These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bertrand Butler
Cras es Noster
#121 - 2013-06-12 17:28:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Bertrand Butler
This game needs more and better PvP content. This game also needs more and better PvE content.

Striving for one does not exclude the other. Quite the contrary.

But the problem is that right now much of the PvE content in Eve pushes as a mechanic players to become missioning/ratting zombies, staying for years even in the same place and shooting red dots until their eyes bleed. And that happens both in HS and in null. If someone only plays EvE for its lousy (right now and imo) PvE content, he really is better off by playing a massively better for the job spg like X3 while chatting with his friends in Skype...

To tell you the truth, I think that if done properly PvE content in EVE can act as an enabling force for players to become interested in PvP. You have to design a system though that rewards interaction, socialization and most of all, MOTION.

Giving HS missioners the incentive to utilize, roam and interact with all of HS is a start.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#122 - 2013-06-12 17:33:18 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Evei Shard wrote:
Tippia wrote:
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,


That idea there goes against both human nature and the concept of sovereignty. Alliances "settle down" in areas of null-sec, and then work to keep their space for themselves. Making it home. Spending trillions of isk to do so.


And even then events for them to move. I've "lived" in 13 null sec regions since 2008 because of this.

The difference is that in null other players force you to move.

Quote:

Why is it just high-sec subscribers whom you think should be forced to move around?


You've got it backwards. High sec players are the ones who don't move (CCP has even said a majority of high sec characters NEVER leave high sec, it's not hard to imagine that most high sec characters rarely leave the constellations they are in), null sec is by nature transient space no matter how much people lie to themselves about blue donuts) .

Some of us simply think CCP should continue along the path they started on, 1st by removing static DEDs years ago on up through incursions, wormholes and in a way now, Ice mining. Mission agents, ore mining resources and null sec anaomalies should eventually follow suit.

people having to move and hunt for resources is good for the game on so many levels it ain;t funny, while staganant isk farming is bad on those same levels.


I think it all come down to how much movement would be "forced" onto mission runners. The problem comes from ahuling your stuff around. As someone who started running lvl4 not long ago, I don't have a ship that can carry my 1st battleship, salvaging destroyer, ammo, cap booster charge, additionnal mission specific fittings, ... The more jump required just to accept the next mission, the less chance people be willing to put up with it. The solution is likely to get an orca (can a fitted BS fit in it? I don't even know.) and thats additionnal training + isk investement just to more over a speedbump put in place in an arbitrary way.
Haulie Berry
#123 - 2013-06-12 17:36:46 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

The problem comes from ahuling your stuff around.


This is an imaginary problem that many high-sec dwellers seem to suffer from. Just hop in a ship and go, your stuff will still be there later, and you probably don't need most or any of it.

If you actually do need to move a lot of stuff, courier contracts are inexpensive, effective, and underutilized.
Murk Paradox
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#124 - 2013-06-12 17:40:35 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Evei Shard wrote:
Tippia wrote:
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,


That idea there goes against both human nature and the concept of sovereignty. Alliances "settle down" in areas of null-sec, and then work to keep their space for themselves. Making it home. Spending trillions of isk to do so.


And even then events for them to move. I've "lived" in 13 null sec regions since 2008 because of this.

The difference is that in null other players force you to move.

Quote:

Why is it just high-sec subscribers whom you think should be forced to move around?


You've got it backwards. High sec players are the ones who don't move (CCP has even said a majority of high sec characters NEVER leave high sec, it's not hard to imagine that most high sec characters rarely leave the constellations they are in), null sec is by nature transient space no matter how much people lie to themselves about blue donuts) .

Some of us simply think CCP should continue along the path they started on, 1st by removing static DEDs years ago on up through incursions, wormholes and in a way now, Ice mining. Mission agents, ore mining resources and null sec anaomalies should eventually follow suit.

people having to move and hunt for resources is good for the game on so many levels it ain;t funny, while staganant isk farming is bad on those same levels.


I think it all come down to how much movement would be "forced" onto mission runners. The problem comes from ahuling your stuff around. As someone who started running lvl4 not long ago, I don't have a ship that can carry my 1st battleship, salvaging destroyer, ammo, cap booster charge, additionnal mission specific fittings, ... The more jump required just to accept the next mission, the less chance people be willing to put up with it. The solution is likely to get an orca (can a fitted BS fit in it? I don't even know.) and thats additionnal training + isk investement just to more over a speedbump put in place in an arbitrary way.



You mean how if you are in say... Dodixie.. you can move a measly 5 jumps and have both Agents for Fed Navy and Fed Intel up to level 4 in more than 3 separate locations?

Same with Amarr (up to Penirgman). Hek and Jita I do not know, but I'll just assume (risky) it also follows suit.

That's not to mention areas BY null and lowsec (Masalle area for instance) has quite a few L3 and L4 agents for thsoe same factions.

This thread has been leading towards finding those agents by way of capping each Agent in it's level of access.

The # of missions able to be ran by everyone would not change.

Having your own station as a "home base" would not change. And like ANY other sector of space (except WH but even then that's argued for market reasons) you are forced to move your stuff around. Be it from PI, manufacturing, ratting, missioning, mining, exploring.

The argument of having to have a ship as an RV is just silly when you are talking about the safety of highsec. Poor argument to live in a trade hub.

Learn to get out more.

This post has been signed by Murk Paradox and no other accounts, alternate or otherwise. Any other post claiming to be this holder's is subject to being banned at the discretion of the GM Team as it would violate the TOS in regards to impersonation. Signed, Murk Paradox. In triplicate.
Kult Altol
The Safe Space
#125 - 2013-06-12 17:41:18 UTC
As a high sec missioners, that's the WHOLE reason I play eve is for the missions.

Probably the most ******** idea I have ever read on eve GD.

Dumb. you want to limit cycles on mining lasers too?

Just stop.

[u]Can't wait untill when Eve online is Freemium.[/u] WiS only 10$, SP booster for one month 15$, DPS Boost 2$, EHP Boost 2$ Real money trading hub! Cosmeitic ship skins 15$ --> If you don't [u]pay **[/u]for a product, you ARE the [u]**product[/u].

Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#126 - 2013-06-12 17:43:56 UTC
Haulie Berry wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

The problem comes from ahuling your stuff around.


This is an imaginary problem that many high-sec dwellers seem to suffer from. Just hop in a ship and go, your stuff will still be there later, and you probably don't need most or any of it.

If you actually do need to move a lot of stuff, courier contracts are inexpensive, effective, and underutilized.


It can be a problem depending on the distance and how many mission you do on the next agent before you have to move again. If it's really close, people would leave everything in thier "home" station and just deal with the few extra jumps. If you ahve to deal with 15 jumps back and forth just to dock your mission ship to return with a salvager, it become stupid. You will want to move your stuff together. Especially if you are there for more than one mission. Since you can't know the mission before moving, you will need the different ammo set and resist mod to be able to fit correctly for the mission. If you want to salvage, you will need your salvager around too for the first few wrecks to still be up after the completion + travelling.
Minmatar Citizen160812
The LGBT Last Supper
#127 - 2013-06-12 17:45:01 UTC
Kult Altol wrote:
As a high sec missioners, that's the WHOLE reason I play eve is for the missions.

Probably the most ******** idea I have ever read on eve GD.

Dumb. you want to limit cycles on mining lasers too?

Just stop.


Noooo we wouldn't want limits on mining lasers...we want the lewt spew mechanic added to the asteroids.
Erotica 1
Krypteia Operations
#128 - 2013-06-12 17:45:02 UTC
Kult Altol wrote:
As a high sec missioners, that's the WHOLE reason I play eve is for the missions.

Probably the most ******** idea I have ever read on eve GD.

Dumb. you want to limit cycles on mining lasers too?

Just stop.


That's actually a good idea! We shall add the mining laser cycle limit to the list. Thanks!

See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#129 - 2013-06-12 17:47:19 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:


I think it all come down to how much movement would be "forced" onto mission runners. The problem comes from ahuling your stuff around. As someone who started running lvl4 not long ago, I don't have a ship that can carry my 1st battleship, salvaging destroyer, ammo, cap booster charge, additionnal mission specific fittings, ... The more jump required just to accept the next mission, the less chance people be willing to put up with it. The solution is likely to get an orca (can a fitted BS fit in it? I don't even know.) and thats additionnal training + isk investement just to more over a speedbump put in place in an arbitrary way.


Look at the limitations you are placing on yourself, and then rejecting ideas based on those self-imposed limitations.

-There are people who move things for you for a small fee
-There are PVE corps that help you move stuff AND give you someone to talk to (lol)
-There are ships you can train for that make you not need that salvaging destroyer
-You can fit ships, use implants and train skills to make you less dependent on cap boosters
-There are ships and weapons that you can use that don't force you to use ammo you have to haul around (drones, lasers)
-As you said, you could train for an orca

Etc Etc Etc

With your post you just unwittingly demonstrated WHY a change to how missions work would be a good thing for the game, as it is now a new player can just plunk down in one spot and never move, never do anyhting but train skills and make isk to upgrade mission boat.

No thinking needed, no creativity, no need to adapt, no need to interact with the rest of the universe except when selling stuff/trading in LP, no reason what-so-ever to innovate or improve or try something new. the ONLY way missions help new players is by boring them enough to try other parts of the game. That's just not good I think.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#130 - 2013-06-12 17:48:37 UTC
Haulie Berry wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:

The problem comes from ahuling your stuff around.


This is an imaginary problem that many high-sec dwellers seem to suffer from. Just hop in a ship and go, your stuff will still be there later, and you probably don't need most or any of it.

If you actually do need to move a lot of stuff, courier contracts are inexpensive, effective, and underutilized.


How dare you say in 3 sentences what it took me 4 paragraphs to say.

I shall now ForumDec you, undock from the forums so i can shoot you.
Haulie Berry
#131 - 2013-06-12 17:55:02 UTC
And on the same note:

Missions are too damn easy. There should be a real chance of failing a mission. I'm not solely talking about the risk of losing a ship during a mission, but the possibility of failing the mission even if you survive it.

The current mission setup completely ignores the whole, "The player is not entitled to success" philosophy, as they pretty much guarantee eventual success.

For example: If my mission is to go assassinate some spacedude, why is there a 0% chance of him warping away and escaping?
Kewso
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#132 - 2013-06-12 17:57:49 UTC
heh that would make me run off to play X3 full time :P

course X3 has a higher learning curve than Eve does... Took me a week just to figure out what to do in X3


anyhow I'm a carebear who socializes been playing since 2007, over 100m sp and I grind missions, explore, mine ice/ore, and courier work and contract out to haul stuff in my freighter for folks.

have zero interest in ship vs ship pvp


the game should allow for all play styles


I enjoy afk mining while watching movies, or grinding missions to helping others get sec status while I grind missions as they loot, etc...

no need for everyone to pvp
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#133 - 2013-06-12 18:02:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Kewso wrote:
heh that would make me run off to play X3 full time :P

course X3 has a higher learning curve than Eve does... Took me a week just to figure out what to do in X3


anyhow I'm a carebear who socializes been playing since 2007, over 100m sp and I grind missions, explore, mine ice/ore, and courier work and contract out to haul stuff in my freighter for folks.

have zero interest in ship vs ship pvp


the game should allow for all play styles


I enjoy afk mining while watching movies, or grinding missions to helping others get sec status while I grind missions as they loot, etc...

no need for everyone to pvp


It was only a matter of time before this post (i call posts like this the high sec "meme-a-palooza" post) popped up.

-Sitting in one place letting a video game play itself while you watch a movie and collect the profits is not a "playstyle"
-No one said a damn thing about making you pvp
-GB2-X3?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#134 - 2013-06-12 18:05:08 UTC
Evei Shard wrote:
That idea there goes against both human nature and the concept of sovereignty. Alliances "settle down" in areas of null-sec, and then work to keep their space for themselves. Making it home. Spending trillions of isk to do so.
…and are then forced to move. They also “limit” themselves to a a couple of regions, not to a single constellation

Quote:
Why is it just high-sec subscribers whom you think should be forced to move around?
Why do you ask questions that are not related to the post you're quoting?
Totalrx
NA No Assholes
#135 - 2013-06-12 18:10:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Totalrx
Haulie Berry wrote:
And on the same note:

Missions are too damn easy. There should be a real chance of failing a mission. I'm not solely talking about the risk of losing a ship during a mission, but the possibility of failing the mission even if you survive it.

The current mission setup completely ignores the whole, "The player is not entitled to success" philosophy, as they pretty much guarantee eventual success.

For example: If my mission is to go assassinate some spacedude, why is there a 0% chance of him warping away and escaping?


^^^ This ^^^

I can run all L4's solo's in a cheap CNR fit (768m including the hull) without having to warp out on any of them except maybe Enemies Abound 5 of 5. I don't run Angels bonus room with that fit either.

But, missions need to be much more dynamic. The mission guides need to be nullified.

Right now, it's pull up the page for that mission, warp in, follow the guide, salvage/loot, wash, rinse & repeat. Every mission is scripted down to what NPC will aggro when. That needs to be changed. How many NPC's warp in, what distance, what configurations, etc needs to be changed. Neuts and vampires need to be one of those things that NPC's can randomly fit.They need to rep one another and use drones as well.

Of course, this may discourage some players to leave the game. It may encourage others to join.

My friend plays Star Trek Online because many of the missions require you to fleet up with other players to complete and there is a chance of failure if they don't do it correctly. If Eve met those same standards, he'd drop STO and play Eve.

The big question is: Does Eve's engine have the ability to make missions dynamic and not scripted for every element of the mission?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#136 - 2013-06-12 18:13:17 UTC
Murk Paradox wrote:


You mean how if you are in say... Dodixie.. you can move a measly 5 jumps and have both Agents for Fed Navy and Fed Intel up to level 4 in more than 3 separate locations?

Same with Amarr (up to Penirgman). Hek and Jita I do not know, but I'll just assume (risky) it also follows suit.

That's not to mention areas BY null and lowsec (Masalle area for instance) has quite a few L3 and L4 agents for thsoe same factions.

This thread has been leading towards finding those agents by way of capping each Agent in it's level of access.

The # of missions able to be ran by everyone would not change.

Having your own station as a "home base" would not change. And like ANY other sector of space (except WH but even then that's argued for market reasons) you are forced to move your stuff around. Be it from PI, manufacturing, ratting, missioning, mining, exploring.

The argument of having to have a ship as an RV is just silly when you are talking about the safety of highsec. Poor argument to live in a trade hub.

Learn to get out more.


Of course if mission stays just as available as they are right now, the point is moot. I am putting this from a point of view of mission being changed to be more rare. If you always have agents withing 3 jump of your regular home abse, it all become moot and the change meant nothing.
Seven Koskanaiken
Shadow Legions.
#137 - 2013-06-12 18:17:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Seven Koskanaiken
If agents were like real employers they would let people bid the mission reward down until they found the most desperate person willing to do the job for the least amount of pay.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#138 - 2013-06-12 18:24:17 UTC
Seven Koskanaiken wrote:
If agents were like real employers they would let people bid the mission reward down until they found the most desperate person willing to do the job for the least amount of pay.

That's actually a neat idea, and would definitely refine the whole ”mission pool” idea further. It could work the other way around as well: every time someone declines a mission in the queue, the rewards go up.

…two hours of beggin later, and suddenly Duo of Death pays out 10M ISK and 20k LP. P
Evei Shard
Shard Industries
#139 - 2013-06-12 18:27:17 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Evei Shard wrote:
That idea there goes against both human nature and the concept of sovereignty. Alliances "settle down" in areas of null-sec, and then work to keep their space for themselves. Making it home. Spending trillions of isk to do so.
…and are then forced to move. They also “limit” themselves to a a couple of regions, not to a single constellation

Quote:
Why is it just high-sec subscribers whom you think should be forced to move around?
Why do you ask questions that are not related to the post you're quoting?



Oh don't be so evasive. P
Your statement implied that people in high-sec (the focus of the original post) should be forced to move around through changing the mechanics of missions. Null-sec alliances can hold SOV for years. Yes, they have the potential of being evicted by a stronger alliance, that is a fact that cannot be ignored, but that is the harshness that null-sec is all about.

Profit favors the prepared
Zircon Dasher
#140 - 2013-06-12 18:32:19 UTC
Totalrx wrote:

My friend plays Star Trek Online because many of the missions require you to fleet up with other players to complete and there is a chance of failure if they don't do it correctly. If Eve met those same standards, he'd drop STO and play Eve.

The big question is: Does Eve's engine have the ability to make missions dynamic and not scripted for every element of the mission?


Curious- why doesn't he play EVE now since we have incursions?

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.