EVE Information Portal

^^^^THIS.^^^^

Or, you know, a worm for all of the above. Blood burner might give it a problem, but fit a cap booster and youre fine.

Too true! Players have already beaten new, unreleased content. "When are we gonna get some new, new missions? *bored*" - lol

So just confirming you are pretty much saying that we will likely see frigates with 7 guns AND nuets that will be able to permanently run both neuts and personal rep 100% of the time. Yay incursion rats that we have to take down with frigates!!!! Will the also follow the same range limitations? Or are their rockets going to still hit me from 50k..ect (i'm looking at you 150k torp NPC raven's)



Sooo, its a Dramiel that will have both guns AND missiles. (with its 3 high slots)
And it will be shield tanked, WITH both "a" web and scram. which will likely have a prop mod. (with its 4 mids)

Plus who knows what the ungodly agility (among other stats) these ships will be given to allow them to fill the 'roles'

How can you boast that these ships yet still have the same old broken AI that puts twice as many guns as can fit on the hull, (and who knows how far off the 'mid' and 'low' count truly is)

Instead of putting something that could potentially be awesome and squishing it into a very broken system...here's a novel idea...

FIX THE HORRIDLY BROKEN SYSTEM FIRST....then you won't have to go back and re-do everything a second time to reballance everything once the NPC system is finally fixed.

if thats the case, then why are their that many on them to begin with? In most cases more than the hull is designed to hold (NPC breacher hull with missile launchers literally STACKED ON TOP OF turrets because it lacked the hardpoints to fit them all) (raven hulls with 7 turrets 2 launchers and atleast 1 defender, plus torps that fly 150k)

If the NPC turret count does not effect their dmg, then why the need to break the system like that to make it so?

*edit*
Sry, i'm not sure why i'm even bothering, CCP has their mind set to do what they want, feedback or not. Last time i spent any respectable amount of time giving feedback CCP had the gall to say they didn't believe us, then went dark for 2 months. Never again.

OK a few more thoughts now that I can spend some time writing them up.

Firstly, the audience for these missions and for existing L4 missions won't overlap very much.

L4 mission dabblers usually focus on battleship skills, L4 grinders on Marauders or HACs.

Those skills do not translate much to flying frigates. And those with good frigate skills don't often crosstrain into battleships.

I'm actually in the minority that has decent (A-) Marauder skills, very solid (A to A+) HAC skills and decent (A-) Assault Frigate skills, mainly because when I was newer, I wanted tech 2 battleship guns, and tech 2 Cruiser and Frigate guns were prerequisites for that back then - this is no longer true.

This means that standard level 4 missions should not be a prerequisite for these Burner Missions. At all. (Likewise I see no reason for burner missions to be prerequisites for L4 missions either, but the proposal doesn't have that in it).


Secondly, these pose an opportunity to have something additional in lowsec that's worth fighting over.

Mordrus belt spawns led to more activity in lowsec belts and more fights. These missions could do so even better - bringing together players in ISK generating activities in specific locations that are carried out in PVP fitted ships.



My suggestions:

- Keep these as rare offerings from existing L4 agents. No penalty for declining them. This is to give carebears an opportunity to try something different - something they may just like.

- Add them to the L5 rotation as well, for something different to do.

- Add specialist 'burner agents' to a small number of locations in lowsec, with some in the quietest areas of low (non-FW Placid, Solitude). These would offer burner missions all day, every day and would not offer anything else, but would follow normal rules for declining missions. Put some of these agents in places where the burner objective could be in either lowsec or nullsec, and (different) agents where the objective could be in either highsec or lowsec, and maybe have some that are always in low.

- Add about 10 more restricted burner agents to highsec. These would be new L4 agents that would offer only one burner mission per 18 hours. Accept or decline as you see fit, you don't get another chance to use that agent until the time expires.

- These missions should take place over a wider geographical area than most missions do. Travelling 6j for one of these isn't onerous as you will be in a frigate. Again, this gets players into areas that are unfamiliar and new, and often will send highsec players into lowsec in a ship they can afford to lose.

- Work on level 3 versions of these for the future as well. Something a bit easier and less rewarding for lowskilled players that want practice against competent but not brilliant opposition. These burners would fly assault frigates or destroyers with tech 2 fits, mostly '4' skills, and no offgrid boosters.

Even Assault Frigates are much easier to move 6j than any battleship, so the distance can safely be increased slightly over regular L4 missions.

And yeah, unless you give the player a way to enter lowsec that will deposit them in a semi-random location in the adjacent lowsec, people won't go.

You know these are gonna get farmed to death by people with uber high faction standings and thus can reject mission after mission(like ME) and who dual/triple box (like me) or isboxer.

Just so yall know

Super idea.

My only thought is that some lesser version of this ought to be available at Level 3 to encourage players in their first month to stay in EVE and to relieve boredom when working up standing with a new NPC corp.

By lesser I mean...

A little less uber rat: Maybe = initial competent player instead of full expert skill set and not completely uber gear.

Rewardwise: Lesser chance of lesser loot due to fact level 3 is easier to farm/blitz and its less of a challenge. Probably even less chance of getting mission to prevent too much farming.


Also if this proves popular and not odious to code...consider destroyer burner missions.

You want, like, a parade?