These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Great idea for Ice mining! Now, let's make Missions a finite resource.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kara Vix
Perkone
Caldari State
#61 - 2013-06-12 13:30:38 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Weeell… it's an old idea, but still a pretty good one.

You'd probably want a bit more granularity than “25 every hour” (or whatever). Simply make them queue up at, say, one every minute — first come, first serve (with the standard option of skipping over one with a 4h timer). Agents that are never used will end up with thousands queued up, whereas hub agents will constantly be dry unless your timing is very lucky.

It's that second part that is really needed to make it work: that the queue builds up (almost) so that you can find a treasure-trove of untapped agent resources if you look around a bit.


How is it a good idea Tippia? Why would people who pay to play this game doing missions mostly want to continue to do so if they can't do missions? Like or it not, this game needs PVE'ers money to continue.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2013-06-12 13:33:37 UTC
Kara Vix wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Weeell… it's an old idea, but still a pretty good one.

You'd probably want a bit more granularity than “25 every hour” (or whatever). Simply make them queue up at, say, one every minute — first come, first serve (with the standard option of skipping over one with a 4h timer). Agents that are never used will end up with thousands queued up, whereas hub agents will constantly be dry unless your timing is very lucky.

It's that second part that is really needed to make it work: that the queue builds up (almost) so that you can find a treasure-trove of untapped agent resources if you look around a bit.


How is it a good idea Tippia? Why would people who pay to play this game doing missions mostly want to continue to do so if they can't do missions? Like or it not, this game needs PVE'ers money to continue.

this is too difficult thing to consider for most children

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#63 - 2013-06-12 13:35:32 UTC
Ramona McCandless wrote:


B) They love PVP, not PVE


PVE for me always works as an enabler for PVP. The argument that one can exist without the other is just not true.



Sugar Von MurdererTits : Jake Warbird gets my vote for most intriguing and attractive male character in Eve.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#64 - 2013-06-12 13:44:49 UTC
Kara Vix wrote:
How is it a good idea Tippia?
It's a good idea because it creates a more dynamic universe, where people don't settle down in one system and then stays there for years on end, but rather create a little “standard tour” that they move about in. It should also help combat the sedentary tendencies that make people fall into a one-track mindset — if you already used to moving around and setting up contingencies, it'll be easier to adapt or adopt new “lifestyles” and try new things.

Quote:
Why would people who pay to play this game doing missions mostly want to continue to do so if they can't do missions?
Why do you ask questions that are not related to the post you're quoting?
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#65 - 2013-06-12 13:44:56 UTC
Kara Vix wrote:
And watch as hi sec subscriptions become a limited resource as well. All these idiotic ideas to destroy hi sec never end do they?


Why? You could always travel to another agent or do something else. People would spread out and explore, this is a good thing.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Anslo
Scope Works
#66 - 2013-06-12 13:47:19 UTC
No.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#67 - 2013-06-12 13:48:06 UTC
Ruze wrote:
Some responses here have gotten downright mean. Here's some reasoning:

If you can limit the resource, the resource becomes more valuable. Hisec mission runners aren't getting any special reward for what they do, besides injecting isk/lp into the economy. We don't get officer/pirate drops. We don't get good bounties. Even our salvage generally sucks.

But hisec missions are also some of the most boring, repetitive, and downright soul-destroying activities that this game has.

CCP's choices have always been to either 'liven up' missions, or ignore them. A change as drastic as I've proposed, where missions become yet another fallible resource in this game, does a lot of mission runners. It makes our payout more effective. It makes our salvage more expensive. It destroys the mission hubs where our gear can't sell above dime because it's flooded with other players.

It also would give us more voice, because as another poster said, how much of our economy's isk was brought into the game by us, the oft-ignored and devalued mission runner.

We blow up ships every day. CCP loves for people to blow stuff up. So how come miners' are more important than mission runners in CCP's eyes?


That's the thing too many of your mission running brethern don't understand, these kinds of ideas make mission running MORE valuable even it it makes them a little less comfortable.

It also makes mission running safer. Mission hubs are the places people who want to gank and grief mission runners go. in the places where I mission run in high sec (when i get bored with everything else or just don't want the hassle of more dangerous PVE), no one messes with me, but omg as soon as i undock in a Hub system I got someone coming into my mission trying to screw with me.
Kara Vix
Perkone
Caldari State
#68 - 2013-06-12 13:49:34 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Kara Vix wrote:
How is it a good idea Tippia?
It's a good idea because it creates a more dynamic universe, where people don't settle down in one system and then stays there for years on end, but rather create a little “standard tour” that they move about in. It should also help combat the sedentary tendencies that make people fall into a one-track mindset — if you already used to moving around and setting up contingencies, it'll be easier to adapt or adopt new “lifestyles” and try new things.

Quote:
Why would people who pay to play this game doing missions mostly want to continue to do so if they can't do missions?
Why do you ask questions that are not related to the post you're quoting?


How could not see the connection to that question and your post, I think you just enjoy arguements.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#69 - 2013-06-12 13:55:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Kara Vix wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Weeell… it's an old idea, but still a pretty good one.

You'd probably want a bit more granularity than “25 every hour” (or whatever). Simply make them queue up at, say, one every minute — first come, first serve (with the standard option of skipping over one with a 4h timer). Agents that are never used will end up with thousands queued up, whereas hub agents will constantly be dry unless your timing is very lucky.

It's that second part that is really needed to make it work: that the queue builds up (almost) so that you can find a treasure-trove of untapped agent resources if you look around a bit.


How is it a good idea Tippia? Why would people who pay to play this game doing missions mostly want to continue to do so if they can't do missions? Like or it not, this game needs PVE'ers money to continue.


Tippia already explained, but man are some of you high sec people incredibly short sighted. To the point where you're so comfortable with the status quo that you can't see improvement when it rears up and bites you in the backside.

Ultimatley, All PVE in eve should follow Exploration principles IMO. The more people who use it, the less valuable it is so it's better to move around and look for situations other people having gotten to yet.

To be honest, the current situation in null is a lot like the mission situation in high sec ie you can upgrade a system and people just live there, not leaving except to chase an escalation plex or move some minerals/loot to empire.

The more I experience it, the more I think CCP would be better off taking away the ability to upgrade a solar system and replacing it with the ability to upgrade a Constellation and making the miners and explorers/anom farmers have to move around bit within that constellation from time to time, sometimes away from the "station systems".
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#70 - 2013-06-12 13:56:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Kara Vix wrote:
How could not see the connection to that question and your post
Oh, that's easy: because I'm not inside your head — your assumptions are not mine.

You're the one saying people can't do mission (for some unexplained reason), not me.
You're asking about me about something you made up.

The disconnect between what I said and what you asked is that we're two different people saying two different things.
Kara Vix
Perkone
Caldari State
#71 - 2013-06-12 14:00:20 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Kara Vix wrote:
How could not see the connection to that question and your post
Oh, that's easy: because I'm not inside your head — your assumptions are not mine.

You're the one saying people can't do mission (for some unexplained reason), not me.
You're asking about me about something you made up.

The disconnect between what I said and what you asked is that we're two different people saying two different things.


You seriously are smug at times. You had stated that agents 'would be dry' or such, meaning there would be no missions, so a person logging on to run missions would have none there to run, thus I asked why would someone pay a game to run missions if agents were 'dry'. How anyone could not see a connection between my response and your statement is beyond me, but do continue to impress yourself if you wish, it is amusing.
Anslo
Scope Works
#72 - 2013-06-12 14:06:17 UTC
Either way, argue what you want. It's not happening.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#73 - 2013-06-12 14:06:30 UTC
Kara Vix wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Kara Vix wrote:
How could not see the connection to that question and your post
Oh, that's easy: because I'm not inside your head — your assumptions are not mine.

You're the one saying people can't do mission (for some unexplained reason), not me.
You're asking about me about something you made up.

The disconnect between what I said and what you asked is that we're two different people saying two different things.


You seriously are smug at times. You had stated that agents 'would be dry' or such, meaning there would be no missions, so a person logging on to run missions would have none there to run, thus I asked why would someone pay a game to run missions if agents were 'dry'. How anyone could not see a connection between my response and your statement is beyond me, but do continue to impress yourself if you wish, it is amusing.
I would suggest you go back and read the post you try to remember.
It does say a lot more than what you try to make it out to say.

Also, blatantly quoting from myself on p2:
Quote:
The funny thing for me, however, is that the best counterargument to this has been those who just asked "why", instead of those who tried their best to reason against it. Sometimes, a proposal is actually badly made but when you present it, the detractors are even worse at criticising it, so the bad criticism makes your proposal better by comparison.
I know this from IRL experience, it really does work.


So, Kara Vix, will you do a better job at criticising Tippia, or will you essentially give her the win?
Minmatar Citizen160812
The LGBT Last Supper
#74 - 2013-06-12 14:06:46 UTC
Ruze wrote:
Now, please setup missions to be on a limited basis. Like, one mission per agent every 4 hours. Or even, each agent only gives 25 missions every four hours, and the first mission runners there get the go.

Actually, I like this alot. I know it sounds like sarcasm, but this hisec occupant is serious about it. I feel that making all 'resources' limited and something worth competing over is an awesome concept and needs more focus.

Scale the little guys, like level 1 agents, to be near infinite. But as you go up in the mission difficulty, down goes the number of missions which can be given out every hour, until each agent only gives 25 or 50 (however many would make it worth competing for) missions every four hours. Makes you second guess turning down that losec mission.

Do NOT apply this to FW zones, however, or FW pilots.


Didn't agent quality kinda work like this? You got better rewards the closer to low sec you went and those agents would send you to low every so many missions? Then you could either do them, decline and hope it wasn't another one or decline and wait 4 hours if it was two in a row?

I forget it was so long ago but I remember that was a bad change and made high sec missions all congregate into small areas a few jumps from the rookie systems. Your idea would be a good balance to the agent quality change from years ago.
Vince Snetterton
#75 - 2013-06-12 14:07:28 UTC
Erotica 1 wrote:
Kara Vix wrote:
And watch as hi sec subscriptions become a limited resource as well. All these idiotic ideas to destroy hi sec never end do they?


Just because others have different ideas from you does not make the ideas idiotic.

If you would take the time to think about it, such a change would equally affect high sec, low sec, and null. Also, it would reduce the number of bots and bot aspirants.

I have a feeling you are not yet a New Order supporter. I suggest checking it out at www.minerbumping.com


You are right. Just because others have different ideas does not make your ideas idiotic.
The idiocy of your idea is clear all by itself.
Kara Vix
Perkone
Caldari State
#76 - 2013-06-12 14:10:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Kara Vix
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Kara Vix wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Kara Vix wrote:
How could not see the connection to that question and your post
Oh, that's easy: because I'm not inside your head — your assumptions are not mine.

You're the one saying people can't do mission (for some unexplained reason), not me.
You're asking about me about something you made up.

The disconnect between what I said and what you asked is that we're two different people saying two different things.


You seriously are smug at times. You had stated that agents 'would be dry' or such, meaning there would be no missions, so a person logging on to run missions would have none there to run, thus I asked why would someone pay a game to run missions if agents were 'dry'. How anyone could not see a connection between my response and your statement is beyond me, but do continue to impress yourself if you wish, it is amusing.
I would suggest you go back and read the post you try to remember.
It does say a lot more than what you try to make it out to say.

Also, blatantly quoting from myself on p2:
Quote:
The funny thing for me, however, is that the best counterargument to this has been those who just asked "why", instead of those who tried their best to reason against it. Sometimes, a proposal is actually badly made but when you present it, the detractors are even worse at criticising it, so the bad criticism makes your proposal better by comparison.
I know this from IRL experience, it really does work.


So, Kara Vix, will you do a better job at criticising Tippia, or will you essentially give her the win?


I'm well aware of what it said and I think my response was valid and politely stated. He-She seems well able to argue for himself. If by chance I misunderstood and I don't see how, than I stand corrected, but my question still remains, why would I pay for a game that suddenly limits my chosen activity after so many years of paying to play that way. I started in Null and Low sec when the game launched in 2003 but now I prefer hi sec casual gameplay and I am less than impressed by arguements to squash that style of play.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#77 - 2013-06-12 14:13:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Kara Vix wrote:
You seriously are smug at times.
Yes. Mainly when people try to throw strawman fallacies my way (or indeed any fallacy) since they're so easy to refute, and yet people seem so anxious to use them.

Quote:
You had stated that agents 'would be dry' or such, meaning there would be no missions, so a person logging on to run missions would have none there to run
…except that he'd have roughly 6,500 other new missions to choose from that particular minute (nearly 11,000 if he's brave enough to go below 0.45 security). If he fiddles around with his fitting window for a couple of seconds, it'll be closer to 13,000. How many people run missions at any given time during the day? How many of them accepts a new mission any given minute?

Quote:
How anyone could not see a connection between my response and your statement is beyond me
Largely because I'm not saying that people can't do missions, whereas you are.
RomeStar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#78 - 2013-06-12 14:22:42 UTC
Wrong section belongs in features and Ideas.

Signatured removed, CCP Phantom
Stetson Eagle
Paird Technology
#79 - 2013-06-12 14:36:22 UTC
Good idea. Nullsec anoms should follow as well; hourly cap in system regeneration. Scaled per site value: sanctums count more towards the cap than lower end anoms.

This would tilt nullsec more towards low end systems, as competition for sanctums would be tough.
Dame Lanfear
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#80 - 2013-06-12 14:38:45 UTC
Am just amazed this troll thread hasn't been locked.Roll