EVE Search - What is a hi-sec level 4 agent worth

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

What is a hi-sec level 4 agent worth

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Topic
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.07 21:40:00 - [1] Awesome. Though, you might want to make some change, maybe have it amount to a 23-hour day? I know, I know ... but someone is going to try to use that little slight to underhand a very accurate argument ;?j So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.07 21:40:00 - [2] Awesome. Though, you might want to make some change, maybe have it amount to a 23-hour day? I know, I know ... but someone is going to try to use that little slight to underhand a very accurate argument ;?j So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.07 21:41:00 - [3] Wow. Posted right before I did. Who would have thought that someone would come along and post the EXACT thing that I was just warning off, at the same moment? Weird. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.07 21:41:00 - [4] Wow. Posted right before I did. Who would have thought that someone would come along and post the EXACT thing that I was just warning off, at the same moment? Weird. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.07 21:43:00 - [5] Originally by: Serra Hershey Your plan is greatly flawed. A.) The server is only up 23 hours a day. B.) No one is gonna mission 23 hours a day. C.) You can't build a titan in 14 hours, Therefore I don't believe that. For a, you are correct. For b, you are wrong. Many players, be they through macro's or maybe just plain persistance, mission for 23 hours a day straight. For c, I think he meant the COST of building a titan. Let him make it clear, but I think that his intent was that you could pay the overarching cost of having one built every 14 hours. I'm sure he felt that this little fact was obvious, but I guess it's not. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.07 21:43:00 - [6] Originally by: Serra Hershey Your plan is greatly flawed. A.) The server is only up 23 hours a day. B.) No one is gonna mission 23 hours a day. C.) You can't build a titan in 14 hours, Therefore I don't believe that. For a, you are correct. For b, you are wrong. Many players, be they through macro's or maybe just plain persistance, mission for 23 hours a day straight. For c, I think he meant the COST of building a titan. Let him make it clear, but I think that his intent was that you could pay the overarching cost of having one built every 14 hours. I'm sure he felt that this little fact was obvious, but I guess it's not. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.07 21:55:00 - [7] Originally by: Dirk Magnum Just limit the number of missions a person can run with a single agent per day. Limit it to one for all I care. Problem fixed? People will still be making a lot of ISK per day if they really do mission for many hours at a stretch (ONE level 4 is about all I have patience for at a given time unless it's a really easy one), but all that flying around to go to different agents will cut into their ISK-per-hour amount. Agreed with that. Maybe make the limit higher in losec. If enough carebears get up in arms and move into losec, it'll become semi-secure, like it once was. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.07 22:03:00 - [8] The point he's bringing up is that profit made in hisec space, with no threat to you, is far higher than any player can make in losec or 0.0, just by averaging the income from level 4 missions. At least how I see it. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.07 22:18:00 - [9] Oi, trading is a completely different matter. My question is this: If they are going to make hisec the place where you make money, how come we don't have level 5 missions and 10/10 complexes there, too? Stop screwing me over. Cause there ain't no way I'd go into losec for anything but some alt-FW fun every now and again. Why would I risk a ship for something that pays far less? (P.S. I'm a carebear. At least, nowadays. I exist solely in Empire, running level 4's. I'm not arguing because I'm some PvP bully trying to get more targets. I'm arguing cause I think the system is WRONG, and needs to be balanced. Take it or leave it at that, it's your choice.) So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.07 22:58:00 - [10] Originally by: mishkof Originally by: Malcanis And my point is that 0.0 alliances are fighting for a resource that's trivial compared to the value found in high-sec. Whether that's right or wrong is for you to decide, but if you think it's right, then I'd be interested to hear your reasoning. It isnt trivial. you are crazy if you think that. Look at how many prom and dysp moons are in delve alone. The earnings per man hour spent is so much higher it isnt even funny. It is all a zero sum game. If you make 25 mil an hour in empire with no risk, and you make 60 mil in 0.0 an hour, but you lose 50% of that protecting it(lol KOS anyone), you are still making 5 mil more an hour then the empire dweller... That is a more reaslistic way to look at the balance then your OP IMO. How much is the average player in that corporation making off of those moons? What are they risking? What are their losses per month? How much does it cost to fuel capitals in defense of the system? Seems to me that a) 0.0 has a higher 'cost of living', so to speak, and b) the rare exception reap the rewards from those amazingly profitable moons. The op could have pointed out that there are traders who make billions per week playing the market. That is FAR and ABOVE the profit margin of even level 4's. But in hisec, what is your cost of living? Ammo? The two don't balance out. And let's not get into losec, which has both poor profit margins AND generally is less secure than even nulsec. Losec loses out no matter which way you look at it. It's about time CCP made losec just like hisec, to be honest. Let the PvPers play in 0.0, let the PvErs play in Empire. Set it up so that the two don't even have to interact. Maybe even go so far as the heavily tax anything going into Empire, like a trade tax, and anything coming out from Empire can be decided on my the soverignity of that particular system. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.

Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.07 23:43:00 - [11] Nor am I a pirate. In fact, I'm a level 4 mission running carebear. But having been to 0.0 way back when, and done a stint in losec, I can see perfectly clearly that missions in hisec is 'just too good', in a classic quote from 'Buddy' in the Incredibles. Lumping us all into one category with the worst players in EvE as a means of trivilising or disarming the argument won't work. The profit for the average person in high-sec, versus the average person in low-sec, is just too high, especially considering when you add losses and risk into that equation. Moon mining is comparable to trading. They are the extremes of both ... well, extremes. Mining veldspar is extremely profitable, and entirely safe, in hisec, and you can sell it instantly in the system you are working in. Mining other ores may yield slightly better profit (I'm told 'no' from channel, but I can't see how that's possible) in nulsec, but you also have to figure risk and transportation. Ratting in 0.0 is hit or miss. Sometimes it's amazingly profitable (officer modules, by chance), usually it's not. Meanwhile, as the op has PROVEN, hisec mission running is a instantly renewable, reliable, and open resource to nearly all players, and includes little room for losing a ship and high profit-per-hour. If you don't think somethings wrong with that, or you think I'm just looking at it wrong, fine. But that's the way I see it, and to me, that's not right. And again, I'm a carebear, not some pirate with an ulterior motive. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 00:29:00 - [12] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Ruze Lumping us all into one category with the worst players in EvE as a means of trivilising or disarming the argument won't work. The profit for the average person in high-sec, versus the average person in low-sec, is just too high, especially considering when you add losses and risk into that equation. But it is exactly what you and Malc do. All high sec players are in faction fitted CNR All high sec players run mission as the only thing they do All high sec players run mission 12 hours a day, farming the best missions and never doing the others So why people that disagree with you cand make the same kind of generalizations? I don't think either of us were saying 'all's and 'everyones'. He gave you some basic figures that he believes are averages. Some have chimed in and claimed lower amounts, some have chimed in and claimed higher. Nothing in his original post mentioned amazing skills, or amazing ships. Nothing in ANY of my arguments have said that all carebears are alike. We are as different as the PvP crowd. But the op tried to present the closest he could to a proof, which was, the monetary average that can be achieved by many different people using a secure and infinitely renewable resource (a.k.a. Agents). Now, as a counter point, there have been many who have tried to a) argue semantics and specifics as a mean to invalidate; or b) argue 0.0 ratting and moon mining as a means to debunk. I'm not generalizing, beyond saying that from my OWN experiences, the Ops not giving poor figures. They seem spot on, to me. There are plenty of players who do lower level mission in hisec. But the statement I responded to DID generalize. Again, it was a very poor attempt at derailing an argument, the kind of thing you see happen in legal arguments and government fiasco's all the time. The kind of arguing stance that is popular here. "Your all bastard child thieves, your just trying to get us all into losec to take our Cheetos, and this is another attempt to do so!" That obviously isn't even a very good paraphrasing, but what it comes down to is that hisec rewards greatly outweigh the time and risk involved. Even to some, the effort. Compared to losec and 0.0 rewards. Someone asks a rather rhetorical question: if hisec is so profitable, why don't big 0.0 corporations use it to conquer? But they do So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 00:54:00 - [13] Originally by: mishkof I think it is a case of I am saying that comparatively speaking hi-sec and 0.0 are balanced. Lo-sec needs a buff to a certain extent. I interpret what you are saying as hi-sec just makes to much in general. The difference is 0.0 needs a cohesive unit to fulling partake in its resources. Most people in empire are not capable of that play for what ever reason, thus they are stuck in empire indefinately. The reason hi-sec is so easily conquered by 0.0 dwellers is because much like our(to some extent) society the majority of eve players are nothing but worker bee consumers. The best players dominate the game to its full extent...does that surprise you? I'm more along to agree that there is a closer balance between hisec and 0.0 as, say, losec. There used to be a time when missioners operated out of losec alot, back when I started playing 'for real.' There were so many of them, and there were comparative 'police' corporations, that piracy was relegated to a few highway systems. There was still a danger, but there was a balance to the danger in the form of profit. Missioning in hisec was boring, for one, felt more like you were still at work, and generally gave crap isk. Salvaging imbalanced that, I believe. And I think salvaging imbalanced all of hisec as well. Somewhere along the line, the amount of modules dropped was even increased, or so I've heard. So losec somehow died out (I was out of game for a year and a half), hisec got major boosts, and 0.0 is the same old same old. I think the older balance was preferable. Nulsec was profitable, because it was destined for big risks and bigger losses. It was never meant to balance, profit-wise, with hisec. They weren't supposed to equal. And now the one outweighs the other, in my opinion, simply because of the security it offers. That's just crazy to me. In my remembrance and my own understanding, losec should be the profitable part of Empire, and 0.0 outweighs both. I firmly believed that this isn't CCPs line of thinking anymore. I've said so in numerous posts. But it doesn't change the fact that I liked the old system better. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 11:49:00 - [14] I just wish everyone would stop using moon mining as a 0.0 comparison for missions. Moon mining can more aptly be compared to trading. Done by many, but a select few bank billions off of it. And as for the other comment about corporations using hisec to bank money if it's so good? But, they do. Many corporations have many members who use alts or jump clones to grind a few missions out when they need quick cash. Especially since not every 0.0 corporation lives around a dyso moon or in a rattable zone. The next comparison I see that's flawed is that players are willing to argue the mission rewards can in fact vary greatly from player to player. What about ratting in nulsec? Doesn't that vary from player to player? If you were to assign an AVERAGE (which of course, even for the Op, has the natural flaw of requiring prolonged and accurate data), what would the average income of nulsec ratters, vs. the average income of hisec level 4 mission runners? So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 12:01:00 - [15] Originally by: McDonALTs CCP added over 100 agents since FW was released. I fail to see 17,500 extra Mission runners as OP envisioned. Therefore the OP is incorrect since Agents are not a resource, its players. Nerf players pls. I'm not certain what you are trying to prove. Where in the Ops original post or any of his replies did he say that by adding agents, it would in turn increase the number of players using them? If you actually think that this is relevant to the discussion, then by all means, I'd love to figure out what logic your using to build your counterpoints. If your intent is otherwise ... well, then I think it needs to be questioned if you should be listened to at all. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 12:32:00 - [16] Personally, I don't think the number of players using the agents, or the number of agents, is really an issue. I think that the issue is that high-quality agents are an easy way for a player to make lots of isk, risk free. What's wrong with that, you might wonder? In my opinion, I think what's wrong is that they are an infinite resource, and one that multiple players can use at the same time, for identical profit margins. I'm talking about two players talking to the same agent, not two players running in fleet together doing the same missions. What is comparable to that? What else in EvE is so abundant that everyone could use it at the same moment, for the same individual profit? So, I think that is the post behind the Ops argument, or at least that's how I see it. Missions need to be a resource, like everything else in EvE. Specifically, high-level and high-quality missions. They need to be something you compete for, something that requires you to fight off the competition to get. If you make it difficult enough that it must be fought over (not fought as in ship vs. ship, mind you), it wouldn't matter if it's 25m/hr or 100. But since there is no limit, and thus no competition for those profits, I think it is contrary to the rest of EvE. I think agents (not mining, trading, or industry) are the prime reason people are believing that they can play EvE completely without interaction with anyone else. And I think they are the sole source of this confusion. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 12:52:00 - [17] Originally by: Venkul Mul Bottom line: You think that the number of player should stop growing? Then you are right and agents should be a limited resource, so that there is no space for a growth in the number of players beyond a specific point. If the number of player should keep growing, a resource capable of sustaining them should exist. That or constantly expanding the universe to accommodate them (and this second option will become necessary the same after the population reach the critical density). PvP alone don't generate growth or produce anything, so it will not cover the need of the increased population if you cap the number of missions done. It would make EVE a more dark and desperate place. But most players can stomach only a limited quantity of dark and desperate, especially when they are the under trodden desperate. Playing the peon or the medieval peasnt has little appeal. I've respected your arguments up till now. I respect many of the ops arguments, and both of you have brought up fine points. But what I don't understand is your assessment that 'Missions' = 'Playerbase'. This game has many facets, almost all of which are limited amongst the playerbase. Limited number of asteroid belts, limited number of moons, limited number of factory slots, limited number of research positions. How are these not limiting the playerbase as well? Why should missions be unique in this? This game has been going and growing for a long time, and missions are ONLY ONE ASPECT. Is it wrong to ask that the same competitive edge that sharpens every other part of the game be applied to missions as well? Lets assume that you are not making this argument purely for the sake of keeping a very nice resource as infinite and profitable and risk free as missions. Do you honestly think that level 4 missions are the only thing that allows the game to continue to grow? Without them, is EvE dead in the water? What kind of game do we have, then? It seems that, if you are right and level 4 missions are the reason why players come to EvE, then there is a serious flaw in the game design. So if level 4 missions are infinite, I believe this patter needs to be spread througout the game. Allow any number of players to mine the same moon. Instantly respawn the best asteroids in each belt. Factory slots should be shared by everyone. Maybe then the game would grow to, I don't know, WoW porpotions? So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 12:57:00 - [18] And since when do 'number of players' equal a 'better' game? I think that is a flawed assumption. If that logic held true in real life, then China and India are the best countries in the world, bar none. I don't enjoy WoW. It can have billions of players, and I still wouldn't like the game. Does that mean I'm constantly searching for a 'worse' game? Personally, I think EvE is a FAR better game the WoW. One of the main reasons I believe this is it's realistic nature and it's competitive, sometimes cruel ethos. And while I don't think missions in any way are the 'staple' of gameplay, if they are, it should follow along with the rest of the game. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 13:33:00 - [19] The concept needs balancing, I agree. But I also think that the other methods of 'balance' are not going to be effective ... namely, suggestions of moving all level 4 missions out of hisec, or simply 'boosting' rewards in losec. There needs to be a status quo with missions that is much like veldspar is with mining. Something that is so abundant, that finding a replacement means going only a system over. I would suggest these be level 3 missions. Yes, one system may run completely out of level 3's, but finding another should never be far away. But level 4 missions, ESPECIALLY high-quality level 4 missions, should have a limit that is scalable. Be it the number of missions a player can run a day, or scaling the agent's quality to adjust as missions are performed, ending with the agent no longer giving missions. Another way is to allow them to scale their standings requirements, but that leaves players with high standings still being able to infinitely farm isk. I think that CCP is going to run into a problem with population sooner than later. If they can't convince players, somehow, to get out of their PvE mindset and enjoy the rest of EvE as it is meant to be played, they will quickly be swamped with a bunch of systems that are overfull. And with missions having such high, risk free earning potential, even players who enjoy losec and nulsec are coming to hisec to make money. It's one of the simplest and easiest, especially considering risk, ways to make money. It may not be completely equal with ratting, but it's far less stressful. So hisec gets overfull, and what is CCP's option? A single shard has never been meant to handle hundreds of thousands of players. EvE can't support WoW numbers. And especially, EvE can't support WoW's 'I'm not doing anything leave me alone' stereotypical mindset. The game wasn't designed for that. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:03:00 - [20] Trade IS limited. With NPC products, they have a limited supply per week or somesuch. With player products, the supply is obviously limited by the number of products produced. Then, demand has it's limitations as well. Missions are the ONLY facet of the player economy that are infinitely renewable. If you don't think 'easy, cheap isk' is bad, then what is wrong with a government producing as much money as it wants? Again, you should be able to log on and run a few missions, no problem. You should be able to log on and mine some veldspar, too. But if you want to be more than a casual gamer, you should be competing for the resources you want, i.e. level 4 missions and ice fields. The fact that many refuse to accept that competition is a founding principle of EvE is only CAPITULATED by missions. They don't make the game better, because they convince so many that they can 'survive without'. EvE should have casual aspects, but it should NOT be a casual game, especially if the sacrifice is just made for more subscriptions. There are enough casual games on the market, are there not? I don't think you can stop more casual, and decidedly more boring, gamers from moving from WoW to EvE. I do think it's wrong that they feel that since there are more of them, everything should cater to their wants and desires. But the game will continue to grow. I would like to see it keep some basic principles, however, without perverting it's overall design. Removing level 4 missions altogether, I feel, wouldn't help anything. But requiring competition for those nice missions and good agents, I feel, WOULD reinstate the design that EvE is player vs. player. So we disagree. Sadly, because there are more of you than me, most likely you're pocketbook will win out. So when you leave the game after four months, because your NPC lifestyle isn't enough to keep you interested, I'm SURE you will be brokenhearted that another game is ruined to suit your pandering, boring playstyle. While those who HAVE been devoted subscribers to this game for years, are ignored and pushed aside. Good thing government doesn't work that way. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.

Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:13:00 - [21] Originally by: Amateratsu Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Amateratsu It is a well known fact that the majority of eve's playerbase live in highsec.. Why? Because the majority of players play eve to relax and have fun doing whatever is it they enjoy doing in the game, with out having to worry about other players trying to blow them up all the time. Proof please. I've provided evidence that it could well be because of purely economic reasons. You only need to look at eyjog's (or whatever his name is) economic report for prove that the majority of players live in highsec. Why they live in highsec is open for debate, but the fact is they do. therefore ccp must cater to the needs of those players. Why must it, though? What if CCP has sufficiently catered to the needs of those players, and yet those players refuse to take the steps necessary to reach the catering? CCP will eventually have to dumb down the game to cater to those who are too weak, cowardly, or simply don't have enough initiative to go out and achieve what they want. Most of the world wants everything handed to them. Should we cater to these individuals too? EvE is fun for many. But if CCP wants more subscriptions, there are a lot of things in EvE that will have to change immensely. What are YOU willing to have changed to cater to the broader and decidedly stupider audience? Let's go all the way, and really cater to the masses. Ships shouldn't be destroyed when you die, because a casual gamer doesn't want to have to hassle to replace them. CCP should seed the market with all kinds of player ships and modules, that way noone can 'take over the market' and thus cause others issues. Astroid belts should be infinite. Factory and research slots should work just like Agents, and thus be unlimited, so there are no players having to fight for these valuable resources. And players should be capped to an effective SP limit, so that there are no players completely outdoing any others. Let's continue to cater. Let's continue to bend EvE for the broadest playerbase. And to coin a phrase I hate and that is often overused, let's make 'WoW' in space. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:18:00 - [22] Let EvE continue to sacrifice it's principles to keep the playerbase happy. Just like a good politician. Then all of a sudden, you look at EvE and go "why am I playing this game again?" So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:27:00 - [23] True on the waiting on the devs. Personally, I don't think a lot of the devs changes are directed at 'pleasing the playerbase' directly. Specifically those I've seen since coming back, like the upcoming nano nerf and the suicide fix. The prior seems more like a problem that's happening on the database, and the latter seems like common sense. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:40:00 - [24] Originally by: Exlegion Originally by: Esmenet They should be catering to the game as a whole so that it is balanced in terms with the vision of the game. That used to be a competitive game with a balance of risk/reward. CCP is balancing the game. And Eve is catering to the game as a whole. But there are still those who insist in CCP not to cater players who decide to play the game in a different style than theirs. There are players that insist in their right to ruin these players' fun because their own fun depends on the misery of others. They insist that is their right to impose their right unto others. And in Eve you can do that; mostly in low sec and 0.0. But that's not enough for them. They want their own views imposed to those living in high sec as well. I see the point you are trying to make, and I'll make a different one: I believe that players should be able to exist in highsec, risk free. I don't see anything wrong with running NPC missions or mining. I do it myself. I'm not a pirate, and the only time I've ever 'ganked' anyone was during legitimate fleet ops. I've never had a negative sec on any of my characters. I don't enjoy others misery, and am perfectly willing to help out on missions or with advice if I know it. So what class do I fall under in your categorization? I don't think that high-quality missions, the missions I myself do all the time, should be an infinite resource. I think all levels of this game, besides missions, require competition. I don't think missions should be different. And if I come across the time when I can't do missions in highsec? I'll get a couple buddies, friends I've made in this great MMO, probably try to include one or two 'reluctants' as well (just to prove the point), and I'll make forays into losec. So you want your own corner of space where nobody can harm you? That's great. But in the rest of this universe, there is no such thing. If your world is different, why should it also be infinitely profitable with little or no competition and risk? Why do you have to have all the bells and whistles, when you refuse to do what the rest of us have had to do: go outside our comfort zone? Play your game, great, wonderful. If you love it, if you enjoy it, that's great too. But having the developers change the founding principle of the game so you can casually be a mutli-billionaire with the finest, untouchable ships? I think that's being just a tad arrogant. Trying to lump anyone who opposes you into the same category of 'griefers' and slimebags is an underhanded and immature tactic that I would expect to see in a political debate, but not a reasonably discussion. Maybe I'm reading your words wrong. If I am, then I am wrong. But if I'm not ... So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:49:00 - [25] That's my prime argument, and it has little relation to this post: There are players who want it all, who want to earn the best isk and fly the best ships, but don't want to have to be 'forced' to compete or earn to get it. "Let us play the game as we like", they say. But every isk they make inflates the economy. Every mass of modules they refine hurt the industrial professions, which ARE hampered by limited resources. Every ship they buy is almost guaranteed to last for the length of their ownership. About they only things they have to expend are for ammo. Everything else is bank. My argument is that nothing in this game should be so simple and easy. I don't play EvE to play with WoW mission miners who exist only for themselves. If I wanted to play those games, I WOULD be playing them. Instead, over two years ago (closer to three), I decided to come back and play EvE, which was much like real life. What had to be gained and gotten, you had to go and get. Now the playerbase wants coddling? Like children? I despise games like WoW BECAUSE of their simplicity, their ignorant nativity, and because they are designed for the lowest common denominator of the playerbase, the poor smucks who want the world handed to them and don't want to achieve for it. I love EvE because it is different. And I think missions need to reflect that difference along with everything else. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:06:00 - [26] I think you are absolutely right, Exlegion. There is a small group of 'griefers', or forummongers with so-called 'griefer' alts who like to stir up sarcastic remarks (raises hand). These guys call for all types of extremes. The other side is just as bad. They are what I like to call 'bums', who don't want to do anything that might involve actual combat with another player. They want everything the game has, but they want to do it safely, with no non-consensual PvP. They repeatedly ignore the fact that it's a player-run market, thinking it is just like the markets of many other games, with NPC items seeded everywhere, and players selling to NPC's as much as other players. Both call for ridiculous things. If anything, they should be ignored. Instead, many posters will classify anyone who disagrees with them as the opposite, so that they can try to invalidate a logical argument that they don't agree with. I try to point out that, when I see it, but it's a tactic that's as prevalent in politics and courtrooms as it is in video games. Exist in safety. That's fine. Like I said, lately I've been doing it too (I almost got killed in a prophecy in a level 2 mission when I first came back, I was so out of practice). But don't try to argue that a highsec player can 'do his own thing' and NOT have an effect on every other player. Our economy doesn't work that way. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:13:00 - [27] Originally by: Nogap toosmall You can call Eve many things, simple is not a word I would choose. While I kind of admire your wish for the game to remain raw and hardcore, it can for you if you want it to Just because some idiot mission runner can horde oodles and oodles of cash..so what? They do not get to see the advanced side of the game (0.0) Ever Sure they can buy T2 cruisers and modules but they are all made with mats from low sec that some enterprising soul has sold to them...the market self corrects in that way. If your a low sec player, T2 is potentially very cheap, if your a high sec player its nearly always very expensive. On the other hand, it also it seems to me that an awful lot of people bankroll their 0.0 exploits with highsec alts, now it does suck that this is needed and I would support a correction of this, but nerfing high sec agents wont accomplish that. More stuff needs to be given to null and low sec to make the draw of it so inticing that people cant resist, that way everyones a winner That's the point of misunderstanding between both crowds. Mission runners DO have a massive effect on the economy of all of EvE. From the modules they loot and sell, to the modules they loot and reprocess to ore and sell, to the money they make from bounties and missions and use on the market, to the LP they make which is then turned into premade items or BPC's. All of these effects happen with little or no 'risk'. Ships are rarely lost. If your Amarr, you don't even use ammo. Your agents are limiteless. You don't compete for any missions. Your overall interaction with other players APPEARS to be minimal. This is where I raise the flag. Because a missioner is not minding his own business, unless he's running around in a ship earned ONLY through LP or missions (like one of the meta 1 or 2 frigates), and using modules that are ONLY looted, including ammo. Otherwise, you have an effect. EvE may seem lonely, but it's actually a thriving world that relies on your contribution. I would like to see missions reflect the rest of EvE in that regard, so that players aren't so quick to forget that this is a realistic, complicated MMO. I don't want hardcore. If I wanted hardcore(tm), I'd go play against CounterStrike or something. But I don't want EvE to be a single-player game with a chatroom, either. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:22:00 - [28] Originally by: Lord WarATron This is the most ****ed thread I have read in a long time. Missions are limited by TIME. Currently, mining ice is limited by TIME. Moon mining is limited by TIME. Trading those NPC goods, which are in infinite supply, is limited by TIME. PvPing in noobships is Limited by TIME. Killing rats in belts is limited by TIME. Competing for resources? Give me a break. The low value resources exist so people can get a foothold. Missions paying out even 25mil/hour is begger money. Missions, NPC trading and a few other things exist in infinite supply because they are of low value. If you think 25mil/hour is high then you are probebly the type of person who thinks making ú1 a hour in RL a mighty sum. Get over the insurance nerf. I have never seen these forums hit this level of ***edness in a long TIME. Wow. I wasn't arguing insurance nerf. Were any of you other gents arguing the insurance nerf? I disagree on the limit of time. While time has it's effect, there are many other limits in this game, including supply and demand. Take veldspar, for instance. The most common asteroid, but because of current market imbalance, also the most profitable to mine. It's one thing to disagree. I, personally, think your just trying to insult and get your picture seen by people as someone who can 'finalize' the discussion. And for MANY players, 25mil/hr is very good money. Please contribute, if you wish. Calling us rtards, though, is no contribution. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:35:00 - [29] Originally by: Nogap toosmall Originally by: Ruze That's the point of misunderstanding between both crowds. Mission runners DO have a massive effect on the economy of all of EvE. From the modules they loot and sell, to the modules they loot and reprocess to ore and sell, to the money they make from bounties and missions and use on the market, to the LP they make which is then turned into premade items or BPC's. All of these effects happen with little or no 'risk'. Ships are rarely lost. If your Amarr, you don't even use ammo. Your agents are limiteless. You don't compete for any missions. Your overall interaction with other players APPEARS to be minimal. This is where I raise the flag. Because a missioner is not minding his own business, unless he's running around in a ship earned ONLY through LP or missions (like one of the meta 1 or 2 frigates), and using modules that are ONLY looted, including ammo. Otherwise, you have an effect. EvE may seem lonely, but it's actually a thriving world that relies on your contribution. I would like to see missions reflect the rest of EvE in that regard, so that players aren't so quick to forget that this is a realistic, complicated MMO. I don't want hardcore. If I wanted hardcore(tm), I'd go play against CounterStrike or something. But I don't want EvE to be a single-player game with a chatroom, either. I see your point, but you cannot really expect CCP to limit what goes on in high sec insofar as materials/isk is concerned. It would just kill that side of the game. What I would happily support and think is more useful would be an increase in the content, tech and materials available in 0.0. More stuff like bubble blowers, and bombs that are only useable in null sec, so they cannot be purchased or at least used in high sec. In short something to tempt the masses with all their hardware and isk into 0.0, sound fair? Firstly, I want to counter by saying that I don't think you can really expect CCP to allow what goes on in hisec to be contrary to every other part of the game, just on the excuse that somehow players just couldn't exist or have fun without that infinitely renewable resource called level 4 missions. I don't think it would kill anything, but I do think it would reinforce that EvE is, in fact, multiplayer oriented and challenging. Then again, I do agree that things need to be done in 0.0 to draw players there. Sov needs an overhaul, big time, but I don't have enough experience to come up with anything, meself. Losec needs looked at. There needs to be something to entice players to go there, build a corp, and protect themselves. All kinds of 'CONCORD initiatives' come to mind that could offer free corporate offices, etc, etc. The real breadth is not to 'draw players into pirates grasp', but to draw players from the safe - but limited - hisec into the less safe, but more profitable and challenging losec and 0.0. A bunch of solo players running in losec will do nothing but exactly what has been predicted ... give pirates and the crueler 'griefers' targets. It needs to hold a different orientation. And, overall, losec needs it's rewards increased pretty substantially. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:47:00 - [30] It's been said in many of the replies. One of the solutions we've discussed is to limit the number of missions one can do each day. I'm not as fond of this one myself. The ones I am fond of are decreasing agent quality with each mission ANY player runs with him. So any agent starts off with a high-quality, and will decrease either throughout the day or the week or whatever the timeline, so that each time any player does a mission, it steadily goes down. The other solution is that the agent requires certain standings in order to give missions, and with each mission performed by all players, his standing requirements raise up. This is the idea I proposed, and I don't like it so much anymore. The problem, as you asked, is that missions are infinite and reproducable, unlike any other resource in EvE. I do believe that some level 2's, or maybe level 3's, should be 'near-infinite', like veldspar, so that if you need to make money, they are always available in your system or one or two over. But level 4's should have some requirement for competition, be it 'first-come-first-serve' (like asteroids, research and factory slots, trading, etc), or skill based. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.

Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:52:00 - [31] Originally by: Somealt Ofmine Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 08/08/2008 15:45:28 Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 08/08/2008 15:43:44 Your basic point of misunderstanding is that you lack a basic understanding of economics. Missions are neutral to deflationary, economically. Missions are both an isk faucet (bounties, rewards) and a materials faucet (modules, rig parts, LP store stuff). The isk they generate out of thin air tends to be inflationary. The materials they generate out of thin air tend to be deflationary. Just about any mission runner will tell you that they get as much or more in loot, salvage, and LP "stuff" as they do in rewards and bounties. Quote: All of these effects happen with little or no 'risk'. Ships are rarely lost. If your Amarr, you don't even use ammo. Your agents are limiteless. You don't compete for any missions. Your overall interaction with other players APPEARS to be minimal. Yep. And the economic effect is that it MODERATES the economy by keeping the flow of isk and mats running relatively smoothly regardless of who is blowing up whom out in 0.0. The effect chronic warfare in 0.0, by itself, would be massively INFLATIONARY due to vast quantities of mats (mostly trit which is scarce in 0.0) going "poof". You can't salvage the trit back out of a wreck. If CCP threw a switch tomorrow and made all of Eve 0.0 except for a little "starter island" that you could only stay in until you finished the tutorial (which is how it is in some other games), there would be an economic effect, but you probably wouldn't like it much. As much as it butt-hurts your PvPer's soul, the EvE economy really does need all those missioners, traders, and empire builders chugging away to keep running smoothly. Quote: This is where I raise the flag. Because a missioner is not minding his own business, unless he's running around in a ship earned ONLY through LP or missions (like one of the meta 1 or 2 frigates), and using modules that are ONLY looted, including ammo. So? What effect do you think that has, other than making you envious and wishing you could blow them up? Quote: Otherwise, you have an effect. EvE may seem lonely, but it's actually a thriving world that relies on your contribution. I would like to see missions reflect the rest of EvE in that regard, so that players aren't so quick to forget that this is a realistic, complicated MMO. An empire players are contributing, massively, to an economy that is remarkably stable and healthy as MMOs go. It is complicated, and no slight intended, maybe a little too complicated for you. How about you just play the game like you want to play it, and let others do the same? There isn't any economic basis for your arguments. There is a "it makes me mad that I can't PvP those guys" argument, but that's a different argument. If it makes you mad that there's no way to PvP that guy tooling around in Empire in his CNR, easy solution is don't come to empire. There is an economic basis for my arguments. You just don't agree with that. Fine. But then you continually insult me as, what, proof to your argument? What's that last part, about 'it just makes me mad' bit? How many of the replies have you actually read, or are you just jumping into the discussion with the one tooled reply that you can murk up an argument for? I think my argument is reasonable AND economically sound. And if I didn't know better, and I may be wrong, but I think you might be arguing just because you don't like the idea of someone taking away you golden goose. Again, if I'm wrong about my assumption to your personal drive in this argument, I'm wrong, and I hope you say so. And if I'm not ... So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:07:00 - [32] Originally by: Somealt Ofmine Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 08/08/2008 15:59:17 Originally by: Ruze I think my argument is reasonable AND economically sound. And if I didn't know better, and I may be wrong, but I think you might be arguing just because you don't like the idea of someone taking away you golden goose. Again, if I'm wrong about my assumption to your personal drive in this argument, I'm wrong, and I hope you say so. And if I'm not ... What effect on the economy do you think mission runners have, and what is you basis for thinking so? I told you why, exactly, their effect is neutral to deflationary. I told you why having an "empire" in game moderates the economy and keeps it from going through catistrophic disruptions and swings. Why do you think otherwise? In this particular case, my personal drive is to dispell a red-hering argument for moving L4 missions to low-sec. "Cause we want more easy targets in Low Sec" is a legitimate, valid argument, though I may disagree with it. "Cause mission runners hurt the economy" is falacious, and I told you why. If you disagree, I'd love to hear the economics behind the basis of your disagreement. I think that mission runners unnaturally bolster the economy. Both modules and isk are inflationary products of isk, as the modules are NOT produced by the playerbase, and both are sold by the missioner for wealth, with no contribution by himself besides time. While you obviously haven't kept up with any of the other threads which addressed these same topics, I say again that I'm a carebear, who spends all his time doing level 4 missions. This is not an argument to garner up more victims, and trying to classify me and this whole discussion as that is a weak and baseless tactic used by those who can't come up with a better counter. The stuff you see in bad politics. And, I think missions are COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to the game design, which pits player against player in ALL aspects, EXCEPT missions. Every other aspect of EvE reflects a semi-realistic approach to competition and drive. But many players are now being confused, because they mistakenly believe that everything should be provided for them, as long as they don't shoot at another player. This is a gross generalization, of course, and saying that everyone who is against changing missions to make them harder/scaleable/rarer/less profitable are bums who want the world handed to them without any interaction with anyone else is on the same level as saying that everyone who is arguing FOR missions to be changed want nothing but more grief targets because they don't have the b*lls to fight fair. While there ARE griefers, and there ARE bums, they are hopefully a minority. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:45:00 - [33] I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't see how having one part of the game seem independent of all other players helps new players become aclimatized with EvE. I think it just convinces them that there's no reason to do more, because they can just do level 4 missions and have great ships and own everything and simply use the chat channels like an instant messenger. Players easily forget, because missions are a copy from every other game. While the rest of EvE is not. The rest of EvE teaches you that competition can be fierce, that to survive you have to struggle for it, and if you just want to 'get by', you'll always remain weaker and poorer. But whereas a new industrialist has to compete to get factory slots, or research slots, or a new miner has to compete to get good ores (arguably less of a competition with the artificial rise of veld prices); whereas pirates have to compete with one another over prime flight lanes, and the colonizers in nulsec have to compete with each other over territory ... Missioners just ... exist. They are the worker bee's. But whereas other professions that just exist usually don't get much to show for it, missioners collect faction fittings and major ships, collect billions of isk (which, for many, are then sent off to PvP mains). There are plenty of games in the world that just allow you to exist. But as missions are the only part of EvE that does that, and as we draw more crowd from games like WoW, we draw more of the 'bum' persona, the players that are too cowardly, weak or timid to compete, and who believe that because of their numbers, they should be the ones who are favored. I don't want to see missions removed. I do think that they provide too much reward, but it's more of an issue that there is no comparative profession that can provide that much reward, with that much security, with that little effort. Even trading requires more effort than missioning. Players who come from other games should not expect a free boat, or to simply 'exist' because they bother no one else. EvE has never been about that, at least for as long as I've played. Somehow that's changed in the last year, because now they cry 'leave us alone', and more players hole up on hisec and refuse to engage in the rest of the game, yet come to the forums and drop petitions declaring their boredom. IF CCP caters to this crowd, as you seem to wish, why not go all the way? Why not give completely coddle the player so that they can have all the ships and fittings, without ever playing the rest of the game? EvE used to challenge the playerbase. So many get that perverted, and think challenge = pvp combat. No! EvE is about the struggle between player vs. player, be it combat, trade, manufacture or research. It's focused on the challenge. If you want a casual gaming experience where everything can be handed to you for free, there are other games, mainly WoW. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:49:00 - [34] Originally by: mishkof Edited by: mishkof on 08/08/2008 16:36:03 Originally by: Ruze I just wish everyone would stop using moon mining as a 0.0 comparison for missions. Moon mining can more aptly be compared to trading. Done by many, but a select few bank billions off of it. And as for the other comment about corporations using hisec to bank money if it's so good? But, they do. Many corporations have many members who use alts or jump clones to grind a few missions out when they need quick cash. Especially since not every 0.0 corporation lives around a dyso moon or in a rattable zone. The next comparison I see that's flawed is that players are willing to argue the mission rewards can in fact vary greatly from player to player. What about ratting in nulsec? Doesn't that vary from player to player? If you were to assign an AVERAGE (which of course, even for the Op, has the natural flaw of requiring prolonged and accurate data), what would the average income of nulsec ratters, vs. the average income of hisec level 4 mission runners? When comparing the resources and income available you have to include moons. The complaints are about risk versus reward and moons are part of the reward of 0.0. They are part of the package. We are comparing level 4 mission running with other sources of income right? Or are we just whining about how much carebears make in general? With regards to trading, there are only a couple ways to nerf that. Taxes, and less players. One of those isnt reaslly an option...at least I would hope not. Traders take risk, and provide a service, people could just always shop in Jita and trading would cease to exist. I am still waiting for someone to come up with a risk assesment calulator. As far as I am concerned when making money, there are good and bad players. Moon mining was compared to trading, both nearly risk free, usually done poorly by many, but with a few individuals making amazing amounts of money. Missioning was compared to the other resource that is fairly evenly distributed across 0.0 ... ratting. As such, ratting is hit or miss. The frequency of rats, the modules dropped, the competition for those same rats ... you could make huge money, but lots of people don't. The main difference in those two comparisons is that one is a infinite resource that is entirely safe, can be 'relied' upon, and does not require other logistical details to make profit. Nulsec ratting is none of those. Comparing moon mining in this profit equation to npc mission running is not an equivalent comparison. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:54:00 - [35] Originally by: Dave Davies Originally by: Ruze Both modules and isk are inflationary products of isk This is incorrect. For a great example, see rogue drones. Drones carry no bounties and you can't do anything with drone loot but refine it to raw minerals; therefore, drones are not ISK faucets and are material faucets. CCP introduced a massive amount of drone loot into the economy when they opened up the Drone Regions; the effect was heavily deflationary on mineral prices, particularly high ends. More recently CCP adjusted the refining yield of a single drone compound. Whereas it used to yield mexallon and some megacyte, it now yields more mexallon than it used to and zero megacyte. The impact of this change on the economy was immediately noticeable: the price of megacyte went up by -- what, about 30%? -- while the price of mexallon dropped by just under 15%. Increased supply of a given commodity tends to decrease its sale price and the sale prices of all other products that depend on the price of said commodity. Therefore loot drops from L4 missions tend to have the same effect, though not quite as dramatic as the opening of the Drone Regions. It would be next to impossible for L4 missions to be absolutely neutral in terms of inflationary effect due to the variables involved, but in theory somealt ofmine is correct and in practice the scales probably don't tip very far toward whichever direction they actually favor. That's a fair correction, and I'm wrong. To reword my argument, then, is that a mission runner competes, through the selling of modules or the reprocessing of those modules into minerals for sale, with industrialists who are forced to compete to mine or build their product. As the market of many games has proven, missions and quests can and do wholesale replace player-driven industry. But in the light of what you said, I realize that I was wrong in my original argument, and will even agree with Alt that mission running does provide and awkward counterbalance to the economy. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 17:00:00 - [