EVE-Search ForumWatch

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Astria Tiphareth

Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:21:00 +0000

Originally by: soldieroffortune 258
Long informative post

I was going to comment on this (yet another anti-mission because I'm upset) thread, but soldier beat me to it. Pretty much all of what he said is valid.
___
My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties...

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Assimil8r

Sat, 9 Aug 2008 19:04:00 +0000

/rejected

There are many valid points in favour of this suggestion, but in the end it comes down to what majority of players want, and what most want is the ability to make decent ISK with little risk. (Doesn't everyone want that?) And CCP are going to do what their players want, whether you like it or not.

I would be in favour of this suggestion if the insurance system was changed to reflect the true value of a ship, i.e. including the modules. I'm not too worried about losing my Raven, but I really don't want to lose my rigs and T2 gear because they aren't/cannot be insured. Change this and I would have no qualms about running missions in lowsec.

And I doubt that lowsec-only missions would fix the hisec lag issue... such a change wouldn't affect macro-miners, unfortunately. :(

As for RP'ing, don't forget that the major pirate factions have "connections" within the empire governments who are happy to allow the pirates into hisec space.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by soldieroffortune 258

Sat, 9 Aug 2008 16:45:00 +0000

adding to that

with the carrier pilots who sit outside a station and smartbomb everything, i forgot to mention that they could probably do that half afk as well, just like *gasp* some mission runners can do

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by soldieroffortune 258

Sat, 9 Aug 2008 16:44:00 +0000

i honeslty dont think its a good idea, this coming from a mostly pvp'er in the faction wars, but i do run missions as well to make money to pvp, mission runners already have to worry about people scanning down there wrecks in high sec around populated areas, therby loosing alot of their salvage / loot, and happens frequently, as my very first l4 mission i ever solo'ed someone scanned it down (lmao, they picked clean all the large wrecks and left all the mediums) anyway, so people loosing their loot and salvage is probably 60% of their mission pay and that happens in high security

now your asking to move it to low sec, think about it, the people scan down the mission runners EASILY in high sec, they can do it in low sec as well just as easy, but instead of just looting their mission wrecks, yhou also get to shoot them without risk to yourself, other than the mission runner, but that's one person, and pirates almost never run solo (most that ive seen) and they sure as hell arent going to run solo when scanning down a mission runner, so what you are proposing is making the pirates like 100x richer, without risk to themselves (scanning down a mission runner in low sec is on par with the risk involved in the pirates dying in a gate camp, which is, let me think . . . almost 0) and now, its even less likely of a chance that they will die since now they arent even taking sentry fire

secondly, all a ****ing pirate has to do is get in a carrier, and sit outside a station's undock point of a station with a lvl4 agent, and blow off smartbombs, the ****ing mission runners wouldnt even be able to get to the mission, while the pirates are taking a whopping 2 sentry guns

so your proposing making a pirates life just as easy as a high sec lvl 4 mission runner with these changes, you konw what that makes you pirates? carebears, you can get way to much money for way to little risk to yourself, and *gasp* your *****ing about others getting it to easy, tell me, what is the risk in sitting outside a station in a capital blowing off smartbombs, while being able to perma tank sentry guns?

and tell me what is the risk involved in 2 or 3 pirates scanning down a mission runner, and killing him, and getting the bounties and crap from the mission rats once theyre victim is podded?

the ONLY way i can see these problems being solved is if you

A.) make low sec systems all very large (at least 200AU in diameter or more) to cut back on how so ****ing easy it is to scan down a mission, hell i found 2 missions yesterday on ACCIDENT when scanning for plexes
B.) create ALOT of lvl 4 ok quality agents in low sec (at LEAST 35) per FACTION to prevent low sec systems turning into something like dodixie, could you imagine how much a pirate in a capital could make sitting outside 1 of only like 5 l4 agents, and blowing off smartbombs afk while he easily perma tanks the guns (again, THAT would be too easy, at least in l4's you have like 5 battleships shooting at you at once causing damage, if a capital is blowing off smartbombs, with some armor hardeners, he can easily tank the guns and a mission runner for the 5 seconds he's alive (the mission runner)

C.) Increase STATION sentry drone DPS, enought to ward off station campers who DONT have capitals, something like 500dps im guessing would work

D.) for low sec agents in l4's when you start the mission, if that mission has an acceleration gate, you get an acceleration gate key from the agent, and you have to have that key to get into the mission

so just incase no one got what i was saying, in a nutshell the pirates want the ability to sit outside one of the main l4 stations in a carrier, and blow off smartboms all day, while EASILY perma tanking the sentry guns, and also want the same abilities as the high sec mission scanners, and to scan down a players mission (since its so damn easy) and to take his loot, kill him, and get the bounties, and loot/ salvage those wrecks as well

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Eldar Boon

Sat, 9 Aug 2008 10:18:00 +0000

I've read several of the topics discussing changes to the missions. Many posts argue that the risk/reward is out of balance. Some argue that the mission hubs are becoming over crowded, creating lag, making missions less enjoyable. Some posts discuss the effect mission loot has on the economy.

Many people seem to agree that something needs to be done. Unfortunatly the best way to address the problem is not clear.

There is one important difference between hi-sec missions running and nearly every other proffession in Eve. It cannot be balanced by the players, so any imbalance has to be addressed by CCP.

For example, hi-sec mining is a relatively safe way of making isk. Unlike mission running, the reward for mining is based on the market. As more people mine, the value of ore decreases, and balance is maintained.

Moving agents to lo-sec would introduce a method for players to balance the risk/reward, thru piracy. Unfortunatly this does remove a fun part of the game from hi-sec and is a little unfair for people not wishing to PVP.

An adjustment by CCP to the rewards (including loot) for hi-sec level 4 missions would be a short term solution.

I would rather see a more dynamic mission system, where rewards are based on the demand for missions from an agent (more players, less reward). To my understanding, this is the way that Faction warefare missions are meant to work.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Dura'Lorth

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:39:00 +0000

Originally by: Aarin Wrath
Originally by: Dura'Lorth
Move lv 3 missions to 0.5-0.3 sec space, and lv 4 missions to 0.3-0.0 sec space. No one should be able to make that much isk off these mission in high sec systems, it causes lag. And makes sense RPwise since how hard it would be for pirate faction battle ships to use jump gates into 0.9-0.7 mission hubs.

Stupid idea.

Might want to think of the long term consequences of such a change eg:

Everyone will farm lvl3's instead.
Lots of casual players will quit eve.
0.0 Alliances will get even more rich. (capitals online!)
Market for faction gear crashes.
Market in general crashes.
PVP will be reduced a heck of alot, or at the very least will move from battleships and battlecruisers to t1 frigates and cruisers.
(alot, i mean alot, of pvp'rs run lvl4s on an alt to fund pvp ... you take out thier isk machine and they will not have money to buy ships, ergo pvp either moves to less exensive ships, or dies a slow death, or both)

BTW: its explained in the backstories that pirates (rats) use hidden star gates to get into highsec ... sorry to burst your bubble.

Yes i know about the hidden star gates, you find one every few missions, im sure these would have been destroyed along time ago, since we just let them sit there now letting pirates get into empire.

OH NOES Frig and Cruiser PVP, how will i ever cope, oh it will be like it was back in BETA and the Starting days of EVE.
PVP will not die, if you noticed not all LV3s will be safe only the worst quality agents will be in 0.5 systems.
Have fun taking capitals into missions when the warp gates can be set to prevent it.
Market wont crash, the market will normalize after the giant influx of all the grabage that has been fed into for the past few years.
The DEVs use to be with us on the casual front, they didnt care, then the good devs left and we have garbage devs now.
I dont care about faction gear, its a miniscule part of the game, if it dies then so be it. But people will still use it, so there will be a market for it.
You cant spell risk with out isk.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Freezehunter

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 18:11:00 +0000

/signed

But only for nerfing the lvl 3 and 4 reward SEVERELY in highsec...
And increasing it substantially in lowsec...

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Dura'Lorth

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 17:18:00 +0000

Originally by: Jaketh Ivanes
Originally by: Dura'Lorth

People want a solo game, but that ruins it for everyone else who wants interaction, They can fit WCS they can use scouts they can mission in groups to protect them selves.

They could Form an alliance, where corps of missioners help produce and support a PVP wing. A swarm of frigs can take out a BS, or other gangs, t1 frigs with t1 fits can do massive dmg.

You know what? So can you. Form an alliance and try to take a constallation from the established 0.0 alliances. That should give you plenty of risk and, if you pull it off, a lot of reward. So why don't you do that when you are aching for some good fights?

You dont get it i would kill for 1v1 fights again, i fly around in my inties/frigs/hacs looking for 1v1 fights, i often will pick a larger target then me just so i can have a 1 v 1 fight, PvP in eve isnt as bad as people think, yes its scary the first time, but it gets easier i promise.

Me forming an alliance and fighting another alliance has nothing to do with what im suggesting, this is a balance issue.

People complain about lag, but if the whole population gets spread out more this is helping ease that lag.

To all the people who say pirate gates, and smuggler gates, are you serious? How many high sec missions are run a day that include BSs, all lv 4 missions basically, Concord would have found them by now and have them camped 24/7.
You cant spell risk with out isk.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Aarin Wrath

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 17:16:00 +0000

Originally by: Dura'Lorth
Move lv 3 missions to 0.5-0.3 sec space, and lv 4 missions to 0.3-0.0 sec space. No one should be able to make that much isk off these mission in high sec systems, it causes lag. And makes sense RPwise since how hard it would be for pirate faction battle ships to use jump gates into 0.9-0.7 mission hubs.

Stupid idea.

Might want to think of the long term consequences of such a change eg:

Everyone will farm lvl3's instead.
Lots of casual players will quit eve.
0.0 Alliances will get even more rich. (capitals online!)
Market for faction gear crashes.
Market in general crashes.
PVP will be reduced a heck of alot, or at the very least will move from battleships and battlecruisers to t1 frigates and cruisers.
(alot, i mean alot, of pvp'rs run lvl4s on an alt to fund pvp ... you take out thier isk machine and they will not have money to buy ships, ergo pvp either moves to less exensive ships, or dies a slow death, or both)

BTW: its explained in the backstories that pirates (rats) use hidden star gates to get into highsec ... sorry to burst your bubble.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Jaketh Ivanes

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 14:30:00 +0000

Originally by: Dura'Lorth

People want a solo game, but that ruins it for everyone else who wants interaction, They can fit WCS they can use scouts they can mission in groups to protect them selves.

They could Form an alliance, where corps of missioners help produce and support a PVP wing. A swarm of frigs can take out a BS, or other gangs, t1 frigs with t1 fits can do massive dmg.

You know what? So can you. Form an alliance and try to take a constallation from the established 0.0 alliances. That should give you plenty of risk and, if you pull it off, a lot of reward. So why don't you do that when you are aching for some good fights?

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Steve Hawkings

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 13:56:00 +0000

/Signed

Originally by: Amateratsu

Never going to happen, keep dreaming....

Nerfing missions to low-sec so you piewats can have your wicked way would cause a s**t storm on a scale never before seen in eve and would prove seriously damaging to ccp's subscriptions revenue.

You will just have to go find targets to pew pew elsewhere.

gave me a good laugh that did
Love these thick guys that think everyone not doing boring missions and living in high sec is a pirate.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Myz Toyou

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 13:29:00 +0000

Originally by: TrulyKosh
Edited by: TrulyKosh on 08/08/2008 10:48:22

Even a simple technetium moon yields 250m/month atm. That is a lot of isk to buy fuel :)
I lived in 0.0 for years myself and judging from all this mission nerf whine I get the impression that all these 1000s of alliance members are fundamentally wrong. I never saw BoB fight Goons over access to the best lvl4 high sec agents. or any other alliance for that matter. So there must be something in 0.0 worth all that trouble. If you have so far failed to find it, sry m8

Its called PVP in a large scale, thats the reason most alliances live there. No doubt that there are ppl/corps/alliances out in 0.0 just for the personal wallet but normaly they dont hold long
+cough+Hyra+cough+ASCS+cough+KOS+cough+ and others who are obsessed by high end moon mining like they were when 10/10 plexes were around back in the days
All I say is that you have it far easier to fund your fun in EVE with lvl4s as an individual as in 0.0 ratting or sucking roids.
Btw, cos you metioned BOB. Do you really believe BOBs cap fleet is personal property , my bet is that at least 80% is corp/alliance funded like it should be.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[gold]Your signature image exceeds the maximum allo

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Princess Boon

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:22:00 +0000

Originally by: TrulyKosh
Originally by: Princess Boon

That being said, I'm still more in favor of adjusting the reward based on the demand for missions from an agent.

Thinking strictly along these lines, the least desirable agents and missions would yield the best rewards. That would be lvl 1 mining missions (but that may be just my personal preference).

I actually see that as a benefit, and a potential boost to the mining profession. Can you imagine the joy (reward) a new player would get for finding an, out of the way, lvl1 mining mission agent that hasn't been accessed for a while.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Soulita

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 11:07:00 +0000

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Soulita
A start for what though?
A start for mission runners to be less afraid of finding themselves in a PvP situation, be it in highsec, lowsec, or wherever.

Until such a change happens, PvP and PvE will be impossible to combine, which is unfortunate in a game where PvP is everywhere and where one of the fundamental principles is that you have very little choice in when PvP might happen.

Like you say: PvE and PvP are different playstyles, but they don't need to be. Bringing the two closer together would upen up a whole slew of new options for balancing risk and reward.

The main differnce between PvP and PvE is the team factor, the fitting is not entirely secondary, but of much less importance.

If EVE had game mechanics to allow for successfull solo pvp which also provided a good income to buy lost ships, that would be different.
But even the most legendary pvpers in EVE would mostly prefer teamwork over solo journeys. (There is some excpetions, which I am very impressed with, but these were in very expensive ships (often officer fitted) and with massive pvp skill)

But normaly - from my experience - in PvP the team is everything.

Even in a nano fit (while these still worked well) you would need 2 to 3 people for a successful trip around your lawless neighborhood.

Moving lvl4 missions to low sec would simply put these missions out of reach for casual players.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Soulita

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:56:00 +0000

Originally by: Princess Boon
A point has been made about if Level 4 agents were to all move to lo-sec, then all the mission runners would do level 3's.

Actually I think the effect would more likely be that the casual gamers playing lvl4 missions now would look for a different game instead of running lvl3's.

You need to understand that casual solo play is incompatible with lowsec and 0.0. Maybe not for the superheros of EVE, but for the normal humans like many of us are...

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by TrulyKosh

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:53:00 +0000

Originally by: Princess Boon

That being said, I'm still more in favor of adjusting the reward based on the demand for missions from an agent.

Thinking strictly along these lines, the least desirable agents and missions would yield the best rewards. That would be lvl 1 mining missions (but that may be just my personal preference).

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Tippia

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:52:00 +0000

Originally by: Soulita
A start for what though?

A start for mission runners to be less afraid of finding themselves in a PvP situation, be it in highsec, lowsec, or wherever.

Until such a change happens, PvP and PvE will be impossible to combine, which is unfortunate in a game where PvP is everywhere and where one of the fundamental principles is that you have very little choice in when PvP might happen.

Like you say: PvE and PvP are different playstyles, but they don't need to be. Bringing the two closer together would upen up a whole slew of new options for balancing risk and reward.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Princess Boon

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:48:00 +0000

One of the huge driving forces in Eve is the market. Unfortunatly, the mission agents do not obey the laws of supply and demand.

I have no problem with people doing their missions in the relative safety of hi-sec, most of the time I'm one of them; but when you see half a dozen faction battleships leaving a station in a mission hub, you've got to wonder about the vast amounts of isk being made with very little risk.

I can understand CCP not wanting to make a change, and risk alienating the people who want to only PVE, but when it becomes more profitable than other slightly more risky and complicated professions, it surely indicates a balance problem.

A point has been made about if Level 4 agents were to all move to lo-sec, then all the mission runners would do level 3's. This maybe true, but battle cruisers are far better suited to these missions, making the goal of flying a expensive faction BS moot for people running missions.

That being said, I'm still more in favor of adjusting the reward based on the demand for missions from an agent.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by TrulyKosh

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:43:00 +0000

Edited by: TrulyKosh on 08/08/2008 10:48:22

Originally by: Myz Toyou
Originally by: TrulyKosh
Originally by: Havohej
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
How much isk are these missioners making? More than carebears ratting in 0.0? I doubt it.

These missioners put in time... in return they make isk. Seems like you pvpers need to realize their time is just as valuable as your time. Perhaps you should use YOUR time more wisely.

You doubt it and you're wrong.

In 0.0, true sec under -0.7 (that is, the rats with the 1.8M bounties which is pretty good) I made 25-30M per hour depending on luck with the spawns in a relatively un-crowded system with 12 belts (more miners there than ratters).

Since spending some time in lowsec with a Q-18 L4 agent, I've found myself making 25-40M per hour, depending on luck with mission assignments (sometimes he has me killing faction NPCs or drones which don't have bounties, but usually it's been nice missions like Angel Extravaganza or The Blockade or Mordus Headhunters, with lots of crap to shoot at).

That's a Q-18. I know of highsec mission hubs with Q-20 agents! Higher quality = higher mission rewards, higher standings increases...

The rat bounties and mission rewards alone add up to equal or greater than 0.0 ratting, depending on the quality of the 0.0 ratting space, then you add the salvage, loot and Loyalty Point store merchandise that mission runners earn (Faction ammo is still a goldmine) and yeah... High sec missions ARE making more ISK than carebears in 0.0 ratting.

You are casually ignoring the income of possible faction/officer spawns, hauler spawns, exploration sites, encounter sites and the mining towers humming in the background (even if it's not dysprosium). If you add LP store merchandise to the empire income, let's just be fair and include everything 0.0 has to offer as well, thx

I live in 0.0 since I startet playing EVE in early 06, most of the time not in NPC 0.0 witch means that Hauler spawns normally go into corp hangar to build ammo for members of your POSses you have to set up.
Moonmining is not done on a personal level in 0.0, its done by Corp/Alliance to fund POSses/fuel/Dreads to protect the region you claim.
In all my time out in 0.0 I had 1 Officer spawn ( Thon ) who was very kind to me with loot worth 1.7bil in total. Sure I had some faction spawns in that time too but nothing that would have make my wallet explode ( hardeners and ammo dont give you real isk ).
I also have second account witch is mainly carebear skilled, this one fs able to run a lvl4 Q-18 agent since 3 month and made me combined with loot, bounty, LP nearly 2.5bil in that time without grinding 10 missions a day.
So, what do you think I prefer since 3 month to come to my income ? A decent income and 99% safety or a decent income with zero safety ?

Even a simple technetium moon yields 250m/month atm. That is a lot of isk to buy fuel :)
I lived in 0.0 for years myself and judging from all this mission nerf whine I get the impression that all these 1000s of alliance members are fundamentally wrong. I never saw BoB fight Goons over access to the best lvl4 high sec agents. or any other alliance for that matter. So there must be something in 0.0 worth all that trouble. If you have so far failed to find it, sry m8

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Soulita

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:42:00 +0000

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Soulita
Not realy.

Some people run missions mostly alone. Going alone into low-sec or 0.0 with an expensive ship (even with a pvp fit) is the kind of stuff people laugh about when they read the whine post of someone who did just that and got ganked by a blobity blob...

You're probably right, but it would be a start

A start for what though?

I have a lot of pvp experience with my pvp char. So no problem with pvp at all.

It is just that pve and pvp are different playstyles.
If you do 0.0 pvp, the team is everything.
Also you need to play relatively often.

With a casual playstyle, you wont be able to fly with the top notch pvp corps. But that, at least for me, is where the most fun in pvp is.

So, when I do not have much time to play, I inform peeps about it and put my pvp char on ice and Soulita becomes active - because missions allow a decent fun life in eve combined with casual playstyle.

By forcing mission runners into low-sec or 0.0, this profession will become very unattractive for the more casual players. Meaning the only thing left to do for casual players would be empire mining, producing or trading. The combat part would be out of reach for them.

Is that what you would want?

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Tippia

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:25:00 +0000

Originally by: Soulita
Not realy.

Some people run missions mostly alone. Going alone into low-sec or 0.0 with an expensive ship (even with a pvp fit) is the kind of stuff people laugh about when they read the whine post of someone who did just that and got ganked by a blobity blob...

You're probably right, but it would be a start…

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Soulita

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:16:00 +0000

Originally by: Tippia
If mission runners didn't have to choose between PvP and PvE fits, then maybe they'd stand a better chance when someone barges in on them, making them less reluctant to run missions in lowsec.

Not realy.

Some people run missions mostly alone. Going alone into low-sec or 0.0 with an expensive ship (even with a pvp fit) is the kind of stuff people laugh about when they read the whine post of someone who did just that and got ganked by a blobity blob...

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Venkul Mul

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:14:00 +0000

Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Someone is point a gun to you and say: If you run missions you are killed?

You play by the same rules. You don't like missions so you don't want to do them? fine. But no one is keeping missions away from you.
That response has amazing little to do with my post.

Really? Who is forcing you to play with rules different from mine when I run missions?

Your point was that we don't play by the same rules, my point is that we play in the same universe under the same rules. Simply we have chosen a different style of gaming, so the rules have a different impact on us. But the rules are exactly the same.

Originally by: Gamesguy

the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Venkul Mul

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 10:08:00 +0000

Originally by: csebal
Originally by: Andrue
Edited by: Andrue on 08/08/2008 09:31:48
What so many of these bullies don't understand or can't accept is that the high-sec residents (ie;those that choose to live there rather than just being fund providers for PvP mains) are not stupid. They are not paying a monthly subscription to be someone else' victim.

Actually, the above sentence quite clearly proves that at least one of them is stpid.
You just cant separate yourself from the thought, that all the ideas around here are only aimed to get you into the land of pirates where they can feast on your puny carebear body.

Get a life please.. the world does not revolve around you or your kind, although your post suggest you might think otherwise.

Noone said that they should just pull the plug on high sec. They should merely lower high sec revenues and increase low sec ones until those who are not complete p***ies get up their a**es and go down there.

Why would they go down there? Because the rewards there would be worth even the risk pirates mean. Not because the pirates wanted them to go there, but because they themselves thought that its better for them there, then it is in high sec.

At the same time, the likes of you can rot in high sec for all i care and lick the salt that remained in place of the belts while you grind an endless stream of lvl 3 missions till your nose bleeds.

Re-read the whole tread and repeat with a straight face that "Noone said that they should just pull the plug on high sec" or that no one is suggesting that only because he want more targets.

If you can do that you have a future in politics or selling used cars.

Originally by: Gamesguy

the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Crumplecorn

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:56:00 +0000

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Someone is point a gun to you and say: If you run missions you are killed?

You play by the same rules. You don't like missions so you don't want to do them? fine. But no one is keeping missions away from you.

That response has amazing little to do with my post.
-

DesuSigs

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Tippia

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:56:00 +0000

Originally by: GallenteCitizen20080615
it says it right there in the genre

Massivly >>>>>Multiplayer<<<<< online game

what multiplayer about mining or missioning atm

Only the potential, I'm afraid. You do both faster if you team up, but since you don't have to, it's often a potential gone to waste.

Quote:
A) move missions into low sec for example level 4 low sec level 5's 0.0
B) reduce the isk reward from these missions
C) actually make then challanging with the lower reward were talking like why more heavier hitters in missions e.g you need a group to complete it with you because there pumping out to much damage and so need to kill more in one go to relieve the damage

D) make missions require the same fits as PvP and make the combat more similar. Sure, NPC will never pull any clever tricks, but the current system of "higher mission difficulty = the same, only more" could be replaced by higher difficulty = better fitted enemies.

If mission runners didn't have to choose between PvP and PvE fits, then maybe they'd stand a better chance when someone barges in on them, making them less reluctant to run missions in lowsec.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Myz Toyou

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:53:00 +0000

Originally by: TrulyKosh
Originally by: Havohej
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
How much isk are these missioners making? More than carebears ratting in 0.0? I doubt it.

These missioners put in time... in return they make isk. Seems like you pvpers need to realize their time is just as valuable as your time. Perhaps you should use YOUR time more wisely.

You doubt it and you're wrong.

In 0.0, true sec under -0.7 (that is, the rats with the 1.8M bounties which is pretty good) I made 25-30M per hour depending on luck with the spawns in a relatively un-crowded system with 12 belts (more miners there than ratters).

Since spending some time in lowsec with a Q-18 L4 agent, I've found myself making 25-40M per hour, depending on luck with mission assignments (sometimes he has me killing faction NPCs or drones which don't have bounties, but usually it's been nice missions like Angel Extravaganza or The Blockade or Mordus Headhunters, with lots of crap to shoot at).

That's a Q-18. I know of highsec mission hubs with Q-20 agents! Higher quality = higher mission rewards, higher standings increases...

The rat bounties and mission rewards alone add up to equal or greater than 0.0 ratting, depending on the quality of the 0.0 ratting space, then you add the salvage, loot and Loyalty Point store merchandise that mission runners earn (Faction ammo is still a goldmine) and yeah... High sec missions ARE making more ISK than carebears in 0.0 ratting.

You are casually ignoring the income of possible faction/officer spawns, hauler spawns, exploration sites, encounter sites and the mining towers humming in the background (even if it's not dysprosium). If you add LP store merchandise to the empire income, let's just be fair and include everything 0.0 has to offer as well, thx

I live in 0.0 since I startet playing EVE in early 06, most of the time not in NPC 0.0 witch means that Hauler spawns normally go into corp hangar to build ammo for members of your POSses you have to set up.
Moonmining is not done on a personal level in 0.0, its done by Corp/Alliance to fund POSses/fuel/Dreads to protect the region you claim.
In all my time out in 0.0 I had 1 Officer spawn ( Thon ) who was very kind to me with loot worth 1.7bil in total. Sure I had some faction spawns in that time too but nothing that would have make my wallet explode ( hardeners and ammo dont give you real isk ).
I also have second account witch is mainly carebear skilled, this one fs able to run a lvl4 Q-18 agent since 3 month and made me combined with loot, bounty, LP nearly 2.5bil in that time without grinding 10 missions a day.
So, what do you think I prefer since 3 month to come to my income ? A decent income and 99% safety or a decent income with zero safety ?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[gold]Your signature image exceeds the maximum allo

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Reven Cordelle

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:49:00 +0000

Yeaaah.. If people can't farm level 4s, they'll just move down to 3s. The isk is less but they can AFK those even easier.

Moving missions around will do shit all. People keep moaning about lag so, if you want more lag in low sec where lag is critical in Fleet Operations... Move level 4s into low sec.

Im sure they'll love you for it. Safe enough I used to run level 3s in Nourvukaiken, get a mission in Tama every now and then. Got ganked a few times by 'Thron Squads.

As far as I can tell this isnt an arguement about "Risk/Reward", Its losers needing easier targets for their killmail collections. Mission fit ships can't fight in PVP, so hey! If we move the missions to low sec, LOOK! More noobs to gank!

Pathetic.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by csebal

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:47:00 +0000

Originally by: Andrue
Edited by: Andrue on 08/08/2008 09:31:48
What so many of these bullies don't understand or can't accept is that the high-sec residents (ie;those that choose to live there rather than just being fund providers for PvP mains) are not stupid. They are not paying a monthly subscription to be someone else' victim.

Actually, the above sentence quite clearly proves that at least one of them is stpid.
You just cant separate yourself from the thought, that all the ideas around here are only aimed to get you into the land of pirates where they can feast on your puny carebear body.

Get a life please.. the world does not revolve around you or your kind, although your post suggest you might think otherwise.

Noone said that they should just pull the plug on high sec. They should merely lower high sec revenues and increase low sec ones until those who are not complete p***ies get up their a**es and go down there.

Why would they go down there? Because the rewards there would be worth even the risk pirates mean. Not because the pirates wanted them to go there, but because they themselves thought that its better for them there, then it is in high sec.

At the same time, the likes of you can rot in high sec for all i care and lick the salt that remained in place of the belts while you grind an endless stream of lvl 3 missions till your nose bleeds.
My post does not represent the general or official opinion of anyone else besides me. No matter what YOU believe.
Phear the arrows of the HUNs >>---->

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Ihrda Siharkhail

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:47:00 +0000

Originally by: Dura'Lorth
Move lv 3 missions to 0.5-0.3 sec space, and lv 4 missions to 0.3-0.0 sec space. No one should be able to make that much isk off these mission in high sec systems, it causes lag. And makes sense RPwise since how hard it would be for pirate faction battle ships to use jump gates into 0.9-0.7 mission hubs.

signed

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by GallenteCitizen20080615

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:47:00 +0000

in favour for something to be done about missions as well as mining

empire was only ment to be a jump to bigger things in eve such as 0.0 alliances or even low sec alliances

it says it right there in the genre

Massivly >>>>>Multiplayer<<<<< online game

what multiplayer about mining or missioning atm

i have a feeeling CCP didnt have there "vision" or 700 people in local destroying the economy of eve AFK in a domi going through missions

it either

A) move missions into low sec for example level 4 low sec level 5's 0.0
B) reduce the isk reward from these missions
C) actually make then challanging with the lower reward were talking like why more heavier hitters in missions e.g you need a group to complete it with you because there pumping out to much damage and so need to kill more in one go to relieve the damage

and cuz there are more ships to kill even though the rawars have been lowered there are more ships so you can get more isk

Quote:
down near the station bio mass plant you can buy burgers that are 5% pork and 95% CRAP

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Valan

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:46:00 +0000

Level 4 missions produce far too much ISK end of.

Which is great because you can farm missions in high sec and then go PvP.
/start sig
I love old characters that post 'I've beeen playing the game four years' when I know their account has been sold on.
/end sig

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Pablos Ine

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:44:00 +0000

i can see the argument from both sides, i myself am a PvP player.. but I honestly lean towards the mission runners sentiment. Maybe they have no interest or opportunity to join a low sec alliance or corp.. why should nice funds be unavailable to them ?

Dont get me wrong, and Im not asking for flames.. but i dont see how that will work, you will simply have pirates choking acces points to the low level mission hubs, I know you can see this anywhay in .3 etc etc, but imagine what it would be like in 0.0... un workable guys

-------------------------------------------

"Only the dead have seen the end of war."
Plato

"I drank what !!! ?"
Socrates

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Venkul Mul

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:39:00 +0000

Originally by: Crumplecorn
Edited by: Crumplecorn on 07/08/2008 18:12:58
Originally by: Deej Montana
I don't get why you "nerf missions" guys care so much about how much people can potentially make in high sec. So there are people who have more stuff than you? Too bad, deal with it. You don't hear the high sec crowd complaining about not having moons to mine or million isk rats to kill or rare ore to mine do you? No. We go about our business and play the game the way we like, as is our right as a paying CCP customer. We understand that there are (in theory) lots of isk to be made in low and null sec, but for our own reasons, we choose to remain in Empire.

Why the hell do you care?

Don't tell me it's because you want to maintain the "integrity of the developers vision" or any of that crap. At least be honest; you either want a bunch of what you see as soft targets to gank risk free, or, you're petulant children who can't stand that someone else has gotten more than you and had fun while doing it.

How about we make a deal? You play Eve the way you like and so will I.
Perhaps we recognise that this is MMORPG and as such everyone everywhere needs to be playing by the same basic rules - like Risk/Reward.

I know that since mission running is basically a single player game that it is easy to forget this, but you are part of the game, and do have an effect, and thus need to be regulated like everyone else.

Someone is point a gun to you and say: If you run missions you are killed?

You play by the same rules. You don't like missions so you don't want to do them? fine. But no one is keeping missions away from you.

Originally by: Gamesguy

the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Andrue

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:37:00 +0000

Originally by: csebal
Ideally i think it should look like this:

high sec - least risk, least reward:
1-4/10 income. (mostly low end mining and lv1-lv3 agents)
low sec - high risk, more reward:
5-8/10 income. (mining, exploration, rats and lv4 agents)
zero sec - variable risk, most reward:
6-10/10 income. (the usual stuff)

It just shouldnt be possible for the income to be comparative to eachother between high sec and the other two levels. between low and zero sec i wouldnt make such a difference, as low sec is actually more dangerous than zero sec in some cases. Guess the reason for the overlapping income scales.

Actually I agree but I think CCP is caught between a rock and a hard place. Ironically mimicing the real world quite well.

Normally I think that nerfs are warranted but in this case I don't think there is any room for movement. People living in high-sec simply don't want to be shot at. They enjoy paying to acquire virtual items and vast virtual wealth. If you try and force them to accept greater risk they will just find another game to play.

Boosting 0.0 would be an option except that it's locked down by alliances and they are already some of the richest entities in Eve.

Low-sec could do with some boosting though. It's always been something of a dead and useless buffer between high-sec and 0.0. Unfortunately I think it may be because it lies between the two play styles. Getting the balance right on low-sec is never going to be easy. The PvP people want to destroy other people's stuff and the other people don't want their stuff destroyed.
--
(Sarcastic mission running veteran, 4+ years)

[Brackley, UK]

My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Havohej

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:37:00 +0000

Originally by: KISOGOKU
Edited by: KISOGOKU on 08/08/2008 09:17:20
if you are making 25-30m with 1.8m Bs spawns you are doing it wrong ,i was making 25m easliy with 1.3m Bs spawns(no loot or salvage) with siege raven(when i was still noob) and dont forget faction spawns i made 600m from faction loot at 45 days and it was from crappy angels
edit :added (when i was still noob)
Originally by: Havohej

In 0.0, true sec under -0.7 (that is, the rats with the 1.8M bounties which is pretty good) I made 25-30M per hour

I prefer PvP, so I didn't spend all of my time in 0.0 ratting... 3, 4 hours per week, tops. (when I was still noob).

(or now)

Originally by: CCP Explorer
You can still steal their stuff.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Soulita

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:35:00 +0000

Originally by: Exlegion
Quote:
Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions.

"CCP, you hurt me :(. Now please hurt them. I hate them :("

I swear, this place sometimes feels like grade school .

Qft.

Lets go kiddies - Foodfight!

Oh, on a more series note, can anyone tell me how nanonerf and insurance changes have anything to do with missions??

Also, Iskwise, running missions in 0.0 gives a lot better pay than running missions in empire - much higher LP point gain. Means you get those nice faction awards up to 3* faster in 0.0 than in empire. (5000 LP per top level 4 in empire as compared to 15000(!)LP per top level 4 in 0.0)

I'd call that pretty balanced.

Now... back to the foodfight all, will yas...

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Po3tank

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:33:00 +0000

seams like a alright idea

but on the mission subject of this thread i would like to point out that,why should one mine when you can run lvl 4 missions and reprocess the t1 crap. stupid that there is a choice during chacter creation that they try to convince you to become a miner

Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com - Mitnal

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by csebal

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:32:00 +0000

Ideally i think it should look like this:

high sec - least risk, least reward:
1-4/10 income. (mostly low end mining and lv1-lv3 agents)
low sec - high risk, more reward:
5-8/10 income. (mining, exploration, rats and lv4 agents)
zero sec - variable risk, most reward:
6-10/10 income. (the usual stuff)

It just shouldnt be possible for the income to be comparative to eachother between high sec and the other two levels. between low and zero sec i wouldnt make such a difference, as low sec is actually more dangerous than zero sec in some cases. Guess the reason for the overlapping income scales.
My post does not represent the general or official opinion of anyone else besides me. No matter what YOU believe.
Phear the arrows of the HUNs >>---->

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by csebal

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:26:00 +0000

Originally by: TrulyKosh
Originally by: Havohej
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
How much isk are these missioners making? More than carebears ratting in 0.0? I doubt it.

These missioners put in time... in return they make isk. Seems like you pvpers need to realize their time is just as valuable as your time. Perhaps you should use YOUR time more wisely.

You doubt it and you're wrong.

In 0.0, true sec under -0.7 (that is, the rats with the 1.8M bounties which is pretty good) I made 25-30M per hour depending on luck with the spawns in a relatively un-crowded system with 12 belts (more miners there than ratters).

Since spending some time in lowsec with a Q-18 L4 agent, I've found myself making 25-40M per hour, depending on luck with mission assignments (sometimes he has me killing faction NPCs or drones which don't have bounties, but usually it's been nice missions like Angel Extravaganza or The Blockade or Mordus Headhunters, with lots of crap to shoot at).

That's a Q-18. I know of highsec mission hubs with Q-20 agents! Higher quality = higher mission rewards, higher standings increases...

The rat bounties and mission rewards alone add up to equal or greater than 0.0 ratting, depending on the quality of the 0.0 ratting space, then you add the salvage, loot and Loyalty Point store merchandise that mission runners earn (Faction ammo is still a goldmine) and yeah... High sec missions ARE making more ISK than carebears in 0.0 ratting.

You are casually ignoring the income of possible faction/officer spawns, hauler spawns, exploration sites, encounter sites and the mining towers humming in the background (even if it's not dysprosium). If you add LP store merchandise to the empire income, let's just be fair and include everything 0.0 has to offer as well, thx

Lets see then:
- exploration involves lots of travel which isnt exactly a safe thing to do alone in 0.0, so comparing that to anything earned in high sec dies pretty much right away.
- moon mining might be profitable, but about 95% of the valuable moons are in alliance hands or corporation hands. Unless you are the head of said corp or alliance, it is unlikely you will see personal profit from that.
- officer and faction spawns might be nice, but during 6 years of eve i had like 3 officer spawns in total, worth about 5 billion isk. Dont let me count up the billions i lost in pvp gear in the meantime.
- Hauler spawns are a chore.. most of them is trit or pyerite. If you think its worth hauling 100 million tritanium 2-3 jumps (in optimal cases) throught 0.0 to the nearest station, then you are sadly mistaken. The rare zydrine / megacyte spawn is usually less than 100m worth.
- Encounter sites, as in.. deep space anomalies if you refer to those are 99% of the time worthless, and the another 1 % is just not worth looking for.

Summarized, the three viable money making methods in 0.0 include:
- Mining - 3/10 income, 3/10 risk (with proper scouting)
- Ratting - 5/10 income, 4/10 risk (with proper scouting)
- Agent running (Only available in a very small portion of 0.0) - 8/10 income, 4/10 risk (with proper scouting)
- Exploration - 8/10 income, 6/10 risk (due to lots of travelling - with proper scouting)

Compare this to high sec lvl4 mission running, which is about
5/10 income, 0/10 risk.

or to low sec mission running, which is
7/10 income, 8/10 risk.

Am i the only one who finds high sec mission running to be a bit out of balance there?

My post does not represent the general or official opinion of anyone else besides me. No matter what YOU believe.
Phear the arrows of the HUNs >>---->

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Venkul Mul

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:24:00 +0000

Originally by: Sinker1345
Coming from a misson runner, I believe that they should nerf high sec lvl 3 and lvl 4 misson payouts while at the same time addning better paying lvl 3 and 4 agents to low sec.

Better than the 4 +20 already present there and absent from high sec?

Level 5 missions have been buffed up in the last big patch and those are available only in low sec, it seem that they finally are giving good returns. Add level 5 agents to all the 0.0 faction and you have your low sec /0.0 buffing.

Originally by: Gamesguy

the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Kano Sekor

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:22:00 +0000

/signed stamped approved and applauded this is the solution to everything

The biggest imbalance in eve atm is the risk/reward in high-sec lvl 3 and lvl 4 agents. It needs balancing

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Thule Cult

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:22:00 +0000

Originally by: Eldar Boon
I do think that level 4 missions need some adjustment because I believe that the risk/reward balance is a bit off.

I agree that moving all level 4 mission agents to low-sec is an option, but I feel it's a little crude. Sometimes it's fun to do a level 4 missions just to blow stuff up; and I wouldn't like to see that removed from hi-sec.

I'm more in favour of adjusting the reward so that hi-sec mission running is more for fun than profit. If you want to become a hardcore mission runner, then I think you should be encouraged to move in to low-sec for the rich rewards (with the obvious risk that entails).

Ideally I would like to see mission reward based on the number of people using an agent. The more people using an agent, the lower the reward. The longer nobody accesses an agent the greater the reward. In addition to making low-sec level 4 missions more appealing, this could lead to remote level 1, 2 and 3 agents being a viable way to make money in low-sec.

problem with moving agents into low sec is that the reward is too low. pirates will camp that system 23/7 probe you out daily since you will be tanking specific rats they will burst your bubble. Thats why so many are doing missions in high sec because pirates camp the low sec systems, even an idiot can figure that out.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Eldar Boon

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:19:00 +0000

I do think that level 4 missions need some adjustment because I believe that the risk/reward balance is a bit off.

I agree that moving all level 4 mission agents to low-sec is an option, but I feel it's a little crude. Sometimes it's fun to do a level 4 missions just to blow stuff up; and I wouldn't like to see that removed from hi-sec.

I'm more in favour of adjusting the reward so that hi-sec mission running is more for fun than profit. If you want to become a hardcore mission runner, then I think you should be encouraged to move in to low-sec for the rich rewards (with the obvious risk that entails).

Ideally I would like to see mission reward based on the number of people using an agent. The more people using an agent, the lower the reward. The longer nobody accesses an agent the greater the reward. In addition to making low-sec level 4 missions more appealing, this could lead to remote level 1, 2 and 3 agents being a viable way to make money in low-sec.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by KISOGOKU

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:16:00 +0000

if you are making 25-30m with 1.8m Bs spawns you are doing it wrong ,i was making 25m easliy with 1.3m Bs spawns(no loot or salvage) with siege raven and dont forget faction spawns i made 600m from faction loot at 45 days and it was from crappy angels

Originally by: Havohej

In 0.0, true sec under -0.7 (that is, the rats with the 1.8M bounties which is pretty good) I made 25-30M per hour

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by csebal

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:13:00 +0000

Edited by: csebal on 08/08/2008 09:13:12

Originally by: Joey Meow

Now, as far as your proposal to remove L4 agents from High Security - this will never happen, CCP is here to make money, and forcing those who do not wish to PVP into certain PVP is not a way to keep up subscription numbers. Also, there are L5 agents in low security, they do need to be fixed, or rather the missions need to be fixed somewhat.

Since when is removing level 4 missions from high sec forcing people to move to low sec? They could just as well stay in high sec grind away lvl3 missions.

Thats the whole point of risk vs reward.. You cant mine crockite in high sec.. Do you see people moan about it? No.. why? Becasue its a risk vs reward thing. The whole point of crockite not being in high sec is to reward those who take the risk. I dont see why it shouldnt be the same in every aspect of the game.

As it stands now.. people in high sec just have no incentive to move out of high sec, as they can make the most money there.

Originally by: Joey Meow

Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
At present, I can make more money in high sec missions than I can in 0.0 sec, with a risk level that approaches 0% of what I'd have in null sec.

Really? Wow, damn, I do not believe you. If you are part of a well organized Alliance or a Corporation with access to 0.0, and you are making less than mission runners, you are obviously doing it wrong - or you are ninja ratting in systems frequented by the neutrals who operate on NBSI, so you have to pause, and run, and cloack. In a well defended, well organized 0.0, you should not have an issue ratting none-stop and making crap load of ISK, way more than even the best mission runner in Empire. You also have access to the expensive ores and minerals which can be jumped back to Empire and sold. So, forgive me if I call bullshit on your whine.

Actually, get your fact straight, cuz even the best NPCing areas only offer an income that can be compared to that of high sec mission running, but is by no chance that much higher as you would expect from the fact that you live in 0.0 - lawless space.

0.0 mission running is a different issue, lvl4 missions down there are obviously a lot more valuable than lvl4 missions in high sec, but still.. why move your ass out of safety and risk your ships for a mere 30-50% increase in mission revenue? Not to mention. Would there be no lvl4 in high sec, you would see quite a lot of people moving into low sec to do missions and obviously quite a lot of people staying in high sec grinding away lvl 3 ones.

Anyway.. this is not about 0.0 vs high sec. This is about low sec vs high sec.. As it stands now, low sec is more dangerous than 0.0 yet the rewards are lower there. So why exactly are we wondering that noone wants to go there?

Bring balance to the world FFS.
My post does not represent the general or official opinion of anyone else besides me. No matter what YOU believe.
Phear the arrows of the HUNs >>---->

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Thule Cult

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 09:04:00 +0000

Originally by: Dura'Lorth
Move lv 3 missions to 0.5-0.3 sec space, and lv 4 missions to 0.3-0.0 sec space. No one should be able to make that much isk off these mission in high sec systems, it causes lag. And makes sense RPwise since how hard it would be for pirate faction battle ships to use jump gates into 0.9-0.7 mission hubs.

aw pirate cry? poor little man....

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Tippia

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 08:55:00 +0000

Edited by: Tippia on 08/08/2008 08:56:00

Originally by: Wet Ferret
They aren't there to to challenge the player, they are there as a means to make money and grind up faction standings. You could say that mining isn't dangerous either, and so they should nerf it?

Exactly, so there should be some risk to balance out those earnings. Reducing the likelyhood of being ganked reduces that risk, which means that the earnings need to come down as well.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by TrulyKosh

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 08:54:00 +0000

Originally by: Havohej
Originally by: Pithecanthropus
How much isk are these missioners making? More than carebears ratting in 0.0? I doubt it.

These missioners put in time... in return they make isk. Seems like you pvpers need to realize their time is just as valuable as your time. Perhaps you should use YOUR time more wisely.

You doubt it and you're wrong.

In 0.0, true sec under -0.7 (that is, the rats with the 1.8M bounties which is pretty good) I made 25-30M per hour depending on luck with the spawns in a relatively un-crowded system with 12 belts (more miners there than ratters).

Since spending some time in lowsec with a Q-18 L4 agent, I've found myself making 25-40M per hour, depending on luck with mission assignments (sometimes he has me killing faction NPCs or drones which don't have bounties, but usually it's been nice missions like Angel Extravaganza or The Blockade or Mordus Headhunters, with lots of crap to shoot at).

That's a Q-18. I know of highsec mission hubs with Q-20 agents! Higher quality = higher mission rewards, higher standings increases...

The rat bounties and mission rewards alone add up to equal or greater than 0.0 ratting, depending on the quality of the 0.0 ratting space, then you add the salvage, loot and Loyalty Point store merchandise that mission runners earn (Faction ammo is still a goldmine) and yeah... High sec missions ARE making more ISK than carebears in 0.0 ratting.

You are casually ignoring the income of possible faction/officer spawns, hauler spawns, exploration sites, encounter sites and the mining towers humming in the background (even if it's not dysprosium). If you add LP store merchandise to the empire income, let's just be fair and include everything 0.0 has to offer as well, thx

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Havohej

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 08:47:00 +0000

Originally by: Pithecanthropus
How much isk are these missioners making? More than carebears ratting in 0.0? I doubt it.

These missioners put in time... in return they make isk. Seems like you pvpers need to realize their time is just as valuable as your time. Perhaps you should use YOUR time more wisely.

You doubt it and you're wrong.

In 0.0, true sec under -0.7 (that is, the rats with the 1.8M bounties which is pretty good) I made 25-30M per hour depending on luck with the spawns in a relatively un-crowded system with 12 belts (more miners there than ratters).

Since spending some time in lowsec with a Q-18 L4 agent, I've found myself making 25-40M per hour, depending on luck with mission assignments (sometimes he has me killing faction NPCs or drones which don't have bounties, but usually it's been nice missions like Angel Extravaganza or The Blockade or Mordus Headhunters, with lots of crap to shoot at).

That's a Q-18. I know of highsec mission hubs with Q-20 agents! Higher quality = higher mission rewards, higher standings increases...

The rat bounties and mission rewards alone add up to equal or greater than 0.0 ratting, depending on the quality of the 0.0 ratting space, then you add the salvage, loot and Loyalty Point store merchandise that mission runners earn (Faction ammo is still a goldmine) and yeah... High sec missions ARE making more ISK than carebears in 0.0 ratting.

Originally by: CCP Explorer
You can still steal their stuff.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Wet Ferret

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 08:46:00 +0000

You don't seem to understand missions at all. They aren't there to to challenge the player, they are there as a means to make money and grind up faction standings. You could say that mining isn't dangerous either, and so they should nerf it? Hell most people do it AFK... that is the definition of "getting something for nothing". And it's not risk free.. give me a break. The first thing I learned in EVE is that hitting the undock button is agreeing to non-consentual PvP, and that's no different for a mission runner. The more efficient their mission running ship is, the more they are putting on the line.

All your suggestion would do is limit non-pvpers to level 2 and some lvl 3 missions (0.5 with good lvl 3s would be the new "highsec mission hubs"). Because they wouldn't be moving to low-sec, as has already been proven time and time again.

BTW, pirate factions use smuggling and pirate stargates to get into high-sec territories. Clearly you have never run a mission in your life if you don't know this.

But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Dura'Lorth

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 08:20:00 +0000

Originally by: Andrue
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
First of all, they aren't changing "PvP". They're addressing suicide ganking, which, IMO, barely qualifies as PvP at all.

In it's present form it's practically a no-lose. As long as you can figure out how to use a cargo scanner and do some arithmatic, YOU WIN!!. Where's the "risk/reward" in that?

Sad to say, but the people whining here don't want "PvP", they want helpless victims, which isn't the same thing.
/this.

These people are basically schoolyard bullies. There's little or no reasoning with them. You just have to avoid them and wait. Eventually most of them will grow out of it and might even learn to respect other people.

Quote:
I'd be all for moving level 4s to low-sec with the following changes to them:

1) Re-configure them so that optimal mission running setups are very similar to optimal PvP setups (i.e. you need to be able to deal/take burst damage, web, scram, etc).

2) Make them not soloable, and requiring a good mixed fleet of damage dealers, tacklers, etc. This is the norm in other MMOs, where you cant run most worthwhile dungeons solo, or with a group consisting only of damage dealers or tanks.
This is what L5s should have been.

I also think L5s should have used a dynamic missioning system and offered chained mission sequences. Leave L4s as predictable and boring and offer low-sec L5s as exciting, rewarding and with the runners ready for PvP.

Unfortunately simply ruining L4s will not help. A lot of people living in high-sec simply don't view low-sec as an alternative. For those people the choice is "High-sec" or "leave".

School Yard Bullies eh? If i wanted that i would have sugested a stupid change.

Guess what, if you cant solo the mission becuase of your fit, get a corp mate or a friend.

Currently there is no reason to head to lowsec, missions where you make massive amounts of isk in mods/loot/rewards need to be down there, These missions should have needed a gang to do. You should have had to bring a friend in a cruiser or frig to take out the rat cruisers and frigs.

People want a solo game, but that ruins it for everyone else who wants interaction, They can fit WCS they can use scouts they can mission in groups to protect them selves.

They could Form an alliance, where corps of missioners help produce and support a PVP wing. A swarm of frigs can take out a BS, or other gangs, t1 frigs with t1 fits can do massive dmg.

I dont want helpless targets, i want LOW SEC have more rewards then high sec. I want corps to move back to low sec. Back in the start of eve corps banded together to hold their system, they worked as a team to kick the pirates out, they protected the minging ops, with frigs and cruisers.

EVE is a MMO it makes no sense the most profitable things are in the safest space in a PVP centred game, people shouldnt beable to do everything solo.
You cant spell risk with out isk.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by eliminator2

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 07:18:00 +0000

/signed

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Andrue

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 07:18:00 +0000

Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
First of all, they aren't changing "PvP". They're addressing suicide ganking, which, IMO, barely qualifies as PvP at all.

In it's present form it's practically a no-lose. As long as you can figure out how to use a cargo scanner and do some arithmatic, YOU WIN!!. Where's the "risk/reward" in that?

Sad to say, but the people whining here don't want "PvP", they want helpless victims, which isn't the same thing.

/this.

These people are basically schoolyard bullies. There's little or no reasoning with them. You just have to avoid them and wait. Eventually most of them will grow out of it and might even learn to respect other people.

Quote:
I'd be all for moving level 4s to low-sec with the following changes to them:

1) Re-configure them so that optimal mission running setups are very similar to optimal PvP setups (i.e. you need to be able to deal/take burst damage, web, scram, etc).

2) Make them not soloable, and requiring a good mixed fleet of damage dealers, tacklers, etc. This is the norm in other MMOs, where you cant run most worthwhile dungeons solo, or with a group consisting only of damage dealers or tanks.

This is what L5s should have been.

I also think L5s should have used a dynamic missioning system and offered chained mission sequences. Leave L4s as predictable and boring and offer low-sec L5s as exciting, rewarding and with the runners ready for PvP.

Unfortunately simply ruining L4s will not help. A lot of people living in high-sec simply don't view low-sec as an alternative. For those people the choice is "High-sec" or "leave".
--
(Sarcastic mission running veteran, 4+ years)

[Brackley, UK]

My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by TrulyKosh

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 07:07:00 +0000

Edited by: TrulyKosh on 08/08/2008 07:07:19

Originally by: Dura'Lorth
Move lv 3 missions to 0.5-0.3 sec space, and lv 4 missions to 0.3-0.0 sec space. No one should be able to make that much isk off these mission in high sec systems, it causes lag. And makes sense RPwise since how hard it would be for pirate faction battle ships to use jump gates into 0.9-0.7 mission hubs.

And what would that accomplish?
Let's assume the average income of running lvl2 missions is 2m/hour. So any high sec player would have to run these missions for 40-60 hours to afford a single battleship. Make it 90 hours since he may have to buy the skillbooks along the way. Make it 150 hours to buy the necessary guns and equipment.

But that is a secondary concern. If the player is not absolutely daft, he will try to obtain a clone before going into low sec (and potential "death" there). In order to gain the necessary standings to get a clone with lvl2 missions that is another 400 hours of lvl2 mission running.

Let's further assume that this is a casual player, who spends 10 hours/week in this game. So, with your changes in game, a new player has to spend an enire year in high sec before he could venture out to low sec and try his first lvl4 mission. (and please consider that secondary costs of buying ammo, insurance, etc. are not even taken into account). Of course, if he loses it, it would only be another 6 weeks until he could get a new one, but that would also require to assume that he/she never lost a ship along the way to obtain the first battleship.

With stats like that i would assume selling this game to subscribers would be a pretty tough sale.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Tippia

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 06:13:00 +0000

Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
In it's present form it's practically a no-lose. As long as you can figure out how to use a cargo scanner and do some arithmatic, YOU WIN!!. Where's the "risk/reward" in that?

The risk:reward is fairly low, yes, but no worse than, say, an L4 mission. The "risk" part is mostly in the form of bad random numbers that make the entire cargo go poof, in much the same was as random numbers can make your mission fairly unprofitable by giving deciding that those angel BS:es only carry T1 mining lasers and that the only salvagable part is 300m3 of scap metal.

Mostly though, the risk comes in the form of opportunity: you risk sitting around a whole day and not finding a single worth-while target.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Veldya

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 06:05:00 +0000

Level 1-4 missions are fine, they need to remove T1 module drops because have an impact on resource prices but that is another topic...

The problem with moving L3 or L4 to low-sec is the missions need to be done by very one-dimensional builds with a big tank for specific damage types. It creates massive holes in your defense.

L1 & L2s can be done in small ships and you only really need a very basic tank to do them, they are ideal for low-sec space where slow moving bricks in PvE build have the survivability of a snowflake in hell. Create L6 & L7s which are high payout versions of L1 & L2s so taking the risk with smaller and cheaper ships is on par or better than just taking a brick to do L4 highsec missions.

If you lose a frigate or cruise in low-sec, who gives a crap? Losing battleships with expensive modules is more of an issue. Podding is also an issue, they should probably make it easier to get into jump clones so people can get into low-sec easier.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Hieronimus Rex

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 06:01:00 +0000

Originally by: Dura'Lorth
Move lv 3 missions to 0.5-0.3 sec space, and lv 4 missions to 0.3-0.0 sec space. No one should be able to make that much isk off these mission in high sec systems, it causes lag. And makes sense RPwise since how hard it would be for pirate faction battle ships to use jump gates into 0.9-0.7 mission hubs.

I think they should just make quality a bigger factor, so while L4s would be everywhere, rewards would only be good in lowsec. In hisec you'd just get to fight battleships and a minimal amount of ISK and LP.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Chainsaw Plankton

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 05:58:00 +0000

Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine

In it's present form it's practically a no-lose. As long as you can figure out how to use a cargo scanner and do some arithmatic, YOU WIN!!. Where's the "risk/reward" in that?

Only true if someone first puts themselves in a situation where the math comes out favorably for would-be gankers. That's something that's very easy to avoid. It's sad that they're diminishing the player's obligation to defend their wealth.

I just went about 30 jumps with over 100mil in the cargo of a frigate, NERF!!!!!!!

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Chainsaw Plankton

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 05:56:00 +0000

Originally by: Amateratsu

Never going to happen, keep dreaming....

Nerfing missions to low-sec so you piewats can have your wicked way would cause a s**t storm on a scale never before seen in eve and would prove seriously damaging to ccp's subscriptions revenue.

You will just have to go find targets to pew pew elsewhere.

carebears need to adapt or die

they been yelling that at the nanoers/gankers time for them

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Scathain

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 05:52:00 +0000

Edited by: Scathain on 08/08/2008 05:54:51

Originally by: Verx Interis
Edited by: Verx Interis on 08/08/2008 00:44:51
I concur.

Even industrials won't be able to get money in hisec as much. Where do they get all their high end minerals from? Reprocess level 4 mission loot. Even trading will be less because there isn't as much of a hisec capital. The lack of minerals in hisec will help make lowsec and 0.0 worth mining in because they're the only place to get high end ores aside from drone compounds.

I'm planning on making my alt (who mainly does trades) do industry as extra money and I support this. A lot. Because I prefer eve to be fun, not just what helps me.

As for it being impossible to do missions without being a member of x alliance, it's worth mentioning that about half the people lagging up hisec are tied to lowsec/0.0 inhabiting characters. And it's really not so hard to get in a t1 frigate and go on an op with the rest of the alliance. Seriously.

But then they might ruin their Isk/Hr.

This would be the best change ccp could implement, they wont do it though.

Becasue CCP have great ideas such as:
adding 110% mass to the vaga was running salt into the vaga pilots wounds.

GARMON FORBID THAT PLAYERS HAVE TO INTERACT IN A MMO.

Not only would this force players to move to low sec, it would also prevent them from being unkillable in the NPC corps. The should put all 4mil+ sp players into the FW corps, like so many people have suggested. Give us a chance to take out the macro miners.

Ps. Anyone who says they want to play solo should go cancel their account.
===============================================
Oh Noes!!1!oNe

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Verx Interis

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 00:44:00 +0000

Edited by: Verx Interis on 08/08/2008 00:44:51
I concur.

Even industrials won't be able to get money in hisec as much. Where do they get all their high end minerals from? Reprocess level 4 mission loot. Even trading will be less because there isn't as much of a hisec capital. The lack of minerals in hisec will help make lowsec and 0.0 worth mining in because they're the only place to get high end ores aside from drone compounds.

I'm planning on making my alt (who mainly does trades) do industry as extra money and I support this. A lot. Because I prefer eve to be fun, not just what helps me.

As for it being impossible to do missions without being a member of x alliance, it's worth mentioning that about half the people lagging up hisec are tied to lowsec/0.0 inhabiting characters. And it's really not so hard to get in a t1 frigate and go on an op with the rest of the alliance. Seriously.

Originally by: Rawr Cristina
(dreadnoughts are also possibly the most boring ship you could fly. It's like mining, without the part where you make money)

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Cpt Branko

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 00:29:00 +0000

Originally by: Dura'Lorth
Move lv 3 missions to 0.5-0.3 sec space, and lv 4 missions to 0.3-0.0 sec space. No one should be able to make that much isk off these mission in high sec systems, it causes lag. And makes sense RPwise since how hard it would be for pirate faction battle ships to use jump gates into 0.9-0.7 mission hubs.

This.

Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com Saint

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Dura'Lorth

Fri, 8 Aug 2008 00:27:00 +0000

Originally by: Crumplecorn
Edited by: Crumplecorn on 07/08/2008 18:12:58
Originally by: Deej Montana
I don't get why you "nerf missions" guys care so much about how much people can potentially make in high sec. So there are people who have more stuff than you? Too bad, deal with it. You don't hear the high sec crowd complaining about not having moons to mine or million isk rats to kill or rare ore to mine do you? No. We go about our business and play the game the way we like, as is our right as a paying CCP customer. We understand that there are (in theory) lots of isk to be made in low and null sec, but for our own reasons, we choose to remain in Empire.

Why the hell do you care?

Don't tell me it's because you want to maintain the "integrity of the developers vision" or any of that crap. At least be honest; you either want a bunch of what you see as soft targets to gank risk free, or, you're petulant children who can't stand that someone else has gotten more than you and had fun while doing it.

How about we make a deal? You play Eve the way you like and so will I.
Perhaps we recognise that this is MMORPG and as such everyone everywhere needs to be playing by the same basic rules - like Risk/Reward.

I know that since mission running is basically a single player game that it is easy to forget this, but you are part of the game, and do have an effect, and thus need to be regulated like everyone else.

Right here is a perfect example, the missioners bring in loads of isk, that affects all other players in the game. If you had carebear currency CCP

(Complete Crap Puchasizers) where you could by leet stuff from agents and nothing else then it would be fine, but the massive amounts of isk the missioners bring in is ruining the economy.
You cant spell risk with out isk.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Somealt Ofmine

Thu, 7 Aug 2008 18:31:00 +0000

Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine

In it's present form it's practically a no-lose. As long as you can figure out how to use a cargo scanner and do some arithmatic, YOU WIN!!. Where's the "risk/reward" in that?

Only true if someone first puts themselves in a situation where the math comes out favorably for would-be gankers. That's something that's very easy to avoid. It's sad that they're diminishing the player's obligation to defend their wealth.

That's still true after this change. The target will just have to be a lot juicier for it to make sense, which is probably as it should be. A solo mission runner or carebear should be relatively safe in high-sec. An alliance moving freighters full of goodies using NPC corp alts probably shouldn't be.

In the interest of full disclosure I'll say right up front that I'm one of those "solo mission runner / carebears" right now. I haven't always been, but I'll be damned if I'm going to put up with 15 minute module activation in fleet fights. Until that part of the game stops being essentially broken, I'll live in high-sec, and I'm not all that interested in feeding PheerM311!!! while I do.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by SurrenderMonkey

Thu, 7 Aug 2008 18:18:00 +0000

Originally by: Somealt Ofmine

In it's present form it's practically a no-lose. As long as you can figure out how to use a cargo scanner and do some arithmatic, YOU WIN!!. Where's the "risk/reward" in that?

Only true if someone first puts themselves in a situation where the math comes out favorably for would-be gankers. That's something that's very easy to avoid. It's sad that they're diminishing the player's obligation to defend their wealth.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Somealt Ofmine

Thu, 7 Aug 2008 18:12:00 +0000

First of all, they aren't changing "PvP". They're addressing suicide ganking, which, IMO, barely qualifies as PvP at all.

In it's present form it's practically a no-lose. As long as you can figure out how to use a cargo scanner and do some arithmatic, YOU WIN!!. Where's the "risk/reward" in that?

Sad to say, but the people whining here don't want "PvP", they want helpless victims, which isn't the same thing. I'd be all for moving level 4s to low-sec with the following changes to them:

1) Re-configure them so that optimal mission running setups are very similar to optimal PvP setups (i.e. you need to be able to deal/take burst damage, web, scram, etc).

2) Make them not soloable, and requiring a good mixed fleet of damage dealers, tacklers, etc. This is the norm in other MMOs, where you cant run most worthwhile dungeons solo, or with a group consisting only of damage dealers or tanks.

If they made these two changes I'd LOVE to see level 4s moved to low sec. Of course, the pirate whines would be far louder than they are on this thread.

Since you are changing PVP, Lets change missions. - by Crumplecorn

Thu, 7 Aug 2008 18:12:00 +0000

Edited by: Crumplecorn on 07/08/2008 18:12:58

Originally by: Deej Montana
I don't get why you "nerf missions" guys care so much about how much people can potentially make in high sec. So there are people who have more stuff than you? Too bad, deal with it. You don't hear the high sec crowd complaining about not having moons to mine or million isk rats to kill or rare ore to mine do you? No. We go about our business and play the game the way we like, as is our right as a paying CCP customer. We understand that there are (in theory) lots of isk to be made in low and null sec, but for our own reasons, we choose to remain in Empire.

Why the hell do you care?

Don't tell me it's because you want to maintain the "integrity of the developers vision" or any of that crap. At least be honest; you either want a bunch of what you see as soft targets to gank risk free, or, you're petulant children who can't stand that someone else has gotten more than you and had fun while doing it.

How about we make a deal? You play Eve the way you like and so will I.

Perhaps we recognise that this is MMORPG and as such everyone everywhere needs to be playing by the same basic rules - like Risk/Reward.

I know that since mission running is basically a single player game that it is easy to forget this, but you are part of the game, and do have an effect, and thus need to be regulated like everyone else.
-

DesuSigs