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

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

What is a hi-sec level 4 agent worth

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 :: one page
Author	Topic
Arrs Grazznic Consolidated HyperSpatial Logistics	Posted - 2008.08.08 11:35:00 - [181] Originally by: Mizear Name me one system that can supply 175 miners mining crock and up for 23 hours. Also it's quite easy to totally disrupt a .0 mining op even in a frigate or 2, I would like to see a frigate or 2 disrupt any form of high sec farming. Oh right you can't. Also people aren't taking into account that when you see 100 people average online in a system you probably have around 140 to 150 mission runners active at that time (let's say 25% are inactive, means 75 active mission runners in that system and since missions take you to different systems usually you can assume 150 people are running missions then). Name me one individual / player corp / alliance that can supply 175 mission running characters running the best paying level 4 missions for 23 hours. Oh right you can't. As someone said above, while agents can (and do!) effectively pay out billions of isk per hour to mission runners, that vast amount of cash is spread pretty thinly between individuals and organisations. There is the potential for a single entity to concentrate their efforts here and take a larger percentage of the payout, just as there is the potential for an alliance to strip a region's belts daily. The thing is this just doesn't happen. So, I agree with the OP that missions pay out a massive amount of isk per hour to EVE as a whole. However, I do not think that this is an issue. Cheers, Arrs
Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.08 11:43:00 - [182] Originally by: Arrs Grazznic Name me one individual / player corp / alliance that can supply 175 mission running characters running the best paying level 4 missions for 23 hours. Oh right you can't. As someone said above, while agents can (and do!) effectively pay out billions of isk per hour to mission runners, that vast amount of cash is spread pretty thinly between individuals and organisations. There is the potential for a single entity to concentrate their efforts here and take a larger percentage of the payout, just as there is the potential for an alliance to strip a region's belts daily. The thing is this just doesn't happen. So, I agree with the OP that missions pay out a massive amount of isk per hour to EVE as a whole. However, I do not think that this is an issue. Cheers, Arrs Well said. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.08 11:47:00 - [183] Originally by: Arrs Grazznic Name me one individual / player corp / alliance that can supply 175 mission running characters running the best paying level 4 missions for 23 hours. Why would you want to be in a alliance or corp for that? Its just another example of why missions are completely out of tune with the rest of EVE. Vote against the nano nerf!
McDonALTs	Posted - 2008.08.08 11:48:00 - [184] OP You are thinking about missions wrong. 1 Agent means nothing. I could say 1 square foot of Fort Knox is worth x million, therefore the entire world is worth the same rate. Never ming the fact fort knox is full of gold but thats you level of logic. Its not 1 agent - its 175 mission runners. The concept of 1 agent is flawed, since adding more agents will not add in more mission runners. So your entire argument is flawed. having 100 agents does not produce 17,500 Mission runners.
Steve Hawkings	Posted - 2008.08.08 11:48:00 - [185] stupid post, who cares and you cant just compare "the v alue of stuff" in high sec and low sec. you argument is flawed by being baseless.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 11:49:00 - [186] I just wish everyone would stop using moon mining as a 0.0 comparison for missions. Moon mining can more aptly be compared to trading. Done by many, but a select few bank billions off of it. And as for the other comment about corporations using hisec to bank money if it's so good? But, they do. Many corporations have many members who use alts or jump clones to grind a few missions out when they need quick cash. Especially since not every 0.0 corporation lives around a dyso moon or in a rattable zone. The next comparison I see that's flawed is that players are willing to argue the mission rewards can in fact vary greatly from player to player. What about ratting in nulsec? Doesn't that vary from player to player? If you were to assign an AVERAGE (which of course, even for the Op, has the natural flaw of requiring prolonged and accurate data), what would the average income of nulsec ratters, vs. the average income of hisec level 4 mission runners? So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.08 11:50:00 - [187] Originally by: Esmenet Originally by: Arrs Grazznic Name me one individual / player corp / alliance that can supply 175 mission running characters running the best paying level 4 missions for 23 hours. Why would you want to be in a alliance or corp for that? Its just another example of why missions are completely out of tune with the rest of EVE. If you're arguing about the potential on making hundreds of billions of isks in a few hours you're not planning on accomplishing this feat solo, are you? One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr
Thule Cult	Posted - 2008.08.08 11:50:00 - [188] Originally by: Arrs Grazznic Name me one individual / player corp / alliance that can supply 175 mission running characters running the best paying level 4 missions for 23 hours. Oh right you can't. As someone said above, while agents can (and do!) effectively pay out billions of isk per hour to mission runners, that vast amount of cash is spread pretty thinly between individuals and organisations. There is the potential for a single entity to concentrate their efforts here and take a larger percentage of the payout, just as there is the potential for an alliance to strip a region's belts daily. The thing is this just doesn't happen. So, I agree with the OP that missions pay out a massive amount of isk per hour to EVE as a whole. However, I do not think that this is an issue. Cheers, Arrs claps well said.
McDonALTs	Posted - 2008.08.08 11:52:00 - [189] CCP added over 100 agents since FW was released. I fail to see 17,500 extra Mission runners as OP envisioned. Therefore the OP is incorrect since Agents are not a resource, its players. Nerf players pls.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 12:01:00 - [190] Originally by: McDonALTs CCP added over 100 agents since FW was released. I fail to see 17,500 extra Mission runners as OP envisioned. Therefore the OP is incorrect since Agents are not a resource, its players. Nerf players pls. I'm not certain what you are trying to prove. Where in the Ops original post or any of his replies did he say that by adding agents, it would in turn increase the number of players using them? If you actually think that this is relevant to the discussion, then by all means, I'd love to figure out what logic your using to build your counterpoints. If your intent is otherwise ... well, then I think it needs to be questioned if you should be listened to at all. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.

Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.08 12:20:00 - [191] Originally by: Ruze Originally by: McDonALTs CCP added over 100 agents since FW was released. I fail to see 17,500 extra Mission runners as OP envisioned. Therefore the OP is incorrect since Agents are not a resource, its players. Nerf players pls. I'm not certain what you are trying to prove. Where in the Ops original post or any of his replies did he say that by adding agents, it would in turn increase the number of players using them? If you actually think that this is relevant to the discussion, then by all means, I'd love to figure out what logic your using to build your counterpoints. If your intent is otherwise ... well, then I think it needs to be questioned if you should be listened to at all. Originally by: Malcanis 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. For a single agent. The emphasis on "For a single agent" is from the OP. So it is pointing is finger a the existence and numbers of the agents, not to the number of the players. (BTW his post is suggesting that all agents have the same large numbers of clients) I have pointed out repeatedly that 175 doing something generating isk for 1 hour generate a lot of isk, whatever the activity is. So while the ease of having 1 single agent giving the missions for those 175 players against having to stripmine 5 systems or ratting 30 systems can't be negated, what make the difference is the number of players, not the resource alone. If really that is a problem it is possible to reduce the number of missions for each player that a agent is willing to give (reducing the total number of mission would hit heavily those that play mostly before DT). It would mostly affect power players that run a lot of missions in a few hours to build up cash, so probably more PvPers alts that pure PvEpers that often do different things as running only missions for a extended period of time can be pretty boring (I build, invent, explore, do mission, mine, rat and very occasionally PvP, I haven't spent a straight day missioning only in the last year and a half at least). Even people that do only missions will probably have access to several agents, so the only difference would be in distributing them a bit more. Originally by: Gamesguy the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 12:32:00 - [192] Personally, I don't think the number of players using the agents, or the number of agents, is really an issue. I think that the issue is that high-quality agents are an easy way for a player to make lots of isk, risk free. What's wrong with that, you might wonder? In my opinion, I think what's wrong is that they are an infinite resource, and one that multiple players can use at the same time, for identical profit margins. I'm talking about two players talking to the same agent, not two players running in fleet together doing the same missions. What is comparable to that? What else in EvE is so abundant that everyone could use it at the same moment, for the same individual profit? So, I think that is the post behind the Ops argument, or at least that's how I see it. Missions need to be a resource, like everything else in EvE. Specifically, high-level and high-quality missions. They need to be something you compete for, something that requires you to fight off the competition to get. If you make it difficult enough that it must be fought over (not fought as in ship vs. ship, mind you), it wouldn't matter if it's 25m/hr or 100. But since there is no limit, and thus no competition for those profits, I think it is contrary to the rest of EvE. I think agents (not mining, trading, or industry) are the prime reason people are believing that they can play EvE completely without interaction with anyone else. And I think they are the sole source of this confusion. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Essque Starlancers	Posted - 2008.08.08 12:38:00 - [193] The only ways to make more ISK in 0.0 than in hisec are the following: 1. Level 4 agent in 0.0, well protected area. 2. You own a high end moon Ratting is not one of them, unless you can't run level 4s or you are the luckiest man on Earth an get officer drops very often. There is no arguing that if an alliance would invest the same man hour in running level 4s they'd make more ISK than controlling the average 0.0 region. 0.0 is for fame an glory, not for making ISK. Maybe unless you live in Delve. Anyone who knows the game, knows I'm right. The rest can argue, nobody cares.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.08 12:43:00 - [194] 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. Bottom line: You think that the number of player should stop growing? Then you are right and agents should be a limited resource, so that there is no space for a growth in the number of players beyond a specific point. If the number of player should keep growing, a resource capable of sustaining them should exist. That or constantly expanding the universe to accommodate them (and this second option will become necessary the same after the population reach the critical density). PvP alone don't generate growth or produce anything, so it will not cover the need of the increased population if you cap the number of missions done. It would make EVE a more dark and desperate place. But most players can stomach only a limited quantity of dark and desperate, especially when they are the under trodden desperate. Playing the peon or the medieval peasnt has little appeal. Originally by: Gamesguy the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 12:52:00 - [195] Originally by: Venkul Mul Bottom line: You think that the number of player should stop growing? Then you are right and agents should be a limited resource, so that there is no space for a growth in the number of players beyond a specific point. If the number of player should keep growing, a resource capable of sustaining them should exist. That or constantly expanding the universe to accommodate them (and this second option will become necessary the same after the population reach the critical density). PvP alone don't generate growth or produce anything, so it will not cover the need of the increased population if you cap the number of missions done. It would make EVE a more dark and desperate place. But most players can stomach only a limited quantity of dark and desperate, especially when they are the under trodden desperate. Playing the peon or the medieval peasnt has little appeal. I've respected your arguments up till now. I respect many of the ops arguments, and both of you have brought up fine points. But what I don't understand is your assessment that 'Missions' = 'Playerbase'. This game has many facets, almost all of which are limited amongst the playerbase. Limited number of asteroid belts, limited number of moons, limited number of factory slots, limited number of research positions. How are these not limiting the playerbase as well? Why should missions be unique in this? This game has been going and growing for a long time, and missions are ONLY ONE ASPECT. Is it wrong to ask that the same competitive edge that sharpens every other part of the game be applied to missions as well? Lets assume that you are not making this argument purely for the sake of keeping a very nice resource as infinite and profitable and risk free as missions. Do you honestly think that level 4 missions are the only thing that allows the game to continue to grow? Without them, is EvE dead in the water? What kind of game do we have, then? It seems that, if you are right and level 4 missions are the reason why players come to EvE, then there is a serious flaw in the game design. So if level 4 missions are infinite, I believe this patter needs to be spread througout the game. Allow any number of players to mine the same moon. Instantly respawn the best asteroids in each belt. Factory slots should be shared by everyone. Maybe then the game would grow to, I don't know, WoW porpotions? So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 12:57:00 - [196] And since when do 'number of players' equal a 'better' game? I think that is a flawed assumption. If that logic held true in real life, then China and India are the best countries in the world, bar none. I don't enjoy WoW. It can have billions of players, and I still wouldn't like the game. Does that mean I'm constantly searching for a 'worse' game? Personally, I think EvE is a FAR better game the WoW. One of the main reasons I believe this is it's realistic nature and it's competitive, sometimes cruel ethos. And while I don't think missions in any way are the 'staple' of gameplay, if they are, it should follow along with the rest of the game. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.08 13:14:00 - [197] Originally by: Ruze I've respected your arguments up till now. I respect many of the ops arguments, and both of you have brought up fine points. But what I don't understand is your assessment that 'Missions' = 'Playerbase'. This game has many facets, almost all of which are limited amongst the playerbase. Limited number of asteroid belts, limited number of moons, limited number of factory slots, limited number of research positions. How are these not limiting the playerbase as well? Why should missions be unique in this? This game has been going and growing for a long time, and missions are ONLY ONE ASPECT. Is it wrong to ask that the same competitive edge that sharpens every other part of the game be applied to missions as well? Lets assume that you are not making this argument purely for the sake of keeping a very nice resource as infinite and profitable and risk free as missions. Do you honestly think that level 4 missions are the only thing that allows the game to continue to grow? Without them, is EvE dead in the water? What kind of game do we have, then? It seems that, if you are right and level 4 missions are the reason why players come to EvE, then there is a serious flaw in the game design. So if level 4 missions are infinite, I believe this patter needs to be spread througout the game. Allow any number of players to mine the same moon. Instantly respawn the best asteroids in each belt. Factory slots should be shared by everyone. Maybe then the game would grow to, I don't know, WoW porpotions? And since when do 'number of players' equal a 'better' game? I think that is a flawed assumption. If that logic held true in real life, then China and India are the best countries in the world, bar none. I don't enjoy WoW. It can have billions of players, and I still wouldn't like the game. Does that mean I'm constantly searching for a 'worse' game? Personally, I think EvE is a FAR better game the WoW. One of the main reasons I believe this is it's realistic nature and it's competitive, sometimes cruel ethos. And while I don't think missions in any way are the 'staple' of gameplay, if they are, it should follow along with the rest of the game. You arguments here aren't flawed. I havent said that More player = better game. I asked if you think that EVE playerbase should continue to expand or not. If you think that it should continue to expand, a resource that expand with the number of players is needed (it can be missions, number of systems, whatever). Missions currently are that resource and with the current EVE structure are the resource that is require less intervention from CCP to expand it (actually no intervention at all, the players do all). First or later CCP will feel the need to add more systems (I don't see Black rise as more than a test). Limit mission, ok, then what will do the players that for some reason are "cut off" from missions. It can happen because they are in the wrong Time Zone, or because the faction the work for has less agents (Oops, working for Angels I have alienated all the empires, but I have killed to much other race pirates to be accepted there and the X mission for angels for today are all gone), because the next agent available is 20 jumps avay and the player has 1 hour free and so on. Even worse, the new players will find themselves without access to mission, as more experienced players with better standing and resources would have snatched all the good mission, and then even the bad (very similar to what happens in the starting system belts). So if all the resources in game become inflexible barring CCP intervention, CCP intervention to increase them will become a constant activity (unless you think that CCP want the player base to stop growing or even shrink). I am not against tuning down some mission (mostly I am for stopping people for repeatedly farming the same mission, but I am even against chaining rats) (continue) Originally by: Gamesguy the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.08 13:15:00 - [198] (following) Originally by: Gamesguy the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.08 13:15:00 - [199] Originally by: Exlegion Originally by: Esmenet Originally by: Arrs Grazznic Name me one individual / player corp / alliance that can supply 175 mission running characters running the best paying level 4 missions for 23 hours. Why would you want to be in a alliance or corp for that? Its just another example of why missions are completely out of tune with the rest of EVE. If you're arguing about the potential on making hundreds of billions of isks in a few hours you're not planning on accomplishing this feat solo, are you? Hundreds of billions of isk in a few hours comes from 175 soloplayers. Its irrelevant if they are in a corp or not as the corp does not add anything to this activity. There is not a single incentive to work together to do missions, in fact from a economic standpoint its preferable to stay in a npc corp. As that isk is primarily used to strenghten the individual players wallet in order to purchase more ships/modules. The only real reason to get in a corp in EVE is because pvp is teamoriented. Isk making activities in 0.0 is much more teamoriented, but doesnt offer any real bonus for that teamwork. Vote against the nano nerf!
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.08 13:21:00 - [200] Originally by: Venkul Mul Limit mission, ok, then what will do the players that for some reason are "cut off" from missions. It can happen because they are in the wrong Time Zone, or because the faction the work for has less agents (Oops, working for Angels I have alienated all the empires, but I have killed to much other race pirates to be accepted there and the X mission for angels for today are all gone), because the next agent available is 20 jumps avay and the player has 1 hour free and so on. Thats so easy to bypass. You are not even trying to keep an open mind. You can for example easily limit mission for individual players or give out a total nr of missions on a hourly basis (or some random continuous seeding of missions towards individual agents) instead of just once pr day. Limitations and competition needs to be introduced for missions like any other resource in EVE. Vote against the nano nerf!

Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.08 13:31:00 - [201] Originally by: Venkul Mul Bottom line: You think that the number of player should stop growing? Then you are right and agents should be a limited resource, so that there is no space for a growth in the number of players beyond a specific point. If the number of player should keep growing, a resource capable of sustaining them should exist. Honestly what sort of game would this be if the only viable playstyle is mission whoring because the rest of the game is so crowded its not worth it? Vote against the nano nerf!
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 13:33:00 - [202] The concept needs balancing, I agree. But I also think that the other methods of 'balance' are not going to be effective ... namely, suggestions of moving all level 4 missions out of hisec, or simply 'boosting' rewards in losec. There needs to be a status quo with missions that is much like veldspar is with mining. Something that is so abundant, that finding a replacement means going only a system over. I would suggest these be level 3 missions. Yes, one system may run completely out of level 3's, but finding another should never be far away. But level 4 missions, ESPECIALLY high-quality level 4 missions, should have a limit that is scalable. Be it the number of missions a player can run a day, or scaling the agent's quality to adjust as missions are performed, ending with the agent no longer giving missions. Another way is to allow them to scale their standings requirements, but that leaves players with high standings still being able to infinitely farm isk. I think that CCP is going to run into a problem with population sooner than later. If they can't convince players, somehow, to get out of their PvE mindset and enjoy the rest of EvE as it is meant to be played, they will quickly be swamped with a bunch of systems that are overfull. And with missions having such high, risk free earning potential, even players who enjoy losec and nulsec are coming to hisec to make money. It's one of the simplest and easiest, especially considering risk, ways to make money. It may not be completely equal with ratting, but it's far less stressful. So hisec gets overfull, and what is CCP's option? A single shard has never been meant to handle hundreds of thousands of players. EvE can't support WoW numbers. And especially, EvE can't support WoW's 'I'm not doing anything leave me alone' stereotypical mindset. The game wasn't designed for that. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Lord WarATron Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.08.08 13:35:00 - [203] Originally by: Esmenet Limitations and competition needs to be introduced for missions like any other resource in EVE. What a bad idea. Whatever limit you make, people will use alts to get around it. People will just use alts. Even 1 mission per day and people will use alts so you acheived nothing. Also, do you even relise how bad the logic is? You want to get more cloak ravens ratting in 0.0? Oh wait, lets stop that as well by limit rats such as a few spawns a day. Lets nerf traders by limiting who many people can buy from you a day. Lets nerf PvPers by limiting how many people they can kill. TBH they should nerf people like you from posting without playing the game. The OP has not a clue what he is talking about. -- Billion Isk Mission
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.08 13:39:00 - [204] Edited by: Esmenet on 08/08/2008 13:45:10 Originally by: Lord WarATron Originally by: Esmenet Limitations and competition needs to be introduced for missions like any other resource in EVE. What a bad idea. Whatever limit you make, people will use alts to get around it. People will just use alts. Even 1 mission per day and people will use alts so you acheived nothing. Also, do you even relise how bad the logic is? You want to get more cloak ravens ratting in 0.0? Oh wait, lets stop that as well by limit rats such as a few spawns a day. Lets nerf traders by limiting who many people can buy from you a day. Lets nerf PvPers by limiting how many people they can kill. TBH they should nerf people like you from posting without playing the game. The OP has not a clue what he is talking about. Most players dont have alts (see one of the economy dev blogs i think). It still will take a lot more effort if you want to keep 5 alts up to do what you could do with one earlier. Ratting is limited and has plenty of competition. Trading is limited and has plenty of competition. PVP is limited and has plenty of competition. Mining is limited and has plenty of competition. Exploration is limited and has plenty of competition. Face it any activity besides missioning has limited available resources and is open to competition from other players. Cloaking ratters is really another issue completely. Vote against the nano nerf!
Tippia Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2008.08.08 13:43:00 - [205] Originally by: Lord WarATron Also, do you even relise how bad the logic is? You want to get more cloak ravens ratting in 0.0? Oh wait, lets stop that as well by limit rats such as a few spawns a day. Lets nerf traders by limiting who many people can buy from you a day. Lets nerf PvPers by limiting how many people they can kill. The difference is that all of those are subject to competition: someone else might come in and pop those rats, taking "your" bounty and loot; someone else might produce the same good at a lower price, taking "your" sales. This is not the case with missions. They are always there, with set rewards and no competition.
Artthana Minmatar Kinda'Shujaa	Posted - 2008.08.08 13:51:00 - [206] Originally by: Esmenet Edited by: Esmenet on 08/08/2008 13:45:10 Originally by: Lord WarATron Originally by: Esmenet Limitations and competition needs to be introduced for missions like any other resource in EVE. What a bad idea. Whatever limit you make, people will use alts to get around it. People will just use alts. Even 1 mission per day and people will use alts so you acheived nothing. Also, do you even relise how bad the logic is? You want to get more cloak ravens ratting in 0.0? Oh wait, lets stop that as well by limit rats such as a few spawns a day. Lets nerf traders by limiting who many people can buy from you a day. Lets nerf PvPers by limiting how many people they can kill. TBH they should nerf people like you from posting without playing the game. The OP has not a clue what he is talking about. Most players dont have alts (see one of the economy dev blogs i think). It still will take a lot more effort if you want to keep 5 alts up to do what you could do with one earlier. Ratting is limited and has plenty of competition. Trading is limited and has plenty of competition. PVP is limited and has plenty of competition. Mining is limited and has plenty of competition. Exploration is limited and has plenty of competition. Face it any activity besides missioning has limited available resources and is open to competition from other players. Cloaking ratters is really another issue completely. So what? What is broken about missions? What is the negative effect of missions injecting (low risk) isk into the economy? Seriously?
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.08 13:52:00 - [207] Originally by: Esmenet Edited by: Esmenet on 08/08/2008 13:45:10 Originally by: Lord WarATron Originally by: Esmenet Limitations and competition needs to be introduced for missions like any other resource in EVE. What a bad idea. Whatever limit you make, people will use alts to get around it. People will just use alts. Even 1 mission per day and people will use alts so you acheived nothing. Also, do you even relise how bad the logic is? You want to get more cloak ravens ratting in 0.0? Oh wait, lets stop that as well by limit rats such as a few spawns a day. Lets nerf traders by limiting who many people can buy from you a day. Lets nerf PvPers by limiting how many people they can kill. TBH they should nerf people like you from posting without playing the game. The OP has not a clue what he is talking about. Most players dont have alts (see one of the economy dev blogs i think). It still will take a lot more effort if you want to keep 5 alts up to do what you could do with one earlier. Ratting is limited and has plenty of competition. Trading is limited and has plenty of competition. PVP is limited and has plenty of competition. Mining is limited and has plenty of competition. Exploration is limited and has plenty of competition. Face it any activity besides missioning has limited available resources and is open to competition from other players. Cloaking ratters is really another issue completely. 2,5 characters for account, so plenty of alts. Ratting is limited and has plenty of competition Trading is not limited and has plenty of competition PVP is not limited and is competition Mining is limited and has plenty of competition Exploration is not limited and has plenty of competition sites respawn immediatly as completed Originally by: Gamesguy the suicide ganking is merely an isk farming activity.
Amateratsu Caldari Terra Incognita Vanguard.	Posted - 2008.08.08 13:53:00 - [208] It is a well known fact that the majority of eve's playerbase live in highsec.. Why? Because the majority of players play eve to relax and have fun doing whatever is it they enjoy doing in the game, with out having to worry about other players trying to blow them up all the time. Nomatter what ccp do, you CANNOT force those players to move out of highsec if they do not want to move. Limiting their resources will only drive them from the game, Now that may be what you pvp guys would like to see happen, but it would be finantial suicide for ccp. CCP must cater to the needs of the majority of its player base, to not do so would drive those players from the game and lead to eves dimise. CCP's vission of eve may once have been for a dark, cold, harsh world, but thats not what the majority of its playerbase wants, so they have to adapt their vision to the needs of that playerbase. If they don't, that playerbase will move on and eve will die. Demanding that they nerf highsec will drive a large percentage of the playerbase away and be extremely damaging to the game. á
Zephyr Rengate dearg doom	Posted - 2008.08.08 13:53:00 - [209] Would limiting LP to only low sec and 0.0 help out?
Malcanis We are Legend eXceed.	Posted - 2008.08.08 13:54:00 - [210] Originally by: Amateratsu It is a well known fact that the majority of eve's playerbase live in highsec.. Why? Because the majority of players play eve to relax and have fun doing whatever is it they enjoy doing in the game, with out having to worry about other players trying to blow them up all the time. quote] Proof please. I've provided evidence that it could well be because of purely economic reasons. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.