|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.15 11:59:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Cipher7
Didn't they put Level 5's in lowsec??
The agents are in low sec, some of the missions are however in high sec.
Originally by: Cipher7
Does anybody do them?
Yes, however the number of players required to do them in a reasonable amount of time cuts the per player ISK, making running lvl 4s as profitable.
The missions are fun though and a good group activity and resemble PVP a bit more than lvl 4s do, all frigs tackle, waves can come at less than ideal times, rats/towers NOS, all frigs scram, dmg types are not as predictable, so in that sense they are a good corp excercise.
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.15 15:57:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Ragnar Darkstar
If you really want more people in lowsec you need to make it possible that they have a good chance at survival solo or in small groups.
Yep, that's all there is to it. Nerf gank bears.
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 01:51:00 -
[3]
Low sec will not thrive at current cluster population levels so long as game mechanics promote gank play.
Not much more to it than that.
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.21 05:18:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
Originally by: Adunh Slavy Low sec will not thrive at current cluster population levels so long as game mechanics promote gank play.
Not much more to it than that.
Lowsec will not thrive if evey thing you could ever need is available in highsec
Low sec and 0.0 have something high sec don't have, they have risk. Yes risk in it self is a reward, it can be fun to be in a risky situation, the same reason some people like horror movies. The trick is making the risk fun and gratifying for as many people as possible. Gank play is not fun and not gratifying for very long, for either side.
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 02:03:00 -
[5]
Originally by: James Lyrus
... You will AUTOMATICALLY have a balance of agent desirability, against accessability/risk. ...
Set all agent quality to the same value, poof, all low sec agents give better rewards and AUTOMATICLLY remove any need for CCP to code anything.
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 08:12:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Adunh Slavy on 22/02/2008 08:13:29
Originally by: Wet Ferret
Originally by: Me
Set all agent quality to the same value, poof, all low sec agents give better rewards and AUTOMATICLLY remove any need for CCP to code anything.
Poorly thought out idea. They would AUTOMATICALLY have to recode the whole standings system to allow people to even use agents. Duh.
Poorly thought out response. Just what has to be changed about the standings system? Enlighten me.
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.22 09:18:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Wet Ferret
So they would need to change something. Or a few things. Either way, it's not the magical insta-fix you're looking for.
Ok, so an update query on two or three fields then and/or change the function that produces standings upon completion, still much simpler than coding dynamic agents.
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.23 18:45:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Adunh Slavy on 23/02/2008 18:51:35
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
Originally by: Adunh Slavy
Originally by: James Lyrus
You will AUTOMATICALLY have a balance of agent desirability, against accessability/risk.
Set all agent quality to the same value, poof, all low sec agents give better rewards and AUTOMATICLLY remove any need for CCP to code anything.
How would a static agent quality across the board give lowsec any boost if the current Q20 agents in lowsec only average around 200k more?
More is not better?
The point of suggesting static with the same quality versus dynamic was the last phrase of the quote, it is simpler to manipulate the values on the DB's tables than code dynamic agent quality. It is also more lag friendly in the long run, which is a different topic.
It also illustrates that if the powers that be want to boost the rewards of low sec agents, they simply need to manipulate the valve that controls how security of the system impacts the reward calculations. Fact is, they can do that now with quality the way it is, no need for static or dynamic to adjust a few numbers in a function. Further, the majority of reward for running missions is rat bounties and loot, this is the same regardless of agent quality.
The debate about agent quality started from the effort to reduce the overcrowded mission hubs and got injected into this debate about low sec as a selling point for either of the ideas, static or dynamic. Such occurrences are pretty common on the Eve-O forums, this debate and its tangent ideas are no different.
If you want a big tangent idea on how to fix low sec, click the link in my sig, but be warned it is a long read, it in fact proposes fixing high sec as a side effect, along with quite a few other things.
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.02.24 09:26:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
But static agent quality alone only gives people "options" to not go to the mostu cluster**** as opposed to the highsec cluster****. While you are presenting it as a transitional idea the goal should ≤.4 for decent to nice income as opposed to motsu, salia, dodixe, etc for decent living income
Yes, true within the context to improve low sec. As was mentioned, this can be done with out static or dynamic quality idea implementation by altering the function that determines reward results. From an effort point of view, static is just simpler to implement. Not doing either static or dynamic and just altering the rewards function would also be easy to implement.
I do think that static combined with an alteration of the rewards function, such that below 0.5 gives a significant boost in reward, would provide a more clear incentive than incentive provided by dynamic, an incentive that may take a while to manifest.
The Real Space Initiative - V5 (Forum Link)
|
|
|
|