Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Hurtado Soneka
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 19:48:00 -
[211]
all i see are whiners crying over lvl4 and even some idiots thinking the centre of eve is too crowded (lol), theyre aint nothing wrong with lvl4s, they are working as intended and people play eve and complete missions obviously enjoying it the way it is. Am thinking some people are jealous of the isk their making, and this cry thread is proof of it.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 19:52:00 -
[212]
Originally by: Hurtado Soneka people play eve and complete missions obviously enjoying it the way it is.
Plenty of people enjoy faulty mechanics when they're faulty in their favour.
Quote: Am thinking some people are jealous of the isk their making,
Well, you'd be wrong (in more ways than one). ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Andrest Disch
Amarr Letiferi Praedones
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 19:54:00 -
[213]
Originally by: Shaun Klaroh No one has rebutted the idea of limiting available Level IV missions in the systems they are in at the time. Is it safe to assume that people agree with the idea, or people are just ignoring each other, causing this circular conversation to continue over and over.
I'm pretty sure everyone just agrees. |
Essence Praetor
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 20:06:00 -
[214]
No I am pretty much ignoring everyone at this point.
The horse thing being removed was pretty funny though lol
|
Andrest Disch
Amarr Letiferi Praedones
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 20:07:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Essence Praetor No I am pretty much ignoring everyone at this point.
The horse thing being removed was pretty funny though lol
I thought you were just quoting yourself and feeling smug. |
Essence Praetor
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 20:09:00 -
[216]
Ignoring.
|
Karentaki
Gallente Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 20:15:00 -
[217]
Let us imagine a hypothetical situation for a moment. I have a button that allows me to kill anyone anywhere at any time in the EVE universe.
Originally by: Hurtado Soneka all i see are whiners crying over my I-WIN button and even some idiots thinking the button is overpowered (lol), theyre aint nothing wrong with the I-WIN button, it is working as intended and I play eve and kill random people and I am obviously enjoying it the way it is. Am thinking some people are jealous of my I-WIN button, and this cry thread is proof of it.
Would this argument be valid in that situation?
Quote:
EVE is like a sandbox with landmines. Deal with it.
|
Mrsticks
Minmatar RNCGM Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 20:16:00 -
[218]
Edited by: Mrsticks on 27/05/2009 20:16:54
Originally by: Shaun Klaroh No one has rebutted the idea of limiting available Level IV missions in the systems they are in at the time. Is it safe to assume that people agree with the idea, or people are just ignoring each other, causing this circular conversation to continue over and over.
Only problem with that is It wont do anything but make us spend a little more time flying. I own 4 Battleships ATM I leave them at my lvl 4 agents. I use my Blockade runner so there is verry little time wasted tbh. So your plan is a Tiny Annoyance at best.
Long Live TEXAS! Texans join the Texas channel in game plz.
|
Maren Jensen
Innocent Victims
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 20:22:00 -
[219]
I still fail to see why people even care about missions and mission runners. I sit on both sides. I live, rat and do exploration in 0.0 and once in a while I run missions in high sec. Usually when I just want to relax or don't have much extra time.
I fail to see the problem with missions. Removing the loot might be a good idea to boost mining and T1 production. Beyond that, they're just fine. If anything, just boost the rats and missions in low-sec. By a lot. I would argue that the rats in low-sec should be better than those in 0.0.
You're indirectly nerfing PVP by reducing income from missions. As far as I'm concerned, that trumps anything said in this thread so far. It's a PVP game, don't give more people more reason to not want to risk ships.
|
Shaun Klaroh
Caldari The Report Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 20:33:00 -
[220]
Originally by: Mrsticks Edited by: Mrsticks on 27/05/2009 20:16:54
Originally by: Shaun Klaroh No one has rebutted the idea of limiting available Level IV missions in the systems they are in at the time. Is it safe to assume that people agree with the idea, or people are just ignoring each other, causing this circular conversation to continue over and over.
Only problem with that is It wont do anything but make us spend a little more time flying. I own 4 Battleships ATM I leave them at my lvl 4 agents. I use my Blockade runner so there is verry little time wasted tbh. So your plan is a Tiny Annoyance at best.
By the time you get there, they're already all used. -----
Quote: "Are these people prisoners?" Arkhan asked.
"Not at all," Melak replied. "They're free to run and get shot any time they like."
|
|
Dramaan
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 20:34:00 -
[221]
Is there any fun to run mission no. Is there anyone out there doing any mission not for isk but for fun? Whta my paoint I may not have any one but after done lot of mission i can say they are boring as hell and noting more then for earning isk. That big problem in eve most of the mission is for earning isk and not for fun.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 20:42:00 -
[222]
Edited by: Tippia on 27/05/2009 20:44:47
Originally by: Maren Jensen I fail to see the problem with missions.
They artificially inflate the value of certain goods because mission runners very rarely lose the stuff they buy and can afford to overbid those who lose stuff habitually. They drastically reduce the value of other goods because they are spawned out of nowhere, thus reducing the viability of large swaths of the manufacturing field. They [to some disputed degree] reduce the value of mining and also remove some of the competetive nature of the mining that remains. They provide untouchable revenue streams. In essence, they inject large amounts of ISK and items without any decent sinks of either kind on the other end. All of this while offering very little in the way of effort, risk, competition or any other balancing factor.
All of it is bad.
Quote: You're indirectly nerfing PVP by reducing income from missions.
And that's (partly) the point: to give others the ability to wage economic warfare against your PvP-funding activities. Untouchable revenue streams are bad. It doesn't really matter if those streams are small or lage — for all intents and purposes, mission rewards could very well stay the same, or even be increased, as long as they were balanced against mechanisms and strategies that allowed other parties to deny you that money flow. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Hot Tubes
A Pretty Pony Princess General Tso's Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 20:49:00 -
[223]
Some things I, personally, would see as helping the current situation (coming from someone who runs missions and gets into fights when the opportunity arises):
As has been previously suggested, removing/greatly reducing loot drop would be a starter. Combined with this would be making mission runners actually easier to probe out than in normal space (deadspace magnifies sig radius...who knows) would mean a boost to ninja salvaging which would reduce the money missioners can make by looting/salvaging while at the same time not harming the rig market and also boosting mining as a profession when less materials are being made from reprocessing mission loot.
Reducing the occurance of level 4 storyline missions from once every 16 missions (or whatever it is) to taking twice as many missions will also reduce some of the easy cash made. 8000 units of kernite anyone?
Perhaps even making wrecks from mission rats able to be looted by anyone (except mission critical wrecks) would also promote people stealing the "earnings" of mission runners. Though I would be against this as it would heftily nerf those who get kills through these means.
I would definitely want to see mission areas easier to probe out and loot drops severely nerfed, though. Over a period of about a month I've picked up 13 1600mm rolled tungsten plates which will fit me out 3 pvp ships, which I find a little too generous a reward from missioning.
The rat types in missions would be a very easy way to rebalance some things, though. I've heard people say "fewer rats but make them harder", though I find when you have missions of relatively few rather high bounty rats you get isk faster. I would suggest reducing the battleship rat amounts while increasing cruiser and frigate rat amounts. Would take longer to burn through so many targets while also reducing the isk from the targets as well.
I don't know, just brainstorming.
|
Maren Jensen
Innocent Victims
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 20:49:00 -
[224]
Originally by: Tippia
And that's (partly) the point: to give others the ability to wage economic warfare against your PvP-funding activities. Untouchable revenue streams are bad. It doesn't really matter if those streams are small or lage ù for all intents and purposes, mission rewards could very well stay the same, or even be increased, as long as they were balanced against mechanisms and strategies that allowed other parties to deny you that money flow.
Then get rid of noob corps. That's all that's needed.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 20:56:00 -
[225]
Originally by: Maren Jensen Then get rid of noob corps. That's all that's needed.
No. Noob corps are needed, and removing them doesn't solve anything since there are other ways to route the money.
You need to be able to attack the source of the income, not just the pipeline from source to endpoint. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
ShadowMaiden
Amarr Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 21:38:00 -
[226]
Originally by: Indiference If youÆre a carebear and you jump into lowsec and there is a pirate on the other side you pretty much know your dead, and with your mission boat fit...
Confirming it is impossible to mission in a PvP set-up.
|
Zitala
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 23:25:00 -
[227]
Originally by: Izo Alabaster [people want missions moved for easy ganks]
No sir, I wish for lvl 4 missions to be moved to lowsec/0.0 so that it creates a more player versus player driven economy. (Note, I don't mean a combat driven economy, I mean that people should actually have to compete for the resources, riches, and wealth that they acquire).
That's an argument to change the way missions work, but not for relocation.
Besides: Be careful what you wish for. I can think of several distinct effects removing lvl 4 missions from the general population might have on the economy, each of which has to be carefully looked at:
i) Resource supply problems. If my information is correct, mission loot accounts for approx. 40% of the minerals on the market. Any significant reduction in supply is likely to cause (relative) price spikes. Whether or not this would occur is idle speculation, but it's too important to just decide on a hunch.
Pretty much the same with named loot and salvage, everything not covered by sub-BS loot tables would become increasingly scarce. The rest can be compensated for by lower tier missions -- I do however doubt it'd be as much volume. => More (relative) price spikes.
ii) Less ISK in the economy. Yes, that's pretty much the point, but it does have a few nasty side effects. Cut their income and people tend to be more hesitant about spending money, even with (absolute) prices falling. Faction/officer/deadspace markets would probably just die (who needs pimp modules for level 3 missions?), other low volume markets like T3 and high end implants might just share that fate. In fact, EVE might slow down by a lot, because it's ISK that fuels the whole engine -- people poor = less pretty explosions.
iii) Significant drop in the player base. Let's face it: lots of people like their missions and they _do_ want to run them without having to rally a protection fleet first. Take that away and they're gone. That means less people to scam, ninja and gank, as quitters are more likely to be the prey...
No, I'm not convinced this is a good idea.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 23:42:00 -
[228]
The economic argument is finally addressed.
Right now, we have two bubbles in the real world economy and the moving of lvl 4 missions to reduce their rate of being performed could imitate that in the EVE universe.
Right now, in the US in particular, there are millions of houses for sale on the market that are bought during the price bubble brought on by the money-wrenching of the Federal Reserve. Those houses will not sell - along with a lot of commercial real estate that goes without mention (that bubble is bigger) until the prices come down.
If you move lvl 4 missions from high sec and cut off the carebears from ISK income, the prices will not drop with the income, the inflated prices of ships and mods that come from an inflated ISK supply will keep them in the market longer as newer or poorer players will not want to buy them. In the real world, the fed intended to cut interest rates to cause inflation that keeps the prices up. The departure there is that EVE is not cursed with a Federal Reserve banking system but the economy will collapse anyway because there is price inflation.
Another thing to consider is also that the farmers in the real world are not planting this year. Weather has something to do with it, but most of the seed and feed purchased was on last years energy prices. Now the cost of energy is down but the cost of using the purchased resources versus the risk of no yield is considerable and the farmers are not planting. This could lead to a very bad food shortage that, coupled with inflation, means a loaf of bread costs and afternoons worth of wages if you can find one.
So you have inflationary depression with scarcity driving market prices up. For EVE, this means all those items on the market taken during the inflationary period has a lower cost basis meaning that there will be reluctance to expend those resources to make ships and items that won't garner enough price to make a good profit. The end result is that even with a lower ISK supply, brought about by there being less ISK earned, scarcity will keep prices high while the reduced desire for production creates more scarcity.
This would also mean that only corporations intending to produce goods only for fighting wars will have resources and production, but there will be no profit motive from that, and EVE becomes Gank and Blob Online with T1 Ships - if you can find them - costing a lot of ISK. The fact that pirated loot can sell well in empire space is because the carebears can earn the ISK to buy it. Therefore if there is less ISK for the carebears, even piracy and 0.0 dominance for resources will lose profit and experience an outlay beyond the rate of return.
The comparison of the available technology from that point, especially for PVP, is like comparing the Western forces to the always-broke socialized production of the Communist Block.
So economically, for the benefit of all, leaving lvl 4 missions alone and making only slight changes if needed would be a better idea than the "fix it now! EMORAGEWHINE!" solution usually offered up. Removing ISK from the economy slowly can do this as any kind of money production "out of thin air" (via missions in EVE or the Federal Reserve Printing Press in the USA) causes inflation that negatively effects all markets. Right now the system based on inflation will fall way too hard and fast for many of the pirates and gankers who rely on the present value of the loot they take.
Remove LVL 4 missions tomorrow and you will see a lot of T2s at T1 prices but nobody who has them wanting to sell them.
|
Lrrp
Minmatar The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 23:45:00 -
[229]
Originally by: Hot Tubes
I would definitely want to see mission areas easier to probe out
CCP did this a couple years ago and this is why all the pirates are making up these "nerf lvl 4 missions in hi sec" threads. Mission runners all went to high sec. Talk all you want, the only way you will get runners back in lo sec is to make the missions there un-scannable.
|
Hot Tubes
A Pretty Pony Princess General Tso's Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 02:47:00 -
[230]
Originally by: Lrrp
Originally by: Hot Tubes
I would definitely want to see mission areas easier to probe out
CCP did this a couple years ago and this is why all the pirates are making up these "nerf lvl 4 missions in hi sec" threads. Mission runners all went to high sec. Talk all you want, the only way you will get runners back in lo sec is to make the missions there un-scannable.
Should have made myself clear. I'm not saying make these changes while also moving them to low sec, I mean keep them where they are now. Make high sec missions areas even easier to scan out than a ship just sitting in normal space. Though for missions run in low sec it would be best to do the opposite (if you insist on roleplaying it then just say "they're in low sec so turn off their transponders hurf durf a durf").
I do think several smaller changes added together, like I suggested (), would be better than one huge change of shifting location of all the L4 agents.
|
|
Tara Moss
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 04:33:00 -
[231]
Originally by: Jackson Grey
Its quite simple you cant force people to PvP. Its been tried in AoC and that game appears (please correct me if I am wrong) to be on its last legs. It ended up with much higher players hiding by the main entrances to mission areas killing lower players just for the hell of it (sound familiar?). I do know they tried to curb the practice, but as I left the game I dont know how well anything tried worked.
I dont PvP cause I am crap at it I have 2 Player Kills to name and 20+ losses that covers my 23 visits to low sec. So as I am crap I trade, I do level 4 missions, in high sec, and I mine.
If your that upset about people running L4 missions in high sec then do it yourself and stop moaning about it.
The most sucessful MMO games in PvP, level (to a greater or lesser degree) the playing field when they do it (City of Hero's/Villain, Warhammer Online, I am sure there are more). It is not realistic to do it with this game so there has to be max level PvE for those people that dont want to do PvP.
You cant force people to PvP - I won't say I will leave if it happens but I would certainly be considering my position.
/agree
|
Xiese
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 05:32:00 -
[232]
Things people don't get
Money all by itself is worthless. (look at the funny paper in your wallet now imagine how much it is actually worth if your country ceased to exsist)
☻ All money everywhere comes from governments. (if you don't have money all you can do is barter -- I'll give you 1 implant for 1 gun - this is a much more difficult means of gaining and selling things.)
☻ There needs to be a source of money input into the system. . ♦ This can be done by the governement buying stuff from individuals . ♦ or by having the government provide jobs and supply the money
So now how do you get money into the game - well the game lets you get government jobs by doing missions. This puts money into the game and allows people to use it for other buying and selling. The game also buys things from people (these are known as money sinks)
Now 2 things can happen when the government inserts money into a system - If they don't put enough out rampant deflation happens (This is when the price of items starts to decrease). - If they put too much money out hyper inflation can occur (this is where everything rises in cost astometrically.)
What a country/game does want is mild inflation where the price of everything increases over time slowly.
(if I need to explain in more detail how all this works it is going to take a lot more writing and I don't want to do this right now)
Sooooo... Now you need to decided which way is Eve headed Rapid Deflation, Deflation, Inflation, Hyper Inflation? There have been dips and spikes just like any market.
Now think what would happen if CCP suddenly decided to do what alot of people have suggested - moving the jobs out of safe areas to unsafe areas there will be a drop in income for people and deflation will occur. Something not wanted.
All in all I think the biggest thing people need to realize is that it is alot more complicated than just "I think it stinks and we should just change it". The effects can be far reaching more so than what you think it would be on the surface.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 05:37:00 -
[233]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Venkul Mul You have no way to damage my business directly, even if it is trading.
Irrelevant.
Quote: You can play with the words has much as you want, but you can't - take away my trading business; - take away my capacity to mine; - take away my capacity to invent; any more than you can take away my capacity to run missions.
Yes I can. I can steal your sales; steal your asteroid; steal (or destroy) your invention slots. I cannot steal your agents.
All false.
You can steal someone sales selling under his prices but you can't target me; You can mine some asteroid but you can mine enough asteroid to stop me from mining; You can use some invention slot, but you can't take them all (and I can always put up a tower and invent there).
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 05:46:00 -
[234]
Originally by: Matrix Skye
What's funny is how they add the "however minimal, it's still risk", yet a mission runner's ship getting blown up on a mission isn't risk BECAUSE it's minimal. . It's about picking and choosing what benefits them. But it won't matter, in the end it's going to affect PVP just as much they want to screw the PVE players.
Ratting in 0.0 "however minimal, it's still risk" if you look local. So there is no risk doing that followiong your reasoning? After all plenty of isk farmer do it on a regular basis.
|
Red Wid0w
Caldari Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 06:19:00 -
[235]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Matrix Skye
What's funny is how they add the "however minimal, it's still risk", yet a mission runner's ship getting blown up on a mission isn't risk BECAUSE it's minimal. . It's about picking and choosing what benefits them. But it won't matter, in the end it's going to affect PVP just as much they want to screw the PVE players.
Ratting in 0.0 "however minimal, it's still risk" if you look local. So there is no risk doing that followiong your reasoning? After all plenty of isk farmer do it on a regular basis.
You can do level 4 missions easily while afk (fof/drones), without using any macros. 0.0 farmers must either use an alarm macro, or pay attention.
|
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 06:24:00 -
[236]
Originally by: Red Wid0w
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Matrix Skye
What's funny is how they add the "however minimal, it's still risk", yet a mission runner's ship getting blown up on a mission isn't risk BECAUSE it's minimal. . It's about picking and choosing what benefits them. But it won't matter, in the end it's going to affect PVP just as much they want to screw the PVE players.
Ratting in 0.0 "however minimal, it's still risk" if you look local. So there is no risk doing that followiong your reasoning? After all plenty of isk farmer do it on a regular basis.
You can do level 4 missions easily while afk (fof/drones), without using any macros. 0.0 farmers must either use an alarm macro, or pay attention.
Ofcourse you can afk L4s but if thats how you do it then the isk/hour income is lower than for mining highsec veldspar.
The top single account incomegenerator in my experience is mining arkonor or mercoxit in 0.0 assuming you are in a "safe" station system and have the option of hauling to empire for sales.
Ofcourse trade , scamming , wormholes & plexes can outperform it for isk/hour but looking at more "normal" ways of doing thing mining will outperform missionrunning anytime of the day if you got access to a "safe"(for you) part of 0.0. "Subtlety is a thing for philosophy, not combat. If you're going to kill someone, you might as well kill them a whole lot." - Vulcan Raven, The Last Days Of Foxhound |
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 06:49:00 -
[237]
Originally by: lollerwaffle However, having a finite number of missions for each individual would reduce this problem, but not get rid of it, as it still does not introduce any competitive elements.
I think the suggestion was more oriented towards having a finite number of missions per agent. This directly introduces the competition element.
|
Zen Mehari
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 07:38:00 -
[238]
Originally by: Xiese Things people don't get...
☻ There needs to be a source of money input into the system. . ♦ This can be done by the governement buying stuff from individuals . ♦ or by having the government provide jobs and supply the money[/yellow]
Now 2 things can happen when the government inserts money into a system - If they don't put enough out rampant deflation happens (This is when the price of items starts to decrease). - If they put too much money out hyper inflation can occur (this is where everything rises in cost astometrically.)
What a country/game does want is mild inflation where the price of everything increases over time slowly.
All in all I think the biggest thing people need to realize is that it is alot more complicated than just "I think it stinks and we should just change it". The effects can be far reaching more so than what you think it would be on the surface.
You make an important point Xiese.
Alas I think it's largely lost on this crowd. They can't see beyond the risk vs reward & pve vs pvp mentality.
As far as they're concerned nerfing level 4s is a zero-sum game. What they don't realise is that we ALL LOSE.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 07:48:00 -
[239]
Originally by: Venkul Mul You can steal someone sales selling under his prices but you can't target me;
Again, irrelevant. You get hurt — I get my wish.
Quote: You can mine some asteroid but you can't mine enough asteroid to stop me from mining;
(I assume you mean't "can't mine enough"?) I can effectively keep you from mining by forcing you to spend more time finding belts than actually mining them.
Quote: You can use some invention slot, but you can't take them all (and I can always put up a tower and invent there).
Sure I can, and if you have a tower, I can blow it up. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 12:34:00 -
[240]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Rhinanna Lvl 4s generate less income than a decent trader.
Irrelevant, for reasons already explained.
Quote: Decent traders can often generate this risk without leaving a station.... how is that less safe than running missions? Death by boredom?
Has already been explained.
Quote: Loot/Bounties/Salvage can all be stolen, just like when ratting.
Doesn't incur a loss of ISK ù only lowers your earning, as previously explained.
Its irrelevant because you make money trading rather than running Lvl4s? Thats about the only reason that makes it irrelevant.
And yes its impossible to lose your ship and lose ISK while mission running, honest gov! If anything the chances of losing ISK mission running are much greater than losing ISK while trading, if you have half a brain anyway.....
Basically you are saying 'Well this reason only counts against missioning because I don't want it to count against trading.' Well tough, if you are looking at this logically your arguements are nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |