| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Malcanis
We are Legend
eXceed.
    |
Posted - 2008.08.08 18:59:00 -
[301]
 Originally by: Dzajic
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.
No actually, that was not the purpose of this thread. I have no trouble finding people to shoot if I want to. So kindly shut your noise-hole unless you have something useful to contribute.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 19:03:00 -
[302]
Oh, and I am neither a pirate, nor a griefer. I recognize that EvE is NOT two different games, one pvp and one pve, and as a person who runs level 4 missions alot (and poorly, I might add), I see that missions are the one spot in EvE that isn't like the others.
You don't compete for missions. You don't compete to supply modules, resources and more money into the economy. Every other profession works around you and competes for what it sells, except missioners.
I think both the nano nerf and the insurance fix are worth changing. But I also recognize that there are a lot of players defending an ONGOING call for a fix to missions (posts going back well before devs announced either of the recent changes, I might add), because of it's completely difference with the rest of the game.
Add to that the fact that many new players are coming for WoW and want to be completely safe, have the best profit source, and absolutely refuse to go out and achieve anything, and yes, I do think there is a problem that needs fixed in EvE.
But it can only be applied with many other changes, including sovreignty remake and losec boosting. I don't want more targets in losec. I want losec to go back to the way it was two years ago, where a bunch of NPC missioners would band together and move in, and pirates played on the outskirts and highways.
Some only see one or the other. I think this is either ignorance, or stupidity. EvE should not be split down the middle between 'you PvP here, you NPC here'. It's all mixed together. But the newer crowd doesn't see that, because of a) missions, and b) it doesn't match their experience with other games.
So you want security? That's perfectly alright.
But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security. |
Mika Meroko
Minmatar
Crayon Posting Inc
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 19:06:00 -
[303]
Originally by: Morcam
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.
yes yes, now would you care to say something besides the obvious?...
but 10 to 15 is the avg alot of people get...
oh and flashing your epeen doesnt help...
now post your set ups!!!!
and where you do your mish!!!
*evil grins*
Originally by: CCP Atropos
I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears.
|
Malcanis
We are Legend
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 19:34:00 -
[304]
Originally by: Mika Meroko
Originally by: Morcam
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.
yes yes, now would you care to say something besides the obvious?...
but 10 to 15 is the avg alot of people get...
oh and flashing your epeen doesnt help...
now post your set ups!!!!
and where you do your mish!!!
*evil grins*
DG fit CNR. Isinokka 5-2.
Post yours...?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Pesky LaRue
Minmatar
L.O.S.T. Defence Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 20:27:00 -
[305]
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Amateratsu
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.
The majority do live there, but that dont mean that they should have to cater to them.
this is why it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about this kind of thing with most of the EVE player-base - this comment alone suggests that you're not able to understand that, no matter what it means to YOU, EVE-Online is a game, a product, a commodity that is intended to earn money. If it makes people happy along the way, super, but if you delude yourself into thinking anything other than CCP is a corporate entity who's sole reason for being is to MAKE MONEY then you're being unrealistic and immature.
they SHOULD cater to the majority of players, no matter what you or i or anyone else thinks - because those are the guys paying the subs, those are the ones that are 'voting with their feet' on how they feel about the game. CCP would be ******s to NOT cater to that playerbase, if they want EVE to continue to thrive.
there are many good reasons why EVE is more populous after 5 years whilst most MMOG's have taken a sharp nosedive by now, and it's NOT gotten here because CCP catered to the minority of the player-base.
wake up. grow up. adapt or quit.
This message came from the Minmatar Messiah, accept no imitations
Pesky LaRue, Minmatar Messiah
Bringing Salvation To Your System Soon!
++ PRAY FOR PESKY ++ |
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 20:29:00 -
[306]
Originally by: Morcam
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).
I understand that you don't understand.
First off, some folks who like to run missions hate to mine. There is no guarantee, or even liklihood that one would offset the other if loot reprocessing were removed. The net effect would likely be inflationary unless the rate at which materials leave the game (PvP, mostly) slowed down. Think about it for a minute. It's not that hard.
Second, the ability to reprocess things provides an important economic check-and-balance. If the price of something gets gets significantly under its it's "melt" value (it has been over-produced relative to demand for it), you buy it and convert it to mins. This has an important balancing effect on the economy and a check against irrational price competition.
Seriously, you need to think a little bit before just tossing these things out there. These kinds of changes could have far-reaching and not entirely forseeable economic consequences in a game that has essentially a "real" economy. "People getting rich offa Hi-Sec L4s is the suxxor" isn't a good enough reason to go changing it.
If there was something structurally and fundamentally flawed or broken with the eve economy, such as runaway inflation, excessive cartelling and manipulation, deflation, or anything of the kind I'd say yeah, something is busted and needs fixing. Bottom line, we don't have those kinds of problems in Eve.
You can argue this from the point of view of "fairness" or "realism" or it impacting your game-play somehow, but there isn't anything wrong with the economics.
There are already ways to get bigger rewards in the game for taking bigger risks. If the folks running level 4s right now were inclined, they'd be out there gunning for them, instead of running level 4s. They aren't. They are risk-averse.
Moving level 4s out of high-sec isn't going to magically make them risk-takers. We are talking about play-money afterall. It's not like they're ACTUALLY getting rich here, and it's not like they're going to be able to achieve much in game without taking any risks beyond driving around in a pimped out ship that they never PvP in anyhow. So, what's the BFD?.
There isn't anything broken here that needs fixing. As far as I can tell, this thread is just part of the knee-jerk reaction to making suicide ganks harder. That has nothing to do with the economics of the game, and just about everything to do with people in empire not being gank-targets.
|
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 20:31:00 -
[307]
Originally by: Pesky LaRue
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Amateratsu
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.
The majority do live there, but that dont mean that they should have to cater to them.
this is why it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about this kind of thing with most of the EVE player-base - this comment alone suggests that you're not able to understand that, no matter what it means to YOU, EVE-Online is a game, a product, a commodity that is intended to earn money. If it makes people happy along the way, super, but if you delude yourself into thinking anything other than CCP is a corporate entity who's sole reason for being is to MAKE MONEY then you're being unrealistic and immature.
they SHOULD cater to the majority of players, no matter what you or i or anyone else thinks - because those are the guys paying the subs, those are the ones that are 'voting with their feet' on how they feel about the game. CCP would be ******s to NOT cater to that playerbase, if they want EVE to continue to thrive.
there are many good reasons why EVE is more populous after 5 years whilst most MMOG's have taken a sharp nosedive by now, and it's NOT gotten here because CCP catered to the minority of the player-base.
wake up. grow up. adapt or quit.
And, they should cater. They should turn the game into WoW in space, in order to fulfill the interests of the lowest common denominator of players. Make the game simpler, provide more reimbursements, make it more secure ...
I'm glad business is so cut and dry like that. Which is probably why there are no fine resteraunts in the world, because everyone realizes that McDonalds has the most customers, and thus must be doing it right, no?
So you want security? That's perfectly alright.
But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security. |
McDonALTs
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 20:34:00 -
[308]
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
There isn't anything broken here that needs fixing. As far as I can tell, this thread is just part of the knee-jerk reaction to making suicide ganks harder. That has nothing to do with the economics of the game, and just about everything to do with people in empire not being gank-targets.
Exactly. The OP is complaining about nothing, unable to say how it harms the game. He is spouting crap numbers to "impress" people but in fact, people make that much isk every day in 0.0 mining moons.
He complains that agents are not a competing resource - NEWSFLASH - THEY ARE NOT MENT TO BE!. Its like complining that petrol cars cannot use desiel.
|
Pesky LaRue
Minmatar
L.O.S.T. Defence Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 20:38:00 -
[309]
Originally by: Ruze
Originally by: Pesky LaRue
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Amateratsu
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.
The majority do live there, but that dont mean that they should have to cater to them.
this is why it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion about this kind of thing with most of the EVE player-base - this comment alone suggests that you're not able to understand that, no matter what it means to YOU, EVE-Online is a game, a product, a commodity that is intended to earn money. If it makes people happy along the way, super, but if you delude yourself into thinking anything other than CCP is a corporate entity who's sole reason for being is to MAKE MONEY then you're being unrealistic and immature.
they SHOULD cater to the majority of players, no matter what you or i or anyone else thinks - because those are the guys paying the subs, those are the ones that are 'voting with their feet' on how they feel about the game. CCP would be ******s to NOT cater to that playerbase, if they want EVE to continue to thrive.
there are many good reasons why EVE is more populous after 5 years whilst most MMOG's have taken a sharp nosedive by now, and it's NOT gotten here because CCP catered to the minority of the player-base.
wake up. grow up. adapt or quit.
And, they should cater. They should turn the game into WoW in space, in order to fulfill the interests of the lowest common denominator of players. Make the game simpler, provide more reimbursements, make it more secure ...
I'm glad business is so cut and dry like that. Which is probably why there are no fine resteraunts in the world, because everyone realizes that McDonalds has the most customers, and thus must be doing it right, no?
get off your soapbox and go highlight the part when i said that WoW is the model i think they should adopt. go highlight the part when i said anything about numbers making it the 'best' game, or whatever drivel you're trying to point out with the lame McDonalds analogy. what i'm trying to explain to those of you so caught up in your angst that you can't see reason or logic is that no matter what you or i think about it, CCP is going to continue to cater to the largest part of the player-base - and if they want a continually growing game, they would be idiots NOT to cater to them. they came up with a vision that worked and has survived for 5 years BECAUSE they tweak it, BECAUSE they adjust it to fit the majority of the playerbase, BECAUSE they know they must "adapt or die".
i've been here a long time, longer than most, and i've sat through countless whines about how awful the devs are, how terrible CCP are, how they don't get it, they don't understand, how they're killing the game, whine-frigging-whine, and you know what, we're still here. Even with Warp to 0. Even with all the changes and nerfs and rebalances over the years.
and you know what else? the game has more subscribers and is 'healthier' now than ever before, in terms of financial success. good job they didn't listen to the whiners and the crybabies, eh?
when i started, i think the highest number of concurrent users was 11k at any one time. I dont' remember the last time i saw LESS than 11k players on at once.
oh yeah, they're screwing the pooch with their current business model.
you want a game with 20k active subs made up of only hardcore old-timers, or do you want a growing and expanding game?
whatever you answer, please answer with your head instead of your bunched-up-little-panties.
This message came from the Minmatar Messiah, accept no imitations
Pesky LaRue, Minmatar Messiah
Bringing Salvation To Your System Soon!
++ PRAY FOR PESKY ++ |
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 20:40:00 -
[310]
Originally by: McDonALTs
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
There isn't anything broken here that needs fixing. As far as I can tell, this thread is just part of the knee-jerk reaction to making suicide ganks harder. That has nothing to do with the economics of the game, and just about everything to do with people in empire not being gank-targets.
Exactly. The OP is complaining about nothing, unable to say how it harms the game. He is spouting crap numbers to "impress" people but in fact, people make that much isk every day in 0.0 mining moons.
He complains that agents are not a competing resource - NEWSFLASH - THEY ARE NOT MENT TO BE!. Its like complining that petrol cars cannot use desiel.
I think the point was made quite finely, and the issue discussed pretty well. I do think there's a problem, and apparently there are others who do as well. It's sad that not everyone agrees, but I think we can paint a decent picture to CCP of what we've seen, which they could care, or they couldn't.
Not everyone will agree, and that's life. If you don't think having an infinitely renewable resource that never depleats and never lessens is not someone counterproductive in this game where every other resource is finite and must be competed over, you obviously have your reasoning.
It's a good thing that game design isn't about democracy ...
So you want security? That's perfectly alright.
But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security. |
|
Atlas Oracle
Minmatar
Native Freshfood
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 20:41:00 -
[311]
holy hell i can't believe this thread is still going
the dead horse is dead malcanisruze. your vacuous alt assisted babble is boring beyond belief.
|
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 20:43:00 -
[312]
I keep saying "what's the problem to be solved?" and nobody has answered yet. There is a problem, but it's not really L4 missions directly.
There are two basic problems:
1) Missioning is a solo activity up to L4.
2) You can't effectively mission in a PvP setup, and you can't effectively PvP in a mission setup.
If you made it so that you needed a gang to run a L4 mission and adjusted the rewards accordingly, AND you changed missions so that effective mission boats/gangs would also be effective at PvP, THEN you could move L4s to low-sec and it would be pretty cool. Someone looking to gank missioners would be taking their lives in their own hands, especially if those missioners were nullsec players just there to farm some cash.
Even people who enjoy PvPing don't enjoy being a sitting duck, which a L4 missioner as missions are constituted today is, pretty much. I can appreciate the desire on the part of some for more sitting ducks, but I think it's hard to argue that being the sitting duck doesn't suck.
|
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 20:49:00 -
[313]
Originally by: Pesky LaRue
get off your soapbox and go highlight the part when i said that WoW is the model i think they should adopt. go highlight the part when i said anything about numbers making it the 'best' game, or whatever drivel you're trying to point out with the lame McDonalds analogy. what i'm trying to explain to those of you so caught up in your angst that you can't see reason or logic is that no matter what you or i think about it, CCP is going to continue to cater to the largest part of the player-base - and if they want a continually growing game, they would be idiots NOT to cater to them. they came up with a vision that worked and has survived for 5 years BECAUSE they tweak it, BECAUSE they adjust it to fit the majority of the playerbase, BECAUSE they know they must "adapt or die".
i've been here a long time, longer than most, and i've sat through countless whines about how awful the devs are, how terrible CCP are, how they don't get it, they don't understand, how they're killing the game, whine-frigging-whine, and you know what, we're still here. Even with Warp to 0. Even with all the changes and nerfs and rebalances over the years.
and you know what else? the game has more subscribers and is 'healthier' now than ever before, in terms of financial success. good job they didn't listen to the whiners and the crybabies, eh?
when i started, i think the highest number of concurrent users was 11k at any one time. I dont' remember the last time i saw LESS than 11k players on at once.
oh yeah, they're screwing the pooch with their current business model.
you want a game with 20k active subs made up of only hardcore old-timers, or do you want a growing and expanding game?
whatever you answer, please answer with your head instead of your bunched-up-little-panties.
For some reason, when I read your words I hear yelling. Don't know why. Maybe it's the phrases you use. Maybe it's the insults you put in most sentences. Maybe it's just how you make assuming pronunciations of 'idiot' and whatnot.
But no, I don't think I'm on a soapbox. Nor do I think CCP *should* cater to half the playerbase. I don't think changing missions to the extent discussed here will 'ruin the game', and I'm surprised that you think EvE is so poorly done that such a change could run off the 'majority' of the playerbase.
As I've said in numerous threads, it is one thing for the developers to cater to those new players who are coming in from WoW or other MMO's and expect specific treatment, like no non-consensual PvP and whatnot. My argument was that, instead of catering by providing more agents in hisec, or doing what I think will ultimately be done, adding more hisec, they could create a type of competition for those present agents.
EvE is not two games, one PvE and one PvP. Destroying what makes the game a 'fine resturaunt' by compromising the basic principles won't make it better ... but it will get you more players, faster.
And they'll last a few months, and then leave, because they are bored with hisec. Or they'll beg for less restrictions in hisec, and more hisec, and eventually even losec that isn't involved in FW will become secure.
This kind of pandering doesn't make a great game ... it eventually causes your game to become a FOTM, then flutter out and die. To use a horrible analogy, SWG.
So while you think CCP should bend over backwards for a noncaring playerbase that refuses to even participate in the majority of the game, I think they should continue with making a great game, and the playerbase will continue to come, but it'll want to stay.
That's an assumption on what you think. Maybe we're arguing the same topic, who knows. What I do know is, the day the game reminds me of a game built for simpletons and morons designed for nothing but instant pleasure and amassing nothing that can be taken from you, I'll leave.
That's my choice, as a player, no?
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 20:51:00 -
[314]
Originally by: Atlas Oracle
holy hell i can't believe this thread is still going
the dead horse is dead malcanisruze. your vacuous alt assisted babble is boring beyond belief.
Which makes me wonder, why do you read and post, hmm? Seems it would be too boring to even entice you to pop up ...
And for your information, I have kindly not used a single alt in this post, thank you very much! I pride myself in that fact 
So you want security? That's perfectly alright.
But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security. |
Pesky LaRue
Minmatar
L.O.S.T. Defence Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 21:02:00 -
[315]
Originally by: Ruze
That's my choice, as a player, no?
yep, just like it's your choice to keep banging on and making the same, tired old points while deliberately misunderstanding or refusing to see any validity in any opposing views.
This message came from the Minmatar Messiah, accept no imitations
Pesky LaRue, Minmatar Messiah
Bringing Salvation To Your System Soon!
++ PRAY FOR PESKY ++ |
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 21:06:00 -
[316]
Originally by: Pesky LaRue
Originally by: Ruze
That's my choice, as a player, no?
yep, just like it's your choice to keep banging on and making the same, tired old points while deliberately misunderstanding or refusing to see any validity in any opposing views.
Hmm, I didn't think I was misunderstanding the validity, just doing exactly what those who are posting counter arguments, and disagreeing. I don't think I'm unanimously right, and when I am proven wrong, I do admit it. But I don't agree that this isn't a problem. I don't agree that it should remain as it is. And I don't agree with some on the nature of splitting EvE in to, essentially, two different games.
We wacky humans, we do tend to disagree ...
So you want security? That's perfectly alright.
But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security. |
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 21:06:00 -
[317]
Well I've got decent skills but not exactly a good mission running ship (prefer mega to domi) and I can tell you that the only mission I make 20-25m an hour on is AE. Perhaps 15 would be a more realistic figure, especially for averages.
|
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 21:18:00 -
[318]
I think people just assume I alt post, after having conversations with myself in racial chat.
But my naming strategy isn't very diverse. You can usually get a hint that I'm alt posting. Like, now?
|
Pesky LaRue
Minmatar
L.O.S.T. Defence Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 21:18:00 -
[319]
Originally by: Ruze
I don't think I'm unanimously right, and when I am proven wrong, I do admit it. But I don't agree that this isn't a problem. I don't agree that it should remain as it is. And I don't agree with some on the nature of splitting EvE in to, essentially, two different games.
We wacky humans, we do tend to disagree ...
oddly enough, here in the comments about disagreement do we find ground to agree upon - but i guess where we differ is that the tone of your posts over the last few days have all been of the psuedo-self-righteous, "I know what's best for EVE and i'm going to keep telling everyone even though I'm really only seeing this from one perspective" type, and i don't believe you are really seeing things logically (but hey, perhaps i'm wrong and just misreading your posts) but more emotionally than I am.
do i agree there's too much profit in high-sec and not enough in low-sec? yep, i've posted that serveral times in the last few days - all L4/L5 agents should be moved to low-sec or 0.0.
do i agree that this is a problem for people in 0.0? Nope, i don't - whilst i won't take on the OP's figures and try and argue/justify anything numerical, i don't agree that this is all about money. do i prefer high or nullsec? frankly, i prefer nullsec because it's more exciting and unpredictable and out-and-out fun. i don't care one bit what someone else earns or how they earn it and i don't care if you want to mine, run missions, scam, suicide gank or whatever, as long as you're having fun and playing by the rules.
do i think too much money in high-sec will ruin or change EVE? nope, because the people that want the fun of low-sec and 0.0 will always go there, regardless of where you can earn money.
having been taking part in FW lately, am i glad i can run L4 missions in high-sec to earn enough money to keep zerging the enemy? heavens yes. would i still run those missions in low-sec to get my money? heavens yes.
do i want to keep playing EVE for another 4 years? absolutely. do i understand that CCP might have to bend or edit or re-envision their original design spec for the game to keep us going in that direction? absolutely. does that bother me to the point where i'll spend days & hours arguing against the tide on an internet forum? god no.
i loved EVE when i started playing it years ago, and i love it now. it's not the same game it was then, but hey, i'm a realist and i've been playing MMOG's for nearly 10 years and i understand that no matter what the original vision of the game - or what the player-bases' desires & hopes for it might be - it will ultimately be what the consumer demands.
is that right from an artistic standpoint? god, no, it's selling out.
is that right from a business standpoint? most definitely.
as you say, we tend to disagree, us humans, but most disagreements come from not a lack of understand of the opposing viewpoint, but a lack of willingess to TRY and understand the opposing viewpoint.
This message came from the Minmatar Messiah, accept no imitations
Pesky LaRue, Minmatar Messiah
Bringing Salvation To Your System Soon!
++ PRAY FOR PESKY ++ |
mishkof
Caldari
Finis Lumen
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 21:25:00 -
[320]
Edited by: mishkof on 08/08/2008 21:26:31
Edited by: mishkof on 08/08/2008 21:25:40
Originally by: Ruze
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 are missions. If enough people wanted to run missions it would soon become nearly impossible with lag. There isnt an infinate number of high quality agents in high sec, and there certainly isnt enough server resources to maintain the numbers indefinately. Look at Jita.
Moons certanly do have their limitations, but I feel you are moving the goal posts in your arguments.
Are we talking about risk VS reward, or are we talking total earning potential regardless of facts such as population, hours spent, etc. One person/group takes a risk with a 1.5 billion tower and they can earn up to 5 bil a month - 100 mil in fuel + 8-10 hours a month isnt enough?
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 21:30:00 -
[321]
Heheheh ... ironically, I agree ;?j
I've been playing for a few years myself. Actually took a year and a half break, involuntarily, and when I came back, much had changed.
The self-righteous bit? Well, why do you think I chose to play Amarr? But seriously, I think it's just the words and grammer I use, as it's a constant assumption my entire life. I just don't pay much attention anymore, because no matter how much I apologize and try to point out my intent, it takes people a while to get used to it. Bah, can't make everyone happy.
I usually like the ops posts, and this one I think hit it right on the nose. Of course there was the usual assumptions, that being of griefers just trying for an excuse to get more 'bait', that kind of thing. And the usual quibbles over facts and figures, as you would see in pretty much any debate. I think the op has a point.
Will our discussion change anything? Heh, doubt it. But it's already changed my mind on moving agents out of hisec, or reducing missions to only one or two per character. And I got a reeducation on economics, which I justly deserved
But I can bounce between the BS discussions and this one, without much sweat. Opposing arguments don't **** me off, but if someone is playing at being deliberately obtuse, I'll walk around them. Disagreeing, that's one thing. Being dense or refusing to even acknowledge a valid viewpoint? Or doing the 'you haven't answered my question' bit? That's just 'block worthy'.
So you want security? That's perfectly alright.
But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security. |
Pesky LaRue
Minmatar
L.O.S.T. Defence Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 21:31:00 -
[322]
Originally by: Ruze
Heheheh ... ironically, I agree ;?j
I've been playing for a few years myself. Actually took a year and a half break, involuntarily, and when I came back, much had changed.
The self-righteous bit? Well, why do you think I chose to play Amarr? But seriously, I think it's just the words and grammer I use, as it's a constant assumption my entire life. I just don't pay much attention anymore, because no matter how much I apologize and try to point out my intent, it takes people a while to get used to it. Bah, can't make everyone happy.
I usually like the ops posts, and this one I think hit it right on the nose. Of course there was the usual assumptions, that being of griefers just trying for an excuse to get more 'bait', that kind of thing. And the usual quibbles over facts and figures, as you would see in pretty much any debate. I think the op has a point.
Will our discussion change anything? Heh, doubt it. But it's already changed my mind on moving agents out of hisec, or reducing missions to only one or two per character. And I got a reeducation on economics, which I justly deserved
But I can bounce between the BS discussions and this one, without much sweat. Opposing arguments don't **** me off, but if someone is playing at being deliberately obtuse, I'll walk around them. Disagreeing, that's one thing. Being dense or refusing to even acknowledge a valid viewpoint? Or doing the 'you haven't answered my question' bit? That's just 'block worthy'.
nicely put.
This message came from the Minmatar Messiah, accept no imitations
Pesky LaRue, Minmatar Messiah
Bringing Salvation To Your System Soon!
++ PRAY FOR PESKY ++ |
Pesky LaRue
Minmatar
L.O.S.T. Defence Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 21:32:00 -
[323]
Originally by: Pesky LaRue
Originally by: Ruze
Heheheh ... ironically, I agree ;?j
I've been playing for a few years myself. Actually took a year and a half break, involuntarily, and when I came back, much had changed.
The self-righteous bit? Well, why do you think I chose to play Amarr? But seriously, I think it's just the words and grammer I use, as it's a constant assumption my entire life. I just don't pay much attention anymore, because no matter how much I apologize and try to point out my intent, it takes people a while to get used to it. Bah, can't make everyone happy.
I usually like the ops posts, and this one I think hit it right on the nose. Of course there was the usual assumptions, that being of griefers just trying for an excuse to get more 'bait', that kind of thing. And the usual quibbles over facts and figures, as you would see in pretty much any debate. I think the op has a point.
Will our discussion change anything? Heh, doubt it. But it's already changed my mind on moving agents out of hisec, or reducing missions to only one or two per character. And I got a reeducation on economics, which I justly deserved
But I can bounce between the BS discussions and this one, without much sweat. Opposing arguments don't **** me off, but if someone is playing at being deliberately obtuse, I'll walk around them. Disagreeing, that's one thing. Being dense or refusing to even acknowledge a valid viewpoint? Or doing the 'you haven't answered my question' bit? That's just 'block worthy'.
nicely put.
no, wait, YOU'RE WRONG, DAMN YOUR BLACK AND EMPTY SOUL, YOU'RE WRONG.
got confused for a minute, there.
This message came from the Minmatar Messiah, accept no imitations
Pesky LaRue, Minmatar Messiah
Bringing Salvation To Your System Soon!
++ PRAY FOR PESKY ++ |
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 21:39:00 -
[324]
Originally by: mishkof
Edited by: mishkof on 08/08/2008 21:26:31
Edited by: mishkof on 08/08/2008 21:25:40
Originally by: Ruze
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 are missions. If enough people wanted to run missions it would soon become nearly impossible with lag. There isnt an infinate number of high quality agents in high sec, and there certainly isnt enough server resources to maintain the numbers indefinately. Look at Jita.
Moons certanly do have their limitations, but I feel you are moving the goal posts in your arguments.
Are we talking about risk VS reward, or are we talking total earning potential regardless of facts such as population, hours spent, etc. One person/group takes a risk with a 1.5 billion tower and they can earn up to 5 bil a month - 100 mil in fuel + 8-10 hours a month isnt enough?
I made presumptions on the ops arguments, and I've adjusted my viewpoint on what I thought over the course of the discussion. Hell, there's a good chance tomorrow I'll argue the opposite, just to make sure all the points are seen.
But the point I was making is that comparing moon mining to missions is not an accurate comparison. The profit margin is more comparable to trade, even though as you yourself pointed out, trade relies completely on a resource.
There are multiple methods of profit. Because of confusion, I narrowed the field down on what could be accomplished by a single player. Comparing the moon mining to player mission farming isn't very apt, in my opinion. I have said that.
I mean, there are other variables we didn't throw in there: Complexes, which in 0.0 are a group effort, but extremely profitable; nulsec mission running, which isn't available all over the place, but if you live near one, you can bank high.
I guess, if you look at the variables, nulsec does have a higher profit potential, and also a lot more potential to crash and burn. I think this is right, compared to the reliable source of income available in hisec. Seems a fitting 'civilization' theory to me.
But I don't think the profit garnered from hisec should be as large as it is. And I do think it should be adjusted to being a finite resource.
The real weakness that I think we all agree on, is lowsec, no?
So you want security? That's perfectly alright.
But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security. |
McDonALTs
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 22:01:00 -
[325]
Edited by: McDonALTs on 08/08/2008 22:01:30
AGENTS ARE MEANT TO BE INFINITE RESOURCE BAISED ON TIME- There are resources you can compete for and those you dont.
Agents NEVER were meant to be a compeating resource. Its all part of a risk v reward balance. You want to make a crappy 15-20mil per hour doing lvl4's? Fine. Youi want to make 10 billion/month spending 3 hours managing a POS (thats approx 3,300mil/hour)? Well, you take the risk putting a billion isk putting a pos up then in hostile space and pray RA or bos's 500man capfleet blob do not see it.
Its Risk Vs Reward, not Compete vs non-compete. Eve NEEDS uncompetitive resources otherwise noobs can never progress beyond a noobship since everything can be compeated away from them.
|
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.08 22:10:00 -
[326]
Edited by: Ruze on 08/08/2008 22:10:02
Originally by: McDonALTs
Edited by: McDonALTs on 08/08/2008 22:01:30
AGENTS ARE MEANT TO BE INFINITE RESOURCE BAISED ON TIME- There are resources you can compete for and those you dont.
Agents NEVER were meant to be a compeating resource. Its all part of a risk v reward balance. You want to make a crappy 15-20mil per hour doing lvl4's? Fine. Youi want to make 10 billion/month spending 3 hours managing a POS (thats approx 3,300mil/hour)? Well, you take the risk putting a billion isk putting a pos up then in hostile space and pray RA or bos's 500man capfleet blob do not see it.
Its Risk Vs Reward, not Compete vs non-compete. Eve NEEDS uncompetitive resources otherwise noobs can never progress beyond a noobship since everything can be compeated away from them.
I just came back, and started doing level 2 missions to get back 'in the hang of things'. Level 2 and level 3 missions provide a nice reward. For new players, at least from those I've talked to, earning a few mil per mission, like in level 3's, is damn good profit.
Level 4's seem to be less oriented to new players, and more oriented for older players (over three months) as a cash resource. That is perfectly fine, and I don't think anythings wrong with that. But I don't think a counter argument to changing level 4 missions is that they are a new player resource is a accurate or legit.
So you want security? That's perfectly alright.
But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security. |
Morcam
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 00:22:00 -
[327]
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
Originally by: Morcam
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).
I understand that you don't understand.
First off, some folks who like to run missions hate to mine. There is no guarantee, or even liklihood that one would offset the other if loot reprocessing were removed. The net effect would likely be inflationary unless the rate at which materials leave the game (PvP, mostly) slowed down. Think about it for a minute. It's not that hard.
Second, the ability to reprocess things provides an important economic check-and-balance. If the price of something gets gets significantly under its it's "melt" value (it has been over-produced relative to demand for it), you buy it and convert it to mins. This has an important balancing effect on the economy and a check against irrational price competition.
<Snip for char limit>
If there was something structurally and fundamentally flawed or broken with the eve economy, such as runaway inflation, excessive cartelling and manipulation, deflation, or anything of the kind I'd say yeah, something is busted and needs fixing. Bottom line, we don't have those kinds of problems in Eve.
You can argue this from the point of view of "fairness" or "realism" or it impacting your game-play somehow, but there isn't anything wrong with the economics.
There are already ways to get bigger rewards in the game for taking bigger risks. If the folks running level 4s right now were inclined, they'd be out there gunning for them, instead of running level 4s. They aren't. They are risk-averse.
Moving level 4s out of high-sec isn't going to magically make them risk-takers. We are talking about play-money afterall. It's not like they're ACTUALLY getting rich here, and it's not like they're going to be able to achieve much in game without taking any risks beyond driving around in a pimped out ship that they never PvP in anyhow. So, what's the BFD?.
There isn't anything broken here that needs fixing. As far as I can tell, this thread is just part of the knee-jerk reaction to making suicide ganks harder. That has nothing to do with the economics of the game, and just about everything to do with people in empire not being gank-targets.
So, people don't like to mine, so you shouldn't have to do it to get minerals? You don't think that's biased? Yes, the market will inflate breifly, before people realize that mining is, suddenly, actually a reasonably profitable profession. Not to mention easier than anything else in the game (Highsec mining, at least). Once again, you are being "obtuse" in saying that ALL mission runners would hate to mine.
For your second point, reread my post. Reading comprehension FTW.
And yes, the market IS broken. If you think that T1 production being unprofitable 90% of the time isn't broken, please leave now.
And yes, there are ways to get more isk than missioning, sure. However, the amounts of isk that you get in 0.0 and especially lowsec are not even close in the risk/reward catagory to level 4 missions. THAT is the complaint that many of the people have here. Quite simply, even 15 million an hour with absoultely NO risk is messed up. People have pointed out that you can make more than that.
I can, however, see the point (I'm not sure if you were trying to point it out) that many of the mission runners don't use their isk very effectively. I still don't think that they should have so much isk, since they will probably want to pvp in the future, but I CAN see that they don't have that much to spend the isk on that is related to mission running, once they have their faction fitted CNR.
Also, I don't even care about the suicide gank nerf, but nice try.
|
Somealt Ofmine
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 00:38:00 -
[328]
Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 09/08/2008 00:43:14
Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 09/08/2008 00:38:55
Originally by: Morcam
So, people don't like to mine, so you shouldn't have to do it to get minerals? You don't think that's biased? Yes, the market will inflate breifly, before people realize that mining is, suddenly, actually a reasonably profitable profession. Not to mention easier than anything else in the game (Highsec mining, at least). Once again, you are being "obtuse" in saying that ALL mission runners would hate to mine.
And shortly after people realize that it got more profitable, more people will realize that they don't like how profitable it is, and we'll have a thread titled "The value of a High-Sec Veldspar System". Round and round we go.
Didn't say all mission runners wouldn't mine. Said that many of them would find it boring and probably wouldn't do it just for the isk. Probably why the devs, in their wisdom, put a PvE oriented activity in the game where you can shoot at stuff and generate mats. At any rate, if you remove it, it will have an effect that isn't entirely forseeable, whereas if you leave it alone you'll have what you see now, an economy happily chugging along.
Quote:
And yes, the market IS broken. If you think that T1 production being unprofitable 90% of the time isn't broken, please leave now.
T-1 production is usually unprofitable because new-ish producers price their T-1 products as if the minerals that they mined or looted were "free", or they build things without having done any research into whether there is actually some demand for those things or whether they are profitable to produce. CCP can't fix that through game mechanics, and shouldn't try. I'm curious though, how is it that you think making mins more expensive will fix it?
The market does have a "safety valve" though. If things get too cheap traders will start snapping them up and melting them for the mins. The market is self-balancing like that. You were arguing for taking that safety valve away.
Quote:
And yes, there are ways to get more isk than missioning, sure. However, the amounts of isk that you get in 0.0 and especially lowsec are not even close in the risk/reward catagory to level 4 missions. THAT is the complaint that many of the people have here. Quite simply, even 15 million an hour with absoultely NO risk is messed up. People have pointed out that you can make more than that.
Ok, why, exactly, is it messed up? Is it messed up because these high-sec carebears are in danger of "winning eve" with their ill-gotten fortunes without the threat of PvP holding them back? Is it messed up because they gots a better ship than you and it cheezes you off? Why?
Quote:
I can, however, see the point (I'm not sure if you were trying to point it out) that many of the mission runners don't use their isk very effectively. I still don't think that they should have so much isk, since they will probably want to pvp in the future, but I CAN see that they don't have that much to spend the isk on that is related to mission running, once they have their faction fitted CNR.
Exactly bud. Doesn't really matter how much isk they pile up, if they're never going to get out and experience the PvP, there's only so far they're going to go in game. If they do decide they want to PvP in the future, they'll suck, and get a lot of their ships blown up, and probably be back where they started until they learn how.
Quote:
Also, I don't even care about the suicide gank nerf, but nice try.
Ok, what, exactly, are you caring about? How are these mission grinders impinging on your game? |
Morcam
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 01:51:00 -
[329]
Edited by: Morcam on 09/08/2008 01:54:09
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
And shortly after people realize that it got more profitable, more people will realize that they don't like how profitable it is, and we'll have a thread titled "The value of a High-Sec Veldspar System". Round and round we go.
Didn't say all mission runners wouldn't mine. Said that many of them would find it boring and probably wouldn't do it just for the isk. Probably why the devs, in their wisdom, put a PvE oriented activity in the game where you can shoot at stuff and generate mats. At any rate, if you remove it, it will have an effect that isn't entirely forseeable, whereas if you leave it alone you'll have what you see now, an economy happily chugging along.
T-1 production is usually unprofitable because new-ish producers price their T-1 products as if the minerals that they mined or looted were "free", or they build things without having done any research into whether there is actually some demand for those things or whether they are profitable to produce. CCP can't fix that through game mechanics, and shouldn't try. I'm curious though, how is it that you think making mins more expensive will fix it?
The market does have a "safety valve" though. If things get too cheap traders will start snapping them up and melting them for the mins. The market is self-balancing like that. You were arguing for taking that safety valve away.
Ok, why, exactly, is it messed up? Is it messed up because these high-sec carebears are in danger of "winning eve" with their ill-gotten fortunes without the threat of PvP holding them back? Is it messed up because they gots a better ship than you and it cheezes you off? Why?
Exactly bud. Doesn't really matter how much isk they pile up, if they're never going to get out and experience the PvP, there's only so far they're going to go in game. If they do decide they want to PvP in the future, they'll suck, and get a lot of their ships blown up, and probably be back where they started until they learn how.
Ok, what, exactly, are you caring about? How are these mission grinders impinging on your game?
I'll go in order.
Yes, the amount of minerals that are produced by L4 missions are not enormous. However, it IS large enough to produce an impact on the highsec market, particularly the high-end section of it. Also, removing T1 loot would not make L4's less profitable than mining. It would move the market towards a bit more pricey minerals, but not extremely so. It would make the mining profession more profitable, sure, but not enough that anyone would have a reason to whine about it. As long as they're not a troll.
T1 production is messed up because there are many T1 products you can get for cheaper than they cost to produce, sure. However, that's not because of new players underpricing their modules.
Regardless, I'm not going to argue on this topic. If you want to whine about that, go to THIS thread.
Also, nice selective quote to save your E-peen. I never said that, you did. Stop trying to put words in my mouth.
On the third part, I'm in danger of going offtrack of the point of this topic. To sum up my thoughts on the topic...
It can't be argued that regardless of the specific amount, a LOT of isk comes from L4 missions. For the amount of risk the users take, I think that the amount that comes out is too much. EvE SHOULD be a dangerous game, and it is by design. Risk versus reward should be a part of the game. However, It seems to me that if you theoretically put EvE on a factor of risk/reward, you'll find that L4 missions don't fit.
1/10,000,000
2/20,000,000
10/100,000,000
Missions are more like 0/15,000,000
I am fine with the reward, I just don't like the risk.
So, after that rant... why do I care? I just said it. They don't fit in. (Oh, and I also agree with the infinite resource bit too.)
|
Aldee
Federated Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.08.09 05:26:00 -
[330]
Hmmm I didnt believe the figures ppl gave for running lvl 4 missions so I had to try myself. Running a lvl 4 qty 6 agent with a t2 tanked domi and t1 drones I made about 35-40 mil per hr and that time included picking up loot but not reprocessing or selling that loot but just mission and bounty isk.
.
|
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |