Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
EadTaes
Veni Vidi Vici. XIII Legio
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 19:15:00 -
[1]
Currently i don't see why in hell i would ever run ANY FW mission on TQ. Running them on SISI works but TQ forget it.
Here is a screen shot.
Shot at 2008-06-05
Now First off it easy to see that I need to travel 13 Jumps to the mission and then back another 13 to end it. Now on SISI going 13 jumps isn't much of a problem since their is hardly anyone running around out to get you. But on TQ you probably will have at least 4 to 5 gates camps to pass and people chasing you around and coming into the mission.
Second is the reward for completing this mission 66k and 80k. But as you can see i ran out of time for the mission before i could get back. That means on TQ getting the bonus is 100% impossible since you'll have player intervention. Me i had no harassments from no body so i ran this as fast as i could.
Third is the power of the rats. My double II armor reppers could barely keep up with the damage from from the NPCs. They consumed all 10 of my 800 cap charges to keep me alive and my low point in armor was 18%. Meaning if just 1 player in a T1 frig came in and webbed me I was 100% dead. That is assuming i still have 10 cap changes when i get there since i might have needed to use some just to get there. Which means i got 0 for my return home trip for a pittance that wont even pay my charges 66k since I didn't make it back int he insane short time given. Now don't factor in ammo you used to shoot at stuff because you running even more into the red.
Fourth factor int hat you need to run this mission in a gang to have any chance of completing it for a max of 10 buddies the bounty can be split that 6.6k only each. Yeah right. I JUST WENT TO FREAKING HELL AND BACK AND ALL YOU GONNA GIVE ME IS A PEANUT!!!!!!!!!!!!
No Thanks. 0.0 Policing, Econnomic Control & NPC Agents |
|
CCP Gangleri
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 19:23:00 -
[2]
- The rewards are automatically balanced
- The bonus timer is automatically balanced
- The bonus reward is automatically balanced
What this means is that if people consistently take a long time to run a mission the autobalancing system will start calculating the rewards and time allowances upwards to compensate.
This has been repeated countless times in many threads, the search funtion is your friend. ------------------
Originally by: CCP PrismX
Obviously this reply does not constitute a promise to do anything but I'd like to see the discussion take off and see opinions from both sides.
|
|
Nekopyat
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 19:39:00 -
[3]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri the search funtion is your friend.
Not so sure about this part. The search function in the forums is generally an exercise in frustration and futility. It is usually quicker to post something and have someone come in who is already familiar with other threads answer the question then it is to try to search down examples.
|
EadTaes
Veni Vidi Vici. XIII Legio
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 19:41:00 -
[4]
Now possible ways to help fix this is to try and keep the mission local as much as possible. Of course if the front lines move further away you will have to move to but that can't be helped.
But honestly the rewards should absolutely get a big boost. And mission reward amount shouldn't just be based on the lvl 3 of the mission but rather on how far you have to travel. Say:
1 Jump: 10k 2 Jumps: 20k 3 Jumps: 40k 4 Jumps: 80k 5 Jumps: 160k 6 Jumps: 320k 7 Jumps: 640k 8 Jumps: 1.28M 9 Jumps: 2.56M 10 Jumps: 5.12M 11 Jumps: 10.24M 12 Jumps: 20.48M 13 Jumps: 40.96M 14 Jumps: 81.92M 15 Jumps: 163.84M
Now some might say 163.84M is to much to give for 1 mission and you would be right for a normal mission. But here you in a REAL PVP fight and each jump you make increase the chance that an enemy group will be waiting for you. Plus going that far into enemy space you will absolutely need a big enough gang and since max gang since is 10 it 163.84M for 15 jumps divided by 10 which means only 16.384M for putting you HAC or BC into serious harms way for a lvl 3. Of course not everyone would be in HACs BC their would be BS and ceptors since only 2 people with be enough to clear the plex easily. The rest will be sitting at the acceleration gate making sure you don't get disturbed in your mission. Now that would make missions worth while for the ISK. And i would recommend a similar calculator for LP. 0.0 Policing, Econnomic Control & NPC Agents |
EadTaes
Veni Vidi Vici. XIII Legio
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 19:46:00 -
[5]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
- The rewards are automatically balanced
- The bonus timer is automatically balanced
- The bonus reward is automatically balanced
What this means is that if people consistently take a long time to run a mission the autobalancing system will start calculating the rewards and time allowances upwards to compensate.
This has been repeated countless times in many threads, the search function is your friend.
Okay i am good on Timer i understand how that would work.
But how would 1 and 2 work?
And yes the search function on the forums is seriously ********. Many time i tried to search for things and couldn't find them. Liek i made a destroyer post about making them T2 MADs, MASs, Medium assault ships/destroyers and i couldn't find it again with the keywords. Destroyer, MADs, MESs. 0.0 Policing, Econnomic Control & NPC Agents |
Marlenus
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 20:00:00 -
[6]
This rant was so funny I had to link it from my ironfleet.com blog.
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
- The rewards are automatically balanced
- The bonus timer is automatically balanced
- The bonus reward is automatically balanced
What this means is that if people consistently take a long time to run a mission the autobalancing system will start calculating the rewards and time allowances upwards to compensate.
This has been repeated countless times in many threads, the search funtion is your friend.
As noted, the search function is so primitive that it effectively does not work.
That said, I've been following this issue closely. The balancing of mission rewards has been mentioned often, but the autobalancing of the bonus timer is new information to me. I don't believe it's been mentioned prominently before now.
More to the point, the autobalancing system appears to function only with respect to completed missions. If there's a high rate of failed missions that never get completed, are these failed missions even counted into the autobalancing equation? (This question has been asked before, but I've never seen it answered.)
There's also a widespread assumption that the mission rewards autobalancing function has an upper bound or cap on it; some of us are having a hard time trying to imagine the system racheting up high enough to be worth the required amount of travel. If the assumption of an upper boundary is false, it would be good to hear that stated. ------------------ Ironfleet.com |
Liang Nuren
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 20:01:00 -
[7]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
- The rewards are automatically balanced
- The bonus timer is automatically balanced
- The bonus reward is automatically balanced
What this means is that if people consistently take a long time to run a mission the autobalancing system will start calculating the rewards and time allowances upwards to compensate.
This has been repeated countless times in many threads, the search funtion is your friend.
Honestly, doesn't that essentially mean that people have to actually run the mission for it to be automatically balanced?
We've heard the oft quoted "automatically balanced" thing before with L5 missions. So, how do you justify the horribly low rewards from them? People barely run them these days because the rewards are widely considered to be not worth it at all.
Seriously, I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but you guys should start the mission rewards off at a reasonable amount for the launch, and let them be adjusted down a bit from there. Afterall, how much more popular would L5 missions be if you guys had manually adjusted the rewards up before launch?
-Liang -- It was an honor to participate in the Insurgency campaign in Branch. o7 to all involved. |
Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 20:04:00 -
[8]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
- The rewards are automatically balanced
- The bonus timer is automatically balanced
- The bonus reward is automatically balanced
Just a question: will the balancing have an artificial cap, a limit at some point and not rising further ? There is an artificial maximum-cap for lvl 4s on TQ for example: i get the same 8539 lp for all the harder missions, i get this for like 2 years, nothing changes. Some of them (e.g. Enemies About 1/5) are easier and faster than the really long ones (e.g. Gurista Extravaganza). But still the lps are the same, means there is that artificial cap, that prevents the hardest lvl4s from adjusting.
Will the same balancing mechanics be applied for FW missions ? Because if yes, the rewards will for sure rise, but stop at a level (somewhere around where normal new missions stop rising after a certain period of blancing) that is still far away from representing the difficulty of the missions.
|
Daed213
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 20:20:00 -
[9]
Edited by: Daed213 on 05/06/2008 20:20:57 Lots of good questions here, since the blanket response to the missions questions seems to be "trust in the autogenerator" and so far we're unable to see it actually working.
-Does it weight mission failures?
-Does it have a cap?
I'd add:
-Does it consider resources lost trying to complete the mission? A mission that I complete in 2 hours and a mission that I complete in 2 hours but lose one or more ships in has a completely different expense profile. It's fairly reasonable to expect players to not die in PvE, since the difficulty is fairly predictable, but PvP is entirely another matter.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 20:44:00 -
[10]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
- The rewards are automatically balanced
- The bonus timer is automatically balanced
- The bonus reward is automatically balanced
What this means is that if people consistently take a long time to run a mission the autobalancing system will start calculating the rewards and time allowances upwards to compensate.
This has been repeated countless times in many threads, the search funtion is your friend.
AND IT HAS BEEN REPEATING MANY MANY TIME THAT IF NO ONE DOES THE MISSION THEY WILL NOT BALANCE!
why don't you see the horrible logic your using.
HEY! I GOT AN IDEA!
why don't you use something like a.. I don't know.. test server! and on this test server you record a number of mission runners and record the adverge time of completion and then USE THAT for TQ?
oh wait that's a dumb idea lets just put it up on TQ with no rewards to speak of so everyone does normal missions yeah that's a great idea.
I mean really? sure keep the isk and lp down sure let it "auto balance" but don't you at least see a HUGE FLAW in having the bonus timer auto balance when you KNOW how many jumps it will take?
I'm sorry if I'm ranting a bit but I feel like CCP are all cozy in thier logic that is so horribly flase it hurts me.
Unless you are using SiSi to balance the payout and I'm misunderstanding.
|
|
Venkul Mul
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 20:46:00 -
[11]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
- The rewards are automatically balanced
- The bonus timer is automatically balanced
- The bonus reward is automatically balanced
What this means is that if people consistently take a long time to run a mission the autobalancing system will start calculating the rewards and time allowances upwards to compensate.
This has been repeated countless times in many threads, the search funtion is your friend.
Ok, then would you care to share some important point?
How many identical missions are needed before it start to balance?
Failed missions are included? or only the time required for successful missions?
Autobalncing has been corrected so that it consider the number of participants? or it still consider a mission done by 5 persons the same as one done b1 player?
The hard cap for rewards today existent in misssion has been modified for militia missions? and it has been changed for mission starting inn high sec but requiring to complete the mission in low sec (today it is dependent on the agent location, irregardless of the mission location)'
We, as player, are pretty aware that autobalancing exist and it has issues when the mission isn't run a high number of times (probably numbering in the thousands), something that almost certainly will not happen in the next 6 months if level 5 missions are a credible reference.
|
Stakhanov
Metafarmers
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 20:47:00 -
[12]
Have faith in the automated mission reward balance. It works perfectly fine for highsec L4s and lowsec L5s.
|
Jason Edwards
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 21:03:00 -
[13]
Every mission ive done is odd. I can jump 15 jumps and see not another single clone on eve. Then the system the mission is in. There's also an enemy in that system.
I'm feeling they might actually have made a system where the missions are sending you to a system which has enemies in them and not empty barren systems. ------------------------ "There was this bright flash of light - and now this egg shaped thing is on my screen - did I level up?" |
|
CCP Gangleri
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 21:22:00 -
[14]
Ok, so maybe our search function is less useful than it could be There is this really cool new feature called Dev Finder though.
I don't have answers to all of your questions since this is not my area of expertise but here is what I do know:
- All missions are run on this same auto-balancing logic, lvl1 through lvl5, so it does work quite well in most cases
- lvl5 missions have had some issues but I have heard rumours of a fix in this patch
- When I recently brought this very issue to our experts they assured me that bonus reward timers are also auto-balanced over time
------------------
Originally by: CCP PrismX
Obviously this reply does not constitute a promise to do anything but I'd like to see the discussion take off and see opinions from both sides.
|
|
Liang Nuren
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 21:31:00 -
[15]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Ok, so maybe our search function is less useful than it could be There is this really cool new feature called Dev Finder though.
Well, maybe it'll get fixed now. Good luck with that! :)
Quote: I don't have answers to all of your questions since this is not my area of expertise but here is what I do know:
- All missions are run on this same auto-balancing logic, lvl1 through lvl5, so it does work quite well in most cases
- lvl5 missions have had some issues but I have heard rumours of a fix in this patch
- When I recently brought this very issue to our experts they assured me that bonus reward timers are also auto-balanced over time
Well, I'm looking forward to the fixes in this patch for L5 missions... but most of your players apparently do not agree that the auto mission balancer is working. :)
Anyway, thanks for responding a second time (I know that was a *lot* of heat leveled at you).
-Liang -- It was an honor to participate in the Insurgency campaign in Branch. o7 to all involved. |
Jupix
MuroBBS United
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 21:34:00 -
[16]
Please stop complaining about the forum search. You've got Google.
|
EadTaes
Veni Vidi Vici. XIII Legio
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 21:38:00 -
[17]
Okay that nice but if it like the current mission the rewards are going to way to small. This is PvP not PvE
PvE is Extremely low risk: I only lost ships in L4s because i was still learning how to fit my BS. Like 1% chance of losing your ship.
PvP is EXTREMELY INSANELY HIGH RISK: You'll lose ships left and right and the chance you will lose your ship is 80% and more.
So i don't know how the rewards re calculated but i would personally recommend the following.
Base reward: Should be based on distance to the combat zone since in pvp that is going to be the main factor in danger/difficulty. The further you got he people people will see you the more you will get report the more likely more people will chance you and the more people will chance you. And have this amount divided into equal shares among the players.
Bonus reward: Could remain under that same mechanic as pve only with a higher value. But that amount should be distributed to every one in whole. So if the bonus is 300k everyone gets 300k in bonus.
For LP: Either have it work like Base reward or bonus. But 10 people sharing 200 LP equally is peanuts for the risk. In fact 200 LP for a pvp is low for even one player. 0.0 Policing, Econnomic Control & NPC Agents |
Fitser Pullman
Freak Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 21:43:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Fitser Pullman on 05/06/2008 21:43:04
Originally by: Jupix Please stop complaining about the forum search. You've got Google.
this... Its not that difficult...you go to google and if you want to say search for the keyword raven and apoc. You enter this "raven apoc site:http://oldforums.eveonline.com/" Oh look...all the posts with the word raven and apoc in them... Bottom line, the search function isn't broken, you are. ----------------------------------------- No, you aren't funny |
Forge Lag
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 22:10:00 -
[19]
Does the reward really matter?
Would you ever accept mission going a) 12+jumps b) in lowsec c) with enemies at war waiting for you on every corner? What rewards would that need to stop being completely insane proposal? 50x more? 100x?
FW is there to give you better opportunity to PvP. The rest is there to just give it some envelope.
Personally after a few tries I cannot stand taking another FW mission and can barely make myself press a scan button, faced with the 15min boredom for inconsequential reward if I manage to find something. I am just doing it wrong I am doing it like missions, trying to find the most efficient way to achive a goal. Blame me. Blame yourself.
|
Venkul Mul
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 22:42:00 -
[20]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri
I don't have answers to all of your questions since this is not my area of expertise but here is what I do know:
- All missions are run on this same auto-balancing logic, lvl1 through lvl5, so it does work quite well in most cases
- lvl5 missions have had some issues but I have heard rumours of a fix in this patch
- When I recently brought this very issue to our experts they assured me that bonus reward timers are also auto-balanced over time
Yes, those of us that do mission know it work on the timer too, as the time for the bonus reward adjust after they have been run several times after introduction.
The problem is that common high sec mission are run by, something like 50K player every day, for maybe 200K mission run every day (number are guesstimates). So each mission is run between 50 and 200 times every day at least (depending on how often it is offered and how often it is refused). Even with those numbers it require at least 1 week to start changing the reward (i.e. a minimum of 1.500 missions) and several weeks before it reach the final, stable reward (10K missions?).
To reach 10K completed missions of each kind in FW it will require a lot of time, not some week but several months so it feel strange that this problem (beside all the other problems with FW rewards) has been overlooked or considered not important.
|
|
Daed213
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 22:44:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Daed213 on 05/06/2008 22:44:16
Originally by: Forge Lag Edited by: Forge Lag on 05/06/2008 22:28:51 What rewards would that need to stop being completely insane proposal? 50x more? 100x?
FW is there to give you better opportunity to PvP. The rest is there to just give it some envelope.
Guess we're getting kind of off target from the OP, but...
I've been kind of worried that this simply isn't a very good way to encourage PvP at all. That players will just mostly end up running FW missions either avoiding conflict or in areas of LowSec space currently dominated by thier faction. It certainly could work, especially if mission availability is tied to territorial control (meaning, if you can't get missions where you are you go out and PvP to recapture some space to do missions in) but the whole idea of trying to use what is essentially PvE missions that happen to be in contested space to encourage PvP seems like kind of a roundabout, hard-to-balance way to do things.
What I'd much rather see is actually rewards for the PvP itself- offer material (ISK or LP) rewards for the killing of enemy ships, rather than trying to indirectly encourage PvP by putting missions and control points out there and hoping that you'll get fights. (instead of people not bothering at all, or doing the whole "I'm going to avoid fighting until I'm in an overwhelmingly large blob" dance that makes so many fights in EVE not happen)
|
EadTaes
Veni Vidi Vici. XIII Legio
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 23:09:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Daed213 Edited by: Daed213 on 05/06/2008 22:44:16
Originally by: Forge Lag Edited by: Forge Lag on 05/06/2008 22:28:51 What rewards would that need to stop being completely insane proposal? 50x more? 100x?
FW is there to give you better opportunity to PvP. The rest is there to just give it some envelope.
Guess we're getting kind of off target from the OP, but...
I've been kind of worried that this simply isn't a very good way to encourage PvP at all. That players will just mostly end up running FW missions either avoiding conflict or in areas of LowSec space currently dominated by thier faction. It certainly could work, especially if mission availability is tied to territorial control (meaning, if you can't get missions where you are you go out and PvP to recapture some space to do missions in) but the whole idea of trying to use what is essentially PvE missions that happen to be in contested space to encourage PvP seems like kind of a roundabout, hard-to-balance way to do things.
What I'd much rather see is actually rewards for the PvP itself- offer material (ISK or LP) rewards for the killing of enemy ships, rather than trying to indirectly encourage PvP by putting missions and control points out there and hoping that you'll get fights. (instead of people not bothering at all, or doing the whole "I'm going to avoid fighting until I'm in an overwhelmingly large blob" dance that makes so many fights in EVE not happen)
I totally understand what your saying but their is a very good reason why they are encouraging PvP that way. And that is if you would get rewarded for just killing enemy ships that would be it people wouldn't work to capture systems. They would just camp stations and gates waiting for something to come out. it would turn into a major grief war.
I also wanted pvp to be encouraged by having people drop their tags and have those tags be needed to use in the LP store. But it could be exploited like i just mention. And then you could code it that they only drop inside the grid of plexs and shush but that would only complicate the codding for it. And in a dev blog they mention they were having problems just getting them to drop right. So that is why we don't have them. And why it need to be done this way. 0.0 Policing, Econnomic Control & NPC Agents |
Venkul Mul
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 23:16:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Daed213
Originally by: Forge Lag Edited by: Forge Lag on 05/06/2008 22:28:51 What rewards would that need to stop being completely insane proposal? 50x more? 100x?
FW is there to give you better opportunity to PvP. The rest is there to just give it some envelope.
Guess we're getting kind of off target from the OP, but...
I've been kind of worried that this simply isn't a very good way to encourage PvP at all. That players will just mostly end up running FW missions either avoiding conflict or in areas of LowSec space currently dominated by thier faction. It certainly could work, especially if mission availability is tied to territorial control (meaning, if you can't get missions where you are you go out and PvP to recapture some space to do missions in) but the whole idea of trying to use what is essentially PvE missions that happen to be in contested space to encourage PvP seems like kind of a roundabout, hard-to-balance way to do things.
What I'd much rather see is actually rewards for the PvP itself- offer material (ISK or LP) rewards for the killing of enemy ships, rather than trying to indirectly encourage PvP by putting missions and control points out there and hoping that you'll get fights. (instead of people not bothering at all, or doing the whole "I'm going to avoid fighting until I'm in an overwhelmingly large blob" dance that makes so many fights in EVE not happen)
If you have read the Dev interview it is the Dev idea too. PvP itself and the enemy ships wreckage and loot are the intended rewards.
That mean that a person should love PvP to participate in FW and accept that it is a big personal wealth sink. How long people are willing and capable of feeding that sink will be the hard question.
Rank and standing will not be rewards as game savvy people will avoid the mission and try the complexes only in secure (i.e. friendly controlled territory) while those trying mission and doing complexes in enemy territory will see faction and militia standing plummet for the large percentage of failed missions.
To me it seem that a large percentage of FW will be neglected by most of the players. We will see, as maybe I am only doomsaying and it will work perfectly.
|
Daed213
|
Posted - 2008.06.05 23:59:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Daed213 on 06/06/2008 00:04:32
Originally by: EadTaes I totally understand what your saying but their is a very good reason why they are encouraging PvP that way. And that is if you would get rewarded for just killing enemy ships that would be it people wouldn't work to capture systems. They would just camp stations and gates waiting for something to come out.
I see the complexes as a means to the end- to get people out into space PvP-ing. If people are fighting, who cares if they're being "worked" or not?
As for station camping, that's not a hard problem- players would just base in faction navy space, so that the navy helps keep campers at bay. If that's not enough, you could also just only score LP for kills in the contested LowSec space although I suspect that won't be needed.
Originally by: Venkul Mul If you have read the Dev interview it is the Dev idea too. PvP itself and the enemy ships wreckage and loot are the intended rewards.
I have read the dev interview. I do not think they make a convincing case for their implementation of faction war.
"PvP itself" is already its own reward in LowSec and 0.0. If that was enough, FW would be unnecessary. The general risk/reward balance in EVE PvP, lack of incentives to fight a losing battle, and lack of incentives to disperse your force to cover multiple targets make it often not enough. Too often, it's just too hard to find a fight.
Enemy ship loot can't possibly be a sufficient reward- by its very nature it only represents a fraction of the resources expended in the war. As with LowSec piracy, a small elite will be able to fund thier activities with it but for most people PvP will be a resource sink. (which I'm fine with, but that brings us back to "how is FW going to draw more people to PvP and encourage fighting?")
|
Nekopyat
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 00:57:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Fitser Pullman
Bottom line, the search function isn't broken, you are.
Ahm, yes it is.
That a work around exists by using an external service does not make the search function any less broken.
That is like saying 'well, this care doesn't actually have a flat because you can always take the bus'
|
Nekopyat
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 00:59:00 -
[26]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri Ok, so maybe our search function is less useful than it could be There is this really cool new feature called Dev Finder though.
Ok, that link is full of win. Thanks for posting, I had no idea that log existed ^_^
|
Marlenus
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 01:47:00 -
[27]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri All missions are run on this same auto-balancing logic
Shyte. That's what we were afraid of.
Nobody at CCP seems to understand that the FW missions are not even remotely similar to PVE missions. The huge travel times and the radically higher risk of ship loss mean that rewards balanced using the PVE algorithm just won't cut it. ------------------ Ironfleet.com |
Lurana Jade
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 03:15:00 -
[28]
lol, just remember children: PvP is it's own reward!
12 jump run through potentially hostile space ina frig or cruiser. Probably lots of missions fails, and ship loss. Difficult NPC's in the mission probably requiring a PVE fit. Standings hit with the agent/faction for repeated fails. Utterly insignificant rewards for all your trouble starting out, no idea if a mish fail is considered in the auto-scaling, no idea of the mission reward cap either.
Oh sure, such win. I swear I think they been hanging out in 0.0 too much, drinking and chatting on MSN with their friends to think for a second that any Empire bears (the purported target audience) will bother with this aspect of FW.
|
Led Robster
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 03:28:00 -
[29]
Originally by: CCP Gangleri the search funtion is your friend.
Hmmmm, methinks someone should try the search function before posting something like that :D
Wish i could put that on a t-shirt...
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 03:46:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Lurana Jade lol, just remember children: PvP is it's own reward!
12 jump run through potentially hostile space ina frig or cruiser. Probably lots of missions fails, and ship loss. Difficult NPC's in the mission probably requiring a PVE fit. Standings hit with the agent/faction for repeated fails. Utterly insignificant rewards for all your trouble starting out, no idea if a mish fail is considered in the auto-scaling, no idea of the mission reward cap either.
Oh sure, such win. I swear I think they been hanging out in 0.0 too much, drinking and chatting on MSN with their friends to think for a second that any Empire bears (the purported target audience) will bother with this aspect of FW.
people will bother the idea is you can run comlex and make some money on the side.
However the main issue here is auto balancing the timer to complete the mission? WTF?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |