These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Any hope to see mission running re-vitalized?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Caviar Liberta
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#81 - 2013-08-30 21:29:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Caviar Liberta
Jam Kirk wrote:
Forgive me if I'm out of line, but if this is a sandbox. Why is there so much effort on behalf of CCP nerfing missions and mission content to force people into other areas?


You answered your own question before you even asked it it would seem.

If you want a sandbox and pvp which you mentioned in an earlier part, then you will have a little thing called player interaction where the players create their own content through this interaction.

And to answer your question I'll use Faction Warfare as an example. If you want to re-vitalize mission running in this aspect, then I would I suggest for every mission a faction gives that the other faction give a counter or defensive mission that had someone try to counter that mission (ie pvp missioning).
John Holt
State War Academy
Caldari State
#82 - 2013-08-30 21:30:01 UTC
Jam Kirk wrote:
The new notes regarding the changes to the Marauder classes are interesting. For the last year I have been grinding missions while skilling up. What I have found is that the loot seems to go down in value, the chances of getting faction drops in high sec is almost at 0. There are no benifits to grinding standings, and the epic arcs are a far cry from epic and haven't been touched since about 06.
While I find the new ideas are grand, is there any way that the mission runners of EVE can get some luv? Someone poorly suggested it's a '"Risk = Reward " concept. That ; all high sec should amount to less income based on the risk. If that's the philosophy...then why is it less risky to run an incursion than to solo a Lvl 4. Keep in mind the incursion pays a great deal more.
If we are being forced into rolls that we don't wish to play; why not just mine , and not worry about skilling up. Just mine and that's all there is to it. If you want to PVP go to null or low. Don't have the preditors up in high to eat shiney ships.
Forgive me if I'm out of line, but if this is a sandbox. Why is there so much effort on behalf of CCP nerfing missions and mission content to force people into other areas?


I missed it. Where are the new notes on the Marauder Class?

Done my time in null sec, now I'm just a Privateer wandering around High and Low Sec.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#83 - 2013-08-30 21:31:34 UTC
John Holt wrote:
I missed it. Where are the new notes on the Marauder Class?
Features and Ideas.
Truckinc
Hyperbolic Galacticum
#84 - 2013-08-30 22:10:14 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
Jam Kirk wrote:
Separate from the PVP verse PVE issue... There were a couple good posts on topic. I am mostly curious to see if there will be any new ideas in the area of missioning. I guess given the direction of the posts there isn't much sunshine at the end of that tunnel. PVP is the general direction I guess folks are pushing for. Seems to make sence when the arguments for go the way these have gone. I hope to see more stuff on the actual PVE/Indi type of stuff and less on the PVP stuff for the future of the posts. I guess it's whatever it will be at this point.

I sure and honestly hope you'll enjoy all the increased PvP activity in your future.

Edit: accidentially a word


And this is why sometimes you shouldn't post with your main Big smile
Baggo Hammers
#85 - 2013-08-30 22:17:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Baggo Hammers
Edit myself. "If you can't say something nice..."

If you don't know where you're going, any road will take you there.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#86 - 2013-08-30 22:30:44 UTC
Jam Kirk wrote:
...then why is it less risky to run an incursion than to solo a Lvl 4. Keep in mind the incursion pays a great deal more.


There is risk in soloing an L4? What would that be? Playing on a 3G connection in a train in mountainous area moving through lots of tunnels?

Considering incursions, the additional reward over L4s is perfectly justified because you have to communicate with wow-raiders flying 'shiny' ships (although they still need to be nerfed).
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
That Seems Legit
State War Academy
Caldari State
#87 - 2013-08-31 01:50:55 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
My idea is to remove level 4s from low sec and buff low sec missions to give better rewards as follows;

Low sec level 1 = High sec level 2
Low sec level 2 = High sec level 3
Low sec level 3 = High sec level 4

This will give new players a choice. They can either stay in high sec and skill up a badly trained BS to run level 4s, or they can take their BC into low sec and get the same reward running level 3s. They will be able to cover the cost of a lost ship with just a few missions so the risk is more appealing and they will get into fights and find the game a lot more enjoyable, plus it will bring more targets into lowsec for gankers so there will be more enjoyable gameplay for all.


They're already like that with the lp rewards. People still wont run them.

Damns - you're ugly - and that's a compliment from me. -Large Collidable Object Seeking donations for facial reconstructive surgery, every little bit helps!

Asaryuu
Liquid Words
#88 - 2013-08-31 05:45:23 UTC
Wow somebody had the nerve to ask about "Missions" In GD. Massive Balls you have OP. My hat is off to you. Big smile
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#89 - 2013-08-31 05:48:25 UTC
Asaryuu wrote:
Wow somebody had the nerve to ask about "Missions" In GD. Massive Balls you have OP. My hat is off to you. Big smile
He just didn't know better.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#90 - 2013-08-31 05:52:49 UTC
Truckinc wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
Jam Kirk wrote:
Separate from the PVP verse PVE issue... There were a couple good posts on topic. I am mostly curious to see if there will be any new ideas in the area of missioning. I guess given the direction of the posts there isn't much sunshine at the end of that tunnel. PVP is the general direction I guess folks are pushing for. Seems to make sence when the arguments for go the way these have gone. I hope to see more stuff on the actual PVE/Indi type of stuff and less on the PVP stuff for the future of the posts. I guess it's whatever it will be at this point.

I sure and honestly hope you'll enjoy all the increased PvP activity in your future.

Edit: accidentially a word

And this is why sometimes you shouldn't post with your main Big smile

Harry has been trying to pvp me for a while now

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#91 - 2013-08-31 05:55:08 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Harry has been trying to pvp me for a while now
Maybe he has a midlife crisis and needs to make babies...
Dristan Evrard
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2013-09-02 02:05:14 UTC
Eve needs more interesting missions. Small fleet based engagements that require a variety of roles, incorporating PVP elements such as alpha, tackling, and logistics. Something to fill the gap between solo missions and the larger fleet incursions.

Unfortunately, CCP has probably painted itself into corner with so many alts in the game. Any small fleet PVE will be monopolized by multiboxers for isk.
Skydell
Bad Girl Posse
#93 - 2013-09-02 03:40:49 UTC
Missions are easy so they should suck.. ya know?

You want hard, rent Null to ISBoxers. It's skeery nnnn stuff. They might not pay or something.. Maybe other people will blow up their stuffs and you can laugh at them and throw them under the bus. The guilt alone makes it risk averse...
Theodoric Darkwind
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#94 - 2013-09-02 08:19:35 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
My idea is to remove level 4s from low sec and buff low sec missions to give better rewards as follows;

Low sec level 1 = High sec level 2
Low sec level 2 = High sec level 3
Low sec level 3 = High sec level 4

This will give new players a choice. They can either stay in high sec and skill up a badly trained BS to run level 4s, or they can take their BC into low sec and get the same reward running level 3s. They will be able to cover the cost of a lost ship with just a few missions so the risk is more appealing and they will get into fights and find the game a lot more enjoyable, plus it will bring more targets into lowsec for gankers so there will be more enjoyable gameplay for all.



If you know what you're doing L3s can be run in an assault frig. Which makes this an interesting idea.
Kahetha
Eclipse of Darkness
#95 - 2013-09-02 09:54:24 UTC
I love this community Lol
99% of replies to this thread: "EVE should only be a sandbox if it's my definition of 'sandbox' " or "sandbox doesn't mean you should be able to do what you want, it means I should be able to do what I want to you"Roll
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#96 - 2013-09-02 10:08:52 UTC
Kahetha wrote:
99% of replies to this thread: "EVE should only be a sandbox if it's my definition of 'sandbox' " or "sandbox doesn't mean you should be able to do what you want, it means I should be able to do what I want to you"Roll

Yeah, but fortunately, only highseccers really say such silly things, and no-one listens to them anyway. Blink
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#97 - 2013-09-02 10:44:39 UTC
Dristan Evrard wrote:
Eve needs more interesting missions. Small fleet based engagements that require a variety of roles, incorporating PVP elements such as alpha, tackling, and logistics. Something to fill the gap between solo missions and the larger fleet incursions.

Or, you know, take that small fleet and head to lowsec,
because there'll you'll find exactly what you're looking for.

Except that it's against players and hard, of course.
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2013-09-02 10:46:44 UTC
That Seems Legit wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
My idea is to remove level 4s from low sec and buff low sec missions to give better rewards as follows;

Low sec level 1 = High sec level 2
Low sec level 2 = High sec level 3
Low sec level 3 = High sec level 4

This will give new players a choice. They can either stay in high sec and skill up a badly trained BS to run level 4s, or they can take their BC into low sec and get the same reward running level 3s. They will be able to cover the cost of a lost ship with just a few missions so the risk is more appealing and they will get into fights and find the game a lot more enjoyable, plus it will bring more targets into lowsec for gankers so there will be more enjoyable gameplay for all.


They're already like that with the lp rewards. People still wont run them.


There is no need with level4s being what they are.

None.

sure you can run the level 5 but the issues with rying to lock down the system and constant cat and mouse is a net loss over just grinding level 4s ad nuaseum.
Turelus
Utassi Security
#99 - 2013-09-02 10:54:26 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
Because it's a sandbox.

It's not about "play however you want, solo".
It's about "play however you want, but with everybody else".

Nonetheless... please stop using the sandbox argument. It doesn't work that way.
Sandboxes don't center around the needs of individuals,
they work because of the interaction between players
and it doesn't matter if you want this interaction to happen or not.


I can't say I agree with this.

A sandbox game doesn't mean you have to play with others at all. Sandbox simply means there is no fixed route you have to head through, that once you're in your free to build and destroy sandcastles as you want. Maybe you want to build a massive twenty story sandcastle on your own and no one ever comes near you, you're still playing in the sandbox.

Mission runners are interacting with other players just not directly and via combat, they're buying the ammo and ships players build, the deadspace modules found out in nullsec and then giving back to others with faction ammunition, implants and modules from the LP store.

Missions could do with an overhaul, they're not really engaging or interesting to those running them and don't encourage co-operation or teaming up. Although I would rather not see a system which forces teamplay over solo, some people do enjoy just logging in and solo'ing a few missions.

CCP posted some ideas for a reinvented mission system in the missions forums a few months back and it got a lot of positive feedback. I would say the reason we don't see it is because of the time investment it would take during development and the amount of complaining and whining from the "EVE is only PVP" crowd.

Turelus CEO Utassi Security
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#100 - 2013-09-02 11:20:16 UTC
Turelus wrote:
I can't say I agree with this.

A sandbox game doesn't mean you have to play with others at all. Sandbox simply means there is no fixed route you have to head through, that once you're in your free to build and destroy sandcastles as you want. Maybe you want to build a massive twenty story sandcastle on your own and no one ever comes near you, you're still playing in the sandbox.

Mission runners are interacting with other players just not directly and via combat, they're buying the ammo and ships players build, the deadspace modules found out in nullsec and then giving back to others with faction ammunition, implants and modules from the LP store.

Missions could do with an overhaul, they're not really engaging or interesting to those running them and don't encourage co-operation or teaming up. Although I would rather not see a system which forces teamplay over solo, some people do enjoy just logging in and solo'ing a few missions.

CCP posted some ideas for a reinvented mission system in the missions forums a few months back and it got a lot of positive feedback. I would say the reason we don't see it is because of the time investment it would take during development and the amount of complaining and whining from the "EVE is only PVP" crowd.

"A sandbox game doesn't mean you have to play with others at all."

I didn't say one has to. In EvE, there is no choice not to.
The question doesn't come up. At all.

Even if you tried to avoid every single interaction ... mine everything yourself,
build everything yourself, not ever buy/sell anything ...
... then STILL your actions are indirectly determined by the other players ...
... because you try to avoid them.

In the end, though, one can't, because sooner or later you'll get blown up.

You may play as you want, as long as others let you.


People are truly ignorant about the fact that we all in some way are connected,
by doing what we're doing ... or not doing.


This stays true, even if you try to avoid *every single direct/indirect interaction with others*,
because you having to avoid it just underlines that others have impact on your gameplay.


I hope i didn't miss the context.