These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

Why do Empire kill missions come up so frequently?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Provence Tristram
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#1 - 2015-01-22 09:54:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Provence Tristram
So... I'm missioning. I guess because that's (generally) what we low SP character do (well, it's what *I* do, at least).

One thing that has irked me for the longest time about missioning in this game is the frequency of Empire kill missions.

"Hey Provence, I need you to go bulldoze fifty Caldari habitat modules for me. Women... children... men... Actually, on second thought, please focus on the children. I want to see broken little bodies floating across the star field."

*Provence prudently declines, while simultaneously dodging the agent's loogie as he spits at her.*

"Oh, hey, Provence -- good thing I caught you! Yeah, I really need you to drift on over to Gallente space and murder this pesky guy... and his guards... and their base... and any reinforcements that warp in. Hell, just start shooting Concord. What does it even matter?"

I don't have any qualms about killing NPCs, but these missions more often than not run contrary to the realities of the EVE universe. Not only are none of the powers currently at war but -- far more importantly -- mobility is a big deal in this game, and nobody wants to become hostile with one race or another.

It wouldn't be such a big deal except for the mission refusal timer. Why do I need to choose between A) taking a significant reputation hit, B) picking up my operation and moving 10 star systems away, or C) losing standing with the agent? (Or, I suppose there's D) waiting 4 hours to play again Ugh [that's what I'm doing right now, FYI]). I just don't get this element of missioning... if the Empire kill missions are going to be so common, why can't we just chain refuse missions?

Finally, why are these same undesirable missions still an enormous objective even of corporations? I kind of understand the Navy kill quests that have you targeting an opposing military force... but why does Quafe want me to go spraying fire into some Amarr patrol? Don't they enjoy beverages?

This seems like one of those QOL issues that CCP has been trying to rectify... and unlike the cloning changes, I really don't feel like this one requires much thought.
Galadriel Vasquez
Project Omega Industries
Fraternity.
#2 - 2015-01-22 09:57:57 UTC
You know there are missions like Courier and Mining which involve little Combat?

Also there are skills that can mitigate the damage running Combat missions and the Storylines (Every 16 missions you get a juicy one which destroys standings).

I do think standing damage needs to be in the tutorials because I did not know about it and had to train Diplomacy to repair standings wrecked by my devotion to the Federal Navy all those years ago.

I have tin foil hat trained to 5.
Provence Tristram
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#3 - 2015-01-22 09:58:58 UTC
Galadriel Vasquez wrote:
I do think standing damage needs to be in the tutorials because I did not know about it and had to train Diplomacy to repair standings wrecked by my devotion to the Federal Navy all those years ago.


I did the same thing on my old main. She was on the verge of being KOS by Minmatar.
Ferni Ka'Nviiou
Doomheim
#4 - 2015-01-22 09:59:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Ferni Ka'Nviiou
Provence Tristram wrote:
So... I'm missioning. I guess because that's (generally) what we low SP character do (well, it's what *I* do, at least).

One thing that has irked me for the longest time about missioning in this game is the frequency of Empire kill missions.

"Hey Provence, I need you to go bulldoze fifty Caldari habitat modules for me. Women... children... men... Actually, on second thought, please focus on the children. I want to see broken little bodies floating across the star field."

*Provence dutifully declines, while simultaneously dodging the agent's loogie as he spits at her.*

"Oh, hey, Provence -- good thing I caught you! Yeah, I really need you to drift on over to Gallente space and murder this pesky guy... and his guards... and their base... and any reinforcements that warp in. Hell, just start shooting Concord. What does it even matter?"

I don't have any qualms about killing NPCs, but these missions more often than not run contrary to the realities of the EVE universe. Not only are none of the powers currently at war but -- far more importantly -- mobility is a big deal in this game, and nobody wants to become hostile with one race or another.

It wouldn't be such a big deal except for the mission refusal timer. Why do I need to choose between A) taking a significant reputation hit, B) picking up my operation and moving 10 star systems away, or C) losing standing with the agent? I just don't get this element of missioning... if the Empire kill missions are going to be so common, why can't we just chain refuse missions?

Finally, why are Empire kill missions still an enormous objective of even corporations? I kind of understand the Navy kill quests that have you targeting an opposing military force... but why does Quafe want me to go spraying fire into some Amarr patrol? Don't they enjoy beverages?

This seems like one of those QOL issues that CCP has been trying to rectify... and unlike the cloning changes, I really don't feel like this one requires much thought.

It's more of a:
"Let's take a random mission from the pool, oh hey, Caldari."

It's a game-coding thing, which is pretty hard to rectify. For the amount of people that care about the mission apart from standings, it's just not worth the time for CCP, I guess.

If they were going to change this in anyway, they may as well overhaul the entire mission system. Big task, but it kind of needs it.

Yeah, "because reasons" is what I'm going to go for.
Provence Tristram
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#5 - 2015-01-22 10:01:19 UTC
Ferni Ka'Nviiou wrote:
Provence Tristram wrote:
So... I'm missioning. I guess because that's (generally) what we low SP character do (well, it's what *I* do, at least).

One thing that has irked me for the longest time about missioning in this game is the frequency of Empire kill missions.

"Hey Provence, I need you to go bulldoze fifty Caldari habitat modules for me. Women... children... men... Actually, on second thought, please focus on the children. I want to see broken little bodies floating across the star field."

*Provence dutifully declines, while simultaneously dodging the agent's loogie as he spits at her.*

"Oh, hey, Provence -- good thing I caught you! Yeah, I really need you to drift on over to Gallente space and murder this pesky guy... and his guards... and their base... and any reinforcements that warp in. Hell, just start shooting Concord. What does it even matter?"

I don't have any qualms about killing NPCs, but these missions more often than not run contrary to the realities of the EVE universe. Not only are none of the powers currently at war but -- far more importantly -- mobility is a big deal in this game, and nobody wants to become hostile with one race or another.

It wouldn't be such a big deal except for the mission refusal timer. Why do I need to choose between A) taking a significant reputation hit, B) picking up my operation and moving 10 star systems away, or C) losing standing with the agent? I just don't get this element of missioning... if the Empire kill missions are going to be so common, why can't we just chain refuse missions?

Finally, why are Empire kill missions still an enormous objective of even corporations? I kind of understand the Navy kill quests that have you targeting an opposing military force... but why does Quafe want me to go spraying fire into some Amarr patrol? Don't they enjoy beverages?

This seems like one of those QOL issues that CCP has been trying to rectify... and unlike the cloning changes, I really don't feel like this one requires much thought.

It's more of a:
"Let's take a random mission from the pool, oh hey, Caldari."

It's a game-coding thing, which is pretty hard to rectify. For the amount of people that care about standings, it's just not worth the time for CCP, I guess.

If they were going to change this in anyway, they may as well overhaul the entire mission system. Big task, but it kind of needs it.

Yeah, "because reasons" is what I'm going to go for.


Couldn't they fix it just by removing the refuse mission penalty?
Galadriel Vasquez
Project Omega Industries
Fraternity.
#6 - 2015-01-22 10:02:36 UTC
Provence Tristram wrote:
Ferni Ka'Nviiou wrote:
Provence Tristram wrote:
So... I'm missioning. I guess because that's (generally) what we low SP character do (well, it's what *I* do, at least).

One thing that has irked me for the longest time about missioning in this game is the frequency of Empire kill missions.

"Hey Provence, I need you to go bulldoze fifty Caldari habitat modules for me. Women... children... men... Actually, on second thought, please focus on the children. I want to see broken little bodies floating across the star field."

*Provence dutifully declines, while simultaneously dodging the agent's loogie as he spits at her.*

"Oh, hey, Provence -- good thing I caught you! Yeah, I really need you to drift on over to Gallente space and murder this pesky guy... and his guards... and their base... and any reinforcements that warp in. Hell, just start shooting Concord. What does it even matter?"

I don't have any qualms about killing NPCs, but these missions more often than not run contrary to the realities of the EVE universe. Not only are none of the powers currently at war but -- far more importantly -- mobility is a big deal in this game, and nobody wants to become hostile with one race or another.

It wouldn't be such a big deal except for the mission refusal timer. Why do I need to choose between A) taking a significant reputation hit, B) picking up my operation and moving 10 star systems away, or C) losing standing with the agent? I just don't get this element of missioning... if the Empire kill missions are going to be so common, why can't we just chain refuse missions?

Finally, why are Empire kill missions still an enormous objective of even corporations? I kind of understand the Navy kill quests that have you targeting an opposing military force... but why does Quafe want me to go spraying fire into some Amarr patrol? Don't they enjoy beverages?

This seems like one of those QOL issues that CCP has been trying to rectify... and unlike the cloning changes, I really don't feel like this one requires much thought.

It's more of a:
"Let's take a random mission from the pool, oh hey, Caldari."

It's a game-coding thing, which is pretty hard to rectify. For the amount of people that care about standings, it's just not worth the time for CCP, I guess.

If they were going to change this in anyway, they may as well overhaul the entire mission system. Big task, but it kind of needs it.

Yeah, "because reasons" is what I'm going to go for.


Couldn't they fix it just by removing the refuse mission penalty?


I think that is a good idea.

I have tin foil hat trained to 5.
Ferni Ka'Nviiou
Doomheim
#7 - 2015-01-22 10:06:14 UTC
Provence Tristram wrote:
Ferni Ka'Nviiou wrote:
Provence Tristram wrote:
So... I'm missioning. I guess because that's (generally) what we low SP character do (well, it's what *I* do, at least).

One thing that has irked me for the longest time about missioning in this game is the frequency of Empire kill missions.

"Hey Provence, I need you to go bulldoze fifty Caldari habitat modules for me. Women... children... men... Actually, on second thought, please focus on the children. I want to see broken little bodies floating across the star field."

*Provence dutifully declines, while simultaneously dodging the agent's loogie as he spits at her.*

"Oh, hey, Provence -- good thing I caught you! Yeah, I really need you to drift on over to Gallente space and murder this pesky guy... and his guards... and their base... and any reinforcements that warp in. Hell, just start shooting Concord. What does it even matter?"

I don't have any qualms about killing NPCs, but these missions more often than not run contrary to the realities of the EVE universe. Not only are none of the powers currently at war but -- far more importantly -- mobility is a big deal in this game, and nobody wants to become hostile with one race or another.

It wouldn't be such a big deal except for the mission refusal timer. Why do I need to choose between A) taking a significant reputation hit, B) picking up my operation and moving 10 star systems away, or C) losing standing with the agent? I just don't get this element of missioning... if the Empire kill missions are going to be so common, why can't we just chain refuse missions?

Finally, why are Empire kill missions still an enormous objective of even corporations? I kind of understand the Navy kill quests that have you targeting an opposing military force... but why does Quafe want me to go spraying fire into some Amarr patrol? Don't they enjoy beverages?

This seems like one of those QOL issues that CCP has been trying to rectify... and unlike the cloning changes, I really don't feel like this one requires much thought.

It's more of a:
"Let's take a random mission from the pool, oh hey, Caldari."

It's a game-coding thing, which is pretty hard to rectify. For the amount of people that care about standings, it's just not worth the time for CCP, I guess.

If they were going to change this in anyway, they may as well overhaul the entire mission system. Big task, but it kind of needs it.

Yeah, "because reasons" is what I'm going to go for.


Couldn't they fix it just by removing the refuse mission penalty?

We could then farm the best of the best missions (such as Silence the Informant - Level 3) and not even have to do Level IV's.
I swear, if I could keep doing that mission over and over, I could make about 300 million and hour.
That's part of the main reasons why they can't.

Imbalance.

The lore implications of saying "No, I don't want to kill those Amarrian slavers" over and over, and not receiving some sort of hate from Brutor agents, would seem strange.
Galadriel Vasquez
Project Omega Industries
Fraternity.
#8 - 2015-01-22 10:07:31 UTC
Ferni Ka'Nviiou wrote:
Provence Tristram wrote:
Ferni Ka'Nviiou wrote:
Provence Tristram wrote:
So... I'm missioning. I guess because that's (generally) what we low SP character do (well, it's what *I* do, at least).

One thing that has irked me for the longest time about missioning in this game is the frequency of Empire kill missions.

"Hey Provence, I need you to go bulldoze fifty Caldari habitat modules for me. Women... children... men... Actually, on second thought, please focus on the children. I want to see broken little bodies floating across the star field."

*Provence dutifully declines, while simultaneously dodging the agent's loogie as he spits at her.*

"Oh, hey, Provence -- good thing I caught you! Yeah, I really need you to drift on over to Gallente space and murder this pesky guy... and his guards... and their base... and any reinforcements that warp in. Hell, just start shooting Concord. What does it even matter?"

I don't have any qualms about killing NPCs, but these missions more often than not run contrary to the realities of the EVE universe. Not only are none of the powers currently at war but -- far more importantly -- mobility is a big deal in this game, and nobody wants to become hostile with one race or another.

It wouldn't be such a big deal except for the mission refusal timer. Why do I need to choose between A) taking a significant reputation hit, B) picking up my operation and moving 10 star systems away, or C) losing standing with the agent? I just don't get this element of missioning... if the Empire kill missions are going to be so common, why can't we just chain refuse missions?

Finally, why are Empire kill missions still an enormous objective of even corporations? I kind of understand the Navy kill quests that have you targeting an opposing military force... but why does Quafe want me to go spraying fire into some Amarr patrol? Don't they enjoy beverages?

This seems like one of those QOL issues that CCP has been trying to rectify... and unlike the cloning changes, I really don't feel like this one requires much thought.

It's more of a:
"Let's take a random mission from the pool, oh hey, Caldari."

It's a game-coding thing, which is pretty hard to rectify. For the amount of people that care about standings, it's just not worth the time for CCP, I guess.

If they were going to change this in anyway, they may as well overhaul the entire mission system. Big task, but it kind of needs it.

Yeah, "because reasons" is what I'm going to go for.


Couldn't they fix it just by removing the refuse mission penalty?

We could then farm the best of the best missions (such as Silence the Informant - Level 3) and not even have to do Level IV's.
I swear, if I could keep doing that mission over and over, I could make about 300 million and hour.
That's part of the main reasons why they can't.

Imbalance.

The lore implications of saying "No, I don't want to kill those Amarrian slavers" over and over, and not receiving some sort of hate from Brutor agents, would seem strange.


Oh derp me - of course we would filter out the crap ones and blitz the easier ones - well they are all easy but I see your point....

I have tin foil hat trained to 5.
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#9 - 2015-01-22 10:11:12 UTC
Or they could put missions in sub-categories and allow a player to put exceptions on categories but with every exception you tick, the overall rewards get reduced. Such a system would be even more feasible to install if they had procedurally generated missions. You'd just omit certain results on the mission generation tables.

And then I wish for a universal resource depletion for rats, missions, ores and sites; the more they're farmed in a location, the fewer/less valuable they become.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Daneau
Roprocor Ltd
#10 - 2015-01-22 10:17:27 UTC
Different agents do not all have the same pool of missions so you may just have caught one that has
a lot of anti-faction ones to choose from.

Having said that i agree that it can at times be a little annoying then again the standing hit is pretty small
so long as you do not shoot large named rats or structures, for som reason structures will really mess
up standings but in most missions you actually do not need to shoot those(sentry towers can usually be
ignored)

So you can try changing agent/corp to run for, if i remember correct the navy ones used to have a larger
percentage of anti-faction missions, or read up a bit on the different faction missions and do not decline
the ones that involve minimal combat. This should reduce the nr of missions you have to decline a bit.
Dun'Gal
Myriad Contractors Inc.
#11 - 2015-01-22 11:11:53 UTC
You could try a hub, have multiple agents on the go that way when you get those kill missions you can decline and do missions for someone else why the penalty timer wheres down on that particular one... rinse and repeat. with enough l4 agents 2-3 is plenty you can both mitigate the loss when you are forced to take it, or not have to encur one at all.
Ix Method
Doomheim
#12 - 2015-01-22 11:17:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Ix Method
It's not a bad point but you're looking for sense in a system that's been worked on by a hundred different people with a hundred different visions for a hundred different years (well, ish). There's also been decent chunks of time where lore was seemingly just not a concern. Put that altogether and we have what we have.

Honestly it seems those that are RP minded do it as much despite the lore as because of it.

Agree with the sentiment that more work on kicking this stuff into shape would help keep certain people around but when the Balance/NPE/POS/Sov/Player Gates, etc. stuff they're focusing on atm effects 100x more players it's hard to yell too loud.

Travelling at the speed of love.
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#13 - 2015-01-22 11:41:11 UTC
Here comes the choice and consequence:
- don't do missions if you don't want to tank your standings
- locate to a constellation with multiple agents and swap between them to circumvent the decline penalty
- go do SOE arc to get standings up
- go do missions for the sides which you have bad standings towards to raise them
Provence Tristram
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#14 - 2015-01-22 11:51:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Provence Tristram
Adrie Atticus wrote:
Here comes the choice and consequence:
- don't do missions if you don't want to tank your standings
- locate to a constellation with multiple agents and swap between them to circumvent the decline penalty
- go do SOE arc to get standings up
- go do missions for the sides which you have bad standings towards to raise them


Except, of course, that you're failing to see the forest for the trees.

Consequence? What consequence? Because if the choice to reject had meaning (other than consuming time), then you'd lose standing with the agent no matter whether you refused the mission or waited three hours and then refused it.

I mean, think about it -- the argument you're making is that this is EVE, and that your choices have impact. But this is a really, really bad bit of terrain to plant your flag and fight that battle on considering that A) the game doesn't give a whit if I ultimately refuse the mission (thus essentially eradicating all but real-world time-related consequences for said choice), B) it doesn't invoke any longer term consequences for my refusal, and C) the ultimate result of my missioning, beyond accessing higher level missions, is MEANINGLESS. The objectives mean nothing! The story means nothing!

What's more, this is EXACTLY the type of old-style gameplay that CCP has been attempting to root out. I am totally in favor of keeping EVE a harsh universe (and I was actually very much on the fence about the clone changes). But this element of missioning just screams antiquated roadblock for roadblock's sake.

This isn't a part of the sandbox! This is the antithesis of sandbox elements! Yeah, all my choices have consequence -- I could choose to pick my freaking nose right now, too. Maybe my dog will notice me doing that. CONSEQUENCE: DOG MAY BE GROSSED OUT. Does consequence ultimately matter, however?: NO.
Provence Tristram
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#15 - 2015-01-22 11:54:57 UTC
Accidental double post.
Aralyn Cormallen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#16 - 2015-01-22 12:44:41 UTC
Look at it from an in-game viewpoint, these guys aren't bottomless fountains of jobs (as much as the game tries to make them!). The agent has things he needs doing. If you're going to be picky, he'll favour a contractor that is a little less fussy. That's what the standing loss (you getting a reputation amoungst the agent network as being "difficult") or 4 hour wait ("well, that's all I've got now, take it or leave it") is all about.

If we are talking revamping missions, rather than making it into a mindless grinder where you can cherry-pick the best wage with the least downsides (can you imagine going in the the job centre and going "No, I don't care that you need bricklayers and carpenters for a project, I demand to do some brain surgery, or at the very least get to act as defence in a high-profile criminal case!"), I would rather see missions becoming more of a depleteable resource - have the agent have a list of missions he has available, and once someone accepts one, its gone, and everyone else has to pick from whats left. Have the list slowly respawn jobs, so you either take what he has, move on to someone else, or wait. Could even introduce job "locks"; if a mission has sat in the list for too long (or too many other missions accepted over this one), the agent stops respawning other missions until someone sucks down the non-optimal mission and deals with the agents "priority".

Of course, all of that might make mission runners suffer a fit Big smile
Hengle Teron
Red Sky Morning
The Amarr Militia.
#17 - 2015-01-22 13:07:13 UTC
of course your missioning has consequence... you're pouring ISK into the system
Leannor
State War Academy
Caldari State
#18 - 2015-01-22 14:10:32 UTC
got me thinking ... if you reject as part of a fleet, do you all share the same standing change?

And also, do you only need to be in fleet when the standing change 'happens' (to the agent) to be affected? (ie, guy 1 runs the missions, heads back to station, fleets up, completes mission, unfleets. - do both get the standings / LP changes?)

"Lykouleon wrote:

STOP TOUCHING ICONIC SHIP PARTS"
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#19 - 2015-01-22 14:24:47 UTC
The other issue with rejecting faction kill missions is you see less content. CCP has essentially made undesirable game content. In the repetitious world of missions, having an incentive for players to reduce the variety is sad.

How about, for every faction kill mission, the agent offers an option: For reduced reward (mission payout and LP) the agent will keep your activities hushed up. That is, no standing penalty. That way there is still a penalty for killing the other faction, you need to make a decision, but its ISK, not standings.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#20 - 2015-01-22 15:16:36 UTC
Provence Tristram wrote:


I don't have any qualms about killing NPCs, but these missions more often than not run contrary to the realities of the EVE universe.


No they do not, they are consistent with what EVE is, a dystopian distant future of immortals engaged in conflict.

Quote:
Not only are none of the powers currently at war but


The current powers are locked in an ETERNAL war.

Also, most agents for a faction are in that factions space, when an agent gives you a faction kill mission you are fighting off an incursion by a foreign power. in real life countries have border skirmishes with each other all the time.

Quote:

-- far more importantly -- mobility is a big deal in this game, and nobody wants to become hostile with one race or another.
.



Which is why faction missions happen, they force you to make a CHOICE about your standings (and thus mobility). You have to think about what you are doing, even while missioning. You seem to want CCP to do your thinking for you.
123Next page