These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Opt out permanetly from burner missions

First post
Author
Nevil Oscillator
#41 - 2015-06-24 05:08:59 UTC
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Kind of funny how many people here like to pretend like they should be so up in arms and offended that anyone would stoop to such levels as to asking for such a thing. How dare someone else ask for something that would be an improvement for them but not me, right? It'd be one thing if was something that would be a detriment to others, but I guess since this would largely be something mission runners would like, that makes this a bull-**** request anyways, huh? Makes me wonder how many people actually know what is -- or that there even is -- a difference between "convenience" and "laziness".


I think you are imagining some kind of passionate tone in our replies maybe even a delek or something,.
You are the doctor, you will get burner missions like everyone else or you will be exterminated.

Burner missions are mixed with the other missions which means you can't just go to a burner mission agent and have as many burner missions as you like.

Perhaps it is like that for that reason.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#42 - 2015-06-24 06:23:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Maldiro Selkurk
Nevil Oscillator wrote:
Sobaan Tali wrote:
Kind of funny how many people here like to pretend like they should be so up in arms and offended that anyone would stoop to such levels as to asking for such a thing. How dare someone else ask for something that would be an improvement for them but not me, right? It'd be one thing if was something that would be a detriment to others, but I guess since this would largely be something mission runners would like, that makes this a bull-**** request anyways, huh? Makes me wonder how many people actually know what is -- or that there even is -- a difference between "convenience" and "laziness".


I think you are imagining some kind of passionate tone in our replies maybe even a delek or something,.
You are the doctor, you will get burner missions like everyone else or you will be exterminated.

Burner missions are mixed with the other missions which means you can't just go to a burner mission agent and have as many burner missions as you like.

Perhaps it is like that for that reason.

Dude, this is the second time today i have read a post from you where you quote someone but your response has little or nothing to do with what the person said.

The only thing you said that is relevant to the quote is that Sobaan seems to think and i believe rightly so, that there is a whole lot of troll going on in this thread where really little or not controversy should exist. They are trolling because they like trolling; the discussion is irrelevant to them they just hop from thread to thread trolling as they go so yes there is a harsh tone in some of the posts that is unwarranted given the rather mundane request being made.

Add check box "i dont want burner missions", easily coded and solves an annoyance that impacts players, you really have to dig down deep to conjure up controversy in such a simple request but there certainly people trying to do just that.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Nevil Oscillator
#43 - 2015-06-24 11:56:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevil Oscillator
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:

Dude, this is the second time today i have read a post from you where you quote someone but your response has little or nothing to do with what the person said.
t.


Dude Burner missions are like they are so you can't farm them.. that's all I said and it is entirely relevant to this topic.

If you want to crap on your own thread by pulling out the troll card rather than having an answer that is entirely up to you.

I wouldn't mind seeing CCP remove the right to decline burners without penalty.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#44 - 2015-06-25 06:57:03 UTC
Nevil Oscillator wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:

Dude, this is the second time today i have read a post from you where you quote someone but your response has little or nothing to do with what the person said.
t.


Dude Burner missions are like they are so you can't farm them.. that's all I said and it is entirely relevant to this topic.

If you want to crap on your own thread by pulling out the troll card rather than having an answer that is entirely up to you.

I wouldn't mind seeing CCP remove the right to decline burners without penalty.

okay you are 3 for 3 on confusing as hell commentary. wtf does framing burners have to do with rejecting them forever. You cant farm a burner if your NEVER RUNNING THEM !?!?

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Tyler Nietzsche
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2015-06-25 07:03:35 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:

okay you are 3 for 3 on confusing as hell commentary. wtf does framing burners have to do with rejecting them forever. You cant farm a burner if your NEVER RUNNING THEM !?!?


Adding the burner missions to level 4 agents was a lazy move by CCP. It was ok after the first batch of missions, but now its getting annoying. They could have treated it as on opportunity to add some new interesting things to the game, or at least other agents.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#46 - 2015-06-25 08:28:29 UTC
Tyler Nietzsche wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:

okay you are 3 for 3 on confusing as hell commentary. wtf does framing burners have to do with rejecting them forever. You cant farm a burner if your NEVER RUNNING THEM !?!?


Adding the burner missions to level 4 agents was a lazy move by CCP. It was ok after the first batch of missions, but now its getting annoying. They could have treated it as on opportunity to add some new interesting things to the game, or at least other agents.

im going to guess based on your comfusing as hell comment that you are actually nevil oscillator posting on an alt. im not sure how to put this but you do know that my request is intended to remove the annoyance of burner mission rejection spam for those that choose to never run them.

in short, you are some how arguing at the same time both for and against my proposal, hence my confusion.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Tyler Nietzsche
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2015-06-25 08:37:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyler Nietzsche
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:

im going to guess based on your comfusing as hell comment that you are actually nevil oscillator posting on an alt. im not sure how to put this but you do know that my request is intended to remove the annoyance of burner mission rejection spam for those that choose to never run them.

in short, you are some how arguing at the same time both for and against my proposal, hence my confusion.


I agree that it is getting annoying due to the sheer amount of them, and suggesting that there are more alternatives to solve the problem than for / against your suggestion.
Scipio Artelius
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#48 - 2015-06-25 08:50:23 UTC
Tyler Nietzsche wrote:
I agree that it is getting annoying due to the sheer amount of them, and suggesting that there are more alternatives to solve the problem than for / against your suggestion.

I think declaring it as trolling is a little bit harsh.

This is General Discussion, where things can be discussed in general terms and often are from a broad range of different angles.

Specific ideas that are proposed normally go in Features & Ideas Discussion, where generally the discussion around an idea tends to remain more focused (not always, but generally).

So if people are discussing the general aspects of something and looking beyond what the OP began as, that's simply because that is what this forum is for.

Normally an ISD would move this type of thread to F&I, but so far it hasn't happened. Doesn't make people trolls for using the forum the way it was setup for use.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#49 - 2015-06-25 09:00:42 UTC
Tyler Nietzsche wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:

im going to guess based on your comfusing as hell comment that you are actually nevil oscillator posting on an alt. im not sure how to put this but you do know that my request is intended to remove the annoyance of burner mission rejection spam for those that choose to never run them.

in short, you are some how arguing at the same time both for and against my proposal, hence my confusion.


I agree that it is getting annoying due to the sheer amount of them, and suggesting that there are more alternatives to solve the problem than for / against your suggestion.

Awesome i understood your point. What other options do you propose we consider?

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Tyler Nietzsche
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2015-06-25 09:05:35 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Tyler Nietzsche wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:

im going to guess based on your comfusing as hell comment that you are actually nevil oscillator posting on an alt. im not sure how to put this but you do know that my request is intended to remove the annoyance of burner mission rejection spam for those that choose to never run them.

in short, you are some how arguing at the same time both for and against my proposal, hence my confusion.


I agree that it is getting annoying due to the sheer amount of them, and suggesting that there are more alternatives to solve the problem than for / against your suggestion.

Awesome i understood your point. What other options do you propose we consider?


Adding new agents for burner missions, as in my original post. Adding them as (even more) valuable rats at the end of new expeditions. Inventing new game play like touring the galaxy (hack / entosis random nullsec stations to find them). Making new exploration combat sites with them. Limit them to certain areas, or put them in an area for a certain time like incursions). The options are infinite.
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#51 - 2015-06-25 10:47:25 UTC
Baljos Arnjak wrote:
What CCP really needs to do is separate Burner missions into a new category of agent.

So normal missions have their normal agents and burner missions have burner agents, maybe call them Bounty Hunter agents or something. Then those that want to do burners and only burners can, and people who want to do normal and only normal missions can. Those that want to do both just hop in a shuttle and run over to where you do burners or vise versa.

This is something that has been brought up a few thousand times that they should have done from the get-go.

Abusable. Burners are very profitable once you have the setup to do them. Right now it's balanced somewhat by the fact that you occasionally need to play that 3 chapters long Event Horizon reference or take standing hit. With separate agent you will be able to eventually switch to farming them exclusively. You can then make them not free to be declined, but it's just a matter of time before people will bring all those unified setups and, well, see above.

Meanwhile, they still need to be more lucrative to justify working towards being able to complete them.
Tyler Nietzsche
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2015-06-25 11:03:46 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Baljos Arnjak wrote:
What CCP really needs to do is separate Burner missions into a new category of agent.

So normal missions have their normal agents and burner missions have burner agents, maybe call them Bounty Hunter agents or something. Then those that want to do burners and only burners can, and people who want to do normal and only normal missions can. Those that want to do both just hop in a shuttle and run over to where you do burners or vise versa.

This is something that has been brought up a few thousand times that they should have done from the get-go.

Abusable. Burners are very profitable once you have the setup to do them. Right now it's balanced somewhat by the fact that you occasionally need to play that 3 chapters long Event Horizon reference or take standing hit. With separate agent you will be able to eventually switch to farming them exclusively. You can then make them not free to be declined, but it's just a matter of time before people will bring all those unified setups and, well, see above.

Meanwhile, they still need to be more lucrative to justify working towards being able to complete them.


So, you need the old level 4 missions to "get in the way" of farming them. First they are "very profitable". At the same time you say they need to be more lucrative?
Why not balance them on their own merit, and let people who enjoy them run them?
Nevil Oscillator
#53 - 2015-06-25 15:05:07 UTC
Tyler Nietzsche wrote:


So, you need the old level 4 missions to "get in the way" of farming them. First they are "very profitable". At the same time you say they need to be more lucrative?
Why not balance them on their own merit, and let people who enjoy them run them?


You lose ships in a burner if your setup is wrong, in a L4 you mostly just warp out and try again/buy a bigger more expensive ship.

And oh good after doing that we don't want to be pestered with burner missions, I have a 36 day training queue for large weapons already , don't distract me with all this rubbish about frigates..
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#54 - 2015-06-25 15:19:01 UTC
Maldiro , believe it or not you have just been neviled.

you feel that sort of angry confusion bubbling deep down?
thats the effect he cultivates extremely well, its sort of like trolling but waaaaaay more obtuse.

its the normal response to him so dont worry.
Nevil Oscillator
#55 - 2015-06-25 15:24:01 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:


its sort of like trolling but waaaaaay more obtuse.



Trolling is for nobodies
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#56 - 2015-06-25 15:27:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Ralph King-Griffin
Nevil Oscillator wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:


its sort of like trolling but waaaaaay more obtuse.



Trolling is for nobodies

and being deliberately obtuse for pages and pages and pages is what exactly?

Edit: dont get me wrong now, i love that you leave people so bewildered and inexplicably angry without fail, its rather amusing.
Nevil Oscillator
#57 - 2015-06-25 15:53:23 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:

and being deliberately obtuse for pages and pages and pages is what exactly?
.


Exactly what they deserve.


Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#58 - 2015-06-25 22:00:08 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Maldiro , believe it or not you have just been neviled.

you feel that sort of angry confusion bubbling deep down?
thats the effect he cultivates extremely well, its sort of like trolling but waaaaaay more obtuse.

its the normal response to him so dont worry.


LOL, SWEET !!!

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Cancel Align NOW
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#59 - 2015-06-26 00:59:13 UTC
I would like to tick a box that permanently removes all mordus and blood raider missions as well as burners. I'll support your cause OP as our goals are aligned.
Nevil Oscillator
#60 - 2015-06-26 05:42:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevil Oscillator
Cancel Align NOW wrote:
I would like to tick a box that permanently removes all mordus and blood raider missions as well as burners. I'll support your cause OP as our goals are aligned.


Not quite,

At least the OP is on about missions he has the right to decline, therefore considers them spam, I agree he has a point regarding that, even if it is such a minor point that it is difficult to seriously consider as important