Jump to content

[Discussion] DevBlog: The Mission System


NQ-Naunet
 Share

Recommended Posts

-Your mockups are missing anything that shows the weight or volume of a material to be transported. This information is going to be important to the applicants so they can know if they can actually do the job, so please don’t forget it in the proper release of the feature.

 

-If the rating system allows a single avatar to give multiple reviews to another avatar in any way, this system will almost immediately become pointless. If it is 1 review per mission, someone will just give their alt missions to move a handful of dirt back and forth between containers to rack up reviews until they look good and can scam people. Likewise, it would be advisable to separate reviews by things like faction and active/inactive accounts, lest people find the system entirely not worth trusting via a faction's ability to just collectively upvote each of its members with a lot of in-house "move 1L of dirt" missions.

 

-"Destruction of the destination container does not fail the mission..." seems a bit confusing to me. Are you saying the loss of the destination returns the collateral to the hauler? If not then does that mean it vanishes in to the void if the destination is lost/removed?

If it goes to the mission-giver at any point (say, after the time expires), it seems like it risks people creating hauling missions that require high-collateral and then just removing the destination container (or shooting it) once someone accepts it. If the rating system is not fool-proof this will be a major issue that will deter people from taking such missions.

---On a related note, is there a more immediate solution than "they'll get downvoted eventually” to someone just claiming a bunch of hexes, making them un-diggable, and then burying the destination more than 2km underground?

 

-If I am understanding what I am looking at correctly, it seems as though missions require the person giving them to choose which applicant gets the job. While it makes sense for the theoretical event of someone hauling something either to or from a location in pvp space out of house (I know it will happen, but there is an argument to be made as to whether or not it will ever be a good idea), it does run the risk of bogging things down with people playing in different time zones. It would be advisable to include an "accept first applicant" checkbox do deal with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I've thought about it, I've basically come to the conclusion that the mission system is too little, too late.  The destruction of industry in the last patch basically resulted in mining being the major activity in the game.  For me personally this means by the time the mission board drops I'll be sitting on about a billion quanta or so.  So, hauling some one else's cargo for a relative pittance  isn't going to provide much incentive.  Folk's building and selling ships at the moment also don't seem to be suffering much difficulty in sourcing elements or other parts for those ships.

 

There needs to be more to do in the game.  At this point the only feature I see is an over haul of the combat system to something that doesn't completely and utterly suck and to give it a meaningful purpose like territorial conquest rather than just a means for some wanker to get his jollies ruining someone's day.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Astrodisiac said:

So the missions will have a predictable flight path and pirates can just sit and wait.... yeah this going to to go so well.


I brought your concern to the team, and they shared their thoughts:
 

"Missions have a predetermined source and destination points, yes, but that's no different than any other flight from planet A to planet B. Pilots don't have to take direct routes between the source and destination points. Also, a red warning message will appear if the mission leaves a safe zone, which should make strategizing easier. Try indirect routes, pay attention to the warnings and don't name yourself something conspicuous like "Mission Hauler" and you should be fine. ;)"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think there will be enough incentive for completing these missions if the players are the ones setting prices on them.    lets just say someone is hired to take a load of guns to another market but only getting paid 10 mill, the guns are worth 40.  Hmmm people would take the guns rather than make delivery.   

 

The reputation system needs to be along with this rollout.     

My suggestion is make slow several rollout in an order like   

rework risk vs reward system  because PVP is not worth doing without the reward ;)

Asteroids   < gives PVP incentive 

PVP revamp   <makes it better 
mission system with rep system 

 
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Moosegun said:

Sorry but the whole argument that someone who is a pirate is just a griefer or psycho is just complete rubbish, will pretty much completely devalues your opinion.  Pirates are just players, the same as you, who have just as much right to be in the game and to ply their trade as anyone else.  Where is the risk to the pirate? it should be the security you have brought with you, if you decided to travel alone and unarmed it is not the pirates fault, they are a pirate.  

I doubt "it's not the rapist fault he's a rapist". Or, "the pretty girl shouldn't have been walking alone" are very solid moral or legal defenses.

 

The idea that haulers need to engage in an arms race is also a joke. Both in terms of logic (there is no example historically of pirates being in ships that could go toe to toe with top of the line military vessels)  and in game where even in a decked out hauler, combat is basically predetermined by load out or at best a button pushing race.  So basically at best you have a player being forced to participate in an aspect of gameplay that is neither fun or profitable just so some bent character can get his rocks off. 

 

It's not really about choice of game play it's more about a poorly developed combat mechanic that doesn't really give players much choice.  As a pirate there isn't much choice but to be a murder hobo and as a hauler there isn't much choice other than to completely avoid combat.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Fembot68 said:

I don't think there will be enough incentive for completing these missions if the players are the ones setting prices on them.    lets just say someone is hired to take a load of guns to another market but only getting paid 10 mill, the guns are worth 40.  Hmmm people would take the guns rather than make delivery.   

Which is why the collateral would be 50 million, if not 100.. just in case..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kruzer said:

I doubt "it's ....

i think you're pushing it here.. by a lot. Frankly it's uncalled for as a compare IMO.

 

3 minutes ago, Kruzer said:

The idea that haulers need to engage in an arms race is also a joke.

True but I get the argument even when I do not agree. 

 

I understand that from the perspective of a player who is focused on combat PVP, the counter is aggression. It's short sighted and lacking imagination sure, but I get it. Many in the "PVP camp" would argue that Warp is unfair as why can't you bring fiends and fit guns? Again, that is arguing what you know and look for, not what is actually a balanced mechanic in game. As non combatant players we need to get counters that do not force us to shoot guns but still provide enough of a protection or mitigation of risk to make it worth that risk. That's coming but not just yet and while it's not here, we will continue to use warp.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Kruzer said:

It's not really about choice of game play it's more about a poorly developed combat mechanic that doesn't really give players much choice.  As a pirate there isn't much choice but to be a murder hobo and as a hauler there isn't much choice other than to completely avoid combat.  

pretty much this, I can agree.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Howdy.

 

first of all, I dont see any sense in Fighting over a specific point of view. The fight PvP vs "others" is most often simply a proof that someone, on either side, is not able to show any posibility to change his point of view. That is simply the same as fighting about religions. So many people died, and it simply proofs human nature.

 

Get beyond that, just in the sense of "building a civilization", and grow with the discussion.

 

I usually see myself as carebear just because I usually prefer the "High-Sec"-Style gameplay. I play competitive Games as well, but other type of games then. However, when looking at Games, I always look at those from a "game-mechanics" perspective and trying to understand and see the big picture.

 

If youre in for a good fight, you dont want others to be forced into PvP just to be shot down by you, there is no challenge in doing that.

If you dont want to participate in PvP (and yes, thats promised at the Homepage that you wont ever be forced into PvP if you dont want to) dont ask for it to be easy if you do PvP, or that you can avoid it all times. Passing the PvP-Zone means PvP, sooner or later.

 

At this Point, many mechanics are missing, and constantly whining about having noone to shoot at is pathetic, other people have the same problems with their playstyle.

 

Of course those Missions should be doable within the mechanics of the game. Warping means suffer in profit for being faster and just maybe safer, because those Missions will be there when the savezones as they are now are gone (Outer Planets etc.). So dont think of the things as they are now, keep in mind the big picture.

 

Risk vs. Reward does not mean there has to be PvP involved in the form of Pew Pew. PvP is not only shooting at each other. There are way more aspects of PvP and just because because it is not Pew Pew and you like Pew Pew is no reason to complain :D

 

For me, PvP sucks at the moment because PvP sucks. There is no real purpose for PvP other than to want to Pew Pew, and because there is no reward its simply way to expensive and its a hobby for the rich. This is what needs to be changed.

 

Besides that, there is no real reason why such mission wont point to the PvP-Zone, it was stated clearly that there is an indicator showing that. If the NPCs would give Missions to the PvP-Zone, even for hauling stuff, with a really high reward, where the heck is the problem? I still cant see it.

 

We need Systems and mechanics for all type of players. Otherwise nobody plays, and then there is no PvP as well. Not on the Markets, not on the Battlefield.

 

This System as a whole is tricky enough to balance. Will there be big Cargos? If I use my AGG-Ship, will I even have a chance to fullfill it within the Time (at 4m/s?). Can it be exploited? (It for sure will, plenty of possible exploits to be taken care of). Or will we only se courier-Missions? What would be the point of hunting down hundreds of XS-Courier-Ships with low-value-cargo?

 

I am a Hauler, and I doubt that those Missions will pay off for an L-Core hauler, but I hope we will get something above what fits into an S-Container.

 

At the end of the day, I want Missions that are worth taking the Risk for a group of people to travel together through the PvP-Zone to get the job done. But lets face it, who wants to take the Risk to loose a 100Mio Ship for a 2 Mio Mission? Or even for 20?

 

However, to not be called a liar because I said I want to see the big picture: It should be possible to place an item, or a Core, within the PvP-Zone, just like a Warp-Beacon maybe, that from there on acts as possible Mission Target the NPC can create Missions for. Even if its just for Testing-Purposes of the Mission-System. If those Missions then give very high rewards it may give PvP a purpose. On one Hand to create those POIs by the Players/Organisations, and as well as sort of Hotspots for PvP, because some people will for sure then give it a try. If I, as someone who wants to participate in PvP preferably with a Hauler, I see no point in fyling without warp if I risk basically all my progress in the game by loosing my ship. However, Ship-Insurance as part of the Mission, or sort of a leased Ship just for the Mission (deliver Ship XY to Place Z) would solve that issue as well and would be able to integrate this with some PvP-Aspects in a way people would give PvP a try.

 

The key is not to force people into a fight, they key is to find way they take the risk vs. reward and not end up at "not worth the risk". Forcing People into PvP means loosing them for the game, and by that means loosing em for PvP. That helps nobody. I want to see that PvP makes sense with an effort people can take. And at the moment I dont see "big organisations" in PvP, its simply way to expensive for small groups or solo-players, and group-missions arent a thing yet, or are they?

 

Just a few words to the original Post: I would have loved to see something new, and more detailed. Is it that hard to give some examples? Or to add maybe a Video from the Dev-Server going thorugh the interface and a mission? Then there may be less fight and more discussion about the topic as such.

 

I hope I threw some points into the discussion which are not pure "my standpoint" :D I am interested in the PvP-Aspect of the game as well, but I see no point in shooting at easy prey like clay-pigeons and to loose even more players.

 

Edit: Just Imagine an Org would get a share on every Mission to such a POI placed by that Org. If thats a solid source of Income it would give meaning to fight over such a place, to prevent other Orgas to run their own Place and decrease your share on the "Mission" Market. This could be a great test for the upcoming territory warfare and reward Pew Pew as well as other playstyles.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Kruzer said:

I doubt "it's not the rapist fault he's a rapist". Or, "the pretty girl shouldn't have been walking alone" are very solid moral or legal defenses.

 

The idea that haulers need to engage in an arms race is also a joke. Both in terms of logic (there is no example historically of pirates being in ships that could go toe to toe with top of the line military vessels)  and in game where even in a decked out hauler, combat is basically predetermined by load out or at best a button pushing race.  So basically at best you have a player being forced to participate in an aspect of gameplay that is neither fun or profitable just so some bent character can get his rocks off. 

 

It's not really about choice of game play it's more about a poorly developed combat mechanic that doesn't really give players much choice.  As a pirate there isn't much choice but to be a murder hobo and as a hauler there isn't much choice other than to completely avoid combat.  

I mean, you've said the solution to your problems "there is no example historically of pirates being in ships that could go toe to toe with top of the line military vessels", make sure to surround your hauler with these then, and exactly as you said, don't put guns on your hauler, that would be stupid, put a second ship, designed to have guns on it to protect you, make it a top of the line military vessel just in case there is a pirate around. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

i think you're pushing it here.. by a lot. Frankly it's uncalled for as a compare IMO.

 

Pushing it yes. Uncalled for not really. Water it down to theft and leave a car door unlocked.  The logic still holds.  I find the idea that piracy is a legitimate trade or adds anything to the game dubious but somewhat understandable.  However, I find pirates crying that it is too hard to off someone in the game kind of funny.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, smurfenq said:

I mean, you've said the solution to your problems "there is no example historically of pirates being in ships that could go toe to toe with top of the line military vessels", make sure to surround your hauler with these then, and exactly as you said, don't put guns on your hauler, that would be stupid, put a second ship, designed to have guns on it to protect you, make it a top of the line military vessel just in case there is a pirate around. 

Warping isn't the free pass you seem to think it is. I actually rarely warp to my destination as it would just be too expensive 800-1000 cells so like most I'm hauling 'off pipe' between planets.  So rather than crying to NQ for any 'easy button' to hobble warp, why don't you adjust your gameplay and hire a fleet of friends to scout for haulers who are slow boating?

 

Also, to address your other idea that haulers make billions by 'pressing 2 buttons',  I know of nobody who is making tons of money merely hauling.  At most, they are making millions transporting and selling ores that they spent hours and hours mining.  So if I'm mistaken, let me know and I'll promptly be changing careers. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Kruzer said:

Also, to address your other idea that haulers make billions by 'pressing 2 buttons',  I know of nobody who is making tons of money merely hauling.  At most, they are making millions transporting and selling ores that they spent hours and hours mining.  So if I'm mistaken, let me know and I'll promptly be changing careers. 

I dont know if you remember, but this thread is about mission system, which would make warping cargo a very profitable career. And i never mentioned anything about billions not even close. And if you now slowboat so often and rarely/never get caught, why would slowboating hauling missions be a problem then? I'd be all for warping mission cargo when safezones are gone btw. It's just that at the moment, it would be just another way of making money compeltely inside the safe zone that is a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, smurfenq said:

I dont know if you remember, but this thread is about mission system, which would make warping cargo a very profitable career. And i never mentioned anything about billions not even close. And if you now slowboat so often and rarely/never get caught, why would slowboating hauling missions be a problem then? I'd be all for warping mission cargo when safezones are gone btw. It's just that at the moment, it would be just another way of making money compeltely inside the safe zone that is a problem.

Fair enough, but even the idea that mission rewards for merely hauling are going to be so profitable that warping will be economical is quite the speculation.  Slow boating is not a problem, I choose to do it. Having no choice but to do it because some 'pirate' finds it too hard to kill players would be a problem.  I don't think the safe zones are going anywhere any time soon. Certainly not the 'Triangle'.

 

You want money making outside the safe zone?  Advocate for Pirates being banished from the safe zone.  The mission board would be full of high value bounty missions that would actually be doable with pirates not being able to hide in them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, smurfenq said:

I dont know if you remember, but this thread is about mission system, which would make warping cargo a very profitable career. 

That will all depend.. It's not as easy as that.

 

We'll need to see if the mechanic NQ is going to be implementing over the next year or so (I expect) wil bring anything not already being provided by players as in general, the purpose NQ sees for this mechanic is coming in too late  as players have already set it up themselves and for new players it will hardly be feasible to take hauling contracts when they first need to get a ship.. which takes money .. which for them will mean to go mining. my hauler can make a good living out of hauling as it is, he does not need the mission system for that.

 

But I can see, after the mission system remains mostly unused, how NQ will try and shove it down people's throats anyway as they think it is the one thing that will glue everything together and save the game.

 

What NQ needs to do is get out of the way, do what they set out to do, which is to create and provide the sandbox, and add a proper API so players can then fill in the blanks, creating tools and apps that can be used to make the game work. If NQ would just let us play the game and focus on fixing bugs and overall making sure the server and backend runs as it should , not in the ductaped together state it is now. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't seem very useful to me, particularly not for new players.  Generally speaking it's going to be quicker and easier for someone to go and do small hauling jobs themselves than it is to mess about with creating a mission, waiting for it to be done, etc.  For larger hauling jobs, the markets are still more or less wrecked after the 0.23 change (and the items which are still more profitable are soon to be wrecked even more because of the cheap schematic blunder) meaning that profit margins are already slim.  That's going to mean that an industrialist wanting to someone haul their produce to market, for example, isn't going to want to pay more than a few % of the cost of the goods, making the reward a tiny percentage of the collateral.  That's not something a new player can really engage in is it?  Say, for example, in order to make 1 million quanta you need to put 20+ million on the line as collateral. 

Additionally in order to make it time-efficient for the issuer they're probably going to want large volumes shipped, which means you now need a large-cargo ship and big blob of collateral in order to make a relatively small profit.

The fundamental problem here is that many people in the game have very few interesting things to do right now and I expect most are just mining and selling to bots because that's what works.  And you want those people to effectively create interesting content for other players via missions when they're struggling to find content for themselves.  How about introducing something more meaningful to actually spend time doing first?  Or just un-break  the broken stuff like the market (which was working and lots of fun before 0.23)....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

"Both the Job Forum and the Mission system have the possibility to rate the interaction for the issuer and the responder. Scores between 0 and 5 are attached to players as responders or issuers of missions"

 

The question here is how will NQ prevent a mission giver from trolling the mission taker and still give a low score on a perfectly executed mission, effectively lowering the chances for the mission taker to get new missions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, blazemonger said:

 

The question here is how will NQ prevent a mission giver from trolling the mission taker and still give a low score on a perfectly executed mission, effectively lowering the chances for the mission taker to get new missions?

 Simple, you need a rating system for raters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Olmeca_Gold said:

Here are a bunch of ways people can abuse this system presented in the devblog:

 

Method 1: Making it mechanically impossible to complete the mission.

 

- Abuser issues the mission. Puts something of low value in it (e.g. 1 L of quarts).
- Assigns a very high collateral and reward to it.

- Innocent hauler accepts it.

- Abuser scoops the mission container, kill its construct, or does whatever else it takes to mechanically make it impossible to finish the mission.

- Mission fails, abuser gets the collateral in exchange of 1 L of quartz.

 

Solution: Add "if something happens to the mission containers" rule to cases in which the mission is voided.

 

Method 2: Camping the mission destinations. 

 

- The same steps as above. Except in the 4th step, the abuser(s) will select a PvP space construct as either origin or the destination. They will then camp it for both free kills and also the collateral money.

 

Solution: Unfortunately I suggest an elimination of Space Stations in PvP space as mission origins or destinations.

 

Method 3: Contracting extremely massive or high volume stuff.

 

- The same steps as above. Except in the 4th step, the abuser(s) will issue the mission for impossibly heavy or large stuff.

 

Solution: The mass/volume of the stuff should be not only revealed, but also sortable on the Job Forum for the contractor runner quality of life.  

 

Not only that, but hauling contents shouldn't be really be hidden from the mission runner. I am sure there are more abuses waiting to happen around this that I am missing.

 

My 2 Cents:

 

Taking contracts from Eve and calling them missions is highly misleading for both your existing players and for new players (even your shareholders). These aren't missions. If you call them missions post-beta, the new players will be disappointed when they begin doing them after they hear there are missions in DU and buying the game.

 

Contracts are great to have in DU. They have greater potential than Eve as well. One thing that doesn't exist for example is a "kill" contract for a specific ship. That can be achieved in DU with modifications to the RDMS system plus adding the type to the contracts.

 

Friendly Note:

 

These are all very grave issues that are also easy to predict. For the love of god, please hire a designer with extensive knowledge of Eve history and mechanics to avoid issues arose in that game. You don't have to reinvent the wheel with each feature. You can even hire me as a remote feature consultant for 1000 euros a month :P.

You do realise that the missions are optional and you will know the location, so you will know if you are going into pvp space or not.  So it is up to you if you want to take that risk?  People have brains, like in real life, you can choose to get an Uber or just jump in a cab outside the venue that sort of thing.  If people make stupid choices, are some point they will have to start paying consequences.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Kruzer said:

I doubt "it's not the rapist fault he's a rapist". Or, "the pretty girl shouldn't have been walking alone" are very solid moral or legal defenses.

You do realise we are talking about pirates here? Pirating doesnt need legal defence, it is illegal by definition.  Go watch pirates of the Caribbean, you will get the jist. This is a game?  also you are massively exaggerating my suggestion.  All it would mean is that some locations would become know potential hot spots for pirates, so those systems might require scouting or security - it creates gameplay for pirate, haulers that dont mind teamwork / risk and security.  Even then you might get lucky and warp into safe zone anyway, just a little bit of risk, in the outer planets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few thoughts here from an owner of an armored large core AGG hauler with 90 large containers. For reference, current dry weight is around 9.5kt and can get off Alioth with 20+ additional kt of cargo.

(1) Ships that can haul rather large amounts of stuff get expensive to warp very quickly. That kills margins and will make a lot of the hauling jobs not even remotely worth the warp. 

* For reference I'm currently paying at least 1185 cells to go from Alioth to Lacobus ONE way. 
*Even if I remove all the armor and modify my ship, I'm still paying 875+ cells each way minimum. 

(2) Due to cost, no one in their right mind is even going to consider warping for the kind of missions that require such large ships, or even some of the medium ones unless the mission creator is offering a premium. There's going to be two distinct kinds of player-generated hauling missions for this stuff. Those which are calculated with the intent of catering to slowboating margins, and those calculated with the intent of catering to warp margins. 

All those whining that they won't get a chance to kill the warp haulers... Cry more, you're not entitled to a free lunch, and I can always use more sodium in my factory. Both the creator of the mission and the hauler have every right to pay a premium for speed and safety. That premium should be high and in some ways already is. Most people can't afford pay those rates, and you're going to see plenty of slowboaters on the lanes.

(3) The day is coming for haulers that are armored, armed, and have enough crew to fight off not only solo pirates,  but dedicated hunters. These missions are a step closer in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone wake me up when they put some conflict drivers in the game.  Like man holy F#$& just put in asteroids out in the pvp zone that is good high tier ore for us to fight over.  This mission system I doubt will yield much in the form of conflict. Really feeling let down here.  Starting to ask myself why I am keeping 3 accounts subbed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...