As I'm sure many people have now noticed, it has recently (since the implementation of medals) become much more difficult for a player to have a crew member die during the XTS-9 Refinement mission, thus making it much more difficult to earn the medal "Worker's Comp". Normally I would not have in issue with making the achievement of a particular medal more challenging, but in this case I feel the only added difficulty is coming from a need to spend more energy and get a bit luckier when performing the mission, which I feel is a rather cheap way to make something challenging even if there may not be much of an alternative. And so....

The suggestion that I propose is this: Add a mechanic to this specific mission that would allow for the likelihood of a crew members death to increase on a percentage based chance according to how many completions a player currently has on the mission that would then be removed after a person has the medal.

i.e. 2 completions = +2% chance, 3 completions = +3% chance, and so on. And like I said, after a person has the medal it would be removed to prevent it from becoming overwhelming at later levels of completion so that a person can still get XTS-9 unhindered after they get the medal. This would allow for less of a waste of energy if a person has already sunk several hundreds or even several thousands of energy on the mission just to get the medal.

I feel as though this would be a fair and understandable adjustment to the mission and I'm sure that many players would agree. A serious level of consideration on this matter would be very much appreciated.
Thank you ~ Whamy

2880 energy per day at max recharge rate...it shouldnt take that long to get the medal from the mission.

You're mistaken on that. The chance to fail wasn't changed. I know many many people that had no problems whatsoever killing their crew. I suppose your good luck with the mission is just bad luck with your intended goal. But that's all it is. Random luck.

That's assuming that you have max recharge rate, not everyone does. I'm sure that it's quite easy for the higher ranked players to blow 3 or 4k energy a day on a mission to get a medal quickly but not everyone can do so. Besides even if I could, I've already spent easily more than 2k energy in my attempt to get the medal and haven't had a single crew member die.

Maybe it is just bad luck on my part but from what I and almost everyone else in my legion has experienced, it seems far too unlikely that it's just bad luck. When I would do the mission before the medals came out I could get a crew member to die consistently about every 20-30 attempts, my legion had a similar experience with the mission. But now several of my legion mates have been spending upwards of 5k energy only to have at most 1 crew member die.

I would have to agree with whamy i think the crew death rate has changed seeing as from what I've heard you would use to get maybe one death every couple completions I've finished it 4 times already and not had a single death.
I can understand changing it to be a reasonable challenge for the mission but there's been always been something...off with the randomization program in the game its always been a bit to well heh random to the point where it should technically imposable.

@sparky i was said before by whamy to expect everyone to have max energy recharge is rather ridicules.

And besides, even if you are right and they haven't changed the mission then at MOST what my suggestion will do is allow for it to be easier for those players who are unlucky in their attempt to get the medal, so long as they are willing to spend energy on the mission. As for those who are lucky, well then they probably won't even notice the minor change to the mission to begin with, so I don't really see the issue there.

-1

persecuting RNG's is not the way !

let RNG's be !

Sooo, with each completion, the chance of accident gets higher? >.> any reason for that? or just because the GL Mission Gods willed it?

with repetition, actions tend to become much safer, not more dangerous with each completion.

Dying guy: Captain! we've had an accident and people are dying!
Captain: Good, note that in the log~ we'll have even more people do the same thing next time~

see where this is going?

also, removing the increased percentage after getting the medal just means that Dan has wasted his time to make things more interesting.

The extreme level of sarcasm is unnecessary. And no, in real life there is a factor that comes with working on the job in a field of work that is dangerous depending on how long you've worked for.

Example -- A person who works in construction for the next 10 years of his life is less likely to have an accident on the job than another person who works in construction for the next 30 years of his life, even in spite of any and all safety regulations and rules. Simply put: More time spent on the job doing something dangerous = a larger likelihood of accidents. And Dan would not be wasting his time to make things more interesting, unless of course you consider using more energy to be interesting in the first place. -_-

My suggestion was merely ment to allow for those players who are unlucky to have a better chance in completing the medal if they have spent a significant amount of energy on the mission. And if it is removed for each individual player after that person has the medal then it would prevent it from becoming an overwhelming factor in completing the mission for XTS-9.

I'm not "persecuting" anyone or anything! Criticism is vastly different from persecution and if you fail to see any merit in what I've suggested then I'd prefer that you offer helpful criticism for my suggestion rather than chastise me for what YOU believe I'm doing.

In fact, in real life there is a factor called "we had an accident, let's learn from the accident so it doesn't happen again" but your suggestion is counter-intuitive of that factor, just so you can get a medal. the medals are meant to be difficult to get, with medals catering to people who npc more, people who are pvp nuts, and people who are credit card warriors. You're meant to earn your medals, not propose ideas to get them without a whole lot of effort.

If you want the easy way to get the medal, then you've gotta be prepared to have a 100% chance of crew death because why would dan add an increased chance of crew death, just so people can get a medal they are meant to work for, and then remove it once they've 'achieved' it.

as for my sarcasm, I'll use it however I wish. Some people only seem to understand how oxymoronic their idea is when it's applied with a large helping of sarcasm.

With mockery for dessert. I love a nice slice of warm mockery pie with cinnamon ice cream for dessert.

Hey Whamy are you new to the forums, I've seen your ship on my battle tab many times (damn halycons) anyway back on topic, the reason I'm asking is because you seem to take everything so seriously, chill out dude, getting hot-headed ain't gonna help you.

Now that sounds good~ I'll take my slice with strawberry icecream and raspberry sauce

chocolate syrup?

What I'm saying is not oxymoronic at all. I'm not looking for an easy way to earn the medal, not for me or anyone else, a small percentage increase that is based on how much energy you've already spent to get the medal is not something that would make it "easy" to get the medal. You'd need to spend 5k energy just to get 5 completions and have a bonus of 5% towards your chances. At that point you've already worked a fair amount to get the medal and it would STILL be based on luck. As for learning from accidents that happen, sure I know that happens and I'm not denying that, and doing so would just go against any and all common sense, but what you're saying is that my point is null and void without even looking at it from my point of view, which is just about the most narrow minded thing a person can do. And I'm not telling you how to use your sarcasm, I'm just telling you that it's unnecessary since I have and would have been listening to your input from the beginning even without the sarcasm.

How about you look at it from his point of view?

I'm new to this forum yes, but not other game forums. From my experience when I or another person suggests something like this in a game's forum with the intent of having it taken seriously it usually just gets ignored or tossed aside without a second thought, and the only way I've found to avoid that is to be serious when dealing with it. If it seems like I'm getting hot-headed then I apologise for that but I assure you I am remaining calm. Maybe it's just the serious sounding diction I'm using?

-_- I JUST said that I have been. ^ "...since I have and would have been listening to your input from the beginning..."