Right now, Homefront missions payout less isk per player if there are less than 5 players. the optimum amount is when there are 5. This should be adjusted to be the same payout per player because it’s actually more of a challenge to complete the homefront mission if there are 4 players or less. The payout should be like the Incursions payouts. Same per player as number of players increase until a maximum amount of players, after which players get a reduced amount if there are more players.
As an add on, the payout should be made to the fleet that makes the most progress towards the mission objectives. for example in market raid, the first fleet that collects 3 items and deposits them in the freighter should get the reward
No, they’re designed to reward people for community play, not so you can solo it.
This also goes against the spirt of what these things are supposed to be for, a way for people to come together organically. I agree it doesn’t really accomplish that task very well, because you need premade setups to accomplish the task, but there is an overarching design principal behind them.
Instead of turning them into some sort of competitive thing, CCP should just have diminishing rewards for people above the threshold based on contribution. That way you wont have to be all that concerned about seagulls.
And if more than one group are running the same site in earnest? Well, maybe You’ll have to deal with it diplomatically.
Do you have proof of that? As far as can i tell simply increasing the pay for the amount of people doing something is a very bad incentive for getting group play unless your definition of group play is some/most in the group afk’ing
When you give lower reward if less than 5 people are present when maybe 2-3 people would be enough to do it that is some strange design if you ask me. Unless it is designed to encourage multiboxing, then i understand it.
“Here is content that can be done with maybe 2-3 pilots but if you add 2-3 more that just afk you get higher reward” but CCP wouldnt be that stupid?
Nah, it’s designed to encourage players to play together. In many other scenarios, when more than one person is doing content, there’s antagonism between the parties, so the attempt here is to create a situation where people want other people around.
It just fails a bit because the reward doesn’t require contribution.
CCP doesn’t design content for multiboxing, it’s just that a lot of their content is so dull that it allows for it. Even the more intense gameplay, such as pvp, can be multiboxed if someone has high enough apm and the situation allows for it.
Some of these things could be switched up to reflect the intended purpose a bit more.
For example: Change the hacking mini game for certain content to act more like Tetris; that is, design the minigame to require continual need for attention. Once 3 objects are hacked below the threshold required for a successful hack, the trigger gets tripped.
You might not want to… but CCP has a working theory they’ve invested a lot of money into, that people playing together makes them more money… because those players play the game longer. If you disagree with that, that’s fine, but it wont matter, because that’s what CCP already believes, and they develop along those lines.
They do actually. Homefronts for example can’t be soloed… they can be multiboxed… but that’s an entirely another can of worms.
CCP will first have to decide they want to develop content that can’t be multiboxed, before they actually do it.