These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#61 - 2013-08-30 13:25:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ooook… top tip: if you want to make an impression and have your ideas taken seriously, start by having an above-zero accuracy in your claims.

• Loot goes up and down in value as the market dictates. If loot value has gone down, it's because more people are running missions, which indicates that missions are better than ever.
• The chances of getting faction drops is the same in highsec as everywhere else.
• There are tons of benefits for grinding standings.
• The epic arcs have been touched since 06 due to the simple fact that that they were released in '09… and they've been updated numerous times since then.
• Risk-reward is not a poor concept. It's in fact a very good concept for balancing income. That's why incursions are a lot riskier than L4s (as shown by he outright slaughter of unaware mission-runners who tried them in the early days).
• If you want to PvP, go to where the targets are — highsec is just as much a PvP arena as all other parts of space.
• The reason there are predators in highsec is because that's where the shiny ships are.

Yes, this game is a sandbox, but more than that, it's a multiplayer sandbox. Multiplayer sandbox does not mean that you can do what you want — it means everyone can do what they want, which includes them doing things (to you) that you don't want them to do. From a design standpoint, it also means that static content such as missions is pretty unimportant and that what really matters is to provide tools for the players to create their own content.

The reason very little effort goes into missions is because it's not really a worth-while investments. PvE content almost never is, because it's a consumable kind of content. Incursions are a perfect example of this: everyone flocked to them early on, but once they had tried them and figured them out — once the content had been consumed — the drop-off rate was enormous. Like all such content, it created a very brief but ultimately totally ineffective bump in interest and then just made more people leave. On top of this, creating this kind of one-shot content costs a lot, which means it's a highly questionable use of developer time. They simply do not offer any of the tools that constitute proper content for a sandbox-style game.

Instead, missions in EVE serve pretty much only one purpose: to inject ISK into the economy. Until CCP sees a good reason to adjust how much ISK is being injected, don't count on missions changing much.

All that said, what role do you feel you're being forced into? In what way have CCP nerfed missions and mission content?


Concept: provide the players with mechanics that allowed them to generate PvE content for other players.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#62 - 2013-08-30 13:32:21 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Concept: provide the players with mechanics that allowed them to generate PvE content for other players.

Core difficulty to overcome: creating inherent (self)balancing mechanisms that keep players from creating exploitable designs (too large rewards for too little effort or time investment).
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#63 - 2013-08-30 13:37:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Jam Kirk wrote:
I'm not carrying my nose high at all. I just wanted to find out if there was a thought process on bringing more life into missioning. I had no intention of putting anyone down or picking a fight in the forums. I didn't want to go this direction at all. I'm no "Forum Warrior" . I'd much rather just discuss the missioning aspect more. I didn't jump on your thread and start anything. If picking on people for posting here is what you like to do.... All hail your massive epeen.


You fail to understand that it was your ignorance of the subject that created the situation you now decry. You're not alone, a large percentage of posters (and humans in general) do what you did (ie failed to take responsibility for your own incorrect ideas).

Rather than get butthurt about Tippia's superior knowledge of the subject, perhaps it would be a better idea for you to use this as a learning experience?
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#64 - 2013-08-30 13:42:37 UTC
Jam Kirk wrote:
...Any hope to see mission running re-vitalized?...
My idea of revitalization would be eliminate the tiers and change the goals. The goal of missions now is to get to L-4... that should change.

New players should be given reasons to run L-1s in Frigates for long enough that the skill up the appropriate supporting skills. L-1s should offer lowsec long story lines that are short low ISK risk operations. Help teach the new player that after a couple of months his frigates skill, while not equal to a ten year old vet, can make them competitive. Show them the loss of a ship isn't that big a deal if cost is keep manageable. Some will never like it, while many will.

Running L-1s in and Assault Frigate should be a viable income to a two-three month old player, but not worth doing for an older player.

Each Level should be about a learning a ship class... not a rush to Battleships.



Of course...I could be wrong. Blink
Jam Kirk
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2013-08-30 13:44:56 UTC
LOL :) Thank you all. I must have come across here in a manor that I didn't relate to and/or understand. If I have come across as arrogant I sincerly apologise. Solstice Project I apologise to you as well. I didn't post here to fight or put anyone down. I am not very comfortable with my skill progression, and I haven't yet found a corp that I can call home. I am very new even for a toon that is 2011. I have a great deal to learn and am not trying to present myself as knowledgable in any way. I'm just trying to get a handle on the direction of game play that intrests me. Currently I'm pretty much just soloing missions. I try to make a few rigs of sell minerals or scraps. Trying to expand my perview here a little.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2013-08-30 13:49:31 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Jam Kirk wrote:
...Any hope to see mission running re-vitalized?...
My idea of revitalization would be eliminate the tiers and change the goals. The goal of missions now is to get to L-4... that should change.

New players should be given reasons to run L-1s in Frigates for long enough that the skill up the appropriate supporting skills. L-1s should offer lowsec long story lines that are short low ISK risk operations. Help teach the new player that after a couple of months his frigates skill, while not equal to a ten year old vet, can make them competitive. Show them the loss of a ship isn't that big a deal if cost is keep manageable. Some will never like it, while many will.

Running L-1s in and Assault Frigate should be a viable income to a two-three month old player, but not worth doing for an older player.

Each Level should be about a learning a ship class... not a rush to Battleships.



Of course...I could be wrong. Blink

I agree except for the AF-part.
That just sounds weird.

I can imagine lvl1s teaching survival in low...
how to fit a frigate for fast align time,
basic dscanning abilities,
instadock and -undock bookmarks...

Otoh, these are things that players should teach, not CCP.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#67 - 2013-08-30 13:52:01 UTC
Jam Kirk wrote:
LOL :) Thank you all. I must have come across here in a manor that I didn't relate to and/or understand. If I have come across as arrogant I sincerly apologise. Solstice Project I apologise to you as well. I didn't post here to fight or put anyone down. I am not very comfortable with my skill progression, and I haven't yet found a corp that I can call home. I am very new even for a toon that is 2011. I have a great deal to learn and am not trying to present myself as knowledgable in any way. I'm just trying to get a handle on the direction of game play that intrests me. Currently I'm pretty much just soloing missions. I try to make a few rigs of sell minerals or scraps. Trying to expand my perview here a little.



This post just demonstrated that you are superior to 99.9% of EVE GD posters, because the vast majority of people would have stupidly dug their heels in and displayed much more ignorance.

Salute.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#68 - 2013-08-30 13:53:19 UTC
Jam Kirk wrote:
LOL :) Thank you all. I must have come across here in a manor that I didn't relate to and/or understand. If I have come across as arrogant I sincerly apologise. Solstice Project I apologise to you as well. I didn't post here to fight or put anyone down. I am not very comfortable with my skill progression, and I haven't yet found a corp that I can call home. I am very new even for a toon that is 2011. I have a great deal to learn and am not trying to present myself as knowledgable in any way. I'm just trying to get a handle on the direction of game play that intrests me. Currently I'm pretty much just soloing missions. I try to make a few rigs of sell minerals or scraps. Trying to expand my perview here a little.
Accepted.

That said, you should give PvP elements a chance. Lots of people who joined me as scanner/looter
on ganking roams seriously enjoyed it and also learned a lot about the game.
Bonus: They didn't need to shoot stuff, while gaining suspect status made their hands shake.
And it's more fun to make money that way too.
Jam Kirk
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2013-08-30 14:00:07 UTC
I might give that a try :) I sent you a bottle. We can toast the changes. I will be looking into ship skills and pvp with a new found vigor.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#70 - 2013-08-30 14:01:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
Tippia wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
Concept: provide the players with mechanics that allowed them to generate PvE content for other players.

Core difficulty to overcome: creating inherent (self)balancing mechanisms that keep players from creating exploitable designs (too large rewards for too little effort or time investment).


Oh, already figured some of that.

First, mission assignation would be anonymous via NPC so nobody knows who's mission is he running.

Second, penalties for turning down missions and collaterals for taking on them.

Third, setting up a mission costs ISK + resource (points)

Fourth, missions can be failed (FAI, timed triggers, target evasion or target destruction)

Fifth, mission complexity and reward are balanced through "points", in a method that's been widely used in industry (mostly strategy and wargames). Player haves limited budget of points and also limited mission elements which cost points, and a miminum number of points must be spent accordingly to mission level. A top cap limits difficulty. Resource points, of course, are affected by player skills... this is EVE!

Initial purchase of points would be done through storyline (1 in 16) NPC missions, btw.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#71 - 2013-08-30 14:07:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
TRIAD has a player-made mission system that seems to work and sounds promising.
Why not rather support this, instead of pointless NPC grinding?

Think about it. We might soon (lol) have a few hundred player corps creating missions,
which would translate into hundreds of missions people can choose from...
E'ara Koshun
The Order of the golden Sun
#72 - 2013-08-30 14:10:23 UTC
Solstice Project wrote:
*lol*

Most new people have no clue about how they want to play the game.
Most get influenced in doing what they are told to do.



and you are going to do the same, telling people what they have to do, because you think, the way you play eve is the right way ....
Jam Kirk
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2013-08-30 14:11:23 UTC
That sounds alot better than what we have at present. Better skill advice as well. That'll give pilots alot more direction. Maybe even less lost soles like myself.
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#74 - 2013-08-30 14:14:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Solstice Project
E'ara Koshun wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
*lol*

Most new people have no clue about how they want to play the game.
Most get influenced in doing what they are told to do.



and you are going to do the same, telling people what they have to do, because you think, the way you play eve is the right way ....
That's not the same.
I don't outright lie to people.
I offer possibilities.

There is no "wrong" or "right" way to play EvE, at all, but if you insist on calling it that then
I can tell you that trying to ignore the multiplayer aspects and demanding to be left alone
definitely is the wrong way to play a game that works only because of the direct opposite of
what these kind of players want.

Edit: Or...
Influencing people into being afraid or trying to avoid a big part of the game
definitely is the wrong thing to do.
Jam Kirk
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#75 - 2013-08-30 14:17:04 UTC
E'ara Koshun wrote:
Solstice Project wrote:
*lol*

Most new people have no clue about how they want to play the game.
Most get influenced in doing what they are told to do.



and you are going to do the same, telling people what they have to do, because you think, the way you play eve is the right way ....

I too took a look at all this the wrong way. I think what the folks on here were trying to do is get us out of the box we're in and embrace the game a little more. I'm a convert in the sence that what they are saying is correct. If I'd have posted this 2 years ago I might not have the mess of skills I currently have little or no use for. In the beginning I was advised by some folks that took me down a garden path of poor skill choices. I don't blame them. I made the choices and they proved rather fruitless. I just asked the wrong questions of the wrong folks.Roll
Solstice Project
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2013-08-30 14:18:47 UTC
Jam Kirk wrote:
I just asked the wrong questions of the wrong folks.Roll

Exactly.
Now multiply that by thousand and you can see the mess these wrong people create.
Sura Sadiva
Entropic Tactical Crew
#77 - 2013-08-30 14:34:32 UTC
Jam Kirk wrote:


I too took a look at all this the wrong way. I think what the folks on here were trying to do is get us out of the box we're in and embrace the game a little more.




May I say. i think the basic mistake is to consider PVP and PVE as distinc separate gameplay.
This is not true in games like EVE and lead to clash with the average EVE player mindset.
In EVE core design there's no "pure" PVE (and not even "pure" PVP) as happens in other MMORPG; everything is on some extend an hybrid and a PVP degree.

Where PVP doesn't mean simply shooting, but more in general players interactions not filtered by artificial limits.

Example: an hauler managuing to survive a pirate gatecamp is a PVP engagment: that players is using his skills and assets to reach his goal. He will not kill anyone and there will be no kill mail, but still is PVP event (and if survives the hauler wins it). Simply the hauler and the pirate have different goals to reach, is asymmetric.

But the most important is: they are creating content, one for each other.

In this sense PVP is a major content creator engine in EVE.

Problem with missions (mostly HS missions) is their mechanics hardly fit in this design. Improving them means opening them to more interactions, and this involve making them less safe too. When CCP added COSMOS missions this had some good idea to develop, but then was abbandoned.

I'm not saying that a missioner should be happy when some ganker enters their mission site, but should consider it as game content (unpleasable ok) added to their PVE; not like something, in some way, not legit or intendeed to destroy their gameplay.
Jam Kirk
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2013-08-30 14:34:53 UTC
Almost 2 years worth of non linear skill progressions.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#79 - 2013-08-30 14:36:30 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
First, mission assignation would be anonymous via NPC so nobody knows who's mission is he running.

Second, penalties for turning down missions and collaterals for taking on them.

Third, setting up a mission costs ISK + resource (points)

Fourth, missions can be failed (FAI, timed triggers, target evasion or target destruction)

Fifth, mission complexity and reward are balanced through "points", in a method that's been widely used in industry (mostly strategy and wargames). Player haves limited budget of points and also limited mission elements which cost points, and a miminum number of points must be spent accordingly to mission level. A top cap limits difficulty. Resource points, of course, are affected by player skills... this is EVE!
#1 and #3 makes no sense. Why does it matter who has created the mission, and why should it cost money to create one? Are you suggesting that they'll only be available once rather than added to the pool? All of that just makes the whole thing rare to the point of being pointless since the time required to create a mission would be immensely larger than runnign it.

#4 doesn't help against exploitation unless it is strictly enforced, in which case the opposite problem of griefing people through impossible missions arise.

#5 is just scratching the surface of the problem, which is one of timing and positioning, and it works both ways: having a high-bounty (=high point) ship drop in at extreme range once a minute makes for a trivially farmed mission, and using the same point budget to drop the player in the middle of an cloud of ECM/scram/web ships creates a murder hole.

Some of it could be solved by templating; some by having an over-time economy and some kind of threat calculation brackets that have to be fulfilled, but without supervision, it would have to be strictly templated, which in turn risks creating the same boring repetition as ever and once again falling into that peak+sharp drop formula that characterises most PvE content.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#80 - 2013-08-30 20:24:10 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
First, mission assignation would be anonymous via NPC so nobody knows who's mission is he running.

Second, penalties for turning down missions and collaterals for taking on them.

Third, setting up a mission costs ISK + resource (points)

Fourth, missions can be failed (FAI, timed triggers, target evasion or target destruction)

Fifth, mission complexity and reward are balanced through "points", in a method that's been widely used in industry (mostly strategy and wargames). Player haves limited budget of points and also limited mission elements which cost points, and a miminum number of points must be spent accordingly to mission level. A top cap limits difficulty. Resource points, of course, are affected by player skills... this is EVE!
#1 and #3 makes no sense. Why does it matter who has created the mission, and why should it cost money to create one? Are you suggesting that they'll only be available once rather than added to the pool? All of that just makes the whole thing rare to the point of being pointless since the time required to create a mission would be immensely larger than runnign it.

#4 doesn't help against exploitation unless it is strictly enforced, in which case the opposite problem of griefing people through impossible missions arise.

#5 is just scratching the surface of the problem, which is one of timing and positioning, and it works both ways: having a high-bounty (=high point) ship drop in at extreme range once a minute makes for a trivially farmed mission, and using the same point budget to drop the player in the middle of an cloud of ECM/scram/web ships creates a murder hole.

Some of it could be solved by templating; some by having an over-time economy and some kind of threat calculation brackets that have to be fulfilled, but without supervision, it would have to be strictly templated, which in turn risks creating the same boring repetition as ever and once again falling into that peak+sharp drop formula that characterises most PvE content.


The mission generation would be a part of a larger scheme for PvE. The outcome of missions would matter to the player issuing them and so it's relevant that hey can't be trolled nor he can just run his own missions or have a friend run them for him.

The abridged version is that NPC agents would provide the players with NPC effects and in order to achieve that, players should build up clientelar networks of agents that lead to agents and keep them happy by setting succesful missions. Mission runners would run missions for direct rewards (NPC bounties and LP/points) but also to either contact a specific agent or to hire him (single-use effect) for a price.

The NPC agents would be spawned on the fly within set cathegories/templates with known abilites (effects) and prices (mission types and point cost). At this level, NPC agents woul be like cards from a Magic style card game; agents could be collected, spent -and risked- and neutralized.

Say, a "5th rate Cargo Master" would always spawn at a station and provide a 10% bonus over any specific sell order a player sells at the station to a maximum bonus of 5 million ISK, but also would require to set up a contract and blow a NPC boat and its escort (Lvl1 mission). Another agent could be used to set up a different mission in order to protect that convoy, and the outcome would depend upon which mission runner performs better. In turn, keeping the Cargo Master happy would allow a player to hire/resell his "power" to another player.

On-demand missions would be just a part of the game; a mission runner would just check the local mercenary office for suitable missions and run them anonymously, never knowing who is profiting or who is damaged by the mission. So potentially a player could succesfully carry on an asasination mission and find his favorite agent just suffered a untimely death to some anonymous hands. Overusing an agent would lead to raising more complex misisons against him, and if the agent suffered too many missions against him he would be "terminated".

It all would be another style of PvP, with lots fo dinamically generated PvE in it. And to the "agent gatherer", it could be a station-based business... but that would be another question.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you