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) |
Max Tux
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 15:19:00 -
[1]
from what i can see, people want level 4's moved to low sec mainly so they can have more people to kill, they will not be good fights they will mainly be ganks.
this is a poor excuse to want to change the main income on many players, maybe reduce the loot drops, yes,but the idea of forcing people into low sec won't work.
|
Valandril
Caldari Ex-Mortis
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 15:25:00 -
[2]
Your abilit to read fails, ppl want them moved to lowsec because they are biggest income available in eve and they come without any risk. Signature graphics that may only contain your character name, corporation logo, corporation or personal slogan or other text that is directly related to your in-game persona, or content directly related to Eve Online. All content must be in good taste.Applebabe |
Karentaki
Gallente Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 15:28:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Valandril Your abilit to read fails, ppl want them moved to lowsec because they are biggest income available in eve and they come without any risk.
This! They can give as much ISK per hour as 0.0 ratting with none of the risk.
Quote:
EVE is like a sandbox with landmines. Deal with it.
|
craig0ss
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 15:34:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Max Tux from what i can see, people want level 4's moved to low sec mainly so they can have more people to kill, they will not be good fights they will mainly be ganks.
this is a poor excuse to want to change the main income on many [farmers], maybe reduce the loot drops, yes,but the idea of forcing people into low sec won't work.
Fixed that for ya ;)
|
Max Tux
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 15:42:00 -
[5]
ok even if you say the reason is to increase risk, many people won't want to risk their pimped out mission ships and therefor will start doing level 3's instead, and the actual amount you earn is very over exaggerated, i make about 20 mill an hour using 2 accounts ( one to salvage) what people assume is they see figures of 40 million isk from some of the larger missions, and read the time taken to blitz missions, and put them together and get a scewed view on missioning, as the blitz for most missions involves not needing to kill anything or even just 1 ship, this gets them a very low amount of isk for the mission
|
Jack Gilligan
Dragon's Rage Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 15:53:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Max Tux from what i can see, people want level 4's moved to low sec mainly so they can have more people to kill, they will not be good fights they will mainly be ganks.
this is a poor excuse to want to change the main income on many players, maybe reduce the loot drops, yes,but the idea of forcing people into low sec won't work.
If they move them to .4 people will just run L3's. I'd rather see a big buff to lowsec space to entice people there than a deliberate nerf designed to discourage people from highsec. Missions ran in lowsec should have MUCH higher bounties and payouts than they do in highsec, and the rats should be better.
There is more risk in lowsec than even in 0.0, and the reward should reflect that, at least making it on par with 0.0.
--- My opinions are my own and do not necessarily represent those of my corp or alliance. |
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 15:57:00 -
[7]
So run L3s. Your income will drop relative to those who take the risks, which is what Eve is supposed to be about.
|
Whineroy
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 16:05:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Whineroy on 26/05/2009 16:06:58
Originally by: Lear Hepburn So run L3s. Your income will drop relative to those who take the risks, which is what Eve is supposed to be about.
Risks ? Like people who sell GTCs/PLEXes take risks with their income ? Or like all the alt- users take incredible risks by using untraceable alts for scams, corp theft, suicide ganking and similar ? Or like all the killmail- w***ing ganker nerds take risks killing PvE- fitted ships with PvP- fitted ships ? Oh please, cut that "risk and reward" crap already.
L4 mission risk/reward definitely does need adjustment, no denying that, however the issue is very complex (like has been proven by several well-thought out posts that some people seem to ignore over and over). Anyone saying that the L4 risk/reward problem can be fixed simply by moving them to lowsec is either a hypocritical moron or a moronic hypocrite.
|
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 16:09:00 -
[9]
I don't even know why people play this game to do missions.
Navy Faction gear and ships should be rewards for Faction Warfare.
The only thing a mission should get you is boredom.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 16:17:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Whineroy Edited by: Whineroy on 26/05/2009 16:06:58
Originally by: Lear Hepburn So run L3s. Your income will drop relative to those who take the risks, which is what Eve is supposed to be about.
Risks ? Like people who sell GTCs/PLEXes take risks with their income ? Or like all the alt- users take incredible risks by using untraceable alts for scams, corp theft, suicide ganking and similar ? Or like all the killmail- w***ing ganker nerds take risks killing PvE- fitted ships with PvP- fitted ships ? Oh please, cut that "risk and reward" crap already.
L4 mission risk/reward definitely does need adjustment, no denying that, however the issue is very complex (like has been proven by several well-thought out posts that some people seem to ignore over and over). Anyone saying that the L4 risk/reward problem can be fixed simply by moving them to lowsec is either a hypocritical moron or a moronic hypocrite.
Wow, you sound upset. Maybe take a few deep breaths before posting next time, and a few less personal attacks and people might start to respond to you civilly, like I'm taking the patience to do...
My response was aimed at those who said that people would just start to run level 3 missions, it wasn't an indication that I think that moving 4's to losec is a good or bad idea. I was basically saying that I don't think they would as they'd want the income. Maybe you should link for discussion a few of these "well thought-out posts" you mention rather than ranting.
|
|
Hariya
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 17:07:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Karentaki This! They can give as much ISK per hour as 0.0 ratting with none of the risk.
Yes the rate with which they drop faction items is so great (not)
|
Valandril
Caldari Ex-Mortis
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 17:22:00 -
[12]
Like in 0.0 you get good faction worth item every 10 minutes (i've been ratting for half year and nothing that was actualy worth selling from faction stuff). And lvl4s don't generate great money ? My low sp raven char (caldari battleship3, missile skills3) makes about ~25m/h from just bountys. Add loot + salvage and you are somewhat around doubling it. I'm sorry but even having -1.0 system for your own ratting purposes will have trouble topping that income and you are still "to be killed". If they will downgrade to lvl3, as it was already pointed - fine with me because they will have a lot less reward (bigger reward but with risk awaits in lowsec/0.0 lvl4 missions). It's theyr choice. Signature graphics that may only contain your character name, corporation logo, corporation or personal slogan or other text that is directly related to your in-game persona, or content directly related to Eve Online. All content must be in good taste.Applebabe |
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 18:14:00 -
[13]
[sarcasm]Yeah lets move Lvl4s to low-sec cos the reward outweights the risk[/sarcasm]
I take it you are planning on banning hi-sec trading then? Possibly the most quickest and most risk-free way of making isk? What about hi-sec plex running? Just as profitable as lvl 4s really. Oh lets not forget scamming, risk free and massive ISK and you can do it while doing missions or plexing or pvp.
The problem with low-sec missions and why no-one does them is because they will NEVER be worth the risk, they would need to increase the rewards and bounties 5 times over to be worth it. Why? Cos if a pirate warps in while your engaged with a full pocket of rats you are dead. If low-sec is to become more popular it needs there to be a challenge to pirating not just gate camping and attacking people mid mission who can't fight back.
Options - 1: All missions in low sec set off an alarm when anyone uses a Accel gate that everyone in the deadspace complex can see to give the mission runner a chance to escape (still practically none if scrammed) 2: Make all additional entrants to any deadspace complex cause a respawn of half the origional amount of ships in the pocket, this would only happen once per player, the extra ships would automatically agro the new entrant and despawn if they leave. The same ships (with same damage - repairs over time) would respawn if/when they enter that pocket again.
In addition make missions MORE valuable in low-sec (not less in high sec) and make gate guns powerful enough that gate camping is actually a challenge. Low sec is meant to be LESS secure than hi-sec, not a death trap! :)
|
Izo Alabaster
Friendly Neighbourhood Extortion Company
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 18:34:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Max Tux From what I can see, people want level 4's moved to low sec mainly so they can have more people to kill. They will not be good fights they will mainly be ganks.
This is a poor excuse to want to change the main income on many players. Maybe reduce the loot drops, yes,but the idea of forcing people into low sec won't work.
(edited grammar by Izo)
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).
This already takes place in asteroid belts, since the belts only produce a set amount of isk per day, and once they're mined out, they're gone for awhile. This creates competition between the miners, which is a good thing to have. Lvl 4 missions have no competition, because there are an infinite amount of them, always spawning out in space for people to simply warp to, and collect with almost no risk.
Currently, a vast amount of wealth can be accrued by running lvl 4 missions nonstop. It's tedious, but it works and worst of all, it doesn't involve actually having to compete/intereact with other people in order to gain that wealth. It's just a bunch of $$$ sitting out in space that you go collect, without anyone else having a chance to collect it, and there's an INFINITE amount of it.
I think maybe there should be a maximum amount of lvl 4 missions you can run per day, per agent... Like 3.
This would decrease mission farming, and help encourage a player created and driven economy that relies on players competing with each other for riches, rather than just heading into space and collecting bags of money that are lvl 4 missions.
It's an MMO. There should be competition for success in the game, which would create a more deserved sense of gratification when you succeed.
Originally by: CCP Nozh Are BS useless in solo combat? The larger ship still has many benefits: * Can fit smaller weapons to fend off smaller targets * More slots allow EW counter measures
|
Valandril
Caldari Ex-Mortis
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 18:52:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Rhinanna I take it you are planning on banning hi-sec trading then? Possibly the most quickest and most risk-free way of making isk? What about hi-sec plex running? Just as profitable as lvl 4s really. Oh lets not forget scamming, risk free and massive ISK and you can do it while doing missions or plexing or pvp.
You know what makes all those activities (beside plexing) different from lvl4s ? You don't grind that money out of nowhere but from other players by outsmarting them. Also trading is risk free ? Good one. Signature graphics that may only contain your character name, corporation logo, corporation or personal slogan or other text that is directly related to your in-game persona, or content directly related to Eve Online. All content must be in good taste.Applebabe |
Izo Alabaster
Friendly Neighbourhood Extortion Company
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 19:00:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Rhinanna
Options - 1: All missions in low sec set off an alarm when anyone uses a Accel gate that everyone in the deadspace complex can see to give the mission runner a chance to escape (still practically none if scrammed) 2: Make all additional entrants to any deadspace complex cause a respawn of half the origional amount of ships in the pocket, this would only happen once per player, the extra ships would automatically agro the new entrant and despawn if they leave. The same ships (with same damage - repairs over time) would respawn if/when they enter that pocket again.
Reg: 1. There already is an alarm. In fact, there's 3 of them. It's called an OVERVIEW, a SCANNER, and LOCAL. Either one can be used to detect hostile ships nearby. Used in conjunction, they can almost certainly detect any nearby hostile ships with almost 100% certainty.
Reg: 2. Oh yes, please implement this, CCP! I'd love to warp my alt's heavily tanked drake in and out of a mission a few dozen times while my main in a heavy DPS fitted battleship racks up the kills on the respawning rats. I could make billions!
Originally by: CCP Nozh Are BS useless in solo combat? The larger ship still has many benefits: * Can fit smaller weapons to fend off smaller targets * More slots allow EW counter measures
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 19:02:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Karentaki
Originally by: Valandril Your abilit to read fails, ppl want them moved to lowsec because they are biggest income available in eve and they come without any risk.
This! They can give as much ISK per hour as 0.0 ratting with none of the risk.
To put it right:
If you compare the worst ratting in 0.0, done with a PVP ship, to the best mission in high sec done with a specialized ship, the mission runner get more isk. If he has maximized social skills, included the connection skills.
Note that the ratter need only some million SP and only in combat related skills.
It is really incomprehensible how a guy with some teens of million SP in the missioning skills and a specialized ship worth a billion will be making more isk that a guy with a ship worth one hundred millions and 4-5 millions SP.
naturally then you are discarding all the other rewards of 0.0 (i.e. moon mining and exploration).
|
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War United Legion
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 19:02:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 26/05/2009 19:06:04 Edited by: Fon Revedhort on 26/05/2009 19:04:59
Originally by: Rhinanna stuff
you have no clue.
you can never make gate camping 'challenging', that way you'll just encourage more blobbing on the gates or low sec gates will end up being hi sec ones with concord-like ships/sentries.
And your suggestions on low sec missions are just lol. May be instead they just should give out free isk to anyone entering low sec? The inability of carebears to fit a decent setup is their own fault. How exactly can you expect a CCC-rigged stupidity with gazillion cap recharges fight against any intellegent ship? Sure thing you're bound to die. And if you're getting ganked by 2+ ships... uh, well, nothing can help you here and nothing should.
Rewards on running lvl 4 in lowsec are to be higher than they are now (I'd say extra 25%) and those in high sec are to be lower no matter what. That's evident really.
Any (isk-farming) activity in EVE is nowadays compared with high-sec mission running in terms of isk/hour ratio. It's just stupid. ---
|
Kuuijn
PROGENITOR CORPORATION Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 19:04:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Rhinanna The problem with low-sec missions and why no-one does them is because they will NEVER be worth the risk, they would need to increase the rewards and bounties 5 times over to be worth it. Why? Cos if a pirate warps in while your engaged with a full pocket of rats you are dead. If low-sec is to become more popular it needs there to be a challenge to pirating not just gate camping and attacking people mid mission who can't fight back.
This. Lowsec mission running is not risk. Its suicide. Pirates want lvl 4 missions moved to lowsec because they don't like targets that can shoot back.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 19:08:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Robert Caldera on 26/05/2009 19:07:56 wrong
my former corp ran missions in a low sec pocket system without problems. Just setup up a working intel then its no problem anymore... But wait, it would require some inter-human communication??? oohhh nnooeeesssss
Seriously, Lvl4 missions have to go away or at least get reduced payouts/rewards, there should be no method for grinding that huge amounts of ISK only via F1-F8.
|
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 19:08:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Karentaki
Originally by: Valandril Your abilit to read fails, ppl want them moved to lowsec because they are biggest income available in eve and they come without any risk.
This! They can give as much ISK per hour as 0.0 ratting with none of the risk.
There is risk in 0.0 ratting? -------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Darzokun
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 19:09:00 -
[22]
People Whine to much mission running is dull the money is ok but you can make more outside of high sec if your willing to take the risk.
The only people who care are the pirate`s who are just looking for more people to gank if it was to happen they would only then whine about level 3 missions or that a few mission runners gang up counter gank them.
|
Typhado3
Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 22:35:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Typhado3 on 26/05/2009 22:36:41
Originally by: Valandril Your abilit to read fails, ppl want them moved to lowsec because they are biggest income available in eve and they come without any risk.
This. I've spent plenty of time doing both, right now reward in 0.0 will be usually lower than lvl 4 rewards unless you have been ratting in the system for about 4 hours already and built the spawns up to all triple 1+ mil bs spawns (when you do this you get no faction spawns). Now you just have to hope no hostiles come in and pop em off and you can start making better than the average lvl 4's.
Even with all this you'll find most systems can only have 1 or 2 people per system and most systems can't be used as they have too high trafic. Go to a place like motsu and you'll find how many people all feeding off a single agent? having one of the best easy sources of income placed in the middle of highsec with an unlimited supply is just bad for the game.
EDIT: for reference I don't agree with moving lvl 4's to low sec it seems an oversimplified solution to the problem. But putting up a redicilous straw man argument like this deserved a response.
-----------------------------------
ccp fix mining agent missions % pls
|
Morikai Acler
Caldari Demon Theory Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.05.26 22:39:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Karentaki
Originally by: Valandril Your abilit to read fails, ppl want them moved to lowsec because they are biggest income available in eve and they come without any risk.
This! They can give as much ISK per hour as 0.0 ratting with none of the risk.
Yeah, not much risk in the missions these days. They've become wussified since they put in the wave spawn triggers. GE and AE use to be challenging, same for most of the rogue drone missions and those EOM missions. Least back in the days if you didn't have help or at least a capable tank on your ship then you stood a good chance of losing if you took one of them.
Cold hard reality is that you actually do make more money out in 0.0, especially if you're a skilled prober. Hit a good 10/10 or 8/10 and can easily make a couple bil for a couple hours of fun.
|
lou shuo
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 00:55:00 -
[25]
well there already are level 4s in low sec, and you cant just say oh i cant make as much money as someone else becease i decided to pvp so much i cant get into highsec anymore and i dont want to grind rats or low sec misssions to get back up into the "care bear" money shaker. really why does all the world have to accomidate you god forsaking pvp`ers all frickin year long. if you want a game with pure 100% beyond any doubt or shadow player murdering game why have npc`s? truely why not just have missions to kill other people instead, i like my low sec and my high sec but i refuse to have anyone else decide for me which i will be in to do what i god darn well want to do today.
if you cant stand the assumed lower isk from low sec or null sec maybe consider getting out of it and back to high sec not all people that fly in high sec happen to be care bears and there are different degrees of care bears thank you very much.
you people remind me of wow players that say oh you tolk my insta win button away thats not allowed geez grow the hell up or adapt and over come already getting tired of this, i`m 16 and ****ed at the world!! i didnt get a horse and car for each year i was born on my birthday BS.
|
OzDeaDMeaT
Gallente The Goodies
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 03:16:00 -
[26]
If they doubled the pay day and halved the difficulty i would do lvl4 missions in low sec exclusively. Eve-au.com News Reporter |
Herzog Wolfhammer
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 05:33:00 -
[27]
I think the people complaining about lvl 4 missions were the same ones who cried in their beers over "Warp to 0".
Whatsamatter, gank and blob warfare not paying enough? Learn some real playing skills.
|
Lear Hepburn
Caldari Ascendant Strategies Inc. The Transcendent
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 06:03:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer I think the people complaining about lvl 4 missions were the same ones who cried in their beers over "Warp to 0".
Whatsamatter, gank and blob warfare not paying enough? Learn some real playing skills.
What, PvE? Seriously?
|
|
CCP Applebabe
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 06:42:00 -
[29]
Moved to " General Discussion ".
Applebabe Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
Pohbis
Neo T.E.C.H.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 07:08:00 -
[30]
Given how incredibly easy it is to just open the map and find the location of these LVL 4 agents, and how easy it is to probe people out in missions. I'd say that moving LVL 4s to low-sec would skew risk vs. rewards just as much, only in favor of the low-sec pirates.
|
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 07:42:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Izo Alabaster [Player vs Player Economy] already takes place in asteroid belts, since the belts only produce a set amount of isk per day, and once they're mined out, they're gone for awhile. This creates competition between the miners, which is a good thing to have. Lvl 4 missions have no competition, because there are an infinite amount of them, always spawning out in space for people to simply warp to, and collect with almost no risk.
There are an infinite number of asteroid belts just waiting to be spawned from any level 1, 2 or 3 agent in hisec. I can't help but chuckle as I watch folks in Hulks mining out Omber, when they're in a system with a bunch of level 1 agents just itching to hand out free Veldspar.
|
Avalon Champion
Gallente Defence Evaluation Research Agency
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 07:43:00 -
[32]
Yes there is an element of making the pirates happy, but if you get enough missioners in an area and they start forming NAP's with other corps, the pirates will start to move out, its been done in other places, and it does work.
Level 4's need to be worked on, whether thats pushing high quaility agents into low sec, or some other mechanic,
My personal favourite would be to base the bounties, rewards, and LP, on sec level of the system, eg ((1-system sec)+.3) * base reward, so in a 1.0 the mission is only worth 30%, in a 0.5 its worth 80%, and in a 0.1 its worth 120%.
|
Indiference
Republic University
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 07:50:00 -
[33]
PvP, that is what EVE is about, as has been explained before, everything in EVE is PvP from trading to actually shooting other toons. However lvl 4 missions are not PvP, no matter how you look at tit you are not competing in lvl 4 missions other than with yourself.
Fixing this is not as easy as handing pirates extra kills to boast about in lowsec. Pirating as a profession is dead because no-one wants to die in lowsec. 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, the best you can try and do is to target and put everything you have on him, at which point all his buddies arrive because the first pirate is there to tank the guns, right?
If you run a mission in lowsec and you get ganked, your problem becomes even worse than having missed the alerts that was sounded. There is nothing you can do to go and complete that mission, because the pirates will just wait for you at your mission spot, so instead of a reward you lose your ship and you lose your mission. Does it make good sense to just keep throwing your ships at pirates and losing your isk so that they can get fatter wallets? You already have a fat wallet else you would not be PvPÆing.
If lvl 4 missions are so profitable then why do the pirates not run them ? Because pirates do not like to grind, they are the ones that like the easy kills, and "silly" tanked carebears are perfect for them.
Please mister PvP pirate why don't you take your buffer tanked tech 2 pawn mobile and run some missions. Will the bad NPC's pop your 200 mil epeen ?
The only way to run lvl 4 mission in lowsec is to be part of a group of people, that is great because more people then populate lowsec and ultimately 0.0, however the people that live in lowsec and 0.0 live there for the PvP and if they are anything like the alliances that I have been part of before then you running missions are frowned upon you should be pew pewing not making isk. If you can show me how it is possible for a group of carebears to run lowsec lvl4 missions and still it is still as profitable as soloing a highsec lvl4 then sure move lvl 4 mission to lowsec and make it more risk orientated, then it should belong there.
As a matter of interest (and for comparison sake only) you can make more isk out of ninja salvaging a lvl 4 missions and there is 0 risk involved plus there is a never ending stream of them to probe out.
Bottom line, moving lvl4 missions to lowsec might be a solution if the lvl4 rewards are equal to the risk of being ganked by pirates and loosing not only your ship and fittings but also the mission rewards. Make it more team orientated so that carebears can run them in groups and feel safer but then make sure that the rewards are equal. Wait is that no called level 5 missions and yet there are still pirates moaning about lvl 4 missions, not enough carebears to gank that has **** PvP fits busy running PvE missions ?
|
Nareg Maxence
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 07:51:00 -
[34]
Give level 4 mission spawns better AI.
|
5pinDizzy
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 08:03:00 -
[35]
Most people with a bit more sense just want all missions restructured to be different so that (for level 4's mainly) they aren't a magic tap full of infinite isk you can choose to turn on and off depending on the level of grind you are willing to endure.
That's all.
If you mine you run out of rocks, if you trade you run out of items or buyers/sellers, if you suicide gank the best stuff might just blow up and someone might beat you to the looting.
I don't know why the quite frankly kinda stupid notion of just moving all level 4's to lowsec keeps being propped up as the flagship of the NErf MissioNz! argument.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 08:09:00 -
[36]
Quote: Yes there is an element of making the pirates happy, but if you get enough missioners in an area and they start forming NAP's with other corps, the pirates will start to move out, its been done in other places, and it does work.
I belief most of those areas pretty much died out.
When i used to be in another alliance i did low sec missions (lvl 4, Q20, income was higher than high sec, allthough way too much due to LP, i want just more isk, not LP. And then i got to use a raven instead of a CNR with faction fitting i can use in high sec). That area was pretty safe in general, but i still got ganked by a couple of pirates, and then you got to do many missions again to make profit. (btw lol @ people suggesting not to fit CCC/cap recharge stuff on mission ships, ever considered there is a special reason people dont fit cap boosters on a mission ship).
So what happened? I got killed by a couple of neutrals. Then we got the people who will advice to dock when neutrals come into local. This isnt 0.0, this is low sec. If you dock everytime neutrals show up you wont ever undock. Scan for probes? Talking about stupid and boring, hitting the scanner every 10 seconds and additionally not being able to filter for probes, so you got to look at a freaking long list of stuff if there is a probe somewhere between it. Even then the result would be that one bored pirate with some probes could shut down an entire mission hub because he has probes out. Asking others to safe you when you are being attacked? The response from allies was very fast, immediatly several who wanted to get fleeted to help. I didnt bother fleeting them. I was perma running my shield booster before they came to be able to tank the npcs. Curse + pilgrim appear, guess how long my tank hold without shield booster and no hardeners active.
|
Polly Prissypantz
Dingleberry Appreciation Society
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 08:25:00 -
[37]
Posting in yet another level 4 whine thread.
|
Nomakai Delateriel
Amarr Ammatar Free Corps
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 08:47:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Furb Killer Scan for probes? Talking about stupid and boring, hitting the scanner every 10 seconds and additionally not being able to filter for probes, so you got to look at a freaking long list of stuff if there is a probe somewhere between it.
lrn2play. Or whatever the standard insult is in this case.
1. If you order scan results by type and not name probes will appear at the same place every time. 2. Low-sec mission running is different from high-sec. If there are others in system you don't move out unless you're already fleeted up and prepared for intervention. They won't get your bounties/stuff unless they're on the same grid. Also move off the initial warp-in point (use an afterburner to reduce window of opportunity) and stay aligned to one of your favorite safespots for this day. There is usually some sort of debris on the warp-in point to decloak someone using a Cov Op.
That said, sometimes low-sec missionrunning isn't worth the hassle. It's not impossible for a well-organized corp, and can even be quite profitable. But the people who can do it could just as well be a part of one of the semi-decent 0.0 alliances in the game (as it takes combat ability and co-ordiantion to make it worth it) and making a lot more money.
Anyone that says that level4 mission-running gives you equal rewards to decent 0.0 ratting (ie, not Providence, Outer Ring or one of the other areas in New Eden with useless ratting) is either using a pimped out boat just begging for someone to Suicidegank them (in which case it's no longer risk free as it pays off to nuke 20 t1 fitted battleships to get at the juicy faction module interiors) or they're lying. Even an area like Catch would beat l4s for money if it wasn't so mind-numbingly boring to rat. Delve and you could use any DPS focused and long-range battleship (such as the Raven or any one of the amarr battleships, possibly even T1 fitted) to out-earn someone flying a multi-billion Nightmare and implants worth even more billions. And that in the first hour of ratting. ______________________________________________ -My respect can not be won, only lost. It's given freely and only grudgingly withdrawn. |
logeoff now
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 08:53:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Rhinanna [sarcasm]Yeah lets move Lvl4s to low-sec cos the reward outweights the risk[/sarcasm]
I take it you are planning on banning hi-sec trading then?
You really dont get it do you?
When you trade.. you literally "move" isk from one place to another and hope to double it or smth.
If you run lvl4-s... you gain stuff that you can sell... which is the problem! It ruins market.. it ruins mining etc.
All other part of your text was just stupid whine how hard it will be to run missions in low sec.... DO IT IN HISEC THEN, run lvl3-s... you are not after ISK anyway right????????
|
AncientLord
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 08:53:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Max Tux from what i can see, people want level 4's moved to low sec mainly so they can have more people to kill, they will not be good fights they will mainly be ganks.
this is a poor excuse to want to change the main income on many players, maybe reduce the loot drops, yes,but the idea of forcing people into low sec won't work.
Max Tux & Rhinanna told you guys/girls, what is wrong and you still go on with your blaber.
PvP'ers need to add bit brain.
|
|
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 08:55:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Karentaki
Originally by: Valandril Your abilit to read fails, ppl want them moved to lowsec because they are biggest income available in eve and they come without any risk.
This! They can give as much ISK per hour as 0.0 ratting with none of the risk.
Ehh mining arkonor in 0.0 for a skilled hulkpilot , single character = close to 50m isk/hour.
Missionrunning is accepted at around 20m isk/hour per character if you dont get the ****ty missions at all. Usually people earn less than that. To go above the 20m area on average usually means factionfitted marauder , nightmare or the like if its to be done efficiently.
And last time I had belts in a good 0.0 system to myself the income was in the 40m/hour area or above. "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 |
Darius Brinn
Gallente Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 08:57:00 -
[42]
Forcing people into Lowsec does not work.
Increase 0.0 ratting rewards. Increase the profits of mining. Entice people to move to other riskier/more boring (but needed) activities. Those are reasonable ideas.
Asking CCP to move lvl4s to low security is just a flow of pirate tears asking for targets not fitted to shoot back. http://www.geocities.com/vagrantweapons/db.jpg |
Terak Rorkai
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 08:59:00 -
[43]
I would say I'm relativly new to the game since I've only played for say about a year but over that years time I have done mining, mission running and a small bit of pvp heck I'm now in 0.0 ratting and what I can say from reading a whole bunch of these posts is both sides have gd points but in the end the best ways combat wise to make money should be in low sec or 0.0 since if ur not gona be part of a militia then it would be unrealistic to have high rewards in secure space. I won't go into replying to all the points but at least the ones which stand out like the issue over pvpers just wanting easy kills, who are you kidding pvpers could just as likely get those "easy kills" from people ratting, as others have stated the use of communication and a brain if at all possible both would mean you wouldn't be killed so it stands to reason people complain about it when ur playing an mmo which tends to intail interaction between other players(big ccp examples would be the removal of shadow training and the short queue to prevent players from rarely logging on). |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 09:07:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Darius Brinn Forcing people into Lowsec does not work.
Increase 0.0 ratting rewards. Increase the profits of mining. Entice people to move to other riskier/more boring (but needed) activities. Those are reasonable ideas.
Asking CCP to move lvl4s to low security is just a flow of pirate tears asking for targets not fitted to shoot back.
A better idea would probably be to make L4s competetive and thus PvP:able (as in "I take your business", not the 'splo-you-up kind of PvP). ——— “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 |
Titan Pilot
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 09:15:00 -
[45]
CCP knows this idea will not work because PVE setups have no chance against roaming gangs. And this is their bread and butter.
Anyone who says otherwise has been playing a different game for last 6 years.
On the flip side I can make billions in empire with almost zero risk trading. Then there is the insurance payout for suiciding your ship into a poor hauler with a tank equivalent to maybe a cruiser without guns in the best of circumstances.
Whats funny as ppl always use the response if you want to do no risk lvl 4s bring a friend.
I challenge any decent PVP corp to say in corp chat right now lets go run missions together or ask for protection while someone does theirs .... lol
I think I prefer the emoragequit posts of those quiting because of bugs better than this drivel
|
Joe
Umbra Legion Shadow Empire.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 09:19:00 -
[46]
Quote: Why people want lvl 4's moved to low sec
There are lvl 4 agents in low sec allready, i enjoy running them along with my Lvl 5's. Real Topic title should read 'Why do people want lvl 4s removed from hi sec'
Originally by: Max Tux from what i can see, people want level 4's moved to low sec mainly so they can have more people to kill, they will not be good fights they will mainly be ganks.
People asking for the change arent lazy Pk's looking for more ganks (they can use the Wardec sysem, goto FW, goto 0.0 etc etc).
The rapid Increase in Lvl 4 whine threads is becuase Forum warriors like to feel big and hard by manipulating the game through Meta tactics: Forum Whine Bandwagons.
By repeating false arguements over and over again, ignoring any truths that contradict their own rhetoric, and then manipulating anyones posts that contradict their agenda, they are able to get the Forums flooded to the piont where normal players suddenly think theres a problem, and then Devs Respond.
You'll find the main arguemnt currently being spammed is 'Lvl 4s in hi sec make to much', and then anyone that pionts out the dozens of other profitible activities are riduculed.
I personally think the Dev tem needs to stop pandering to Forum warriors, but the Forums are where most new or interested players gain their first impressions of the game, and seeing the forums spammed with 'Game is broken' is bad for ccp buiseness.
|
logeoff now
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 09:21:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Titan Pilot CCP knows this idea will not work because PVE setups have no chance against roaming gangs. And this is their bread and butter.
SO? what this has to do with lvl4 profit? AFAIK hulks cant pvp at all... maybe give them 9000 dps and 10000 tank so they would be much safer in 0.0? Would this be reasonable for CCP?
If i understood you wrong then.. explain... maybe I just have no idea wtf are you talking about and im only assuming.. lol
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 09:29:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Joe You'll find the main arguemnt currently being spammed is 'Lvl 4s in hi sec make to much', and then anyone that pionts out the dozens of other profitible activities are riduculed.
Actually, the main argument is that “L4s in high-sec make too much and there is no way to attack that revenue stream” — at least from those who actually have an argument. That's why the other activities are irrelevant — all of them can be attacked, disrupted or just plain old stolen in some way.
It's the fact that this one particular activity cannot be affected from the outside, yet it is allowed to massively affect the rest of the game that bothers people. ——— “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 |
Wolfie276
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 09:33:00 -
[49]
Look at it this way:
If u finally manage to nerf high sec L4, u will just go on complaining about too many people in low sec. Or complain about level 3 missions being risk free.
|
Shaun Klaroh
Caldari The Report Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 09:34:00 -
[50]
Limit the number of Level IV missions given out by each agent X time per day.
For the sake of this example:
Level IV agent has a base rate of 20 missions per six hours. -> Pilot A takes one, 19 Available -> Pilot B takes one, 18 Available
So on, and so on till the "reset". The reset timer doesn't start until after that first mission is taken, and you can't know how many are actually available.
High-priority missions like Level IV's can't be completely ongoing in the same five systems. I mean.. Kruul can only build his brothel so many times a day, y'know. -----
Quote: "Are these people prisoners?" Arkhan asked.
"Not at all," Melak replied. "They're free to run and get shot any time they like."
|
|
magichatno9
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 09:36:00 -
[51]
KEEP ALL OF THE NON COMBAT L4S IN EMPIRE AND THE COMBAT ONES IN LOWSEC
MAKES SENSE!
|
KiloAlpha
Southern Cross Trilogy
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 09:44:00 -
[52]
first this is coming from a pvp char point of view (i rat just enough to pay my expenses)
imo instead of trying to move l4 missions to lowsec, CCP could apply sleeper AI to L4 mission rats. This would level off the risk v. reward issue, and the carebears' would not be getting ganked in lowsec(lowsec pvp is gay anyway). To increas the interest in lowsec, the missions found there could also have better drop rate/mission reward.
but i do not claim to know exactly how eve economy works so im sure this would require some tweaking
feedback?
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 09:51:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Max Tux from what i can see, people want level 4's moved to low sec mainly so they can have more people to kill, they will not be good fights they will mainly be ganks.
this is a poor excuse to want to change the main income on many players, maybe reduce the loot drops, yes,but the idea of forcing people into low sec won't work.
From what I can see, people want level 4s kept in hi-sec so they can keep on macroing the missions so that they can sell the ISK.
Hey, baseless, stupid accusations are fun!
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 09:56:00 -
[54]
Well, L5s are available only in lowsec, some of them are marginally soloable too, you can even "gamble" for a highsec destination for one... and they have been (more or less) recently been buffed in (LP) rewards. They're still not radically better than L4s though, and not so easily soloable (some are almost non-soloable, at least for most people). Guess how many people run L5s.... yeah, you guessed right. If L4s ever get moved to lowsec, L3s become the new ISK-maker in highsec... almost on par with heavy-duty mining. It wouldn't be such a BAD idea, but then again, meh... oh well, could be worse, I guess.
Personally, I'd really prefer to keep L4s in highsec, even bring L5s into highsec... but heavily adjust the obtainable rewards depending on security rating (dynamically).
EVE issues|Mining revamp|Build stuff|Make ISK |
Galleter
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 10:04:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Galleter on 27/05/2009 10:05:19 here is some true about missions and why some people want to move it to low/0.0 power blocks - means russions want to control all eve and market and people in empire prevent that. because all 0.0 belongs to russian, thay heva notheing more to conquer, so they want "more fun" and "fresh meat" to shut it.
|
Mad0ne
Caldari Enterprise Estonia Cult of War
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 10:28:00 -
[56]
Whatever is the outcome... whatever are the ideas... just WHATEVER
but finally it should be like this: lowsec - 0.0 activityes (ANY KIND) should give so much more profit than secure ones! That there would be reason to do them in first place...
Mission NPC-s should not drop so much crap T1 loot, instead better named ones but more often! Then there will be second thoughts to refine OR not to refine and instead sell it.
Minerals are base building blocks in eve, mining should be the MOST basic resource to build stuff or get rich! (if done properly)
When LVL4 loot refining > than mining, then HUGE part of the game is broken!
----------------------------------------------- Limit cloaks to cloaking ships! Or Make covert ops`s to scan prototype and improved cloaks!!!
|
Fille Balle
Dissolution Of Eternity Ethikos Trade Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 10:30:00 -
[57]
lol @ all you people thinking there's a problem with lvl4's. It was brought up at the CSM-CCP meeting, and CCP's response was: "we don't consider this a problem".
Regarding the age old ******ed argument about minerals from reprocessed modules:
1. It's not all mission loot, in fact, very small amounts of it is mission loot 2. The majority stems from drone loot 3. It does NOT affect the HIGH END minerals as much as the mid range minerals 4. Nullsec ores are barely affected 5. Not all mission runners loot 6. Hardly any of the minerals make it to the market, and thus it has no effect on the minerals market
Besides, if they're so profitable, what's preventing you from doing them? Is it because it's so boring? So you are proposing that somebody do something boring in a place that you can shoot them to make it more exciting for THEM? I don't know who you are trying to fool, but it's not certainly not me.
You being bored because there's not enough "juicy" targets stems from a completely different problem: people like you having too much time on your hands sitting idle in lowsec waiting for juicy targets to gank, and not having some sort of epiphany at some point.
|
T'ealk O'Neil
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 10:43:00 -
[58]
Edited by: T''ealk O''Neil on 27/05/2009 10:43:06 I'm betting that most of the ppl whining here that think lvl 4's give too much reward used to run them themselves, but now just becuase they have turned low-sec pirates, or have access to 0.0 want it nerfed because they either:
a) want a lot of EASY kills b) think that unless you are in 0.0 you should not be able to make any isk.
The trouble is that at the moment too many people are trying to change the way that eve works, just because they want something that gives them an advantage, forgetting the fact that they used to make use of all of these things when they started out.
|
Blackjack Turner
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 10:54:00 -
[59]
Originally by: T'ealk O'Neil Edited by: T''ealk O''Neil on 27/05/2009 10:43:06 I'm betting that most of the ppl whining here that think lvl 4's give too much reward used to run them themselves, but now just becuase they have turned low-sec pirates, or have access to 0.0 want it nerfed because they either:
a) want a lot of EASY kills b) think that unless you are in 0.0 you should not be able to make any isk.
The trouble is that at the moment too many people are trying to change the way that eve works, just because they want something that gives them an advantage, forgetting the fact that they used to make use of all of these things when they started out.
What he said!
|
McDaddy Pimp
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 11:02:00 -
[60]
It seems that most complains is about lvl4's risk-free zero-competition isk making. And moving them to low sec is a bit harsh imo.
Solution: Remove bounties from NPCs. Make them drop tags like NAVY NPCs.
-will create the much wanted "competition"
-no longer NPCs acts as a bag of ISK wating to be scoop, more like an asteriod where you have to mine it (shoot) and there's a risk of being can flipped (ppl stealing your tags)
-drastic increase number of agents trough out empire and spread it even more (so mission runners can find their own nice quite system to farm in)
- to make it more interesting, make tag thief get agro from the whole room
-and stolen tags worth less then "legit" ones
-no longer can you sit in a shield domi, agro the whole room, watch a movie, and isk piling up in you wallet.
|
|
Pilot Abilene
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 11:29:00 -
[61]
The beauty of lvl4s in high sec is that anyone can do them...well if your not too lazy to grind standings that is. It's not like only a certain group of people are allowed to do them lol. T1 loot should be removed to make it fair on the miners though, just drop the odd named items / tags. In a way I hope they do cave the the whiners as it will be interesting to see how bad it messes things up for a lot of ppl and maybe the game itself, who knows. I don't run lvl4s for the isk anyway as my mission runner is more of a standings addict so I don't care either way. Plenty of things to do in EVE without complaining about something else.
|
Mr DXV
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 11:42:00 -
[62]
Making level 4 missions exclusive to low security systems would defeat the point of most level 4 missions; a chance to have fun, earn good money, and standing away from the chaos of PvP. I don't know about you but PvP wears me down after a while. High-sec level 4s offer a good break from PvP. That being said level 4 missions aren't really an easy way to make ISK. They can be tough, and take a while to finish. Grinding them will get very tedious after a while. I personally do no more than two level 4 missions a day. Making level 4s exclusive to low-sec would kill the game for a lot of players because level 4 misssions are the main reason they actually enjoy the game (even though the game is actually mostly about PvP), plus they know their PvE fitted ship stands no chance against a couple of PvP fitted pirates roaming in low security systems. I am not sure how CCP will ever change high-sec level 4s without actually completely ruining their appeal to people who like PvE.
|
Zaldoc
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 11:43:00 -
[63]
Lol i laugh at all those wannabe pirates asking every time for lvl 4 nerf one way or another,while most of them have alts in high sec doing lvl 4 missions to fund their wannabe pirate habits..
Lets look at it.. Moving lvl 4¦s to lowsec..Will it benefit anyone...No...Eve economy will come to a halt,whit much less isk being produced. Well the macro miners will be happy,as mineral prices will go sky high because of much less minerals being produced from reprocessing loot..So the price on ships (yes the one you pirates gets blown up also) will go sky high aswell..
Not to mention the pirate in 0.0 space who just got lucky and get an officer spawn,witch before the move could easy net him 500+ million isk..Realizing that since the move no one will buy the stuff anymore,making it almost worthless.
CCP knows it will have a great impact on the game,to great to ever be implemented so just get over it and live whit it. Moving lvl 4 to low sec will not i repeat not give you anymore targets,as its not worth the risk to do it in low sec regardless of faction fit or not..And that wont change a bit if all lvl 4 agents got moved to low sec...Its not that hard to understand..
CCP also knows that one of Eve¦s strongest assets,is the fact that people can do what they want..So stop trying to talk them into pushing people out in 0.0 or low sec,its not gonna happen..Might aswell ask them to shot themselves in the foot.Eve is not a pure pvp game,and it never will be..If you cant live whit that,maybe its time you moved on..
|
Scrutt5
Snuff inc
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 11:47:00 -
[64]
Here's what I find amusing about this thread.
I am, in my own words... "A filty piratw"
I have been running low sec level 4's to fund my pvp habbit for years. Yes they take a little more consentration that running missions in high sec but in my opinion its worth the effort.
I get approx 12k lp's per mission as aposed to the 2-3k my empire counterparts running for the same corp are getting. Turning the loyalty points into isk means i'm getting approx (including bounties) about 40-50mil per mission depending on mission.
Running 2 nighthawks thats about 150mil per hour when focused and getting good missions.
Stay in empire for all I care, if your too short sighted to see the rewards you probably better off playing another game anyway.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 12:16:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Pilot Abilene The beauty of lvl4s in high sec is that anyone can do them...
…which is also what makes them the baseline activity against which all other activities are judged, and which render many of those alternatives pointless.
Originally by: Zaldoc Lol i laugh at all those wannabe pirates asking every time for lvl 4 nerf one way or another,while most of them have alts in high sec doing lvl 4 missions to fund their wannabe pirate habits..
…which means that they know very well how profitable these missions are and therefore don't buy the nonsense "but it's not affecting the game/why are you bothering me when I'm doing my own thing" line of reasoning. In addition, in case that detail escaped you, your logic means they're actually trying to nerf themselves: they lose their source of easy income and will have less time to PvP. ——— “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 |
Deran Francks
Amarr Hedion University
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 12:18:00 -
[66]
Not sure what the argument is. Move level 4s to low sec because the mission runners are making too much money??? It's not like the people complaining want to do level 4s themselves. For big corps and alliances big money can be made from moon mining or large scale trade with little or no risk. If you're a lone guy you can pirate in low sec, rat or even do some L4s yourself. It seems the moaners are jealous that the folks wanting to grind L4s (which most non-mission runners consider boring and tedious) are making cash, rather than playing as the fish in a barrel, moving them out of Concord protection means the piwates can help themselves to the mission runner's loot?
Either way, it just sounds like sour grapes. Let those who mine, mine and those who want to mission run, mission run. Whatever way you try to manipulate the game to force them into low sec won't work. There's a large proportion of the player base who don't want to be pirated or ganked for giggles. Eve's a sandbox, they aren't hurting you, so I don't see your problem. Leave 'em to it and grow some.
|
Elias West
RED SQUAD
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 12:21:00 -
[67]
why is there no risk in lvl 4`s in high ? its not true, everytime i run a mission with my alt i risk to drop dead in the front of my computer because of certain braindamage.
|
Anubis Assassin
Caldari Three 6 MaFiA Dark Crystal Empire
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 12:24:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Darzokun People Whine to much mission running is dull the money is ok but you can make more outside of high sec if your willing to take the risk.
The only people who care are the pirate`s who are just looking for more people to gank if it was to happen they would only then whine about level 3 missions or that a few mission runners gang up counter gank them.
I was going to respond, but this pretty much sums it up. --------------------------- I have to make my own sig break? WTF? These forums suck CCP, fix 'em or get something better... I'm tired of reading Khraunus' sig every single time I read one of his |
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 13:00:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Mr DXV Making level 4 missions exclusive to low security systems would defeat the point of most level 4 missions; a chance to have fun, earn good money, and standing away from the chaos of PvP. I don't know about you but PvP wears me down after a while. High-sec level 4s offer a good break from PvP. That being said level 4 missions aren't really an easy way to make ISK. They can be tough, and take a while to finish. Grinding them will get very tedious after a while. I personally do no more than two level 4 missions a day. Making level 4s exclusive to low-sec would kill the game for a lot of players because level 4 misssions are the main reason they actually enjoy the game (even though the game is actually mostly about PvP), plus they know their PvE fitted ship stands no chance against a couple of PvP fitted pirates roaming in low security systems. I am not sure how CCP will ever change high-sec level 4s without actually completely ruining their appeal to people who like PvE.
1. It depends on what your definition of 'fun' is I guess. Even you said it, running them gets tedious after a few. 2. Haven't run a mission in about a year, but from what I can see and hear from people who DO run them, they are exceedingly easy and can be done almost semi-afk. 3. I personally don't think moving them exclusively to lowsec is the solution. The problem is the unbalanced risk/reward ratio. Missions are not subject to competition from other players, they are basically unlimited isk sitting in space waiting to be collected. I'm using the word risk to encompass competition, effort, risk etc cos it would sound silly if i put those vs reward 4. True a PVE ship does not stand a chance against a PVP fitted ship, but activating a non-fitted module called 'Brain I' could potentially give 100% immunity to a PVE ship in lowsec. 5. What I find weird is that people choose to enjoy the crappiest and worst part of the game (PVE) as opposed to the best part of the game (PVP - not just ship to ship combat)
However I do agree that missions provide an alternative use for your guns besides PVP. The problem is, to some people it's the ONLY use of their guns Besides if I find I'm a bit sick of PVP, I just go do something else (ingame or out).
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 13:02:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Fille Balle lol @ all you people thinking there's a problem with lvl4's. It was brought up at the CSM-CCP meeting, and CCP's response was: "we don't consider this a problem".
Regarding the age old ******ed argument about minerals from reprocessed modules:
1. It's not all mission loot, in fact, very small amounts of it is mission loot 2. The majority stems from drone loot 3. It does NOT affect the HIGH END minerals as much as the mid range minerals 4. Nullsec ores are barely affected 5. Not all mission runners loot 6. Hardly any of the minerals make it to the market, and thus it has no effect on the minerals market
Besides, if they're so profitable, what's preventing you from doing them? Is it because it's so boring? So you are proposing that somebody do something boring in a place that you can shoot them to make it more exciting for THEM? I don't know who you are trying to fool, but it's not certainly not me.
You being bored because there's not enough "juicy" targets stems from a completely different problem: people like you having too much time on your hands sitting idle in lowsec waiting for juicy targets to gank, and not having some sort of epiphany at some point.
ccp released statistics saying that 40% mineral market is from reprocesing loot, didnt you knwo that? Thats hardly any. L4s pay too much they are better than "crap" 0.0 systems about 4-5 times. Theyn need to be limited in highsec or even removed.
60D GTC - shattared link |
|
TraininVain
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 13:06:00 -
[71]
This definitely needs another thread.
Personally as someone far too lazy to team up with other people to do dull carebear **** I'm pretty happy with my easy soloable income.
The more time I have to spend on dull carebear **** the less time I have to pew pew. This is bad because pew pew is EVE's main redeeming feature.
I'm pretty happy with my targets having an income source too because it means I get to pew pew them.
I could only really imagine caring about this issue if I was a) an empire miner (or whatever else people do for ISK if they like playing a spreadsheet, ****ed if I know) b) in a serious business ****socking 0.0 alliance bitter about my serious business player owned space not paying out enough in relation to the risk (risk is a relative term if you're blue in NBSI space and know how to watch intel channels or have Bacon) or c) considered popping PvE fitted ships PvP.
Don't get me wrong, ganking lolfit PvE ships is funny is it's not all that satisfying in the long run.
|
Darius Brinn
Gallente Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 13:11:00 -
[72]
Originally by: logeoff now
Originally by: Titan Pilot CCP knows this idea will not work because PVE setups have no chance against roaming gangs. And this is their bread and butter.
SO? what this has to do with lvl4 profit? AFAIK hulks cant pvp at all... maybe give them 9000 dps and 10000 tank so they would be much safer in 0.0? Would this be reasonable for CCP?
If i understood you wrong then.. explain... maybe I just have no idea wtf are you talking about and im only assuming.. lol
I think what he meant is that in order to extract that amazing profit/hour our of Lvl4 missions, you need competent skills, a proper ship and a good fitting.
It is not possible to both run Lvl4's in low sec and be even remotely ready for a potential PvP situation. The "bring friends" argument is ridiculous with the rewards being what they are now. Nobody would run them, right?
If the game forces you to use a certain set of rules for mission running, and at the same time forces you to use a different set of rules for having the slightest chance at PvP, it's simply ridiculous to move the most interesting missions into low sec.
There are actually no problems with the game. Nothing needs fixing regarding Lvl4's.
http://www.geocities.com/vagrantweapons/db.jpg |
TraininVain
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 13:13:00 -
[73]
I suppose you could put alternative PvE content in low secs that required PvP fitted ships and maybe gangs (is this what L5s are?) but really if you've got a gang of PvP fitted ships in low secs why would you bother?
See: FW.
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 13:14:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Zaldoc Lol i laugh at all those wannabe pirates asking every time for lvl 4 nerf one way or another,while most of them have alts in high sec doing lvl 4 missions to fund their wannabe pirate habits..
Erm yeah ok.
Originally by: Zaldoc Moving lvl 4¦s to lowsec..Will it benefit anyone...No...Eve economy will come to a halt,whit much less isk being produced. Well the macro miners will be happy,as mineral prices will go sky high because of much less minerals being produced from reprocessing loot..So the price on ships (yes the one you pirates gets blown up also) will go sky high aswell..
This would just go to show much the the eve econmy has shifted to become entirely dependant on missions. No one wants to mine, or do any other isk-generating activity, simply because level 4's are just a goldmine that. When the economy of a PVP game is based on a single PVE activity not subject to competition, you know there's something wrong.
Originally by: Zaldoc Not to mention the pirate in 0.0 space who just got lucky and get an officer spawn,witch before the move could easy net him 500+ million isk..Realizing that since the move no one will buy the stuff anymore,making it almost worthless.
Again, that pirate who 'got lucky' had to risk all that time he wasn't lucky to make sure he didn't lose his ships while he was ratting. Also, that faction/officer loot would need to be moved to places where they would sell, and unless the 'pirate' in 0.0 has a great logistic backbone, it represents an added element of risk. The reason why faction and officer mods are so highly priced now, is because of the rarity + demand. Mission runners feel it's worth it paying 3bil to fit out their mission ships, so the mods get sold at ridiculous prices because of that demand.
Originally by: Zaldoc CCP knows it will have a great impact on the game,to great to ever be implemented so just get over it and live whit it.
It WILL have a great impact on the game, for better or for worse is hard to say as of now.
Originally by: Zaldoc Moving lvl 4 to low sec will not i repeat not give you anymore targets,as its not worth the risk to do it in low sec regardless of faction fit or not..And that wont change a bit if all lvl 4 agents got moved to low sec...Its not that hard to understand..
Great, that means if you want the benefits of the income from level 4's you'll have to work together to make sure that the system is secure etc. Just like 0.0 ratting can be done 'safely' because other people have put in the effort to gain a system and secure it. Working/interacting with other players in an MMO, who'd thunk it?
Originally by: Zaldoc CCP also knows that one of Eve¦s strongest assets,is the fact that people can do what they want..So stop trying to talk them into pushing people out in 0.0 or low sec,its not gonna happen..Might aswell ask them to shot themselves in the foot.Eve is not a pure pvp game,and it never will be..If you cant live whit that,maybe its time you moved on..
I wouldn't presume to know what CCP want. Besides, CCP have stated many times over the years that they envision 0.0 to be the 'endgame' of eve. And lowsec should be the stepping stone for that. Unfortunately their implementations did not reflect this, meh
|
Essence Praetor
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 13:16:00 -
[75]
I am gonna say it . . .
I am sick to death of all you broke (or next to broke) PVP'ers whining about having no targets and no ISK. Some of us PVP'ers are rich as **** and have no problems finding targets with a little cunning and patients . . . .both of which are enjoyable aspects of the game. Both of which separate the skillful pilots from the sheep.
"Give me more helpless mission ships and make them go to lowsec, and/or be as broke as me is" -- is drivel.
Let the mission runners run their missions. Buff Mining and industry. Do this and you have a better economy and more faction mods falling off of spaceships. You have more people hopping into fail fit PVE/PVP ships and trying their hand at fail combat. Like right now for instance, you have multitudes of Tech III ships flying around before their prices drop with all kinds of mix and matched LOL blends of fits.
Yes I be raging
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 13:26:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Essence Praetor I am sick to death of all you broke (or next to broke) PVP'ers whining about having no targets and no ISK. Some of us PVP'ers are rich as **** and have no problems finding targets with a little cunning and patients . . . .both of which are enjoyable aspects of the game. Both of which separate the skillful pilots from the sheep.
Riiiiggghhhttt... cos ALL PVP'ers are broke, amirite? Also, post with your PVP character so we can see how easy you've been finding targets with your 'cunning and patience'. FYI: I don't mission run. The only thing I do when I logon is check my fittings, check my clone, undock and look for stuff to blow up. Have no problems replacing ships.
Originally by: Essence Praetor "Give me more helpless mission ships and make them go to lowsec, and/or be as broke as me is" -- is drivel.
I think the requests to nerf level 4's stem more from how they are broken in terms of risk/effort/competition etc vs reward, as opposed to no targets. If you can't see how unbalanced that is.. wel... forget it actually
|
Anslo
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 13:29:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Valandril Your abilit to read fails, ppl want them moved to lowsec because they are biggest income available in eve and they come without any risk.
And like th eOP said, that risk is you asshats ganking us L4 runners. He's right, it is just a sorry excuse to try to force easy kills into lowsec. If you want kills so bad, goto 0.0. L4's are staying right where they are, as I've said in other threads, carebears now control EVE. The majority of the player base won't allow any changes to L$ at all :)
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 13:34:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Anslo
Originally by: Valandril Your abilit to read fails, ppl want them moved to lowsec because they are biggest income available in eve and they come without any risk.
And like th eOP said, that risk is you asshats ganking us L4 runners. He's right, it is just a sorry excuse to try to force easy kills into lowsec. If you want kills so bad, goto 0.0. L4's are staying right where they are, as I've said in other threads, carebears now control EVE. The majority of the player base won't allow any changes to L$ at all :)
So as opposed to minimising risk by using intel channels formed by a bunch of lowsec mission runners, ensuring a decent presence and holding a system down, you just want it to remain in its current risk free state? I guess adapt or die doesn't apply to everyone.
Go to 0.0? Are you serious? LOL
Erm, your definition of 'control' is what exactly? The majority of the player base didn't want removal of ghost training, CCP went ahead and did it anyway (it was the right thing to do, just badly implemented). Shows up much 'control' players have over CCP's decision
|
Sethris
Lone Gunmen
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 13:35:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Shaun Klaroh Limit the number of Level IV missions given out by each agent X time per day.
For the sake of this example:
Level IV agent has a base rate of 20 missions per six hours. -> Pilot A takes one, 19 Available -> Pilot B takes one, 18 Available
So on, and so on till the "reset". The reset timer doesn't start until after that first mission is taken, and you can't know how many are actually available.
High-priority missions like Level IV's can't be completely ongoing in the same five systems. I mean.. Kruul can only build his brothel so many times a day, y'know.
Pros: ->Limits large "infinite supplies" of ISK. ->Provides for a competitive edge between mission runners. ->Provides a reason for mission running corporations to try and hold territory in hi-sec, thus spurring hi-sec PvP for PvE players. ->Allows for a fallback to Level III when out.
Cons: ->Artificially discourages a play-style. ->Reduces the value of mission running. ->May confuse new Level IV runners.
Another version of this suggestion:
Each agent has a fixed number of missions he/she can handle (not limited to 6hours or something like that). Or missionrunners if you want to see it like that. So once someone finishes a mission a slot opens up for anyone to take a new mission. Once all slots are filled, you have to wait your turn. Perhaps a semi-random cooldown period as well? 1 to 20minutes before the slot becomes available again.
Also let the highest quality agents have the lowest amount of missions they can handle. Say that a quality 20 agent can handle 10 simultaneous missions. A quality 10 - 20 missions. Quality 0 - 40 missions. Quality -20 - near infinite. Or have it be capped based on security rating of the system (agents in highest sec rated systems = stupid and slow :) ). 1.0 - 1 mission slot. 0.5 - 5 mission slots. 0.4 - 15 mission slots. ...Or a combination of the two.
In my naive view this would: Increase the pvp aspect of missioning. Increase "farming" of a good mission once you get it - i.e. not good. Push people from the current mission hubs.
With an adjustment of rewards in high-sec vs. low-sec i think this could be really interesting to see what happens to the mission hubs and mission grinders.
Just a thought...
|
Rordan D'Kherr
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 13:37:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Valandril Your abilit to read fails, ppl want them moved to lowsec because they are biggest income available in eve and they come without any risk.
This. This. And this.
|
|
Essence Praetor
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 13:39:00 -
[81]
Originally by: lollerwaffle
Originally by: Essence Praetor I am sick to death of all you broke (or next to broke) PVP'ers whining about having no targets and no ISK. Some of us PVP'ers are rich as **** and have no problems finding targets with a little cunning and patients . . . .both of which are enjoyable aspects of the game. Both of which separate the skillful pilots from the sheep.
Riiiiggghhhttt... cos ALL PVP'ers are broke, amirite? Also, post with your PVP character so we can see how easy you've been finding targets with your 'cunning and patience'. FYI: I don't mission run. The only thing I do when I logon is check my fittings, check my clone, undock and look for stuff to blow up. Have no problems replacing ships.
Originally by: Essence Praetor "Give me more helpless mission ships and make them go to lowsec, and/or be as broke as me is" -- is drivel.
I think the requests to nerf level 4's stem more from how they are broken in terms of risk/effort/competition etc vs reward, as opposed to no targets. If you can't see how unbalanced that is.. wel... forget it actually
I say Bleh . . . me no dance for you.
I gather your one of the rich as **** PVP'er per fore mentioned. Read...
Ever considered that Lv 4 billionaires spend a mind numbingly obscene amount of time doing nothing but "Mining NPC's"
Lets say hypothetically:
Faction CNR's don't go to low sec to run the only LV 4's in eve (in a hypothetical future)
Then all of a sudden Hulks are making to much isk in empire with to little risk VS reward . . .
We must then whine about them to to balance it all out.
After the Hulks are forced to sit in front of roids for hours with targets on their backs, we must then also whine about Invention, trade, manufacturing . . .
|
Essence Praetor
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 13:41:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Essence Praetor on 27/05/2009 13:43:24
Originally by: Rordan D'Kherr
Originally by: Valandril Your abilit to read fails, ppl want them moved to lowsec because they are biggest income available in eve and they come without any risk.
This. This. And this.
LV 5. LV 5. Ratting. Wormholes. LV 5.
And moon mining . . .
You too . . .
|
Tiny Tove
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 13:41:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Tiny Tove on 27/05/2009 13:42:09 Highsec also suits players who don't want to massage your ego for you. They just want to come in, modify some database records, increase some integer values and access something they couldn't previously access.
They don't even care that you think you're pro.
And neither do CCP. They care about MONEY. CASH MONEY DOLLAR. And if they can create a database access program so damm hard to use they can sell it as a game then good for them.
But if you really need to believe that CCP are going to give up good income to stroke your schlong, then by all means keep on beating the drum.
|
Jackson Grey
Caldari Dark Wheel Industries Gemini Federation
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 13:50:00 -
[84]
As a 'casual' gamer I don't have the time nor the inclination to compete with the PvP Pirates out in 0.4 and below. Yes I have been out there and every time (with the exception of twice when I killed a stupid pirate and then ran back to Empire) I have been sent packing back to the clone bay. I do level 4 missions, some mining and I have done faction warfare (which amounted to a whole lot of hanging around waiting while 2 large groups ships try and engage each other - I got bored) and that is enough for me. Maybe I will get the PvP bug but ganking people just for the fun of making their lives miserable just don't do it for me.
If you want to encourage more people to go out into 0.4 then make those missions better. It will be then up to the player base if they go or not.
As stated above (by lollerwaffle)'It depends on what your definition of 'fun' is I guess.'. Yes it does and I am having fun. This game is 100% PvP but empire space is so that people who chose not to PvP don't have to. Don't say 'go play something else if you don't like PvP' , 1 why should I and 2 what else is there to play that's like Eve.
|
Anslo
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 13:54:00 -
[85]
Originally by: lollerwaffle
So as opposed to minimising risk by using intel channels formed by a bunch of lowsec mission runners, ensuring a decent presence and holding a system down, you just want it to remain in its current risk free state? I guess adapt or die doesn't apply to everyone.
People like you really amuse me, attempting to look analytical by examining every part of a quote :). And yes I do think it should stay that way. Why? Because as other people have said on here, large infusions of isk into the economy are keeping things are a relatively low price. Kill that, prices are high, **** sucks.
Originally by: lollerwaffle Go to 0.0? Are you serious? LOL
Yes, I am. You pvpers like to pvp, we missioners like to mission. Let us play our way, you play yours.
Originally by: lollerwaffle Erm, your definition of 'control' is what exactly? The majority of the player base didn't want removal of ghost training, CCP went ahead and did it anyway (it was the right thing to do, just badly implemented). Shows up much 'control' players have over CCP's decision
By majority I mean the 40 odd thousand carebears and their alts paying for this game with cash. Cash is more important to a company than people, it always is no matter what the company says. I'm not blaming CCP for this. They're a company, they're job is to bring in revenue for their investors and themselves. A change like this to L4 will destroy the game, as most people stay in highsec. 3/4 of the people will leave, income will drop dramatically and CCP will be doomed. They know this, thus no changes.
I don't care if L4's have no risk, no one else does. If you're jealous oh well, if you're poor oh well, if you're mad about not enough kills oh well. I like ****ing you and every other lowsec dweller off like this :) I have more isk than you ever will, more ships than you ever will and what I chooe to do with them is my business. Don't tell me what to do with my money, my free time and my game time. Whether I want to pvp or enjoy a disco abaddon, it's my choice. Now shoo peasant. I must polish have my servants polish my Bhaalgorn.
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 13:59:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Essence Praetor I gather your one of the rich as **** PVP'er per fore mentioned.
My wallet hovers between 150mil to 250mil at any given time. I find loot+ransom+some light plexing gives me the income i need to replace a couple of 100mil losses everyweek or 2. Also, I don't lose a lot of ships so maybe that helps.
Originally by: Essence Praetor Ever considered that Lv 4 billionaires spend a mind numbingly obscene amount of time doing nothing but "Mining NPC's"
That's 'mining unlimited isk not subject to any competition'
Originally by: Essence Praetor Faction CNR's don't go to low sec to run the only LV 4's in eve (in a hypothetical future)
Personally I think it's a waste of a sexy ship to use it on NPC's. I'm a great admirer of people flying faction BS in PVP, as IMO it's what they were meant for. Not running missions all day long. Also, faction BS get more targets <3
Originally by: Essence Praetor Then all of a sudden Hulks are making to much isk in empire with to little risk VS reward . . .
Mining is subject to competition from other miners (see above re mining unlimited isk), check the previous week's whine thread about empty belts etc. Hulks can also be, and are often suicide ganked, whether for lulz or for profit.
Originally by: Essence Praetor We must then whine about them to to balance it all out.
One thing I've learned is that people will whine about everything. That being said, arguing that some aspect of the game is broken, has been proven to be effective (see: speed nerf, falcon etc <- although I couldn't really care less either way if they changed it, I just get on with it anyway since it means evolution of tactics)
Originally by: Essence Praetor After the Hulks are forced to sit in front of roids for hours with targets on their backs, we must then also whine about Invention, trade, manufacturing . . .
IMO the Hulk was designed to be a mining ship capable of operating in hostile/dangerous waters. Thhe ability to fit a good tank, coupled with some t2 medium drones means the hulk is able to withstand a certain amount of firepower (from belt rats etc). It's just that people in hisec are able to use them in a way where they don't fit any tank and have as much cargohold as possible. Both equally viable ways of using the ship. All the other non-combat PVP activities you mentioned are subject to competition and as such have been balanced and rebalanced by CCP. Mission running afaik is the only activity in game which is not subject to the same rules governing everything else.
<- c wut i did there?
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:04:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Essence Praetor Edited by: Essence Praetor on 27/05/2009 13:43:24
Originally by: Rordan D'Kherr
Originally by: Valandril Your abilit to read fails, ppl want them moved to lowsec because they are biggest income available in eve and they come without any risk.
This. This. And this.
LV 5. LV 5. Ratting. Wormholes. LV 5.
And moon mining . . .
You too . . .
level 5s are in lowsec level 5s are in lowsec some more Elaborate how ratting is without risks. AFAIK, hisec rats are basically worthless, lowsec and nullsec means there's a chance you'll get popped. Wormholes: Did you not see the whole whine/cry threads about how wormholes are the new pirate playgrounds and how CCP made it unfair for carebears with regards to wormholes? Again, level 5s are in lowsec Bolded for clarity. Also, barring a super tanked nighthawk, they often require a gang to complete, thus putting more ships at risk and splitting the rewards between a gang.
Constantly calling someone without providing any valuable insights just mean you really really really HARD.
Also, it doesn't take much of a brain to just call someone without any real substance... oh wait... nvm I see
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:07:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Tippia Actually, the main argument is that ôL4s in high-sec make too much and there is no way to attack that revenue streamö ù at least from those who actually have an argument. That's why the other activities are irrelevant ù all of them can be attacked, disrupted or just plain old stolen in some way.
It's the fact that this one particular activity cannot be affected from the outside, yet it is allowed to massively affect the rest of the game that bothers people.
This is BS. L4 missions in hi sec CAN be disrupted. You can declare war on them. Now now. I know what your next response will be since I've come to expect circular reasoning from forum warriors. You love taking logic for a spin round and round in circles.
"I can't war dec if they're in an NPC corp!1!"
Then your issue isn't with L4 missions. It's with NPC corps. Go make a thread on how NPC corps aren't war-deccable (I know that isn't a word).
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:10:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Darius Brinn Forcing people into Lowsec does not work.
Increase 0.0 ratting rewards. Increase the profits of mining. Entice people to move to other riskier/more boring (but needed) activities. Those are reasonable ideas.
Asking CCP to move lvl4s to low security is just a flow of pirate tears asking for targets not fitted to shoot back.
A better idea would probably be to make L4s competetive and thus PvP:able (as in "I take your business", not the 'splo-you-up kind of PvP).
Care to show how you can disrupt my trading business?
You can try to disrupt everyone trading business at the same time, but you have no way to target me.
Almost the same for mining. You can try to push me out of a system (attacking me with suicide ships) but you can't block me from mining.
As I can easily spawn mining roids with missions or find them with exploration you have no way to bar me from mining.
So "I will take away your business" is a false statement.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:13:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Kalintos Tyl
ccp released statistics saying that 40% mineral market is from reprocesing loot, didnt you knwo that? Thats hardly any. L4s pay too much they are better than "crap" 0.0 systems about 4-5 times. Theyn need to be limited in highsec or even removed.
CCP releasea a ! day snapshot of reprocessing stuff (included mineral compression items and ship sold under building cost). Something that is very different from a "statistic".
Note that the snapshot in question include 1% of morphite as produced from reprocessing "loot".
Can you point to me what T1 module include morphite in his building materials?
|
|
Andrest Disch
Amarr Letiferi Praedones
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:15:00 -
[91]
Am I the only one who would do lvl 4s in lowsec if CCP actually added more of them?
It's some nice isk and in a HAC not really that hard to escape, especially seeing as though attackers normally warp in 80km away from you.
The only annoying thing is that CCP seem to like grouping all the good agents within a certain space and making everywhere else completely worthless. |
Essence Praetor
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:17:00 -
[92]
Edited by: Essence Praetor on 27/05/2009 14:18:59
1st.) Your comment about the hulk proves you are an idiot. They cannot withstand jack. You have been reading the info in market to much.
2nd.) My wallet hovers at 3 Billion on any given day. So I couldn't care less about your mediocre wallet sum. That is like 1 ships worth of ISK with fittings and less
... and Hulk competition in empires roid belts. That um . . . sad really. But funny
And wow thats way more then me Does that mean you even more then I did the first time??
See what I did there
Edit:
And seriously though. You seem to really REALLY have a reading comp problem. try reading twice it helps
|
Max Tux
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:21:00 -
[93]
The most profitable i have seen thrown about alot....
a while back there was a thread in the market section saying how much do you make, and there was many a person saying they makes hundreds of millions of isk, trading, not needing to leave a station, for spending 10 mins online a day changing prices.
so lets dispell the idea of the most profitable.
personally i run 4's so i have isk to take ships to lowsec and PVP, i'm sure i'm not the only one.
|
Dramaan
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:25:00 -
[94]
If most of palyers don't want to move missions to low sec I have one slousion make it so that you can't run lvl4 solo, this is a mmo so people shoud coperate to get the isk.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:29:00 -
[95]
Edited by: Tippia on 27/05/2009 14:35:16
Originally by: Matrix Skye This is BS. L4 missions in hi sec CAN be disrupted. You can declare war on them.
…and wardecs are ridiculously easy to avoid, not to mention cost-prohibitive.
When I say "disrupted", I mean "you no longer have any L4 agents to work with. At all. Go do L3s instead."
Originally by: Venkul Mul Care to show how you can disrupt my trading business?
[…]
So "I will take away your business" is a false statement.
If I hurt you with a blunt object, I still hurt you, and that can be good enough. In addition, as you point out with the mining example, missions allow you to avoid direct competition that should otherwise be possible. So that kind of begs the question: yes, "I will take away your business" is a false statement because the very mechanic of missions makes it impossible to take away that business. ——— “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 |
Tara Moss
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:30:00 -
[96]
Level 4s are a good way for casual players to generate income. Trying to encourage them into low-sec with a 'level 4 carrot' or reducing their rewards is deeply misguided.
It will: Make it harder for players to recover from pvp losses -reducing their willingness to pvp. Dramatically change a gameplay style that vast portions of the playerbase currently enjoy -and hurt subscribers in the process.
The voices on these forums are dominated by the more hardcore players. But there is a silent majority out there who's voices are not heard but who will not take kindly to such changes.
On a side note Level 4s are not nearly as profitable as some make them out to be. For 10 minutes work a day I can make far more trading than I can running multiple Extravaganza missions.
|
Jackson Grey
Caldari Dark Wheel Industries Gemini Federation
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:34:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Dramaan If most of palyers don't want to move missions to low sec I have one slousion make it so that you can't run lvl4 solo, this is a mmo so people shoud coperate to get the isk.
No people should be able to play the game (within the rules) they way they want to.............
Just because its an MMO is no reason to make people work together. People work together because they want to.
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:37:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Anslo People like you really amuse me, attempting to look analytical by examining every part of a quote :). And yes I do think it should stay that way. Why? Because as other people have said on here, large infusions of isk into the economy are keeping things are a relatively low price. Kill that, prices are high, **** sucks.
I'm glad that providing a decently worded argument so lacking on these forums amuses you. Would you rather I just put the troll suit on and flame you needlessly? It seems to be what you want as opposed to my post. Somehow trolling has become mainstream and someone who wants to put up a decent argument on the forums (which are meant for that) have been consigned to the 'people trying to look smart' bin . But I digress. What do you mean 'you people' ?
To answer you, imo that's partly where the problem lies though. The EVE economy has largely shifted towards being sustained by level 4s, mainly because as someone said earlier, it's being used as the benchmark to which all other isk generating activities are measured. Want to mine? You get much more minerals out of reprocessing loot plus highends as well. Also, bounties pay much more. Want to manufacture? Same story. Invention? Same thing. Plus those 2 activities are also subject to competition from other players.
If level 4 rewards or isk payout were to be nerfed in some way (not necessarily by being moved to lowsec), then initially, there would of course be increases in the prices of things. But then given time the economy should stabilise again as isk is generated through other activities. In the current state, that injection of isk is kind of like an automated isk generator keeping a 'true player-run economy' artifically sustained.
Originally by: Anslo Yes, I am. You pvpers like to pvp, we missioners like to mission. Let us play our way, you play yours.
Sorry, I just found the whole: You want to PVP? Go to 0.0 thing quite funny, as I get enough kills where I live (lowsec) without needing to travel to blob territory. Again, the problem is not nerfing playstyles but balancing out the risk/reward thing
Originally by: Anslo By majority ..(*snip* for word limit).. income will drop dramatically and CCP will be doomed. They know this, thus no changes.
Long ago, the vision of CCP was to create a niche game for the niche market. They promised us that they would always hold true to this vision etc. However, CCP did not take into consideration the mindset of new players migrating (not just wow, including all the others which are basically just like it), who have brought that mindset into this game and not adapt it to the game. Unfortunately on this point, you are correct. The chances of people leaving if CCP nerfed level 4s would be very high in indeed, as that demographic makes up too large a portion of players and too large a portion of income to ignore (especially with the RL economy's state atm).
Originally by: Anslo I don't care if L4's have no risk, no one else does. If you're jealous oh well, if you're poor oh well, if you're mad about not enough kills oh well. I like ****ing you and every other lowsec dweller off like this :) I have more isk than you ever will, more ships than you ever will and what I chooe to do with them is my business. Don't tell me what to do with my money, my free time and my game time. Whether I want to pvp or enjoy a disco abaddon, it's my choice. Now shoo peasant. I must polish have my servants polish my Bhaalgorn.
Using the 'I'm richer than you blablabla you're just poor and jealous' line doesn't really work here, cos I don't really care about isk. If I did, I would fire up my trade alt account and play the market. BTW I can also run caldari missions and minmatar missions all the way up to level 5. Bragging about how rich you are has no place nor strength in this discussion, resorting to that just makes you look sad. ISK is there for me to use it, not to hoard. Simple as.
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:41:00 -
[99]
The OP is right the nay sayers are stupid.
As the game currently stands missioning in low sec is suicidal if even 1 high SP player is looking to gank you.
If you die even one out of 5 missions they are extremely un-profitable.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:43:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Tippia on 27/05/2009 14:44:51
Originally by: Anslo Yes, I am. You pvpers like to pvp, we missioners like to mission. Let us play our way, you play yours.
That's the problem: you assume they're two separate things, when in fact they're not. There is no "your way" and "their way" — only a continuous EVE universe where what you do have repercussions on everyone else.
When you run missions, you affect the PvP:ers in. Why shouldn't they have the ability to affect you back? ——— “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 |
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:44:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 27/05/2009 14:35:16
Originally by: Matrix Skye This is BS. L4 missions in hi sec CAN be disrupted. You can declare war on them.
àand wardecs are ridiculously easy to avoid, not to mention cost-prohibitive.
When I say "disrupted", I mean "you no longer have any L4 agents to work with. At all. Go do L3s instead."
Originally by: Venkul Mul Care to show how you can disrupt my trading business?
[à]
So "I will take away your business" is a false statement.
If I hurt you with a blunt object, I still hurt you, and that can be good enough. In addition, as you point out with the mining example, missions allow you to avoid direct competition that should otherwise be possible. So that kind of begs the question: yes, "I will take away your business" is a false statement because the very mechanic of missions makes it impossible to take away that business.
As usual Tippia you are trying to weasel around.
You have no way to damage my business directly, even if it is trading.
You can try to damage it indirectly, damaging all the traders, but then you will be competing against several thousand of players at the same time and the only one to get hurt will be you.
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.
So how one is more or less broken than the others?
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:46:00 -
[102]
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. ——— “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 |
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:54:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Essence Praetor 1st.) Your comment about the hulk proves you are an idiot. They cannot withstand jack. You have been reading the info in market to much.
This just means you know jack sh*t about fitting ships. It's perfectly viable and doable. L2fit.
Originally by: Essence Praetor 2nd.) My wallet hovers at 3 Billion on any given day. So I couldn't care less about your mediocre wallet sum. That is like 1 ships worth of ISK with fittings and less
You assumed I was rich, I told you I was not, and easily afford replacing my ships based on how much I have in my wallet. There really isn't a point starting an epeen war over isk amount TBH. You have 3bil, good for you.
Originally by: Essence Praetor ... and Hulk competition in empires roid belts. That um . . . sad really. But funny
Mining as a profession is subject to competition. If you tanked your hulk you decrease your chances of getting suicided, the chance is still there.
Originally by: Essence Praetor And wow thats way more then me Does that mean you even more then I did the first time??
See what I did there
Edit:
And seriously though. You seem to really REALLY have a reading comp problem. try reading twice it helps
I see irony and sarcasm completely escape you, but it's OK. However, would you like to improve on your reading comprehension by reading what I said regarding level 5s? What are your thoughts on wormholes?
Also, which bit specifically would you like me to read twice? I'm fairly sure I understood each and every point you made and provided decent arguments to them without needlessly resorting to flames like you did. But please, don't let me stop you.
|
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:00:00 -
[104]
You can't interrupt a mission runner's revenue stream? Really?
You mean you can't enter their mission area where someone else is mission running and salvage their wrecks and steal their loot? No It could never happen!!!! /sarcasm.....
Really this is just whiners who want easy targets to kill cos they can't stand up in a decent fight, so they want to kill people who aren't fitted for PvP (LOLfit yeah.... its called a PvE fit cos its the best fit for PvE! Just cos they aren't great in PvP doesn't mean they are stupid, it means you are too stupid to realise the use of the fit), who can't fight back cos they are engaged with loads of rats and aren't really prepared for PvP due to the rats taking a large chunk of their concentration.
I agree with making Lvl4s in hi-sec more risky (with the exception of WC4 and a few other missions), I'd also like to see the damage types adjusted slightly so most missions don't favor shield or armour tankers (exp and emp or thermal and kinetic) or make the damage types more random so you can't fit specific tanks for specific rats.
Let people who want to PvP do what they want and people who want to PvE do what they want. Why do some PvPers think people should be forced to become their victims just because they aren't skilled or smart enough to hunt people down.
|
Kane Starkiller
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:06:00 -
[105]
Why is everyone complaining about mission runners? Good ISK and no risk?
Has anyone seen how much traders make? Where is their risk, getting from one high sec trade hub to another one.
There are numerous ways of making isk in EVE, learn to deal with it.
Are you the same people that complain that your boss makes more money than you and gets to come in later in the day?
Get out!
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:10:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Tippia on 27/05/2009 15:11:45
Originally by: Rhinanna You mean you can't enter their mission area where someone else is mission running and salvage their wrecks and steal their loot?
None of that interrupts their revenue stream, though…
Quote: Let people who want to PvP do what they want and people who want to PvE do what they want.
Sure, as long as the PvE is open to competition and require a level of effort that is in line with the affect those PvE activities have on the game at large.
Originally by: Kane Starkiller Why is everyone complaining about mission runners? Good ISK and no risk?
No. Good ISK and no competetive element. Yes, trading will make you awesome ISK as well, but in a 100% competetive environment — that's why its accepted without complaint. ——— “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 |
Captain Megadeath
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:11:00 -
[107]
It's really simple. Eve evolved, Whinny Pvp'ers complaining about lvl 4 missions didn't.
just face the fact that there are people who joined Eve to Pve in spaceships and you'll be ok.
You already have mechanisms to deal with mission runners (loot agro and salvage that no-one owns).
Adapt or Eve dies.
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:12:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Kane Starkiller Why is everyone complaining about mission runners?
Because it's the whine of the month. FOTM.
But this whole cut your eye out to spite your face is going to drastically affect PVP as well. I'd like to see who in their right mind will risk a ship on a fair fight knowing it'll take weeks/months of mining or L3's to recover from a loss. Should be interesting. But knowing the whining pirates well I'm sure they'll just beg CCP for handouts on a future FOTM whine.
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:13:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Rhinanna You can't interrupt a mission runner's revenue stream? Really?
You mean you can't enter their mission area where someone else is mission running and salvage their wrecks and steal their loot? No It could never happen!!!! /sarcasm.....
Which is a pittance compared to bounties, mission rewards, stuff already salvaged, previous missions, the next mission etc. Using that as an example of 'interupting a mission runner's revenue stream would be like saying I'm interupting your hulk's revenue stream by mining in the same belt as you with a bantam. The only major disruptions are when the mission runner is stupid enough to risk his multi billion isk ship in order to 'punish' someone who stole from him (blatantly baiting) and thus getting it popped.
Originally by: Rhinanna Really this is just whiners who want easy targets to kill cos they can't stand up in a decent fight, so they want to kill people who aren't fitted for PvP (LOLfit yeah.... its called a PvE fit cos its the best fit for PvE! Just cos they aren't great in PvP doesn't mean they are stupid, it means you are too stupid to realise the use of the fit), who can't fight back cos they are engaged with loads of rats and aren't really prepared for PvP due to the rats taking a large chunk of their concentration.
I'm pretty sure every PVPer knows what a PVE fit is, and knows what it's used for and how to use it (target, f1, f2, f3, gee). If you already know what damage you're gonna be dealt, and what damage you'll have to deal, it's really a piece of cake. I'm not sure the same can be said about a PVEer knowing how to fit his ship and how use it for PVP. Also, there are way too many variables in PVP, so by your definition a PVEer who doesn't know how to PVP is pretty stupid.
Originally by: Rhinanna I agree with making Lvl4s in hi-sec more risky (with the exception of WC4 and a few other missions), I'd also like to see the damage types adjusted slightly so most missions don't favor shield or armour tankers (exp and emp or thermal and kinetic) or make the damage types more random so you can't fit specific tanks for specific rats.
What would you say if some element of 'competition' was put in place for missions? Instead of a straight move all lvl 4s to lowsec. Something along the lines of a daily finite resource kind of like mining or plexing. Say, 2000 missions per NPC corp? Or more or less depending on numbers etc.
Originally by: Rhinanna Let people who want to PvP do what they want and people who want to PvE do what they want. Why do some PvPers think people should be forced to become their victims just because they aren't skilled or smart enough to hunt people down.
Nobody is forcing anyone to be a victim. It's about rebalancing of an isk making activity that generates isk with no real competition. Not all 'risks' involve a ship getting blown up. Screw up on a market order and you could potentially lose billions of isk.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:15:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Matrix Skye
Originally by: Kane Starkiller Why is everyone complaining about mission runners?
Because it's the whine of the month. FOTM.
It's been a whine for as far back as I remember, so no. ——— “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 |
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:16:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Kane Starkiller Why is everyone complaining about mission runners? Good ISK and no risk?
Has anyone seen how much traders make? Where is their risk, getting from one high sec trade hub to another one.
There are numerous ways of making isk in EVE, learn to deal with it.
Are you the same people that complain that your boss makes more money than you and gets to come in later in the day?
Get out!
Traders hauling between hubs have the risk, however minimal, of getting their ship suicide ganked. Apart from that, miscalculation or mistakes could potentially cost them a LOT of money. Not to mention competition between themselves and other traders.
There are numerous ways to make isk in EVE, all of them are subject to some form of risk/competition/effort etc. All bar one.
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:21:00 -
[112]
Originally by: lollerwaffle
Originally by: Kane Starkiller Why is everyone complaining about mission runners? Good ISK and no risk?
Has anyone seen how much traders make? Where is their risk, getting from one high sec trade hub to another one.
There are numerous ways of making isk in EVE, learn to deal with it.
Are you the same people that complain that your boss makes more money than you and gets to come in later in the day?
Get out!
Traders hauling between hubs have the risk, however minimal, of getting their ship suicide ganked. Apart from that, miscalculation or mistakes could potentially cost them a LOT of money. Not to mention competition between themselves and other traders.
There are numerous ways to make isk in EVE, all of them are subject to some form of risk/competition/effort etc. All bar one.
How does that differ from:
Mission runners missioning in deadspace have the risk, however minimal, of getting their ship blown up by NPCs. Apart from that, miscalculation or mistakes could potentially cost them Billion-isk setup. Not to mention salvage and loot thives in mission hubs.
|
Maren Jensen
Innocent Victims
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:22:00 -
[113]
Nerfing lvl 4's indirectly nerfs PVP. It's really not hard to understand.
People that don't want to PVP won't. Ever. You'll never force them too.
Let the alts gain isk for PVP ships and let the high-sec only players have their isk. Who cares if they use it to buy fancy ships.
I do agree however that low-sec missions and rats could use additional reward.
|
Jackson Grey
Caldari Dark Wheel Industries Gemini Federation
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:23:00 -
[114]
Originally by: lollerwaffle
Originally by: Kane Starkiller Why is everyone complaining about mission runners? Good ISK and no risk?
Has anyone seen how much traders make? Where is their risk, getting from one high sec trade hub to another one.
There are numerous ways of making isk in EVE, learn to deal with it.
Are you the same people that complain that your boss makes more money than you and gets to come in later in the day?
Get out!
Traders hauling between hubs have the risk, however minimal, of getting their ship suicide ganked. Apart from that, miscalculation or mistakes could potentially cost them a LOT of money. Not to mention competition between themselves and other traders.
There are numerous ways to make isk in EVE, all of them are subject to some form of risk/competition/effort etc. All bar one.
I can understand some aspects of what your saying 'trader competition is 'risky'' but the suicide gank bit oh come on now thats utter crap. How othen does that happen nowadays?
|
ZW Dewitt
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:24:00 -
[115]
Originally by: lollerwaffle Traders hauling between hubs have the risk, however minimal, of getting their ship suicide ganked. Apart from that, miscalculation or mistakes could potentially cost them a LOT of money. Not to mention competition between themselves and other traders.
There are numerous ways to make isk in EVE, all of them are subject to some form of risk/competition/effort etc. All bar one.
Mission Runners have the risk, however minimal, of getting their ship suicide ganked. Apart from that, miscalculation or mistakes could potentially cost them a LOT of money.
There are numerous ways to make isk in EVE, all of them are subject to some form of risk/competition/effort etc. All bar one. Nerf PLEX sales.
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:27:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Matrix Skye
Originally by: Kane Starkiller Why is everyone complaining about mission runners?
Because it's the whine of the month. FOTM.
But this whole cut your eye out to spite your face is going to drastically affect PVP as well. I'd like to see who in their right mind will risk a ship on a fair fight knowing it'll take weeks/months of mining or L3's to recover from a loss. Should be interesting. But knowing the whining pirates well I'm sure they'll just beg CCP for handouts on a future FOTM whine.
It's been whined about for too long a time to be FOTM.
You seem to be fairly intelligent, albeit a troll. So try looking at things from a different perspective for once. It doesn't mean you have to accept it.
Here goes: everything in eve is subject to competition or some form of risk or effort, right? However, the one lucrative source of income, level 4 missions, has no form of competition whatsoever. If you do a mission a few times, you'll already know exactly what to expect from a mission, not to mention countless mission databases out there that give you exactly what you need to know. There are no hidden variables in a mission. This means everything in my 11th time running Angels Extravaganza would be exactly the same as the 10th time, or 9th time I ran it. Right? Secondly, all other perceived 'PVE' activities like trading, mining, invention, manufacturing are subject to some form of competition or risk. If you're a trader, a small mistake could reduce your profit margin, or if you made a boo-boo, potentially cost you billions. Manufacturing puts you in competition with other manufacturers who have better blueprints, better skills, better standings etc. Mining, well, roids are finite on a daily basis. Once the belts are wiped today, they'll respawn slowly or reseeded at DT (not clear on the exact mechanics). Also, if you're in a Hulk, mining in a 0.7, and 3 guys come in hulks and an orca and mine your belt, they are effectively competing with you for the minerals. Right?
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:27:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Jackson Grey
Originally by: lollerwaffle
Originally by: Kane Starkiller Why is everyone complaining about mission runners? Good ISK and no risk?
Has anyone seen how much traders make? Where is their risk, getting from one high sec trade hub to another one.
There are numerous ways of making isk in EVE, learn to deal with it.
Are you the same people that complain that your boss makes more money than you and gets to come in later in the day?
Get out!
Traders hauling between hubs have the risk, however minimal, of getting their ship suicide ganked. Apart from that, miscalculation or mistakes could potentially cost them a LOT of money. Not to mention competition between themselves and other traders.
There are numerous ways to make isk in EVE, all of them are subject to some form of risk/competition/effort etc. All bar one.
I can understand some aspects of what your saying 'trader competition is 'risky'' but the suicide gank bit oh come on now thats utter crap. How othen does that happen nowadays?
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.
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:33:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Matrix Skye
Originally by: lollerwaffle
Originally by: Kane Starkiller Why is everyone complaining about mission runners? Good ISK and no risk?
Has anyone seen how much traders make? Where is their risk, getting from one high sec trade hub to another one.
There are numerous ways of making isk in EVE, learn to deal with it.
Are you the same people that complain that your boss makes more money than you and gets to come in later in the day?
Get out!
Traders hauling between hubs have the risk, however minimal, of getting their ship suicide ganked. Apart from that, miscalculation or mistakes could potentially cost them a LOT of money. Not to mention competition between themselves and other traders.
There are numerous ways to make isk in EVE, all of them are subject to some form of risk/competition/effort etc. All bar one.
How does that differ from:
Mission runners missioning in deadspace have the risk, however minimal, of getting their ship blown up by NPCs. Apart from that, miscalculation or mistakes could potentially cost them Billion-isk setup. Not to mention salvage and loot thives in mission hubs.
Because there are no unforeseen variables in a mission. Your ship that did that mission with 100% shields left will still do the same one with 100% left. That mission with 3 warpscrambling frigates will still have 3 warpscrambling frigates the next time you do that mission.
Yes, there is a very very very minimal risk of getting your ship blown up by rats in a mission, but then again, you'd have to be an idiot not to make use of the information available. AFAIK, there are setups that can permatank all level 4's, enabling them to do missions almost semi afk.
The difference between that and trading etc, is that with say, hauling, some guy might just happen to scan you out as you're doing that 2nd run with tons of BPO's since the 1st one seemed to be completely safe.
Let's be honest here, the ninja salvager who salvages you mission, you could probably just leave alone and accept the next one. The effect on your general income is so tiny as to be negligible. Loot thieves provide the only element of risk to a mission runner, and that's only if the mission runner is stupid enough to risk his multibillion ship to shoot a 500k frigate.
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:50:00 -
[119]
Originally by: ZW Dewitt
Originally by: lollerwaffle Traders hauling between hubs have the risk, however minimal, of getting their ship suicide ganked. Apart from that, miscalculation or mistakes could potentially cost them a LOT of money. Not to mention competition between themselves and other traders.
There are numerous ways to make isk in EVE, all of them are subject to some form of risk/competition/effort etc. All bar one.
Mission Runners have the risk, however minimal, of getting their ship suicide ganked. Apart from that, miscalculation or mistakes could potentially cost them a LOT of money.
There are numerous ways to make isk in EVE, all of them are subject to some form of risk/competition/effort etc. All bar one. Nerf PLEX sales.
In your attempt to emulate my post and change the terms around, your forgot the bit about competition between mission runners. That's because there isn't any.
Yes, mission runners have that risk of getting their ship suicide ganked. Now, would you care to elaborate how you would go about suiciding a tanked combat ship in hisec? Scan him out and hit his weakest resist? With the ridiculously overtanked ships people use to run their level 4 missions, even hitting a resist hole would mean applying anything between 30-40k dmg before concord kills you.
Let's run some numbers based on simple but close enough assumptions. Assume that a gank fit BS can deal 1000dps, and a basic mission runner setup with active tank will have a total of 30-40k raw hitpoints, we'll use lowest value here, 30k. For a t1 fitted battleship (for suicide ganking) that's way too high, but will be used for demonstrational purposes. Assuming concord shows up in 10 seconds (which is a pretty slow response time), that's a minimum of 3k dps to deal for that 10 seconds, not to mention if he activates his tank, that's about 700-900 more dps you'd have to do to effectively break his tank. So you'd have to use a minimum of 3 battleships to deal that damage assuming he doesn't rep. To make it relatively easier, that would require another 2 dedicated neut BS to make sure he doesn't get any cap to rep. The coordination required to do that would not be anywhere near easy, and you're using 5 BS to take out a mission runner in hisec. Going by the 'you only lose about 20mil if it's t1 fit and insured' thing, that's a 100mil loss right there. So there total value of dropped loot would have to exceed 100mil to make suicide ganking a battleship worth it. The only viable targets in hisec that would drop at least 100mil in loot are faction fitted BS. And yet faction fitted BS tend to have pretty solid tanks. Plus the mission runner would have 10 seconds to get on all the killmails before concord swiped them all.
In another post, I have elaborated slightly more on miscalculations etc inside the mission.
I look forwards to your reply.
|
Jackson Grey
Caldari Dark Wheel Industries Gemini Federation
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:50:00 -
[120]
Originally by: lollerwaffle
Originally by: Matrix Skye
Originally by: lollerwaffle
Originally by: Kane Starkiller Why is everyone complaining about mission runners? Good ISK and no risk?
Has anyone seen how much traders make? Where is their risk, getting from one high sec trade hub to another one.
There are numerous ways of making isk in EVE, learn to deal with it.
Are you the same people that complain that your boss makes more money than you and gets to come in later in the day?
Get out!
Traders hauling between hubs have the risk, however minimal, of getting their ship suicide ganked. Apart from that, miscalculation or mistakes could potentially cost them a LOT of money. Not to mention competition between themselves and other traders.
There are numerous ways to make isk in EVE, all of them are subject to some form of risk/competition/effort etc. All bar one.
How does that differ from:
Mission runners missioning in deadspace have the risk, however minimal, of getting their ship blown up by NPCs. Apart from that, miscalculation or mistakes could potentially cost them Billion-isk setup. Not to mention salvage and loot thives in mission hubs.
Because there are no unforeseen variables in a mission. Your ship that did that mission with 100% shields left will still do the same one with 100% left. That mission with 3 warpscrambling frigates will still have 3 warpscrambling frigates the next time you do that mission.
Yes, there is a very very very minimal risk of getting your ship blown up by rats in a mission, but then again, you'd have to be an idiot not to make use of the information available. AFAIK, there are setups that can permatank all level 4's, enabling them to do missions almost semi afk.
The difference between that and trading etc, is that with say, hauling, some guy might just happen to scan you out as you're doing that 2nd run with tons of BPO's since the 1st one seemed to be completely safe.
Let's be honest here, the ninja salvager who salvages you mission, you could probably just leave alone and accept the next one. The effect on your general income is so tiny as to be negligible. Loot thieves provide the only element of risk to a mission runner, and that's only if the mission runner is stupid enough to risk his multibillion ship to shoot a 500k frigate.
And the difference between the trader and the mission runner is nothing. If the runner is dumb enough (or is will to take the risk as I have done) to hit the loot stealer then that is his/her lookout. The trader in high sec these days is (with even a minimal setup) is not going to be taken out by a gank unless its well panned by multiple ships all with pilots ready to take the sec rating hit and lose there ships. How many ships you have to scan down to find one that's worth ganking in High Sec? The OP appears to be right - Pirates just want more targets.........................
|
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:53:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Matrix Skye
Originally by: Jackson Grey
Originally by: lollerwaffle
Originally by: Kane Starkiller Why is everyone complaining about mission runners? Good ISK and no risk?
Has anyone seen how much traders make? Where is their risk, getting from one high sec trade hub to another one.
There are numerous ways of making isk in EVE, learn to deal with it.
Are you the same people that complain that your boss makes more money than you and gets to come in later in the day?
Get out!
Traders hauling between hubs have the risk, however minimal, of getting their ship suicide ganked. Apart from that, miscalculation or mistakes could potentially cost them a LOT of money. Not to mention competition between themselves and other traders.
There are numerous ways to make isk in EVE, all of them are subject to some form of risk/competition/effort etc. All bar one.
I can understand some aspects of what your saying 'trader competition is 'risky'' but the suicide gank bit oh come on now thats utter crap. How othen does that happen nowadays?
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.
It would be nice if you could address other points I have raised as well instead of nitpicking. In a previous post, I have raised the point regarding competition as an aspect to all money making activities, except mission running.
Again, this is due to the variables I addressed briefly in my previous post. Please read that and answer the fellow above in context of what I have written.
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:57:00 -
[122]
lollerwaffle,
I'm sorry but you make it sound like traders are players in T1 haulers always parading around high sec with their cargoholds full of researched blueprints. And then you use this as the 'risk' they're having to put with every day. This is ridiculous.
|
ZW Dewitt
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:57:00 -
[123]
Originally by: lollerwaffle Yes, mission runners have that risk of getting their ship suicide ganked. Now, would you care to elaborate how you would go about suiciding a tanked combat ship in hisec? Scan him out and hit his weakest resist? With the ridiculously overtanked ships people use to run their level 4 missions, even hitting a resist hole would mean applying anything between 30-40k dmg before concord kills you.
Let's run some numbers based on simple but close enough assumptions. NUMBERS
In another post, I have elaborated slightly more on miscalculations etc inside the mission.
I look forwards to your reply.
Nicely done, now do the same for a freighter moving goods between trade hubs. Or how about, run the numbers on traders who NEVER UNDOCK and do all their trading without shuffling goods between stations/systems, how much would it take to suicide gank them?
Mission runners face the same risk as your theoretical trader moving between hubs. As you stated above, the mission doesn't change, but the second time you do it there may be a gank squad waiting for you. Exactly the same as the second time you move between hubs.
Likewise, if you make mistakes you can lose ships inside missions resulting in a loss of ISK. There is risk, as you say, "however minimal". Where is the risk in selling PLEX again? Nerf that.
|
Drunk Driver
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:59:00 -
[124]
Risk adverse players will not follow level 4 missions into low sec.
Plain, simple, truth.
|
Andrea Griffin
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:04:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Max Tux a while back there was a thread in the market section saying how much do you make, and there was many a person saying they makes hundreds of millions of isk, trading, not needing to leave a station, for spending 10 mins online a day changing prices.
so lets dispell the idea of the most profitable.
I can confirm that playing the market - even doing something simple like single-station margin trading - is a low risk, easy way to make money. The best part is that I don't even have to be logged in to do it.
I don't believe the 10 minutes a day part, most people who make decent money trading spend at least 30 minutes or so looking at the market and updating orders, but even so, it doesn't take a lot of effort to pull in a decent amount of isk on a weekly basis.
But you want to know something even easier?
Research agents. You can create a research alt on an account, grind up to a L4 research agent, then log in every few months, collect a giant pile of data cores, and dump them on the market. Doesn't get any easier than that.
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:09:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Jackson Grey And the difference between the trader and the mission runner is nothing. If the runner is dumb enough (or is will to take the risk as I have done) to hit the loot stealer then that is his/her lookout. The trader in high sec these days is (with even a minimal setup) is not going to be taken out by a gank unless its well panned by multiple ships all with pilots ready to take the sec rating hit and lose there ships. How many ships you have to scan down to find one that's worth ganking in High Sec? The OP appears to be right - Pirates just want more targets.........................
Assuming no previous aggro mechanics like wardecs being in place, he difference between the mission runner and the hauling trader is this:
The mission runner has an option NOT to shoot, thereby completely taking any risk out of the equation. Like you said, if the mission runner is dumb enough to aggress the looter, then that is his/her fault. Your answer still fails to address the question of competition with his fellow mission runners, which the would be more in line of competition between traders.
Let's make a quick comparison. If the hauling ship was a t1 ship, assuming an itty 5. Fitting a full shield extender buffer with a full rack of stabs would ensure that he is cuting his risk of getting blown up down to a very small chance, which would be analogous to the mission runner NOT aggressing the looter. Even so, if the hauler was carrying something worth suicide ganking, a full rack of medium shield extenders with stabs in the lows and a damage control still gives around 20 EHP, with a 5k raw buffer. This will take 2 gank fitted battlecruiers about 5 seconds will 10s being the upperlimit to blow him up.
Again, i feel I have to reiterate, the coordination and planning of players DOES happen, and can represent an unforeseen variable, while the mission runner has all possible variables laid out for him in a database somewhere, with the only unforeseen variable being the looterm which has the option of NOT aggressing anyway.
For a bit more elaboration about suiciding a mission running battleship, see my previous posts.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:09:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Drunk Driver Risk adverse players will not follow level 4 missions into low sec. Plain, simple, truth.
Yes, and no. MOST of the risk-averse players will not, SOME of them will... especially if you increase rewards for L4s over the current levels that can be obtained in lowsec.
It's all about average expected rewards - if ONE L4 mission would pay 500 mil ISK, wouldn't you go to lowsec to run one, even risk losing several T2-fited battleships in the process, no matter how carebearish you usually are ? I bet you would. Or, if you wouldn't do it for 500 mil ISK, what about 1 bil ISK ? Still no ? How about 3 bil ISK ? Maybe 5 bil ISK ? Everybody has a certain risk-aversity treshold, and increased rewards will make everybody cross their own eventually if rewards keep increasing.
But... you don't need to remove L4s from highsec at all ! The same end-effect can be obtained by bumping down highsec L4 revenue slightly (but continually) while doing the opposite for lowsec L4s... until a proper population balance is obtained.
EVE issues|Mining revamp|Build stuff|Make ISK |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:11:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Matrix Skye How does that differ from:
Mission runners missioning in deadspace have the risk, however minimal, of getting their ship blown up by NPCs. Apart from that, miscalculation or mistakes could potentially cost them Billion-isk setup. Not to mention salvage and loot thives in mission hubs.
For one, ninja salvagers and loot thieves don't cost you any money — it just makes you earn less. You still end up ahead (and some mission runners even argue that you lose income by stopping to loot and salvage…)
Originally by: Jackson Grey I can understand some aspects of what your saying 'trader competition is 'risky'' but the suicide gank bit oh come on now thats utter crap. How othen does that happen nowadays?
That's actually a fair point, but it kind of speaks to the opposite standpoint: the combat means of targeting non-combat activities have been unduly nerfed in a way that very much speaks against the "I play my way; you play your way" mode of reasoning.
Quote: And the difference between the trader and the mission runner is nothing. […] The trader in high sec these days is (with even a minimal setup) is not going to be taken out by a gank […]
The thing is, it's far too easy to be blinded by the gank side of PvP, when PvP in EVE is a matter of competition above all. Blowing others up is just a way of ensuring they no longer take part in that competition (for a little while, at least). When discussing trade, the "risk" isn't so much a question of exploding, but of losing all your money on a deal that falls through.
Trading inherently involves competition, and therefore also inherently involves risk. Whether or not a ship is involved in that risk-taking is an irrelevant distraction.
Earning vast sums from trading isn't a problem because it takes place in a competetive environment, just like everything else in EVE (bar missions). It is also not a problem because it only involves shuffling ISK around from one person to another. Neither is true for missions: they earn you ISK without any kind of competition (yes, salvage and loot can be stolen, but you earn ISK nevertheless), and that ISK is created out of nowhere, which has some rather far-reaching effects on the game economy (granted, the CCP economist claims that we have deflation right now, so it may largely be a non-issue). ——— “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 |
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:14:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Matrix Skye lollerwaffle,
I'm sorry but you make it sound like traders are players in T1 haulers always parading around high sec with their cargoholds full of researched blueprints. And then you use this as the 'risk' they're having to put with every day. This is ridiculous.
You're right, it's ridiculous. Unfortunately, I fail to see how you would come to that conclusion based on my posts. However, to make the same amount of isk/hour taking into account travelling time etc, the hauler would have to be moving some pretty expensive cargo around. I'm using the basis that suicide gankers would make a calculation on whether the cargo carried would be worth the amount of isk it takes to suicide gank, and that it is. If it's not, then the hauler isn't making as much money as the l4 mission runner in terms of isk/hour. Either way, he is still subject to direct competition between himself and all the other orders on the market, a point which everyone seems to have conveniently forgotten.
And yes, haulers do not necessarily fly t1 haulers all the time.
|
northwesten
Amarr Trinity Corporate Services
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:17:00 -
[130]
if people move level 4 agents to low sec it just be a gank fest for pirates. Also Pirate will hend up locking down that system and kill evewrything in site while they have people banging out the missions. It be Awesome for pirates bad for others.
Level 4 missions need to have no loot in the missions just salvage. Nerf the bounty just a little! not more! as there in high sec. I do missions all the time because i getting rich fast! When you have great skills it just easy to do and no risk. So moving them to no sec in my view just not the answer and just wont work.
Also drop the loot u help the mining as well. like i said salvage and rewards all u need!
Trinity Corporate Services |
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:17:00 -
[131]
Originally by: lollerwaffle
It would be nice if you could address other points I have raised as well instead of nitpicking. In a previous post, I have raised the point regarding competition as an aspect to all money making activities, except mission running.
Again, this is due to the variables I addressed briefly in my previous post. Please read that and answer the fellow above in context of what I have written.
That is probably the ONLY VALID POINT you make, the fact that missions don't force players to compete against other players. But to an extent neither does mining. You can argue that ore is a depletable source, but we all know this is just "in theory". The day all ore in Eve is depleted in one day is still a long way's off. I know it has happened in systems in hi sec, but not ALL of Eve. So for all practical purposes we can assume ore is in infinite supply as are missions. The difference is noticible in hi sec, where ore can be depleted but missions cannot. But why would they need to be? They give a break to players from the day to day PVP in Eve. They help PVP players recover from their losses so they can continue PVPing. They give causal players something to do. They give non-combat-PVP players something to do. It doesn't need to be just like everything else.
This selfisnhess and elitism needs to stop. Some players just play for fun and self-accomplishment, not to prove to anyone else they're better than anyone else.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:18:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Drunk Driver Risk adverse players will not follow level 4 missions into low sec.
Plain, simple, truth.
Which is why no-one who has actually thought things through suggests that. The solution to L4s is to either cut down on their profitability (the less optimal solution) or to introduce a competetive element to bring them in line with all other activities in EVE. Only then can their profitability be balanced against those other activities — I'd even go so far as to argue that unless missions are made competetive, they are fundamentally impossible to balance because they work on principles that vastly differ from everything else in the game. ——— “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 |
Max Tux
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:24:00 -
[133]
but isk being created via missions isn't a major deal, if there was no isk generated, everytime a tech 2 ship blew up there would be less isk in eve, and with an expanding player base, more isk is required.
i think that asteroid belts should respawn more often, maybe increase the yield per rock/ cycle, therefore keeping miners happy, maybe reduce the loot drop in missions, meaning there is less mineral entrance onto the market from missions.
I think the bounties of NPC's in lowsec and 0.0 should be increased, thus providing more incentive for mission runners that do want the extra isk for the extra risk are tempted to lowsec / null sec.
i'm glad people have are agreeing with me, means its not just me thats a little insane
and for the record i do pvp and mission
|
Mikayla Grey
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:25:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Darius Brinn Forcing people into Lowsec does not work.
Increase 0.0 ratting rewards. Increase the profits of mining. Entice people to move to other riskier/more boring (but needed) activities. Those are reasonable ideas.
Asking CCP to move lvl4s to low security is just a flow of pirate tears asking for targets not fitted to shoot back.
A better idea would probably be to make L4s competetive and thus PvP:able (as in "I take your business", not the 'splo-you-up kind of PvP).
Care to show how you can disrupt my trading business?
You can try to disrupt everyone trading business at the same time, but you have no way to target me.
Almost the same for mining. You can try to push me out of a system (attacking me with suicide ships) but you can't block me from mining.
As I can easily spawn mining roids with missions or find them with exploration you have no way to bar me from mining.
So "I will take away your business" is a false statement.
Every time you put your stuff on the market you are subject to competition or pvp if you will from a number of other players. It doesnt matter if i can target you directly or not. You take risks with your isk when you engage in trading, it doesnt matter that that isk isnt tied up in a ship you fly in. The more people that are trading the harder it is to make a profit.
Most of the income from lvl 4 has no such competition. The chance to get blown up once in a blue moon if you do something really stupid doesnt really compare.
|
Karentaki
Gallente Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:26:00 -
[135]
Originally by: ZW Dewitt
Originally by: lollerwaffle Yes, mission runners have that risk of getting their ship suicide ganked. Now, would you care to elaborate how you would go about suiciding a tanked combat ship in hisec? Scan him out and hit his weakest resist? With the ridiculously overtanked ships people use to run their level 4 missions, even hitting a resist hole would mean applying anything between 30-40k dmg before concord kills you.
Let's run some numbers based on simple but close enough assumptions. NUMBERS
In another post, I have elaborated slightly more on miscalculations etc inside the mission.
I look forwards to your reply.
Nicely done, now do the same for a freighter moving goods between trade hubs. Or how about, run the numbers on traders who NEVER UNDOCK and do all their trading without shuffling goods between stations/systems, how much would it take to suicide gank them?
Mission runners face the same risk as your theoretical trader moving between hubs. As you stated above, the mission doesn't change, but the second time you do it there may be a gank squad waiting for you. Exactly the same as the second time you move between hubs.
Likewise, if you make mistakes you can lose ships inside missions resulting in a loss of ISK. There is risk, as you say, "however minimal". Where is the risk in selling PLEX again? Nerf that.
Can you ever go into a mission and come out with less ISK than you started with? For 90% of mission runners the answer is no. Once you know the way the missions work and you know what every trigger and spawn is, then there is no risk. You can do exactly the same thing every time, and short of being stupid you will always complete the mission.
For a trader, sure there is no risk from ship combat, but there is risk from someone undercutting them, or the market they are trading in collapsing while they still have large amounts of stock. With missions you are competing with a 100% predictable computer that will do almost exactly the same thing every time. With trading you are competing with other players who are just as smart, greedy and manipulative as you. They can do exactly the same to you as you can to them. If you slip up for a millisecond they will pounce on you and beat you, taking any profit you might have earned. With one misjudged buy order you can lose billions.
Now, which would you say is more risky?
Quote:
EVE is like a sandbox with landmines. Deal with it.
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:27:00 -
[136]
Originally by: ZW Dewitt
Originally by: lollerwaffle Yes, mission runners have that risk of getting their ship suicide ganked. Now, would you care to elaborate how you would go about suiciding a tanked combat ship in hisec? Scan him out and hit his weakest resist? With the ridiculously overtanked ships people use to run their level 4 missions, even hitting a resist hole would mean applying anything between 30-40k dmg before concord kills you.
Let's run some numbers based on simple but close enough assumptions. NUMBERS
In another post, I have elaborated slightly more on miscalculations etc inside the mission.
I look forwards to your reply.
Nicely done, now do the same for a freighter moving goods between trade hubs. Or how about, run the numbers on traders who NEVER UNDOCK and do all their trading without shuffling goods between stations/systems, how much would it take to suicide gank them?
Mission runners face the same risk as your theoretical trader moving between hubs. As you stated above, the mission doesn't change, but the second time you do it there may be a gank squad waiting for you. Exactly the same as the second time you move between hubs.
Likewise, if you make mistakes you can lose ships inside missions resulting in a loss of ISK. There is risk, as you say, "however minimal". Where is the risk in selling PLEX again? Nerf that.
With regards to traders using t2 haulers and freighters in order to not get suicide ganked. Using those ships would be analogous to a mission runner taking care not to lose his ship in a mission, by fitting the correct tank, using the correct ammo (in the case of the raven) and using mission databases to identify triggers and whatnot. He's doing what he can to not lose his ship in a mission, which is the same thing as a hauler doing what he can to not get suicide ganked. Unfortunately, if the target is a high value target, to some people it might be worth the effort of getting a bunch of people to do it (last I heard it's something like 12-15 BS post concord boost, not sure on exact numbers though). 15BS = around 300mil loss. That means the freighter would have to have at the very least that amount in his cargo. Take into account that only around 50% of the stuff drops, modified by if they're in a can or not. Other factors to consider are warp and align speeds of freighters, which have an impact on the isk/hour gain. While for a mission runner, the will of the rats to pop you doesn't increase in accordance to how much isk you fit on your ship.
For some reason everyone seems to be fixated on the whole suicide ganking thing, meanwhile completely neglecting my point about a lack of competition between mission runners. Station traders are still subject to competition on the market.
I really don't get your whole point about PLEXes, as I'm talking about isk generating activities within the game, not the conversion of RL money to isk. In any case, the PLEX still has to go on the market, which by default equates to competition.
|
Herzog Wolfhammer
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:27:00 -
[137]
This entire argument can come to a screeching halt with that age old MMO saw:
"When you are paying my subscription fee, THEN you can tell me how to play."
|
Mikayla Grey
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:31:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Max Tux but isk being created via missions isn't a major deal, if there was no isk generated, everytime a tech 2 ship blew up there would be less isk in eve, and with an expanding player base, more isk is required.
i think that asteroid belts should respawn more often, maybe increase the yield per rock/ cycle, therefore keeping miners happy, maybe reduce the loot drop in missions, meaning there is less mineral entrance onto the market from missions.
I think the bounties of NPC's in lowsec and 0.0 should be increased, thus providing more incentive for mission runners that do want the extra isk for the extra risk are tempted to lowsec / null sec.
i'm glad people have are agreeing with me, means its not just me thats a little insane
and for the record i do pvp and mission
If you nerf lvl 4 or increase the reward from everything else the end result is the same. The main issue with missions is that there is no competition in it. Introducing some kind of limit to the nr of missions a agent will give or basing the reward mostly on LP or tags etc are elements that would push missions into the same type of competition we see for every other money making activity in eve.
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:31:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer This entire argument can come to a screeching halt with that age old MMO saw:
"When you are paying my subscription fee, THEN you can tell me how to play."
Works both way though, so for this particular argument, it's kind of a risky nuke to set off… ——— “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 |
Mikayla Grey
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:33:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer This entire argument can come to a screeching halt with that age old MMO saw:
"When you are paying my subscription fee, THEN you can tell me how to play."
Thats a completely ridiculous statement. But if true please give me a hac with 100% resists and 20000 dps.
|
|
Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:33:00 -
[141]
Missions are fine, they have been nerfed repeatedly. Whine for a LowSuck boost instead.
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:33:00 -
[142]
Moving L4 missions to low sec may turn out to be a ganker's gankfest at first, but sooner or later things will balance out by there being less PVP. Once players start realizing lowsec isnt worth **** they'll simply stop there. Or stop logging into the game. I know lots of gankers rejoice that they're gone (because the idiots just can't think long term consequences), but eventually it will equate to less PVP being had, and even less kills. Carebears will be bored docked in stations and PVPers will be bored roaming with no targets in site. That is until they can convince CCP to nerf stations and force them out in PVE ships. It wouldn't surprise me.
|
Jackson Grey
Caldari Dark Wheel Industries Gemini Federation
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:34:00 -
[143]
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.
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:37:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Karentaki Can you ever go into a mission and come out with less ISK than you started with?
This is aking to saying that mining your own ores is free. Why is the miner's time worth something but not the mission runner's?
|
Mikayla Grey
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:38:00 -
[145]
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.
Its got nothing to do with forcing people to pvp. Its about game balance.
Completely unrelated but AoC sucked because there was no pvp as promised at launch. Apparently its growing again now but i have no interest in it.
|
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:39:00 -
[146]
That argument has been tried in various ways for the past 5 years. Being blunt about it is either a clever troll attempt, or indication that even now, idiots continue to chime in on issues they don't understand.
To be equally blunt; the people who do the killing are already quite good at getting kills.
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:42:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Matrix Skye
Originally by: lollerwaffle
It would be nice if you could address other points I have raised as well instead of nitpicking. In a previous post, I have raised the point regarding competition as an aspect to all money making activities, except mission running.
Again, this is due to the variables I addressed briefly in my previous post. Please read that and answer the fellow above in context of what I have written.
That is probably the ONLY VALID POINT you make, the fact that missions don't force players to compete against other players. But to an extent neither does mining. You can argue that ore is a depletable source, but we all know this is just "in theory". The day all ore in Eve is depleted in one day is still a long way's off. I know it has happened in systems in hi sec, but not ALL of Eve. So for all practical purposes we can assume ore is in infinite supply as are missions. The difference is noticible in hi sec, where ore can be depleted but missions cannot. But why would they need to be? They give a break to players from the day to day PVP in Eve. They help PVP players recover from their losses so they can continue PVPing. They give causal players something to do. They give non-combat-PVP players something to do. It doesn't need to be just like everything else.
This selfisnhess and elitism needs to stop. Some players just play for fun and self-accomplishment, not to prove to anyone else they're better than anyone else.
I fail to see how insulting me strengthens your argument. Every reply and response I have posted in this thread has been based on actual content, and I have not felt the need to call someone selfish or elitist or claiming something as the ONLY VALID POINT while completely ignoring everything else, while not properly addressing that VALID POINT. But oh well, to each his own, eh?
With regards to mining being in theory an infinite resource. Yes, on a global basis minerals are inexhaustible. But on a local level, YOU as a miner aren't mining those Hedbergite roids in lowsec, nor are you sucking away at the ABC roids in 0.0. People who DO mine in hisecurity space are for all practical purposes competing with other miners for the limited roids available in hisec systems. So you can't use that as a basis to say that ore is inexhaustible, due to the location from which that resource is harvested. Using that analogy, you could also claim that me selling something in this system faces NO competition, since that 2-3 regions in 0.0 don't have that item on the market. Can you see the flaw there? However, as a mission runner in a particular system, you are obtaining isk from an inexhaustible source which has no real competition. And this lack of competition holds true no matter where that mission is. If it's in lowsec, and 0.0, then yes, there is the added risk of losing your ship, but for all intents and purposes, it is still an inexhaustible resource.
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:49:00 -
[148]
Originally by: Matrix Skye Edited by: Matrix Skye on 27/05/2009 16:41:38
Originally by: Karentaki Can you ever go into a mission and come out with less ISK than you started with?
This is akin to saying that mining your own ores is free. Why is the miner's time worth something but not the mission runner's? This is exactly the biggotry I'm talking about. You silly gankers pick, choose and throw words around like 'risk vs rewards!1!' like it still means something.
Yet again you have to resort to insults to lend strength to your posts.
Both the miner and mission runner's time are worth money. However the issue we've been discussing all along is that hisec level 4s are not subject to any form of competition. The miner's time is worth X amount of money based on how much ore he can mine, what how much he can sell it for, how much he could save by mining a different ore, or mining in a different system closer to a better buy order. While the mission runner's time's worth is based purely on how quickly he can finish a mission.
BTW, that IS NOT akin to saying mining your own ore is free. That statement and the quoted one are mutually exclusive, and have no bearing or relevance on each othere whatsoever. He is compaing mission running which generates a steady income to other activities where you actually stand a chance of losing isk.
|
Kiri Serrensun
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:52:00 -
[149]
Originally by: KiloAlpha imo instead of trying to move l4 missions to lowsec, CCP could apply sleeper AI to L4 mission rats. This would level off the risk v. reward issue, and the carebears' would not be getting ganked in lowsec(lowsec pvp is gay anyway). To increas the interest in lowsec, the missions found there could also have better drop rate/mission reward.
feedback?
I seriously think that would be the best solution. It seems to be a truism that you never risk death in missions once you know what you're doing, because the AI is so utterly stupid. The only risk comes from stupid numbers or unfair, unpredictable spawn conditions (like the respawn triggers in the Blockade).
Fewer, smarter, NPC's would cut down the boredom of "tank their damage type / find optimal range outside of theirs / move away / shoot enemies" over and over, and make missions interesting again. If they needed a PVP-like setup to fight effectively, missions could serve as a bridge to learning PVP skills. As it is, when you move to PVP, you have to relearn the combat and fitting systems for no good reason. And lastly, fewer better loot modules cuts down on mineral inflation.
|
northwesten
Amarr Trinity Corporate Services
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:54:00 -
[150]
Originally by: lollerwaffle
Yet again you have to resort to insults to lend strength to your posts.
Both the miner and mission runner's time are worth money. However the issue we've been discussing all along is that hisec level 4s are not subject to any form of competition. The miner's time is worth X amount of money based on how much ore he can mine, what how much he can sell it for, how much he could save by mining a different ore, or mining in a different system closer to a better buy order. While the mission runner's time's worth is based purely on how quickly he can finish a mission.
BTW, that IS NOT akin to saying mining your own ore is free. That statement and the quoted one are mutually exclusive, and have no bearing or relevance on each othere whatsoever. He is compaing mission running which generates a steady income to other activities where you actually stand a chance of losing isk.
agreed! I think there not alot we can do to level 4 other than lower there income in missions. First get rid of loot his be great for miners too. Sure there be more mining to replace it but least people will compete more for ore. Tho with missions they should have salvage and rewards only!
Trinity Corporate Services |
|
Jackson Grey
Caldari Dark Wheel Industries Gemini Federation
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:54:00 -
[151]
Edited by: Jackson Grey on 27/05/2009 16:59:45
Originally by: Mikayla Grey
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.
Its got nothing to do with forcing people to pvp. Its about game balance.
Completely unrelated but AoC sucked because there was no pvp as promised at launch. Apparently its growing again now but i have no interest in it.
Well the PvP in AoC did suck, however game balance comes into it when one group cannot do some thing another group can. In this case you can go and do the level 4 missions anytime you like. Therefore it is not a balance issue, it is a player choice issue. One group chooses to not to go into an area where another group can attack. if you change that then it may become a balance issue. The PvP group then has the advantage and it becomes unbalanced. And Yes I know about having a Low Security rating means you cant come into high sec without risk. That was your choice. So not my problem.
Edit for spelling
|
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:55:00 -
[152]
Originally by: lollerwaffle Traders hauling between hubs have the risk, however minimal, of getting their ship suicide ganked. Apart from that, miscalculation or mistakes could potentially cost them a LOT of money. Not to mention competition between themselves and other traders. There are numerous ways to make isk in EVE, all of them are subject to some form of risk/competition/effort etc. All bar one.
Yeah and there is zero risk of messing up or encountering a bug and getting your ship killed in mission right? Right? Rats never shoot you or anything!!! /sarcasm
If anything the chance of dying on a mission is significantly higher than running a transport ship between trade hubs. Not to mention that the ISK/hour is quite a lot higher if you have the money to invest. You'd have to be pretty stupid or half asleep to lose money as a trader, so long as you put them for sale at a higher price than you bought the goods then you will make a profit or at the VERY worse lose your broker fee. That doesn't even compare to the ammo used cost on some Lvl 4 missions.
Quote: I'm pretty sure every PVPer knows what a PVE fit is, and knows what it's used for and how to use it (target, f1, f2, f3, gee). If you already know what damage you're gonna be dealt, and what damage you'll have to deal, it's really a piece of cake. I'm not sure the same can be said about a PVEer knowing how to fit his ship and how use it for PVP. Also, there are way too many variables in PVP, so by your definition a PVEer who doesn't know how to PVP is pretty stupid.
Well the poster above you who responded to my first post seemed not to..... Besides you fit PvE for Pve and PvP for Pvp> You cnan't really use either fit for low-sec cos its a combination of both... Where as the pirates ganking you CAN just use a PvP fit..... Tou get the point now? :)
Quote: Which is a pittance compared to bounties, mission rewards, stuff already salvage.....blah blah
Actually loot/salvage is normally around half the mission rewards. Without the salvage/loot e.t.c. mining veld is probably more profitable than running missions. Mission rewards go up to about a 2.5m MAX with a decent quality mission in hi-sec. What is 2.5mil/hour more than you think PvEs should get? And if they do manage to loot/salvage when you are trying to grab their loot, while managing to kill rats at the same time then your a pretty sucky player or aren't in the right ship for the job which is your problem not CCP's. Love the way you include past and future missions there as well. LOL. You can easily half a mission runner's rewards by looting/salvaging his wrecks, more if you kill some ships as well! No-one is stopping you shoot the rats yourself! Just because people don't want to generally doesn't mean they can't. People don't want to sneak into the middle of Goon space and solo attack their transport but it doesn't mean they can't, just that they have better things to do!
Quote: What would you say if some element of 'competition' was put in place for missions?
So someone logs on to do a few missions before bed and they've all been done. This happens a few times and the player quits eve. It will happen and you know it, particually for younger players trying to build up a war chest for when their skills are high enough to be happy about PvPing (yes you can PvP from the start, some people prefer to get to know the game via PvE first) All this would serve to do is reduce people's enjoyment of the game.
Quote: Because there are no unforeseen variables in a mission. Your ship that did that mission with 100% shields left will still do the same one with 100% left. That mission with 3 warpscrambling frigates will still have 3 warpscrambling frigates the next time you do that mission.
No cos there is never lag or bugs in this game that can get you killed and you are in a area completly inacessible to other players right??? /sarcasm
|
Dagobert Dog
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:58:00 -
[153]
Missions like they are implemented currently don't fit properly into eve. There is just no competition between missionrunners. That is where the problem is. Eve is built arround competition between players in almost every aspect be it pewpew, market, exploration or belt ratting. That competition is missing for running missions.
Why is that so? The answer is simple. Missions are an infinite good. Everybody can litterly create an infinate amount of them for himself.
Would moving level 4s to lowsec help? I don't think so. People would adapt. Either they would run level3 missions or learn to use there scanner. But they could still create in infinite amount of missions without competing with other players.
My sugestion is: Make missions a limited resource like everything else (like belts, signatures, anomalies, etc). Its not really that important how that is done. My sugestion would be a simple spawn mechanic. Missions could "spawn" at agents. Players than could get a list of missions they can select from (maybe modified standings to the agent). If all missions are taken by players the agent just wont offer any missions until a new mission would "spawn" at that agent.
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:59:00 -
[154]
Originally by: lollerwaffle
Originally by: Matrix Skye Edited by: Matrix Skye on 27/05/2009 16:41:38
Originally by: Karentaki Can you ever go into a mission and come out with less ISK than you started with?
This is akin to saying that mining your own ores is free. Why is the miner's time worth something but not the mission runner's? This is exactly the biggotry I'm talking about. You silly gankers pick, choose and throw words around like 'risk vs rewards!1!' like it still means something.
Yet again you have to resort to insults to lend strength to your posts.
Both the miner and mission runner's time are worth money. However the issue we've been discussing all along is that hisec level 4s are not subject to any form of competition. The miner's time is worth X amount of money based on how much ore he can mine, what how much he can sell it for, how much he could save by mining a different ore, or mining in a different system closer to a better buy order. While the mission runner's time's worth is based purely on how quickly he can finish a mission.
BTW, that IS NOT akin to saying mining your own ore is free. That statement and the quoted one are mutually exclusive, and have no bearing or relevance on each othere whatsoever. He is compaing mission running which generates a steady income to other activities where you actually stand a chance of losing isk.
Ok then. Here's the scenario:
A trader invested 500 million with the idea he'd get back 1 billion. He only managed to make 5 million in profit (a total of 505 million).
Did the trader lose isk or not? Why?
|
Mikayla Grey
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:00:00 -
[155]
Quote: Well the PvP did suck, however game balance comes into it when one group cannot do some thing another group can. In this case you can go and do the level 4 missions anytime you like. therefore it is not a balance issue, it is a player choice issue.
Sorry but you have no understanding of what game balance means. Why not make a hac with 100% resists and 20000 dps then? Everyone can train for it if they want.
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:01:00 -
[156]
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.
I'm not saying you're wrong when you say you can't force people to PVP. But the problem is, the whole concept of EVE is centered around PVP. By PVP I don't just mean ship-ship combat, but rather player versus player in the true sense of that word. Everything you do has a bearing on someone else in game, no matter how insignificant it is. You buy a module off the market, that's one less module at that price for someone else to buy. You shoot a rat, that's 1 less rat someone else could have shot. I mean, sure you say you suck at PVP, by which I assume you mean you suck at combat vs other players. So you trade, you mine. Both of those represent taking part in activities that put you in competition with other people, for a finite amount of resources.
As to your example of PVP and AoC, I've never played AoC, but I'm assuming that it'll be pretty much based on most popular/mainstream MMO's, where most if not all items are seeded by NPCs (obviously with rare stuff or watever equivalent, are only dropped following grinding of NPCs). The games are completely different and to use 'other' mainstream MMOs as an example, they tend to be PVE oriented with PVP thrown in which has no meaningful consequences, while in EVE, it's the opposite where everything is PVP oriented with PVE missions thrown in to provide income with NO competition. Enough of other fail games :)
The problem is, level 4 represent a distinctly different concept that goes against the very nature of the game.
|
Essence Praetor
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:04:00 -
[157]
Edited by: Essence Praetor on 27/05/2009 17:06:47 /0\
Hot topic I step away from the keyboard for an hour and six pages lol
Which is point in fact . . .
--Towards the end of the Nanonerf most intelligent people agreed it needed to be done. They didn't all like how it was implemented but they agreed.
--ECM nerf . . . no one is complying that Falons are now grossly under powered now, and now we have the rook
This is hotly debated, to many people disagree, CCP would be stupid to EVER do something like that.
So miss lollerwaffle of The Space P0lice, you and people like you can take your Epeen and just float and sputter. Not gonna happen the way you want it to. And yes you can save this post and try and throw it im my face many years from now when there STILL will be level 4's in Empire. Even if they change it a bit, they will NEVER change it much.
So bleh...
hey look --->
This buds for you.
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:04:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Dagobert Dog My sugestion is: Make missions a limited resource like everything else (like belts, signatures, anomalies, etc). Its not really that important how that is done. My sugestion would be a simple spawn mechanic. Missions could "spawn" at agents. Players than could get a list of missions they can select from (maybe modified standings to the agent). If all missions are taken by players the agent just wont offer any missions until a new mission would "spawn" at that agent.
Once I do my missions I log out and you won't notice a hell of a difference other than Eve is emptier. Again, the idiotic ADD crowd will think "HAHA!1 I'm Glad!1!" but really, what will this accomplish other than driving away a portion of the eve population?
|
Jackson Grey
Caldari Dark Wheel Industries Gemini Federation
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:05:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Mikayla Grey
Quote: Well the PvP did suck, however game balance comes into it when one group cannot do some thing another group can. In this case you can go and do the level 4 missions anytime you like. therefore it is not a balance issue, it is a player choice issue.
Sorry but you have no understanding of what game balance means. Why not make a hac with 100% resists and 20000 dps then? Everyone can train for it if they want.
In this case I think your wrong - your example is rather extreme and a bit pointless. And with 2 second thought you could work out what I meant.
|
Essence Praetor
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:08:00 -
[160]
Originally by: Essence Praetor Edited by: Essence Praetor on 27/05/2009 17:06:47 /0\
Hot topic I step away from the keyboard for an hour and six pages lol
Which is point in fact . . .
--Towards the end of the Nanonerf most intelligent people agreed it needed to be done. They didn't all like how it was implemented but they agreed.
--ECM nerf . . . no one is complying that Falons are now grossly under powered now, and now we have the rook
This is hotly debated, to many people disagree, CCP would be stupid to EVER do something like that.
So miss lollerwaffle of The Space P0lice, you and people like you can take your Epeen and just float and sputter. Not gonna happen the way you want it to. And yes you can save this post and try and throw it im my face many years from now when there STILL will be level 4's in Empire. Even if they change it a bit, they will NEVER change it much.
So bleh...
hey look --->
This buds for you.
This.
|
|
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:13:00 -
[161]
Quote: AFAIK, there are setups that can permatank all level 4's, enabling them to do missions almost semi afk.
No there aren't. There is no set-up that can do every mission like this. Quite a few missions have Nos/Neut that whips out your tank pretty quick, even with a passive tank as they turn your hardeners off.
WC4 sansha side can easily break 1000 dps/second (before resists) shield tank. A lot of rats react fairly randomly to drones in particular.
Quote: Let's be honest here, the ninja salvager who salvages you mission, you could probably just leave alone and accept the next one. The effect on your general income is so tiny as to be negligible. Loot thieves provide the only element of risk to a mission runner, and that's only if the mission runner is stupid enough to risk his multibillion ship to shoot a 500k frigate.
Thats cos that type of person is not there for the loot/salvage, they are there for the chance of the mission runner shooting them so they can get their gank ship or they are a new player looking to scav some quick ISK. If they where there to deliberatly try and clear the wrecks before the player, they would be in a BC or similar with full salvage kit and zero real danger of been attack as they can always stay in the pocket behind the mission runner that hes already cleared......
If anything the lack of competition in missions is GOOD for eve. It means there is always something you can do without worrying that someone else has got there first, which makes the game more enjoyable. You could quite easily say the same thing about mining, afterall, as soon as you accept the mission the ANY player can scan it down and get the bounties, just like roids.
|
SJ02
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:14:00 -
[162]
This whole argument seems absurd to put it lightly. PVP people complaining that PVE people won't come into lowsec space seems a bit self-serving. Um, of course they don't go there, they don't want to die. That's akin to PVE people complaining because PVP people should be required to run missions before they can fight each other.
If people want to be pirates then by all means do so. But the idea of telling civilians that they should be required to go into lowsec is ludicrous.
|
Mikayla Grey
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:14:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Essence Praetor
Originally by: Essence Praetor Edited by: Essence Praetor on 27/05/2009 17:06:47 /0\
Hot topic I step away from the keyboard for an hour and six pages lol
Which is point in fact . . .
--Towards the end of the Nanonerf most intelligent people agreed it needed to be done. They didn't all like how it was implemented but they agreed.
--ECM nerf . . . no one is complying that Falons are now grossly under powered now, and now we have the rook
This is hotly debated, to many people disagree, CCP would be stupid to EVER do something like that.
So miss lollerwaffle of The Space P0lice, you and people like you can take your Epeen and just float and sputter. Not gonna happen the way you want it to. And yes you can save this post and try and throw it im my face many years from now when there STILL will be level 4's in Empire. Even if they change it a bit, they will NEVER change it much.
So bleh...
hey look --->
This buds for you.
This.
You forgot to switch chars.
|
Jackson Grey
Caldari Dark Wheel Industries Gemini Federation
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:18:00 -
[164]
Well this has been a blast however I got a game to unbalance by running level 4 missions.
Guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one............
I dont think CCP will chage much as although forcing people out into low sec would be good for you pirate types I think the revinue hit will put them off chaging it too much.
Increasing the reward in Low sec might get a few people to go out there, but thats the only thing I can see them doing that won't rock the boat in a really bad way.
(ps Even if they did that I dont think I would go out there............ )
|
Essence Praetor
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:21:00 -
[165]
Edited by: Essence Praetor on 27/05/2009 17:22:25 LOl no i didn't :P
It is posted as intended.
And right now I am pouring syrup on a Waffle. Yummmm.....
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:22:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Rhinanna No there aren't. There is no set-up that can do every mission like this. Quite a few missions have Nos/Neut that whips out your tank pretty quick, even with a passive tank as they turn your hardeners off.
WC4 sansha side can easily break 1000 dps/second (before resists) shield tank. A lot of rats react fairly randomly to drones in particular.
Nos/neuts in L4s are a nuisance, not a threat to well-set up ship. And no, WC4 does not do 1000dps/s… although it might reach 1000dps…
…sorry, it's a pet niggle of mine. ——— “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 |
Ms Delerium
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:25:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Mikayla Grey
You forgot to switch chars.
busted!!!!!!!!!
|
Andrest Disch
Amarr Letiferi Praedones
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:27:00 -
[168]
Originally by: Dagobert Dog
My sugestion is: Make missions a limited resource like everything else (like belts, signatures, anomalies, etc). Its not really that important how that is done. My sugestion would be a simple spawn mechanic. Missions could "spawn" at agents. Players than could get a list of missions they can select from (maybe modified standings to the agent). If all missions are taken by players the agent just wont offer any missions until a new mission would "spawn" at that agent.
Quoting a good idea. |
Essence Praetor
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:29:00 -
[169]
Edited by: Essence Praetor on 27/05/2009 17:31:11
Originally by: Essence Praetor
Originally by: Essence Praetor Edited by: Essence Praetor on 27/05/2009 17:06:47 /0\
Hot topic I step away from the keyboard for an hour and six pages lol
Which is point in fact . . .
--Towards the end of the Nanonerf most intelligent people agreed it needed to be done. They didn't all like how it was implemented but they agreed.
--ECM nerf . . . no one is complying that Falons are now grossly under powered now, and now we have the rook
This is hotly debated, to many people disagree, CCP would be stupid to EVER do something like that.
So miss lollerwaffle of The Space P0lice, you and people like you can take your Epeen and just float and sputter. Not gonna happen the way you want it to. And yes you can save this post and try and throw it im my face many years from now when there STILL will be level 4's in Empire. Even if they change it a bit, they will NEVER change it much.
So bleh...
hey look --->
This buds for you.
This.
No you seem to be missing the point here. My double-in-your-face post was simply interrupted by someone else post lol
So here it is again for clarity sake.
This The the way its gonna be. Argue it till the chribba himself Emo rage quits eve and the roids are safe again. You Anti lv 4 Empire mongers are not going to get what you want.
As in NE-VER
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:34:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Rhinanna Yeah and there is zero risk of messing up or encountering a bug and getting your ship killed in mission right? Right? Rats never shoot you or anything!!! /sarcasm
If anything the chance of dying on a mission is significantly higher than running a transport ship between trade hubs. Not to mention that the ISK/hour is quite a lot higher if you have the money to invest. You'd have to be pretty stupid or half asleep to lose money as a trader, so long as you put them for sale at a higher price than you bought the goods then you will make a profit or at the VERY worse lose your broker fee. That doesn't even compare to the ammo used cost on some Lvl 4 missions.
Maybe you should stop trying to be sarcastic and actually try to have a proper discussion. Why all the sarcasm in your posts? Are you upset or something? I find myself enjoying this little debate I've taken all the way up to page 6 or 7 I forget. Rats of course DO shoot you. Are you implying that I don't know that by adding a /sarcasm at the end of your question?
Your response in this bit fails to take into consideration what I actually wrote. These same 'risks' that you mention apply to ALL areas of the game.There are mission guides out there, where everything you need to know about the mission is given in detail. Like you say, you'd have to be pretty stupid or half asleep for that to happen, and that would happen. Furthermore, if you encounter a bug and lose a ship in a mission as a result of it it can be fully reimbursed via petitions. Even so, common mission runner setups tend to gravitate towards a permarunning tank. I'll leave finer details of market manipulation to someone more knowledgable than me. Ammo cost for missions is a completely moot point, as 1 battleship kill should more than pay for ALL the ammo you use on a mission.
Originally by: Rhinanna You cnan't really use either fit for low-sec cos its a combination of both... Where as the pirates ganking you CAN just use a PvP fit..... Tou get the point now? :)
Scanners+watching local+staying aligned > PVP fit. Also we're discussing lack of competition for level 4's not OMG MOVE THEM TO LOWSEC NAO CCP. Chill out mate.
Originally by: Rhinanna *snip for wordcount
I'm going on a isk/hour basis. Nothing to stop you finishing the mission while salvaging what you can if you care about the salvage, and completing another mission and taking a new one. Also, you're not factoring in the bounties from a mission.
Originally by: Rhinanna Just because people don't want to generally doesn't mean they can't. People don't want to sneak into the middle of Goon space and solo attack their transport but it doesn't mean they can't, just that they have better things to do!
Most of your post's contents have no relevance to what I said, and don't really make any sense in the context of this discussion, so I think I'm gonna ignore addressing them for now, until you can tell me why they are valid. Sorry word count limits suck when trying to answer stuff to goes off on a tangent.
Originally by: Rhinanna So someone logs on to do a few missions before bed and they've all been done. This happens a few times and the player quits eve.
If that person pointedly limited himself to 1 source of income following a change like that, then it's his fault really.
Originally by: Rhinanna No cos there is never lag or bugs in this game that can get you killed and you are in a area completly inacessible to other players right??? /sarcasm
How delightful, yet more sarcasm. As I mentioned earlier, those are petitionable, since they are no fault of yours. I fail to see how someone else warping into your mission has anything to do with anything.
|
|
Mikayla Grey
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:35:00 -
[171]
Originally by: Jackson Grey
Originally by: Mikayla Grey
Quote: Well the PvP did suck, however game balance comes into it when one group cannot do some thing another group can. In this case you can go and do the level 4 missions anytime you like. therefore it is not a balance issue, it is a player choice issue.
Sorry but you have no understanding of what game balance means. Why not make a hac with 100% resists and 20000 dps then? Everyone can train for it if they want.
In this case I think your wrong - your example is rather extreme and a bit pointless. And with 2 second thought you could work out what I meant.
Yes its an extreme example and meant to be. Look at the game nerfs to ships and modules and you find the exact same reasoning for all the ships and module nerfs.
You are trying to defend a "overpowered" isk generating activity by saying anyone can do it.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:36:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Max Tux from what i can see, people want level 4's moved to low sec mainly so they can have more people to kill, they will not be good fights they will mainly be ganks.
this is a poor excuse to want to change the main income on many players, maybe reduce the loot drops, yes,but the idea of forcing people into low sec won't work.
People want Level 4's moved to Lowsec 'cause of imbalanced risk vs reward.
Personally, i want only the Lowest quality lvl 4's to be in Highsec- if you want complete safety then you should have a vastly reduced income to what lvl 4's currently churn out.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:37:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Dagobert Dog Missions like they are implemented currently don't fit properly into eve. There is just no competition between missionrunners. That is where the problem is. Eve is built arround competition between players in almost every aspect be it pewpew, market, exploration or belt ratting. That competition is missing for running missions.
Why is that so? The answer is simple. Missions are an infinite good. Everybody can litterly create an infinate amount of them for himself.
Would moving level 4s to lowsec help? I don't think so. People would adapt. Either they would run level3 missions or learn to use there scanner. But they could still create in infinite amount of missions without competing with other players.
My sugestion is: Make missions a limited resource like everything else (like belts, signatures, anomalies, etc). Its not really that important how that is done. My sugestion would be a simple spawn mechanic. Missions could "spawn" at agents. Players than could get a list of missions they can select from (maybe modified standings to the agent). If all missions are taken by players the agent just wont offer any missions until a new mission would "spawn" at that agent.
Thank you for contributing something useful to the thread by way of a suggestion. I do agree that moving them to lowsec wouldn't solve the problem now of missions having no element of competition. However, a few of the readers seem to miss it, and are entirely fixated on the 'move missions to lowsec omg' posts.
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.
|
Hurtado Soneka
Caldari State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:38:00 -
[174]
yup leave lvl4s alone, if they aint broke dont fix em
|
Essence Praetor
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:41:00 -
[175]
Originally by: RedSplat
Originally by: Max Tux from what i can see, people want level 4's moved to low sec mainly so they can have more people to kill, they will not be good fights they will mainly be ganks.
this is a poor excuse to want to change the main income on many players, maybe reduce the loot drops, yes,but the idea of forcing people into low sec won't work.
People want Level 4's moved to Lowsec 'cause of imbalanced risk vs reward.
Personally, i want only the Lowest quality lvl 4's to be in Highsec- if you want complete safety then you should have a vastly reduced income to what lvl 4's currently churn out.
Oh here is a question?
What does a Carebear do with 1B ISK that he earned in one week that he cant do with 1B ISK it took him two 2 or 3 weeks to earn? What have you achieved besides futzing up the market?
|
Andrest Disch
Amarr Letiferi Praedones
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:42:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Hurtado Soneka yup leave lvl4s alone, if they aint broke dont fix em
They are broke though.
Think of the poor miners. |
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:44:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Matrix Skye
Originally by: lollerwaffle
Originally by: Matrix Skye Edited by: Matrix Skye on 27/05/2009 16:41:38
Originally by: Karentaki Can you ever go into a mission and come out with less ISK than you started with?
This is akin to saying that mining your own ores is free. Why is the miner's time worth something but not the mission runner's? This is exactly the biggotry I'm talking about. You silly gankers pick, choose and throw words around like 'risk vs rewards!1!' like it still means something.
Yet again you have to resort to insults to lend strength to your posts.
Both the miner and mission runner's time are worth money. However the issue we've been discussing all along is that hisec level 4s are not subject to any form of competition. The miner's time is worth X amount of money based on how much ore he can mine, what how much he can sell it for, how much he could save by mining a different ore, or mining in a different system closer to a better buy order. While the mission runner's time's worth is based purely on how quickly he can finish a mission.
BTW, that IS NOT akin to saying mining your own ore is free. That statement and the quoted one are mutually exclusive, and have no bearing or relevance on each othere whatsoever. He is compaing mission running which generates a steady income to other activities where you actually stand a chance of losing isk.
Ok then. Here's the scenario:
A trader invested 500 million with the idea he'd get back 1 billion. He only managed to make 5 million in profit (a total of 505 million).
Did the trader lose isk or not? Why?
In this scenario, the trader did not lose isk, he merely made less than he originally anticipated. In another scenario, a trader stockpiles an item for 10mil isk each with a total of 500mil invested. Unannounced, CCP nerf some gameplay aspect or change something resulting in a massive drop in the price to 5mil. The trader just happened to be away for the 1-2 days during patching and after. He comes back to find his investment is now worth half of what he paid for it. Did he lose money or not? Why?
Hypothetical scenarios can be thought up to suit any situation. Just saying.
|
Ms Delerium
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:45:00 -
[178]
imo it should be like this...
lvl 1,2 -> highsec lvl 3,4 -> lowsec lvl 5 -> 0.0
now this makes sense. Which is ridiculous is lvl 1,2,3,4 in highsec... wtf!!!! The center of galaxy is too crowded. A time for a cleaning has come.
|
Mikayla Grey
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:48:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Essence Praetor
Originally by: RedSplat
Originally by: Max Tux from what i can see, people want level 4's moved to low sec mainly so they can have more people to kill, they will not be good fights they will mainly be ganks.
this is a poor excuse to want to change the main income on many players, maybe reduce the loot drops, yes,but the idea of forcing people into low sec won't work.
People want Level 4's moved to Lowsec 'cause of imbalanced risk vs reward.
Personally, i want only the Lowest quality lvl 4's to be in Highsec- if you want complete safety then you should have a vastly reduced income to what lvl 4's currently churn out.
Oh here is a question?
What does a Carebear do with 1B ISK that he earned in one week that he cant do with 1B ISK it took him two 2 or 3 weeks to earn? What have you achieved besides futzing up the market?
You have given people a reason to risk a ship to spend less time doing a boring isk generating activity.
|
Essence Praetor
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:49:00 -
[180]
Edited by: Essence Praetor on 27/05/2009 17:50:08
Originally by: Essence Praetor
Originally by: RedSplat
Originally by: Max Tux from what i can see, people want level 4's moved to low sec mainly so they can have more people to kill, they will not be good fights they will mainly be ganks.
this is a poor excuse to want to change the main income on many players, maybe reduce the loot drops, yes,but the idea of forcing people into low sec won't work.
People want Level 4's moved to Lowsec 'cause of imbalanced risk vs reward.
Personally, i want only the Lowest quality lvl 4's to be in Highsec- if you want complete safety then you should have a vastly reduced income to what lvl 4's currently churn out.
Oh here is a question?
What does a Carebear do with 1B ISK that he earned in one week that he cant do with 1B ISK it took him two 2 or 3 weeks to earn? What have you achieved besides futzing up the market?
No wait . . . seriously . . .
Answer this one?
And boring to you is not boring to everyone. People think sitting a belt for an hour in low sec is boring. I however do not. I also don't mind station camping for far longer. Other people do. That is 100% subjective.
|
|
Mr DXV
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:49:00 -
[181]
I am one of those unconventional players in Eve, since the only thing I do is run missions, something a lot of players consider to be the most boring aspect of the game. But what can I say, I enjoy doing them; the predictable (if you prepare right) but still dangerous nature (since you are facing potentially scores of rats) of missions appeal to me. I am still not at that stage where I can breeze through missions, bacause my SP aren't that high yet. I have spent a large portion of my time trying out almost every T1 battleship of every race to see which I one I enjoyed the most, which is why currently I am not well skilled any of the race's battleships. What I am now engaged in is a quest to become the ultimate mission runner, something I am long way off from becoming. And as such, I am not bored of missions yet, but I may become bored in the long run. I I ever get bored of doing them, I will think of something else to do.
So I love doing missions, but if high-sec level 4 missions are really ruining or unbalancing the game as some people claim, than I guess CCP has to do something. But after reading all the comments, I still feel like moving level 4s to low-sec is a bad idea, because your PvE ship doesn't stand a chance against a group of PvP fitted pirates. And it doesn't matter if you are really skilled, intelligent, or experienced, it still doesn't change the fact that your ill-fitted ship (in terms of PvP) that is being warp-scrambled isn't going to last very long against the pirates. Sure, you can try to make a hybrid PvE/PvP setup, but that just going to mean that your ship will be mediocre in both fields. So to me moving level 4s to low-sec will ruin level 4s for a lot of people, which I guess solves some of the problem by making sure very few people do them.
But there has got to be a way to solve the problem without ruining the main motivating factor for playing the game for a lot of players. And yes, as long as you don't introduce the element of competation into missions, it will always stand out from the rest of the aspects of the game, and be perceived as something unfair by some players. But how do you really introduce the element of competation into an aspect of the game that is inherently PvE? Nerfing the rewards involved with level 4s doesn't solve the problem, because there is still no element of competation. And yes, I too dislike ninja-salvagers, but if you don't shoot them first, they pose no threat to you, they just reduce your overall profit (profit reduction can range from negligable to annoyingly high). Lowering or removing bounties? That would almost ruin level 4 mission running, and still not add an element of competation. Putting a collective quota on the number missions an agent hands out? Maybe. In the end I still haven't seen a good way to bring competation into level high-sec level 4s, which may the reason why CCP has so far left them alone, because they just couldn't figure out how the change the high-sec level 4 mechanic wouldn't actually ruining it.
|
Shaun Klaroh
Caldari The Report Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:54:00 -
[182]
Edited by: Shaun Klaroh on 27/05/2009 17:54:28 I think it'll be a poor decision if it ends up with all Level IV missions being shifted to low-sec. I'll outline my rules of engagement, and what runs through my mind when I am faced with entering low-sec.
---- Stay 0.5 or higher at all times.
I'm not going to be misguided to the point where I think I can hold a candle to any decent pirate holding up at the low-sec systems I'd be working in. If the loss of a ship is likely to result in the loss of over 40% of my current value, there's a reason why I won't poke my head in there. Especially since it would also endanger a good set of costly implants just the same. I won't go there, because I'm not ready to go there yet, and trying to force me out there while I'm frankly just waiting on training skills won't make me any happier.
The current skill training system favors a "Mission/Mine/Pirate/Trade/Research while you wait" approach, and with skills or skill trees that can take 20-30 days, you'll end up with players wondering what the point of paying for a lack of hi-sec objectives would be.
We need to consider beyond just "we need people in low-sec" and into what will this do to the overall playerbase?
-----
Quote: "Are these people prisoners?" Arkhan asked.
"Not at all," Melak replied. "They're free to run and get shot any time they like."
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:58:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Essence Praetor --Towards the end of the Nanonerf most intelligent people agreed it needed to be done. They didn't all like how it was implemented but they agreed.
--ECM nerf . . . no one is complying that Falons are now grossly under powered now, and now we have the rook
This is hotly debated, to many people disagree, CCP would be stupid to EVER do something like that.
What is this in context of? I don't really understand sorry.
Originally by: Essence Praetor So miss lollerwaffle of The Space P0lice, you and people like you can take your Epeen and just float and sputter. Not gonna happen the way you want it to. And yes you can save this post and try and throw it im my face many years from now when there STILL will be level 4's in Empire. Even if they change it a bit, they will NEVER change it much.
What's with your obsession with epeen? At which point did I start waving my epeen about? Why do you keep bringing it up? If you've actually followed the thread were you left off a bit you'll see that it's been about lack of competition in that aspect of EVE, but it's cool maybe it's a problem with my reading comprehension again. Also you never really elaborated which bit I needed to read twice etc, picking up from where we left off. Also you seem to think that I would actually care enough about who you are to remember to throw this post back at you if CCP decide to make a change. I'm sorry, I would in all honesty but I have a pretty bad memory .
Originally by: Essence Praetor hey look --->
This buds for you.
Unfortunately, throwing insults about or screaming fail all the time doesn't really lend strength to your argument, not does it give your post any meaningful content. Your first post that I replied to was fairly OK-ish but it has degenerated into meaningless drivel by now. You need to pick up the pace son.
Also, irony is calling someone else fail and failing at spelling and punctuation (Oh wait I forgot you don't understand what irony/subtlety/sarcasm are). Bolded so you know what i mean. Does that imply the smilie after or before buds for me? And how does it do it? I wasn't aware it was a flower. Does it also bloom after?
|
Essence Praetor
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:02:00 -
[184]
Try reading it all again. You may catch a clue this time
So about that question I was asking?
Anyone?
Or you just going to beat the drums of your personal view of how EVE should be played. And how its player base should spend its time?
|
Fionnghuala Hue
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:03:00 -
[185]
I just Find it funny that people are Wanting to move Lvl 4 Missions to lowsec... I Sure as Heck aint gana go out there. Why would anyone? Ill just run Lvl 3's, Mine, and Trade. Then we will hear nothing but make Jita low sec Or move lvl 3 missions ect. News flash to most Pvpers, We dont wana play with you.
|
BharkKoum Zeer
Gallente Amarr Empire Research Copr
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:11:00 -
[186]
It is so gratifying to hear the pirates to be so selflessly trying to get the playerbase to come into the low security systems. I am sure they will be happy to await us at the gates to "escort us" to our favorite level 4 agent through the cloning express. Please do not be so kind and accomodating dear pirates since in your kindness you have killed the golden goose already. If instead of gathering kill mails, you would have a regular code of ransoming players for a decent fee at least this idea of moving missions to low sec would be reasonable.
Instead you want kill mails, well, tough you are not going to get those from most of the players!!
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:12:00 -
[187]
Originally by: Essence Praetor Try reading it all again. You may catch a clue this time
So about that question I was asking?
Anyone?
Or you just going to beat the drums of your personal view of how EVE should be played. And how its player base should spend its time?
How about you post whatever it is I'm supposed to 'catch a clue'? Wouldn't that solve your problem if you were genuinely interested in getting an answer? Also what question were you asking?
This btw, ladies and gentlemen, is an example of someone who can't be bothered to read and makes posts with no reak arguments or contents. However, this might be attributed to differences in age, and as such is not a fault of the poster. Quoting your own posts repeatedly thinking it adds emphasis is a measure of how well you can present and argument. What's worse is getting called out on it and trying to cover it up with a 'it was on purpose'. Unfortunately that concept's been done before in the form of 'I didn't want that ship/moon/pos/whatever anyway'.
|
Essence Praetor
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:15:00 -
[188]
Originally by: Essence Praetor
Originally by: RedSplat
Originally by: Max Tux from what i can see, people want level 4's moved to low sec mainly so they can have more people to kill, they will not be good fights they will mainly be ganks.
this is a poor excuse to want to change the main income on many players, maybe reduce the loot drops, yes,but the idea of forcing people into low sec won't work.
People want Level 4's moved to Lowsec 'cause of imbalanced risk vs reward.
Personally, i want only the Lowest quality lvl 4's to be in Highsec- if you want complete safety then you should have a vastly reduced income to what lvl 4's currently churn out.
Oh here is a question?
What does a Carebear do with 1B ISK that he earned in one week that he cant do with 1B ISK it took him two 2 or 3 weeks to earn? What have you achieved besides futzing up the market?
Someones not reading . . .
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:20:00 -
[189]
Originally by: Mr DXV )*snip*
Well said. That is where the crux of the problem lies. Missions are and always have been a form of income. However, they have no competitive element to them making them stick out like a sore thumb. Moving them to lowsec would not solve this problem, and the only possible implementation would be making mission pools a commonly shared finite resource. But then again there lies the problem of making it (sort of) fair to everyone, otherwise people in different timezones like the US would not have any missions left to them when they logged on in their primetime. An alternative would be more mission pool reseeding, but too much of this would create exactly the same situation as we have now.
|
Opera Noir
Amarr State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:21:00 -
[190]
Edited by: Opera Noir on 27/05/2009 18:23:09
Originally by: Mr DXV Stuff
I think the majority only want to see them balanced out in regard to security status. As such the first reaction is gonna be "move them to low sec and done." Personally I don't see a need for that I think there are other far more efficient ways to entice (not force) people into low sec.
First, the sec status could apply a simple multiplier modifier of the bounties, meaning the higher the sec you killed the bounty in the low3er the reward (which makes sense cause there are a lot more people gunning for them so less enticement would be need for the same result. In such a case the lvl 5 missions run in .5 space would have bounties worth half as much as those run in .1 . Or something along those lines anyways, the details could be worked out.
The second enticement could be, as many have suggested, making agent rewards worthwhile. This has to be done as far as Im concerned in the first place, but if it were done and those agents in low sec were worth that much more it would provide additional motive for running missions in low sec. Agent quality also may be able to be played around with (I have no idea if it already works like this or not), in other words a quality 0 agent in low sec could be equivalent to a level 20 in high sec.
Naturally this would make running missions in low sec a lot more profitable then running em in high sec, in addition it would also balance the rest of the missions along with it. Meaning people would not just stop running lvl 4s and move to lvl 3's.
People should be able to run missions and make money safely in high sec, but the real profit should be where the risk is greater.
edit- spelling
|
|
Essence Praetor
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:29:00 -
[191]
well?
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:31:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Essence Praetor
Originally by: Essence Praetor
Originally by: RedSplat
Originally by: Max Tux from what i can see, people want level 4's moved to low sec mainly so they can have more people to kill, they will not be good fights they will mainly be ganks.
this is a poor excuse to want to change the main income on many players, maybe reduce the loot drops, yes,but the idea of forcing people into low sec won't work.
People want Level 4's moved to Lowsec 'cause of imbalanced risk vs reward.
Personally, i want only the Lowest quality lvl 4's to be in Highsec- if you want complete safety then you should have a vastly reduced income to what lvl 4's currently churn out.
Oh here is a question?
What does a Carebear do with 1B ISK that he earned in one week that he cant do with 1B ISK it took him two 2 or 3 weeks to earn? What have you achieved besides futzing up the market?
Someones not reading . . .
Your sentence makes no grammatical sense due to blatant disregard for the proper usage of 'does' and 'can' as well as sentence structure. If I choose to interpret that as:
What can a carebear do with 1bil isk that he earned in 1 week, that he can't do if it took him 2 or 3 weeks to earn that same amount?
There are various possible answers to that question: Buy a carrier every week (pointless plus the carebear won't be in lowsec so he can't use it)
Afford to go out and PVP more often (Although earning 1 bil every 2 or 3 weeks is more than enough money to PVP, unless he really sucks and insists on flying expensive stuff while he learns. However this point is still moot since the carebear would not want to PVP with his isk anyway)
Create a new alliance every week (Again, a bit pointless)
In short, I have no real idea since I don't really know what carebears do with all the isk they make anyway besides hoarding it and feeling happy everything some internet spaceship game number goes up.
How about you enlighten us?
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:32:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Essence Praetor well?
I heard patience is a virtue, and typing out coherent posts takes more time than single word replys.
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:33:00 -
[194]
Edited by: lollerwaffle on 27/05/2009 18:33:23 Hurry up and tell us EP
posted this forgeting he doesn't understand sarcasm. I fail :(
|
lollerwaffle
Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:37:00 -
[195]
Originally by: Opera Noir Edited by: Opera Noir on 27/05/2009 18:23:09
Originally by: Mr DXV Stuff
I think the majority only want to see them balanced out in regard to security status. As such the first reaction is gonna be "move them to low sec and done." Personally I don't see a need for that I think there are other far more efficient ways to entice (not force) people into low sec.
First, the sec status could apply a simple multiplier modifier of the bounties, meaning the higher the sec you killed the bounty in the low3er the reward (which makes sense cause there are a lot more people gunning for them so less enticement would be need for the same result. In such a case the lvl 5 missions run in .5 space would have bounties worth half as much as those run in .1 . Or something along those lines anyways, the details could be worked out.
The second enticement could be, as many have suggested, making agent rewards worthwhile. This has to be done as far as Im concerned in the first place, but if it were done and those agents in low sec were worth that much more it would provide additional motive for running missions in low sec. Agent quality also may be able to be played around with (I have no idea if it already works like this or not), in other words a quality 0 agent in low sec could be equivalent to a level 20 in high sec.
Naturally this would make running missions in low sec a lot more profitable then running em in high sec, in addition it would also balance the rest of the missions along with it. Meaning people would not just stop running lvl 4s and move to lvl 3's.
People should be able to run missions and make money safely in high sec, but the real profit should be where the risk is greater.
edit- spelling
That is a good suggestion which boils down to boosting lowsec rewards in relation to hisec. However, to do that, you'd have to be careful not to make it more rewarding than 0.0, which is where all the best rewards should be (even though they're not really atm)
Highsec pay out would have to be adjusted accordingly as well.
I think they main content of anyone who's been following the last few pages is that level 4's currently (and missions by default) are isk generators which are not subject to the same things that govern the rest of eve, namely lack of any real risk or competition.
|
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:46:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Rhinanna No there aren't. There is no set-up that can do every mission like this. Quite a few missions have Nos/Neut that whips out your tank pretty quick, even with a passive tank as they turn your hardeners off.
WC4 sansha side can easily break 1000 dps/second (before resists) shield tank. A lot of rats react fairly randomly to drones in particular.
Nos/neuts in L4s are a nuisance, not a threat to well-set up ship. And no, WC4 does not do 1000dps/sà although it might reach 1000dpsà
Theres more than a couple of missions where its more than a nuisance. With 3x CFC||s, 3xCCCs I didn't have enough regen left to perma run a L shield booster, let alone a XL which would what have been needed to properly tank that amount of damage (EM/Thermal) in one BR mission, had 6+ nosing BS'es spawn simultaniously. If I hadn't of been careful and researched the mission first that one would have easily dumped my Cap to fairly close to zero leave me in a 'run baby run' situation :)
Fortunatly I have a lot of DPS so they didn't last long enough to get my cap down enough to break the tank but it wouldn't have taken much. It doesn't help that the missions with any sort of a challenge seem to only pop up once in a blue moon. I really enjoyed that mission ;) àsorry, it's a pet niggle of mine.
|
Andrest Disch
Amarr Letiferi Praedones
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:47:00 -
[197]
Originally by: Essence Praetor
Oh here is a question?
What does a Carebear do with 1B ISK that he earned in one week that he cant do with 1B ISK it took him two 2 or 3 weeks to earn? What have you achieved besides futzing up the market?
Using this logic I should be able to go from -10 to 0.0 sec status by killing one rat, I mean no one else is affected right?
No. It's not like that because it would be unfair. Just like low-risk isk-printing missions are unfair. |
Essence Praetor
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:51:00 -
[198]
Edited by: Essence Praetor on 27/05/2009 18:53:07 The I's have it.
You have no clue. You are trying to enact change and have no real idea about what it is your trying to change. Thus any implementation could only end in folly
The point is this. I will spell it out very clearly so you wont get confused again.
Point 1.) IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE CAREBEAR DOES WITH IT. All that matters is that he has a 1B isk wallet. Being that he is a Carebears and he will sit at roids endlessly and grind missions endlessly (and he will like doing it.) It is natural for a massive wallet to culminate over time.
Thus: It don't matter how long it takes them to get 1B isk. Be it 1 week or 3 weeks. You achieve exactly squat.
Point 2:) (read closely waffle) They will indeed grind LV 3 missions in Empire if need be. Or they will all skill for perfect hulks and mine Empire dry. They will also emo quit. They vast majority of the carebear player base will not do what you want them to do (as you picture it perfectly in your mind)
Out come: What you have achieved however is royally screwed the market. With out the massive base of carebears having significant funds to throw around, you leave the market to be dictated solely by the megacorps in 0.0. Not to mention tied to whatever is going on there on any given Sunday.
This is why I keep throwing up fail signs. You have no idea about what you are suggesting.
Eventually when the market stabilizes we would end up with more hulks and Orca's in empire then there are CNR's now. Carebears will still be rich, you still wont be able to kill them unless you gank them, and the EVE player base would drop dramatically.
So what happens then to our beloved PVP in New Eden? Care to take a guess on that one?
|
Andrest Disch
Amarr Letiferi Praedones
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:55:00 -
[199]
Originally by: Essence Praetor
aloada spaced out words
Oh no, the "mega corps" are coming to get us.
I honestly don't see the bad side in having more corps taking risks to mine in lower sec systems to manufacture stuff. Also, good for them, if they want to grind lvl 3s they can. Everyone just wants to stop people making alot of ISK in a short ammount of time for no risk. People do care about the timescale, if mission runners don't they can grind lvl 3s.
You don't seem to be making a good case against this. |
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:57:00 -
[200]
WTF happened with that last post! I wasn't even in the same room as the computer when it did that! :)
Wow.....
I love the way people are using one argument as to why L4 missions and are bad and then basically saying 'Well that doesn't count for trading/mining/ratting/plexing' Why are they saying that? Probably because thats how they are making their ISK. Any of those professions will earn you NEARLY as much if not more ISK/hour than running L4s in a decent ship, with a decent setup. So why change anything... If it ain't broke don't fix it.
|
|
Turin
Caldari Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 19:00:00 -
[201]
Originally by: Max Tux from what i can see, people want level 4's moved to low sec mainly so they can have more people to kill, they will not be good fights they will mainly be ganks.
this is a poor excuse to want to change the main income on many players, maybe reduce the loot drops, yes,but the idea of forcing people into low sec won't work.
WTB more whine with my EVE pls.
Seriously. We can rename it to whine online!
waaaaaaaaaa!!!!! They make to much isk!!! My poontang hurts!!! waaaaa!!!!!
|
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 19:00:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Andrest Disch Using this logic I should be able to go from -10 to 0.0 sec status by killing one rat, I mean no one else is affected right?
No. It's not like that because it would be unfair. Just like low-risk isk-printing missions are unfair.
And using your logic trading should be banned since its lower risk and has a higher rate of isk/hour......
Thanks for failing, particua lly on the stupid sec status arguement since it WOULD affect other players since you would be allowed back into to Hi-sec, no doubt to suicide gank players down to -10 again then rat back to 10 ad naeusum.
|
Essence Praetor
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 19:04:00 -
[203]
But seriously... in the end.
Originally by: Essence Praetor Edited by: Essence Praetor on 27/05/2009 17:06:47 /0\
Hot topic I step away from the keyboard for an hour and six pages lol
Which is point in fact . . .
--Towards the end of the Nanonerf most intelligent people agreed it needed to be done. They didn't all like how it was implemented but they agreed.
--ECM nerf . . . no one is complying that Falons are now grossly under powered now, and now we have the rook
This is hotly debated, to many people disagree, CCP would be stupid to EVER do something like that.
So miss lollerwaffle of The Space P0lice, you and people like you can take your Epeen and just float and sputter. Not gonna happen the way you want it to. And yes you can save this post and try and throw it im my face many years from now when there STILL will be level 4's in Empire. Even if they change it a bit, they will NEVER change it much.
So bleh...
This.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 19:05:00 -
[204]
Edited by: RedSplat on 27/05/2009 19:05:52 Missions are a competition free, risk free extremely lucrative income.
Level 4's are the only such source of income of this nature in the game.
Moving everything but the lowest quality least profitable level 4's to Lowsec would re-balance the inequality somewhat in a direction that is needed.
EDIT: I mean hell, even CCP think the current situation with LVL4's is a farce...
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 19:09:00 -
[205]
Edited by: Rhinanna on 27/05/2009 19:09:54
Originally by: RedSplat Missions are a competition free, risk free extremely lucrative income.
Level 4's are the only such source of income of this nature in the game.
Moving everything but the lowest quality least profitable level 4's to Lowsec would re-balance the inequality somewhat in a direction that is needed.
Thank you for repeating the same fail as people before you. Lvl 4s generate less income than a decent trader. Decent traders can often generate this risk without leaving a station.... how is that less safe than running missions? Death by boredom? Loot/Bounties/Salvage can all be stolen, just like when ratting. The deadspace areas aren't locked to anyone but the mission runner.
So no ratting, trading or mining either in hi-sec please.... or how about we just delete hi-sec, or delete concord and make everywhere lo-sec. Althrough after that was done these same whiners would be back on this forum complaining about market prices having skyrocketed, no-one to kill from the carebears all having quit e.t.c.
|
Andrest Disch
Amarr Letiferi Praedones
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 19:13:00 -
[206]
Originally by: Rhinanna
And using your logic trading should be banned since its lower risk and has a higher rate of isk/hour......
Thanks for failing, particua lly on the stupid sec status arguement since it WOULD affect other players since you would be allowed back into to Hi-sec, no doubt to suicide gank players down to -10 again then rat back to 10 ad naeusum.
Firstly, I don't understand how you could possibly go about measuring trading in isk per hour.
Secondly, if you don't see the implications of whoever I'm fighting having access to a fountain of isk that is lvl 4s I don't think I can take you seriously. The idea that people making loads of isk off lvl 4s in total safety doesn't affect anyone is completely stupid.
Also, how come every other post in this topic contains the word "fail"? (just filling the quota) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 19:13:00 -
[207]
Originally by: Rhinanna Edited by: Rhinanna on 27/05/2009 19:09:54
Originally by: RedSplat Missions are a competition free, risk free extremely lucrative income.
Level 4's are the only such source of income of this nature in the game.
Moving everything but the lowest quality least profitable level 4's to Lowsec would re-balance the inequality somewhat in a direction that is needed.
Thank you for repeating the same fail as people before you. Lvl 4s generate less income than a decent trader. Decent traders can often generate this risk without leaving a station.... how is that less safe than running missions?
because you can't lose ISK trading right?
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 19:19:00 -
[208]
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 — only lowers your earning, as previously explained. ——— “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 |
Shaun Klaroh
Caldari The Report Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 19:43:00 -
[209]
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. -----
Quote: "Are these people prisoners?" Arkhan asked.
"Not at all," Melak replied. "They're free to run and get shot any time they like."
|
Arec Bardwin
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 19:46:00 -
[210]
Some people really like their horse meat tender
|
|
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.
|
|
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 12:47:00 -
[241]
Quote: They artificially inflate the value of certain goods because mission runners very rarely lose the stuff they buy
Same applies to any equipment purchased for hi-sec activies..... Want to ban hi-sec?
Quote: They provide untouchable, ubiquitous, and universally available revenue streams that make them the baseline for hourly earning ù a baseline against which all other activites tend to be measured
Baseline does not mean highest, it just a steady income/hour where as most other activies provide a variable income. The revenue stream can be interrupted by several way as previously meantioned, particually if the mission runner isn't part of an NPC corp and can be war decced.
Quote: And this is the point that's really worth stressing: the size of the rewards are irrelevant ù the lack of means to deny someone those rewards is the key issue
So basically due to the fact you lack the intelligence/willingness to use the methods avaialable to interrupt the revenue stream makes it uninterruptable? No.....
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 12:49:00 -
[242]
Originally by: Rhinanna Its irrelevant because you make money trading rather than running Lvl4s? Thats about the only reason that makes it irrelevant.
No. It's irrelevant because trading is a competetive, self-balancing, zero-sum activity.
Quote: If anything the chances of losing ISK mission running are much greater than losing ISK while trading, if you have half a brain anyway.....
If you have half a brain, your chance of losing ISK in a mission is zero. Unfortunately, I haven't read enough statistics and probability theory to answer what happens when a probability is negative, so I don't really know how to respond to this.
Quote: Basically you are saying 'Well this reason only counts against missioning because I don't want it to count against trading.'
Basically you are saying 'well I don't understand your argument so I'm going to make one up'. See? I can use strawmen too…
Or, put anothwe way, no. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the reason people complain about missions is because they are non-competetive and therefore go against the grain of every other mechanic in EVE — in short, they don't belong in the game in their current incarnation. Trading is competetive, and therefore people accept it, no matter how much you can potentially earn from it. I'm saying that bringing up trading as a counter-example means you don't understand the argument that's being made. ——— “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 |
James Hawkins
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 12:51:00 -
[243]
Level 4 Missions are boring!
point made....
|
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 12:55:00 -
[244]
Edited by: Rhinanna on 28/05/2009 12:56:04
Quote: If you have half a brain, your chance of losing ISK in a mission is zero.
Same applies to trading.
Quote: I'm saying that the reason people complain about missions is because they are non-competetive and therefore go against the grain of every other mechanic in EVE
No you are saying everyone should be forced to play the way YOU want them to play. There is nothing wrong with a non-competetive activity. Is been different wrong? No. Missions been different from other activies is NOT a reasomable arguement to have them changed. Only them causing harm to the game in general is and I think the general concenus seems to be that they in fact ENCOURAGE other actives rather than harm them. Particually PvP.
A large number of PvPers use L4 missions as their way of making ISK for their PvP, particually when learning to PvP. Take away this resource and you are nerfing PvP and basically forcing them to do trading instead to make ISK or join a 0.0 corp that makes their money from moon farming or similar. A lot of people don't want to do either.
Quote: See? I can use strawmen tooà
We noticed this since almost all your arguements so far have been strawmen.
|
Rordan D'Kherr
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 13:09:00 -
[245]
Stop comparing missions and trading. Trading is not the topic and it has its own kind of risk - the market.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 13:27:00 -
[246]
Give it up, Tippia. They're so addicted to the sugar-teat, they'll never see reason (or admit to it anyway).
These people are obviously rinsing missions for all the ISK they can and don't want their untouchable, ring-fenced, infinitely scalable income source touched in any way. It's like trying to convince a drug dealer that drugs should be legalised. No matter how many good arguments and facts you put forward that it will benefit society, he will still oppose it because it will wreck his cash flow and he doesn't give a tinker's cuss about society.
Likewise these missionbears you're trying to reason with. They don't care that their activity wrecks the game in numerous ways, so your arguments that missions should be reformed because of this damage carry no weight with them.
So they'll lie, strawman, throw abuse, etc etc etc. I went through all this last year.
And you know what? Know I just mission for my ISK like everyone else. Screw it - why shouldn't I benefit from the same exploit? I tried my level best and ran into the same class of pig-headed, blind, selfish, obstinate and mendacious fools that you're arguing with now.
I have a spare CNR if you want to buy it.
|
Bulletproof Tony
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 13:30:00 -
[247]
actualy the solution for lvl 4 missions would be change the missions in that way that you need pvp ship fittings to do them. that would solve the most problems with them. make them more tactical like enemy ships using mwds and making player amounts of damage. make them change ammo to do the best damage against player ship so all those dumb extremely overtanked setups wont work anymore. now you will have to actively play lvl 4 missions and if you try to afk them you will lose your ship. as soon as that would happen most people would love to go to low sec because they wont get shoot in their crapy pve setups so easily while on the way to mission or if scanned down by a little frigate in a bs
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 13:33:00 -
[248]
Originally by: Bulletproof Tony actualy the solution for lvl 4 missions would be change the missions in that way that you need pvp ship fittings to do them. that would solve the most problems with them. make them more tactical like enemy ships using mwds and making player amounts of damage. make them change ammo to do the best damage against player ship so all those dumb extremely overtanked setups wont work anymore. now you will have to actively play lvl 4 missions and if you try to afk them you will lose your ship. as soon as that would happen most people would love to go to low sec because they wont get shoot in their crapy pve setups so easily while on the way to mission or if scanned down by a little frigate in a bs
This has been suggested repeatedly, including by myself.
Of course the missionbears just keep on yelling "NO WANT LO SEC DEATHTRAP NO WANNA NO WAANAAAAAAAAA!"
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 13:42:00 -
[249]
Originally by: Rhinanna Same applies to any equipment purchased for hi-sec activies.
No it does not because you edited out the second part of the problem.
Quote: Baseline does not mean highest, it just a steady income/hour where as most other activies provide a variable income.
No-one is arguing that it is the highest — the argument is that it is too high for what it is and therefore push other activities out because they earn less for the same risk or risk more for the same earnings.
Quote: So basically due to the fact you lack the intelligence/willingness to use the methods avaialable to interrupt the revenue stream makes it uninterruptable? No.....
Since those methods are easily avoidable, yes.
Quote: Same applies to trading.
So?
Quote: There is nothing wrong with a non-competetive activity. Is been different wrong? No.
In a PvP game, yes, being different — as in "not being PvP" — is wrong.
Quote: Only them causing harm to the game in general is and I think the general concenus seems to be that they in fact ENCOURAGE other actives rather than harm them. Particually PvP.
A large number of PvPers use L4 missions as their way of making ISK for their PvP, particually when learning to PvP. Take away this resource and you are nerfing PvP and basically forcing them to do trading instead to make ISK or join a 0.0 corp that makes their money from moon farming or similar.
…and if you've been paying attention, you'd have noticed that I don't talk about nerfing missions or reducing their profitability — quite the opposite. I'm talking about bringing that earning mechanic in line with every other rearning mechanic in the game.
Quote: We noticed this since almost all your arguements so far have been strawmen.
You don't know what a strawman is, do you? If you want to accuse me of anything, it is to warp "my side" — i.e. the "reform missions" side — of the argument, to deal with the introduction of competition rather than a relocation to lowsec (which, I agree, is a full-bore-drool-dripping 'tard idea). ——— “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 |
Lrrp
Minmatar The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 13:48:00 -
[250]
Originally by: Malcanis Of course the pirates just keep on yelling "NO WANT HIGH SEC MISSIONS NO WANNA NO WAANAAAAAAAAA!"
There...fixed it for you.
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 13:51:00 -
[251]
Originally by: Lrrp
Originally by: Malcanis Of course the pirates just keep on yelling "NO WANT HIGH SEC MISSIONS NO WANNA NO WAANAAAAAAAAA!"
There...fixed it for you.
You're a liar. Why are you lying? You're telling stupid lies, easily disprovable simply from looking at this thread, you liar.
Look at my alliance tag, you stupid liar. I'm no more a pirate than you are. See my sec status? Can a liar like you admit even to himself that a 5.0 is not the sec status of a habitual pirate?
I look forward to your next lie.
|
Lrrp
Minmatar The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 13:53:00 -
[252]
U Mad? Touch a nerve?
|
Anyura
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 14:11:00 -
[253]
Howdy,
Thought I'd chip in my 2 ISK's worth. I'm a mission runner and have been for most of my career (all 5 mil SP of it). Unlike most of my carebear bretheren I do mine out in 0.0 sec (for complicated Sansha RP reasons I wont bore you to death with). In high sec, I would often find myself getting bored with mission running, often training skills in completely unrelated areas like trade and mining. Since moving out here, I live with the daily risk of getting shot when I undock from a station, getting shot while being scanned down in deadspace and as for courier missions, its like playing russian roulette with a rocket launcher.
And I love it.
So to those that would keep their missions in high sec, I say adjust your builds and learn to run the risk. You may even like it...
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 14:12:00 -
[254]
Originally by: Lrrp U Mad? Touch a nerve?
No, you liar, I aint mad. And I think the nerve touched here belongs to the ISK farmers like yourself who have been desperately lying to protect their sugar-teat because they can sense that maybe change is a-acoming.
Suck away, little piggy, suck away.
|
Lrrp
Minmatar The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 14:29:00 -
[255]
You complete moron, Go and show everybody here how lvl 4 missions are such great isk opportunity's. Take any agent and average the isk made over 10 consecutive missions and divide by the time it takes to do the missions. In the end you will realize that with the price of trit being what it is, in the same time span you could mine Veld and make as much isk. But then you know that.
The real point of these threads are to get more targets back in lo sec so twits like you can gank them.
|
Stormwind Bloodfeather
Minmatar Diablo Advocatus
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 14:31:00 -
[256]
Edited by: Stormwind Bloodfeather on 28/05/2009 14:33:20 Lets see if I have this argument figured out now.
Side A: Whine, Whine, Winge, Moan.
Side B: Moan, Winge, Whine, Whine.
Side C: Winge, Whine, Moan, Whine.
Does that about sum it all up?
Ok now here is my three cents (inflation ya know)...
It's been said Missions are unlike any other aspect of the game (non competitive) and then suggested that this is wrong.
But did you forget.... CCP made this game.... CCP put missions into this game exactly the way they are, DIFFERENT from other aspects of the game.
Are you saying CCP was unaware that Missions are different? Are you saying that YOU know what CCP wanted, and CCP didn't?
No. Realistically what your saying is "I want this game MY way, competition in everything, pew pew everywhere and be damned to you who have no desire other than to float around and pew pew little red +'s" CCP doesn't know their own product but I KNOW IT WELL ENOUGH TO TELL THEM WHAT THEY (CCP) SHOULD DO!
You arrogant idiots. Just STFU, go do your pew pew and leave the ones who have no desire to play as you play, to play the way THEY want to play. Your so fond of saying "Adapt or Die" That goes both ways. Adapt or Die. PVE players are the bread and butter of EVE. Their are more people in High Sec, mining, mission running, and doing other "carebear" activities, than all of you in low and null sec combined.
Do you HONESTLY think CCP is going to bite the hands that feed it? If you do your a raging Idiot and should go play WOW.
~SB
In EVE, your only friend is your ship and it's weapons. All others are the enemy! |
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 14:32:00 -
[257]
Originally by: Malcanis ...Likewise these missionbears you're trying to reason with. They don't care that their activity wrecks the game in numerous ways, so your arguments that missions should be reformed because of this damage carry no weight with them...
...So they'll lie, strawman, throw abuse, etc etc etc. I went through all this last year...
...I tried my level best and ran into the same class of pig-headed, blind, selfish, obstinate and mendacious fools that you're arguing with now...
It's a good thing you're above us all in your high horse sniping your usual hating rhetoric from the clouds. Keep hatin' away o/.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 14:34:00 -
[258]
Originally by: Stormwind Bloodfeather
But did you forget.... CCP made this game.... CCP put missions into this game exactly the way they are, DIFFERENT from other aspects of the game.
Yeah, just like nanophoons and falcons.
And when everyone and his dog used nano ships and had falcon alts, look what happened...
So much for your "biting the hand that feeds you" theory...
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 14:36:00 -
[259]
Originally by: Matrix Skye
Originally by: Malcanis ...Likewise these missionbears you're trying to reason with. They don't care that their activity wrecks the game in numerous ways, so your arguments that missions should be reformed because of this damage carry no weight with them...
...So they'll lie, strawman, throw abuse, etc etc etc. I went through all this last year...
...I tried my level best and ran into the same class of pig-headed, blind, selfish, obstinate and mendacious fools that you're arguing with now...
It's a good thing you're above us all in your high horse sniping your usual hating rhetoric from the clouds. Keep hatin' away o/.
Matrix here is a particularly fine example of the type of poster I was referring to.
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 14:39:00 -
[260]
Dear Malcanis,
I'm sorry that you hate me and you hate my play style. All I can suggest is you get over yourself, play the game and stop treating everyone else that doesn't play your game style like second-class citizens. Unless you're willing to pay my subscription, please stop asking people to play how you play.
Thank you,
Matrix Skye
|
|
Spurty
Caldari Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 14:40:00 -
[261]
i'd still favor jita, hek, amarr and whatever the gallente hub is, made 0.1 systems to get people into low sec.
These systems have massive investment in them and will draw people to them.
Touching missions a 4th time will not fix what you want fixed.
Ratting in dead end systems in 0.0 > level 4 missions for lower risk and higher reward.
If you don't get an officer spawn at least once a week in 0.0, you're doing it wrong!
Originally by: Infinity Ziona
Thus I AM BETTER THAN YOU.
|
Stormwind Bloodfeather
Minmatar Diablo Advocatus
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 14:41:00 -
[262]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Stormwind Bloodfeather
But did you forget.... CCP made this game.... CCP put missions into this game exactly the way they are, DIFFERENT from other aspects of the game.
Yeah, just like nanophoons and falcons.
And when everyone and his dog used nano ships and had falcon alts, look what happened...
So much for your "biting the hand that feeds you" theory...
Funny, nano ships got nerfed (pvp ships, go figure) but (missions kept on going) falcons got nerfed (pvp ships, hmm go figure) but (missions kept on going).
How many other nerfs happend to PVP ships? PVP activities? But Missions just keep on going. Yeah, I see a pattern here. The hand that feeds CCP, isn't getting bit, just the smaller, less important hands in low/null sec. You know, the ones who have only a marginal effect on CCP's bottom line if they emo/rage quit? But the hand that would have a serious impact on CCP's bottom line, is still safe and unscarred.
So... the hand that feeds CCP theory you so wonderfully attempted to foo foo, is still sound.
~SB
In EVE, your only friend is your ship and it's weapons. All others are the enemy! |
Lrrp
Minmatar The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 15:00:00 -
[263]
Edited by: Lrrp on 28/05/2009 15:01:40 Ummm...but missions have been nerfed. WC for example used to get 40+mil in bounty's. Now it gets 20+. Min values for named drops are now less than standard no name drops. With t2 invention, value of things like partial hull nanos have lost 80% of their value. With the LP system revamp, datachips lost their value and nothing now from store compares to what you used to get for Datachips. Faction BS's are now half the value they once were.
So all in all, lvl 4's have been nerfed both in obvious and less obvious ways.
|
Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 15:08:00 -
[264]
Originally by: Lrrp Edited by: Lrrp on 28/05/2009 15:01:40 Ummm...but missions have been nerfed. WC for example used to get 40+mil in bounty's. Now it gets 20+. Min values for named drops are now less than standard no name drops. With t2 invention, value of things like partial hull nanos have lost 80% of their value. With the LP system revamp, datachips lost their value and nothing now from store compares to what you used to get for Datachips. Faction BS's are now half the value they once were.
So all in all, lvl 4's have been nerfed both in obvious and less obvious ways.
How dare you bring truth and logic to this house of intollerence and lies!
|
skye orionis
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 15:24:00 -
[265]
What I've been advocating is a simple dynamic agent quality system which models mission scarcity.
Agents keep track of how many missions they have available, and as users accept a mission from one agent, another random agent has their pool of missions increased. Agents with a larger pool of missions will have lower standing requirements (because they need *someone* to do these missions), and will offer better rewards. When all an agents missions are gone they won't give any more.
So there are * The pool of missions *never* runs out, there's always an agent with missions for you somewhere in the universe. * Popular agents will have very few missions available, will require higher standings, and give lower rewards. Less popular agents will start to give better rewards, and give them to whoever they can get to take the missions. * This means that mission hubs would disappear, the best place to do missions is where nobody else is doing them. This is simple supply & demand. * agents in low-sec will be the best agents, because the supply of mission runners who aren't afraid of low-sec is very small.
The awesome thing about this, is that from a programming perspective this ridiculously simple to implement, and it regulates one of the biggest sources in the system.
Here' the thread
|
Drunk Driver
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 15:32:00 -
[266]
You can't eat toe jam.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 15:36:00 -
[267]
Matrix is my Fav. Troll
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 15:38:00 -
[268]
Originally by: RedSplat Matrix is my Fav. Troll
I aim to please .
|
Mrtankk
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 15:46:00 -
[269]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Lrrp
Originally by: Malcanis Of course the pirates just keep on yelling "NO WANT HIGH SEC MISSIONS NO WANNA NO WAANAAAAAAAAA!"
There...fixed it for you.
You're a liar. Why are you lying? You're telling stupid lies, easily disprovable simply from looking at this thread, you liar.
Look at my alliance tag, you stupid liar. I'm no more a pirate than you are. See my sec status? Can a liar like you admit even to himself that a 5.0 is not the sec status of a habitual pirate?
I look forward to your next lie.
Ya. THIS character might have a high sec status. But what about your -10 pirate alt? Stop telling lies and admit you have a -10 pirate alt.
|
Turin
Caldari Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 15:48:00 -
[270]
Originally by: Lrrp You complete moron, Go and show everybody here how lvl 4 missions are such great isk opportunity's. Take any agent and average the isk made over 10 consecutive missions and divide by the time it takes to do the missions. In the end you will realize that with the price of trit being what it is, in the same time span you could mine Veld and make as much isk. But then you know that.
The real point of these threads are to get more targets back in lo sec so twits like you can gank them.
Agreed. These people who want all isk making abilities removed from high sec, do so with only one purpose. So they can get more easy gankgs against ships that arent setup to fight them.
|
|
Turin
Caldari Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 15:49:00 -
[271]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Matrix Skye
Originally by: Malcanis ...Likewise these missionbears you're trying to reason with. They don't care that their activity wrecks the game in numerous ways, so your arguments that missions should be reformed because of this damage carry no weight with them...
...So they'll lie, strawman, throw abuse, etc etc etc. I went through all this last year...
...I tried my level best and ran into the same class of pig-headed, blind, selfish, obstinate and mendacious fools that you're arguing with now...
It's a good thing you're above us all in your high horse sniping your usual hating rhetoric from the clouds. Keep hatin' away o/.
Matrix here is a particularly fine example of the type of poster I was referring to.
Malcanis here, is an excellent example of the type of poster I was refering to.
|
Turin
Caldari Body Count Inc. Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 15:54:00 -
[272]
Originally by: skye orionis What I've been advocating is a simple dynamic agent quality system which models mission scarcity.
Agents keep track of how many missions they have available, and as users accept a mission from one agent, another random agent has their pool of missions increased. Agents with a larger pool of missions will have lower standing requirements (because they need *someone* to do these missions), and will offer better rewards. When all an agents missions are gone they won't give any more.
So there are * The pool of missions *never* runs out, there's always an agent with missions for you somewhere in the universe. * Popular agents will have very few missions available, will require higher standings, and give lower rewards. Less popular agents will start to give better rewards, and give them to whoever they can get to take the missions. * This means that mission hubs would disappear, the best place to do missions is where nobody else is doing them. This is simple supply & demand. * agents in low-sec will be the best agents, because the supply of mission runners who aren't afraid of low-sec is very small.
The awesome thing about this, is that from a programming perspective this ridiculously simple to implement, and it regulates one of the biggest sources in the system.
Here' the thread
I think your idea sucks.
1.) Agents in low sec already offer far better rewards than empire agents. It doesnt matter. Missions runners will NEVER go to low sec in mass. THey dont want to be ganked. And you know they would be.
And if your in a ratting / mission ship, you will have NO chance in a PVP fight. No one wants that.
2.) Youll have a lot of instances of someone having to jump 15-20 gates per mission. Youll spend far more time traveling, and far less time killing. Screw that. Id rarther watch paint dry than make a ton of gate jumps just to run one mission, only to have to do it again to run another mission.
So, no thanks. And I dont even run missions. I mine for my money.
|
Nouva MacGyver
Caldari MacGyver Communications
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 16:32:00 -
[273]
Originally by: Lrrp You complete moron, Go and show everybody here how lvl 4 missions are such great isk opportunity's. Take any agent and average the isk made over 10 consecutive missions and divide by the time it takes to do the missions. In the end you will realize that with the price of trit being what it is, in the same time span you could mine Veld and make as much isk. But then you know that.
But you see, missions are infinite, with you (the player) being able to run as many as you're able and willing whilst you're logged on whereas Veldspar is finite, depending on what has been mined prior by yourself or your competition (other miners, ore thieves, etc). I'm afraid you've arrived at a flawed result of averages based on hypotheticals not taking these factors into consideration.
Regards.
|
5pinDizzy
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 16:33:00 -
[274]
The only reason I stopped running missions in lowsec is heavy interdictors.
Putting all lvl 4's into lowsec wouldn't make me go back.
|
Black Leather
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 16:33:00 -
[275]
There is one thing and one thing only that would get me running missions in low sec space.
As prolly 4 out of 5 will end in a gank, the missions can't be completed and after a day I would not have the standings to run them anyway.
The solution is to remove or drastically reduce the standing loss for non completed missions from low sec agents.
With no worries about standing loss I would be happy to take the extremely high risk of running low sec missions against the dubious chance of coming out of them alive and a little bit ahead in the amount of ISK in my wallet.
|
skye orionis
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 16:40:00 -
[276]
Originally by: Turin
1.) Agents in low sec already offer far better rewards than empire agents. 2.) Youll have a lot of instances of someone having to jump 15-20 gates per mission.
you really need to learn to add 1 & 2 together - 'Agents in low sec will offer better rewards and have more missions available so you won't have to travel around looking for agents in hi-sec that have missions availabl'
Originally by: Turin
And if your in a ratting / mission ship, you will have NO chance in a PVP fight. No one wants that.
Quotes like these are utterly ridiculous, PVP fits aren't magically better than mission fits. PVP fits have to sacrifice slots for things like warp scramblers. And then if they want to invade your mission space they'll need an expanded scanner to scan you down in your mission space, and then they need to have a PVP fit with an afterburner rather than an MWD. Basicly, a solo PVP ship is going to be at a disadvantage to a solo PVE ship when compared in terms of tank & gank.
The mythical solopwnmobile does not exist.
But, pirates, unlike missioners are quite happy to work in gangs, that's how they offset their disadvantage. So, all missioners need to do is make use of the MM part of MMORPG and make some friends.
|
Shaun Klaroh
Caldari The Report Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 16:46:00 -
[277]
I've been reading into this PvP thing and it looks like it could be fun, but at the same time, from what I've been hearing, making a living off of it is near impossible without exposing yourself to other pirates when moving goods.
Either way, the decisions I made regarding my mission work are pretty much echoed:
Standing Loss for failed missions. Ship replacement costs. Fitting differences. (Heavy missiles or torpedoes for L4s versus hitting fast moving frigates?) Gloatmail Public Killboards
If those change in a few ways, I'd move out to see a bit of low-sec running, but getting caught isn't just an annoyance at this point, it is a complete and utter devistation to a new mission runner's wallet. Don't forget that these changes these people are suggesting don't just affect that people that are AFK L4 running, but they affect those people are are just getting into L3/L4 missions. -----
Quote: "Are these people prisoners?" Arkhan asked.
"Not at all," Melak replied. "They're free to run and get shot any time they like."
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 17:13:00 -
[278]
Originally by: skye orionis Quotes like these are utterly ridiculous, PVP fits aren't magically better than mission fits.
PVP fits are better for PVP than are PVE ships. What's ridiculous is you arguing they aren't.
Quote: PVP fits have to sacrifice slots for things like warp scramblers. And then if they want to invade your mission space they'll need an expanded scanner to scan you down in your mission space, and then they need to have a PVP fit with an afterburner rather than an MWD.
Once you pinpoint the deadspace entrance you dont need a probe scanner. If you're a respectable pirate you'll already know that MWD is useless in deadspace so you'll fit an afterburner instead. A scrambler on a PVP ship just means you'll be able to hold down the mission runner for as long as the fight is in your favor. As soon as it goes sour disengage and fly off. Chances are, and I'm being lax here, the PVE ship isn't fitting a scrambler.
Quote: Basicly, a solo PVP ship is going to be at a disadvantage to a solo PVE ship when compared in terms of tank & gank.
Bulls**t. Utter bull. And you know this.
Quote: But, pirates, unlike missioners are quite happy to work in gangs, that's how they offset their disadvantage. So, all missioners need to do is make use of the MM part of MMORPG and make some friends.
MM = Massively Multiplayer. This doesn't in any way mean I have to hold hands with other players. There are lots of pirates that go at it solo. You have a problem with them also? Somehow I suspect your bias is just toward missionrunners. And I'm not saying I want to play in a "bubble" alone either. I'll go to low sec when I can make it through lazy gatecamps and not have to spend half of my time docked because I'm being scan probed.
|
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 17:15:00 -
[279]
Quote: No it does not because you edited out the second part of the problem.
Err what? Yeah keep taking those good drugs man, they aren't affecting your brain at all! :) Traders, plexers, miners make just as much as mission runners if not more so can bid just as well on those items, they are just as likely to lose them (or not) What you really mean is 'I want those items for PvP and I can't afford to use them and risk losing them. Well tough... Not our problem.
Quote: No-one is arguing that it is the highest ù the argument is that it is too high for what it is and therefore push other activities out because they earn less for the same risk or risk more for the same earnings.
If its not the highest, nor the least risky then WHY the hell would you want missions changed? All you are doing is nerfing mission runners in comparison to the other occupations and making mission running useless. Thats a good idea is it?
Quote: Since those methods are easily avoidable, yes.
Errr what? How do you stop someone from coming in your mission and looting e.t.c. while you are killing. Maybe possible in a marauder since you can kill and salvage and the same time but anything else no. Otherwise your options are - Shoot offender in his PvP ship and get pwned, mainly cos you are fighting rats AS WELL as the other player or cancel the mission and do another one, which is the other player is determined to keep you from earning ISK they will follow you to in addition to the standing hit you take! Most methods involve a 2nd player which makes missions about the least profitable activity in the game.
Quote: Quote: Same applies to trading. So?
Errr its called a comparison between comparable activities, generally used in making logical deductions. I'm not surprised you haven't heard of this technique used by 99% of the human race given your arguements......
Quote: In a PvP game, yes, being different ù as in "not being PvP" ù is wrong.
As in, You must play the game the way Tippia wants you to play it or your not doing it right...... Get off your high horse and look at the facts. It's CCP's game, just cos you think EVERYTHING should be PvP doesn't mean you are right. CCP decided there should be some PvE in the game and it's THEIR game not your's. It's not PvP is a strawman arguement with no logical backing based on your personal prejudice and has no bearing on this discussion. Its also the entire basis of your argument which is why you are wrong.
Quote: àand if you've been paying attention, you'd have noticed that I don't talk about nerfing missions or reducing their profitability ù quite the opposite. I'm talking about bringing that earning mechanic in line with every other rearning mechanic in the game.
If its NOT the most profitable, nor the least risky then how is it out of line? Because its not PvP? Well see above... not everything has to be about PvP. I agree some activies need a boost to bring them into line with the rest but nerfing missions or boosting everything else is effectively the same.
Quote: You don't know what a strawman is, do you? If you want to accuse me of anything, it is to warp "my side" ù i.e. the "reform missions" side ù of the argument, to deal with the introduction of competition rather than a relocation to lowsec (which, I agree, is a full-bore-drool-dripping 'tard idea).
A strawman is an argument with no logical backing behind it, coming from the fact that a strawman looks like a person but isn't. Its not PvP is not a logical arguement, its an emotional one and therefore IS a strawman. Seems I know what one is better than you!
The only change I would like to see to missions is to make them more difficult in terms of the intelligence required to run them. If the ISK/hour to run them is decreased then it becomes easily more profitable to mine veld or trade instead. I agree the ability to AFK missions is stupid and should be removed.
|
skye orionis
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 17:42:00 -
[280]
Originally by: Matrix Skye
PVP fits are better for PVP than are PVE ships. What's ridiculous is you arguing they aren't.
A scrambler on a PVP ship just means you'll be able to hold down the mission runner for as long as the fight is in your favor.
And you have to sacrifice your dps or tank to have that option, so you're immediately at a disadvantage.
Originally by: Matrix Skye
Bulls**t. Utter bull. And you know this. Mission ships are slow, big targets, aimed at hitting other big slow moving targets. No scramblers, no ECM and with resists protecting against NPC resists.
Show me a ship which has awesome ECM, scram, DPS and tank, sure an ECM ship can jam your BS up the wazoo, but it can't deliver enough dps to take you down, or tank your drones for any amount of time.
And the resists argument is weak, consider that PVP ships have to have crappy omnitanks because they can't know what kind of damage they'll be dealiing with.
Ok, there is one significant advantage the solo PVP'er gets, he can warp into a mission while the mission runner has all the rat aggro. That is perhaps the biggest single problem, rats should be smart enough to switch targets. This is absolutely a change I'd like to see, mission rats should be less single minded and should attack pirates too (maybe spawning a few scramming frigates to make sure they don't leave right away). OK, maybe if you're a pirate that has really good standing with the faction rats then they might welcome your assistance, just like factional warfare.....
|
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 18:01:00 -
[281]
Originally by: Rhinanna Err what?
Learn to quote, ok?
Quote: If its not the highest, nor the least risky then WHY the hell would you want missions changed?
To remove the static baseline that renders other activities obsolete; to increase the variety of worth-while gameplay.
Quote: All you are doing is nerfing mission runners in comparison to the other occupations and making mission running useless. Thats a good idea is it?
No. It makes them work on the same principles as other occupations — only then can we start talking about buffs and nerfs because only then do we have two comparable designs. You are the one talking about nerfing them — not me. Yet another strawman on your part.
Quote: Errr what? How do you stop someone from coming in your mission and looting e.t.c. while you are killing.
As previously mentioned, it doesn't matter if he steals your loot — you make money anyway (in fact, some mission runners claim you lose precious ISK/h by stopping to loot and salvage). In order to kill your revenue, he has to kill all the ships so he gets all the bounties; hack into the CCP database to flag the mission as his; go back to your agent and claim the ISK, LP and standings rewards… Which, of course, can't be done.
The other alternative is to resort to violence, but that quickly becomes a cost-prohibitive method of economic warfare (that's also very easy to avoid).
Quote: Get off your high horse and look at the facts. It's CCP's game, just cos you think EVERYTHING should be PvP doesn't mean you are right.
Given how often they've been wrong about their own game, I think I'll stay up here, thankyouverymuch…
Quote: If its NOT the most profitable, nor the least risky then how is it out of line? Because its not PvP?
Yes. For the simple reason that, as long as it isn't competetive, it will remain a cast-iron [female dog] to balance against those other activities. Introduce competition, and it will balance itself and allow for more variety and be far easier to adjust when the self-balancing doesn't quite cut it. It's far easier to create a wide and appetizing range of apple hybrids if you don't try to throw an organge in the mix…
Quote: A strawman is an argument with no logical backing behind it, coming from the fact that a strawman looks like a person but isn't.
No. A straw man is a misrepresentation of the opponents point of view that is set up only for the purpose of being easy to attack.
Eg: Me: Missions should be made competetive. You: Nerfing missions is bad for the game (the strawman being that you misrepresent what I'm saying as me wanting to nerf missions, and then you present a case why such a nerf would be bad). ——— “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 |
Nomore Telindus
Gallente Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 18:17:00 -
[282]
Originally by: skye orionis And you have to sacrifice your dps or tank to have that option, so you're immediately at a disadvantage.
Disadvantage where? Compared to highsec? And the loot from the attacker could worth it.
Originally by: Matrix Skye Ok, there is one significant advantage the solo PVP'er gets, he can warp into a mission while the mission runner has all the rat aggro.
Please explain me, how can anybody land on top of you, when you have local and directional scanner?
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 18:18:00 -
[283]
Edited by: Matrix Skye on 28/05/2009 18:20:35
Originally by: skye orionis Show me a ship which has awesome ECM, scram, DPS and tank, sure an ECM ship can jam your BS up the wazoo, but it can't deliver enough dps to take you down, or tank your drones for any amount of time.
By ECM I meant ECM in general, not just Caldari ECM. Think TDs, warp scramblers/disruptors, webbifiers, etc.
Quote: And the resists argument is weak, consider that PVP ships have to have crappy omnitanks because they can't know what kind of damage they'll be dealiing with.
The pirate that scans down a mission runner and has no idea what resist to protect against is a r*tard, plain and simple.
Quote: Ok, there is one significant advantage the solo PVP'er gets, he can warp into a mission while the mission runner has all the rat aggro. That is perhaps the biggest single problem, rats should be smart enough to switch targets. This is absolutely a change I'd like to see, mission rats should be less single minded and should attack pirates too (maybe spawning a few scramming frigates to make sure they don't leave right away). OK, maybe if you're a pirate that has really good standing with the faction rats then they might welcome your assistance, just like factional warfare.....
This would be awesome.
|
Nomore Telindus
Gallente Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 18:31:00 -
[284]
Originally by: Matrix Skye The pirate that scans down a mission runner and has no idea what resist to protect against is a r*tard, plain and simple.
Wrong. You don't have time to change your fittings.
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 18:38:00 -
[285]
Edited by: Matrix Skye on 28/05/2009 18:41:01
Originally by: Nomore Telindus
Originally by: Matrix Skye The pirate that scans down a mission runner and has no idea what resist to protect against is a r*tard, plain and simple.
Wrong. You don't have time to change your fittings.
Wrong. A level 4 mission usually lasts around 1 to 2 hours, longer if runner decides to salvage and loot. Scanning down a target takes what, 5-15 minutes tops? If you're too lazy, impatient or r*tarded to dock and switch that's all on you, buddy.
But you know this well and are just trying to distort information :).
Oh, and let's not forget you usually call in your friends for extra lulz. So even if you are that stupid to go in with your cov ops ship to kill that mighty Raven (), don't worry, your friends got your back, amirite or amirite?
|
skye orionis
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 18:40:00 -
[286]
Originally by: Matrix Skye
The pirate that scans down a mission runner and has no idea what resist to protect against is a r*tard, plain and simple.
May I ask what the damage type of the most popular mission running ships are?
I believe that the Raven and it's navy counterpart are the king of missioning, and they can switch damage types at a whim. (Hell they can even laugh at PVP'ers who fit tracking distruptores, and switch to FOF missiles if they find that ECM is the flavour of the day.)
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 18:48:00 -
[287]
Originally by: skye orionis May I ask what the damage type of the most popular mission running ships are?
(sigh) You'll be better off seeing what kind of NPC wrecks is the mission runner leaving behind. If it's against Guristas then chances are he's spewing kinetic and heavily tanking against kinetic. For Bloods, EM, for Angels, Explosive, etc. Is this a serious question?
Quote: I believe that the Raven and it's navy counterpart are the king of missioning, and they can switch damage types at a whim. (Hell they can even laugh at PVP'ers who fit tracking distruptores, and switch to FOF missiles if they find that ECM is the flavour of the day.)
Raven being king of missions is just a myth and isn't true anymore because whiners whined and whined on how 'powerful' it was and supposedly still is. Right . FOF is laughable I agree. But you don't need FOFs to take down a Raven .
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 18:55:00 -
[288]
And since you seem to not know, I'll let you in on a little sekrit. Ravens, and Caldari ships in general have an EM weakness the size of the Ozone hole. So if you scan down a mission fighting against, say Guristas, just show him EM and the ship goes down like Superman on kryptonite.
|
Nomore Telindus
Gallente Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 18:57:00 -
[289]
Originally by: Matrix Skye Edited by: Matrix Skye on 28/05/2009 18:41:01
Originally by: Nomore Telindus
Originally by: Matrix Skye The pirate that scans down a mission runner and has no idea what resist to protect against is a r*tard, plain and simple.
Wrong. You don't have time to change your fittings.
Wrong. A level 4 mission usually lasts around 1 to 2 hours, longer if runner decides to salvage and loot. Scanning down a target takes what, 5-15 minutes tops? If you're too lazy, impatient or r*tarded to dock and switch that's all on you, buddy.
Mr. 'I'm the best PVEer': Please tell how you can spend two hours in a mission? Even a blockade lasts only ~30 mins for me (okay, + loot time and i have an alt), so how can i spend the remaining 1,5 hours well?
Originally by: Matrix Skye Oh, and let's not forget you usually call in your friends for extra lulz.
I'm not egomaniac to deny my friend's lulz.
|
Plexxy
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 19:02:00 -
[290]
Edited by: Plexxy on 28/05/2009 19:01:57
Originally by: Mrtankk
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Lrrp
Originally by: Malcanis Of course the pirates just keep on yelling "NO WANT HIGH SEC MISSIONS NO WANNA NO WAANAAAAAAAAA!"
There...fixed it for you.
You're a liar. Why are you lying? You're telling stupid lies, easily disprovable simply from looking at this thread, you liar.
Look at my alliance tag, you stupid liar. I'm no more a pirate than you are. See my sec status? Can a liar like you admit even to himself that a 5.0 is not the sec status of a habitual pirate?
I look forward to your next lie.
Ya. THIS character might have a high sec status. But what about your -10 pirate alt? Stop telling lies and admit you have a -10 pirate alt.
Malcanis on battlecinic:
Losses: 99 Kills: 897 Success ratio: 1,697% (4:1) Lost ISK: 6,849,187,837 Destroyed ISK: 116,249,689,186 Rank: 11,514 Points: Kills: 1,541 Loss: 410 Total: 1,133
But yeah, I'm sure he still somehow finds the time to pwn noob industrialists on an alt all day.
|
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 19:11:00 -
[291]
Originally by: Nomore Telindus Mr. 'I'm the best PVEer': Please tell how you can spend two hours in a mission? Even a blockade lasts only ~30 mins for me (okay, + loot time and i have an alt), so how can i spend the remaining 1,5 hours well?
Here it is again since you seem to have missed it, accidentally of course :P
Originally by: Matrix Skye Wrong. A level 4 mission usually lasts around 1 to 2 hours, longer if runner decides to salvage and loot.
And believe it or not, not everyone and their mothers speed through missions. I know I don't. And I don't have a pimp Raven. It's nice, but not pimp. So I can't run a 6-hour mission in less than 1 hour. Nice try though. And I loot and salvage so takes me longer for the longer missions, like the Blockade or Gurista Extrvaganza. And since we're in the subject of nitpicking times, how long does it take you to scan down a target, eh?
Nice attempt though . You see, that's the problem with you. You try and bring up a legitimate reason to bring more targets to your lazy gatecamps but you're not bright enough to make it believable. So you distort it instead.
|
skye orionis
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 19:12:00 -
[292]
Originally by: Matrix Skye And since you seem to not know, I'll let you in on a little sekrit. Ravens, and Caldari ships in general have an EM weakness the size of the Ozone hole. So if you scan down a mission fighting against, say Guristas, just show him EM and the ship goes down like Superman on kryptonite.
And then you warp in on a Raven fighting sansha or blood raiders and go 'ooops'.
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 19:17:00 -
[293]
Originally by: skye orionis
Originally by: Matrix Skye And since you seem to not know, I'll let you in on a little sekrit. Ravens, and Caldari ships in general have an EM weakness the size of the Ozone hole. So if you scan down a mission fighting against, say Guristas, just show him EM and the ship goes down like Superman on kryptonite.
And then you warp in on a Raven fighting sansha or blood raiders and go 'ooops'.
WTF? Are you serious? Do you not check the wrecks before you go in blind? Seriously dude, you need to ask your corpmates on how to scan down targets properly. Don't take it the wrong way. On the other hand, you may just be yankin my chain... In that case, touche.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 19:23:00 -
[294]
Originally by: Turin
Originally by: Lrrp You complete moron, Go and show everybody here how lvl 4 missions are such great isk opportunity's. Take any agent and average the isk made over 10 consecutive missions and divide by the time it takes to do the missions. In the end you will realize that with the price of trit being what it is, in the same time span you could mine Veld and make as much isk. But then you know that.
The real point of these threads are to get more targets back in lo sec so twits like you can gank them.
Agreed. These people who want all isk making abilities removed from high sec,
Stop. You're lying - or possibly stupid (perhaps both). You're certainly not describing the poeple who want missions reformed.
You can admit it now or be made to look pretty silly. Your choice really.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 19:23:00 -
[295]
Originally by: Turin
I think
I thnk not.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 19:25:00 -
[296]
Originally by: Shaun Klaroh I've been reading into this PvP thing and it looks like it could be fun, but at the same time, from what I've been hearing, making a living off of it is near impossible without exposing yourself to other pirates when moving goods..
I suggest that you stop reading posts by people who are highly motivated to make lo-sec seem more dangerous than it is, and go look for yourself.
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 19:33:00 -
[297]
Edited by: Matrix Skye on 28/05/2009 19:34:36
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Shaun Klaroh I've been reading into this PvP thing and it looks like it could be fun, but at the same time, from what I've been hearing, making a living off of it is near impossible without exposing yourself to other pirates when moving goods..
I suggest that you stop reading posts by people who are highly motivated to make lo-sec seem more dangerous than it is, and go look for yourself.
And if he decides to follow your advice I'd appreciate him following up in this thread what his experience in losec was like :).
|
skye orionis
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 19:36:00 -
[298]
Originally by: Matrix Skye
C.H.E.C.K. T.H.E. W.R.E.C.K.S!!!
Have you ever ran missions at all?
And how do you check the wrecks? Oh yes you use the directional scanner, a device which every pirate can use to gather intel on missioners, and, the same device which a mission runner can use to detect pirates.
What's good for one is good for the other.
Anyway, you've still to show me a PVP fit with more tank, gank and ewar than a PVE fit, you made some lame excuse to skip around the question by saying that you really meant ewar when you said ecm, so I re-pose the question.
Once again I postulate that the pirates greatest advantages are not in ship setups, but in choosing the right target and collaborating with friends. And the missioner's greatest weakness is their anti-social nature and desire to keep doing the same thing in a loop.
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 19:59:00 -
[299]
Originally by: skye orionis
Originally by: Matrix Skye
C.H.E.C.K. T.H.E. W.R.E.C.K.S!!!
Have you ever ran missions at all?
And how do you check the wrecks? Oh yes you use the directional scanner, a device which every pirate can use to gather intel on missioners, and, the same device which a mission runner can use to detect pirates.
What's good for one is good for the other.
And round and round in circles we go . That's not what we were arguing but, sure let's move on to another subject.
But let me just make sure we can bury this idiocy:
You now agree that as a pirate you can easily verify, and therefore easily gank and tank against a mission runner?
Me personally I always kept my eye on the scanner and local. Spamming and spamming away at the button. Not very fun at all. My problem was trying to mission while not getting probed out. Just isnt fun.
Quote: Anyway, you've still to show me a PVP fit with more tank, gank and ewar than a PVE fit, you made some lame excuse to skip around the question by saying that you really meant ewar when you said ecm, so I re-pose the question.
So you're suggesting that a PVE ship is superior in tank and gank to the same ship fit for PVP? Are you saying that a PVE Raven can take down a PVP Raven? I just don't know what to tell you. Hell, a PVP command ship or even an HAC can take down a PVE Raven with ease .
Quote: Once again I postulate that the pirates greatest advantages are not in ship setups, but in choosing the right target and collaborating with friends. And the missioner's greatest weakness is their anti-social nature and desire to keep doing the same thing in a loop.
I'm not antisocial in RL but thanks anyway. Are you a murderer and thief in real life? I choose to do my missions alone because I choose to do my missions alone. I'm sorry if that bothers you. I'm sorry if it makes you feel jealous, or mad, or eager to have me nerfed, or banned, or whatever. I truly am. I'm sorry if you think it's unfair I can do missions in high sec by myself and make enough to buy stuffs. I'm sorry you feel the need to rage about my playstyle on the forums. But I am especially sorry you feel the need to call me antisocial because I refuse to follow you into lowsec so you can blow me up and add me to your killboard so you can feel superior to me.
|
Bubbelgum
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 20:04:00 -
[300]
Edited by: Bubbelgum on 28/05/2009 20:04:02
Originally by: Max Tux from what i can see, people want level 4's moved to low sec mainly so they can have more people to kill, they will not be good fights they will mainly be ganks.
this is a poor excuse to want to change the main income on many players, maybe reduce the loot drops, yes,but the idea of forcing people into low sec won't work.
This is an isk sellers dreams!
|
|
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 20:32:00 -
[301]
Tbh the only way to make it work with lowsec only would mean making lowsec more "controllable" meaning allowing bubbles , keeping the sec status loss from shooting unprovoked noncriminal ships and giving gateguns a slight buff. "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 |
Shaun Klaroh
Caldari The Report Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 20:45:00 -
[302]
A Battlecruiser or Battleship set up to fight off BC or larger class ships will not be able to do much if anything to a high-speed frigate, am I right? In this case, I'd have to say that it'd look like it's a case of whether or not the pirate picks the right target. -----
Quote: "Are these people prisoners?" Arkhan asked.
"Not at all," Melak replied. "They're free to run and get shot any time they like."
|
Illectroculus Defined
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 20:48:00 -
[303]
Edited by: Illectroculus Defined on 28/05/2009 20:51:15 Edited by: Illectroculus Defined on 28/05/2009 20:49:31 What we really need is a way to control territory in low-sec as effectively as alliances control it in 0.0. Which means there needs to be incentives to make controlling your little slice of low-sec worthwhile.
It would seem to me that lvl4&5 missions are lucrative enough to be worth securing your systems.
Of course - then you'd have to join a real player run corp.
|
cpu939
Gallente OffBeat Creations The Elders Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 20:58:00 -
[304]
People think eve is a game of pvp it might be but it is a game of fun if we didn't have fun we wouldn't play and the people running lvl 4's mission in high sec enjoy it so at the end of the day is it wrong that they are having fun.
So to everyone asking to have lvl 4's moved into low sec why should ccp stop people having fun after all thats what games are for.
To the people who can't see that others enjoy doing missions and think everyone should pvp get over it and allow people to enjoy there game the way they like to play.
-And before you think i'm a carebear i do enjoy pvp high/low/null sec and i do enjoy mission in high sec inc lvl 4's if i could get into anything other than a 0.5 01101111 01100110 01100110 01100010 01100101 01100001 01110100 00100000 01100011 01110010 01100101 01100001 01110100 01101001 01101111 01101110 |
CyberGh0st
Minmatar Ara Veritas
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 21:13:00 -
[305]
Edited by: CyberGh0st on 28/05/2009 21:15:04 Just wanted to add, that I never had problems doing missions in lowsec, as long as they are in deadspace pockets. I still have been killed in there, but I have a good chance to escape from incomming pirates, or even engage them, because they dont pop on top of me.
However the missions in regular space are pretty lethal, there are 0 chances of escape when you have 5+ rats on you and some pirate comes in on top of you ...
So perhaps it is a good idea to make all lowsec missions inside deadspace pockets only. Then moving all level 4 missions to lowsec seems a good idea to me.
greetings
Cyberwiz aka CyberGh0st aka Mentakh Active @ EvE Online Favorites : DAoC-SI/SWG Pre CU-NGE/Ryzom Retired @ WoW/LOTRO/WAR/Planetside/Entropia/UO/Lineage/GW/EQ/Jumpgate/Dofus/AoC |
Illectroculus Defined
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 21:24:00 -
[306]
Originally by: Shaun Klaroh A Battlecruiser or Battleship set up to fight off BC or larger class ships will not be able to do much if anything to a high-speed frigate, am I right? In this case, I'd have to say that it'd look like it's a case of whether or not the pirate picks the right target.
Funnily enough I thought that, but then the other day a friend of mine in a drake was jumped by a SB & interceptor gang. We were trying to jump the 4 systems to help him out and every time we jumped he reported back that he'd managed to kill one of the assailants. I think he killed 3 before they gave up.
|
skye orionis
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 21:29:00 -
[307]
Originally by: CyberGh0st
So perhaps it is a good idea to make all lowsec missions inside deadspace pockets only. Then moving all level 4 missions to lowsec seems a good idea to me.
Nah we need regular space so that mission runners can distance tank in sniperships. I'd much prefer it if rats had a significant chance of retargetting newcomers, thus splitting the damage. Then you can avoid getting those killmails that show the pirate doing a tiny fraction of the damage because he's really just adding to the pain the rats are dropping on the mission runner.
|
Nomore Telindus
Gallente Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 21:34:00 -
[308]
Originally by: Matrix Skye And believe it or not, not everyone and their mothers speed through missions. I know I don't. And I don't have a pimp Raven. It's nice, but not pimp. So I can't run a 6-hour mission in less than 1 hour. Nice try though. And I loot and salvage so takes me longer for the longer missions, like the Blockade or Gurista Extrvaganza.
In the past 1,5 hours i made four missions. I killed everything and salvaged every single wreck. I used a damnation and a megathron with ordinary T2 equipment. (and i fought against sanshas with crap uranium L, so my damage output was only 60% of the maximum) Is this speedmissioning?
Originally by: Matrix Skye And since we're in the subject of nitpicking times, how long does it take you to scan down a target, eh?
Dunno. It's not my job atm. I only played 6 days in this year so far (RL), so the new scanner interface is new to me.
Originally by: Matrix Skye Nice attempt though . You see, that's the problem with you. You try and bring up a legitimate reason to bring more targets to your lazy gatecamps but you're not bright enough to make it believable. So you distort it instead.
Okey, you missed my point, so here is what i think: I don't want the highsec players in lowsec. But atm. highsec is exploited by macroers and by people who are rendering this game's pvp concept to a wow style battlegorund crap. CCP forgot to balancing the incomes after the introduction of rigs and increased starting SP. Nothing more, nothing less.
|
Nomore Telindus
Gallente Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 21:38:00 -
[309]
Originally by: Matrix Skye I choose to do my missions alone because I choose to do my missions alone.
So you nerfed yourself to the oblivion and now cry because others playing this game according to it's rules???
|
skye orionis
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 21:42:00 -
[310]
Originally by: Nomore Telindus
Originally by: Matrix Skye I choose to do my missions alone because I choose to do my missions alone.
So you nerfed yourself to the oblivion and now cry because others playing this game according to it's rules???
Hear Hear!
Aint it the truth brotha!
|
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 21:51:00 -
[311]
Edited by: Matrix Skye on 28/05/2009 21:52:57
Originally by: Nomore Telindus
Originally by: Matrix Skye I choose to do my missions alone because I choose to do my missions alone.
So you nerfed yourself to the oblivion and now cry because others playing this game according to it's rules???
Dammit, I forgot that minor detail! You're right! I'm the one whining and crying to have CCP nerf my playstyle. Not only that, but I'm also not playing the game by the rules.
You're just the brightest color on the crayon box now arentcha.
|
Nomore Telindus
Gallente Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 22:10:00 -
[312]
Originally by: Matrix Skye And now you accuse me of not playing the game by the rules? Why don't you go file a petition about it.
I wrote two posts...
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 22:24:00 -
[313]
Originally by: Nomore Telindus In the past 1,5 hours i made four missions. I killed everything and salvaged every single wreck. I used a damnation and a megathron with ordinary T2 equipment. (and i fought against sanshas with crap uranium L, so my damage output was only 60% of the maximum) Is this speedmissioning?
Ok, now try missioning, looting, and salvaging 4 missions with ONE ACCOUNT. Then post your time.
Quote: Dunno. It's not my job atm. I only played 6 days in this year so far (RL), so the new scanner interface is new to me.
Then take my word for it or ask your dedicated probers. It usually takes single digit minutes to probe a missioner down, sometimes as little as 3 minutes. There's even a video going around on how to do it in about 3 minutes. Can't be a**ed to find it. Sorry.
Quote: I don't want the highsec players in lowsec. But atm. highsec is exploited by macroers and by people who are rendering this game's pvp concept to a wow style battlegorund crap. CCP forgot to balancing the incomes after the introduction of rigs and increased starting SP. Nothing more, nothing less.
Then the problem is macroers, not hi sec. And to my knowledge no hisec carebear is asking CCP to turn hisec into WOW or even turn it into anything. It's fine as it is quite frankly. It fits casual players and players that want minimal hassle from "PVPers". I for one dont like losec because of the immature players there. Yes, there are just as much immature players in hi sec, but atleast there a$$hattery is a bit under control in hisec. But it's where I choose to play. My decision.
|
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 22:54:00 -
[314]
Edited by: Rhinanna on 28/05/2009 22:56:38
Quote: To remove the static baseline that renders other activities obsolete; to increase the variety of worth-while gameplay.
Or instead you could buff the activities that have been 'made' obsolete.... although I can't actually think of one other than low sec mission running that HAS been made obsolete.
Quote: No. It makes them work on the same principles as other occupations ù only then can we start talking about buffs and nerfs because only then do we have two comparable designs. You are the one talking about nerfing them ù not me. Yet another strawman on your part.
There is no reason to make them work on the same principles as the other occupations, until you show a reason that they should be made this way which you have failed to do then there is no reason to nerf missions. If you don't think limiting the number of missions a player can do based on competition is nerfing them then I fear for you....
Quote: As previously mentioned, it doesn't matter if he steals your loot ù you make money anyway (in fact, some mission runners claim you lose precious ISK/h by stopping to loot and salvage). In order to kill your revenue, he has to kill all the ships so he gets all the bounties; hack into the CCP database to flag the mission as his; go back to your agent and claim the ISK, LP and standings rewardsà Which, of course, can't be done.
Yeah cos the mission reward matters.... Yes you can't nerf that TINY portion of the mission runner's income. You CAN steal the bounties, loot and salvage. He may not be losing ISK but who is going to run Lvl 4s for 10 mil per hour approx max - ammo costs??? Hes losing ISK compared to what he could have made doing Lvl 4 missions, which is the definition of interrupting the revenue stream which you think you can't do......
Quote: Yes. For the simple reason that, as long as it isn't competetive, it will remain a cast-iron [female dog] to balance against those other activities. Introduce competition, and it will balance itself and allow for more variety and be far easier to adjust when the self-balancing doesn't quite cut it. It's far easier to create a wide and appetizing range of apple hybrids if you don't try to throw an organge in the mixà
And since again you have no reason to say that having a non-competitive section to the game is a bad thing, again you just want the missions changed to SUIT YOU, not to improve the game.
Quote: No. A straw man is a misrepresentation of the opponents point of view that is set up only for the purpose of being easy to attack.
Eg: Me: Missions should be made competetive. You: Nerfing missions is bad for the game (the strawman being that you misrepresent what I'm saying as me wanting to nerf missions, and then you present a case why such a nerf would be bad).
Adding a competitive element to missions would in effect nerf missions. Hence no strawman, OK I fully admit I worded my description of strawman wrong and my apologies for that, I was referring to the logic of arguing a point your opponent wasn't arguing.
Until you can explain WHY having a non-competitive aspect to the game is bad then you have no argument. I don't like it or It's a PvP game aren't valid arguments since ITS CCP'S GAME AND THEY DECIDE WHAT IT IS, NOT YOU. If they decide there should be some small amount of PvE in it then thats fine so long as it doesn't hurt PvP. As previously mentioned people running L4s helps PvP far more than it hinders it.
|
Nomore Telindus
Gallente Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 23:14:00 -
[315]
Originally by: Matrix Skye
Originally by: Nomore Telindus In the past 1,5 hours i made four missions. I killed everything and salvaged every single wreck. I used a damnation and a megathron with ordinary T2 equipment. (and i fought against sanshas with crap uranium L, so my damage output was only 60% of the maximum) Is this speedmissioning?
Ok, now try missioning, looting, and salvaging 4 missions with ONE ACCOUNT. Then post your time.
Roughly 30-40% more. What is your problem with cooperative gaming? Working as intended. (and my two account is just top of the iceberg. Blue local, defensive gang, intel channels are even more helpfull things)
Originally by: Matrix Skye
Quote: Dunno. It's not my job atm. I only played 6 days in this year so far (RL), so the new scanner interface is new to me.
Then take my word for it or ask your dedicated probers. It usually takes single digit minutes to probe a missioner down, sometimes as little as 3 minutes. There's even a video going around on how to do it in about 3 minutes. Can't be a**ed to find it. Sorry.
It's clear, that you never tried scanning someone down, so let me explain a bit: You jump to a system, some folks in local. You see a BS in the directional scanner, odds that he is a missionrunner. Start scanning. Now, we have two possible scenario, one where the missioner have a brain and one where not. The brainless scenario is easy: scan, warp, kill, loot. The other is the tricky: -the missioner aligned and warp out, when see you -the missioner was a bait and they have a fleet ready -the missioner waited you in a recon 3 mission -the missioner finished the mission while you scan (it's the most common scenario) -the missioner is not alone (oh blasphemy!!)
Originally by: Matrix Skye Then the problem is macroers, not hi sec. And to my knowledge no hisec carebear is asking CCP to turn hisec into WOW or even turn it into anything. It's fine as it is quite frankly. It fits casual players and players that want minimal hassle from "PVPers".
Finally! After 11 pages you start understand something from the problem!
Originally by: Matrix Skye I for one dont like losec because of the immature players there. Yes, there are just as much immature players in hi sec, but atleast there a$$hattery is a bit under control in hisec. But it's where I choose to play. My decision.
Everybody is happy with YOUR decision.
|
simon perry
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 23:18:00 -
[316]
In my opinion I feel level 4's should be left alone, focus on level 5 missions. They Give more risk and at the moment donÆt give much of a reward. So in affect donÆt give much incentive.
This way no one leaves the game and care bears are happy, and people in low sec have more exciting missions with more reward but with more risk.
Problems at the moment with level 5 missions:
- They pay less than level 4Æs when doing them in a group.
- When doing them solo it takes forever, and almost untankable. So isk vs time is worse than level 4's.
- Most missions are faction missions therefore damage your standing to such an extent your not aloud in certain part of the eve universe. So once again not worth it.
|
ZW Dewitt
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 23:18:00 -
[317]
Dev blog out about new lvl 4 agents. They are all in high sec. Comedy gold.
|
Nomore Telindus
Gallente Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 23:21:00 -
[318]
Originally by: Rhinanna There is no reason to make them work on the same principles as the other occupations, until you show a reason that they should be made this way which you have failed to do then there is no reason to nerf missions. If you don't think limiting the number of missions a player can do based on competition is nerfing them then I fear for you....
Limitng the number of missions would help the casual players to compete with the 7/23 addicts. With this move, CCP can buff the majority of their playerbase.
|
Matrix Skye
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 23:29:00 -
[319]
Edited by: Matrix Skye on 28/05/2009 23:35:28
Originally by: Nomore Telindus
Originally by: Matrix Skye
Originally by: Nomore Telindus In the past 1,5 hours i made four missions. I killed everything and salvaged every single wreck. I used a damnation and a megathron with ordinary T2 equipment. (and i fought against sanshas with crap uranium L, so my damage output was only 60% of the maximum) Is this speedmissioning?
Ok, now try missioning, looting, and salvaging 4 missions with ONE ACCOUNT. Then post your time.
Roughly 30-40% more. What is your problem with cooperative gaming? Working as intended. (and my two account is just top of the iceberg. Blue local, defensive gang, intel channels are even more helpfull things)
Dude, I have nothing against you running missions with 2 accounts I asked you to try doing it with one account because you're disputing my claim that missions take about 1-2 hours to complete, sometimes longer. Of course they don't take long with two accounts! That's not what we're arguing. Are you r*tarded? The rest of your post is just circular reasoning where we'll just end up going round and round. Typical argument style with you and the rest of your whining buddies.
|
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 23:30:00 -
[320]
Limiting missions per agent would just mean that casual players got to do far less missions than the 23/7ers.
Limiting missions per player would just mean that the 23/7ers would do their allocation of missions then move on to mining or plexs.
How does either of these improve the game in any way?
|
|
skye orionis
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 23:38:00 -
[321]
The model I suggest is having a limited pool of missions spread across all agents of a faction/level, when a mission is accepted from an agent their pool of missions is decremented and the mission is reseeded to another random agent within the faction. So there would always be missions available to you, but they might be with an agent elsewhere.
So we could model localized scarcity while always ensuring that there's global abundance.
|
Rhinanna
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 23:49:00 -
[322]
Which would basically achieve???
Making people fly around looking for the next mission? Reducing ISK income for lvl 4s to way below most other occupations? Introducing more boredom to the game.
A lot of people, Pvpers included, get home from work some days and just want to do a few nice quiet missions. The problem is NOT hi-sec Lvl 4s, its macro/AFK missioners. Same with mining, the problem is Macro-miners. Nerfing missions for everyone else as well will NOT solve this problem.
Unfortunately this is also very hard to balance the missions so that a average skill newer player can still run missions but a high SP, expensive ship player can't AFK the missions.
I agree the best way to do this would be to make Lvl 5s more viable and increase Rat AI levels, without increasing the amount of time it takes to run the missions.
|
chrisss0r
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 00:06:00 -
[323]
yeah cause it's the missionrunners who have all the big wallets.
|
Tentacle Monster
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 00:14:00 -
[324]
Yes, I'm sure pirates would love low-skilled pilots with no capital for T2 ships to have to enter lowsec to make some money. Nothing better than making money and griefing people at the same time, right?
|
Th0rG0d
Pilots From Honour Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 00:22:00 -
[325]
I think the first step would be to up the AI of all known space rats. Since we already have the more "advanced" Sleeper AI, that would be a good start.
Then we can start talking about adjusting bounty/loot tables and/or reorganizing lvl 4s.
Regardless of missions, I think everyone agrees that lo-sec is a barren wasteland, with little incentive to go there, unless you are looking for some pew pew. Maybe decrease some of the more common choke points, and convert some of the border sec systems into lo-sec themselves...... By increasing the number of gates, you can decrease the number of gate camps, until the pirate populations fills in.
Who knows the exact fix, but CCP has to acknowledge the deficiency so they can start addressing the proper solutions.
Originally by: Clementina I regard recommending WoW to be a grave matter. That game somehow causes brain damage, and therefore should only be recommended to those who have brain damage already.[/qu |
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 01:03:00 -
[326]
Edited by: Hyveres on 29/05/2009 01:05:38
Originally by: Nomore Telindus Then take my word for it or ask your dedicated probers. It usually takes single digit minutes to probe a missioner down, sometimes as little as 3 minutes. There's even a video going around on how to do it in about 3 minutes. Can't be a**ed to find it. Sorry.
It's clear, that you never tried scanning someone down, so let me explain a bit: You jump to a system, some folks in local. You see a BS in the directional scanner, odds that he is a missionrunner. Start scanning. Now, we have two possible scenario, one where the missioner have a brain and one where not. The brainless scenario is easy: scan, warp, kill, loot. The other is the tricky: -the missioner aligned and warp out, when see you -the missioner was a bait and they have a fleet ready -the missioner waited you in a recon 3 mission -the missioner finished the mission while you scan (it's the most common scenario) -the missioner is not alone (oh blasphemy!!) And nomatter what you interrupt his income.
In fact you just have to bookmark his location(a good covop with a sisters setup should be able to lock down a battleship in 2-3 scans, that means under 1 minute). Then you go in cloaked , and if he left and its a mission with an objective you simply take away whatever he needs to complete it. That way ensuring a failed mission and standing penalty.
Alternativly just park your scanalt there semiafk and be ready to warp in a ganksquad the moment he returns to complete the mission.
Net result = missionrunner not earning isk which is apparently your goal :)
And while I mostly live in wormholes anything from BC & upwards is scannable in 1-2 minutes assuming its not moving. Any competent pilot in a wormhole however will warp out the moment he got combat probes on his scanner.. in a lowsec system with multiple people going back and forth you might not have that luxury.
Especially if you are a casual player with just an hour or 2 of playtime. For these players a single set of 4 combat scanprobes = log off and try again tomorrow situation. But then in your world people like this shouldnt be playing eve right? "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 |
Shaun Klaroh
Caldari The Report Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 01:25:00 -
[327]
Originally by: T***G0d I think the first step would be to up the AI of all known space rats. Since we already have the more "advanced" Sleeper AI, that would be a good start.
You would need to do that down the chain entirely. Level 1's, Level 2's, and Level 3's in order to not make such a shock to a newer player. -----
Quote: "Are these people prisoners?" Arkhan asked.
"Not at all," Melak replied. "They're free to run and get shot any time they like."
|
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 01:29:00 -
[328]
I fully support the move of lvl 4 missions to low sec unless mining was boosted but the only way to do that is by moving Crokite and Bistot to high sec because that's fair to miners. People who whine about lvl 4's paying out too much aren't just pirates, the miners are also really unhappy because there's absolutely no point in mining when lvl 4's are far more rewarding.
|
TraininVain
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 01:41:00 -
[329]
http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=656
Ship losses are up. EVEconomy is working.
|
TraininVain
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 01:42:00 -
[330]
Originally by: T***G0d I think the first step would be to up the AI of all known space rats. Since we already have the more "advanced" Sleeper AI, that would be a good start.
Then we can start talking about adjusting bounty/loot tables and/or reorganizing lvl 4s.
Regardless of missions, I think everyone agrees that lo-sec is a barren wasteland, with little incentive to go there, unless you are looking for some pew pew. Maybe decrease some of the more common choke points, and convert some of the border sec systems into lo-sec themselves...... By increasing the number of gates, you can decrease the number of gate camps, until the pirate populations fills in.
Who knows the exact fix, but CCP has to acknowledge the deficiency so they can start addressing the proper solutions.
Doesn't seem like a problem to me.
Also, you do get people doing other stuff. Just not necessarily in the busy systems.
|
|
Gabriel Theodoulos
Amarr 1st Praetorian Guard
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 01:46:00 -
[331]
Originally by: Max Tux from what i can see, people want level 4's moved to low sec mainly so they can have more people to kill, they will not be good fights they will mainly be ganks.
this is a poor excuse to want to change the main income on many players, maybe reduce the loot drops, yes,but the idea of forcing people into low sec won't work.
I have to agree.
People, if a carebear makes his income on Hi Sec Level 4 Missions, let him. He's hauling battleships and t2 BCs into these type of missions and the only thing that will happen by moving Lvl 4 Missions into Lo Sec is that the pirates get more to chew on.
Leave them alone and let them have their fun too.
Gabe's Blog: http://housetheodoulos.blogspot.com |
Plexxy
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 02:17:00 -
[332]
Originally by: TraininVain http://www.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=656
Ship losses are up. EVEconomy is working.
But notice the downward trend in ship losses per player.
|
TraininVain
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 02:26:00 -
[333]
Newbies that don't PVP according to the blurb underneath.
Hmmm. Ship losses by character age per month would be nice or possibly per class.
|
Ademaro Imre
Caldari Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 03:03:00 -
[334]
Originally by: Karentaki
Originally by: Valandril Your abilit to read fails, ppl want them moved to lowsec because they are biggest income available in eve and they come without any risk.
This! They can give as much ISK per hour as 0.0 ratting with none of the risk.
No it doesn't. You us your single account in the drones region, kill your rats, leave, come back with another account, try to get the minerals, then try to leave low sec - do it all with out any security status gain, and be completely dependent on market prices which keep falling for high ends, and without getting ganked.
|
Ademaro Imre
Caldari Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 03:05:00 -
[335]
Originally by: Valandril Your abilit to read fails, ppl want them moved to lowsec because they are biggest income available in eve and they come without any risk.
Do the same people want all manufacturing slots moved to low sec? From my experience, I have been exposed to zero risk when starting a manufacturing job for the modules I sell - for profit.
|
Th0rG0d
Pilots From Honour Aeternus.
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 03:48:00 -
[336]
Originally by: Shaun Klaroh
Originally by: T***G0d I think the first step would be to up the AI of all known space rats. Since we already have the more "advanced" Sleeper AI, that would be a good start.
You would need to do that down the chain entirely. Level 1's, Level 2's, and Level 3's in order to not make such a shock to a newer player.
Yes, I put the key word in bold. Even belt rats too, would be nice...
At TraininVain, I don't necessarily see the problem with lo-sec being a barren wasteland either, but I do have to agree with others that pew pew is really the only available option currently out there. Sure there are lvl 5's, isolated systems that get little traffic to rat in, even mine if you are feeling adventurous, but in general null sec is better for all of those things. The only thing lo-sec has over null I feel is no bubbles.
Will moving lvl 4s to lo-sec solve the problem? I don't think so. Will changing loot drops/refining help curb the isk/mineral inflation? Maybe, or maybe those macro miners will just pull in more isk....
I personally don't have any better solutions, and I still consider myself rather noobish, being in game only a few months.
Originally by: Clementina I regard recommending WoW to be a grave matter. That game somehow causes brain damage, and therefore should only be recommended to those who have brain damage already.[/qu |
Arec Bardwin
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 06:57:00 -
[337]
Originally by: ZW Dewitt Dev blog out about new lvl 4 agents. They are all in high sec. Comedy gold.
This probably shows that CCP don't see the current L4 situation as a problem
|
Rordan D'Kherr
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 08:23:00 -
[338]
I think they are aware of the problem, but there is a big carebear lobby out there. So it's politics. Many empire carebears without any risk buy more GTC than lowsec / nullsec inhabitants with much risk. Easy to figure out unfortunately.
|
Nomore Telindus
Gallente Pangalactic Punks n' Playboys HUN Reloaded
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 08:47:00 -
[339]
Originally by: Hyveres And nomatter what you interrupt his income.
It's just a side effect. My primary goal is to force the locals to some pvp. If the missionrunner is a lonely type, then sorry.
Originally by: Hyveres in a lowsec system with multiple people going back and forth you might not have that luxury.
I HAVE this luxury, because we quickly transporting these wandering people back to empire. You can mission in lowsec semi-afk if you have friends. (and if somebody is trying hard to camp you, then you can JC somewhere else)
Originally by: Hyveres Especially if you are a casual player with just an hour or 2 of playtime. For these players a single set of 4 combat scanprobes = log off and try again tomorrow situation. But then in your world people like this shouldnt be playing eve right?
I repeat myself: i don't want lvl4s lowsec/0.0 only. My only problem is their ISK printing nature.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 09:01:00 -
[340]
Originally by: Arec Bardwin
Originally by: ZW Dewitt Dev blog out about new lvl 4 agents. They are all in high sec. Comedy gold.
This probably shows that CCP don't see the current L4 situation as a problem
Look the number of high quality agents in low sec.
You really need another 3 L 4 q +20 agents in the same station?
Low sec could use some pirate agent, generally low level and quality, to make easier to access the pirate agents in 0.0 without taking away the reasons to run missions in 0.0.
Maybe even some epic arc in low sec.
What it don't need is some more empire corporation agent.
|
|
Kiltharas Makaar
Amarr New Eden Research and Development Syndicate
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 09:10:00 -
[341]
The reason low-sec is a deathtrap today is the fact that you usually have just a few people in local, thus becoming easier to track down.
With proper lvl4-hubs in lowsec, you'd have more people there, meaning:
1. Istead of being the only target, you're one of say 200. The chance of it being YOU going pop is a lot smaller. Safety in numbers.
2. With a hornets nest of angry missionrunners, it's far more dangerous for Pirates aswell to attack in those systems. Camping gates to the system would take massive numbers on the pirates part, at least provided missionrunners have the brains to co-operate with eachother to stop them. New Eden Research & Development Syndicate is recruiting! |
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 09:23:00 -
[342]
Edited by: Hyveres on 29/05/2009 09:24:22 Edited by: Hyveres on 29/05/2009 09:23:21
Originally by: Kiltharas Makaar The reason low-sec is a deathtrap today is the fact that you usually have just a few people in local, thus becoming easier to track down.
With proper lvl4-hubs in lowsec, you'd have more people there, meaning:
1. Istead of being the only target, you're one of say 200. The chance of it being YOU going pop is a lot smaller. Safety in numbers.
2. With a hornets nest of angry missionrunners, it's far more dangerous for Pirates aswell to attack in those systems. Camping gates to the system would take massive numbers on the pirates part, at least provided missionrunners have the brains to co-operate with eachother to stop them.
Ehh with a target rich enviroment people woudnt know they are being targetted untill the rapier got em scrambled & webbed which is when the killsquad moves in.. a small group of pirates could wipe out a missionrunner and warp off long before his backup has a chance to show up then continue doing that for some hours to net a lot of kills with no chance of stopping them and no risk.
But then thats what pirates like yourself are dreaming about isnt it? "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 |
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 09:25:00 -
[343]
Originally by: Kiltharas Makaar The reason low-sec is a deathtrap today is the fact that you usually have just a few people in local, thus becoming easier to track down.
With proper lvl4-hubs in lowsec, you'd have more people there, meaning:
1. Istead of being the only target, you're one of say 200. The chance of it being YOU going pop is a lot smaller. Safety in numbers.
2. With a hornets nest of angry missionrunners, it's far more dangerous for Pirates aswell to attack in those systems. Camping gates to the system would take massive numbers on the pirates part, at least provided missionrunners have the brains to co-operate with eachother to stop them.
That logic is completely and utterly flawed.
Where do you think the wolves go when the sheep move someplace else? Do you think they sit around in the same place hoping they'll come back?
Why do you think Rancer, Tama, Aeschee et al are such hotspots - I'll give you a clue, it's not by chance.
Wolves go where the sheep go until such time as there are little/no sheep left, besides the ones that turn up in shuttles and rookie ships and get omgwtfbbq'd on the gate because it was the first time they'd ever used autopilot and/or didn't realise what the fuss was about with low-sec.
A low-sec system equivalent to Dodixie would be a feeding frenzy, you'd get at least that number of pirates descending on it. Saying "safety in numbers" when people are flying around in PVE fit ships is just ridiculous.
|
Dramaan
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 10:07:00 -
[344]
I think this tread shows how how coruped the lvl 4 system is.
ccp did realy bad decision outing more agents in hi sec when is obius low sec need a boost of agents ect.
No carbear like to coprate whit another palyer all mission shoud be able to solo in , I think ccp shoud make lvl 4 harder so no lvl 4 can be a solo mission.
Bost low sec more ccp.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 10:07:00 -
[345]
Originally by: Kiltharas Makaar The reason low-sec is a deathtrap today is the fact that you usually have just a few people in local, thus becoming easier to track down.
With proper lvl4-hubs in lowsec, you'd have more people there, meaning:
1. Istead of being the only target, you're one of say 200. The chance of it being YOU going pop is a lot smaller. Safety in numbers.
2. With a hornets nest of angry missionrunners, it's far more dangerous for Pirates aswell to attack in those systems. Camping gates to the system would take massive numbers on the pirates part, at least provided missionrunners have the brains to co-operate with eachother to stop them.
Half of those 200 people will be pirates, so you would get angrypirates as half of the time they would be scanning each other and pirating a pirate is not fun and angry mission runners as they will get scanned in half of the missions, making them infeasible
|
AncientLord
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 10:39:00 -
[346]
For ****ers, stupid pirates and mostly wannabe pirates:
You lost your battle, check new developer blog.
/fail
|
Indiference
Republic University
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 10:39:00 -
[347]
Edited by: Indiference on 29/05/2009 10:40:14
Originally by: lollerwaffle
...... Your answer still fails to address the question of competition with his fellow mission runners, which the would be more in line of competition between traders.......
Explain to me how you suggest competition would be generated between mission runners, and how this would not negatively impact on the social player that is not hardcore PVE or PVP
Somewhere in your previous posts you suggested that there is no way to remove the isk from LVL 4 agents, well i suggest you look lower down in the chain as well, you can't remove the isk from ANY agent. So lets please yourself end Tippia then lets remove all agents from the game because no matter how you look at it, you should be complaining about ALL agents if you want to use the "i can not remove the ISK" argument. O and heaven forbid your someone that invents and farm their own datacore from agents, that is totally unfair. He should be buying it of the market.
|
Indiference
Republic University
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 11:13:00 -
[348]
Originally by: Ms Delerium imo it should be like this...
lvl 1,2 -> highsec lvl 3,4 -> lowsec lvl 5 -> 0.0
now this makes sense. Which is ridiculous is lvl 1,2,3,4 in highsec... wtf!!!! The center of galaxy is too crowded. A time for a cleaning has come.
Just thought i would add that if you implement that you'll be cleaning EVE not high sec, as much as you hate the lvl 4 runners you have to admit that it is them who are driving the market. Unless you want to pay 1 bil for a tech 1 rig, just saying.
|
Indiference
Republic University
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 11:19:00 -
[349]
Originally by: Mikayla Grey
Originally by: Essence Praetor
Originally by: RedSplat
Originally by: Max Tux from what i can see, people want level 4's moved to low sec mainly so they can have more people to kill, they will not be good fights they will mainly be ganks.
this is a poor excuse to want to change the main income on many players, maybe reduce the loot drops, yes,but the idea of forcing people into low sec won't work.
People want Level 4's moved to Lowsec 'cause of imbalanced risk vs reward.
Personally, i want only the Lowest quality lvl 4's to be in Highsec- if you want complete safety then you should have a vastly reduced income to what lvl 4's currently churn out.
Oh here is a question?
What does a Carebear do with 1B ISK that he earned in one week that he cant do with 1B ISK it took him two 2 or 3 weeks to earn? What have you achieved besides futzing up the market?
You have given people a reason to risk a ship to spend less time doing a boring isk generating activity.
Your making a mistake by believing you speak for everyone. |
Indiference
Republic University
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 11:29:00 -
[350]
Originally by: lollerwaffle ...... Unfortunately, throwing insults about or screaming fail all the time doesn't really lend strength to your argument, not does it give your post any meaningful content. Your first post that I replied to was fairly OK-ish but it has degenerated into meaningless drivel by now. You need to pick up the pace son.
Also, irony is calling someone else fail and failing at spelling and punctuation (Oh wait I forgot you don't understand what irony/subtlety/sarcasm are). Bolded so you know what i mean. Does that imply the smilie after or before buds for me? And how does it do it? I wasn't aware it was a flower. Does it also bloom after?
Bolding fail ??? just asking.. |
|
Indiference
Republic University
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 11:34:00 -
[351]
Originally by: lollerwaffle
In short, I have no real idea since I don't really know what carebears do with all the isk they make anyway besides hoarding it and feeling happy everything some internet spaceship game number goes up.
Much like your killboard efficiency ? I means it's about PVP right? o snap there's the epeen you have been waving around damn son i didn't see it there. The fact that you have no idea is not lost in your reply..
|
Indiference
Republic University
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 11:46:00 -
[352]
Originally by: lollerwaffle
Originally by: Mr DXV )*snip*
Well said. That is where the crux of the problem lies. Missions are and always have been a form of income. However, they have no competitive element to them making them stick out like a sore thumb. Moving them to lowsec would not solve this problem, and the only possible implementation would be making mission pools a commonly shared finite resource. But then again there lies the problem of making it (sort of) fair to everyone, otherwise people in different timezones like the US would not have any missions left to them when they logged on in their primetime. An alternative would be more mission pool reseeding, but too much of this would create exactly the same situation as we have now.
Now that i can agree with, the only possible solution thus to stop the whining PVP'ers would be to remove missions from EVE completely, just think what will be gained by that, higher prices on modules ships etc as the demand will go down from all the PVE players leaving, that would make losses more tangible in PVP but the PVP would be flawless as there would be so much more processing power available on the EVE servers since there wont be any more PVE players left to clog up the servers with their useless (sorry, unfair) ISK making. Yes that would be awesome because I'll have a bigger epeen to wave around in the faces of the other MMO's where competition does not exists. At least i can do that until CCP switches the game off because no-one wants to join a game where all you can do is PVP and loose stuff at great cost.
I want to enjoy my game that i pay for and so do you. At the moment your not having fun PVP'ing and i'm having fun PVE'ing. There for the way I play the game must be wrong. |
Ryoji Tanakama
Caldari Firestar Drive Yards
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 11:59:00 -
[353]
Edited by: Ryoji Tanakama on 29/05/2009 12:04:11
Originally by: Valandril Your abilit to read fails, ppl want them moved to lowsec because they are biggest income available in eve and they come without any risk.
Actually he's 100% correct. It is all about fat targets that can't fight back.
Risk is not the only defining factor. Unless you factor in time and effort required the risk vs reward argument is flawed.
BTW I can make vastly more money in perfectly safe high-sec invention than I can running level 4s in a golem. There is a tiny little chance that I could lose a ship in a mission - the only danger with invention is feeling too lazy to go pick up more materials.
|
Papita
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 18:18:00 -
[354]
If lvl 4s going to be in low sec, EVE will die hard!!!
|
Niclas Solo
Amarr The Space BorderLine
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 20:26:00 -
[355]
What is the problem? Sure L4 pay very good but they also are very boring so if they didn't pay so good we would have to do even more of them missions to support our PVP fleet. Don't care so much how other play this game, instead play it the way you like it.
|
Arfvedson
|
Posted - 2009.05.29 21:33:00 -
[356]
I have said repeatedly that since you cant do level 4's in a pvp fit ship, that they wouldnt ever move them to lowsec. It seems CCP does agree with me.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 .. 12 :: [one page] |