These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

PVE - Agents and Missions
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Cade Windstalker
#21 - 2017-03-24 19:24:17 UTC
Danger Russ wrote:
agents wouldnt ever be able to all become lvl 4 unless everybody just did only lvl 4 missions that should never happen but something should be put in place to stop things going too far just incase


Do you even do missions?

Level 4s are basically the only thing anyone runs. There are a *few* cases where blitzing Level 3s accomplishes a goal more quickly but those are fairly niche and small scale. There's nothing in your system that changes this, and there's no way to change this meaningfully without making most missions impossible for newbies to complete.

Level 1 and 2 missions are transitional, and this is very intentional. They serve a purpose but it's not ever going to be anyone's primary activity, at least not for economic reasons.

Danger Russ wrote:
yes the difference in vets and new players is the hardest part which is why i thought the random escalations would be a good thing, this will mean there is a bigger separation between levels. and brings in more danger to the game.
eg
a new player starts doing lvl 1 missions he can do 20% of mission easily 40% without too much trouble 20% with a few warp outs and 20% should not be possible solo. But for a fully skilled pilot 60% would be very easy 30% would be easy and 10% would actually be a challenge

a new player rushing into lvl 2 missions would find 20% without too much trouble 20% very hard and 60% impossible solo
a decent skilled pilot would be able to do 20% easy 40% ok 20% hard 20% impossible solo
fully skilled pilot would be 60% easy 20% ok 20% hard

this is a big change having missions players have to run away from but why not, EVE is a dangerous game, you dont always win, but could make PVE more exciting and creating a more gradual change between agent levels


Because this is just bad gameplay for a money making activity, especially with the current rewards structure.

Missions and PvE in general isn't supposed to be hugely hard or punishing outside of a few specific and largely entirely voluntary pieces, like Burner Missions or Officer Spawns way out in Null. Making all PvE have a high chance to be punishing or uncompletable makes it impossible for new players to make money while not significantly impacting older players.

Ship and skill progression necessitates sharp changes between agent levels. Cruisers tank significantly less and deal less damage than Battleships, and similar with Frigates vs Cruisers.
Danger Russ
Overproof Industries Outernational
#22 - 2017-03-26 15:48:23 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:



you seem to be missing a lot of major parts to this.

yes i have thought about the impact and some things may need changing or adjusting just like any new feature added to the game

there would be no nerf to players running missions in the way they do now. none of that would change it would all be balanced so it fits just as it does now. the game doesnt get harder.

when did i say combat mission payouts would get nerfed the more of them you run? i said if you run too many they will be capped to stop things getting out of control and having hundreds of lvl 4 agents in 1 system, mission payouts will remain in the same state they are now

dont wanna move? Dont. never said you would have to

I really dont understand your problem with payouts, different level agents have different playouts now, i havent said anything about changing how the payouts work .

you need to remember i am suggesting a change in missions so yes things will change and be different to how they are now so a lot of your agruements about how things wont work with current mechanics is just pointless because these mechanics would change also

I cant be rolled out along side current missions because it replaces existing missions? what just like POS / structures ?

OK its seems very obvious your against change and cant see what im suggesting here you keep making arguments about stuff which doesnt exist or you have read wrong and not understood what i am saying. this idea isnt any of the things you claim it to be. i have put alot of thought into how this would work and no it wasnt all in the OP but this is a place for idea discussion not a dev blog
Danger Russ
Overproof Industries Outernational
#23 - 2017-03-26 16:01:21 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


Level 4s are basically the only thing anyone runs. There are a *few* cases where blitzing Level 3s accomplishes a goal more quickly but those are fairly niche and small scale. There's nothing in your system that changes this, and there's no way to change this meaningfully without making most missions impossible for newbies to complete.

Level 1 and 2 missions are transitional, and this is very intentional. They serve a purpose but it's not ever going to be anyone's primary activity, at least not for economic reasons.



no no no

new players cant do lvl 4 missions straight away so have to do lvl 1 first so all lvl missions actually get done, which is what i was saying.

and you state this fact that lvl 1-3 missions are pointless and just for progression, now that is bad gameplay and you want to keep it??? you are forced to progress to lvl 4 missions and fly a BS to do so. at least with my suggestion all missions would now be more worth doing, and more based on ship class.

ok ok ok my numbers are not perfect not even good, but that is not for me to decide. i used those numbers to show how this would play out, using round numbers in this way just shows the progression easier

if only you could see past how missions work now, you seem to be stuck forcing current mechanics into my idea which obviously wont work
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
Citizen's Star Republic
#24 - 2017-03-26 20:09:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Max Deveron
Danger Russ wrote:



you seem to be missing a lot of major parts to this.

yes i have thought about the impact and some things may need changing or adjusting just like any new feature added to the game

there would be no nerf to players running missions in the way they do now. none of that would change it would all be balanced so it fits just as it does now. the game doesnt get harder.

when did i say combat mission payouts would get nerfed the more of them you run? i said if you run too many they will be capped to stop things getting out of control and having hundreds of lvl 4 agents in 1 system, mission payouts will remain in the same state they are now

dont wanna move? Dont. never said you would have to

I really dont understand your problem with payouts, different level agents have different playouts now, i havent said anything about changing how the payouts work .

you need to remember i am suggesting a change in missions so yes things will change and be different to how they are now so a lot of your agruements about how things wont work with current mechanics is just pointless because these mechanics would change also

I cant be rolled out along side current missions because it replaces existing missions? what just like POS / structures ?

OK its seems very obvious your against change and cant see what im suggesting here you keep making arguments about stuff which doesnt exist or you have read wrong and not understood what i am saying. this idea isnt any of the things you claim it to be. i have put alot of thought into how this would work and no it wasnt all in the OP but this is a place for idea discussion not a dev blog


Mission payouts work like this: The more they are run by players the less they are worth, once a base line has been established. So not just a single mission hub, but the Specific corp/lvl/mission type.....the LP and ISK reward are less.

On the other side of the coin: If the missions are hardly runned at all by players the rewards also drop to near nill (ie courier and mining missions mostly)

Now as to agents moving around........they are Corporate employees of whatever corp they belong to, the LP reward has to move with them and they can only move between their respectful Corporate Offices (ie stations). in the case of the LP reward....if its the only agent of that corp in the system you effectively remove the LP reward there when that agent leaves, that is bad.
It is also bad if you can force agents to move into other faction space leaving the lower level agents in their home faction space, and if you think EvE players wont try this........then you dont understand EvE at all
Danger Russ
Overproof Industries Outernational
#25 - 2017-03-27 12:54:00 UTC
Max Deveron wrote:


Mission payouts work like this: The more they are run by players the less they are worth, once a base line has been established. So not just a single mission hub, but the Specific corp/lvl/mission type.....the LP and ISK reward are less.

On the other side of the coin: If the missions are hardly runned at all by players the rewards also drop to near nill (ie courier and mining missions mostly)

Now as to agents moving around........they are Corporate employees of whatever corp they belong to, the LP reward has to move with them and they can only move between their respectful Corporate Offices (ie stations). in the case of the LP reward....if its the only agent of that corp in the system you effectively remove the LP reward there when that agent leaves, that is bad.
It is also bad if you can force agents to move into other faction space leaving the lower level agents in their home faction space, and if you think EvE players wont try this........then you dont understand EvE at all



So cade was saying we cant put something like this into the new missions because its bad gameplay but we already have it. I wasnt aware it was that simple

You make some very good points about the agents moving, CCP may underestimate its player base but i dont.

Now with corps being allowed to rent offices in other stations, and there being alot more agents moving around. It would never happen that all agents from 1 corp would disappear totally. At worst you may have to go 1 jump to get another agent from the LP store you want, but that is worst case. In very quiet areas where no one is running missions for said corp.

In most mission hubs the change of agent would be more like
simple eg
You have a lvl3 agent for caldari provisions and a lvl 4 agent for caldari navy, they would be replaced with a lvl 3 caldari navy and a lvl 4 caldari provisions

and with the change in how missions are generated if you wanted to keep running missions for the same corp you could drop down to lvl 3 missions without a big hit in payouts, as you would get less payout per mission but be able to complete more missions

as for players abusing the system and making agents move where they shouldnt, they wouldnt be allowed as standings wouldnt allow an enemy agent to rent an office in your space. much like how NPC stations cant be found in the wrong place now.

plus you would need agents from the specific corps to be in that area to start with, so agents would only move around the areas they are currently located in

This could be different for special corps such as SOE who could move around new eden a lot more than other agents, this should hopefully be balanced as SOE are the best payout missions and should require more effort than lesser payed missions

Thankyou for your constructive feedback, hope this clears things up more
Cade Windstalker
#26 - 2017-03-27 18:06:59 UTC
Max Deveron wrote:
Mission payouts work like this: The more they are run by players the less they are worth, once a base line has been established. So not just a single mission hub, but the Specific corp/lvl/mission type.....the LP and ISK reward are less.

On the other side of the coin: If the missions are hardly runned at all by players the rewards also drop to near nill (ie courier and mining missions mostly)


If you're saying this is already in the game that is not accurate, except in the sense that the more people run missions for a corp the less the things from its LP store tend to be worth due to simple supply and demand.

Agents used to have a Quality measure which made some agents worth more than others at the same level, but this meant that everyone just ran for the few Quality 20 agents a given corp had and ignored the others. This was removed (I believe back around the time of Quantum Rise or RMR) and all Agents were set to effectively Quality 20. These days the only thing that impacts LP and ISK payouts from agents are the agent level, the sec status of the system the agent is in, the mission selected, and the relevant skills trained on your character sheet.

Also Russ: I wasn't saying that this sort of reward swing would harm newbies, though it would to an extent, I was saying that having agents change level and move around would.

Danger Russ wrote:
you seem to be missing a lot of major parts to this.

yes i have thought about the impact and some things may need changing or adjusting just like any new feature added to the game

there would be no nerf to players running missions in the way they do now. none of that would change it would all be balanced so it fits just as it does now. the game doesnt get harder.

when did i say combat mission payouts would get nerfed the more of them you run? i said if you run too many they will be capped to stop things getting out of control and having hundreds of lvl 4 agents in 1 system, mission payouts will remain in the same state they are now

dont wanna move? Dont. never said you would have to

I really dont understand your problem with payouts, different level agents have different playouts now, i havent said anything about changing how the payouts work .

you need to remember i am suggesting a change in missions so yes things will change and be different to how they are now so a lot of your agruements about how things wont work with current mechanics is just pointless because these mechanics would change also

I cant be rolled out along side current missions because it replaces existing missions? what just like POS / structures ?

OK its seems very obvious your against change and cant see what im suggesting here you keep making arguments about stuff which doesnt exist or you have read wrong and not understood what i am saying. this idea isnt any of the things you claim it to be. i have put alot of thought into how this would work and no it wasnt all in the OP but this is a place for idea discussion not a dev blog


You seem to either not be doing a very good job communicating your idea or you're not understanding the implications of some of the things you're suggesting here.

If you're changing something you need to say how it's changing, if you say "oh the agent will go from Level 1 to Level 2 but now those mean different things then you need to explicitly say that, it can't just be assumed. Similarly you're explicitly saying that this is a change to missions. That does not, at all, imply that you intend this to coexist with existing missions and all of your mechanics are explicitly changes to missions, not a new system that coexists with the existing mission system.

On top of that even with some very generous assumptions things you're saying don't add up, like this:

Quote:
For balance if lots of players are defeating the pirates they will stop attacking, lowering the lvl of security agents needed. If players dont drive away the pirates the mining agents will move away as they are being attacked too often. this creates a loophole balance cap and stops just having 1 area with all the top agents.


You're flat out saying here that the level of agents in the area is going to change. Now, either you can't actually remove all of a level of agent for a corp from an area (in which case the whole moving and level change thing is kinda pointless) or it's possible to no longer have Level 4 agents in an area. In the latter case then you're forcing people to move around because they either no longer have standings to accept missions from those agents or a ship that can do them. In the former you're basically just spamming a ton of low level agents everywhere for no reason.

You're also just kind of waving around the word "balance" like a wand. You want missions to have harder rats that challenge players and make some missions incompletable, with the heavy implication that this would apply even to top-tier mission ships, but you're also saying that rewards and difficulty would stay the same, those two things are directly contradictory.
Cade Windstalker
#27 - 2017-03-27 18:14:58 UTC
Danger Russ wrote:
no no no

new players cant do lvl 4 missions straight away so have to do lvl 1 first so all lvl missions actually get done, which is what i was saying.

and you state this fact that lvl 1-3 missions are pointless and just for progression, now that is bad gameplay and you want to keep it??? you are forced to progress to lvl 4 missions and fly a BS to do so. at least with my suggestion all missions would now be more worth doing, and more based on ship class.

ok ok ok my numbers are not perfect not even good, but that is not for me to decide. i used those numbers to show how this would play out, using round numbers in this way just shows the progression easier

if only you could see past how missions work now, you seem to be stuck forcing current mechanics into my idea which obviously wont work


This is just an unrealistic expectation, Level 1-3 missions being just progression or for things like standings grinding isn't bad gameplay. There's tons of content like this in every MMO that just exists to get people past it and to the "end-game" content. For missions Level 4s are one of the end-game options. That doesn't make Level 1-3 missions pointless, it means they serve a transitional and somewhat niche purpose.

Expecting people to do Level 1-3 missions when they have lower rewards is just silly. If you balance the rewards so they pay out equivalent per time to Level 4s then people will find the mission level that pays the best and do that. That's also ignoring all of the problems with actually doing this, like that a large chunk of mission rewards come from rat bounties and those scale with rat difficulty.

As for the numbers, it's not your numbers that have a problem it's the general concept. No one that I'm aware of has found a way to effectively balance truly random content, some games have it but they don't pretend it's balanced, they just have a low penalty for failure. The same goes for making individual rats harder but keeping the overall mission difficulty the same, and allowing people to make the same income off of the missions in question, those are mutually contradictory goals.

Let me repeat again what I said above, if you don't explain something then I have to assume. It's not even odd that I'm assuming that the thing you're saying you want to change and using already existing terms is going to bear some resemblance to the thing you're changing it into.

It's not that you need to flesh your idea out with numbers, but you need to actually have a completed idea, and what you seem to have is a few general concepts and a big amorphous blob labeled "implied assumptions needed for this idea to not be bad" which is just... what?

Danger Russ wrote:
In most mission hubs the change of agent would be more like
simple eg
You have a lvl3 agent for caldari provisions and a lvl 4 agent for caldari navy, they would be replaced with a lvl 3 caldari navy and a lvl 4 caldari provisions

and with the change in how missions are generated if you wanted to keep running missions for the same corp you could drop down to lvl 3 missions without a big hit in payouts, as you would get less payout per mission but be able to complete more missions


This doesn't work.

Most people run based on per-corp standings, so I may be able to run Level 4 missions with Caldari Navy but only Level 1s for Caldari Provisions. Now, when the mission level changes, I can't run Level 4s anymore. I could swap over to Level 3s but a Battleship physically can't do some Level 3s, which means I need a different ship as well.

On the flip side if I can only run Level 3s for Caldari Provisions and it jumps up to a Level 4 agent I'm screwed, I can't run anymore. Even if I have the standings for the now up-tiered agent I may not even have a ship that can do Level 4s, considering people often start Level 3s in a Cruiser and a BC can *barely* do some L4s.

If you'd like me to explain the issue with this whole difficulty/payouts/completion time trifecta of contradiction you've worked out I can give it a shot as well.

Danger Russ wrote:
as for players abusing the system and making agents move where they shouldnt, they wouldnt be allowed as standings wouldnt allow an enemy agent to rent an office in your space. much like how NPC stations cant be found in the wrong place now.


This is also not correct, every single faction has at least one corp with agents outside their borders to allow for standings repair if you can't enter a faction's space without being shot.

Also you can have systems with agents of completely different faction in the same system, so combining that with the above you might have quite a standings debt to work through if all the agents you can run for get replaced with agents of another faction.
Danger Russ
Overproof Industries Outernational
#28 - 2017-03-27 21:12:31 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
.


yes the OP is probably too brief, but i came here with more of a concept for discussion and left things very general about how they would actually work, yes there would be some big changes needed but any rework of PVE that is gonna have any impact would need to be big. and i dont think that is a problem, we are going through alot of big changes currently and PVE is 1 of the oldest things left untouched.

and yes i can see some of the points you are making are due to the way i have explained an example and you have took that as though i am implying it differently

you said i was flat out saying agent levels were going to change when i only said it would change the level of agent needed in the area, meaning you cant just keep improving an area, and agents moving away would just mean less choice.

and in some cases this may require you to move around maybe 1-2 jumps but this would have to be done so that doing so would be rewarded

yes would need to have new agents spammed all over not just low level, but this would be needed to include agents in structures, this would take some thought to get right but wouldnt be as bad as i think your thinking

yes i have used balance in a broad way, maybe too much.

i want the individual rats to be harder with less of them, i want more challenge for the player than warp in - shoot all rats - warp out - profit. if piloting skill and reading the field (choosing who to shoot, when, from where and even when to run away) was more important and with missions not all being documented everywhere, this would bring back the challenge

as to keeping rewards and difficulty the same i mean in general/overall. as an example lvl 4 missions in a BS can be anything from a few ships which takes 5min to an extravaganza which takes 30-40min which averages out at a certain isk/hr depending on your skills, with my idea players would still make the same isk/hr in the same ship with the same skills. and with some missions being impossible, individual missions would have to be raised to compensate.

**EvE doesnt have end game content its what you make it. AND Bigger doesnt mean better**

but this EvE concept doesnt hold true for missions with how you say it. and this is what i want to change

again i think uve just thought way past what i have explained and assumed too much (assumptions being the mother of all.....)
i have had alot more time to think about all the implications than you and most of what you say is right if done how your thinking. and i did come with a concept to be discussed, you just didnt let me get that far hahaha

now as far as the standings and changing which missions you do and are available. this is another change i left out. and maybe should expand more on

as far as im aware the NPC stations wernt populated manually and were all generated by the game, so the same system used for that would allow agents to be controlled and organised in the same way. yes i know factions have stations in other factions space but they are only allowed small numbers and i was saying the spread would be similar to how it is now.

i can run missions for most corps, not due to corp standing but due to my faction standing, so corp standings could be more dependent on faction standing, or having a good standing with a certain corp could influence the standing with other related corps to make things easier, players starting off would be able to gain a wider standing range so should only be a small adjustment

and with these new missions the level difference wouldnt be as important so it wouldnt be a game breaker if you wanted to drop to lvl 3 missions in your BS. and is more a trade off, you are now forced to have more choice on how you run missions

i will try to expand on how missions and agents would work in more detail but that involves explaining things from different points so will have to be later
Cade Windstalker
#29 - 2017-03-28 14:53:41 UTC
A quick few things to explain that you seem to be missing as background.

More agents in space is strictly better than fewer, this is why the existing mission hubs aren't based around sec status but proximity of multiple Level 4 agents. The more Level 4 agents you have access to then the less downtime you have from skipping missions and the more you can safely skip missions to cherry pick the ones with the highest payout per time spent. It also means you can run around in a fast ship picking up missions, go grab your mission ship, and then run them all in sequence, but that's mostly icing on the cake at that point.

Agents in structures is just kind of a poor idea in general. It's extremely easy to throw up a lot of Citadels in a remote system and build an ideal mission environment. Yes, there are ways within your idea this *could* be balanced, but they mostly end up with agents in structures not being really worthwhile, or run into the same sort of balance problems having agents move around or change level.

Danger Russ wrote:
and yes i can see some of the points you are making are due to the way i have explained an example and you have took that as though i am implying it differently

you said i was flat out saying agent levels were going to change when i only said it would change the level of agent needed in the area, meaning you cant just keep improving an area, and agents moving away would just mean less choice.


This is you not making yourself clear. There are too many things you either don't understand about the existing mission system and its mechanical minutia or assumptions that you're leaving unstated that lead to erroneous conclusions. You don't need to provide hard numbers, but you do need to provide a reasonably fleshed out idea, you're just hand waving a lot of stuff with "oh that'll be balanced", seemingly without actually considering how that might actually be done.

Danger Russ wrote:
i want the individual rats to be harder with less of them, i want more challenge for the player than warp in - shoot all rats - warp out - profit. if piloting skill and reading the field (choosing who to shoot, when, from where and even when to run away) was more important and with missions not all being documented everywhere, this would bring back the challenge

as to keeping rewards and difficulty the same i mean in general/overall. as an example lvl 4 missions in a BS can be anything from a few ships which takes 5min to an extravaganza which takes 30-40min which averages out at a certain isk/hr depending on your skills, with my idea players would still make the same isk/hr in the same ship with the same skills. and with some missions being impossible, individual missions would have to be raised to compensate.


Your understanding of mission rewards is basic at best.

First off, you are never going to get PvE away from the basic concept of "warp in, shoot rats, warp off" and still have it be balanced. PvE can't have a high chance of killing the player or no one will do it because the point of PvE is to make money. That means that you have to put hard restrictions on even semi-randomized spawns so they fall within certain parameters.

This is not negotiable or mutable, PvE *has* to pay. You may say that *you* would do PvE that's super challenging but most people won't, and there's no way CCP can justify spending the kind of effort that a major PvE feature would require (let alone this mission rework of yours) on a system almost no one will use.

Anything that's semi-random and predictably rewarding will be systemized in short order. Incursion rats are like this, the spawns are random within parameters and people just know what to shoot first, I can literally fit everything you need to know about target priority for Incursions on a single piece of paper with plenty of room for formatting.

What this means is that jacking up the difficulty, especially by making the average rat harder and cutting the numbers, just hurts newer players. There is a *huge* difference between what you can do in a T1 BS and what you can do in a Faction and Deadspace fit Pirate BS or Marauder. When I say there is no way for you to make missions difficult without unfairly punishing newer players this is what I mean.

That brings me to missions like AE. These longer missions with more rats can be done *very* quickly in a high end missioning ship, and that's where the majority of rewards come from in high end mission running, the rat bounties. AE can be done in comfortably less than 20 minutes including the bonus room, probably just about 10 if you know what you're doing. This makes AE pay *much* better for a high skill pilot than those other faster missions that generally pay better for a lower skill player.

Danger Russ wrote:
**EvE doesnt have end game content its what you make it. AND Bigger doesnt mean better**

but this EvE concept doesnt hold true for missions with how you say it. and this is what i want to change


**It does for PvE!**

Always has, pretty much always will, because if everything pays the same then there's no motivation to progress or risk bigger ships seeking better payouts. Within various types of PvE and areas of space you have plenty of choice, PvE by its very nature runs on its own internal risk/reward curve that does not and should not follow the general view of "you can do anything!" because the reward component of risk/reward in PvE is fixed and very tangible, as opposed to taking a 200m ship out for PvE vs a 100m one where the reward is less easily measured in numbers. With PvE I can look at my wallet and the time spent and tell you what my reward is for one ship and fit vs another.
Cade Windstalker
#30 - 2017-03-28 14:56:29 UTC
Danger Russ wrote:
as far as im aware the NPC stations wernt populated manually and were all generated by the game, so the same system used for that would allow agents to be controlled and organised in the same way. yes i know factions have stations in other factions space but they are only allowed small numbers and i was saying the spread would be similar to how it is now.


This is not correct, at least not meaningfully correct. Agents and Stations are static data, they're not meant to be dynamic they exist in a database and huge chunks of the game assumes that these features won't change or move around except by a very hard and manual back-end database change.

My point about different factions and stations was to illustrate that having different corps in a system trade agent levels doesn't work, neither does having agents move around.

Your idea and your dancing around the holes I'm poking in this whole agent movement idea seem to boil down to basically having an agent of each type and level in each system with a station for that corp, which is a bit ridiculous and unnecessary. If this is incorrect then please elaborate further and put down what you want this whole agent movement thing to look like in one place, because so far you've got a vague initial concept and a whole bunch of "no, not like that" in response to criticism.

Danger Russ wrote:
i can run missions for most corps, not due to corp standing but due to my faction standing, so corp standings could be more dependent on faction standing, or having a good standing with a certain corp could influence the standing with other related corps to make things easier, players starting off would be able to gain a wider standing range so should only be a small adjustment


This isn't remotely how standings work currently. Right now, to run Level 4 missions with an agent, you need a Standing of 5.0 or greater with that agent. This can either come from Agent, Corp, or Faction standings. Corp standings are *completely independent* from Faction standings except that certain events can change both at the same time.

Faction standings are *much* harder to build up and maintain than corp standings, and most players don't have good standings with all factions.

This would *not* be a small adjustment, it would massively devalue the work people with very good faction standings have put into them and would require a complete rework of the NPC standings system.

Danger Russ wrote:
and with these new missions the level difference wouldnt be as important so it wouldnt be a game breaker if you wanted to drop to lvl 3 missions in your BS. and is more a trade off, you are now forced to have more choice on how you run missions


This wouldn't work. The reason you can't do Level 3s in a Battleship is because many of the missions don't allow Battleships. The reason they don't allow Battleships is to preserve the payout curve. If you make Level 3s doable in a Cruiser as they are now but payout as much or almost as much as a Level 4 then the answer becomes do Level 3s in a Battleship since they can do them *much* faster with an appropriate fit than a Cruiser can.

Oh, and I completely forgot about the impact this would have on Pirate missions in Low and Null. If a Level 1 pays anything like what a Level 4 does then you just go do Level 1s, because pirate missions have *way* better rewards than high-sec missions, and the ship you're risking matters even more because people are trying to hunt you down and kill you while you mission.

I think what you want here just isn't realistic. It conflicts with a basic tenet of PvE in Eve which is that you get more reward by risking more. You're also running afoul of all sorts of basic game architecture (which I've tried to avoid bringing up) and a ton of basic gameplay issues. I know your view on this stuff is "well just change it, this will be better" but I'm really not convinced it will be, and the people who stand to lose the most from your system are the newbies.
Previous page12