|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 21:10:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Ruze You guys keep posting this stuff, your going to make me look bad.
You don't want to make Ruze look bad.
I might just look bad ... um ... back, or something!
Are you starting to consider just being bad...?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 13:09:00 -
[2]
Originally by: ShardowRhino
THese threads pushing for a nerf are full of fail.
1.carebears don't pvp so that isk just stacks up as they "npc". Since that isk is not being used to pvp, that isk is neutralized. Give em all 20bil and they will all use it on nothing that effects 0.0 or even lowsec.
Wrong in every respect. So wrong that I didn't bother reading the rest.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:08:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Whineroy Edited by: Whineroy on 22/08/2008 14:45:51
Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
I don't. However, the CSM WILL bring this up to CCP. CCP will then have to look at it seriously. They are then faced with the decision of wether to act as they have proclaimed, or to leave an imbalance in the game to placate wow-kiddies. That's the decision I'm personally the most interested in.
Sure, nerf L4s so that only lowsec L4 missions are good income... Just that at same time change NPCs and fix bounty hunting system so that "pirates" also get to enjoy the feeling of being victims while hunting for mission runners. After all, the concept of risk and reward has to apply to mission runners and pirates equally.
Oh, and CCP should force GTC traders to fly in lowsec for extended time while GTC trading. After all, making billions via GTC trade with zero risk to one's character goes directly against "risk and reward".
I think you'll find most PvPers, including Pirates, would dearly love to see the bounty system fixed.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:24:00 -
[4]
Originally by: 5pinDizzy Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 22/08/2008 15:07:35
It might just be possible to keep everyone happy by buffing lowsec and nullsec much more instead.
Therefore letting inflation take it's course.
In effect, nerfing highsec level 4 missions, but not in a way that has all the mission runners foaming at the mouth, and brings the ship prices up away from the bottomed out insurance cap and makes the market a bit more free, no?
I certainly don't think we should be forcing people out of highsec, nor are we, but it's funny that term is used if you were to make low and nullsec much more profitable.
Just don't nerf the level 4's badly or then they are right you sort of are forcing them.
Lowsec is around about populated right for my liking, I don't care much for a carebear stampede nor would it happen.
Actually, inflating our way out of the insurance problem would be an interesting idea... but too many other ISK sink prices would have to be raised to compensate. Changing virtually every other economic indicator in the game to avoid changing the numbers on 2 broken ISK sources seems a a bit silly. Lower insurance values 10-20% and reform missions so they pay more fun, items and intangibles (eg: ranks, standings, etc) and less ISK.
It's such a damb shame that people are so irrational about ratios. People are in effect saying that they don't at all mind Some Other Guy making twice as much ISK as them, but they'd rather quit than earn half as much ISK as him. What the hell, people?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 18:41:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine Edited by: Somealt Ofmine on 22/08/2008 18:26:03
Originally by: James Lyrus
It's not that making money in highsec is problematic, and indeed it is and should be optional to 'go risky' and head into lowsec or 0.0. The problem is that the money generation is exempt from the 'usual' rules of EVE - that anything that is profitable, will be exploited and fought over until it's no longer profitable.
Finally, comes an intelligent argument.
It is true that mission running does not fit the normal pattern of fininte, contested resource, whether that resource is a material, or access to a market.
It's pretty clear that L4 missions are a bone that the devs have thrown out there that allows PvE only types to feel rewarded for playing the game, and also allows "down on their luck" players a way to claw their way back up after some serious setbacks in a time frame that isn't so discouraging that quitting starts to look like a good option.
Unlike the rest of eve, that is based on free floating markets and the abiliy to provide security for yourself, how lucrative they are (relative to other stuff) is completely under dev control.
This allows the devs to outright decide how rewarding PvEing it is relative to everything else, and how tough, or easy, it will be for you to work your way back into the game after you lost your next-to-last BS trying to defend that patch of 0.0 you were trying to hold. Vets know better to lose that last one. It always sits in the hanger with a mission fit as an insurance policy against utter bankrupcy.
If you take that knob away, it's a bit of control that the devs won't have. It'll make it a lot more possible to run players you don't like right out of the game, instead of just "back to empire". That might be attractive for us, but probably not so much for CCP.
Um, the fact that missions are an unlimited, non-contestable resource has been the root of the "nerf missions" position from the start - it's right there in my "how much is an agent worth" thread, for one thing. But never mind that, you understand where we're coming from and that's good... if there were mechanisms in place to encourage and reward contesting access to agents, then they'd be far less of an issue. As it is, the only incentive is lag. Anyway, that to the side...
Finally, comes an intelligent argument. Thank you for not just repeating the discredited "U EBIL GANKER JUST WANT MOAR TARGETS" rubbish again. Hi-sec missions as a safety net of last resort... I can understand that argument. I want to think about it some, if that's OK. The main objection that instantly springs to mind is that it's the vast minority of mission runners who are using them for this - the fiscal equivalent of setting a forest on fire in case a few people don't have heating for the winter, as it were.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 19:47:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Duncan MacPherson
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Duncan MacPherson
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Victor Forge Moving Lvl 4 missions in space will just force people do 3 lvls missions in High-sec until they get bored and quit.
ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME! ME!
Yes I can see your point. I guess we should all do what you want us to do. I will undock tonight in my T1 frig with out guns, hold full of my BPOs and fly around in a straight line so you can hit me better. See you tonight!
Why do you need all that easy isk making in secure high sec if you don't pvp?
Because all the pretty ships you guys fly and lose in PVP come from the magical pixie dust fairy.
Besides who says mission runners don't pvp?
Who says PvPers don't build ships?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 21:09:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
Originally by: Malcanis
The PvE progression leads to 0.0, surely - 10/10 plexes and such.
Yeah, but there's a difference between PvE, and "PvE Only". The reality is that there are two very distinct player bases for MMOs. Some want to PvP, and others don't. At all. Most they will consider is "consensual" PvP ("dueling") that is "fair" and doesn't really cost anything.
Just about every game has PvE content, whether there is PvP or not. Most games have segregated servers where there is PvE Only, and PvP. Right now, eve provides both. It's primarily a PvP required game, with a modest PvE only progression. Why a PvE only player would choose to play Eve is beyond me, frankly. The PvE content pretty much sucks (dull, not very challenging or interesting). It's content that only an "easy mode" player could love.
Be that as it may, a majority chunk of your L4 high sec mission runners are these players. If you take that progression away from them, you aren't going to turn them into PvPers. This is just a fact of MMO life that has been proven again and again through the years.
It really comes down to whether you want them playing Eve, or not. If you don't, then what you do with level 4s doesn't matter. If you do, you have to make them lucrative enough that it doesn't take years to cap out that progression.
I dunno, I'm increasingly coming to the view that the "PvE only" mindset is ultimately detrimental to and incompatible with the basic structure and idea of EvE. It totally misses the point... it's like some guy who buys a ticket to the opera then listens to his iPod the whole way through. Yeah he's paid for his ticket, whatever, but what the hell is he doing?
If there's any point to this game at all, it should be that you can't ignore other players and they can't ignore you. Trying to incorporate and accomodate the "I just want to be alone" crowd is ultimately futile IMO. I don't really hate them or blame them, I just feel baffled by their choice of an explicitly sandbox style game to be alone in. My brother does a similar thing... he literally plays WoW as a single player game with a chat client. He chats with his friend when he's on, I've never seen them raid together or anything. Why he just doesn't play Morrowind and install an IRC client escapes me, but the point is that with the way WoW is structured, it doesn't really matter a damb to anyone else what he does - unlike evE where it does.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 21:40:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Ruze
Originally by: Malcanis I dunno, I'm increasingly coming to the view that the "PvE only" mindset is ultimately detrimental to and incompatible with the basic structure and idea of EvE. It totally misses the point... it's like some guy who buys a ticket to the opera then listens to his iPod the whole way through. Yeah he's paid for his ticket, whatever, but what the hell is he doing?
If there's any point to this game at all, it should be that you can't ignore other players and they can't ignore you. Trying to incorporate and accomodate the "I just want to be alone" crowd is ultimately futile IMO. I don't really hate them or blame them, I just feel baffled by their choice of an explicitly sandbox style game to be alone in. My brother does a similar thing... he literally plays WoW as a single player game with a chat client. He chats with his friend when he's on, I've never seen them raid together or anything. Why he just doesn't play Morrowind and install an IRC client escapes me, but the point is that with the way WoW is structured, it doesn't really matter a damb to anyone else what he does - unlike evE where it does.
It's one thing if he sits and listens to the ipod during the show. Nobody is bothered by that.
It's something completely different when he complains about how loud the opera singers are.
It's one thing for a person to come into EvE and do nothing but PvE. As many said, who cares? Sure I can come up with valid arguments for how they are 'affecting' the rest of EvE, but the players actual playstyle don't bother anybody.
But it's something completely different when they come into EvE, choose to do nothing but PvE, and then when they have to pick something up in losec, get wardec'd, or are victim to criminal acts (read, suicide ganking), they complain so heavy and so loud that they get the game changed.
I'm not personally against the proposed changes, by any means. But when they fix the imbalance and overuse of suicide ganking, and when they fix the destructive purpose of war dec grief, what are they going to do to balance it out?
Allow hisec to be more secure! It'll sure as hell help a lot of manufacturers and traders, no doubt. But with this added security, should we also keep the same level of profitability?
If you see nothing wrong with the level of money you can make in hisec, then you don't 'get' my argument. No harm there. But if they increase the rewards in losec and nulsec, it'll have the same impact.
I guess one of my bigger worries is that making hisec safer and more secure will draw even MORE players into EvE, and hisec will not only be unable to handle the load, but they will have enough weight to further separate the design of the game between 'PvE' and 'PvP.' That would be a crime, and it's a crime I'm not looking forward to.
Cause even though I love doing missions, and I love PvE ... I don't like games where PvE is everything. And I don't like that playerbase. Those guys aren't the kind of players who want to compete. They are the kind of players who want things handed to them. And if you think our forums and our players are 'childish' and rakish now, I beg you to visit the forums of WoW, or SWG, or any of these other marketable games.
Part of the reason we have such a mature playerbase is because the game requires you to buck up and protect yourself. Changing to accommodate more players has crushed many games in the past. I worry that it'll happen with EvE. Not today, and not in the next year, but I'd prefer not to work and build my character for the next year and a half and then look around and find the game isn't smoething I enjoy.
Whatever. It'll probably happen anyway. Can't play forever, can we.
Yeah well if that happens my characters will have a pretty nice value on eBay or that other site. I can at least recover some of my monetary investment. I'm against RMT for games I play, but if the game comes to such a pass as you describe, then..
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 21:41:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Somealt Ofmine
Originally by: Malcanis
I dunno, I'm increasingly coming to the view that the "PvE only" mindset is ultimately detrimental to and incompatible with the basic structure and idea of EvE. It totally misses the point... it's like some guy who buys a ticket to the opera then listens to his iPod the whole way through. Yeah he's paid for his ticket, whatever, but what the hell is he doing?
Yeah, I guess we'll just end up agreeing to disagree about that.
I appreciate what you are saying about the income potential of level 4s marginalizing other content (like crappy 0.0 space and even crappier low-sec space). Personally, I think that space deserves to be empty. Why do I want to sc**** by in crappy 0.0 space only to be steamrolled by my rich neighbor just because he thinks it'd be fun?
I don't think the profitability of level 4s is what keeps people from choosing to live like a share-cropper in the shadow of the manor on the hill. But, that's not something that I either of us can prove. If they do actually take L4s away, or put them in low-sec where you'd have to be an idiot to run them, we'll just have to see what occurs.
I've got no crystal ball, but my money is on CCP not doing that. In fact, I think they're leaning in the other direction. Time will tell. It won't effect me much either way.
I think I've exausted what I had to say on this topic.
I'm afraid you're right.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.22 22:10:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Victor Forge
Originally by: Ruze
Whats wrong with that lack of trust? Do you not play EvE for that premise, at least a little bit?
Trust was your solution to lower the risk in low-sec by paying pirates in low-sec for protection, to be allowed to mission or mine in their territory. If I "trust" what you are saying, it was possible back then. It might still possible, but the amount of griefing is high enough to make players not taking chanses with pirates anymore, thus an near empty low-sec.
I agree that some of the players calling themselves pirates are to blame for the state of lo-sec. Pirating for ISk I can well respect; pirating for KMs... meh. That's barely above the worst kind of mission-grinder.
Luckily these types are generally the easiest to drive off with determined opposition.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
|
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.23 15:20:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Maria Kalista
As said here before, no-one will bring his 80+ mil boat, with 6-7 T2 hardeners+3 rigs worth several more millions of isk + I donno what to 0.4 or lower. Since there is noway you can PvP with an PvE equipped ship. If it where possible, then you had a point, but now you don't.
Besides that, running level 4's is a valid profession in EVE, which takes months to master. Like all other professions in EVE. What's next? Nerf trading because people can so easily make billioens within almost no time and the risk is far below the reward?
Oh, and after that we surely should nerf Chribba, that is way so not right. Just shut up and play EVE.
Trading is PvP, not PvE. Missioning should be compared with mining & exploration, not trade, manufacturing or invention. it's OK that people can make millions trading, because they can equally easily lose millions trading.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.23 19:14:00 -
[12]
Originally by: oilio Edited by: oilio on 23/08/2008 16:51:49 Bottom line:
Do you accept that eve is a "sandbox" game where people can play in any style they want? (including JUST doing PvE if they want to?)
That's fine, they just don't get the fat rewards if they do so.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 19:44:00 -
[13]
Originally by: oilio
Originally by: billkroll
Raising the amout of time it takes to get new ships would ultimatly push the non-hardcore players towards other games giving me more space in my space sim. I say let them go!
Very shortsighted.
If they go, then CCP loses revenue. Potentially, quite a lot of revenue.
Take a look on the mmorpg charts http://www.mmogchart.com/Chart2.html
Notice that in every case, once the graph for a given game starts to go downwards, the game never recovers?
The more "casual" players - however much you despise them - are a very important component to Eve online. If you lose them, the game is in trouble.
While we're consulting that chart, look at what happens when you split a PvP game into PvE and PvP realms.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 20:22:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Le Skunk
Originally by: oilio
Originally by: Malcanis
While we're consulting that chart, look at what happens when you split a PvP game into PvE and PvP realms.
For sure, but no-one is talking aobut splitting Eve into PvP and PvE realms.
We're talking about either changing high sec, or leaving it the SAME.
Strange that, Bears have called for succesive changes to high sec over time.
War dec nerf CHECK Suicide gank nerf CHECK More wardec nerf HIGH PRIOIRITY FROM CCP
All make high sec far to riskless compared to the isk you can churn in semi afking lv 4 missions.
Lv 4 missions need to be nerfed and nerfed hard. All the whiners gogin on about leaving with their 50 accounts wont leave. They never do. And CCP can rest easy knowing they have acted fairly and with an eye for balance for once
Cut the rewards drasticaly, no longer shall the bears print isk whilst half watching TV (you know you do it dont lie)
SKUNK
Well, not TV... actually I watch charity documentaries about unfortunate young ladies compelled to do undignified and sinful things to afford the clothes they lack.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 20:22:00 -
[15]
BRING BACK ALLIANCE 'P'
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 07:06:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Patri Andari
Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Edited by: Daelin Blackleaf on 25/08/2008 03:18:39
Beyond devaluing a lot of content it's devaluing entire professions and it's making a mockery of those of us who want to take risks and reap the rewards. The easy supply of cash is also making everything less meaningful and the perceived security is pushing up the prices on items that could be considered "mission runner goods" to the point where the only thing they are good for is mission running.
Perhaps worst of all it makes playing solo the most profitable way to make an income in what is supposed to be multi-player game.
So many things about this quote just seem wrong but it made me wonder.
Imagine a teacher who makes 40k per year with a B.A. finds out that her car salesman is a high school drop out who, like everyone in his shop, makes over 100k per year. Might that teacher feel her profession is somehow "devalued"? I think that if she did she is faced with a choice. She can try her hand at selling cars for more loot or remain a teacher and perhaps reap the other rewards that attracted her to the profession in the first place.
...OR
She could complain about how unskilled under-educated individuals making so much f***ing cash somehow devalues her profession...community...life. She could explain how having all that extra cash circulating raises prices she pays for everything because low skilled workers are making too much and paying too much for goods. This raises prices! Risk v reward? What about investment in education v. reward! Heck she could start a campaign to put a cap on the salaries of all car salesmen nation wide!
I mean she could...Right?
Any who...just wondering.
Patri
You fail at analogies.
If that car salesman was also teaching a night class once a month and getting paid 30-50% as much just for that 1 lesson/month - as well as being paid for being a car salesman - as the teacher gets for teaching full time, the analogy would be close to how miners feel about missioning.
Actually you don't even fail that badly at analogies - most teachers here are pretty bitter at how little society values them, and most of the good ones have either quit or are thinking of quitting. I know a couple. They laugh bitterly when people complain how bad schools are. Most teachers are now idealistic, naive young teachers who haven't been disillusioned yet, hacks who can't get another job, or old teachers who are clinging on till retirement.
The exceptions are those who work at private schools. And where people care about what grades their kids get, teachers get paid a hell of a lot more, thank you very much.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 10:14:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: Empyre I used to genuinely care about this topic.. the first 300 times it was rehashed. It boggled my mind how logic could pervade some people when trying to honestly debate this. But then it dawned on me, why the hell should I care?
The L4 mission nerf cry has been ringing out forever now, and over the years they've only seen touching up. That alone spoke to me and said CCP seems to believe they are well enough balanced. If it was as big of a deal as some of these over-dramatic, sensationalist and frothing at the mouth posters were making it out to be, something would have changed long ago.
So now I get genuine amusement out of reading the nerf cries. Aside from the trolls who try so hard to be noticed and only get ignored (another sad story), I picture these people actually believing that if they type something long enough, despite the fact CCP runs the darn game and could prove/disprove their "ideas" in a work-day, that somehow CCP will think, "You know, that guy typed the same shaky argument several times. Let's forget what the data says and make the change."
Denial is a helluva drug. I've heard if you keep telling yourself something, you also start to believe it as well.
Fail. Do you realize how many years of whining and thousands of threads was required before ccp finally buffed amarr?
I fully expect ccp to nerf missions given enough whining about it, like how they nerfed titans, nanos, suicide ganking(which took what? 4 years of whining?), stabs, ECM, nos, etc.
CCP has shown that with enough whining they will make changes. So as long as we keep whining about L4s ccp will eventually nerf them.
IIRC the correct term is "frequently request".
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 12:01:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Le Skunk
Hmmm what a reach for meaning. More fail cake. Your stealing of my joke didn't originally make sense. Nor did your subsequent ludicrous justification of the plagiarism.
Also post with your main ya noob
LV 4 Mission Runners and bears in general need rooting out from under their high sec rock. Sure some of them will shrivel up and die. But as their chrysalis hardens and cracks in the sun, many will emerge as beautiful butterfly's. And as they are flying high in the air, they will look down on those who still cling under the rock with pity and contempt.
The same strange mix of pity and contempt all true players feel for the highsecers. Willingly caging themselves and stunting their potential.
CCP i call on you to help these poor people.
SKUNK
tat was so beautiful. you're a saint!
*tear*
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 21:55:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
Originally by: Dave Davies
Originally by: Mistress Evita To make money one has to please a majority of users. And from what I have seen in this game there are a lot of mission runners. There are the kind that all they do is run missions and there are the kind that run missions to get isk to do other things in the game.
Here's where that mobius strip goes:
Missions are the best way to make ISK by grinding -> more players run missions -> so many players run missions that we'd better not mess with missions -> missions are the best way to make ISK by grinding -> ad nauseam
The people who run missions "just because they love running missions" would probably be just as happy with reduced rewards and more content.
The people who run missions because they're currently the *****gun of isk grinding would bail for the new FotM the very second they discovered it.
This is an excellent explanation of the current situation, and of why "but most of Eve are running missions" isn't a good argument.
If only someone had made that very point back in my original "how much is a hi-sec agent worth thread".
Oh, wait. That was the point of that whole thread.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 11:58:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
Quote: 7. Scanning down mission sites should be no different from scanning down a ship in empty space.
Agree with most everything except this. Missions in their current form force people to stay in one spot for long periods of time in a fit that is suboptimal for PVP.
There is a very strong case for the nature of missions to be completely changed even without changing the mission probing rules. The current "biggest tankiest BS you can get vs legions of dumb, predictable rat BS who all use the same damage type" model for kill -missions is a very large part of the problem.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
|
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 12:00:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Andreus Ixiris But basically, here's the lynchpin:
Level 4s have been around a lot longer than, say, problems with nanofibres (or speed in general), or NOS, or whatever the module of the week is. If it was as big a problem as you seem to think, there's no way CCP wouldn't have done something about it by now.
Um...
..you are being ironic, right?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 11:59:00 -
[22]
Originally by: EpicFailTroll Another great case of the alt problem. As the OP stated, the main issue is that pvpers just power run missions in highsec to fund their 0.0 activity. They can get thoroughly trounced one day in 0.0 and field more ships the next one, thanks to their mission running alts. They can occupy 0.0 semi-coherently without having to actively inhabit it, i.e. exploiting its resources, which would force them to undock and maybe get destroyed. I do agree that this is garbage, just as pirates having a positive sec status alt to run missions in the same lowsec hub where they probe other mission runners (i'd like to see those mission runners having pirate alts to probe down the positive sec alts of pirates, would be ludicrous)
The problem is that you can run multiple accounts, and that those are unrelated. A 0.0 pvper leaving his space to go run missions 30 jumps away leaves his space undefended and open to invasion, so the problem is not him running missions in highsec, but him having mission running alt/s, running multiple accounts, having his main docked in 0.0 so local shows presence
It's high time CCP cuts down on its profits for the greater good of the game. EvE will be an incredible experience if its limited to one account per IP (one logged account per IP would be already quite good). I hope that the World of Darkness MMO is a financial success -and a gameplay one-, so they can do the right thing and finance the cutting of clone subscriptions.
Proxy servers: You fail. Try again.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 12:03:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Joxxy Edited by: Joxxy on 28/08/2008 11:49:39 Well - some people simply enjoy high sec and are scared of low sec / 0.0 slag fest.
Thats their choice. They enjoy PVE missions in pimped out ships worth billions they will never loose.
So they make money in a decent manner - so what.
Who cares.
For the thousandth goddamb time: because they can risklessly accumulate huge piles of ISK against which those who dont live in hi-sec have to compete when buying stuff, which fund alliances during wars, which give "pirates" enough ISK to not care about ransoming, to distort the market in faction/officer gear.
You might as well say "OK, let's make all minmatar ships 3 times faster than they are right now. Why should you care? Your ships won't be any slower?"
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 17:20:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Dzajic And for the umpteenth time.
Running missions is boring, and annoying. Extremely boring and extremely repetitive, who cares if we have hundreds of missions already when they are all the same.
Doing missions in a turret battleship with just T2 mods wont get you anywhere near 25 mill/hour/account. And you have far chances of dying than people earning 30mill/h. Domis can do better, but there is a number of missions where launching drones is literal suicide. Sentry Domis cant be used for every mission.
Only ones doing enough cash to break EVE economy are people with faction fit CNRs, comandships and Marauders. Most often they will dualbox or even use more than 2 accounts because for them ISK earning in billion ISK ships is the endgame of EVE.
If you nerf Caldari mission grinding capability you solve a lot of L4 issues. Buff the ships for PVP (oh wait, that will happen already when nanonerf hits TQ) nerf their rat eating capabilities.
Make agent quality dynamic based on agent usage and load. No more abuse of crazy Caldary systems with 2 or 3 Q>+10 agents in a o.5 or o.6 system surrounded by high sec.
And, I know personal experience is irrelevant but... I was doing L4s for a somewhat bad agent in 0.7 system (as all good agents have 300+ people in system and lag like hell, just to add, with such lag, even CNRs and Golems die). Friend was ratting Guristas in 0.0 in a comedy fit Pest, docking and SSing when hostiles enter system. Day after day he earned way way more than me per hour, even though he had very bad luck in getting faction spawns those couple of days.
Yes, having maxed out social skill, working for a Q18 or 19 agent with another account salvaging behind you will be close or top best ratting income, but that implies either using a low sec agent, or being in a stupidly overcrowded mission hub.
No need to nerf CNRs - just make the rats more realistic. Good luck using a torp golem for the frigate rats are doing 4Km/s
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.28 18:46:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Sheriff Jones Edited by: Sheriff Jones on 28/08/2008 18:37:47 One quick question to those who say "insane amount of cash the missions bring in"....do you mission?
If you do, you're a hypocrite and you can rectify this by giving me your excess income you feel inappropriate for the reward.
If you don't, you don't have any grasp of how much, how numbing, boring, interesting, hard and/or safe it is.
So, which would it be good sir?
I mission, and I'm not a hypocrite. In fact if I didn't mission, how would I know that missions are over-lucrative? Why would I make ISK in a way that I believed was sub-optimal? That would be hypocrisy.
If YOU think that 0.0 ratting is better ISK/risk/time then YOU are the hypocrite for not doing that.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.30 12:28:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette In order to get this debate back on track, I propose a clean slate, and a fresh look at what we feel is the problem.
According to the risk vs reward argument, professions in Eve should be balanced in rewards depending on the risk of running them. As such, let's start by putting up basic risk values. Note, these values derives from a SOLO player, i.e, not an alliance member.
High sec risks: Suicide gank, war dec.
Low sec risks: Belt piracy, gate camps, mission probing, capital ships + high sec risks.
0.0 risks: Bubbles, no sentry protection, lack of stations, long way to market hubs + low sec risks and high sec risks.
As 0.0 is the riskies option, let's set that value to 100. Low sec is less risky, bringing the value to around 60 or so. High sec is by far the safest option, and an approximate value would then be 10, leaving some risk.
So, by applying risk vs reward, we get 100% rewards in 0.0, 60% rewards in low sec and 10% rewards in high sec. Personally I feel this is pretty fair. Now, we can argue about the actual values, but the proportions seem pretty justified to me.
If you disagree with this, please post why and make your own application of risk vs reward.
The point about hi-sec being a safety net for players down on their luck to rebuild from is a good one. I think that the relative risk/reward benefit of hi-sec should be a little better; double it to 10% risk/20% reward.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.08.30 12:31:00 -
[27]
Incidentally, I'm in his-ec missioning at the moment. Soon as I get back to 1 billion ISK, I'm off to 0.0 again.
136M to go. Didn't take long to come back from 400M....
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 09:20:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Dionisius as lowsec is controled by pirates
That's a contingent circumstance, not a law of nature.
Just sayin'
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 09:53:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Ogul
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Dionisius as lowsec is controled by pirates
That's a contingent circumstance, not a law of nature.
Just sayin'
And a clear indicator that the imaginary risk vs. reward isn't near as important and transcendent as some people think.
Low sec piracy makes absolutely no sense if you think in those terms.
Most lo-sec "pirates" aren't actually pirates. They don't really need the ISK because they have NPC-corp mission running alts safely stashed away (or they mission themselves if they feel like managing their sec status). So they can just blast everyone they can lock, and never worry about ransoms or making deals. There are some who make a living out of piracy, but most "pirates" in lo-sec are just there to shoot stuff. Because they can.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 10:17:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Dionisius
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Ogul
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Dionisius as lowsec is controled by pirates
That's a contingent circumstance, not a law of nature.
Just sayin'
And a clear indicator that the imaginary risk vs. reward isn't near as important and transcendent as some people think.
Low sec piracy makes absolutely no sense if you think in those terms.
Most lo-sec "pirates" aren't actually pirates. They don't really need the ISK because they have NPC-corp mission running alts safely stashed away (or they mission themselves if they feel like managing their sec status). So they can just blast everyone they can lock, and never worry about ransoms or making deals. There are some who make a living out of piracy, but most "pirates" in lo-sec are just there to shoot stuff. Because they can.
That still does not explain why lowsec shouldn't have a boost, pirates and carebears would benefit, not just these 2 professions but most people, if lowsec gets a bit more populated then its everyones gain.
I was just making a comment about hi-sec mission running distorts the balance in lo-sec with respect to piracy. When "pirates" can't fund their activities with riskless ISK generation in hi-sec, you may find them (i) scarcer and (ii) more accomodating.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 10:46:00 -
[31]
I'm all for adding more 0.0 space, most of lo-sec really is deserted though. Even station systems usually have no-one there
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.01 10:21:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Shagrath Neptune
You obviously don't or haven't done missions.
Agent quality is a pretty minor detail really. LPs aren't worth what they used to be and the mission pay is laughable when compared to bounties.
People already run for subpar agents. i used to run for a less than optimal agent because he happended to be in a station which included a repair shop, Refinery and Manufacturing all in the same spot.
Not having to move stuff around and having everything under one roof > a few extra LPs and a bit more isk per mission.
I would say lvl 4's already had their nerf when they put in LP stores and the value of a LP went down significantly.
I have done a lot of missions. I know what I'm talking about. I get 9k isk per LP, so for me, LPs have increased in value (used to get around 1k per LP).
That the quality difference isn't all that great is 1: Wrong, as easily demonstrated by the fact that most people opt to cluster together to run as high quality agents as possible, and 2: Easily fixed by increasing the difference between different quality agents.
Is he seriously trying to argue that the LP store was a mission income nerf? |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.01 10:23:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Kahega Amielden
Originally by: Exlegion
Quote: Out of 223 posters: 37 Players agree with the OP. 153 Players disagree. 33 I couldn't determine whether they agreed or disagreed.
The bulk of posts came from:
Agree with OP (# of posts)
Maximillian Bayonette (89) Ruze (84) Gamesguy (62) DigitalCommunist (36) Malcanis (34) Ki An (29) Kahega Amielden (15) Le Skunk (12) Kwedaras (Also the OP) (11) Tippia (11)
That's 10 players with 383 posts.
^^ Reason I posted, especially the bit above, is to show that in reality we're dealing with about 5 or 6 very vocal players passionately looking to change the game to conform to what they believe is balance. And there's about 2 to 3 (myself included ) a little less vocal trying to keep the status quo. My point is this thread is mostly noise and little signal. Interesting, no? :)
Game design isn't a democracy.
My posts should count for triple because I'm too proud/lazy/stupid to alt-post in support of my own threads. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.01 12:38:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Carniflex
Originally by: Gamesguy You can get 2k isk/LP right now with the right items.
Yep, altho those 'right items' (ie ammo) have relatively limited ability to cash in LP, so one does not cash, say 200 000 LP / week in those without crashing the market.
Overall I'm content with LP store, at least there is good possibility of getting something worthwhile to sell instead of grinding up few million LP and declining 8x or 16x +5 cha implant offers over and over again waiting for the 'right offer'.
2k isk is nothing. As I said, I get around 9k isk per lp. I don't even crash the market when getting these sums, as the actual amount of stuff I move is pretty small. The LP store has opened up avenues for extreme wealth. It was a great boost to mission running.
And really, 2k/LP is quite something considering that, with my low social skills get up to 6000 LP for a mission that often takes about 30 minutes. (Pirate Invasion is a snap tbh). Yeah if I saved all the LP and turned them into CNRs to sell, I'd get very little. I don't. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 02:41:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Misanth
Originally by: Gamesguy I know 0.0-miners pulling in 400mil+ an hour. An hour.
I bet you don't. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 02:59:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Ruze
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Misanth I know 0.0-miners pulling in 400mil+ an hour. An hour.
I bet you don't.
Multiple account hulks? That's easily possible.
Yeah right.
Who the hell runs 10 hulks (being generous here), plus hauler?
Plus he's comparing finite high-end 0.0 rewards (and neglecting overhead factors like taking, securing and maintaining that space, plus logistics) to hi-sec rewards. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 03:03:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Strom Kryos To even further the argument.. can you mine dyposim (sp) in hi sec. Talk about risk vs reward. So much more isk to be made in 0.0 than silly lvl4 missions. Again 0.0 is not a solo income. So why compare lvl4 missions with items in 0.0 when your trying to fill in a substitue for something in 0.0 that has no straight up comparism.
Ratting in 0.0 is by far better than ratting in hi sec.. theres your ratting comparism.. not lvl4 missions. The only thing lvl4 missions can be compared to and even looked at for changes is from hi sec to low sec. And low sec has lvl5 missions.
Um yeah mining Dysprosium is a great way to attract a BoB cap fleet. That's considered a "risk" by many. And high-ends moons are the very definition of a "limited resource" in EvE. If every player who runs missions got a dyspro moon instead, then how much do you think that dyspro would be worth?
The rest of your post merely illustrates that hi-sec missioning is completely out of balance with other hi-sec activities. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 03:23:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Strom Kryos And there Ruze has it all laid out..
I still dont know of any true 0.0 mission areas.. but the last time I bothered to look was years ago.. due to the fact the stations in 0.0 are player owned.. not npc therefore assume no npc agents. I know there a couple areas on the fringe of 0.0 I thought those were all -.3 to -.1 systems. Either way the debate should be as Ruze just posted.. each item to its actual counterpart.
Jesus.
Look, check the sovereignty of Curse or Venal before you say anything that makes you look even sillier for talking about stuff you know nothing about. You obviously know very little about 0.0 life. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 03:34:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Strom Kryos Heh.. enough to know I dont go to 0.0 for mission.. I go there for pvp like the thousands of other players :)
But you make your ISK in hi-sec? |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 12:43:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Ogul
Originally by: Ki An
2k isk is nothing. As I said, I get around 9k isk per lp. I don't even crash the market when getting these sums, as the actual amount of stuff I move is pretty small. The LP store has opened up avenues for extreme wealth. It was a great boost to mission running.
Please do tell how you reach those 9k isk/lp.
No. Figure it out for yourself.
OK fair enough... how about you just tell me where your gold mine is instead! |
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 13:37:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Exlegion
Originally by: Gamesguy
Originally by: Exlegion Edited by: Exlegion on 02/09/2008 12:54:12 Sure. And let's also put a cap on how much PVP can happen per system. Say, 10 PVP encounters in Jita. That way pirates are forced to move from heavily pirated areas into less pirate-populated systems.
Way to prove you're an idiot.
Ah yes. I forgot to put sarcasm tags for the idiots . See? I can call you names to make me feel important too.
The difference being that your post really was stupid.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 14:24:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Exlegion Edited by: Exlegion on 02/09/2008 14:14:41
Originally by: Malcanis The difference being that your post really was stupid.
I'm sure Le Skunk, DigitalCommunist, Ki An, Gamesguy, et al find your posts insightful and clever. You guys represent all that is intelligent, meaningful, and rightous on these forums. On behalf of the stupid idiotic majority of Eve and the Eve-O, I'd like to thank you for gracing us with your unquestioned wisdom and light of truth. CCP would be lost without you five whoring the forums spewing your hate towards those that play the game different from you.
Well it's nice to be appreciated and to receive such encouraging words just when I was getting a bit weary of the struggle.
Thanks for giving me a ray of hope!
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 15:44:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Drunk Driver
NUCLEAR POWERED PIRATE REVENGE THREAD STILL LIVES!
.
OBVIOUS ISK FARMER REPEATS LIES
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 16:06:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Drunk Driver
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Drunk Driver
NUCLEAR POWERED PIRATE REVENGE THREAD STILL LIVES!
.
OBVIOUS ISK FARMER REPEATS LIES
You missed the target! Reload and try again!
Isk seller posts again. Infamy! Shameless!
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 17:55:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Drunk Driver
Originally by: Ruze
Originally by: Drunk Driver Edited by: Drunk Driver on 02/09/2008 17:18:34
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Drunk Driver [linebreak][linebreak][linebreak]Petition me as an isk seller. Go ahead. Please.[linebreak][linebreak][linebreak][linebreak][linebreak][linebreak]And this IS a pirate revenge thread. My guess is I'll find you've also geared up your forum rants AFTER the empire security changes were posted.[linebreak][linebreak][linebreak][linebreak][linebreak][linebreak][linebreak][linebreak].
Good idea. Think I will petition you and see if the GMs find anything.
Please go right ahead. I never feel a thing when they look at my computer variables.
PIRATE REVENGE THREAD GOES ON! .
While your at it, feel free to check my records and security stats, and verify whether or not I am a pirate.
That means nothing.
You could have multiple accounts with multiple characters. No one would know except you and CCP.
.
Like you and you macro acounts and your ISK selling alts, you mean?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:12:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Exlegion
Originally by: Ki An Edited by: Ki An on 02/09/2008 17:56:28
Originally by: Exlegion
Originally by: Ki An
Yes. Why are you running missions in high sec? Wouldn't you make a lot more isk if you just ratted behind the lines in 0.0? I mean, that's what you've been saying all along in the "nerf lvl4" threads.
Tamo isn't high sec. And yes, I do rat in 0.0 with my other character. but I happen to enjoy missions as well.
Sorry 'bout that. Low sec. However, is that really worth your time? I hear that pirates probe you out 100% of the time there.
Again, I LIKE MISSIONING. And yes, I get probed out, but if I see probes on my scanner I dock and switch to a different character or just log out for the night.
Is this to your liking? Do you approve of what I do? Am I doing it wrong?
Previous comments aside, full respect for you in earning your ISK in a risky fashion.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 19:12:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Need Input
Players who are not into pvp can stay out of it by running level 4 missions in HIGH SEC for a decent amount of money. Enough to buy their CNR and fit it out and pay the bills.
What bills? |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 22:22:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Ki An
Originally by: Drunk Driver [linebreak][linebreak]Angry much?[linebreak][linebreak][linebreak][linebreak][linebreak][linebreak][linebreak][linebreak][linebreak][linebreak].
I could never be angry with you, my little isk seller.
Did he mail you a quote? What's his price for 2 bill?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 22:57:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Haakelen I can't wait until some carebear space game shithole comes out, so mongoloids like that guy can get the **** out and stop ****ing up Eve.
I wish those star trek guys would get their shit together. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 10:25:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Hurrum Hurrum
Originally by: Haakelen I can't wait until some carebear space game shithole comes out, so mongoloids like that guy can get the **** out and stop ****ing up Eve.
More personal attacks- Calling a person 'mongoloid'
I believe the modern term is "Downy"
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
|
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 10:43:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Hurrum Hurrum
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Hurrum Hurrum
Originally by: Haakelen I can't wait until some carebear space game shithole comes out, so mongoloids like that guy can get the **** out and stop ****ing up Eve.
More personal attacks- Calling a person 'mongoloid'
I believe the modern term is "Downy"
My mistake. I was reporting the guy and it made a post by mistake.
Ah, so you're one of those people who fakes offence on behalf of others in order to get those who disagree with you banned from the forum.
Classy.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 11:46:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Drunk Driver
WHINY PIRATE REVENGE THREAD CONTINUES..........
.
LYING ISK SELLER TROLL REPEATS LIBELLOUS SLOGANS AFTER RUNNING OUT OF ARGUMENTS.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 11:46:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Hurrum Hurrum
No. I'm one of those people who abides by the forum rules. Personal attacks/name calling are not permitted. If someone disagrees with another they should follow the forum rules. If they can't then I will report them. All of them. I thought someone like you, who has 10x more forum posts than kills, would know that.
Ah, legitimacy through killboard stats, eh?
Well then, may we see yours?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 11:50:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Le Skunk
Originally by: Hurrum Hurrum
So report me for reccomending a game to someone who was looking for a sci fi PvP game more suited to casual PvPers.
Says the guy with.... zero kills?
SKUNK
Does suiciding ones own credibility generate a killmail? If so, he should have at least one.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 12:51:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 03/09/2008 11:58:06
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Le Skunk
Originally by: Hurrum Hurrum
So report me for reccomending a game to someone who was looking for a sci fi PvP game more suited to casual PvPers.
Says the guy with.... zero kills?
SKUNK
Does suiciding ones own credibility generate a killmail? If so, he should have at least one.
Its the standard dance.
A) Your shit because you have only 40 killmails b) Well following that logic, your utter shit as you have no killmails A) DUR! Im posting with an alt stupid - I dont want repercusions on my leet pvp main. b) Yes I know that - I said the thing about no killmails to get you to state you are posting with an alt because you are a coward. Why are you worried about me coming to pvp your leet pvp main if he has lots of kills. A) Im actually a miner and have no kills. Im afraid of griefers. Please help me CCP.
SKUNK
Fixed a small yet important detail.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 09:33:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
Originally by: Kwedaras The Drawingboard
September 4th 2008
Agent Orange This is a total overhaul from the ground up of the entire agent missions system/concept ù slightly more ambitious than the previous entry, but much needed.
Fo real? Linky plz cuz I'm bad at searching.
Here. It is full of win.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 11:56:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Polly Prissypantz
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
Originally by: Kwedaras The Drawingboard
September 4th 2008
Agent Orange This is a total overhaul from the ground up of the entire agent missions system/concept ù slightly more ambitious than the previous entry, but much needed.
Fo real? Linky plz cuz I'm bad at searching.
Here. It is full of win.
Pfft. The Drawing Board. Don't expect to see any of this stuff implemented within the next year, by which time I expect the 60d GTC to cost $100.00US at the current rate of increase.
That's OK I'm paying by subscription, which I estimate to remain exactly the same at the current rate of increase.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 17:28:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Roshan longshot Maybe its me....I seem to be the only one in my corp that doesnt fly a raven to do level 3-4 missions. Not saying I cant fly one...I just chose to use Gallente ships for mission running.
Take to account Rail guns have a varible dps, and they tend to miss. And only the Megatron has more then one launcher slot.
I do this for the challange...yes I tuck my tail and run during a couple of the harder level fours...But I get the job done.
Instead of nerfing these missions, or moving them out to low sec. Why dont just restrict them in lines with FW? Or maybe NERF the "Easy" button Ravens have?
I dont miss the F1-F7, and read a book days...That is why I stoped doing missions two years ago, boaring as hell. I can see why everyone is saying "Risk VS Reward" But try doing these missions with out missle spam.....
Or instead of crying "NERF" as the one solution to rule them all and in the darkness bind them, maybe we could consider the root cause of the problem that incidentally makes cruise ravens so effective: slow, stupid, predictable rats.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 18:19:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Mika Meroko wow ... this is still going on...
but yeah, we all know what happens moving lvl 4 to low sec XD
the whiners will complain about how theres STILL no targets and moving lvl 3 into low sec...
Can you point to where there are whines about this now?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
RuffRyders Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 18:21:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Roshan longshot
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Roshan longshot Maybe its me....I seem to be the only one in my corp that doesnt fly a raven to do level 3-4 missions. Not saying I cant fly one...I just chose to use Gallente ships for mission running.
Take to account Rail guns have a varible dps, and they tend to miss. And only the Megatron has more then one launcher slot.
I do this for the challange...yes I tuck my tail and run during a couple of the harder level fours...But I get the job done.
Instead of nerfing these missions, or moving them out to low sec. Why dont just restrict them in lines with FW? Or maybe NERF the "Easy" button Ravens have?
I dont miss the F1-F7, and read a book days...That is why I stoped doing missions two years ago, boaring as hell. I can see why everyone is saying "Risk VS Reward" But try doing these missions with out missle spam.....
Or instead of crying "NERF" as the one solution to rule them all and in the darkness bind them, maybe we could consider the root cause of the problem that incidentally makes cruise ravens so effective: slow, stupid, predictable rats.
And that would do what? Unbalance the mission so its impossible to do? 500hp per hit with a cruise missle compared to 85-400hp with a rail gun...
Oh good lord
Think man, think. Try and think of factors that favour guns over missiles.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
|
|
|
|