Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zhelavar
Gallente CONsordium Infinate
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 13:49:00 -
[31]
High End content for me is going to be building the bigger ships and wider trading. I'm not seeing much PvP in my endgame. I'm not saying I won't find it engaging and fun when it happens, but I don't see PvP being a big slice of my pie in the future.
|
nahtoh
Caldari Bull Industries
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 14:23:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Double TaP there are plenty of ways to pvp in jita without losing your ship. it just involves freighters instead of guns. would like to say this though:
LEVEL 4 MISSIONS SHOULD BE LOW SEC ONLY.
Then make low secgate camping impossable then, you actualy have to probe out mission runners instead of sitting on your ass waiting for them to jump into the system...
Or put the rewards back up to what they used to be... ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
Aeina Caeraen
Caldari Eve Defence Force
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 14:27:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Aeina Caeraen on 08/08/2006 14:27:44 It's kind of a pointless argument when, because of the way EVE is configured, "High End Content" and "PvP" are the same thing.
(Please note I'm not simply talking about "PvP combat")
|
Moghydin
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 14:32:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Sergeant Spot NPC hunting, mining and missions are all zero risk for a player who is able to pay attention and knows what he is doing. Even in 0.0. No risk.
Fighting other players is where risk resides.
QFT. It's summarizes the best possible way the false formula of risk vs reward in high vs low sec. It was exactly my alliance experience when I was in an alliance, and my alliance din't have as strong grip on its territory as BoB has. Actually it was a war time in the war, we were slowly losing. And again, most of the time it was nearly ZERO risk.
|
Zeknichov
Amarr Black Avatar
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 15:32:00 -
[35]
Yes PvP should be required.
|
Rab
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 15:43:00 -
[36]
As far as I was aware, highest end content was in pvp only areas. 8/10 to 10/10 complexes being the highest end. Level 4 missions seems pretty far from those, or does this apply to all level 4 missions or only combat ones?
This post seems to be asking instead: should highest end solo play and and mid-level group play level 4 missions and perhaps any complex past 4/10 be high sec?
Which is another statement of: My game is fine, its great, honest, but can you change other peoples to suit mine a bit more?
Lets hope instead they add some higher end than the higher end that low-sec has already, that way you can perhaps tempt more out without forcing people into a new game than the one they presently play.
- 4 month old carebear -
|
digitalwanderer
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 15:58:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Infinity Ziona The whole Risk is greater in 0.0 is untrue. And the argument to nerf level 4 missions to low sec is silly.
Empire wars are just as risking as 0.0 wars. In fact they are probably riskier since you cannot do anything about spies, bumping, the large amounts of people in systems obscuring local and are very restricted when it comes to ships and modules (no dreads, carriers, interdictors, bubbles, smartbombs, bursts).
I fight solo vs 10 - 200 player corporations and have had battles where I am outnumbered 9 - 1.
To hear these Risk Vs Rewards arguments makes me want to vomit and laugh at the same time considering what I hear about the blobbing, logging on and off and other obvious cowardly exploits they 0.0 crowd use.
We empire people pay the same money that you 0.0 people pay, we take the same risks (if you dont think ships die in empire check the map) and we get ripped off by CCP when it comes to content.
While I feel you can take those capital ships and shove them where the sun doesnt shine I wont stand by and say I am happy or agree with the retarded ideas and pre-nerfs that are applied to empire (including he aforementioned capital ships).
If CCP wants to limit content they should probably offer a gold and silver subscription. Gold and you get to go to 0.0 space and get the new content and Silver you are stuck in empire. Fine by me I'll take a Silver please.
Infinity Ziona
All i can say after reading that is....AMEN
|
digitalwanderer
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2006.08.08 16:02:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Eilie
Originally by: Infinity Ziona The whole Risk is greater in 0.0 is untrue. And the argument to nerf level 4 missions to low sec is silly.
Empire wars are just as risking as 0.0 wars. In fact they are probably riskier since you cannot do anything about spies, bumping, the large amounts of people in systems obscuring local and are very restricted when it comes to ships and modules (no dreads, carriers, interdictors, bubbles, smartbombs, bursts).
I fight solo vs 10 - 200 player corporations and have had battles where I am outnumbered 9 - 1.
To hear these Risk Vs Rewards arguments makes me want to vomit and laugh at the same time considering what I hear about the blobbing, logging on and off and other obvious cowardly exploits they 0.0 crowd use.
We empire people pay the same money that you 0.0 people pay, we take the same risks (if you dont think ships die in empire check the map) and we get ripped off by CCP when it comes to content.
While I feel you can take those capital ships and shove them where the sun doesnt shine I wont stand by and say I am happy or agree with the retarded ideas and pre-nerfs that are applied to empire (including he aforementioned capital ships).
If CCP wants to limit content they should probably offer a gold and silver subscription. Gold and you get to go to 0.0 space and get the new content and Silver you are stuck in empire. Fine by me I'll take a Silver please.
Infinity Ziona
Yea, cause people don't try to exploit, log off, etc in Empire Wars...
They do,but we're talking pure risk vs rewards,and adding a few content issues as well,wich i agree conpletely with btw...
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |