Player Features and Ideas Discussion

While having a small chat with baltec1 on another topic, a new idea lighted up in my mind.
(PLEASE READ CAREFULLY BEFORE COMMENTING)

- Having less reward when NOT blitzing is wrong. The higher the missions's level, the higher the corruption.
- Solo mission runners in high-sec getting nerfed again and again.
- Missioning is a repetitive task.
- Those who do solo missions get the most hit.
- Group high-end missioning activity has an equality: Incursions.
- Solo high-end PvE activity can be achieved via missions.

First, read the post itself here for *why* part. That has the inspiration and explanation. Then;

Some steps:
1- Adjust mission reward that agents give after completion. So, some missions will become "complete me" missions instead of "blitz me" missions.

2- Invent a trigger that has following conditions (I call it heroic mode trigger):
a- BEING ALONE
b - All npcs are killed in the current mission. (action trigger)
c- There is a time limit before boss escapes, so you need to be fast. (time trigger)
d- Destroying all the structures (you need to get boss angry and make him want to take revenge). (action trigger)
e- Leaving and coming back will make boss name you *coward* , hence, he will not spawn.

3- When trigger fires, one/all/selected ones from the following may happen:
a- Boss appears with a ship more powerful than other npcs. His tank MAY outlast your dps if your ship sucks.
b- Boss *have a probability to* fit one faction or tech2 module. (It might also be a defensive one). He will use it!
c- Boss *MAY* or *MAY NOT* drop that loot.
d- Boss has a nice bounty reward.
e- Boss doesn't agro automatically. He will lock you but won't fire at you unless you do. Fighting against him is optional and involves much greater risk (you succeeded in firing trigger anyway, you're worth it!)
f- Boss *will* try to escape when it gets low on HP, so he needs to be pointed.
g- Boss will try to tackle you once engaged.
h- If you manage to kill boss, a npc capsule appears (he is an npc capsuleer).
i- Capsule will try to warp away as soon as possible.
j- If you manage to tacke and kill capsule, a random good implant *MAY* drop.
k- Capsule has a nice bounty reward.

These will require the following:
a- Huge time investment compared to ignoring loot and blitzing
b- More combat&weapon&drone based skills, because you've to clear all possible npcs and yes, this also includes spending 5 minutes to destroy those dam'n headquarters...
c- More ship skills! (a person who ignores loots and try to blitz may not be tempted by spending time in angel bonus room for example)

This, for me, is the edge in missioning.

What do you think? I don't know why, but I really want Dinsdale to look at this ;) (CSM winner at heart level)

I disagree with the concept that clearing should automatically be better than blitzing.

From an in universe perspective, you're being paid to do a job. Completing that job should be important, not killing everything in sight.

From a gameplay perspective, I don't agree that it requires more skill to clear than blitz. At low skill levels, I actually found it to be the opposite.

I don't disagree about making PVE more like PVP. For existing missions though, clearing is not any more difficult than blitzing, I do either as the mood takes me.

It's worth mentioning that I run level 4's just to relax, most of my income comes from WH PVE, where what you mention is par for the course.

I don't want officer spawns (which is pretty close to what this amounts to) in high sec, though. They've got rid of those NPC's in missions which used to have a chance of dropping faction equipment, and that was a good thing.

-Clearing requires more skills, and I listed the reason why it is so in first post's "here" link.
- You're right that we're paid to do job. But if I decide to do it by clearing it, my time investment won't pay off especially after summer patch. First loot tables, now refining, then what?
- The concept is about high-end solo missioning, as compared to high end group missioning. Let's keep at that. Why clearing requires more skill is explained in my first post. If you find it opposite, please give example against mine why it is harder
Want to compare Recon? I can blitz with a shuttle (which definitely needs lots of skill, doesn't it?) or you can stay and fight with some elitist npcs around, getting pointed, jammed, etc... Which of course requires very low amount of skill to cope with...

I say the idea of "heroics" needs to die along with WoW.

Having said that, I'm all for changes to missions and PvE in general because (insert higher deity of choice here) knows that they are almost as bad as mining in how boring and repetitive they are.

My two ISK worth is that level 1-3 missions do very little to really prepare people for L4s. This means that L4s are easier than they need to be because they have to account for the new guy as much as they have to account for the guy that's been playing for years. Arguably the veteran should probably be running incursions or L5s in lowsec if L4s are that boring for them but as this is a sandbox you can't force people into that either.

I think one of the easier solutions is to create level 6 missions for low/null and bring level 5 missions (back) to hisec and adding some new ones as well. This could also be accompanied by a rebalance of the level 1-3 mission experience to better prepare people for what lies ahead.

Don't let "heroic" word bother you and the concept. It can be anything. I just tried to underline the difference between killing things, and tearing things.

I see we are on the same side in terms of missions' repetitiveness and boringness.

In this sandbox, there are people like me, who plays their shiny ships alone in high-sec. This is the way it is. A little RP included, so enemy must be destroyed and their wrecks should be looted. But that mechanic is nerfed two times in a row. Solo missioners need some love.

So, I cleared all level 4's, now should I go find groups to do incursions? No thanks. Where is solo-pve end-game for missioners? For your recommendation of level 5's. I'm up for it. In its current state, who would bring their Marauder or even their BS into lowsec for missioning? Can you imagine a high-sec carebear to bring his shiny into low-sec, for example, Reblier, all of a sudden? I am pretty sure I saw CSM(s) who has "bringing lvl5's into high-sec" in their list and also gave a vote for them. MISSIONS NEED LOVE!

- Bringing lvl5's to high-sec agents is the most easiest way of doing things.
- The end-mission *high-quality NPCs* that I propose is as easy as handling body-count and time, then spawning a ship.
- Also, for eve's sake, I also vote for faction status changes when shooting npcs in a mission. I knew a lot of people who just discard and don't play some of the missions just because their XY standing would go under -5... Including me.

There are choices, but I am surprised. Am I the only high-sec solo missioner around here?

in a PvP centric MMO?

if missions get made more interesting, then cool. but they make way too much money for no risk. Mining makes less isk and has more risk. so nerf missions more.

Group missions that arent as exclusive as incursions would be nice.

The idea of a dual "route" possibility is interesting, as suggested a mission can be completed normally, but there is another element that is available, that requires a more PvP oriented fit, where you chase a target to catch and kill, would add some interest to all existing missions.
This could be completely separate from the main mission targets, and does not need to be present every time, just a good task and challenge for those who are able to cope with it. the target could vary, different difficulties, different challenges. but not one where one is hopelessly outclassed. let it vary according to number of players on grid, and value of tank and available DPS.
All players then have the opportunity to learn PvP tactics in a basic form, Without it being instant death for ab initio pilots.

Many PvP pilots do realise that players dying the first time they attempt pvp, quickly, and repeatedly, Is not good for game player retention, others do not.
Whilst there are Good PvP corps for learners, many do not discover them until it is too late, if they discover them at all before giving up.
A way to let people try the idea without being forced into it, is a wise idea. There are those who will relish it and grow to like it and seek out ways to make it a game play choice, hopefully making contacts and embracing the wider game.
However, Ganking new mission runners or baiting them into combat in PvE fits is also a less than ideal learning experience. It is hard to see how this helps new player retention. so this idea gives a much better first impression of PvP. and players so fit to be able to undertake the challenge, will have a better chance of survival.

With this Rewards would also naturally vary in the ratio of difficulty in relation to fittings and abilities, to prevent experienced players farming them with advanced fits.

If this would be a task that is too difficult or time consuming to program, well it was an idea.

So to OP good idea, I hope something comes from the original idea

I like it. So many of the security missions feel like there should be either a "boss"ship or even a "boss" final spawn to kill that drops better-than-average loot. The missions now end anti-climatically leaving me feeling empty and soulless.

This is also nice as it doesn't force players to not blitz, rather it encourages them to clear the missions instead. The chioce is still available.

This would encourage missionners to play solo, and that alone is something you'll never want in EVE in my opinion.

If I were to introduce "boss" spawns in missions, I would even do the opposite : make it so bosses are optional, often after the mission is completed (a bonus room of sorts) and hard enough to kill you need to call in friends to take him down.