Scaling implementation?

Would it be possible to add in a change so that missions scale in difficulty, payout, and loot, depending on the amount of people going in to do the mission? (could also be applied to sites as the waves progress)
There are other games that do this, and I feel like this could add in a new angle that could help both spice up missions and encourage teamwork (hopefully between more than just yourself with multiple accounts).
Could also make the difficulty selectable as well. Say you want to run a lvl 3 with a t1 frig solo on a (normal, hard, extreme) level to get a better chance at something rare.

Thoughts?

2 Likes

That only makes sense if you

  1. can ensure exactly how many people will be present in the mission. that means, the mission is locked from entry after the number of participants are present.
  2. consider the time of completing the mission is the same. What I mean is, already, having more people in the mission implies for the same amount of time you will complete more missions, thus increase your income.

Nice idea.

Not really. Take rifts in Diablo 3 for example. Difficulty changes in terms of enemy HP and incoming damage as players leave and join.

No. As more join the difficulty scales as mentioned above and the length of time to complete therefore scales sympathetically.

No. There is no reason to give additional incentive to people multiboxing 20 alpha accounts. If your fleet wants more of a change and reward there is content out there for it.

1 Like

dude that’s a cooperative game. Not a MMO.

In eve, the entities (that is eg NPC ships) have fixed stats. Dynamically adapting the stats for once makes no sense, and for two could incur a huge increase in server load.
Grid-wide NPC bonus (eg +10% resist and +10% damage) would be better but then people could game it to increase their income. And maybe also have a huge impact on the server.

what ?

Scaling of any kind probably would not work well in Eve. Only suggestion for missions, if they ever get updated, is to do something similar to abyssal space for group play. That choice would have to be made before accepting the mission. Only difference is others will still be able to crash the party as they do now.

This has free ganking written all over it. Think about it, you are on a mission solo, 4 player warp into your dead space increasing the damage of the ships you already have aggro on. You go pop, they loot with no Concord involvement and warp out. All they get is a suspect tag, dock at the nearest station and bam, free loot.

2 Likes

That and I see a guy multi boxing tons of RR nestors.

2 Likes

Censured

I agree with the others who are “no” on this. Scaling works great in co-op games. But you wouldn’t want this in a PvP everywhere game, it would just be too easy to get yourself ganked by neutral “spectators”. And if Abyss sticks around, that should be the first and last of the designed private instances. No more future or re-designed content should ever be made private, IMHO. It goes against the spirit of the game.

So, to clarify, the difficulty would be set when the mission was started, not fluid to make it so anyone showing up to gank would change the outcome.
While I’m anti-gank, I know this is a sandbox and feel the risk/reward setup could be worth it.
However, as pointed out, I do see people taking advantage of the system with multi boxing so I would love a way to fight that if possible, but I suppose that plays into the whole sandbox theory of “do it if you can” or “all’s fair in love and space” mentality.
The possibility of having the mission generate a wormhole for you to enter that you could only get into or out of if you were tagged for the mission is a thought I had that could eliminate the ganking aspect, but that goes into the headaches of implementing the idea.

At the end of the day, I just want more/better content for mission runners.

if the content nets more isk, then the value of isk gets reduced.

If the content nets less isks, then nobody will do your activity even if it’s interesting. (cf resource war)