Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
MystLynx
Gallente Ships R Us
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 09:19:00 -
[91]
WOW thata way
so you cant do sometthing most of us have been doing..... be it PVE, pirates, pirate hunting, gate camp busting.. etc..... we still scan to see whats incoming.. big tip here you dont have to really start scanning until you see someone enter local...... ^ that combined with what everyone is telling you that can help you should be more than enough.. so either your ignorant or just plain stubborn and want it your way... or nothing im kinda considering your a mixture.
my .02 isk
|
Nareg Maxence
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 09:30:00 -
[92]
Originally by: MystLynx WOW thata way
so you cant do sometthing most of us have been doing..... be it PVE, pirates, pirate hunting, gate camp busting.. etc..... we still scan to see whats incoming.. big tip here you dont have to really start scanning until you see someone enter local...... ^ that combined with what everyone is telling you that can help you should be more than enough.. so either your ignorant or just plain stubborn and want it your way... or nothing im kinda considering your a mixture.
my .02 isk
What is this? You just felt like adding a generic rant on carebears?
|
Banana Torres
The Green Banana Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 09:30:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Caelum Dominus
I don't understand how this logic can make sense to anyone. You're advocating that low-sec becomes (even) safer and argue that it will contribute to PvP. I presume you understand the dilemma.
If by becoming safer more people enter low sec, then there are more targets and so more PvP.
My view on this is that if it is as easy to find someone in a mission deadspace as it is to find them in an asteroid belt then the low sec mission hubs will become as deserted as the low sec belts.
|
Caelum Dominus
Invicta.
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 09:41:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Banana Torres If by becoming safer more people enter low sec, then there are more targets and so more PvP.
...
Okay, let me spell it out for you; low-sec becoming an (even) safer place isn't going to contribute to PvP. Having more targets is all fine and dandy, but if you can never get to those targets it's a moot point.
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 10:14:00 -
[95]
Edited by: Le Skunk on 06/07/2009 10:16:15 Edited by: Le Skunk on 06/07/2009 10:14:12
Originally by: Exlegion Edited by: Exlegion on 05/07/2009 23:23:07 Again, aligning and moving 50,000 meters away from warp-in point is almost a moot point once my mission location has been compromised. I have no problems jetting a can at warp-in and drifting away. But once my mission location has been pinpointed my profits drop to zero as it now becomes a waiting game on who gets bored first, predator or prey. And my mission's on the clock. They're not. I've had to default on a couple of missions already because the pirates weren't even willing to accept "ransom" to let me complete it, even after I warned them I'd be defaulting.
All I ask CCP is to check this out as it's just plain insanity. If it's something they knew would happen or they're happy with the way it's turned out then end of story, plain and simple. Could CCP atleast comment whether they're aware of this?
And what's with all the hate from ex-Privateers? Come on guys. 2006 has long passed, yet the hate still fills your hearts. Let it go. It feel like an ex-Privateer Convention in here .
1) OPS original point - Hitting scan every 5 seconds to ensure I am safe in lowsec is unreasonable. Pretty good point.. but for those that know him - not what he is really talking about... which is:
NOW WE HAVE HIM COMPLAINING
2) OPS current point - "once my mission location has been pinpointed my profits drop to zero " with all the safety measures pointed out to him being "almost a moot point"
Note the total switch? Hes changed from his original sham and semi reasonable first point about repetative game mechanics, into his true meaning - he dosent want anything getting in the way of his greed driven relentless isk drive.
He is not worried about getting his ship out of a mission, he does this even when he does not notice the probes on scan (see OP) so the 5 seconds scan is irrelevant.
He just dosent like being to scared to go back into the mission and handing it in.
Im serious when i say High sec would solve your problems (o)
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 10:22:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Caelum Dominus
Originally by: Banana Torres If by becoming safer more people enter low sec, then there are more targets and so more PvP.
...
Okay, let me spell it out for you; low-sec becoming an (even) safer place isn't going to contribute to PvP. Having more targets is all fine and dandy, but if you can never get to those targets it's a moot point.
Aye this logic does baffle me somewhat
100 people passing through lowsec - 10% chance of a pvp encounter = 10 fights 1000 people passing through loswec - 1% chance of a pvp encounter = 10 fights
Net result
10 fights
(o)
|
Sheriff Jones
Amarr Clinical Experiment
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 10:28:00 -
[97]
Originally by: Le Skunk
Originally by: Caelum Dominus
Originally by: Banana Torres If by becoming safer more people enter low sec, then there are more targets and so more PvP.
...
Okay, let me spell it out for you; low-sec becoming an (even) safer place isn't going to contribute to PvP. Having more targets is all fine and dandy, but if you can never get to those targets it's a moot point.
Aye this logic does baffle me somewhat
100 people passing through lowsec - 10% chance of a pvp encounter = 10 fights 1000 people passing through loswec - 1% chance of a pvp encounter = 10 fights
Net result
10 fights
Don't the chances of a PVP encounter go UP and not down with more people?
My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit. |
Banana Torres
The Green Banana Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 10:28:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Caelum Dominus
Originally by: Banana Torres If by becoming safer more people enter low sec, then there are more targets and so more PvP.
Okay, let me spell it out for you; low-sec becoming an (even) safer place isn't going to contribute to PvP. Having more targets is all fine and dandy, but if you can never get to those targets it's a moot point.
I did not say make low sec 100% safe. Note I used, and you so kindly quoted, safer.
You are correct if you are 100% safe in low sec then there will be no PvP. However if all mission runners stay in high sec cause they make more ISK/hour then will again be no PvP.
It is a balance thing and, like all such issues in Eve, I leave it to the devs to decide were the want to set the balance.
|
Caelum Dominus
Invicta.
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 10:30:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Caelum Dominus on 06/07/2009 10:32:18
Originally by: Sheriff Jones
Originally by: Sheriff Jones
Aye this logic does baffle me somewhat
100 people passing through lowsec - 10% chance of a pvp encounter = 10 fights 1000 people passing through loswec - 1% chance of a pvp encounter = 10 fights
Net result
10 fights
Don't the chances of a PVP encounter go UP and not down with more people?
You, sir, are an idiot.
Quote: It is a balance thing and, like all such issues in Eve, I leave it to the devs to decide were the want to set the balance.
I repeat myself on this point, but I propose the balance is set by increasing the reward, not lowering the risk.
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 10:34:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Le Skunk on 06/07/2009 10:35:03
Originally by: Sheriff Jones
Originally by: Le Skunk
Originally by: Caelum Dominus
Originally by: Banana Torres If by becoming safer more people enter low sec, then there are more targets and so more PvP.
...
Okay, let me spell it out for you; low-sec becoming an (even) safer place isn't going to contribute to PvP. Having more targets is all fine and dandy, but if you can never get to those targets it's a moot point.
Aye this logic does baffle me somewhat
100 people passing through lowsec - 10% chance of a pvp encounter = 10 fights 1000 people passing through loswec - 1% chance of a pvp encounter = 10 fights
Net result
10 fights
Don't the chances of a PVP encounter go UP and not down with more people?
The argument is
1) Making lowsec safer (by various measures such as: increasing align times, nerfing HICs, making missions more difficult to probe out, boosting sentry guns etc) will increase traffic to lowsec as it becomes less likely you will be tackled and lose your ship.
2)If it is less likely you will be tackled and lose your ship - it follows that there will be less chance of you being tackled - and pvp occuring.
So we have (for the sake of argument) ten times more traffic moving around lowsec. But it is 10 times harder to tackle them to force a pvp encounter in the first place.
(o)
|
|
Banana Torres
The Green Banana Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 10:34:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Le Skunk
100 people passing through lowsec - 10% chance of a pvp encounter = 10 fights 1000 people passing through loswec - 1% chance of a pvp encounter = 10 fights
0 people passing through lowsec - 100% chance of a pvp encounter = 0 fights
When you have dicontinuties like this, it is a good indication that the data you are working from is flawed.
My hunch is that if you have a 1000 people in low sec then a number of them are going to be useless, so while it may be harder to catch the good ones, you will feed well to the useless ones.
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 10:40:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Banana Torres
Originally by: Le Skunk
100 people passing through lowsec - 10% chance of a pvp encounter = 10 fights 1000 people passing through loswec - 1% chance of a pvp encounter = 10 fights
0 people passing through lowsec - 100% chance of a pvp encounter = 0 fights
When you have dicontinuties like this, it is a good indication that the data you are working from is flawed.
My hunch is that if you have a 1000 people in low sec then a number of them are going to be useless, so while it may be harder to catch the good ones, you will feed well to the useless ones.
1 people passing through lowsec - 100% chance of a pvp encounter = 1 fights
Would be the correct extreme. Fairly irrelevant point though.
And you think catching and bbqing the odd 3 month old noob in a drake, whilst experienced players fly wily nilly without being catch able - would be good for lowsec pvp?
(o)
|
Joe
Umbra Legion Shadow Empire.
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 10:42:00 -
[103]
If a 'feature' such as scanning for probes isn't usefull or effecitve, then it's no longer a 'feature', but a 'gimick'.
Personally i think scan times need to be quadroupled, theres no reason for them to be as short as they are (allthough obviousy the old system was too slow, even with maxed skills).
Yes i PVE, Yes i use low sec, and i'm probably biased, but no more biased than all the PKs and their rhetoric im reading in here
|
Banana Torres
The Green Banana Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 10:43:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Caelum Dominus I repeat myself on this point, but I propose the balance is set by increasing the reward, not lowering the risk.
Would it be possible to increase the reward in low sec enough so that it does not become greater than the rewards from 0.0?
Also, dont use the ad hominem argument it is called a logical fallacy for a reason.
|
Sheriff Jones
Amarr Clinical Experiment
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 10:46:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Caelum Dominus You, sir, are an idiot.
And you sir, are not of Victorian age!
Originally by: Le Skunk So we have (for the sake of argument) ten times more traffic moving around lowsec. But it is 10 times harder to tackle them to force a pvp encounter in the first place
Yeah, that would work if the ratio of new people vs ratio of lost ships were somehow linked. People don't go to 0.0 because of the chance to lose a ship, not because there's a X% chance to do so.
Balance has nothing to do with it though, balance is simply this; same rules.
It's not some complicated mathematical problem or a issue that takes months and months of research.
Keep things fair by keeping things the same for all.
My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit. |
Caelum Dominus
Invicta.
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 10:49:00 -
[106]
Originally by: Banana Torres
Would it be possible to increase the reward in low sec enough so that it does not become greater than the rewards from 0.0?
Sure.
Originally by: Banana Torres Also, dont use the ad hominem argument it is called a logical fallacy for a reason.
I don't follow. "You, sir, are an idiot" seems an appropriate response to someone who either fails to understand a very simple point or even read it altogether.
|
Sheriff Jones
Amarr Clinical Experiment
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 10:53:00 -
[107]
Edited by: Sheriff Jones on 06/07/2009 10:54:36
Originally by: Caelum Dominus
Originally by: Banana Torres
Would it be possible to increase the reward in low sec enough so that it does not become greater than the rewards from 0.0?
Sure.
Sure is a simple answer, but have you thought about what it means?
It's not just a bonus to those who go there every now and then, but also a bonus for the people living there 24/7.
More rewards, more ships, bigger and faster and suddenly, they can handle the extra people who come after the bigger reward and we're at the same point again.
Originally by: Caelum Dominus I don't follow. "You, sir, are an idiot" seems an appropriate response to someone who either fails to understand a very simple point or even read it altogether.
That could be if i was talking to you.
My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit. |
Banana Torres
The Green Banana Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 10:54:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Caelum Dominus
I don't follow. "You, sir, are an idiot" seems an appropriate response to someone who either fails to understand a very simple point or even read it altogether.
Maybe in the children's playground. Silence is my usual response. And with that I leave this thread.
|
Caelum Dominus
Invicta.
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 10:58:00 -
[109]
Edited by: Caelum Dominus on 06/07/2009 11:02:08 Edited by: Caelum Dominus on 06/07/2009 11:00:28
Originally by: Banana Torres
Originally by: Caelum Dominus
I don't follow. "You, sir, are an idiot" seems an appropriate response to someone who either fails to understand a very simple point or even read it altogether.
Maybe in the children's playground. Silence is my usual response. And with that I leave this thread.
Welcome to the internet. ;)
Originally by: Banana Torres Sure is a simple answer, but have you thought about what it means?
It's not just a bonus to those who go there every now and then, but also a bonus for the people living there 24/7.
More rewards, more ships, bigger and faster and suddenly, they can handle the extra people who come after the bigger reward and we're at the same point again.
I'm not sure I understand. I'm arguing that increasing the reward for doing missions, ratting or whathaveyou in low-sec would generate an incentive to come here. As it is, doing missions in high-sec is vastly superior income to nearly anything low-sec can offer unless you have adequate protection and/or wits, and I think that should be changed. This has to do with the balance of income in a "high-sec vs low-sec" scenario, not bigger and faster ships or whatever it is you're trying to convey. :)
If I am missing your point, please elaborate.
|
Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 11:03:00 -
[110]
Edited by: Le Skunk on 06/07/2009 11:05:47
Originally by: Sheriff Jones
Keep things fair by keeping things the same for all.
Indeed - If i choose to go run missions in lowsec, to grub a few extra LP and isk into my wallet, I will be operating under the same rules as everyone else.
And if exlegion chooses to stop mission running and start mission busting, then he will suffer the same frustrations (targets spoting probes and warping out, gas clouds pwning your cov ops, 80km slowboats from gate to gate in a mission, being uncloaked by wrecks and targeting warping off, hours spent waiting in a system for a target to undock, landing in the mission and seeing it disapear around you as the pilot hands it in, warping through a gate and the enemy is 100km away)and joys (the odd maurauder kill) as we have.
Me personaly, I would run missions in high sec, i think low sec mission runners are blinded by greed. I detest low sec mission runners who come to lowsec knowing the rules of the game, then start whining about them. S****of the game - worse then isk farmers, or noob can baiters.
Originally by: Sheriff Jones
Yeah, that would work if the ratio of new people vs ratio of lost ships were somehow linked. People don't go to 0.0 because of the chance to lose a ship, not because there's a X% chance to do so.
Well in the "safer lowsec scenario" the pilots who dont go to 0.0 because of a "chance" of getting popped - aint coming to lowsec due to the "chance"! of getting popped.
So in your scenario - it will be harder to catch anything in lowsec, but the majority of people still wont come. End result for lowsec pvp = death. (o)
|
|
Sheriff Jones
Amarr Clinical Experiment
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 11:11:00 -
[111]
Edited by: Sheriff Jones on 06/07/2009 11:11:59
Originally by: Caelum Dominus I'm not sure I understand. I'm arguing that increasing the reward for doing missions, ratting or whathaveyou in low-sec would generate an incentive to come here. As it is, doing missions in high-sec is vastly superior income to nearly anything low-sec can offer unless you have adequate protection and/or wits, and I think that should be changed. This has to do with the balance of income in a "high-sec vs low-sec" scenario, not bigger and faster ships or whatever it is you're trying to convey. :)
If I am missing your point, please elaborate.
The point i tried to make is that if you simply increase the reward in lowsec, it increases the income of the "bad people" there too, giving them better equipment to deal with the people who come there.
So in that way, decreasing risk is the better option as it only effects the people going there without boosting the "bad people". But i know, it's a bit off the point.
I agree that there's little point to go to lowsec at the moment as i get better risk vs reward from high-sec(personally that is). What i suggest is some form of "risk vs reward" slider option, like they had in anarchy online. More risk, lower sec, more reward.
Originally by: Le Skunk
Originally by: Sheriff Jones
Yeah, that would work if the ratio of new people vs ratio of lost ships were somehow linked. People don't go to 0.0 because of the chance to lose a ship, not because there's a X% chance to do so.
Well in the "safer lowsec scenario" the pilots who dont go to 0.0 because of a "chance" of getting popped - aint coming to lowsec due to the "chance"! of getting popped.
So in your scenario - it will be harder to catch anything in lowsec, but the majority of people still wont come. End result for lowsec pvp = death.
Fair point. Those who don't want to go to lowsec wouldn't still go, even if there was a titan pooping magical portal there.
Or the reward would have to be so much bigger that it would in fact kill the balance more.
I don't have a good solution it seems, not yet anyway.
I'll graciously admit that i need to step ack and think things through more
My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit. |
Caelum Dominus
Invicta.
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 11:18:00 -
[112]
Edited by: Caelum Dominus on 06/07/2009 11:21:47 Edited by: Caelum Dominus on 06/07/2009 11:21:05
Quote: The point i tried to make is that if you simply increase the reward in lowsec, it increases the income of the "bad people" there too, giving them better equipment to deal with the people who come there.
So in that way, decreasing risk is the better option as it only effects the people going there without boosting the "bad people". But i know, it's a bit off the point.
This is a fair point, but I still maintain that increasing the reward is the way to go. The risk is already low and should stay.
Originally by: Sheriff Jones What i suggest is some form of "risk vs reward" slider option, like they had in anarchy online. More risk, lower sec, more reward.
This already exists, albeit in a less obvious manner. Taking a battleship to do missions in low-sec is on the high end of the slider you describe, whereas killing belt NPCs in a frigate is on the low-end. ;)
|
Sheriff Jones
Amarr Clinical Experiment
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 11:21:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Caelum Dominus
Originally by: Sheriff Jones What i suggest is some form of "risk vs reward" slider option, like they had in anarchy online. More risk, lower sec, more reward.
This already exists, albeit in a less obvious manner. Taking a battleship to do missions in low-sec is on the high end of the slider you describe, whereas killing NPCs in a frigate is on the low-end. ;-)
Heh, yeah i guess it does.
Though i did mean more of a concrete option, where the security status, rat amounts etc are scaled to match the reward and it would be tied to the ship you plan to run it with.
Would balance the income, risk vs reward etc very nicely.
If someone wants the lore to match it, just remove the "big missions" from low reward scale and make the low reward stuff less "appealing".
My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit. |
Exlegion
Caldari Salva Veritate
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 12:18:00 -
[114]
I think we're all in agreement that low sec is not to become 100% safe. I have not read of anyone advocating for such a change. Low sec should remain being about only the strongest, fittest, and smartest thriving in such hostile environment. And I think we all agree there needs to be a fair balance between predator and prey. My concern is that prey has recently lost a valuable tool, probably the most valuable, which has shifted this balance greatly toward the predator's end. We have to face the fact that prey is mostly driven into low sec for the riches to be found there. But if profits are compromised below a certain point it no longer becomes a driving force binding the prey to low sec.
I can no longer take a chance at continuing a mission when even just one neutral sits in my system because my onboard scanner has the greater probability of failing me. IÆm tempted in taking OlleybearÆs advice and begin the plan to move to 0.0. I shall see what CCPÆs stance is on the issue.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Sheriff Jones
Amarr Clinical Experiment
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 12:23:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Exlegion I think we're all in agreement that low sec is not to become 100% safe. I have not read of anyone advocating for such a change. Low sec should remain being about only the strongest, fittest, and smartest thriving in such hostile environment.
Actually i think that should be reserved for nulsec, while lowsec should be a stepping stone to said, nulsec.
My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit. |
Nareg Maxence
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 12:42:00 -
[116]
Does anyone have an idea for a game mechanic that allows pirates a chance to catch missionrunners/plexers but gives the mission runners a chance to detect pirates, without repetitive click every 5 seconds and scroll through several pages of unfiltered scan results?
|
Joe
Umbra Legion Shadow Empire.
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 13:06:00 -
[117]
Originally by: Nareg Maxence Does anyone have an idea for a game mechanic that allows pirates a chance to catch missionrunners/plexers but gives the mission runners a chance to detect pirates, without repetitive click every 5 seconds and scroll through several pages of unfiltered scan results?
Yes, but it got lost amongst petty bickering.
Originally by: lost in the mess If a 'feature' such as scanning for probes isn't usefull or effecitve, then it's no longer a 'feature', but a 'gimick'.
Personally i think scan times need to be Quadroupled, theres no reason for them to be as short as they are (allthough obviousy the old system was too slow, even with maxed skills).
Yes i PVE, Yes i use low sec, and i'm probably biased, but no more biased than all the PKs and their rhetoric im reading in here
|
Iomar Uisdean
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 13:18:00 -
[118]
amusing thread....
Is it me, or does it seem that the folk in this thread who keep telling low sec mission runners to go back to hisec are the very same folk who keep advocating for level 4 missions to be moved to low sec?
Ok, so which is it? Mission in hi sec, where you're reasonably "safe", so long you don't do anything truly stupid? Or mission in low sec, where safety is (and probably should be) a bit more of a concern?
|
Megan Maynard
Minmatar Out of Order
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 13:24:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Exlegion Greetings fellow pilots,
Lately I've been noticing an increasing trend where I am being probed down without me ever seing combat probes on my on-board scanner (overview settings unchecked, 360 degrees, max scanning range, objects rearranged by type, etc). I haven't been "caught" yet as I am always aligned. I am also extremely paranoid in low security space. I hit the scan button every 30 to 60 seconds, more or less. I always search for combat, sisters combat, and deep space probes. This week alone I was scanned down by two different groups of pirates on two different missions both of which managed to intrude without me ever detecting a single probe!
My concern is probing players as it is has become extremely easy after the last major patch. Add this new "feature" (new at least to me) and probing down mission runners in low security space has become a golden egg which can/will quickly be 'exploited' to a point that will negatively impact low security space and all its inhabitants, including pirates themselves. IÆve had to revoke missions once they become compromised. My efficiency and profits are quickly declining and high security is becoming more and more lucrative, even though the rewards are less.
I think I have figured out on why the probes are being missed by my on-board scanner but would like someone to post the exact procedures, if it isnÆt too much to ask, on how it is done. Also, I would like to ask CCP if this is an unforeseen consequence due to the changes made to the probing system. If it is not an oversight (it is intended), would this not further desolate low security space from ôpreyö? Opinions, flames, facts, and trolls all welcome.
LOL, ever heard of SISTERS probes?
Best trick in the book, no one ever looks under "S" for combat probes. Stop, hammer time. |
Megan Maynard
Minmatar Out of Order
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 13:26:00 -
[120]
Oh and the problem isn't that low sec isn't good enough. (It is.) The problem is people are giant carebear pansies that don't want to risk anything.
It's fine the way it is. Stop, hammer time. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |