These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev blog: Size Matters: Introducing Burner Missions

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#161 - 2014-08-14 21:55:25 UTC
It's about time they try to make PvE more like real fighting instead of just farming a thousand red crosses. But this will be interesting, since one would need fairly expensive frigates to kill these things, not to mention boosts.

So it would be interesting to see the level of reward that these provide, since they're invariably more risky than typical PvE.

Oh, and watch the Daredevil's price skyrocket, since it will be a fairly good way to beat about half of these.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Alphari Vendren
Applied Vendrenics
#162 - 2014-08-14 22:03:36 UTC
Will the distribution of these 5 missions be based on the prevalent NPC pirate faction? For example, if I'm in Caldari space, will I get the Guristas burner every time a burner mission is offered, or most of the time?
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#163 - 2014-08-14 22:06:02 UTC
sounds fun as heck

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#164 - 2014-08-14 22:15:31 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:

it's not about "not being bothered" or "not affording" anything.

the demographic for l4 missions is a battleship. the demographic for these is a frigate.
the two are chalk and cheese. that's why it's a dumb implementation of the idea.


I don't know if you run missions, Dave, but when I do I slowly build a stable of ships in that hub so I can run the specifics (Like a cruiser well tanked for the Recon 3/3 L4 mission) and I also keep a fast ship to commute to other things/places. Adding a good frigate or two to that stable will be just fine with me. Is it an extra expense? Yes, but one I am willing to pay for some variety

m


i do occasionally run them, in 1 ship because they're so trivial.

and that ship sure as hell isn't a frigate.

that way i don't have load of ships stuck in the arse end of nowhere.

the point is, that you're aiming a mission designed for 1 demographic at a demographic who won't do it. it's not a case of what you'd personally do, nobody cares what you'd personally do.

ccp are trying to sell steaks to vegans here, essentially.

as a stand alone set of missions from separate agents these will be fun to run, randomly getting them while you're doing things that simply don't fit what these missions are aimed at... it's just nonsensical.

although, i guess ccp already know most people will skip them because of the bad implementation, and that's why there's no standing penalty for skipping over them.


I do L4s and I'd do frigate missions any day, (in fact I would rather do them if they earn isk). Demographic doesn't matter, people use BSes out of necessity, not out of "loving using BSes only"

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#165 - 2014-08-14 22:37:19 UTC
Requiring a point or they 'bug out' and despawn would be great

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#166 - 2014-08-14 22:44:36 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
It's about time they try to make PvE more like real fighting instead of just farming a thousand red crosses. But this will be interesting, since one would need fairly expensive frigates to kill these things, not to mention boosts.

So it would be interesting to see the level of reward that these provide, since they're invariably more risky than typical PvE.

Oh, and watch the Daredevil's price skyrocket, since it will be a fairly good way to beat about half of these.




You see this is why I say in my posts that I think CCP is planning on dimming the lines between highsec and nullsec.

Would this be evidence of that? Will it work?


On the one hand, you had to fleet up to do an Incursion. This got a lot of grinders to do just that. But lo and behold elitism took place. Remember the protest from early 2012?

What's going to happen with these missions?


There's also a little bit of sadness here. When I read the devblog, a though occurred to me, something like "So it's so impossible to get a 1v1 with PVP now thanks to loss aversion, neutral RR, and BLOPS drop that CCP is going to have to provide it". The idea is a good one and these would certainly mix things up a bit, but it might be the nail in the coffin of 1v1 PVP.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#167 - 2014-08-14 22:51:18 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
The idea is a good one and these would certainly mix things up a bit, but it might be the nail in the coffin of 1v1 PVP.


no PvE is ever going to replace actual PvP. this is just more interesting and relevant to today's meta PvE.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Gynax Gallenor
Conquering Darkness
#168 - 2014-08-14 23:05:26 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:
These will suit me fine actually, I have standings for level IV missions but don't fly BS because I just don't like them. I'll be skipping the standard missions waiting for the burners.


then you won't have the standings for IV missions for very long. (or potentially wait days between missions if you wait for the 4hr timer to expire)

then again if ccp were to just implement them separately, that wouldn't be an issue.


You have confused me a bit here. What exactly is your issue with this new mission type? That it can't be run in a battleship?

Why do you think it is a waste of time, and what is it you would have preferred instead?

Fly Reckless, cos flying safe is no damn fun!

http://flyreckless.com/newsite/
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#169 - 2014-08-14 23:06:27 UTC
Interesting. A few suggestions:

1) You should never need to tell players how the Burners will be fit and how they will fight. Players will figure that out for themselves quickly enough and post/share the information on how to fight them.

2) Burners will be more challenging if the fit and fighting style are randomly variable, ie. not always the same fit/style each time you do the same mission. Static content becomes boring very, very quickly. Note: except for the purposes of farming LP/ISK or grinding standing, there is very litte reason to ever run any current mission more than once.

3) Added risk should include the possiblity of being podded.

4) Added risk should include the possibility of reinforcements warping in to help the Burner, if it is getting killed too quickly or easily. Perhaps by a remote repping frig?
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#170 - 2014-08-14 23:10:17 UTC
+1 TO THE MISSIONS.

WELL DONE CCP.

Now, as others have mentioned, put these missions on
1) separate agents,
2) very long cooldowns,
3) cannot use alts/friends to make these trivial
4) very lucrative in loot
5) MORE ENEMY TYPES - CRUISER, BC, BS, CAPITAL (in null)

But, well done. Excellent idea,.

Oh, and this mission to a tutorial.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#171 - 2014-08-14 23:12:14 UTC
CCP Goliath wrote:
For those of you who aren't standings-positive enough to get level 4 missions (and for everyone else!) we will be reworking the moveme bot to provide faction standings. This might even stick around if there's enough interest in it, but the missions will be restored following the Hyperion release.


make sure you call it the "burnme" bot :)

Looks interesting, and I'd really like to see mission agents specialising in frigate/cruiser/battleship sized missions. Thus these "burner" missions could be random entries for regular frigate-sized missions, with similar "burner' missions for cruiser and battleship oriented missions.

The only question then becomes: what size do we classify Recon 1–3 as Cool

Thank you, PvE team. I'm looking forward to seeing these Burner missions in-game!

Day 0 Advice for New Players
LUMINOUS SPIRIT
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#172 - 2014-08-14 23:13:00 UTC
NOW GIVE SUPER-CARRIER PILOTS SOMETHING IN NULL TO DO

Give super-caps these missions too. region-wide, only 1 supercap allowed, and cant complete it quickly (and vulnerable to enemy playes of course).

Use a souped-up NPC carrier or a dread as enemy :)_
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#173 - 2014-08-14 23:16:11 UTC
TrouserDeagle wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
TrouserDeagle wrote:

also, sig tanking is actually speed tanking. or speed tanking is sig tanking. you cannot separate these things.

They're different when you shoot missiles at them.


if you're sitting perfectly still, yes.


If you're travelling faster than the missile, it doesn't matter what your sig radius is.

Speed and sig alter the incoming missile damage in similar ways. That doesn't make them the same thing, unless you want to explain to people how orbit radius and linear velocity are the same thing.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#174 - 2014-08-14 23:18:23 UTC
New content.
New PVE content.
New PVE content that high sec players can get involved in on a solo basis and enjoy.

I am shocked.
Very pleasantly shocked.

Maybe there is hope yet.

I just hope the rewards are in line with the ISK / hour of regular L4 missions.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#175 - 2014-08-14 23:20:01 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
Interesting. A few suggestions:

1) You should never need to tell players how the Burners will be fit and how they will fight. Players will figure that out for themselves quickly enough and post/share the information on how to fight them.


What if the added risk included the agents giving you the wrong intel? Which part is wrong: flying a dramiel, fusion ammo, mjolnir rockets? What if E has specifically tanked against explosive, expecting you to focus on eir resistance weakness?

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Wizzard117
Wizzard117 Corporation
#176 - 2014-08-14 23:20:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Wizzard117
Split mission pools ASAP and don't let that mixed approach hit TQ on release

Reasons

- players running usual level 4 missions are facing BS and BC size NPC's. They are specialized on facing and countering large groups of BS's which requires strong tanking and good enough DPS with "big guns" on appropriate ship types.
- there was not much reasons for mission runners to specialize in small weapons as an average mission runner will level up to lvl2 and lvl3 missions fast enough so he will have to switch to cruisers/BC's ship size and medium guns and spend skillpoints on that.
- burner missions may require completely different set of implants than current lvl4's. This will further separate these missions as one specific implant set may be good against burners but not that good in other level4's ( for example Snake set may be good at burner missions and not that useful at common missions) and vice versa. Players who have already optimized their implant set for current level4's may find that uninspiring.
- average lvl4 mission runner have almost 0 SP in EWAR (well maybe aside of Target Painters of those who went for Golem). When facing small and fast burner frigs it will be almost mandatory to have some EWAR (webs, maybe scrams if we let NPC be smart, painters, maybe even jammers or eccm). This further separates required skill set for lvl4's

Proposed solution

Considering

- we don't want these burner missions be easily farmable
- but we still want these missions to be easily accessible by those who willing to do them

We may do one of the following

- there's a specialized agent (one per each empire faction in their navy corp) who gives that missions.
- these agents may require a certain amount of pirate tags handed to them as a proof u're tough enough for that mission
- burner mission location can be in any solar system controlled by that faction (including low-sec) and not closer than N jumps
- it is not certain in which solar system this pirate is (hey cmon he's not a usual pirate) but we know a constellation where he operates. Player must explore all systems in the constellation. Like "we do not know exactly where he is but we know where all his outposts are located " so player gets say 5 bookmarks and goes to check every of them
- there may be an acceleration gate maze and our pirate is located somewhere randomly
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#177 - 2014-08-14 23:22:21 UTC
I for one welcome our new Burner Overlords.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#178 - 2014-08-14 23:24:12 UTC
We really need a small number (ten or less) agents in lowsec that *only* offer these missions.

PVE hubs worth fighting over in lowsec that suit small ships.

I also endorse the idea of adding these to level 5 mission agents.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#179 - 2014-08-14 23:29:58 UTC
David Kir wrote:
I would suggest making so that these NPCs have to be pointed.

They should be able to try to warp out when in difficulty (structure damage?).

Once the NPC warps off:

a) the mission is failed

b) the site collapses and re-spawns.

You could also implement Warp-Off routines into the AI, like switching to full neuting power and pulling range with webs and scrams in order to warp off.

The true difference between PVE and PVP is that human opponents have a survival instinct, while NPCs don't: make NPCs fear for their lives, for once.



This is a really good idea. Whether this means the mission fails, or the NPC returns fully repaired after a minute, it makes sure that players could fit the Burner's ship, and be PVP capable.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#180 - 2014-08-14 23:32:32 UTC
If you guys have time, could you let burners loot your ships and taunt you in local?

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~