| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
McDonALTs
    |
Posted - 2008.08.10 15:27:00 -
[361]
Edited by: McDonALTs on 10/08/2008 15:30:32
 Originally by: Malcanis
I've lost count of the number of times I've explained that this is about the CAPACITY of agents, not about how many 1 agents is serving at one specific time, any more than all 0.0 systems are being ratted to capacity at any one time.
What is the problem with capacity? Agents are meant to be a renewable resource, you can only do 1 mission per agent at a time. If you fail a mision, you might loose access with the agent.
Thats the whole point. NPC trade goods are also the same. Buy NPCgoods and fill NPC buy orders - boom, the npc sell and buy orders instanly replenish.
CCP did this to prevent people competing resources away from poor or newbie players. What part of this do you not uderstand?
Honestly, do you not understnd risk vs reward? This game is not about capacity, it is about risk vs reward. Do you understand this?
99% of agents in high sec give out almost 0isk. So whats your point on that smarty pants?
CCP WANTS AGENTS TO HAVE CAPACITY, SINCE RISK VS REWARD WOULD MAKE IT IMPOSSILE TO COMPETE IF EVERY RESOURCE WAS CAPACITY LIMITED INCOME STREAMS
Eve = Risk Vs Reward. It is not Capacity vs non-capacity.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 19:53:00 -
[362]
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.
Failed logic strike again  .
You think that high sec mission runners have any interest in nano fit? Those NPC nano ships are terrible, truly.
Ganking, ok, it is a high sec problem as it don't exist in low sec, but again it is mostly a hauler problem, not a mission runner.
Originally by: Gamesguy
the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.
|
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 19:55:00 -
[363]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
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.
Failed logic strike again .
You think that high sec mission runners have any interest in nano fit? Those NPC nano ships are terrible, truly.
Ganking, ok, it is a high sec problem as it don't exist in low sec, but again it is mostly a hauler problem, not a mission runner.
Caldari militia.
Vote against the nano nerf! |
Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 19:56:00 -
[364]
Originally by: McDonALTs
Thats the whole point. NPC trade goods are also the same. Buy NPCgoods and fill NPC buy orders - boom, the npc sell and buy orders instanly replenish.
Try trading NPC goods.
Vote against the nano nerf! |
Black Scorpio
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 20:18:00 -
[365]
Originally by: Malcanis
This question came up in another thread, and I started to do a back-of-an-envelope calculation.
Let's say that an agent can serve 175 players at any one time. (Observed in Isinokka recently... a bit laggy, but perfectly managable)
Each player can earn 25M an hour - some more, some less, but lets take that as a kind of average of the figures generally cited on the forum.
175x25x24 = 105 BILLION ISK PER DAY.
That's 3.2 trillion ISK per month.
1 titan every 14 hours.
A fully T2 fitted battleship every 130 seconds.
For a
single
agent.
Malcanis, with all due respect, where did you pull that 25M number from an hour from a high sec agent? your ass (again sorry) but your number is simply a guess at best or what you heard, or read on the trustworthy forums that MAYBE someone gets in a pimped out isk/hour ship.
I can tell you that i can get (and have been getting a lot more) in 0.0 from doing a few Deadspaces, or anomalies. Got a few domination ships 22.5mil each, and so on.. not to mention the value of the faction loot they drop.
So please, when you have another weird argument like that that shows skewed numbers, and inflates the general opinion of mission running interest, please don't post it.
You need to be VERY efficient to pull that 25mil, if at all, IF you get the correct missions, IF your agent give you that.
In 0.0 you can just do a stroll down the belts and do a couple of anomalies to get the same result if not twice, based on faction or mineral spawns...
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 20:23:00 -
[366]
Originally by: Ruze
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.
You see, this is where it all fail. You see it a unacceptable that missions are a near infinite resource, limited only by server capability. Yours is an unshakable conviction.
Other people think that near infinite missions are needed and useful to the balance of the whole game.
Unless CCP give out a lot of information only they can gather it is impossible to argue about this in a reasonable way, as we are all speaking from our personal, biased, experience and knowledge, not from a unbiased base of informations.
I think that most of the suggestion given here so far will damage EVE as a whole much more of what they will help it.
The only way to know the real effects would be to test them, but then if they are the wrong solution or even the wrong problem, it would be very hard to return to the previous situation or even a semblance of it.
I already suggested it to you, but I repeat it again, try to look what was the effect on low sec missions for the few week of extremely easy scanning. Low sec missioning has never recovered from that, even if now the missioners scanning craze has abated.
What people recall is that a probe in low sec mean that 30 seconds later you will get a visit in a mission and almost certainly lose your ship.
Originally by: Gamesguy
the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 20:40:00 -
[367]
Originally by: Malcanis
To be honest, I'm not yet sure. Amazing though it may seem to some, I posted this thread in the hope of getting some ideas. There has actually been some valuable input amongst the flaming, whining, lying, alt-smack and nit-picking.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
The reprocessing/T1 loot/mining issue should be addressed, but personally I think that addressing it only from 1 direction (i.e. removing meta 0 mission loot) without others changes in production, like: available manufacturing slots, belts accessibility, ease of moving bulk minerls, and so on, can have negative impact.
I think that it should be addressed as a whole package with the promised industrial patch (not holding my breath waiting for that).
CCP is thinking about that:
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
To answer the OP, yes we are looking seriously at removing or radically reducing T1 from loot. But we are looking at this from all angles as there are two ways you create opportunity in our foundation industry, decrease supply from non-industrial sources such as removing completed items from loot or increasing demand by finding more ways for people to die (and ofc having fun doing so and being able to replace their ships) and allowing for natural consumption.
My reading about "increasing demand by finding more ways for people to die", in the reply context, is mostly meant for mission runners, making them lose more ships/gear , but it is only an opninion.
Originally by: Gamesguy
the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.
|
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 20:51:00 -
[368]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
You see, this is where it all fail. You see it a unacceptable that missions are a near infinite resource, limited only by server capability. Yours is an unshakable conviction.
Other people think that near infinite missions are needed and useful to the balance of the whole game.
Unless CCP give out a lot of information only they can gather it is impossible to argue about this in a reasonable way, as we are all speaking from our personal, biased, experience and knowledge, not from a unbiased base of informations.
I think that most of the suggestion given here so far will damage EVE as a whole much more of what they will help it.
The only way to know the real effects would be to test them, but then if they are the wrong solution or even the wrong problem, it would be very hard to return to the previous situation or even a semblance of it.
I already suggested it to you, but I repeat it again, try to look what was the effect on low sec missions for the few week of extremely easy scanning. Low sec missioning has never recovered from that, even if now the missioners scanning craze has abated.
What people recall is that a probe in low sec mean that 30 seconds later you will get a visit in a mission and almost certainly lose your ship.
I believe that many of us would consider veldspar an infinite resource, no? I personally image level 2 or 3 missions being the same way ... limited, but to a point that it would take a near impossible amount of activity to deplete considerably.
While you have pointed out a valid fault in why losec missions lost popularity, I wonder if you feel that this can't be overcome? Despite what many on the forums seem to believe, the EvE playerbase is amazingly persitent and adaptive. I mean, players have already witnessed several major nerfs to ship speed and escape capabilities, and yet they adapted to use of current nano hacs, and will adapt again.
I want more to see small adjustments, over time, of CCP rebalancing the player drift from hisec into nulsec. You can't force every player ... it'll never happen. Hell, some will refuse to adjust on principle alone. Others don't care. That's automatic.
But if you start by rebalancing minerals, and slowly shift the WANT of players to use losec resources to gain wealth, you can accomplish this person without giving players the impression of pushing.
We only have the information we have gained and opinion. I present a lot of opinions, because I like to, but have few true convictions where video games are concerned. About my only real conviction is that if I am not enjoying myself, I won't pay for the product. Plain and simple.
I've seem many suggestions on these forums, each good and bad for it's own reasoning. I don't think you can just boost the rewards in losec, though, without upsetting the economy (though admitedly it may be a small upset). But if you raise losec rewards, while at the same type lowering hisec rewards (actually making very minute modifications), you can avoid that.
And losec 'rewards' don't have to be isk related. Moving LP rewards to losec only is one strong adjustment, and it doesn't effect L4 mission payouts, only gross wealth. Another example is to offer players operating in losec further options, like adding more factory/research slots in losec space, increasing refine rate, offering fewer taxes, etc.
Boosting losec, so that it draws, not solo pirate targets, but corporations and industrialists ... that's what I would like to see. Adjusting missions to reflect the resource mechanism and to help initiate competition, are more things that I think *should* be done, but not *have* to be done.
So you want security? That's perfectly alright.
But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security. |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 21:11:00 -
[369]
Originally by: Dzajic
Originally by: Aldee
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.
Sorry, but that seams highly unlikely. T2 tanked Domi with T2 drones, I top out at ~15 mill/hour. Little worse agent but... not that worse.
Probably a test on 1 mission and got lucky on the draw.
Originally by: Gamesguy
the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.
|
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 21:16:00 -
[370]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Dzajic
Originally by: Aldee
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.
Sorry, but that seams highly unlikely. T2 tanked Domi with T2 drones, I top out at ~15 mill/hour. Little worse agent but... not that worse.
Probably a test on 1 mission and got lucky on the draw.
Considering that some have quoted everything from 5mil per hour on a level 4, to 40 mil. Honestly, maybe the op shouldn't have said 'average', but I think it's definitely possible to make 25 on a hisec level 4.
I'm not making it yet, but my skills are minimum and I don't 'rush' missions. So I recognize that the variables include which mission, ship, modues, module skills, social skills, and player knowledge and ability.
Just pointing out that, even if you aren't making it, doesn't mean it can't be mean. 'Average' might not be an appropriate term, but the ops post is still pretty valid on a presentation of what a player can do.
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 - 2008.08.11 21:20:00 -
[371]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Malcanis
To be honest, I'm not yet sure. Amazing though it may seem to some, I posted this thread in the hope of getting some ideas. There has actually been some valuable input amongst the flaming, whining, lying, alt-smack and nit-picking.
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.
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.
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. 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.
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.
The reprocessing/T1 loot/mining issue should be addressed, but personally I think that addressing it only from 1 direction (i.e. removing meta 0 mission loot) without others changes in production, like: available manufacturing slots, belts accessibility, ease of moving bulk minerls, and so on, can have negative impact.
I think that it should be addressed as a whole package with the promised industrial patch (not holding my breath waiting for that).
CCP is thinking about that:
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
To answer the OP, yes we are looking seriously at removing or radically reducing T1 from loot. But we are looking at this from all angles as there are two ways you create opportunity in our foundation industry, decrease supply from non-industrial sources such as removing completed items from loot or increasing demand by finding more ways for people to die (and ofc having fun doing so and being able to replace their ships) and allowing for natural consumption.
My reading about "increasing demand by finding more ways for people to die", in the reply context, is mostly meant for mission runners, making them lose more ships/gear , but it is only an opninion.
I'm 100% in agreement that it's time for an "industry" patch. Mining, research, manufacturing, and the game interfaces for them (plus the corp management interface... jesus, I still weep tears of blood at the memory) have accreted in a very ad-hoc way, and there are glaring omissions, imbalances and inadequacies that urgently need addressing far more than we need another T2 Cruiser class or whatever.
I know it seems kind of boring and unglamorous, but a full on PvE patch is just as vital for the game as any PvP patch could be.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 21:25:00 -
[372]
Originally by: Ruze
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Dzajic
Originally by: Aldee
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.
Sorry, but that seams highly unlikely. T2 tanked Domi with T2 drones, I top out at ~15 mill/hour. Little worse agent but... not that worse.
Probably a test on 1 mission and got lucky on the draw.
Considering that some have quoted everything from 5mil per hour on a level 4, to 40 mil. Honestly, maybe the op shouldn't have said 'average', but I think it's definitely possible to make 25 on a hisec level 4.
I'm not making it yet, but my skills are minimum and I don't 'rush' missions. So I recognize that the variables include which mission, ship, modues, module skills, social skills, and player knowledge and ability.
Just pointing out that, even if you aren't making it, doesn't mean it can't be mean. 'Average' might not be an appropriate term, but the ops post is still pretty valid on a presentation of what a player can do.
Originally by: Aldee
Well it turns out I was lying. I didn't know I had anything on the market and a 50 mil isk sale happened during those 3 hrs. Well I guess thats a relief at those insane profits I thought I was making from missioning I was trying to figure out how to run them 23/7.
Found this further along the thread. Lot of things to read, after being away for 3 days.
BTW: my average mission running returns, level 4:
First period doing level 4 - about 10 million isk/hour
Currently, not Caldai ships - top 20 millions/hour (I loot salvage and use only 1 account and don't play the refure/accept only high reward missions game, so it is probably lower than the max possible)
Currently, Caldari ships (T2 CNR) - about 25 million isk/hour, maybe accepting only the best missions and never spending time looting it could go to 30 million/hour.
I doubt that without dual boxing it is possible to go above that unless you use a fully faction set up, but that will make you a target for ganking, increasing the risk even in high sec a lot.
Originally by: Gamesguy
the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.
|
Malcanis
We are Legend
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 21:28:00 -
[373]
Originally by: Ruze
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.
202 posts in, someone gets it exactly right.
You know the funny things is that a few times I've seen mission runners complain about the one thing that does limit hi-sec missioning: lag.
I suggest doing something about it (wardecs, ganking, mercs) and...
...*crickets*
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 21:31:00 -
[374]
Originally by: Esmenet
Originally by: Venkul Mul
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.
Failed logic strike again .
You think that high sec mission runners have any interest in nano fit? Those NPC nano ships are terrible, truly.
Ganking, ok, it is a high sec problem as it don't exist in low sec, but again it is mostly a hauler problem, not a mission runner.
Caldari militia.
Caldari militia like in: Caldari militia doing PvP in low sec?
And they are mission runners?
At most they were mission runners, but from most of the whines they simply are new players attracted by FW.
Originally by: Gamesguy
the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 21:46:00 -
[375]
Originally by: Malcanis
I'm 100% in agreement that it's time for an "industry" patch. Mining, research, manufacturing, and the game interfaces for them (plus the corp management interface... jesus, I still weep tears of blood at the memory) have accreted in a very ad-hoc way, and there are glaring omissions, imbalances and inadequacies that urgently need addressing far more than we need another T2 Cruiser class or whatever.
I know it seems kind of boring and unglamorous, but a full on PvE patch is just as vital for the game as any PvP patch could be.
A well done industry patch can be the right time to address some of the points raised in this thread. Even if I disagree on the need to remove or limit agent in high sec, a rebalancing, especially if done at the same time of a industrial/mining patch, making them more interesting, would be the right thing, resolving some of the issues while moderating the aftershock of the changes.
For me the beauty of EVE is the balance of the PvE/PvP parts and the balance between solo/group activities.
A lot of the pro PvP post seem to argue for the need to always group up, call friends, form a gang, even for PvE activities or for when you want to do what you like instead of a group activity.
So probably I sometime post too strongly in the opposite direction. Still I think that moving too far from a central point in both axis will damage EVE.
Originally by: Gamesguy
the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.
|
oilio
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 22:38:00 -
[376]
Whichever way you dress this up, this is a bunch of PvP players who don't like the idea that some people play Eve as a PvE game.
They believe that being able to progress as a PvE player is WRONG - in spite of the fact that it has no effect on them as PvP players. There is plenty of opportunity for PvP in eve. There is always a risk that a PvE player will get ganked. No-one is entirely safe.
Some people like to progress their character on the PvE route. The "PvP" players posting here are generally people who want cheap kills. They don't want to fight - they want to kill. They want PvE players to be forced onto their turf so they can kill them.
Hopefully, CCP aren't stupid enough to listen to this. CCP bring in nerfs and boosts to balance the game. This is very important in PvP, because if there is a particular ship/setup that gives an unbalanced advantage, it inevitably ends up where all PvP relies on that unbalanced setup.
This is not so with PvE. A PvP player is in no-way inconvenienced by whatever a L4 mission does, or doesn't give as a reward to the mission runner.
Of course, the lofty scam (read exploit) gave lots of nice CHEAP kills in high sec, with no risk to the attackers.
The insurance issue gave lots of CHEAP kills in high sec to suicide gankers, with almost no risk to the attackers.
These issues have been addressed, so the CHEAP-KILL "PvP" players now want all the PvE players herded into the killing grounds.
That wouldn't happen though. If CCP did that to PvE players, the PvE players would very quickly realise they were fodder for the CHEAP KILL brigade. Guess what would happen then?
I reckon that if those lamenting the removal of the lofty exploit and those moaning about the new CONCORD rebalancing left the game, it would have very little impact on CCP's income. If CCP shaft the PvE players in order to satisfy the whining of the cheap-kill brigade, it would be very damaging to CCP's income.
This isn't YOUR game. True enough, Eve should always have the risk of non-consensual PvP, but the cheap-kill shit-eaters have had it easy with the lofty and with insurance for suicide ganks. Soon, it's not going to be so easy. Tough luck. Either go for proper PvP against targets that fight back, or accept that your cheap kills will be more costly, or leave the game.
Ideally, leave the game. You will not be missed. |
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 22:42:00 -
[377]
Originally by: oilio
Stuff
First, your wrong.
Secondly, your horribly wrong.
Thirdly, though your entitled to your own opinion, it is, of course, also wrong.
If you hate to play EvE so much, why do you play EvE?
So you want security? That's perfectly alright.
But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security. |
oilio
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 22:53:00 -
[378]
Originally by: Ruze
Originally by: oilio
Stuff
If you hate to play EvE so much, why do you play EvE?
I don't hate to play eve. I really like eve.
I never suggested that I hated eve.
and thanks for pointing out that I am "wrong" twice 
Now, why don't you explain why I am wrong? You're clearly certain of it - let's see what you got. |
Siegfried Untreu
Caldari
Quid Pro Quo
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 23:26:00 -
[379]
Originally by: Malcanis
What I said was this:
"Each player can earn 25M an hour"
I can easily make the same ratting in 0.0. On top of that, I have chance of faction spawn, officer spawn, etc which might all peak my ISK/hour ratio quite nicely. Best I've made is 80m/h, absolutely worst is 15m/h, and that's not even chaining like mad or for very long. That translates to 345m-1.84b/day (23h), which still leaves a statistical average of roughly 1b/day (23h) per ratting player (or system).
Take a small region, for example Tribute, which has about 50 systems.
15m * 50 players (systems) * 23 hours = 17.25b/day => 120b/week => 483b/month
That's ratting only, no loot, no salvage, and worst case scenario for hourly return.
At statistical average of 45m/h (based on my experiences with 15-80m/h), it'll be:
45m * 50 players (systems) * 23 hours = 51.75b/day => 362b/week => 1449b/month
It's less than your calculated 105b/day for lvl4 missions, sure, but any other venture in high-sec (mining, production/sales, loot, salvage, moons etc) will net you less than the same time/resources invested in null-sec, which in the end will tip the scales towards 0.0 again. CBA to dig up and run numbers for all the POS stuff, but I know the net gain is crazy.
|
Ruze
Amarr
No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 23:46:00 -
[380]
Originally by: oilio
Originally by: Ruze
Originally by: oilio
Stuff
If you hate to play EvE so much, why do you play EvE?
I don't hate to play eve. I really like eve.
I never suggested that I hated eve.
and thanks for pointing out that I am "wrong" twice
Now, why don't you explain why I am wrong? You're clearly certain of it - let's see what you got.
Well, that's probably the worst flame I've ever given somebody. I didn't have time to make an intelligent reply, so I figured I'd go the humerous route instead.
Somewhere in this post, and many others, I argued your point before you posted it. I've been talking up a storm about what I percieve as an imbalance, specifically concerning high reward level 4 missions. About every 10th post, someone new would step into the discussion, claim the exact same thing you did, and then leave.
I'm a carebear. I am not a hardcore PvPer. Trying to debunk this argument on the sole basis of 'just trying to get more targets' is pretty low, but entirely expected on these forums. Well, to be honest, it's the kind of argument tactic that makes debates in Congress funny and legal battles sad.
So someone new pops in, lord knows if they even read anything more than the first two or three replies, and then they try to 'finalize' the discussion by stating their generalized and limited viewpoint.
Again, you were predated by several others. Disagreeing? Nothing bogus about that. We all have a tendency to disagree with each other. But trying to trivilize a solid and forthwright discussion isn't kosher. Some of us feel it's a real issue, and many of 'us' aren't the hardcore PvPers that you seem to expect.
So if you would, please read the entire discussion. If you don't want to, that's fine. But my answers to why I think you are wrong are very clearly stated, many, many times. If you can't be bothered, or aren't interested, that's fine too. But then I'm forced to wonder, why you graced us with your presence to begin with.
To each his own.
So you want security? That's perfectly alright.
But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security. |
|
oilio
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 00:05:00 -
[381]
Edited by: oilio on 12/08/2008 00:07:24
Originally by: Ruze
Adequate reply...
Fair enough.
I am both carebear and PvP'er. I have two characters.
Firstly, as far as getting people out of High Sec and into more dangerous areas goes, there is now FW. If the rewards for FW were attractive enough, then that might work - especially if FW missions were really good, and really rewarding (which they aren't).
Kicking players out of NPC corps and into a militia once they have 10 million skillpoints (as has been mentioned earlier) might be good too.
No matter what, though, you still have your casual PvE players who see Eve as a game where they can build a character (and build things WITH their character), and where they can relax. Sure, there's some danger, and that adds an edge to the game, but overall they are players building something at a leisurely pace.
As far as me being "wrong" about such things as the lofty exploit - are you gonnna say that the lofty was a deliberate mechanic that CCP wanted? The lofty scam basically meant that casual players DIDN'T fleet up with anyone. They could join a nice PvE corp, of course, but then some griefer corp decs them and after a losing a few mission ships, they're back in the NPC corp and soloing because they were simply getting stomped on, and there was nothing they could do about it except to stay docked.
So, we have a style of gameplay that is benign. It doesn't ineterfere with the PvP players, but sometimes the PvP players intrude - that's one of the things that makes Eve exciting.
Problem is, the griefers have had an easy time. No point in argueing that they haven't, because they have. The PvE players represent a significant percentage of the paying customers. Maybe not the majority, but certainly a large minority.
So, CCP say "Hey, PvE people! We've decided that you won't make money doing missions in high sec anymore. You're going to have to either move to low sec, or you're not going to be able to build your character in the manner that you are used to."
The PvE player realises that they are going to get stomped on if they take their nice mission-fit ship into low sec. They suddenly can't make decent money in high sec... THEIR game has suddenly been nerfed, and the griefers FOR SURE have lots of new, easy targets.
You think that the casual player is going to bother renewing their subscription?
Maybe they will, but my guess is that a great many won't.
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar
Umbra Synergy
Final Retribution Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.12 00:10:00 -
[382]
lulz
I've missed you Mal heh
Originally by: Cecil Montague
They should change that warning on entering low sec to:
"Go read Crime and Punishment for a few days then come back."
|
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |