once a mission runner has decent skills, he can make lots of money'. Isn't this true of every damn career path in Eve? You left out the important part--"with virtually no risk".
Corbeau Lenoir ZER0. IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 06:53:00 - [14] Originally by: Kyra Felann Originally by: Mike Azariah You say that 'once a mission runner has decent skills, he can make lots of money'. Isn't this true of every damn career path in Eve? You left out the important part--"with virtually no risk". This is the issue that is discussed in my CSM thread. You can check it and see if you agree with my position. Vote me for CSM5!
Centurax Caldari Eve Engineering	Posted - 2010.04.30 09:42:00 - [15] Edited by: Centurax on 30/04/2010 09:43:37 Edited by: Centurax on 30/04/2010 09:42:29 I happen to like doing missions, but I also agree that missions do need to be looked at. Mission AI needs to be looked at most of all, not simply by adding similar AI to that used by the Sleepers, to the NPCs attacking you that needs to be done at least on lv4 missions, but that won't solve the problem entirely. The improved combat would be better but the mission will still be predictable. Like most mission runners I use mission guides to get trough missions, to save time and the absolute scripting of the missions makes this possible there are rarely any surprises. Better AI on how the mission spawns the NPCs so the better your skills or standing the harder the mission will be OR some days the NPCs just won't try as hard to kill you is something that would make the missions less predictable. More dynamic missions would be better, so missions like Worlds Collide which gives multiple paths to the end of the mission are always more interesting to. That is something I would like to see at least with any new missions that may be added. Mission loot is probably another area that needs to be looked at, perhaps dropping less or no Meta level 1 - 3 items and maybe just having say one or 2 meta lv4 item drop from the better NPC's at the end of the mission, and on rare occasions a faction mod could drop. This would probably put more value T1 items on the market as they would no longer be dropped and the Meta 2 and 3 items would most likely be sourced from belt rats. Selecting a mission could be changed allowing a pilot more choice and help them get the missions they like to do. Most agents will currently provide 2 or 3 types of mission, being able to chose which one of those types of mission you get would be helpful, for when you have time to just fit in a courier mission and you end up Worlds Collide, it is usually a choice of turn it down, leave it for next time or go find another agent. It would be good to have just a few more options to help the risk reward element, So you can choose to do a Combat, Courier or Mining mission for example, then you can choose if you want it in high or low sec, that could influence the pay out as there is more risk in low sec you get a better reward. This way you always get the type of mission you want to do and where you want to do it. Competition in missions, if you have ever run a COSMOS agent there is an element of completion there as probably 5 or 6 people will be doing the same mission in the same plex going after the same tags. Having said there could be a new types of missions added that have you compete against several other players to compete for a better mission or a good reward by having to do a set of missions and whoever gets to the end gets the reward everyone else gets nothing. Kind of like bidding for a contract you have prove you are up to the task and then the winner gets the contract.
Axexut Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2010.04.30 16:39:00 - [16] Edited by: Axexut on 30/04/2010 16:43:03 Missions do need desperately to be reworked. Anyone who has grinded them enough knows after a while that "Okay - Mission X. Aggress group 1 first, then blow past group 2, oh yeah - the gate is unlocked without touching group 3 . . . " and so on. More randomization of NPC aggression and the staging points of NPCs on warp-in is needed within missions to keep them fresh and exciting. I DO like the idea of implementing the AI that the Sleepers use, but if you do that, I would be for upping the rewards to match the new risks (and for any of you who have not gone up against Sleepers yet . . . OH BOY! They can be tough) The last bit (and I know I'm going to get flamed on this one): Nothing more frustrating then killing that NPC that drops mission item Y only to watch some random pilot fly in and pick it up (at which point you have to 1) Try to get it back from him or her 2) start looking on contracts for a similar mission item or 3) consider dropping the mission). I would suggest putting in a mechanic where the item is locked to all save the person who accepted the mission.
Corbeau Lenoir ZER0. IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.30 16:52:00 - [17] Originally by: Axexut More randomization of NPC aggression and the staging points of NPCs on warp-in is needed within missions to keep them fresh and exciting. I DO like the idea of implementing the AI that the Sleepers use, but if you do that, I would be for upping the rewards to match the new risks (and for any of you who have not gone up against Sleepers yet . . . OH BOY! They can be tough) Level 4 missions could use sleepers AI, but they don't need the rewards to be upped. At least not the highsec ones. Originally by: Axexut The last bit (and I know I'm going to get flamed on this one): Nothing more frustrating then killing that NPC that drops mission item Y only to watch some random pilot fly in and pick it up (at which point you have to 1) Try to get it back from him or her 2) start looking on contracts for a similar mission item or 3) consider dropping the mission). I would suggest putting in a mechanic where the item is locked to all save the person who accepted the mission. And I'm against such change. You are playing not the single player game. I would like things like this to happen more often. Players should compete with each other or find a way to work together. If you can't kill the thief, then you can pay for item he stole. Anyway, it just makes the game more interesting. Vote me for CSM5!
Axexut Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2010.04.30 17:32:00 - [18] Originally by: Corbeau Lenoir Originally by: Axexut More randomization of NPC aggression and the staging points of NPCs on warp-in is needed within missions to keep them fresh and exciting. I DO like the idea of implementing the AI that the Sleepers use, but if you do that, I would be for upping the rewards to match the new risks (and for any of you who have not gone up against Sleepers yet . . . OH BOY! They can be tough) Level 4 missions could use sleepers AI, but they don't need the rewards to be upped. At least not the highsec ones. Agreed. But some of the best level IVs and all level Vs aren't in highsec. Those could use some improvement of the risk / reward equation. Originally by: Corbeau Lenoir Originally by: Axexut The last bit (and I know I'm going to get flamed on this one): Nothing more frustrating then killing that NPC that drops mission item Y only to watch some random pilot fly in and pick it up (at which point you have to 1) Try to get it back from him or her 2) start looking on contracts for a similar mission item or 3) consider dropping the mission). I would suggest putting in a mechanic where the item is locked to all save the person who accepted the mission. And I'm against such change. You are playing not the single player game. I would like things like this to happen more often. Players should compete with each other or find a way to work together. If you can't kill the thief, then you can pay for item he stole. Anyway, it just makes the game more interesting. Depends. Lots of people play this game for different reasons. Some start playing it as a single-player game, and some of those later find their way into the multi-player aspects of the game. Would go so far as to suggest level 1 & 2 missions have the "lock" and levels 3 and above no. It would give newer players a slightly happier introduction to the game. As they progress, the lack of any such "lock" would offer them a taste of some of the other possibilities of game-play. (also at a point where they know a little more about game mechanics and are a littel better able to defend themselves against seasoned players who may just like ganking newbies).
Kyra Felann Gallente Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.04.30 21:45:00 - [19] Originally by: Axexut Depends. Lots of people play this game for different reasons. Some start playing it as a single-player game, and some of those later find their way into the multi-player aspects of the game. IMO, what makes EVE great is that other people can infringe upon someone's "single-player" game. In other words, no one is sheltered like in most MMOs where you get to choose exactly how much you want to interact with the other players. If you want to pretend it's a single-player game and try to ignore everyone else, fine, but the game mechanics shouldn't shelter you from the rest of the universe.
mazzilliu Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.04.30 21:59:00 - [20] I think that the best way to introduce a random element in missions is to allow other players to influence the result. This Assembly hall proposal is a more detailed description of my idea, but it is basically: create missions where you compete against or cooperate with other randomly matched players, and the variability in interacting with someone else will in itself ensure that every single mission is different. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1307046 MAZZILLIU FOR CSM 2010

Mike Azariah	Posted - 2010.04.30 22:19:00 - [21] In regards to mission AI, how about one that didn't just make it harder, just harder to win at. What if the AI knew when they were overclassed and started to warp out? This would force PvE players to learn to fit ships closer to PvP as they would (at the very least) need to have warp disruption happening. AFK missioning would be next to impossible to be successful at as at a critical point all the targets would turn tail and run. m
Kyra Felann Gallente Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.05.01 02:24:00 - [22] Originally by: Mike Azariah In regards to mission AI, how about one that didn't just make it harder, just harder to win at. What if the AI knew when they were overclassed and started to warp out? This would force PvE players to learn to fit ships closer to PvP as they would (at the very least) need to have warp disruption happening. AFK missioning would be next to impossible to be successful at as at a critical point all the targets would turn tail and run. Yup, this is one of the things I'd like to see. They could even warp out, repair, then come back in.
Axexut Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2010.05.01 07:29:00 - [23] Edited by: Axexut on 01/05/2010 07:33:02 Originally by: Kyra Felann If you want to pretend it's a single-player game and try to ignore everyone else, fine, but the game mechanics shouldn't shelter you from the rest of the universe. Nope. But as you may have read . . . this is about getting in people who IN THE FUTURE may become real PvP types. They don't just grow on trees BTW. Let the noob's come in and begin to like the game. Then introduce them to the hardships of Eve through Lvl 3's and 4's and 5's and the potential gankers . . . . and come to let them love the PvP aspects of the game . . . . And then out to lowsec or null-sec they come. Seems a natural ascendancy to me. And do the rest of the people commenting here NOT understand how to increase the number of players in this game? THAT is what CCP and US care about after all no? I WANT more PvPers long term. Lowsec or nullsec. Don't you?
xena zena Catalyst Corporation	Posted - 2010.05.01 07:38:00 - [24] Originally by: Axexut Nope. But as you may have read . . . this is about getting in people who IN THE FUTURE may become real PvP types. They don't just grow on trees BTW. Let the noob's come in and begin to like the game. Then introduce them to the hardships of Eve through Lvl 3's and 4's and 5's and the potential gankers . . . . and come to let them love the PvP aspects of the game . . . . And then out to lowsec or null-sec they come. Seems a natural ascendancy to me. And do the rest of the people commenting here NOT understand how to increase the number of players in this game? THAT is what CCP and US care about after all no? I WANT more PvPers long term. Lowsec or nullsec. Don't you? Not sure I'm following you here... Are you in favor of reducing the risk of hostile unwanted pvp encounters and loot theft for beginning players or eliminating the possibility altogether? Please elaborate how you'd like to protect the noobs, as you're describing in your above posts.
Axexut Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2010.05.01 08:28:00 - [25] Edited by: Axexut on 01/05/2010 08:33:54 For the 1 day to 3 week noobs - yes . . . . let's protect them somehow from the nasty 6 month to 3 year gankers. What thrill do the gankers really get in this anyway against noobs? Wonkers really IMO. Once the newer guys get a sense of how things work . . . . release them to the world of Eve. Who knows? Maybe they get a taste for things and become pirates after being pirated or become real 0.0 fighters after being fought. We need new blood in this game and new guys are just that. But until they get a sense of how / where / when things are done . . . yeah I'm for keeping them interested in the game. Even if that means keeping them isolated as they run their level 1 and 2 missions. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my position good Sir!
Sokratesz Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2010.05.01 09:03:00 - [26] Originally by: Kyra Felann Completely free from competition in an otherwise competitive game. Every other way of making money (even those that make less money) is subject to competition between players, and I believe that competition is at the heart of EVE. I think missions should be made competitive in some way and that player interaction (cooperative and competitive) should be encouraged. Mazz posted a really nice suggestion about that in the AH last week - competitive missioning where you will not only be fighting NPC's but also competing with other players over victory of the mission, among other things. Something along those lines would be awesome IMO. Originally by: Kyra Felann Broken in regards to risk/reward. Once a mission-runner has decent skills, he can make lots of money with virtually no risk. It's even possible to do some missions with some ship setups literally AFK for minutes at a time. I know because I've done so before. Compared to every other form of making money, it has the highest reward/risk ratio. I have run lvl 4's in highsec some time ago, and I find that the ISK/hr numbers posted are generally a bit inflated as a lot of time is lost in between of shooting NPC's by warping, moving, docked etc. I agree however that the introduction of a steeper gradient in terms of potential-ISK-by-system-sec-status would be desirable and can also be used as a mechanic, in conjunction with planetary interaction, to make lowsec more attractive. Originally by: Kyra Felann Boring. I have nothing against PvE gameplay per se. In EVE, however, missions are boring and involve little thinking or tactics. I think they should be more like PvP battles and more challenging. They'll never be as exciting as real PvP battles can be, but it's something to strive for, IMO. I'd like to see NPCs have better AI (similar to Sleepers) and I'd also like to see fewer of them (but make them harder to beat). They're just a mindless grind to make money rather than having the interesting and challenging gameplay that they could. Wormhole space was a great step in this direction - and general NPC AI has been on the backlog for a long time so it should receive some attention from CCP eventually. If there is high demand however, a proposal can of course be drafted and I would be glad to assist there. VOTE SOKRATESZ for an unforgiving, unique and exciting EVE!
xena zena Catalyst Corporation	Posted - 2010.05.01 10:02:00 - [27] Originally by: Axexut Edited by: Axexut on 01/05/2010 08:55:17 For the 1 day to 3 week noobs - yes . . . . let's protect them somehow from the nasty 6 month to 3 year gankers. What thrill do the gankers really get in this anyway against noobs? Wonkers really IMO. Once the newer guys get a sense of how things work . . . . release them to the world of Eve. Who knows? Maybe they get a taste for things and become pirates after being pirated or become real 0.0 fighters after being fought. We need new blood in this game and new guys are just that. But until they get a sense of how / where / when things are done . . . yeah I'm for keeping them interested in the game. Even if that means keeping them isolated as they run their level 1 and 2 missions. Believe me - I LOVE PVP (lookie here or here ) - but there is a place and time for it. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my position good Sir! I don't agree that giving new players some sorta world of warcraft protective fuzzy coat of kindness is a good thing. I do think that there is some serious work that needs done for the NPE, but one of the key fundamental aspects of the NPE needs to be death and loss. If players are not killing them then they HAVE to encounter loss of their ships from NPC's quickly, first day. And often. This can be coupled with easy replacements for those losses, but losses need occurred non-the-less. We want people in eve that understand that a ship is just a temporary replaceable tool and it's loss is expected. We don't want idiot wow players who sit around and play missions and put _all_ their earned money into more expensive mods on their ship and when they ultimately loose it they've lost all they've worked for for sometimes years and rage quit. By isolating new players from any meaningful loss or unwanted pvp initially your only setting up circumstances where players are more likely to think loss is bad, this is not the way to learn eve. This game needs less hand holding and more death in the NPE. So I firmly disagree with your proposed idea.
Axexut Caldari AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2010.05.01 10:32:00 - [28] Originally by: xena zena We want people in eve that understand that a ship is just a temporary replaceable tool and it's loss is expected. We don't want idiot wow players who sit around and play missions and put _all_ their earned money into more expensive mods on their ship and when they ultimately loose it they've lost all they've worked for for sometimes years and rage quit. By isolating new players from any meaningful loss or unwanted pvp initially your only setting up circumstances where players are more likely to think loss is bad, this is not the way to learn eve. This game needs less hand holding and more death in the NPE. So I firmly disagree with your proposed idea. While as a CSM candidate I must disagree with you (as in the Candidates have to consider every possible game style) - PERSONALLY, if you weren't from an Alliance red to mine . . . . I'd love to have you as a recruiter for my Corp!
xena zena Catalyst Corporation	Posted - 2010.05.01 14:19:00 - [29] Originally by: Axexut While as a CSM candidate I must disagree with you (as in the Candidates have to consider every possible game style) - PERSONALLY, if you weren't from an Alliance red to mine . . . . I'd love to have you as a recruiter for my Corp! I've already been in your corp, no thanks. And personally, I think you'd be much better off NOT in your corp, as would everyone else currently in it (that goes for the whole alliance).
Kyra Felann Gallente Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2010.05.01 17:52:00 - [30] Originally by: xena zena I don't agree that giving new players some sorta world of warcraft protective fuzzy coat of kindness is a good thing. I do think that there is some serious work that needs done for the NPE, but one of the key fundamental aspects of the NPE needs to be death and loss. If players are not killing them then they HAVE to encounter loss of their ships from NPC's quickly, first day. And often. This can be coupled with easy replacements for those losses, but losses need occurred non-the-less. We want people in eve that understand that a ship is just a temporary replaceable tool and it's loss is expected. We don't want idiot wow players who sit around and play missions and put _all_ their earned money into more expensive mods on their ship and when they ultimately loose it they've lost all they've worked for for sometimes years and rage quit. By isolating new players from any meaningful loss or unwanted pvp initially your only setting up circumstances where players are more likely to think loss is bad, this is not the way to learn eve. This game needs less hand holding and more death in the NPE. So I firmly disagree with your proposed idea. From what I understand, in the new "Advanced Combat" rookie career missions, they send you to low-sec and tell you to going to lose your ship. In fact, if I remember correctly, I think one mission is specifically to lose your ship or get podkilled or something. So in a way, player are introduced to this early, which is nice. Anyway, I agree with your post. I've talked to people who play WoW who are interested in sci-fi and seemed semi-interested in EVE, but they say "I heard you lose everything when you die". I tried to explain that you don't lose everything unless everything you own is in/on your ship, which you don't do, but I wasn't sure I was getting through. I agree that players need to be introduced to risk and the Golden Rule of EVE (don't undock with anything you can't afford to lose) early on, and if they can't hack it, well, EVE isn't for everyone.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.