Forums » Suggestions
So, I've been gone for a bit, and BP was crazy when I left. But it's gotten MORESO now.
Okay, I did some BP last night with three other Itani pilots. Without (much) interference from a lone Serco pilot, we slaughtered bots all night, racking up something like 340 kills? We got +33,900 Combat, +33,900 Light Weap, +33,900 Large Weap, and 8,600,000+ Credits.
This is completely unbalancing. With a few BP events, a player can never have to worry about buying anything ever ever again. The progression to level 10/10/10 can be done in one night, with a dedicated group.
Never mind the economics of it. Racking up 100 million credits would be a simple task, now. Name me something that costs more than 100,000 cr. I mean, come ON!
Once the devs figure out the mission editor, this has to be the FIRST mission they fix. Cut the XP bonus in half, and the money bonus by 90% (YES, reduce credit rewards by a factor of 10).
OR, I guess you could work the other side of the equasion and create items, ships, widgets, and other things that make getting to level 20 important, and that cost 1 million credits each.
Sadly, I think it's too late to fix the BP missions. Damage has been done already. Anyone who does them can rack up a personal fortune rivalling the largest guilds in a matter of a week, and can get enough levels to purchase any of their Nation's ships in a couplea days.
I'd like input on this from guides/devs specifically - I mean, they're AWARE of these crazy rewards?
Okay, I did some BP last night with three other Itani pilots. Without (much) interference from a lone Serco pilot, we slaughtered bots all night, racking up something like 340 kills? We got +33,900 Combat, +33,900 Light Weap, +33,900 Large Weap, and 8,600,000+ Credits.
This is completely unbalancing. With a few BP events, a player can never have to worry about buying anything ever ever again. The progression to level 10/10/10 can be done in one night, with a dedicated group.
Never mind the economics of it. Racking up 100 million credits would be a simple task, now. Name me something that costs more than 100,000 cr. I mean, come ON!
Once the devs figure out the mission editor, this has to be the FIRST mission they fix. Cut the XP bonus in half, and the money bonus by 90% (YES, reduce credit rewards by a factor of 10).
OR, I guess you could work the other side of the equasion and create items, ships, widgets, and other things that make getting to level 20 important, and that cost 1 million credits each.
Sadly, I think it's too late to fix the BP missions. Damage has been done already. Anyone who does them can rack up a personal fortune rivalling the largest guilds in a matter of a week, and can get enough levels to purchase any of their Nation's ships in a couplea days.
I'd like input on this from guides/devs specifically - I mean, they're AWARE of these crazy rewards?
OH MY GOD LOOK AT HOW AWESOMELY I CAN EXPLOIT THIS HORRIBLE BUG!!!
YOU MUST STOP ME AT ONCE!!!!
PLEASE! PLEASE STOP ME! PLEEEEEAAASEEEE!!!
IT'S NOT MY FAULT I CANNOT THINK OR ACT FOR MYSELF, I DEMAND YOU KEEP ME IN CHECK OR I WILL SUE SUE SUE!!!!!!
YOU MUST STOP ME AT ONCE!!!!
PLEASE! PLEASE STOP ME! PLEEEEEAAASEEEE!!!
IT'S NOT MY FAULT I CANNOT THINK OR ACT FOR MYSELF, I DEMAND YOU KEEP ME IN CHECK OR I WILL SUE SUE SUE!!!!!!
Leber's right, but first I think he should keep his mouth shut until I make a bit more $$$
the problem isn't the border patrol PvP rewards, its the border patrol rewards for BOTS.
the game needs to keep track of bot kills vs player kills.
a bot kill should be worth only 20% of what the current XP reward is, and only 10% of the cash reward for each kill.
if the game kept track of each kill individually, (was it a bot or a player that just died?) and adds the appropriate amount to the reward total most of the problem would be solved.
the game needs to keep track of bot kills vs player kills.
a bot kill should be worth only 20% of what the current XP reward is, and only 10% of the cash reward for each kill.
if the game kept track of each kill individually, (was it a bot or a player that just died?) and adds the appropriate amount to the reward total most of the problem would be solved.
I think Leber has brought up an interesting point. I can't think of any valid reason any Itani would need that kind of XP or credits. Please make this exploitable only for Sercos. ;)
Shedu
Shedu
I'd like the BP mission to be changed as follows:
At the beginning of the mission 3 * P bots are spawned in the mission sector, where P is the number of players in the group taking the mission. Serco bots should be spawned in SVGs, and Itani bots in IBGs. No more bots will spawn after the beginning of the mission.
Each bot kill should give 25 points to each combat, light, and heavy weapons XP, and an additional 25 or 50 points to either light or heavy weapons XP, depending on whether the bot was killed by a S or L port weapon. Only the player that made the kill gets this reward.
The group rewards for the mission are only given when only Itani or Serco ships remain in the mission sector. UIT players doing the mission count for the nation they took the mission from, and UIT players not doing the mission do not count for either nation. Only the victorious group(s) (that is, only the group(s) that still have ships in the mission sector when no enemy ships remain in the sector) are given these rewards. The experience rewards should be Kb * 50 + Kp * 200, where Kb is the number of enemy bots killed, and Kp is the number of enemy players killed.
After only one side's ships remain in the mission sector, a new sector is selected to be the mission sector. The player(s) who had been on the mission in the old sector are given the choice to either end their patrol, or to continue the patrol in the new sector. If they choose to continue patroling, the mission starts over in the new sector.
At the beginning of the mission 3 * P bots are spawned in the mission sector, where P is the number of players in the group taking the mission. Serco bots should be spawned in SVGs, and Itani bots in IBGs. No more bots will spawn after the beginning of the mission.
Each bot kill should give 25 points to each combat, light, and heavy weapons XP, and an additional 25 or 50 points to either light or heavy weapons XP, depending on whether the bot was killed by a S or L port weapon. Only the player that made the kill gets this reward.
The group rewards for the mission are only given when only Itani or Serco ships remain in the mission sector. UIT players doing the mission count for the nation they took the mission from, and UIT players not doing the mission do not count for either nation. Only the victorious group(s) (that is, only the group(s) that still have ships in the mission sector when no enemy ships remain in the sector) are given these rewards. The experience rewards should be Kb * 50 + Kp * 200, where Kb is the number of enemy bots killed, and Kp is the number of enemy players killed.
After only one side's ships remain in the mission sector, a new sector is selected to be the mission sector. The player(s) who had been on the mission in the old sector are given the choice to either end their patrol, or to continue the patrol in the new sector. If they choose to continue patroling, the mission starts over in the new sector.
lol genka...
okay, here we go...
1) reward could stand to be nerfed slightly - not the 80-90% reduction spellcast suggested, but perhaps 40%
2) fix the "join/leave group to up bot count" bug (bots are subtracted when someone leaves unless total remaining bot count <3), and make the mission auto-restart when completed, until someone terminates it via mission computer.
3) there should be a bot behavior alteration when humans from both factions are in the sector - no more bots from the race of the larger group are spawned, and present ones leave sector, and bots of the race of the smaller group should number no more than the difference between the combatant groups in sector (if more than one group from each side is participating in BP, it should be calculated as the total number of players taking the mission)
and while I think XP should be balanced by participation, it should not depend on who is in sector at the time (as beolach suggested) who wants to kill 90% of the bots, then die, and not get credit when someone kills the last one? not me...
I like the idea of having the sector change for each mission repitition...
okay, here we go...
1) reward could stand to be nerfed slightly - not the 80-90% reduction spellcast suggested, but perhaps 40%
2) fix the "join/leave group to up bot count" bug (bots are subtracted when someone leaves unless total remaining bot count <3), and make the mission auto-restart when completed, until someone terminates it via mission computer.
3) there should be a bot behavior alteration when humans from both factions are in the sector - no more bots from the race of the larger group are spawned, and present ones leave sector, and bots of the race of the smaller group should number no more than the difference between the combatant groups in sector (if more than one group from each side is participating in BP, it should be calculated as the total number of players taking the mission)
and while I think XP should be balanced by participation, it should not depend on who is in sector at the time (as beolach suggested) who wants to kill 90% of the bots, then die, and not get credit when someone kills the last one? not me...
I like the idea of having the sector change for each mission repitition...
I never said that it would depend on who was in the sector, Cunjo. What I meant was that there be two rewards, one for killing an enemy ship, that is only given to the player that did the killing, and then the reward at the end of the mission, that is given to everyone in the group. If one player kills 90% of the bots, that player will recieve the largest reward, because everyone in the group recieves the same reward for the mission, and that player recieves 90% of the rewards for the kills.
[edit]
I think what may have been unclear in my earlier post is this: if there are two groups doing the BP mission, one from Itani and the other from Serco, then the mission continues until one side clears the sector of all the enemy ships, including the enemy players. So of those two groups, only one can successfully complete the mission, and only one of the groups will recieve the mission rewards; but all of the members of the victorious group will recieve the reward, even any members who are not in the sector at the end of the mission. I hope this makes what I meant more clear.
[/edit]
[edit]
I think what may have been unclear in my earlier post is this: if there are two groups doing the BP mission, one from Itani and the other from Serco, then the mission continues until one side clears the sector of all the enemy ships, including the enemy players. So of those two groups, only one can successfully complete the mission, and only one of the groups will recieve the mission rewards; but all of the members of the victorious group will recieve the reward, even any members who are not in the sector at the end of the mission. I hope this makes what I meant more clear.
[/edit]
"" reward could stand to be nerfed slightly - not the 80-90% reduction spellcast suggested, but perhaps 40%""
i'm not suggesting nerfing the reward if you are up against players, but for bots.. yes a 80 - 90% reduction in XP and monetary reward is definitely in order.
the bots arent even as challenging as a valent assault, they die far too easily and thats the main "exploit" with the border patrol. you can kill bots for hours without much effort.
Additionally the NPC bots need to LEAVE the sector if there is an imbalance, IMO bots + players for the side with fewer players should always work out to 1 less than the players on the other side.
thus if 2 itani and 1 serco are BPing there should be no serco bots. 3 itani and 1 serco would add 1 serco bot. at no time should bots be in sector for the side with more real players... have them immediately turn and head for 3k when the player balance changes.
i'm not suggesting nerfing the reward if you are up against players, but for bots.. yes a 80 - 90% reduction in XP and monetary reward is definitely in order.
the bots arent even as challenging as a valent assault, they die far too easily and thats the main "exploit" with the border patrol. you can kill bots for hours without much effort.
Additionally the NPC bots need to LEAVE the sector if there is an imbalance, IMO bots + players for the side with fewer players should always work out to 1 less than the players on the other side.
thus if 2 itani and 1 serco are BPing there should be no serco bots. 3 itani and 1 serco would add 1 serco bot. at no time should bots be in sector for the side with more real players... have them immediately turn and head for 3k when the player balance changes.
>>"Additionally the NPC bots need to LEAVE the sector if there is an imbalance, IMO bots + players for the side with fewer players should always work out to 1 less than the players on the other side.
thus if 2 itani and 1 serco are BPing there should be no serco bots. 3 itani and 1 serco would add 1 serco bot. at no time should bots be in sector for the side with more real players... have them immediately turn and head for 3k when the player balance changes."<<
100% agree.
thus if 2 itani and 1 serco are BPing there should be no serco bots. 3 itani and 1 serco would add 1 serco bot. at no time should bots be in sector for the side with more real players... have them immediately turn and head for 3k when the player balance changes."<<
100% agree.
That's hard to determine, though. If an Itani or Serco player is in the sector, but not on the mission, do they count? What if it's a Serco with bad Serco standing, but good Itani standing? What if it's a Serco with bad Serco standing, good Itani standing - but is shooting Itani ships? What about UIT who aren't on the mission?
I think it's better to have a certain number of NPC bots (I suggest 3 per member of the group taking the mission), that all launch at the beginning of the mission, and no more launch during the mission. So if 3 Itani players take the mission, then 9 Serco NPC bots are launched. If the players killed 3 bots, and then 3 Serco players took the mission, then 9 Itani bots would be launched. That means that whoever started the mission first would have an advantage, but since either side is just as likely to start the mission first, I don't think that's a problem.
I think it's better to have a certain number of NPC bots (I suggest 3 per member of the group taking the mission), that all launch at the beginning of the mission, and no more launch during the mission. So if 3 Itani players take the mission, then 9 Serco NPC bots are launched. If the players killed 3 bots, and then 3 Serco players took the mission, then 9 Itani bots would be launched. That means that whoever started the mission first would have an advantage, but since either side is just as likely to start the mission first, I don't think that's a problem.
But Border Patrol is supposed to be about fighting other players, not bots. So there's no conceivable reason, really, that there should be three bots per player in the sector. If we did that, what happens when players from the other side join? Do three bots per real player on the opposing team leave?
Barder Patrol as I see it is supposed to be about defending (or invading) the border. Whether that means fighting players or fighting bots or fighting both doesn't matter to me (well, it matters to me the player, 'cause players are more fun, but it doesn't matter to my character: to my character, there's no difference between NPCs and PCs - they're both Cs).
The problem I see with having the NPC bots leave when more players join, is that it's impossible to determine when players are joining. We can guess, but we can't be sure, and that means that it's exploitable, because players can figure out what the game will guess in a certain situation, and then arrange for that to be an incorrect guess. Examples: only players that actually take the mission count. That is exploitable by people who don't take the mission, but enter the mission sector and fight, the same as they would on the mission. Since they aren't on the mission, no bots leave, which means the sides become imbalanced. So it would have to take into account not only the ships that are actually registered in the mission, it also needs to take into account any ships that are in the sector, even if they aren't registered as doing the mission. But there's no way to determine which side those ships are on.
Anyway, the whole point that I'm trying to make is that having NPC bots enter or leave the sector to keep the two sides "balanced" is impossible, because there's no way to accurately determine who's on which side. So I don't think it should even matter whether the sides are balanced or not.
So this is the way I suggest it works: the success trigger for the mission is when the mission sector is completely cleared of enemy ships. The failure trigger is when the mission sector has no more friendly ships (including you). All enemy bots for the mission are launched when the mission is first taken, and no more enemy bots will spawn until the mission is taken again.
So here's a possible way it would work: 3 Itani players form a group, and take the BP mission. As soon as they take it, 9 Serco NPC bots are spawned in the mission sector. The 3 Itani players proceed to the sector, and begin fighting the bots. They kill 3 bots, leaving 6, when 3 Serco players take the mission. This spawns 9 Itani NPC bots in the mission sector. At this point the Itani side has a numbers advantage: 9 Itani bots, and 3 Itani players, vs. 6 Serco bots, and 3 Serco players. But really, the numbers advantage doesn't mean a whole lot, because the mission objective isn't "get a certain number of kills" but is "clear all enemy ships from the sector". So since the bots don't respawn and return to the mission sector, but the players do, the number of bots in the sector doesn't really matter - eventually they will all die, and then it will be down to the players on each side.
Once it's down to just players on both sides, the mission is likely to take a long, long time - unless one side has significantly more players than the other side. So imbalance becomse a good thing - both sides are going to be trying to get reinforcments, so that they can kill all the enemy players before the first enemy player that died gets back into the sector. This is why I suggested that there be rewards for each kill, and the rewards for completing the mission. That way the "losing" side does gain XP, but not as much as the "winning" side.
The problem I see with having the NPC bots leave when more players join, is that it's impossible to determine when players are joining. We can guess, but we can't be sure, and that means that it's exploitable, because players can figure out what the game will guess in a certain situation, and then arrange for that to be an incorrect guess. Examples: only players that actually take the mission count. That is exploitable by people who don't take the mission, but enter the mission sector and fight, the same as they would on the mission. Since they aren't on the mission, no bots leave, which means the sides become imbalanced. So it would have to take into account not only the ships that are actually registered in the mission, it also needs to take into account any ships that are in the sector, even if they aren't registered as doing the mission. But there's no way to determine which side those ships are on.
Anyway, the whole point that I'm trying to make is that having NPC bots enter or leave the sector to keep the two sides "balanced" is impossible, because there's no way to accurately determine who's on which side. So I don't think it should even matter whether the sides are balanced or not.
So this is the way I suggest it works: the success trigger for the mission is when the mission sector is completely cleared of enemy ships. The failure trigger is when the mission sector has no more friendly ships (including you). All enemy bots for the mission are launched when the mission is first taken, and no more enemy bots will spawn until the mission is taken again.
So here's a possible way it would work: 3 Itani players form a group, and take the BP mission. As soon as they take it, 9 Serco NPC bots are spawned in the mission sector. The 3 Itani players proceed to the sector, and begin fighting the bots. They kill 3 bots, leaving 6, when 3 Serco players take the mission. This spawns 9 Itani NPC bots in the mission sector. At this point the Itani side has a numbers advantage: 9 Itani bots, and 3 Itani players, vs. 6 Serco bots, and 3 Serco players. But really, the numbers advantage doesn't mean a whole lot, because the mission objective isn't "get a certain number of kills" but is "clear all enemy ships from the sector". So since the bots don't respawn and return to the mission sector, but the players do, the number of bots in the sector doesn't really matter - eventually they will all die, and then it will be down to the players on each side.
Once it's down to just players on both sides, the mission is likely to take a long, long time - unless one side has significantly more players than the other side. So imbalance becomse a good thing - both sides are going to be trying to get reinforcments, so that they can kill all the enemy players before the first enemy player that died gets back into the sector. This is why I suggested that there be rewards for each kill, and the rewards for completing the mission. That way the "losing" side does gain XP, but not as much as the "winning" side.
@Beolach: One, that mission would take FOREVER! And also, what would happen if some idiot on one side just boosted to 5000m away, therefore keeping the opposing side from "clearing the sector"?
I thought they fixed the BP and it was now too slow, I'll have to get over there some time!
I thought they fixed the BP and it was now too slow, I'll have to get over there some time!
Taking forever isn't a bad thing, since it would only take forever if there were players on both side, and a nice, looooong PvP battle is a GOOD thing.
[edit]
Also, because the reward for the mission would be split, giving some reward for each kill, as well as the reward for success at the end of the mission, players who were unable to stay throughout the entire mission would still get some reward, albeit a lesser reward than those who were able to stay to the end.
[/edit]
The boost far away to prevent the other side from winning would be a potential exploit, that I had thought of, and I'm still thinking about. So far, I can't think of any way to actually stop it, without a Guide or Dev looking in on it & warping the exploiter out of the sector. But I can think of some ways to make it less likely: have the victory condition occur when the sector is cleared of mission participants, so if the player that's turboing far away isn't engaged in the mission, they don't stop the other side from gaining victory. Players who were taking the mission would be able to exploit it, but it would be more difficult, as they would have to have infiniturbo or destroy the NPC bots, because the NPC bots will always be able to fly towards a player, no matter how far away they are, and other players could follow the NPC bots. But it would still be possible.
The other thing I can see as addressing the issue is having a mission timer: if the mission hasn't been completed in a certain amount of time (1 to 3 hours, I'd suggest), then it is aborted. Again it still leaves the potential of players exploiting it, but it makes it more difficult.
[edit]
Also, because the reward for the mission would be split, giving some reward for each kill, as well as the reward for success at the end of the mission, players who were unable to stay throughout the entire mission would still get some reward, albeit a lesser reward than those who were able to stay to the end.
[/edit]
The boost far away to prevent the other side from winning would be a potential exploit, that I had thought of, and I'm still thinking about. So far, I can't think of any way to actually stop it, without a Guide or Dev looking in on it & warping the exploiter out of the sector. But I can think of some ways to make it less likely: have the victory condition occur when the sector is cleared of mission participants, so if the player that's turboing far away isn't engaged in the mission, they don't stop the other side from gaining victory. Players who were taking the mission would be able to exploit it, but it would be more difficult, as they would have to have infiniturbo or destroy the NPC bots, because the NPC bots will always be able to fly towards a player, no matter how far away they are, and other players could follow the NPC bots. But it would still be possible.
The other thing I can see as addressing the issue is having a mission timer: if the mission hasn't been completed in a certain amount of time (1 to 3 hours, I'd suggest), then it is aborted. Again it still leaves the potential of players exploiting it, but it makes it more difficult.
a1k0n:
>>"But Border Patrol is supposed to be about fighting other players, not bots. So there's no conceivable reason, really, that there should be three bots per player in the sector. If we did that, what happens when players from the other side join? Do three bots per real player on the opposing team leave?"<<
Yes.
There shbould -NEVER- be bots from both factions in the sector at once, at least not any longer than it takes for the bots from one side to boost out to 3 clicks and leave. This the only real problem with the actual combat of the mission, and it's a problem for a number of reasons:
1) one bot from each faction left over in the sector... with their AI, they engage eachother, drift out to some far corner of the sector and fight merrily away for a really LONG time (since they are more than capable of dodging eachother's shots for a really LONG time). There have been times I have gone into a BP mission to fight, and ended up wandering around the sector just hoping to randomly stumble upon the two fighting bots...
2) when there are large groups fighting, a sudden change in human prsence off-balances things ENORMOUSLY. Last night, I led a group of 6 Serco players in a border patrol mission. All 6 of us entered Deneb C-10, and dominated the sector for a length of time. We all left to rearm at almost the same time, and when I returned, there were 5 itani bots, and 2 itani players there to hand my ass to me in a 7v1 fight.
3) it really sucks when you fight another player, and whittle them down to a sliver of health, only to have one of your bots come and steal the kill (where did my credit go?). Additionally, there have been many times I've been fighting in BP, with bots from both sides, and that serco bot that was left over from when the tanis had been BPing (and of course I can't kill - God forbid) always manages to finish off all the bots I engage. With friendlies like that, what need have I of enemies?
When there are human fighters from both sides engaged in Border Patrol, the bots serve only as a pestilence, whether you're fighting with them or against them.
When there are players from both sides, there should never be bots in the sector unless the number of human players on one side outnumber the ones on the other by at least two. Bots that invalidate this criteria should disengage and leave the sector immediately.
A slight decrease in reward 20-30% across the board, or, prefereably, 0% for players and 60-70% for bots would greatly help to balance BP.
What Beolach suggested would be nice too, but should be a different mission, seperate from BP.
That's my 2c... I really hope to see some of it happen.
>>"But Border Patrol is supposed to be about fighting other players, not bots. So there's no conceivable reason, really, that there should be three bots per player in the sector. If we did that, what happens when players from the other side join? Do three bots per real player on the opposing team leave?"<<
Yes.
There shbould -NEVER- be bots from both factions in the sector at once, at least not any longer than it takes for the bots from one side to boost out to 3 clicks and leave. This the only real problem with the actual combat of the mission, and it's a problem for a number of reasons:
1) one bot from each faction left over in the sector... with their AI, they engage eachother, drift out to some far corner of the sector and fight merrily away for a really LONG time (since they are more than capable of dodging eachother's shots for a really LONG time). There have been times I have gone into a BP mission to fight, and ended up wandering around the sector just hoping to randomly stumble upon the two fighting bots...
2) when there are large groups fighting, a sudden change in human prsence off-balances things ENORMOUSLY. Last night, I led a group of 6 Serco players in a border patrol mission. All 6 of us entered Deneb C-10, and dominated the sector for a length of time. We all left to rearm at almost the same time, and when I returned, there were 5 itani bots, and 2 itani players there to hand my ass to me in a 7v1 fight.
3) it really sucks when you fight another player, and whittle them down to a sliver of health, only to have one of your bots come and steal the kill (where did my credit go?). Additionally, there have been many times I've been fighting in BP, with bots from both sides, and that serco bot that was left over from when the tanis had been BPing (and of course I can't kill - God forbid) always manages to finish off all the bots I engage. With friendlies like that, what need have I of enemies?
When there are human fighters from both sides engaged in Border Patrol, the bots serve only as a pestilence, whether you're fighting with them or against them.
When there are players from both sides, there should never be bots in the sector unless the number of human players on one side outnumber the ones on the other by at least two. Bots that invalidate this criteria should disengage and leave the sector immediately.
A slight decrease in reward 20-30% across the board, or, prefereably, 0% for players and 60-70% for bots would greatly help to balance BP.
What Beolach suggested would be nice too, but should be a different mission, seperate from BP.
That's my 2c... I really hope to see some of it happen.
well, having a rolly-polly 'roid field doesn't help much. perhaps a1k0n can spawn a sector 11 roid in, add heilocane to the middle of it.....make it so you gotta be in the roid for the mission to count....and, pie! a fun mission
I like pie.
I was just saying that the money and XP rewards have gotten even MORE crazy since I've been gone. I thought the devs fixed it right after I left.
I was just saying that the money and XP rewards have gotten even MORE crazy since I've been gone. I thought the devs fixed it right after I left.
so what exactly is the complaint with the curent level of rewards? is it that the mission is too generous or that there is a way to continualy increase the reward by manipulating the group system?
personaly i don't have much experience with the BP mission. it can be made to grant a lot of money and XP, but i'm not certain if that is good or bad. On one hand it makes sence to me that it should only take a couple tours at the boarder to become an "ace" (and therefore have a fairly high combat level). but on the other hand if it's too generous then it will devalue the experience.
So, i'm making an Itani alt, to test how the BP mission affects leveling at the low end (i was already level 8 when i began BPing with my main character). i'll edit this post with the resulting data.
personaly i don't have much experience with the BP mission. it can be made to grant a lot of money and XP, but i'm not certain if that is good or bad. On one hand it makes sence to me that it should only take a couple tours at the boarder to become an "ace" (and therefore have a fairly high combat level). but on the other hand if it's too generous then it will devalue the experience.
So, i'm making an Itani alt, to test how the BP mission affects leveling at the low end (i was already level 8 when i began BPing with my main character). i'll edit this post with the resulting data.
The problem I see is that the difficulty does not match the rewards. When there's only enemy bots, it's extremely easy (well, if you use rockets). When there's enemy players as well, it's much, much more challenging. The problem is that it gives the same reward for both players and bots. I'd say that the reward for killing enemy players should be (slightly?) higher than it is now, and the reward for killing enemy bots should be significantly lower than it is now.
Also, part of the reason I suggested making all the bots for the mission spawn at the beginning, is so that it would be more difficult. It's much more difficult to take on three or more bots all at once than it is to take on one or two.
Also, part of the reason I suggested making all the bots for the mission spawn at the beginning, is so that it would be more difficult. It's much more difficult to take on three or more bots all at once than it is to take on one or two.