These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Simple fix to balance lvl 4 missions

Author
Dankkarr
Benito de Soto
#1 - 2015-11-11 22:46:02 UTC
Overall Eve's game play strives to balance risk with reward. To earn the higher rewards players have to take more risk. In PVE this can be venturing into low sec exploration, wormhole or 0.0 (let's leave incursions as another topic). Risk in Eve must be seen as unwanted encounters with other players (rather than than say a burner NPC).

Overall level 4 missions are pretty balanced. With perfect skills in a marauder or pirate BS lvl4 rewards are less than the equivalent 0.0 ratting (as a simple benchmark). The 0.0 ratter takes more risk.

However, some players boast 200-300m per hour running lvl4s in high sec and give stat of how they achieve it, for example.

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=451140&find=unread

I don't wish to pick on individuals but this thread illustrates the problem (look at the mission selection).

I propose: change the 4 hr timer in which missions can be declined without standing loss to a hard 4hr timer when no missions can be declined or failed (with that agent). Attempting to decline a mission would give an message "you cannot decline this mission for 2hrs 34m" or however long is left on the timer. The code for the timer is already there, surely this can't be too difficult.

Why, to balance risk and reward and ensure the highest reward are only available when putting your ship at risk from unwanted PVP (ganking is a risk for everyone so is irrelevant to the argument). Eve must not be allowed to stagnate in high sec, it is against one of the fundamental principles of the game.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#2 - 2015-11-12 03:28:50 UTC
These numbers have only become possible since burners have been introduced.

However removing the ability to blitz by just popping spawns and requiring full complete would slow down a lot of the crazy blitzing. The whole 'trigger spawn' system is ancient, and punishes people who actually do it on their own rather than just read EVE Survival, while they are the people we should be rewarding.

And the Burners were just a fitting puzzle. Once that puzzle is solved if you can be bothered stocking all the ships you can do them easily. And the fitting puzzle being static can be looked up online also.
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#3 - 2015-11-12 05:32:35 UTC
The problem with your timer change is it punishes ALL mission runners and not just the blitzers you are complaining about.

I would counter your timer change proposal with this.
Move all of the ISK from pay and bonuses to bounties for ships killed.
Base the LP payout on the percentage of NPC ships killed. Kill 10% of the NPC get 10% of the LP. Want all the LP kill all the ships.
This would eliminate the huge ISK per hour figures you are complaining about.
And best of all it does not punish new to level 4 players and those who decline missions for standings reasons.

Burner missions in high sec was a huge mistake, for the level of ISK / LP payouts possible they should have been an alternative form of level 5 missions an been relegated to low and nul sec only.

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#4 - 2015-11-12 07:18:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Within the 3 hours this pilot worked in high sec, I can make more than 300M in pure ISK in Null sec + occasional bookmark sales for escalations, faction spawns and ESS if I would bother using one, amounting to a similar figure without having to move any system or wait for adequate missions to spawn.

The timer you suggest has no impact on these statistics at all, however, as it just requires an alt or two to circumvent them. A true fix to your problem is the removal of blitzing, which is also a particularly irritating problem with L5 missions when you try to hunt a mission carrier, but it can warp out before you can scan it down. The timer suggestion, on the other hand, punishes people who do not want to run these burners, for instance. When I do some missions in Curse or Syndicate, I regularly get several of these burner missions in a row (worst case so far was 4). I do not have the means there to run them nor am I interested in that garbage. Which means that CCP also would need to reduces the frequency of these missions in combination with your timer in order to not screw proper mission runners over.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Dankkarr
Benito de Soto
#5 - 2015-11-12 09:08:20 UTC
Burner missions do not have completion triggers so changing mission completion mechanics will not have an effect on these elevated incomes. If you change the mission completion triggers on the 5 or so normal missions the blitzers are accepting , they will simply decline these missions too and cycle through just accepting burner missions.

The problem here is the ability to cherry pick missions to such an extent. The only solutions as I see it are:

a) A hard timer so missions cannot be declined / failed in the 4 hr window.
b) Much higher faction standing losses for declining / failing missions in the 4hr windows


Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#6 - 2015-11-12 09:52:29 UTC
I'd rather prefer B over A. As said, I cannot and do not run Burners, but a hard timer on not being able to decline anything would screw me over completely when I get burners dumpstered on me.

The problem, however, is that CCP wants people to make more money quicker so that they can PVP faster, and the mechanic to decline burners without standing loss or stasis timer just plays into that. CCP just needs to reduce the frequency of these missions now that they are established and rewards have equalized.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#7 - 2015-11-12 09:59:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
Reducing the frequency of burners would actually achieve the same as B for those that are trying to blitz just the burners without hitting anyone else.

So.
1. Remove the easy blitz normal lvl 4's by making them full complete. Has no impact on the average mission runner, only on the blitzer.
2. Decrease burner frequency (For reference I see about 50% of my missions as burners). This reduces the ability to blitz burners in a sustainable way as it is already possible to tank your standings if you aren't careful, and this will make it an unsustainable activity. Good for a short burst of cash, but not a perpetual income at that rate.

We don't want to mess with full complete mission pay since that is already significantly lower than 'more dangerous' areas of space (assuming we believe the more dangerous bit, since the theoretical danger often isn't actually there meaning high sec actually is more dangerous in practice, but hey, at least the theory of it exists so it 'could' happen.)

It's really only burner blitzing that is out of balance, but if we are doing a pass, the normal blitz could also use a pass, as stopping blitzing allows for the full complete player to potentially be awarded a little more reward without unbalancing things.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#8 - 2015-11-12 11:19:06 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Reducing the frequency of burners would actually achieve the same as B for those that are trying to blitz just the burners without hitting anyone else.

So.
1. Remove the easy blitz normal lvl 4's by making them full complete. Has no impact on the average mission runner, only on the blitzer.
2. Decrease burner frequency (For reference I see about 50% of my missions as burners). This reduces the ability to blitz burners in a sustainable way as it is already possible to tank your standings if you aren't careful, and this will make it an unsustainable activity. Good for a short burst of cash, but not a perpetual income at that rate.

[good stuff]

It's really only burner blitzing that is out of balance, but if we are doing a pass, the normal blitz could also use a pass, as stopping blitzing allows for the full complete player to potentially be awarded a little more reward without unbalancing things.


I'm just gonna step in here, and say that technically people don't blitz burners, because they're a 'full complete' mission (correct me if I'm wrong here, but the burners I did were) where you have to kill all the offending ships for misison complete.

So the problem isn't burner blitzing, it's running burners in preference to normal lvl 4's..... and the burners not changing their fit/tactics over time.

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.

Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#9 - 2015-11-12 11:26:18 UTC
Xe'Cara'eos wrote:


I'm just gonna step in here, and say that technically people don't blitz burners, because they're a 'full complete' mission (correct me if I'm wrong here, but the burners I did were) where you have to kill all the offending ships for misison complete.

So the problem isn't burner blitzing, it's running burners in preference to normal lvl 4's..... and the burners not changing their fit/tactics over time.

Technically yes, I was using blitzing to refer to the practice of declining any that are slow missions, since even some burners take longer than others using the common fits, in favour of the very fast to run/close by burners.
And of declining all the normal missions instantly.
oohthey ioh
Doomheim
#10 - 2015-11-12 11:35:28 UTC
Thb i think the mission should be generated differently every site, that way people can't master an site, giving risk to the missions.

And make player move around more, wirh out focusing them to do it.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#11 - 2015-11-12 12:06:25 UTC
You need to also balance anoms in null. They need more scramming rats that make players commit to the anom. The token 1 or 2 scramming rats are a joke. The AI should meet the sleeper AI at least half way. As it stands now, null anoms are riskless jokes that generate way too much isk. You only need to look to the income from guristas to see that the system is broken. Being safe in anoms takes only a simple bot watching local for non blues.

Any reasonable 'fix' to risk/reward would add scramming rats to null anoms that require some commitment to a site once a player starts running it. (1 token scramming rat is NOT commitment - it's a joke)


If level 4 blitzing is a problem add more rats and throttle down on the bounties. It's not rocket science. Burners being exploited for isk/time, throttle down their offering frequency. The mission decline timer treats a symptom and can be overcome w/ alts, while just reducing their offer rate solves the proposed 'problem'.

I'm not sure why there is such anger towards L4 missioners when running anoms in SOV null is so easy and risk free. I think you're more likely to get suicide ganked in Apanake than getting jumped in Venal. Null anoms are just geometric fish in a barrel - you don't even have to go back to station between sites.
Xe'Cara'eos
A Big Enough Lever
#12 - 2015-11-12 13:43:48 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
You need to also balance anoms in null. They need more scramming rats that make players commit to the anom. The token 1 or 2 scramming rats are a joke. The AI should meet the sleeper AI at least half way. As it stands now, null anoms are riskless jokes that generate way too much isk. You only need to look to the income from guristas to see that the system is broken. Being safe in anoms takes only a simple bot watching local for non blues.

Any reasonable 'fix' to risk/reward would add scramming rats to null anoms that require some commitment to a site once a player starts running it. (1 token scramming rat is NOT commitment - it's a joke)


If level 4 blitzing is a problem add more rats and throttle down on the bounties. It's not rocket science. Burners being exploited for isk/time, throttle down their offering frequency. The mission decline timer treats a symptom and can be overcome w/ alts, while just reducing their offer rate solves the proposed 'problem'.

I'm not sure why there is such anger towards L4 missioners when running anoms in SOV null is so easy and risk free. I think you're more likely to get suicide ganked in Apanake than getting jumped in Venal. Null anoms are just geometric fish in a barrel - you don't even have to go back to station between sites.


anoms are a seperate issue - generate another thread - I'll happily make a comment, even if I've never done more than the odd roam through null (such as scramming cruisers and even some scramming brawling BS)

lvl 4 blitzing - throttling back on the bounties makes more incentive for people to blitz as more of the income is in the lp..... push more reward from the mission window onto the rats, so every rat you don't shoot, is income lost.



I also think that random procedural generation of (most of the) mission rats and aggro would be a good way to go, for both nullsec anoms and lvl 4's

@Nevyn - ok, ty for clarification. (sorry for pedancy!)

For posting an idea into F&I: come up with idea, try and think how people could abuse this, try to fix your idea - loop the process until you can't see how it could be abused, then post to the forums to let us figure out how to abuse it..... If your idea can be abused, it [u]WILL[/u] be.

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#13 - 2015-11-12 13:46:28 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
You need to also balance anoms in null. They need more scramming rats that make players commit to the anom. The token 1 or 2 scramming rats are a joke..

Every Haven that I fly has 3-4 waves with at least 4 point/web elite frigates.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#14 - 2015-11-12 13:50:40 UTC
If burners are the real problem then the only change needed is to move burners to low / nul sec where the inherent risks are more inline with the rewards why screw around with the rest of the system.
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
#15 - 2015-11-12 14:17:07 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
You need to also balance anoms in null. They need more scramming rats that make players commit to the anom. The token 1 or 2 scramming rats are a joke..

Every Haven that I fly has 3-4 waves with at least 4 point/web elite frigates.



4.... OMG....

per wave


Haven - the high end elite null ratting pve. Can be defeated by 5 stabs in the lows. Does that reduce your isk/hour efficiency? Sure. Does it also allow your carrier bot to farm less efficiently but stll all day long unattended? Yes, yes it does.


My point (don't bother giving details of the paltry number of scrams / wave) is that null anoms should require the player to commit up to the end of the anom. In C4 and above sleeper sites you're pretty much there until the finish (them or you). I'm saying null anoms with their continuous supply of isk due to site auto regeneration should also require player ship commitment. Being able to smartbomb 4 frigates/wave is a 20 second commitment. It's not commitment to the field - it's a brief window of vulnerability.

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#16 - 2015-11-12 14:48:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Serendipity Lost wrote:
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Serendipity Lost wrote:
You need to also balance anoms in null. They need more scramming rats that make players commit to the anom. The token 1 or 2 scramming rats are a joke..

Every Haven that I fly has 3-4 waves with at least 4 point/web elite frigates.



4.... OMG....

per wave

... commit ...

4 frigs and 4 BS per wave, so the ratio is not too bad. But I do not even care about them, and would neither if it was more. Roll They die long before they reach my position or they would not bother me because I do not move anyways and smartbomb them upon arrival.

I doubt very much that WH anoms/sigs scram your ship. You can MJD out of their range and warp off just like in Null sec. There goes your commitment difference to Null sec.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Haatakan Reppola
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#17 - 2015-11-12 15:01:26 UTC
Move burners to dedicated agents, reward/bonus time is based on statics for completion (and assume rejection) of the missions. The reason burner missions pay so good is that most people decline and those that do them often use sub optimal fits (not blinged as the "pro" people use)

Its like comparing a deadspace fit pirate BS/Marauder to a meta fit raven, only with burners we have alot higher "raven" %