These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Phasing out missions.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dextrome Thorphan
#21 - 2015-09-02 15:29:12 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
*troll troll troll* Twisted


Ok then...
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#22 - 2015-09-02 17:47:18 UTC
Dont some lv5's or WH sites(missions) increase numbers/difficulty to complete if you drop a capital into it?

At any rate missions could be added to, and use such dynamic for certain ones all the way from lv1 to lv5....bring an in appropiate ship for the level, or too many friends for the ride(or alts).....then up the ante, more npcs with varying ways of actually killing you and your friends.

And then if a mission is failed and the friends log off make it so the you have to wait till DT for it to reset to normal parameters.
Maybe such things could be done......

By not phasing out the missions themselves.....but by phasing out the current missions with a new mission structure and engine....and then maybe the LP stores could be looked at also or different ways to earn LP from the missions.
Kinda of like how POS is about to be phased out, why cant that be done with missions?
Sal Marshall
State War Academy
Caldari State
#23 - 2015-09-02 17:57:31 UTC
The answer to the OP statement is really about what CCP wants as customers and as a game.

I see lots of folks talking from their own perspective, but really its CCP.

Mission running seems to be of little entertainment value after a few months because it is so predictable.. BUT.. its a great way to get ISK to fund other activities.. So a lot of folks seem to accept the grind to get the benefits in other areas. Mobs employing group tactics and variances in the mission parameters would go a long way to making missions more 'fun'.. but that may not be the problem CCP needs to fix in its business model.

WoW, god love it, points out a reality in the MMO marketplace.. MMOs are places where solo players most of the time come for casual entertainment, and sometimes PvP for giggles. Hardcore PvP games are by definition very very niche.

CCP can choose to go all WoW on things and they'll lose their hardcore PvP audience and *might* get casual players to sign up.. but I have no visibility into their turnover stats.. it would be a big gamble. CCP has the infrastructure expertise to try something like this by offering parallel servers built around casual gameplay (and re-branded) while still keeping Eve Online going.. but its a big investment even creating that. All is fraught with risk.

Silly elitist statements from folks about carebears and noobs doesn't cut it. CCP is a business and needs to think that way. If they are sliding then they need a plan to stop the slide. I've always had mixed feelings about this game.. but I keep coming back.. so its got that special something.. but subscriber retention/attraction is where its at in MMOs.. fail at that and eventually go out of business.
Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#24 - 2015-09-03 00:04:01 UTC
Max Deveron wrote:
Dont some lv5's or WH sites(missions) increase numbers/difficulty to complete if you drop a capital into it?

At any rate missions could be added to, and use such dynamic for certain ones all the way from lv1 to lv5....bring an in appropiate ship for the level, or too many friends for the ride(or alts).....then up the ante, more npcs with varying ways of actually killing you and your friends.

And then if a mission is failed and the friends log off make it so the you have to wait till DT for it to reset to normal parameters.
Maybe such things could be done......

By not phasing out the missions themselves.....but by phasing out the current missions with a new mission structure and engine....and then maybe the LP stores could be looked at also or different ways to earn LP from the missions.
Kinda of like how POS is about to be phased out, why cant that be done with missions?


What you say here is actually some stuff I was pushing to a ways back. There seems to be disconnect between player bases. PvPers have their own view on what gets and creates pvp and why pve people dont. Versa is true for pve players. L5s are a great example, probably the best that shows this contrast. L5 missions are challenging and pretty much impossible solo. Back in the day could get em in highsec and were way more fun than L4 cause needed multiple. Then they went low only. So mission ithat need ships not suited for lowsec in camp areas. They take a while. CCP might as well had removed em all together.

I wanted the scaling missions that are proceduraly generated as well. Still level one thru four, but instead have option to have mission for self or mission for fleet. The level agents are difficulty. Procedure chain missions to make em interesting like mini epics.

Why? Cause. It isnt pve peeps dont all dislike pvp. They like control and reasons. Getting pve that has pvp aspects to it get people liking it and wanting into the pvp side. That is what os lacking. Incursions have that potential, but sansha scripting negates all of that potential since is bling ship farming now.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.
Vortexo VonBrenner
Doomheim
#25 - 2015-09-03 01:00:44 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Over the next 5-10 years. Specifically any mission granted by a non fw or pirate agent.

Phase out all missions over this timeframe and you beat the curve of player retention witnessed with L4 runners (avg 2 years, the ones we have now wont be around long enough to see the end anyway).

Discuss the merits and problems with this.


Well......I suppose it's good you think EvE will be around more than ten years from now...I certainly hope it is. Otherwise: *right click OP* *jettison*




EvE security zones in pictures

EvE quick reference pdf

EvE links
Matrea D
Maggie's Magical Miners
#26 - 2015-09-03 01:37:06 UTC
Bagrat Skalski wrote:
I would go opposite road and make them more attractive. Shocked

Just ever one of them, being more surprising. Having something rarely happening. Something unexpected. Something what would blow your mind.


More faction spawns.


Like maybe...other players invading your mission?
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2015-09-03 02:24:01 UTC
OK, I think I follow the logic here ...

Premises

1) People that do not PvP annoy me
2) Experience has shown that very few of these people will enjoy PvP even when forced to
3) Most of these people sub with PLEX and do not directly contribute cash to the game

Conclusion
1) Force these people to leave the game as their presence annoys me by removing missions

Unstated further conclusion:
2) We also need to remove incursions, PI, mining, station trading, moon goo and exploration as these mission runners may go do those non-pvp things instead
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#28 - 2015-09-03 08:10:52 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
OK, I think I follow the logic here ...

Premises

1) People that do not PvP annoy me
2) Experience has shown that very few of these people will enjoy PvP even when forced to
3) Most of these people sub with PLEX and do not directly contribute cash to the game

Conclusion
1) Force these people to leave the game as their presence annoys me by removing missions

Unstated further conclusion:
2) We also need to remove incursions, PI, mining, station trading, moon goo and exploration as these mission runners may go do those non-pvp things instead


That's a truly amazing feat of mental gymnastics right there.
Avvy
Doomheim
#29 - 2015-09-03 09:33:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Avvy
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
OK, I think I follow the logic here ...

Premises

1) People that do not PvP annoy me
2) Experience has shown that very few of these people will enjoy PvP even when forced to
3) Most of these people sub with PLEX and do not directly contribute cash to the game

Conclusion
1) Force these people to leave the game as their presence annoys me by removing missions

Unstated further conclusion:
2) We also need to remove incursions, PI, mining, station trading, moon goo and exploration as these mission runners may go do those non-pvp things instead


That's a truly amazing feat of mental gymnastics right there.



Lets look at these.

Premises
1) He maybe right.
2) Sounds fair.
3) He's talking about how you think, possibly as some people tend to think that way. But PLEX in-game has already been paid for, so those using PLEX to fund game time are actually contributing to the movement of PLEX as well as their removal from the game.


Conclusion
1) possibly

Unstated further conclusion
2) I think this depends on which of those you actually like doing yourself.
Colman Dietmar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#30 - 2015-09-03 09:56:12 UTC
Instead of simply "phasing out" they could make the dscan inhibitor a) cloak itself as well, b) have a range of about 300 km and c) cloak not only ships, but also signatures and anomalies. So for the duration of the structure you become unscannable, but you have to use one for each pocket.

It would still keep some degree of risk, because your site may have been prescanned (it already is done sometimes), but also would provide some safety and make PVE competition more healthy, since this way whoever gets there first wins, no loot stealing attempts, no bling ships having huge advantage etc.

And it would also make dscan inhibitor not useless. :roll:
Caleb Seremshur
Bloodhorn
Patchwork Freelancers
#31 - 2015-09-03 10:06:07 UTC
People that do not expose themselves to pvp are fine. People who genuinely expect to be left alone while they grind are not ok. People who think that pve and pvp are mutually exclusive are also not fine. Did you know about lowsec anomalies? Those provide the same atmosphere as missions but for the LP reward.

At this point in time if you don't know how PLEX actually works god help you because I won't.

Noone is being forced to leave the game. What I have asked myself is: what would eve be like if highsec missions never existed? Imagine all those people who never would have gotten trapped in that cycle of reinforcement grinding isk.

You dont HAVE to enjoy pvp. You need to understand that EVE is an ecosystem and that miners are at the bottom of the food chain - mission runners one or two rungs up.

Your unstated further conclusion reeks of projection. Highsec incursions need to die but beyond that I see little issue at the moment.
Arec Bardwin
#32 - 2015-09-03 11:41:56 UTC
Caleb Seremshur wrote:
What I have asked myself is: what would eve be like if highsec missions never existed? Imagine all those people who never would have gotten trapped in that cycle of reinforcement grinding isk.

A philosophical topic then? More like; remove all content that don't fit your vision of the game, and see what happens.

This discussion has been done to death for the last 10 years btw, just do a seach in the old forums. Plenty of threadnaughts on the topic to further study the issue. In this time CCP has reorganized missions (moving agents around, changing agent types, removing agent quality), added epic arcs, added the new burner missions and added incursions. It's safe to say that removing this content from highsec isn't on CCP's immidiate agenda. And quite frankly, this topic doesn't generate the same interest to discuss as it used to.

And as for the philosophical topic of removing all endgame PVE content from highsec; I'd say the game would be a lot more niche if this was done, and I'm not sure if that would be a good thing.
Vorago Ignius
Chasm of Liberty
#33 - 2015-09-03 11:49:38 UTC
If anything, they need to be upgraded with more possible events happening in them, more random AI behavior, and more diverse.

Missions are good short fun, if you are limited by time, and their rewards have been ever so decreased and haven't seen much changes over the years. But CCP should really take a look into it, there is a different play style for all in EvE, enforcing your own on others isn't really the EvE way, is it? It's trade mark, is doing whatever you want, more or less.
Outlawd
Asset Seizure and Reclaimation
#34 - 2015-09-03 14:22:49 UTC
Why?

Where did you get your empirical evidence that mission runners stay subbed for 2 years on average?


  • People who are going to unsub are going to unsub anyway. Phasing out missions means they will leave quicker or they won't sub to start off with. That is literally like CCP, not allowing people to sub to the game when they sign up saying, "sorry, we don't want your money. You probably weren't going to like it anyway. With your random number, that is 2 (potentially) years of subbing that they have missed out on.

  • People who start off doing missions and want PvP content, will find PvP content anyway.


Your business acumen is flawed beyond all reason.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#35 - 2015-09-03 16:23:18 UTC
reported as troll post....

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#36 - 2015-09-03 16:55:24 UTC
Quote:
5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive, and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

This, to me, is an attempt at trolling a segment of our player base. If you'd like to expand your idea and add some more reasoning or solid points, please create a thread on the Features & Ideas Discussions board.

Thread locked.

ISD Decoy

Captain

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
Previous page12