These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Burner Missions: -1 :(

Author
Lupe Meza
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#61 - 2014-08-15 20:40:06 UTC
I'm loving what I'm hearing. I always thought it was anonying to have to use one fit for PvE and one fit for PvP, given this game being advertised as very PvP oriented.

The missions are best done in ships designed to fight NPC's but woefully inept at engaging or defending themselves from players.

Level 4's are best done in expensive cruisers or battleships, the more expensive the better. But again, they are fit in a way that makes them sitting ducks should a player engage, leaving the missioner with the only intelligent decision being to warp away or dock up at any hint of a player entering the mission pocket. OR just not leaving high sec to do missions, the reasoning being that all the time and energy spent worrying about other players combined with the possible losses of expensive mission ships makes rarely uninterrupted steady High Sec mission the rational choice if isk is your goal. While I'm sure some enjoy missions in their current state, I only run them for isk; they are a bit of a grind and uninteresting.

But to do the things I do enjoy in the game requires me to have isk, so they are a necessary evil given my playstyle and available time. If my goal for a session is isk, I can't afford to play 1 or 2 hours when I get time and get nothing or have my gains wiped out. If you have limited time to play it is just better to take the bird in the hand , rather than go for the two in the bush, die to a gate camp, bubble camp, caught unaware because you didn't d-scan ever 5 seconds, etc. It always seemed that missioners would be taking most of the risk in the "mission in hostile space" risk/reward scenario, taking their ships into hostile space, while PvPer's would risk little waiting for them at gates or blowing up ill-fitted ships in mission pockets.

Now you're telling me that I can fit up a frig from 10-70 mil that will actually get through most camps and across space no problem? I get to fight one bad ass enemy that will require me to use some PvP knowledge rather than 20 minutes NPC wave skeet shoot? And I get a good chance at some nice loot if I succeed? Not to mention if someone drops in "to say hi" I can actually hang around and assess the situation, rather than just haul ass because I'm in a 200 million+ PvP deficient pinata? Not to mention I'm behind a frigate sized gate, so I might actually have a chance at a decent fight if I do stick around?

Hell, you can even go out on small roams and even if you don't get any fights at least your time wasn't completely wasted since you can run these while you're hunting...

I'm all for this. I see this as a major content creator.
Ginger Barbarella
#62 - 2014-08-15 23:23:47 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
With only one mission per pirate type it will only be a few days before people have published standard fits to counter the various missions.

You will of course get the odd random individual that insists on flying them in something totally unsuited just because they can :D


Gawd, inorite? Friggin' idiots trying to be original...

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac

Ginger Barbarella
#63 - 2014-08-15 23:30:25 UTC
Laulau Firn wrote:
Only fail in the design of these missions is that they seem to be designed around multiboxing. I doubt there is any challenge in these if player has more than one account. (and if there is, they are pretty much impossible for solo player).

I think burners should just warp off if more than one player enters the area.



I really like that idea. Or lock the gate and prevent a second party from entering.

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac

Silverdaddy
Ourapheh Holdings
#64 - 2014-08-15 23:31:33 UTC
I'm wondering that given all the jamming, tracking disruption, webbing, and cap warfare that will be going on based on the descriptions, if an ishkur woudn't be a bad choice of AF for these missions...

The problem with slavery is that only half of the manacles are visible. The Holder, supposed master, is equally bound by the gilded chains of privilege and wealth.

Xpaulusx
Naari LLC
#65 - 2014-08-15 23:52:15 UTC
Kudos to CCP Fozzie and company for thinking out of the box on this one. This also presents a good opportunity for new and young pilots to get their feet wet in combat tactics. I would have increased the difficulty of each Mission, you beat the first one, the next is would be harder, the last being extremely difficult, but possible Blink

......................................................

Sobaan Tali
Caldari Quick Reaction Force
#66 - 2014-08-16 05:20:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Sobaan Tali
I might try it out just for ***** and giggles, but I'm not really as impressed as I think they think we should be. Who knows? I may be better impressed when I see it in action. Call me a pessimists (again it could be really fun, I'm just not that confident in it), it's just not what I expected. We'll have to see when it comes out.

My only question is if we decline, does it trigger a 4-hour cooldown (I didn't see this indicated anywhere) like legacy missions, cause this whole "no penalty for declining" thing sounds like it has some unspoken stipulations. It's fine if so, I just think CCP should annotate that somewhere.

"Tomahawks?"

"----in' A, right?"

"Trouble is, those things cost like a million and a half each."

"----, you pay me half that and I'll hump in some c4 and blow the ---- out of it my own damn self."

IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#67 - 2014-08-16 05:44:20 UTC
These are still going to be optional missions you can decline without penalty correct?

I'm asking because it seems some are under the impression that these are required. Has something changed?

I'm excited CCP is adding some interesting content to PVE side of the game. I'm sure it'll need adjusting but at least PVE isn't being ignored.
IIshira
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#68 - 2014-08-16 05:47:28 UTC
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
Laulau Firn wrote:
Only fail in the design of these missions is that they seem to be designed around multiboxing. I doubt there is any challenge in these if player has more than one account. (and if there is, they are pretty much impossible for solo player).

I think burners should just warp off if more than one player enters the area.



I really like that idea. Or lock the gate and prevent a second party from entering.


I don't think CCP should discourage people working together. Solo crap gets boring so it would be nice to have content in highsec that requires multiple players. No not incursions... I know someone would say that
Julius Priscus
#69 - 2014-08-16 07:42:53 UTC
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
Laulau Firn wrote:
Only fail in the design of these missions is that they seem to be designed around multiboxing. I doubt there is any challenge in these if player has more than one account. (and if there is, they are pretty much impossible for solo player).

I think burners should just warp off if more than one player enters the area.



I really like that idea. Or lock the gate and prevent a second party from entering.



stupid idea... defeats the whole way eve online works.
Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#70 - 2014-08-16 10:46:33 UTC
I think it a couple things should be cleared up;
There is no penalty for declining them. I would assume 'No Penalty' means no 4 hour cool down either, as that is a type of penalty.

If you don't run lvl-4 missions you will never run one of these. They are given out, at random, from lvl-4 agents throughout EVE; So if your pulling lvl-4's form a low or nul sec agent you have just as good of a chance to get one of these mission as if you were pulling form a high sec agent.

I would assume they are using something similar to the Sansha Incursion AI; If you have ever tried to kill the Sansha Nation Commander solo you might have an understanding of how tough the AI can actually get.

So I for one am looking forward to checking these out and using these mission as a break from the norm, I wouldn't expect you to get rich running them, you certainly wouldn't be able to farm them (One ship to kill, Not really a farming thing) but they might be a great way to eliminate some ISK from the game.

I would love to have the top 100 killmails posted by each one of these rats, we could call it 'CCP's Killboard'; some people love telling the Devs how much they suck at PVP every time they go on a roam, finding out how tough they can make a frig from the Dev point of view should be fun, and worthy of praise or ridicule.

(Monthly tweaks are awesome. The minute you think you figured it out, da da dum, new patch comes with new tactics, keeps everyone on their toes)

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.

Goldiiee
Bureau of Astronomical Anomalies
#71 - 2014-08-16 11:01:08 UTC
Cipher Jones wrote:


If the chance of faction mods dropping is in fact enough to make their prices drop, PLEX prices will rise.

Cipher, I swear I am not trolling or being sarcastic, I spent the last 8 hours trying to figure out how cheaper Faction Mods would make for Higher PLEX prices. Help me out, tell me what your thought process was there please.

Things that keep me up at night;  Why do we use a voice communication device to send telegraphs? Moore's Law should state, Once you have paid off the last PC upgrade you will need another.

James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#72 - 2014-08-16 11:28:11 UTC
Goldiiee wrote:
Cipher Jones wrote:


If the chance of faction mods dropping is in fact enough to make their prices drop, PLEX prices will rise.

Cipher, I swear I am not trolling or being sarcastic, I spent the last 8 hours trying to figure out how cheaper Faction Mods would make for Higher PLEX prices. Help me out, tell me what your thought process was there please.

Running burner missions and getting faction mods puts them into the game without the associated isk/lp/ TIME cost normally associated with such things.
This reduces the isk/hr value of many kinds of LP, leading to more grind for your PLEX.
More grind makes people less willing to continue to play, or gets them to get out their wallet and buy their own PLEX.
This leads to a slowdown in the PLEX market, dropping this particular kind of station-trading's isk/hr.
This means more will end up used rather than station-traded, lowering volume to compensate for reduced liquidity.
Reduced volume means that you end up with fewer, and less widespread influx.
This leads to more effective market control by those who do buy PLEX in bulk to market-trade, letting them increase cost.

Fairly direct spiral towards cartel-izing amongst the big players.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Laulau Firn
Pandemic Horde High Sec Division
#73 - 2014-08-16 12:06:30 UTC
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
Laulau Firn wrote:
Only fail in the design of these missions is that they seem to be designed around multiboxing. I doubt there is any challenge in these if player has more than one account. (and if there is, they are pretty much impossible for solo player).

I think burners should just warp off if more than one player enters the area.



I really like that idea. Or lock the gate and prevent a second party from entering.


I think there would be a problem with that: it would create safe pocket in space and prevent PvP. I think risk of getting jumped on should always be there.


Julius Priscus wrote:
stupid idea... defeats the whole way eve online works.


And how exactly would it do that?

You gotta remember that mission running is solo operation most of the time, so this would change very little.

And they could easliy use the same warpoff mechanic to balance it around solo, duo, etc, players. Just make the burner warp off if there is 2, 3, 4, etc, players on grid.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#74 - 2014-08-16 12:29:30 UTC
Laulau Firn wrote:


Julius Priscus wrote:
stupid idea... defeats the whole way eve online works.


And how exactly would it do that?

You gotta remember that mission running is solo operation most of the time, so this would change very little.

And they could easliy use the same warpoff mechanic to balance it around solo, duo, etc, players. Just make the burner warp off if there is 2, 3, 4, etc, players on grid.

And if you are saying that preventing x boxen from being used to blob any content to death, this would not the first content where you cannot get paid if you attempt to bring numbers. Incursion payouts are also number capped.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Julius Priscus
#75 - 2014-08-16 16:09:00 UTC
Laulau Firn wrote:
Ginger Barbarella wrote:
Laulau Firn wrote:
Only fail in the design of these missions is that they seem to be designed around multiboxing. I doubt there is any challenge in these if player has more than one account. (and if there is, they are pretty much impossible for solo player).

I think burners should just warp off if more than one player enters the area.



I really like that idea. Or lock the gate and prevent a second party from entering.


I think there would be a problem with that: it would create safe pocket in space and prevent PvP. I think risk of getting jumped on should always be there.


Julius Priscus wrote:
stupid idea... defeats the whole way eve online works.


And how exactly would it do that?

You gotta remember that mission running is solo operation most of the time, so this would change very little.

And they could easliy use the same warpoff mechanic to balance it around solo, duo, etc, players. Just make the burner warp off if there is 2, 3, 4, etc, players on grid.


1st you obviously have nfi how eve online works..
2nd if the burner was to warp off when there was more than one pilot on grid.. I would hunt down "burner" missions just to make the npc warp off.. just because I can.
Also mission running is NOT a solo endeavour.. I seen many a corp run mission as a group.
to say it IS a solo part of the game means once again you have nfi how eve works.
Ginger Barbarella
#76 - 2014-08-16 16:28:04 UTC
Xpaulusx wrote:
Kudos to CCP Fozzie and company for thinking out of the box on this one. This also presents a good opportunity for new and young pilots to get their feet wet in combat tactics. I would have increased the difficulty of each Mission, you beat the first one, the next is would be harder, the last being extremely difficult, but possible Blink


I agree completely. Not sure I quite care for CCP telling players EXACTLY what they're going up against , but nice start. People learn by doing and dying here, not by copying fits from BattleClinic or FailHeap.

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac

Ginger Barbarella
#77 - 2014-08-16 16:33:18 UTC
Julius Priscus wrote:
you obviously have nfi how eve online works..


Julius Priscus wrote:
Also mission running is NOT a solo endeavour..


Wow... just--- wow. I don't even know how to respond to that idiocy.

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac

Hakaari Inkuran
State War Academy
Caldari State
#78 - 2014-08-16 18:33:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakaari Inkuran
Silverdaddy wrote:
I'm wondering that given all the jamming, tracking disruption, webbing, and cap warfare that will be going on based on the descriptions, if an ishkur woudn't be a bad choice of AF for these missions...

Considering it doesn't even get a damage bonus on its drones I have to wonder why you would think this.

You're thinking of the harpy or hawk
Caleidascope
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#79 - 2014-08-16 19:17:27 UTC
Here is an idea. What if... ccp pulls the fits for the npc frigs from the player fits. I mean ccp knows exactly what we fit on our ships when we go pvp. So they can look through the kills and see that Fit A and Fit B are most successfully used in pvp on pirate faction ship X.

Life is short and dinner time is chancy

Eat dessert first!

Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#80 - 2014-08-16 19:21:35 UTC
Might try and run these in my battle Venture ....