Feedback on mission sharing and abandoning

With three people we fleeted up to grind standings for a faction as an endgoal, and it was a miserable experience to share the rewards. The game incentivizes it by prominently featuring this option, but I feel it is better to not have it. Or to rephrase it, limited to missions with a fleet sign-up.

Because the rewards are divided exactly by three it is ultimately bad for everyone, when running seperate missions.

A person having higher level missions than the others just loses money. I could see a usecase where only the standings get shared instead of isk, in case that high level player has the desired standing already. But this niche is not worth it alone.

For all the other members in a fleet it builds up both pressure and frustrations. Pressure, because normally you don’t want to be leeching, and when somebody takes a break or does something else temporarily it feels frustrating.

Some streamlining would be a benefit. But perhaps all of this was a side-effect of the decision to do a distribution mission grind.

Also the abandon rewards are way too harsh. I lost 0.7 standing to a corporation I had only level 1 access. I have not done it to cheese the system, but because I was annoyed by the mission. Please readjust the missions requiring player-mined materials for the delivery of a manufactured product. There is no good reason to have it structured like this. Make it player-unique materials which is already part of the game’s code.

Nevertheless the penalty should not be this big even if I wanted to abandon it. Design something around this. Feels like an artifact from mid-2000’s gamedesign.

1 Like

Then just select to remember settings and don’t share. Problem solved.

What is the point of fleeting up when you are doing separate missions? Especially when you don’t like sharing standings gains.

I don’t see how this is in game issue. Change your attitude or friends. Or simply leave fleet when you go afk. It’s not like there is timer or limit on fleets…

So you traded your time for standings. I see nothing wrong here.

Why not? Just so you could grind more and faster? You can rise faction standings to almost ignore standing los of declining missions.

You are not wrong here. And it’s good reason why you shouldn’t expect any changes soon. Missions didn’t get any bigger makeover since introduction. Live with it or simply decide to engage with different content.

1 Like

Because we are inexperienced players and did not know any better. We wasted time, because the game pretended this was anyhow viable.

With that attitude I wonder why you bother to answer in feedback threads.

Because feedback has no intrinsic right to be positive. For instance:

Sharing standing gains from higher level missions with people who don’t have the standings are the basis of entire standing farming professions in EVE. No one really cares about the ISK from these missions because the real reward is in the LP for people who run the missions on their own, and in the standings for people who need them for specific purposes like reducing market fees.

The game tells you that you have to face penalties for abandoning missions. The penalties are in place so that people can’t just cherrypick the best missions without any consequences while they discard other less-desireable missions one after another. It’s upsides and downsides like these that still uphold the basic principles or risk vs. reward and trade-offs and benefits for actions that EVE was designed around in the 2000s, and which made it such a successful game. That you don’t understand or don’t want to understand these principles is irrelevant to the positive impacts these mechanics have to the game.

Besides: You learned your lesson early on and no know to be more careful with your mission picking. This works exactly as intended: you are supposed to learn the lessons – both good and bad – early on so that you can put them to good use later on and don’t have to suffer certain consequences, for instance mission abort penalties, by mistake but based on informed decisions. This mechanic worked perfectly fine in your case.

The people joined this fleet knowing what their respective standing are, what they can do and what not. And if you had someone with L4 standings in your fleet, I bet that this person ran the missions so that you newbies could progress faster to higher levels.

If someone goes AFK, you tell them to move to an afk squad so that you can remove them from the fleet or to leave fleet on their own and rejoin when they are back. This is called player agency to do things on their own and how they desire them to be done. Use the tools available to you.

All in all: Your suggestions and your frustration are largely the result of lack of information and knowledge. This can be solved by using the available tools like mission descriptions and walkthroughs, agent finder and talking to other people about specific missions. The penalties are perfectly fine in the context of EVE’s benefits-and-tradeoff-paradigm, and reward sharing in fleets is also fine and offers tools already to finetune the sharing.


I think mission rewards should be awarded individually, not shared.

I guess technically you end up earning more isk because the mossions get done faster.

You can decide to share mission rewards or not for each mission or remember the setting for all fleets.

Then don’t share them?

1 Like

That wouldn’t be very nice to my corp mates.

Cheers guise k thanx bye XD

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.