| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
    |
Posted - 2008.08.08 16:45:00 -
[271]
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. |
Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 16:48:00 -
[272]
Increasing 0.0 space is definately something that should be looked at. Preferrably with a revamp of sov mechanics to allow smaller alliances to establish themselves in 0.0 without having to rent space or NAP 12 neighbouring alliances to survive.
This 0.0 expansion should also come with a similar low sec expansion, and a general boost to 0.0/low sec rewards and/or a significant nerf to high sec rewards. Make space bigger and with a lot more entry points to low sec/0.0. This should have the effect of spreading the population out, leading to a relative safety for carebears in low sec/0.0, while at the same time not nerfing piracy at all. More targets in low sec. More money to be made. Everyone's happy.
|
Lord WarATron
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 16:49:00 -
[273]
You are asking for a solution to a problem that does not exist.
Please clearly define what the problem is, who has been harmed and what the solution is. Anything else does not move anybody forward.
--
Billion Isk Mission |
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 16:49:00 -
[274]
 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. |
mishkof
Caldari
Finis Lumen
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 16:51:00 -
[275]
Originally by: Ruze
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.
I will agree with one thing. Missions need to drop no T1 loot, only named.
Of course this would be a boost to miners, not manufacturers. If you look at the transactions of T1 loot it is pretty much univerally sold for reprocessing, there isny a whole lot of demand for many T1 meta 0 modules.
I would also agree that shifting some of the liquid ISK reward to LP items could be beneficial. No problem.
However, I think income from missions is important to the game play as a whole. It allows people to get a foot hold, and it allows people to recoup and rebuild(albeit slower then 0.0) after extensive campaigning, more specificaly getting the shit kicked out of them. That way they can line up an dod it again.
I own a T2 BPO and Capital alt, therefor all of my views will be pro-Capital Alt/T2 BPO orientated. Please pick one of the following settings for your response.
[]hate me
[]troll me
[]smack me |
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 16:54:00 -
[276]
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 -
[277]
I'm not a huge fan of taking the bulk profit out of missions, just to make that clear. But adding competition and limiting the supply of BETTER missions, I believe, is in keeping with the game design and would help instill the 'principles of EvE' that I see touted so often.
Missioners make money, cool. But as more and more players come into the game, what will happen? Will the game become flooded by extremely wealthy missioners who have negligible losses and who can out 'produce' any of the industry-oriented professions?
Some say that, to fix this, move all level 4's to losec. I don't think this works, because as one person pointed out, if you don't want to fight, your going to just do level 3's, then quit.
I also think that the mission rut needs to be alleviated, so that players have a reason to gang up, corp up, and go into lowsec. A reason to vary their experience and gameplay. Maybe to persue wealth. Maybe to own better ships. But the game should EXPAND outward, not tower up in the heart, with the rest left to 'those other types'.
So you want security? That's perfectly alright.
But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security. |
mishkof
Caldari
Finis Lumen
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 17:02:00 -
[278]
Edited by: mishkof on 08/08/2008 17:02:40
Originally by: Ruze
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.
You cannot pick and choose the reources that are available in different areas of eve.
Moon mins are "NPC" generated. Demand for tradiing (at least 99% of it at this point) is not. It is a service provided to other players where no additional materials or ISK is brought into the game.
The complaint of the OP is 105 billion ISK is made over the course of 24 hours. This is to much for high sec. Add mining to this and these are sources of hi-sec rewards with little, or reduced risk this fall.
As compared to ratting, complexing, mining, and moons of 0.0. All involves more risk but are rewarded.
These activites inject materials into the game and come as a total package of income that can be done solo if need be.
Trading is the pinnacle of multiplayer mode IMO, and cannot be comared to any of the above incomes. At no point besides taxes(actually taking wealth away) is a non-player involved in the ISK making. Since it is completely player driven it could in theory be unvailble as an income source tomorrow without any intervention from CCP at all.
I own a T2 BPO and Capital alt, therefor all of my views will be pro-Capital Alt/T2 BPO orientated. Please pick one of the following settings for your response.
[]hate me
[]troll me
[]smack me |
Tippia
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 17:04:00 -
[279]
Originally by: Altpause
There is also the fact that he is using a "cheap faction fit CNR" for his model and omits the needed standings and social and other skills for this. I don't know any normal players that can reach this within 6 months without buying accounts.
I get annoyed when I see these inflated figures posted as fact.
It's not inflated. A 6-month character can certainly get that far. I did, and I spent my first time in ≡v≡ getting into a Hulk…
|
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 17:10:00 -
[280]
Originally by: Malcanis
For the moment it just seems wrong that hi-sec is capable of generating so much ISK compared to 0.0. 0.0 simply cannot support players at anything like the density of hi-sec. Now arguably that's as it should be, but if we want to see the devs vision of people moving into null-sec realised, then we will have to see something change.
Null-sec doesn't look underpopulated to me. In fact, looks to me like the "no vacancy" sign is lit fairly brightly. You've got political mega-blocs that are able to field dozens to hundreds of capital ships.
Quote:
For the moment, a solution I favour is a LARGE expansion of 0.0 - 4 regions of NPC sov with especially good access to empire (at least 10 lo-sec gates each), high station density, and mediocre ratting; and 12 regions of non-trash quality 0.0 sov.
I'd also like to see a significant increase in the frequency of 0.0 exploration sites. Most of these aren't much better than level 4 missions, but they're a LOT more difficult and time-consuming to find.
Bud, the folks running missions in high-sec, for the most part, are someone's alt, or they are players who just plain don't like getting shot at in the first place.
If one thing has been proven over time, again and again, it's that Null-sec is no place for you unless you primaryinterest is PvP. If your primary interest isn't PvP, you'll just be the biotch and punching bag for those for whom it is. If your primary interest isn't PvP, you don't belong out there.
If CCP wants people to pay 14.95 to play this game whose primary interest isn't PvP, they'll either have to do some fairly significant re-thinking of how 0.0 works, or continue to provide a progression path for their characters in Empire. If they don't care whether anyone but PvPers sign up, yeah, they should turn Empire into a "starter island" and be done with it.
Quote:
And finally, I really think the time has come to remove reprocessed minerals as a significant reward from missioning. It's about time the miners were thrown a bone.
You've never played an MMO other than Eve, have you? Now, you talk about disrupting the economy, there you go. What we really need in the game is massive stacks of trash-loot that nobody wants with no way to use it. What's the answer? Why, have NPCs buy it, of course. Net result = hyper-inflation, bud, unless you are talking about having rats drop no loot. You could do that, but all you're doing then is providing an incentive for people to stop missioning/ratting and start mining. If they will, you'll balance. If they won't (cause they find it boring) you'll upset the mineral supply, and probably have to boost mining yields to compensate, and then of course there'll be 5,000 threads about how miners are getting too rich.
Quote:
I realise that moving L4s to lo sec is by now politically impossible for CCP, however desirable it may seem, but missions generate rewards in the form of ISK, standing, LP, salvage and named item loot as it is. Removing minerals from the equation will at least stop pure missioners from being completely insulated from the rest of the player base. It's a minor nerf (many missioners don't bother to loot) and could be thought of as balancing the proposed increase in hi-sec safety.
Oh, you are talking about making them not refinable. Unless you are going to have NPCs buy them, might as well just remove them. They'll just rot.
Quote:
At the moment the above thoughts are merely tentative, and I recognise that they're by no means original or perfect. I'd be happy to see your ideas.
You have to think about how any potential change would balance, and the incentives and disincentives it would provide, both in terms of what to do, and whether it's attractive for some players to play at all.
|
|
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 17:10:00 -
[281]
Originally by: mishkof
Edited by: mishkof on 08/08/2008 17:02:40
You cannot pick and choose the reources that are available in different areas of eve.
Moon mins are "NPC" generated. Demand for tradiing (at least 99% of it at this point) is not. It is a service provided to other players where no additional materials or ISK is brought into the game.
The complaint of the OP is 105 billion ISK is made over the course of 24 hours. This is to much for high sec. Add mining to this and these are sources of hi-sec rewards with little, or reduced risk this fall.
As compared to ratting, complexing, mining, and moons of 0.0. All involves more risk but are rewarded.
These activites inject materials into the game and come as a total package of income that can be done solo if need be.
Trading is the pinnacle of multiplayer mode IMO, and cannot be comared to any of the above incomes. At no point besides taxes(actually taking wealth away) is a non-player involved in the ISK making. Since it is completely player driven it could in theory be unvailble as an income source tomorrow without any intervention from CCP at all.
Another thing to point out is that moon mining is not an infinite resource, in the sense that it not only requires a POS to be built and fueling to be organized, but there is a very limited supply of 'good' moons, and those can only be harvested by one player/corp at a time.
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 17:14:00 -
[282]
Oh, and I have personally seen as many carebears in 0.0 as in hisec. There are warzones, but there is space that is nearly as secure as Empire. The big difference is that players MAKE these spaces secure, while players rely on CCP to make them secure in hisec.
From complexes to ratting to moon mining and major industry corps, 0.0 is fraught with carebears 
And those corporations who have bad parts of space, of which there are many? They either jump clone or use alts and grind in hisec 
(I get five points for using 'fraught' in a sentence, right?)
So you want security? That's perfectly alright.
But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security. |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 17:16:00 -
[283]
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
Null-sec doesn't look underpopulated to me. In fact, looks to me like the "no vacancy" sign is lit fairly brightly. You've got political mega-blocs that are able to field dozens to hundreds of capital ships.
That doesnt mean they are actually using the space they have taken.
Vote against the nano nerf! |
Dura'Lorth
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 17:23:00 -
[284]
Edited by: Dura''Lorth on 08/08/2008 17:23:45
Originally by: Esmenet
That doesnt mean they are actually using the space they have taken.
Esmenet is right, a few systems will have some people in them, the main hub systems, highways , or larger alliance trading sites, but as you span futher into the area you will usually find just a few farmers who hide. And if your a distance away from the main alliance zones, ie more then a few jumps you can do your thing and be gone before they get there.
You cant spell risk with out isk. |
Malcanis
We are Legend
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 17:48:00 -
[285]
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
I'm not sure how, but you've managed to partly or completely isinterpret everything I posted. You're either very new to these forums and haven't been following the discussions, or else a very good troll.
To pick the most outstanding example; I'm not talking about making "trash item" mission loot unrefinable. I'm talking about removing it altogether.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 17:57:00 -
[286]
Originally by: Ruze
Oh, and I have personally seen as many carebears in 0.0 as in hisec. There are warzones, but there is space that is nearly as secure as Empire. The big difference is that players MAKE these spaces secure, while players rely on CCP to make them secure in hisec.
From complexes to ratting to moon mining and major industry corps, 0.0 is fraught with carebears
Sure. I said above that even in a "war zone" you can generally carebear away with not nearly as much disruption as you might think as long as you are smart enough to stay out of the system where the lag-fest du jour is going on. You can make substantially more to boot, and plenty of people do. What problem was it that you're trying to solve again?
At the same time, there are lots of people like me who wouldn't touch it. Figure out why, and maybe there's a problem worth solving. My top two are:
Utterly broken fleet warfare. Probably my primary reason for being in empire now. God bless the guys who are willing to sit through slide-shows just to be able to say they changed the color of some dot on the map. I'm not one of them.
Inmates Running the Asylum Just read COAD. Need I say more? Yeah, I most definately want to spend my game time contributing to the power base of those "leaders" . I'll stay my own boss, TYVM. Needn't bother trying to solve this one, it's not solvable, and will never be in MMOs. The people who end up in leadership positions are those who have 50 hours a week to play a game, who in turn aren't people who you'd generally want in leadership positions.
I'll say it again. Null-sec and Empire lend themselves to different types of players, and different styles of play. Eve does that on the same server IMO better than any other MMO to date. Trying to create disincentives for players to stay in Empire won't make Nullsec any more attractive to them, but it might make Eve less so. That may be just fine with you, or me, but we don't pay the bills around here.
What goes on in Empire doesn't really effect in a detrimental way what goes on in 0.0, except that it chaps some PvPers asses that there are players they can't target, and riches they can't access at gunpoint. I don't see a problem here that needs to be fixed.
|
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 18:01:00 -
[287]
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
Originally by: Ruze
Oh, and I have personally seen as many carebears in 0.0 as in hisec. There are warzones, but there is space that is nearly as secure as Empire. The big difference is that players MAKE these spaces secure, while players rely on CCP to make them secure in hisec.
From complexes to ratting to moon mining and major industry corps, 0.0 is fraught with carebears
Sure. I said above that even in a "war zone" you can generally carebear away with not nearly as much disruption as you might think as long as you are smart enough to stay out of the system where the lag-fest du jour is going on. You can make substantially more to boot, and plenty of people do. What problem was it that you're trying to solve again?
At the same time, there are lots of people like me who wouldn't touch it. Figure out why, and maybe there's a problem worth solving. My top two are:
Utterly broken fleet warfare. Probably my primary reason for being in empire now. God bless the guys who are willing to sit through slide-shows just to be able to say they changed the color of some dot on the map. I'm not one of them.
Inmates Running the Asylum Just read COAD. Need I say more? Yeah, I most definately want to spend my game time contributing to the power base of those "leaders" . I'll stay my own boss, TYVM. Needn't bother trying to solve this one, it's not solvable, and will never be in MMOs. The people who end up in leadership positions are those who have 50 hours a week to play a game, who in turn aren't people who you'd generally want in leadership positions.
I'll say it again. Null-sec and Empire lend themselves to different types of players, and different styles of play. Eve does that on the same server IMO better than any other MMO to date. Trying to create disincentives for players to stay in Empire won't make Nullsec any more attractive to them, but it might make Eve less so. That may be just fine with you, or me, but we don't pay the bills around here.
What goes on in Empire doesn't really effect in a detrimental way what goes on in 0.0, except that it chaps some PvPers asses that there are players they can't target, and riches they can't access at gunpoint. I don't see a problem here that needs to be fixed.
And I do. Alas, that's the nature of being human; we all tend to have our own opinions, neh?
So you want security? That's perfectly alright.
But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security. |
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 18:03:00 -
[288]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
I'm not sure how, but you've managed to partly or completely isinterpret everything I posted. You're either very new to these forums and haven't been following the discussions, or else a very good troll.
To pick the most outstanding example; I'm not talking about making "trash item" mission loot unrefinable. I'm talking about removing it altogether.
Well, I said it wasn't clear to me which you meant. As I said, if you remove it altogether you are removing a substantial materials "faucet" from the game. Prices will rise. The implied assumption is that people will mine more to compensate. If they don't, CCP would just have to introduce some other materials "faucet", most likely by boosting mining yields or introducing more powerful mining equipment. Then, instead of people griping about L4 mission runners getting rich, they'd gripe about miners getting rich. I don't smell any "win" coming off of that scenario.
|
Lord WarATron
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 18:32:00 -
[289]
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 08/08/2008 18:32:49
Still waiting for someone to say why this is destroying pvp and what solution should be used.
All these pages of whining, yet nobody has defined why this is destroying pvp nor mentioned a solution?
This ranks among COAD worthy threads in terms of uselessness.
--
Billion Isk Mission |
Carniflex
Caldari
StarHunt
Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 18:34:00 -
[290]
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Ruze
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.
Well the 2 biggest whinetopics before these changes was announced was suicide ganking and nanos. Primarily started by high sec missioners.
I highly doubt that hi sec missionrunners give rat's ass about nanos.
 |
|
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 18:36:00 -
[291]
I'm not sure anyone has said they are for a change has related to that change being 'good for PvP'.
Good for the game? Yes. Good for continuing to entertain and diversify the areas we have? Yes. Good for PvP? Only as much as it would be good for the game.
So you want security? That's perfectly alright.
But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security. |
Lord WarATron
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 18:44:00 -
[292]
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 08/08/2008 18:46:35
Originally by: Ruze
I'm not sure anyone has said they are for a change has related to that change being 'good for PvP'.
Good for the game? Yes. Good for continuing to entertain and diversify the areas we have? Yes. Good for PvP? Only as much as it would be good for the game.
How is it good for pvp if nobody has mentioned a solution?
I have kicked many people's bankrupted ass out of 0.0, they do missions to recover and come back to try to get revenge. In fact, for lots of people kicked out of 0.0, their main method of recovering involves missions.
How do you propose backrupted 0.0 players recover and return to do pvp? How do you propose that pvpers who use missions alts to fund their pvp?
Before you say lowsec, I spent most of my first year in eve living in lowsec, making isk there and fighting pirates etc etc. I know what its like and it needs a massive boost to both lvl4's and lvl5's to make it viable to most current people in eve.
What exactly is the problem and what exactly is the solution? Nobody knows if the medicine works if the patient has no symptoms.
--
Billion Isk Mission |
Drunk Driver
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 18:46:00 -
[293]
Welcome to a pirate revenge thread.
Not so subtle attempt at having CCP nerf mission running so as to "punish" carebears for the Empire security update.
|
Dzajic
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 18:48:00 -
[294]
Since people are strongly ignoring the elephant in the room.
Sole purpose of these threads is to slither in a way to force people out of high sec, and ideally provide a constant stream of mission fit CNRs and Golems into "concerned PVPer" gate camps.
|
Morcam
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 18:50:00 -
[295]
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
I'm not sure how, but you've managed to partly or completely isinterpret everything I posted. You're either very new to these forums and haven't been following the discussions, or else a very good troll.
To pick the most outstanding example; I'm not talking about making "trash item" mission loot unrefinable. I'm talking about removing it altogether.
Well, I said it wasn't clear to me which you meant. As I said, if you remove it altogether you are removing a substantial materials "faucet" from the game. Prices will rise. The implied assumption is that people will mine more to compensate. If they don't, CCP would just have to introduce some other materials "faucet", most likely by boosting mining yields or introducing more powerful mining equipment. Then, instead of people griping about L4 mission runners getting rich, they'd gripe about miners getting rich. I don't smell any "win" coming off of that scenario.
First, you are new to these forums. This has been discussed time and time again, and CCP has pitched in, with saying that they may do this in the future.
Second, you are saying that if mining becomes the main way to get minerals (which, by design, it should) then people will not mine for those minerals. Apparently, trit prices will reach over a million isk a unit, and people will still refuse to mine. I'm sorry, but I don't see any logic in that scenario. Mining SHOULD be the main, best, and almost only way of getting minerals (With a few other secondary ways on the side, like alloys). Also, people would mine to fill the gap. If mining becomes even remotely as profitable as mission running, people will do it.
I don't see why you should get something you are not devoted to getting (minerals) while you are doing something that is not the normal way of getting it (mining).
Regardless, there are more reasons that I'm too lazy to post. Go look at the forums, then come back after you've read some other topics on the subject.
|
Dave Davies
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 18:51:00 -
[296]
Originally by: Carniflex
I highly doubt that hi sec missionrunners give rat's ass about nanos.
That's the perception, and here's the convoluted story of how that entered the public imagination:
1. {Fact) Faction warfare came out, introducing a lot of new people to blob warfare.
2. (Speculation) Whether it's statistically true or not, the common perception is that the Caldari militia drew a large number of its early recruits from the substantial pool of players who A. had immediate access via standings and B. had no chance in hell of joining other militias (also due to standings) because they were long time Caldari L4 mission runners.
3. (Speculation) Said missioners - turned - PVPers got a rude awakening to the reality of nanogangs at the hands of Pandemic Legion among others.
4. (Fact) Within a few weeks of the launch of Faction Warfare there was a massive (possibly organized, possibly not) campaign of threads complaining about nanoships in General Discussion whereas previously those complaints were sporadic at best in GD.
5. (Fact) A few weeks after the nanoriots, the current nerf proposals were announced.
6. (Speculation) It is believed by some that the current speed nerf proposals are a direct reaction by CCP to the outcry from (presumably) mission runners who'd been lured to low sec.
... and that's how you get to a nanonerf from L4 missioning. How much of that story is actually true can only be divulged by CCP, and they don't seem to be saying. However, I'd guess that popular belief in that explanation of things combined with the almost- concurrently announced nerf to suicide ganking has led to some parties calling for a nerf to L4 missions as a means of extracting revenge against those who they see as responsible.
|
Mika Meroko
Minmatar
Crayon Posting Inc
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 18:52:00 -
[297]
I still couldnt break the 10 mill (on average) an hour limit..
from empire level 4s....
unless I get some REALLY REALLY good missions...
which is random.... random is bad for calculaing this okay?
but yeah, I, and alot of runners I know, are consistently, around 10 mill from bounty and reward....(and no, before you add in loot and salvage = more time, = LOWER the isk per hour limit unless you have alt accounts that loot/salvage as you go....and yes, my other accounts are in 0.0....)
so yeah, OP... I would like to see how he does it... =P
and no, I am already using a T2 fitted CNR with every skill possible trained =P
Originally by: CCP Atropos
I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears.
|
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 18:54:00 -
[298]
You gentlemen are so obviously wrong and ignorant of the entire discussion, that it's a wonder you would post and reveal that fact.
For ATron, I'm going to see if I can go through and pull quotes for every time myself or the op has specified the 'problem' this thread is meant to discuss. The answers that have been given by ourselves and others are also there.
Actually, no I'm not. The answers to your questions have been stated pretty obviously in the thread. Now, you may not believe they are problems, you may not agree with the suggested solutions, or you may believe like the common 'two cent' posters that it's just 'another attempt to lure players into lowsec'.
Hopefully you have read further than these shortsighted invididuals. If not, or if you simply don't agree, fair is fair.
So you want security? That's perfectly alright.
But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security. |
Malcanis
We are Legend
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 18:55:00 -
[299]
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 08/08/2008 18:32:49
Still waiting for someone to say why this is destroying pvp and what solution should be used.
All these pages of whining, yet nobody has defined why this is destroying pvp nor mentioned a solution?
This ranks among COAD worthy threads in terms of uselessness.
Still waiting for someone to say this is destroying PvP, you thickhead.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Morcam
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 18:56:00 -
[300]
Originally by: Mika Meroko
I still couldnt break the 10 mill (on average) an hour limit..
from empire level 4s....
unless I get some REALLY REALLY good missions...
which is random.... random is bad for calculaing this okay?
but yeah, I, and alot of runners I know, are consistently, around 10 mill from bounty and reward....(and no, before you add in loot and salvage = more time, = LOWER the isk per hour limit unless you have alt accounts that loot/salvage as you go....and yes, my other accounts are in 0.0....)
so yeah, OP... I would like to see how he does it... =P
and no, I am already using a T2 fitted CNR with every skill possible trained =P
You must be an awful missioner, if you can't even break 10 mil an hour. I have not seen anyone else in this thread post a figure so low, not even close.
|
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |