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
Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.08 14:58:00 - [241] Ruze, You are reading my words wrong and I'm not categorizing everyone into this one group. However, you must admit there is the very vocal minority that do enjoy the misery of others. In fact, they thrive and depend on it. Just by reading some of the threads generated on these forums you should be able to confirm that. Then there are those that really are concerned in balancing the game. I can point out with much more ease those that have agendas other than the overall well-being of the game, as they seem to imply even on this very thread. And I'm not asking for a corner of space where nobody can harm anyone. That's the other extreme and is just as ridiculous. What I am defending is the right to be able to exist within Eve in a place where risk is reasonably minimal predictible. And it should be a place where "carebears" can have some fun too. Mind you, I spend most of the time in 0.0 or low sec. In 0.0 ratting, but lately more in PVP ops. In low sec mostly running missions. But I still believe there should be a place for the casual players. They aren't harming me in any way. And in low sec and 0.0 they're the last thing on my mind. I just can't understand why there is so much hate against a playerbase (probably the largest?) that really has minimal effect on low sec and 0.0, which I'll assume is where most of the posters here reside. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr
Nogap toosmall	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:03:00 - [242] Edited by: Nogap toosmall on 08/08/2008 15:04:48 Originally by: Ruze That's my prime argument, and it has little relation to this post: There are players who want it all, who want to earn the best isk and fly the best ships, but don't want to have to be 'forced' to compete or earn to get it. "Let us play the game as we like", they say. But every isk they make inflates the economy. Every mass of modules they refine hurt the industrial professions, which ARE hampered by limited resources. Every ship they buy is almost guaranteed to last for the length of their ownership. About they only things they have to expend are for ammo. Everything else is bank. My argument is that nothing in this game should be so simple and easy. I don't play EvE to play with WoW mission miners who exist only for themselves. If I wanted to play those games, I WOULD be playing them. Instead, over two years ago (closer to three), I decided to come back and play EvE, which was much like real life. What had to be gained and gotten, you had to go and get. Now the playerbase wants coddling? Like children? I despise games like WoW BECAUSE of their simplicity, their ignorant nativity, and because they are designed for the lowest common denominator of the playerbase, the poor smucks who want the world handed to them and don't want to achieve for it. I love EvE because it is different. And I think missions need to reflect that difference along with everything else. You can call Eve many things, simple is not a word I would choose. While I kind of admire your wish for the game to remain raw and hardcore, it can for you if you want it to Just because some idiot mission runner can horde oodles and oodles of cash..so what? They do not get to see the advanced side of the game (0.0) Ever Sure they can buy T2 cruisers and modules but they are all made with mats from low sec that some enterprising soul has sold to them...the market self corrects in that way. If your a low sec player, T2 is potentially very cheap, if your a high sec player its nearly always very expensive. On the other hand, it also it seems to me that an awful lot of people bankroll their 0.0 exploits with highsec alts, now it does suck that this is needed and I would support a correction of this, but nerfing high sec agents wont accomplish that. More stuff needs to be given to null and low sec to make the draw of it so inticing that people cant resist, that way everyones a winner
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:06:00 - [243] I think you are absolutely right, Exlegion. There is a small group of 'griefers', or forummongers with so-called 'griefer' alts who like to stir up sarcastic remarks (raises hand). These guys call for all types of extremes. The other side is just as bad. They are what I like to call 'bums', who don't want to do anything that might involve actual combat with another player. They want everything the game has, but they want to do it safely, with no non-consensual PvP. They repeatedly ignore the fact that it's a player-run market, thinking it is just like the markets of many other games, with NPC items seeded everywhere, and players selling to NPC's as much as other players. Both call for ridiculous things. If anything, they should be ignored. Instead, many posters will classify anyone who disagrees with them as the opposite, so that they can try to invalidate a logical argument that they don't agree with. I try to point out that, when I see it, but it's a tactic that's as prevalent in politics and courtrooms as it is in video games. Exist in safety. That's fine. Like I said, lately I've been doing it too (I almost got killed in a prophecy in a level 2 mission when I first came back, I was so out of practice). But don't try to argue that a highsec player can 'do his own thing' and NOT have an effect on every other player. Our economy doesn't work that way. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Malcanis We are Legend eXceed.	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:12:00 - [244] Originally by: Ruze I think you are absolutely right, Exlegion. There is a small group of 'griefers', or forummongers with so-called 'griefer' alts who like to stir up sarcastic remarks (raises hand). These guys call for all types of extremes. The other side is just as bad. They are what I like to call 'bums', who don't want to do anything that might involve actual combat with another player. They want everything the game has, but they want to do it safely, with no non-consensual PvP. They repeatedly ignore the fact that it's a player-run market, thinking it is just like the markets of many other games, with NPC items seeded everywhere, and players selling to NPC's as much as other players. Both call for ridiculous things. If anything, they should be ignored. Instead, many posters will classify anyone who disagrees with them as the opposite, so that they can try to invalidate a logical argument that they don't agree with. I try to point out that, when I see it, but it's a tactic that's as prevalent in politics and courtrooms as it is in video games. Exist in safety. That's fine. Like I said, lately I've been doing it too (I almost got killed in a prophecy in a level 2 mission when I first came back, I was so out of practice). But don't try to argue that a highsec player can 'do his own thing' and NOT have an effect on every other player. Our economy doesn't work that way. This is the best post in this thread. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:13:00 - [245] Originally by: Nogap toosmall You can call Eve many things, simple is not a word I would choose. While I kind of admire your wish for the game to remain raw and hardcore, it can for you if you want it to Just because some idiot mission runner can horde oodles and oodles of cash..so what? They do not get to see the advanced side of the game (0.0) Ever Sure they can buy T2 cruisers and modules but they are all made with mats from low sec that some enterprising soul has sold to them...the market self corrects in that way. If your a low sec player, T2 is potentially very cheap, if your a high sec player its nearly always very expensive. On the other hand, it also it seems to me that an awful lot of people bankroll their 0.0 exploits with highsec alts, now it does suck that this is needed and I would support a correction of this, but nerfing high sec agents wont accomplish that. More stuff needs to be given to null and low sec to make the draw of it so inticing that people cant resist, that way everyones a winner That's the point of misunderstanding between both crowds. Mission runners DO have a massive effect on the economy of all of EvE. From the modules they loot and sell, to the modules they loot and reprocess to ore and sell, to the money they make from bounties and missions and use on the market, to the LP they make which is then turned into premade items or BPC's. All of these effects happen with little or no 'risk'. Ships are rarely lost. If your Amarr, you don't even use ammo. Your agents are limiteless. You don't compete for any missions. Your overall interaction with other players APPEARS to be minimal. This is where I raise the flag. Because a missioner is not minding his own business, unless he's running around in a ship earned ONLY through LP or missions (like one of the meta 1 or 2 frigates), and using modules that are ONLY looted, including ammo. Otherwise, you have an effect. EvE may seem lonely, but it's actually a thriving world that relies on your contribution. I would like to see missions reflect the rest of EvE in that regard, so that players aren't so quick to forget that this is a realistic, complicated MMO. I don't want hardcore. If I wanted hardcore(tm), I'd go play against CounterStrike or something. But I don't want EvE to be a single-player game with a chatroom, either. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Lord WarATron Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:17:00 - [246] This is the most ****ed thread I have read in a long time. Missions are limited by TIME. Currently, mining ice is limited by TIME. Moon mining is limited by TIME. Trading those NPC goods, which are in infinite supply, is limited by TIME. PvPing in noobships is Limited by TIME. Killing rats in belts is limited by TIME. Competing for resources? Give me a break. The low value resources exist so people can get a foothold. Missions paying out even 25mil/hour is begger money. Missions, NPC trading and a few other things exist in infinite supply because they are of low value. If you think 25mil/hour is high then you are probebly the type of person who thinks making ú1 a hour in RL a mighty sum. Get over the insurance nerf. I have never seen these forums hit this level of ****edness in a long TIME. -- Billion Isk Mission
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:22:00 - [247] Originally by: Lord WarATron This is the most ****ed thread I have read in a long time. Missions are limited by TIME. Currently, mining ice is limited by TIME. Moon mining is limited by TIME. Trading those NPC goods, which are in infinite supply, is limited by TIME. PvPing in noobships is Limited by TIME. Killing rats in belts is limited by TIME. Competing for resources? Give me a break. The low value resources exist so people can get a foothold. Missions paying out even 25mil/hour is begger money. Missions, NPC trading and a few other things exist in infinite supply because they are of low value. If you think 25mil/hour is high then you are probebly the type of person who thinks making ú1 a hour in RL a mighty sum. Get over the insurance nerf. I have never seen these forums hit this level of ***edness in a long TIME. Wow. I wasn't arguing insurance nerf. Were any of you other gents arguing the insurance nerf? I disagree on the limit of time. While time has it's effect, there are many other limits in this game, including supply and demand. Take veldspar, for instance. The most common asteroid, but because of current market imbalance, also the most profitable to mine. It's one thing to disagree. I, personally, think your just trying to insult and get your picture seen by people as someone who can 'finalize' the discussion. And for MANY players, 25mil/hr is very good money. Please contribute, if you wish. Calling us rtards, though, is no contribution. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Nogap toosmall	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:25:00 - [248] Originally by: Ruze That's the point of misunderstanding between both crowds. Mission runners DO have a massive effect on the economy of all of EvE. From the modules they loot and sell, to the modules they loot and reprocess to ore and sell, to the money they make from bounties and missions and use on the market, to the LP they make which is then turned into premade items or BPC's. All of these effects happen with little or no 'risk'. Ships are rarely lost. If your Amarr, you don't even use ammo. Your agents are limiteless. You don't compete for any missions. Your overall interaction with other players APPEARS to be minimal. This is where I raise the flag. Because a missioner is not minding his own business, unless he's running around in a ship earned ONLY through LP or missions (like one of the meta 1 or 2 frigates), and using modules that are ONLY looted, including ammo. Otherwise, you have an effect. EvE may seem lonely, but it's actually a thriving world that relies on your contribution. I would like to see missions reflect the rest of EvE in that regard, so that players aren't so quick to forget that this is a realistic, complicated MMO. I don't want hardcore. If I wanted hardcore(tm), I'd go play against CounterStrike or something. But I don't want EvE to be a single-player game with a chatroom, either. I see your point, but you cannot really expect CCP to limit what goes on in high sec insofar as materials/isk is concerned. It would just kill that side of the game. What I would happily support and think is more useful would be an increase in the content, tech and materials available in 0.0. More stuff like bubble blowers, and bombs that are only useable in null sec, so they cannot be purchased or at least used in high sec. In short something to tempt the masses with all their hardware and isk into 0.0, sound fair?
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:26:00 - [249] Originally by: Ruze That's the point of misunderstanding between both crowds. Mission runners DO have a massive effect on the economy of all of EvE. It also has a big effect on the popularity/viability of other professions. Why would anyone living in high sec mine for their isk for instance? Even max skilled in a perfect belt of big veldsparroids you earn less than half the isk/hr of a normal missionrunner. I wonder how the belts would look like if noone was macromining. Vote against the nano nerf!
Exlegion New Light Hydra Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:28:00 - [250] If it is of genuine concern that high sec missions are having a measurable and significant negative effect on the Eve economy then CCP should definitely look into it. And they should adjust missions accordingly, using objective parameters. I suspect, however, that CCP already has that information and are/will be making necessary changes if numbers aren't where they should be. What I can almost guarantee is they will minimize a nerf to the 'fun' factor of these players; meaning that no matter how much some of us wish them ill-intentions it's just not going to happen. CCP will not shoot itself in the face to make the hand happy. One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr

Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:35:00 - [251] Originally by: Nogap toosmall Originally by: Ruze That's the point of misunderstanding between both crowds. Mission runners DO have a massive effect on the economy of all of EvE. From the modules they loot and sell, to the modules they loot and reprocess to ore and sell, to the money they make from bounties and missions and use on the market, to the LP they make which is then turned into premade items or BPC's. All of these effects happen with little or no 'risk'. Ships are rarely lost. If your Amarr, you don't even use ammo. Your agents are limiteless. You don't compete for any missions. Your overall interaction with other players APPEARS to be minimal. This is where I raise the flag. Because a missioner is not minding his own business, unless he's running around in a ship earned ONLY through LP or missions (like one of the meta 1 or 2 frigates), and using modules that are ONLY looted, including ammo. Otherwise, you have an effect. EvE may seem lonely, but it's actually a thriving world that relies on your contribution. I would like to see missions reflect the rest of EvE in that regard, so that players aren't so quick to forget that this is a realistic, complicated MMO. I don't want hardcore. If I wanted hardcore(tm), I'd go play against CounterStrike or something. But I don't want EvE to be a single-player game with a chatroom, either. I see your point, but you cannot really expect CCP to limit what goes on in high sec insofar as materials/isk is concerned. It would just kill that side of the game. What I would happily support and think is more useful would be an increase in the content, tech and materials available in 0.0. More stuff like bubble blowers, and bombs that are only useable in null sec, so they cannot be purchased or at least used in high sec. In short something to tempt the masses with all their hardware and isk into 0.0, sound fair? Firstly, I want to counter by saying that I don't think you can really expect CCP to allow what goes on in hisec to be contrary to every other part of the game, just on the excuse that somehow players just couldn't exist or have fun without that infinitely renewable resource called level 4 missions. I don't think it would kill anything, but I do think it would reinforce that EvE is, in fact, multiplayer oriented and challenging. Then again, I do agree that things need to be done in 0.0 to draw players there. Sov needs an overhaul, big time, but I don't have enough experience to come up with anything, meself. Losec needs looked at. There needs to be something to entice players to go there, build a corp, and protect themselves. All kinds of 'CONCORD initiatives' come to mind that could offer free corporate offices, etc, etc. The real breadth is not to 'draw players into pirates grasp', but to draw players from the safe - but limited - hisec into the less safe, but more profitable and challenging losec and 0.0. A bunch of solo players running in losec will do nothing but exactly what has been predicted ... give pirates and the crueler 'griefers' targets. It needs to hold a different orientation. And, overall, losec needs it's rewards increased pretty substantially. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Lord WarATron Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:39:00 - [252] Originally by: Ruze Originally by: Lord WarATron This is the most ****ed thread I have read in a long time. Missions are limited by TIME. Currently, mining ice is limited by TIME. Moon mining is limited by TIME. Trading those NPC goods, which are in infinite supply, is limited by TIME. PvPing in noobships is Limited by TIME. Killing rats in belts is limited by TIME. Competing for resources? Give me a break. The low value resources exist so people can get a foothold. Missions paying out even 25mil/hour is begger money. Missions, NPC trading and a few other things exist in infinite supply because they are of low value. If you think 25mil/hour is high then you are probebly the type of person who thinks making ú1 a hour in RL a mighty sum. Get over the insurance nerf. I have never seen these forums hit this level of ***edness in a long TIME. Wow. I wasn't arguing insurance nerf. Were any of you other gents arguing the insurance nerf? I disagree on the limit of time. While time has it's effect, there are many other limits in this game, including supply and demand. Take veldspar, for instance. The most common asteroid, but because of current market imbalance, also the most profitable to mine. It's one thing to disagree. I, personally, think your just trying to insult and get your picture seen by people as someone who can 'finalize' the discussion. And for MANY players, 25mil/hr is very good money. Please contribute, if you wish. Calling us rtards, though, is no contribution. If you think 25mil/hour is OMG isk and must be nerfed, then you are probebly playing the wrong game . But ignoring actualy isk values, Whats your Solution? Limit people to 1 mission per day? What will that acheive? How will that stop people using alts. There needs to be a instantly accessable resource in eve otherwise new players and bankrupted pvpers will be competed out of the game. E.G newbie wants to pvp. He logs in his noobship keep to make isk to fund his pvp. Oh dear, he cannot ming veld to get a better ship as he was "competed out" of it. Pvper gets beaten up and is down to his last raven. He does a mission and boom, message pops up to say he his hit daily limit and he made 5mil on that mission. Is that what you want? Whats you solution? And whats the problem? -- Billion Isk Mission
Somealt Ofmine	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:43:00 - [253] Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 08/08/2008 15:45:28 Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 08/08/2008 15:43:44 Originally by: Ruze That's the point of misunderstanding between both crowds. Mission runners DO have a massive effect on the economy of all of EvE. From the modules they loot and sell, to the modules they loot and reprocess to ore and sell, to the money they make from bounties and missions and use on the market, to the LP they make which is then turned into premade items or BPC's. Your basic point of misunderstanding is that you lack a basic understanding of economics. Missions are neutral to deflationary, economically. Missions are both an isk faucet (bounties, rewards) and a materials faucet (modules, rig parts, LP store stuff). The isk they generate out of thin air tends to be inflationary. The materials they generate out of thin air tend to be deflationary. Just about any mission runner will tell you that they get as much or more in loot, salvage, and LP "stuff" as they do in rewards and bounties. Quote: All of these effects happen with little or no 'risk'. Ships are rarely lost. If your Amarr, you don't even use ammo. Your agents are limiteless. You don't compete for any missions. Your overall interaction with other players APPEARS to be minimal. Yep. And the economic effect is that it MODERATES the economy by keeping the flow of isk and mats running relatively smoothly regardless of who is blowing up whom out in 0.0. The effect chronic warfare in 0.0, by itself, would be massively INFLATIONARY due to vast quantities of mats (mostly trit which is scarce in 0.0) going "poof". You can't salvage the trit back out of a wreck. If CCP threw a switch tomorrow and made all of Eve 0.0 except for a little "starter island" that you could only stay in until you finished the tutorial (which is how it is in some other games), there would be an economic effect, but you probably wouldn't like it much. As much as it butt-hurts your PvPer's soul, the EvE economy really does need all those missioners, traders, and empire builders chugging away to keep running smoothly. Quote: This is where I raise the flag. Because a missioner is not minding his own business, unless he's running around in a ship earned ONLY through LP or missions (like one of the meta 1 or 2 frigates), and using modules that are ONLY looted, including ammo. So? What effect do you think that has, other than making you envious and wishing you could blow them up? Quote: Otherwise, you have an effect. EvE may seem lonely, but it's actually a thriving world that relies on your contribution. I would like to see missions reflect the rest of EvE in that regard, so that players aren't so quick to forget that this is a realistic, complicated MMO. An empire players are contributing, massively, to an economy that is remarkably stable and healthy as MMOs go. It is complicated, and no slight intended, maybe a little too complicated for you. How about you just play the game like you want to play it, and let others do the same? There isn't any economic basis for your arguments. There is a "it makes me mad that I can't PvP those guys" argument, but that's a different argument. If it makes you mad that there's no way to PvP that guy tooling around in Empire in his CNR, easy solution is don't come to empire.
Ioci Gallente Ioci Exploration	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:45:00 - [254] Originally by: Ruze Firstly, I want to counter by saying that I don't think you can really expect CCP to allow what goes on in hisec to be contrary to every other part of the game, just on the excuse that somehow players just couldn't exist or have fun without that infinitely renewable resource called level 4 missions. I don't think it would kill anything, but I do think it would reinforce that EvE is, in fact, multiplayer oriented and challenging. Then again, I do agree that things need to be done in 0.0 to draw players there. Sov needs an overhaul, big time, but I don't have enough experience to come up with anything, meself. Losec needs looked at. There needs to be something to entice players to go there, build a corp, and protect themselves. All kinds of 'CONCORD initiatives' come to mind that could offer free corporate offices, etc, etc. The real breadth is not to 'draw players into pirates grasp', but to draw players from the safe - but limited - hisec into the less safe, but more profitable and challenging losec and 0.0. A bunch of solo players running in losec will do nothing but exactly what has been predicted ... give pirates and the crueler 'griefers' targets. It needs to hold a different orientation. And, overall, losec needs it's rewards increased pretty substantially. This is sort of in line to what I was saying. Its another topic and has been raised. You go to high to make money, you go to 0.0 to lose it and low is the buffer where the misfits hawk for scraps. That's the current scenario. I don't know if that's the plan or the predicament.
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:47:00 - [255] It's been said in many of the replies. One of the solutions we've discussed is to limit the number of missions one can do each day. I'm not as fond of this one myself. The ones I am fond of are decreasing agent quality with each mission ANY player runs with him. So any agent starts off with a high-quality, and will decrease either throughout the day or the week or whatever the timeline, so that each time any player does a mission, it steadily goes down. The other solution is that the agent requires certain standings in order to give missions, and with each mission performed by all players, his standing requirements raise up. This is the idea I proposed, and I don't like it so much anymore. The problem, as you asked, is that missions are infinite and reproducable, unlike any other resource in EvE. I do believe that some level 2's, or maybe level 3's, should be 'near-infinite', like veldspar, so that if you need to make money, they are always available in your system or one or two over. But level 4's should have some requirement for competition, be it 'first-come-first-serve' (like asteroids, research and factory slots, trading, etc), or skill based. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:49:00 - [256] Originally by: Lord WarATron Originally by: Ruze Originally by: Lord WarATron This is the most ****ed thread I have read in a long time. Missions are limited by TIME. Currently, mining ice is limited by TIME. Moon mining is limited by TIME. Trading those NPC goods, which are in infinite supply, is limited by TIME. PvPing in noobships is Limited by TIME. Killing rats in belts is limited by TIME. Competing for resources? Give me a break. The low value resources exist so people can get a foothold. Missions paying out even 25mil/hour is begger money. Missions, NPC trading and a few other things exist in infinite supply because they are of low value. If you think 25mil/hour is high then you are probebly the type of person who thinks making ú1 a hour in RL a mighty sum. Get over the insurance nerf. I have never seen these forums hit this level of ***edness in a long TIME. Wow. I wasn't arguing insurance nerf. Were any of you other gents arguing the insurance nerf? I disagree on the limit of time. While time has it's effect, there are many other limits in this game, including supply and demand. Take veldspar, for instance. The most common asteroid, but because of current market imbalance, also the most profitable to mine. It's one thing to disagree. I, personally, think your just trying to insult and get your picture seen by people as someone who can 'finalize' the discussion. And for MANY players, 25mil/hr is very good money. Please contribute, if you wish. Calling us rtards, though, is no contribution. If you think 25mil/hour is OMG isk and must be nerfed, then you are probebly playing the wrong game . But ignoring actualy isk values, Whats your Solution? Limit people to 1 mission per day? What will that acheive? How will that stop people using alts. There needs to be a instantly accessable resource in eve otherwise new players and bankrupted pvpers will be competed out of the game. E.G newbie wants to pvp. He logs in his noobship keep to make isk to fund his pvp. Oh dear, he cannot ming veld to get a better ship as he was "competed out" of it. Pvper gets beaten up and is down to his last raven. He does a mission and boom, message pops up to say he his hit daily limit and he made 5mil on that mission. Is that what you want? Whats you solution? And whats the problem? Lol. Here is an equally intelligent post: "I think that when my ship hits 1% structure i should be teleported to the nearest station. To get my ship back i will then have to fly my noobship back to it, at wich point it should magically be repaired and ready for more action". Vote against the nano nerf!
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:52:00 - [257] Originally by: Somealt Ofmine Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 08/08/2008 15:45:28 Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 08/08/2008 15:43:44 Your basic point of misunderstanding is that you lack a basic understanding of economics. Missions are neutral to deflationary, economically. Missions are both an isk faucet (bounties, rewards) and a materials faucet (modules, rig parts, LP store stuff). The isk they generate out of thin air tends to be inflationary. The materials they generate out of thin air tend to be deflationary. Just about any mission runner will tell you that they get as much or more in loot, salvage, and LP "stuff" as they do in rewards and bounties. Quote: All of these effects happen with little or no 'risk'. Ships are rarely lost. If your Amarr, you don't even use ammo. Your agents are limiteless. You don't compete for any missions. Your overall interaction with other players APPEARS to be minimal. Yep. And the economic effect is that it MODERATES the economy by keeping the flow of isk and mats running relatively smoothly regardless of who is blowing up whom out in 0.0. The effect chronic warfare in 0.0, by itself, would be massively INFLATIONARY due to vast quantities of mats (mostly trit which is scarce in 0.0) going "poof". You can't salvage the trit back out of a wreck. If CCP threw a switch tomorrow and made all of Eve 0.0 except for a little "starter island" that you could only stay in until you finished the tutorial (which is how it is in some other games), there would be an economic effect, but you probably wouldn't like it much. As much as it butt-hurts your PvPer's soul, the EvE economy really does need all those missioners, traders, and empire builders chugging away to keep running smoothly. Quote: This is where I raise the flag. Because a missioner is not minding his own business, unless he's running around in a ship earned ONLY through LP or missions (like one of the meta 1 or 2 frigates), and using modules that are ONLY looted, including ammo. So? What effect do you think that has, other than making you envious and wishing you could blow them up? Quote: Otherwise, you have an effect. EvE may seem lonely, but it's actually a thriving world that relies on your contribution. I would like to see missions reflect the rest of EvE in that regard, so that players aren't so quick to forget that this is a realistic, complicated MMO. An empire players are contributing, massively, to an economy that is remarkably stable and healthy as MMOs go. It is complicated, and no slight intended, maybe a little too complicated for you. How about you just play the game like you want to play it, and let others do the same? There isn't any economic basis for your arguments. There is a "it makes me mad that I can't PvP those guys" argument, but that's a different argument. If it makes you mad that there's no way to PvP that guy tooling around in Empire in his CNR, easy solution is don't come to empire. There is an economic basis for my arguments. You just don't agree with that. Fine. But then you continually insult me as, what, proof to your argument? What's that last part, about 'it just makes me mad' bit? How many of the replies have you actually read, or are you just jumping into the discussion with the one tooled reply that you can murk up an argument for? I think my argument is reasonable AND economically sound. And if I didn't know better, and I may be wrong, but I think you might be arguing just because you don't like the idea of someone taking away you golden goose. Again, if I'm wrong about my assumption to your personal drive in this argument, I'm wrong, and I hope you say so. And if I'm not ... So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Altpause Caldari AFK	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:53:00 - [258] I see this statement on the boards all the time, that people make 25 million isk an hour running lvl 4. While this may be true, I tend to doubt it, it's a flawed assumption. The OP stated that he uses an Alt to loot/salvage, so thats 2 accounts doing 1 mission, 2 into 25 million makes it 12.5 million isk an hour. There is also the fact that he is using a "cheap faction fit CNR" for his model and omits the needed standings and social and other skills for this. I don't know any normal players that can reach this within 6 months without buying accounts. I get annoyed when I see these inflated figures posted as fact.
Dave Davies	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:55:00 - [259] It seems to me that calculating the "total value" of a high sec agent is a fairly fruitless exercise because it's impossible to own one (cf. 0.0 resources). Anybody can access that resource and there's really very little you can do to stop them. I certainly wouldn't want to see all resources of value being conquerable because inevitably that would lead to stagnation. Eventually one mega- alliance would control so much of the available resources that resistance would be futile; ie, it would be realistically possible to "win Eve." As it is now, it's possible to lose big but through tenacity -- and the willingness to endure a massive PITA -- work your way back up to being a contender; or for that matter, to get into the ring in the first place. I'd agree that high sec L4s probably pay a bit too much and that low sec in general probably pays a bit too little. But just as a lot of CCP's currently proposed nerfs go to far, I think some of the playerbase's proposed nerfs to high sec income probably go too far as well. Yes, there should be a risk/ reward progression towards deep space, but there should also be resources available to disestablished or pre- established players. And sure, there are people that suckle up to that teat and never do anything else, and those players are decidedly . I think their effect on the economy is being grossly overstated in this thread though.
Straight Chillen Gallente Solar Wind Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:56:00 - [260] Simplest fix is to have agent levels determined soley on the secruity of their systems 1.0-0.8 Lvl 1 Agents only 07.-0.5 Addition of lvl 2 agents 0.4-0.3 Addition of Lvl 3 agents 0.2-0.1 Addition of lvl 4 agents 0.0 Lvl 5 agents problem solved

Somealt Ofmine	Posted - 2008.08.08 15:59:00 - [261] Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 08/08/2008 15:59:17 Originally by: Ruze I think my argument is reasonable AND economically sound. And if I didn't know better, and I may be wrong, but I think you might be arguing just because you don't like the idea of someone taking away you golden goose. Again, if I'm wrong about my assumption to your personal drive in this argument, I'm wrong, and I hope you say so. And if I'm not ... What effect on the economy do you think mission runners have, and what is you basis for thinking so? I told you why, exactly, their effect is neutral to deflationary. I told you why having an "empire" in game moderates the economy and keeps it from going through catistrophic disruptions and swings. Why do you think otherwise? In this particular case, my personal drive is to dispell a red-hering argument for moving L4 missions to low-sec. "Cause we want more easy targets in Low Sec" is a legitimate, valid argument, though I may disagree with it. "Cause mission runners hurt the economy" is falacious, and I told you why. If you disagree, I'd love to hear the economics behind the basis of your disagreement.
Zephyr Rengate dearg doom	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:00:00 - [262] Moving agents around will not help, but if you move where you can LP will help. So make it that low sec and 0.0 have something else that is unique: missions giving LP and high sec missions only isk. That way you can still earn isk in high sec but if you want to make big bucks you go to low sec and 0.0.
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:01:00 - [263] Originally by: Altpause I see this statement on the boards all the time, that people make 25 million isk an hour running lvl 4. While this may be true, I tend to doubt it, it's a flawed assumption. The OP stated that he uses an Alt to loot/salvage, so thats 2 accounts doing 1 mission, 2 into 25 million makes it 12.5 million isk an hour. There is also the fact that he is using a "cheap faction fit CNR" for his model and omits the needed standings and social and other skills for this. I don't know any normal players that can reach this within 6 months without buying accounts. I get annoyed when I see these inflated figures posted as fact. When i do missions i do it in a mostly T2 fitted normal raven on a single account, no alts. And i make around 20 mill/hr with far from maxed raven skills. As a complete noob maybe i made around 10-15 mill hr. A faction fitted CNR with a alt to loot/salvage is probably closer to 30 mill/hr. Vote against the nano nerf!
Ruze Amarr No Applicable Corporation	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:07:00 - [264] Originally by: Somealt Ofmine Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 08/08/2008 15:59:17 Originally by: Ruze I think my argument is reasonable AND economically sound. And if I didn't know better, and I may be wrong, but I think you might be arguing just because you don't like the idea of someone taking away you golden goose. Again, if I'm wrong about my assumption to your personal drive in this argument, I'm wrong, and I hope you say so. And if I'm not ... What effect on the economy do you think mission runners have, and what is you basis for thinking so? I told you why, exactly, their effect is neutral to deflationary. I told you why having an "empire" in game moderates the economy and keeps it from going through catistrophic disruptions and swings. Why do you think otherwise? In this particular case, my personal drive is to dispell a red-hering argument for moving L4 missions to low-sec. "Cause we want more easy targets in Low Sec" is a legitimate, valid argument, though I may disagree with it. "Cause mission runners hurt the economy" is falacious, and I told you why. If you disagree, I'd love to hear the economics behind the basis of your disagreement. I think that mission runners unnaturally bolster the economy. Both modules and isk are inflationary products of isk, as the modules are NOT produced by the playerbase, and both are sold by the missioner for wealth, with no contribution by himself besides time. While you obviously haven't kept up with any of the other threads which addressed these same topics, I say again that I'm a carebear, who spends all his time doing level 4 missions. This is not an argument to garner up more victims, and trying to classify me and this whole discussion as that is a weak and baseless tactic used by those who can't come up with a better counter. The stuff you see in bad politics. And, I think missions are COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to the game design, which pits player against player in ALL aspects, EXCEPT missions. Every other aspect of EvE reflects a semi-realistic approach to competition and drive. But many players are now being confused, because they mistakenly believe that everything should be provided for them, as long as they don't shoot at another player. This is a gross generalization, of course, and saying that everyone who is against changing missions to make them harder/scaleable/rarer/less profitable are bums who want the world handed to them without any interaction with anyone else is on the same level as saying that everyone who is arguing FOR missions to be changed want nothing but more grief targets because they don't have the b*lls to fight fair. While there ARE griefers, and there ARE bums, they are hopefully a minority. So you want security? That's perfectly alright. But you should be willing to trade freedom and profit for that security.
Highwind Cid	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:09:00 - [265] 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. Tell us exactly what you would want if you had your way. What would change, how would it change? What would you do?
Somealt Ofmine	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:29:00 - [266] Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 08/08/2008 16:32:10 Originally by: Ruze I think that mission runners unnaturally bolster the economy. Both modules and isk are inflationary products of isk, as the modules are NOT produced by the playerbase, and both are sold by the missioner for wealth, with no contribution by himself besides time. As I said above, missioning introduces both isk and materials into the economy. Economically speaking, they tend to balance one another out. If there were no missions, or if missions were more difficult to run, or more dangerous to run, or more scarce, CCP would have to think of some other way to introduce both isk and materials into the economy some other way, otherwise the economy could not grow to accomodate an expanding player base. If the player base starts to shrink, CCP will be at liberty to make both isk and materials somewhat harder to come by by allowing the amount of both in the economy to contract in line with popuation contraction. Quote: And, I think missions are COUNTERPRODUCTIVE to the game design, which pits player against player in ALL aspects, EXCEPT missions. Other than cheezing you off, how are they counter productive? What is wrong with the eve economy that you are trying to fix? Quote: Every other aspect of EvE reflects a semi-realistic approach to competition and drive. But many players are now being confused, because they mistakenly believe that everything should be provided for them, as long as they don't shoot at another player. Seems to me this aspect of Eve is pretty realistic too. You have some folks who want to live in "civilization" and earn an honest buck. You have some folks who want to go live on the lawless "frontier" where you can't do squat without shooting at someone or getting shot at. You can say that the game should be about turning the "frontier" into "civilization" but that has proven in EvE not to work, and attempts at it have failed. They fail because of the meta-game (i.e. you can have "alts"), and so there is no real need for civilization builders in 0.0. Anything that needs to be built can be built by some PvPer's alt. And, as has been proven again and again, success in 0.0 is wholly conditioned on how many skilled PvPers you have. You may want a game where it's all "lawless frontier", but that's some other game. The EvE that I've been playing for 5 years has both. I think the argument in this thread boils down to "you shouldn't be able to get rich in EvE without getting shot at". Again, that's not EvE, that's some other game. Level 4 missions are in the game 'cause they're popular. They aren't even close to the best way to make money without getting shot at. Their effect on the economy is neutral. They ain't broke, and don't need a fix.
mishkof Caldari Finis Lumen	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:35:00 - [267] Originally by: Ruze I just wish everyone would stop using moon mining as a 0.0 comparison for missions. Moon mining can more aptly be compared to trading. Done by many, but a select few bank billions off of it. And as for the other comment about corporations using hisec to bank money if it's so good? But, they do. Many corporations have many members who use alts or jump clones to grind a few missions out when they need quick cash. Especially since not every 0.0 corporation lives around a dyso moon or in a rattable zone. The next comparison I see that's flawed is that players are willing to argue the mission rewards can in fact vary greatly from player to player. What about ratting in nulsec? Doesn't that vary from player to player? If you were to assign an AVERAGE (which of course, even for the Op, has the natural flaw of requiring prolonged and accurate data), what would the average income of nulsec ratters, vs. the average income of hisec level 4 mission runners? When comparing the resources and income available you have to include moons. The complaints are about risk versus reward and moons are part of the reward of 0.0. They are part of the package. We are comparing level 4 mission running with other sources of income right? r are we just whining about how much carebears make in general? With regards to trading, there are only a couple ways to nerf that. Taxes, and less players. One of those isnt reaslly an option...at least I would hope not. Traders take risk, and provide a serviec, people could just always shop in Jita and trading would cease to exist. I am still waiting for someone to come up with a risk assesment calulator. As far as I am concerned when making money, there are good and bad players. 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
soldieroffortune 258 Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:37:00 - [268] 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. yes, very flawed, remember, that figure is for 175 people for one, second, no one makes 25mil an hour for agent mission REWARD, i would say, tops you can make 10-15mil an hour but thats doing a mission, with reward + time bonus + salvage and loot assuming no one scans you down
Malcanis We are Legend eXceed.	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:42:00 - [269] Originally by: Highwind Cid 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. Tell us exactly what you would want if you had your way. What would change, how would it change? What would you do? 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. CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
Dave Davies	Posted - 2008.08.08 16:43:00 - [270] Originally by: Ruze Both modules and isk are inflationary products of isk This is incorrect. For a great example, see rogue drones. Drones carry no bounties and you can't do anything with drone loot but refine it to raw minerals; therefore, drones are not ISK faucets and are material faucets. CCP introduced a massive amount of drone loot into the economy when they opened up the Drone Regions; the effect was heavily deflationary on mineral prices, particularly high ends. More recently CCP adjusted the refining yield of a single drone compound. Whereas it used to yield mexallon and some megacyte, it now yields more mexallon than it used to and zero megacyte. The impact of this change on the economy was immediately noticeable: the price of megacyte went up by -- what, about 30%? -- while the price of mexallon dropped by just under 15%. Increased supply of a given commodity tends to decrease its sale price and the sale prices of all other products that depend on the price of said commodity. Therefore loot drops from L4 missions tend to have the same effect, though not quite as dramatic as the opening of the Drone Regions. It would be next to impossible for L4 missions to be absolutely neutral in terms of inflationary effect due to the variables involved, but in theory somealt ofmine is correct and in practice the scales probably don't tip very far toward whichever direction they actually favor.

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.