|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 09:07:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Darius Brinn Forcing people into Lowsec does not work.
Increase 0.0 ratting rewards. Increase the profits of mining. Entice people to move to other riskier/more boring (but needed) activities. Those are reasonable ideas.
Asking CCP to move lvl4s to low security is just a flow of pirate tears asking for targets not fitted to shoot back.
A better idea would probably be to make L4s competetive and thus PvP:able (as in "I take your business", not the 'splo-you-up kind of PvP). ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 09:29:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Joe You'll find the main arguemnt currently being spammed is 'Lvl 4s in hi sec make to much', and then anyone that pionts out the dozens of other profitible activities are riduculed.
Actually, the main argument is that “L4s in high-sec make too much and there is no way to attack that revenue stream” — at least from those who actually have an argument. That's why the other activities are irrelevant — all of them can be attacked, disrupted or just plain old stolen in some way.
It's the fact that this one particular activity cannot be affected from the outside, yet it is allowed to massively affect the rest of the game that bothers people. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 12:16:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Pilot Abilene The beauty of lvl4s in high sec is that anyone can do them...
…which is also what makes them the baseline activity against which all other activities are judged, and which render many of those alternatives pointless.
Originally by: Zaldoc Lol i laugh at all those wannabe pirates asking every time for lvl 4 nerf one way or another,while most of them have alts in high sec doing lvl 4 missions to fund their wannabe pirate habits..
…which means that they know very well how profitable these missions are and therefore don't buy the nonsense "but it's not affecting the game/why are you bothering me when I'm doing my own thing" line of reasoning. In addition, in case that detail escaped you, your logic means they're actually trying to nerf themselves: they lose their source of easy income and will have less time to PvP. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:29:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Tippia on 27/05/2009 14:35:16
Originally by: Matrix Skye This is BS. L4 missions in hi sec CAN be disrupted. You can declare war on them.
…and wardecs are ridiculously easy to avoid, not to mention cost-prohibitive.
When I say "disrupted", I mean "you no longer have any L4 agents to work with. At all. Go do L3s instead."
Originally by: Venkul Mul Care to show how you can disrupt my trading business?
[…]
So "I will take away your business" is a false statement.
If I hurt you with a blunt object, I still hurt you, and that can be good enough. In addition, as you point out with the mining example, missions allow you to avoid direct competition that should otherwise be possible. So that kind of begs the question: yes, "I will take away your business" is a false statement because the very mechanic of missions makes it impossible to take away that business. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:43:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Tippia on 27/05/2009 14:44:51
Originally by: Anslo Yes, I am. You pvpers like to pvp, we missioners like to mission. Let us play our way, you play yours.
That's the problem: you assume they're two separate things, when in fact they're not. There is no "your way" and "their way" — only a continuous EVE universe where what you do have repercussions on everyone else.
When you run missions, you affect the PvP:ers in. Why shouldn't they have the ability to affect you back? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 14:46:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Venkul Mul You have no way to damage my business directly, even if it is trading.
Irrelevant.
Quote: You can play with the words has much as you want, but you can't - take away my trading business; - take away my capacity to mine; - take away my capacity to invent; any more than you can take away my capacity to run missions.
Yes I can. I can steal your sales; steal your asteroid; steal (or destroy) your invention slots. I cannot steal your agents. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:10:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Tippia on 27/05/2009 15:11:45
Originally by: Rhinanna You mean you can't enter their mission area where someone else is mission running and salvage their wrecks and steal their loot?
None of that interrupts their revenue stream, though…
Quote: Let people who want to PvP do what they want and people who want to PvE do what they want.
Sure, as long as the PvE is open to competition and require a level of effort that is in line with the affect those PvE activities have on the game at large.
Originally by: Kane Starkiller Why is everyone complaining about mission runners? Good ISK and no risk?
No. Good ISK and no competetive element. Yes, trading will make you awesome ISK as well, but in a 100% competetive environment — that's why its accepted without complaint. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 15:15:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Matrix Skye
Originally by: Kane Starkiller Why is everyone complaining about mission runners?
Because it's the whine of the month. FOTM.
It's been a whine for as far back as I remember, so no. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:11:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Matrix Skye How does that differ from:
Mission runners missioning in deadspace have the risk, however minimal, of getting their ship blown up by NPCs. Apart from that, miscalculation or mistakes could potentially cost them Billion-isk setup. Not to mention salvage and loot thives in mission hubs.
For one, ninja salvagers and loot thieves don't cost you any money — it just makes you earn less. You still end up ahead (and some mission runners even argue that you lose income by stopping to loot and salvage…)
Originally by: Jackson Grey I can understand some aspects of what your saying 'trader competition is 'risky'' but the suicide gank bit oh come on now thats utter crap. How othen does that happen nowadays?
That's actually a fair point, but it kind of speaks to the opposite standpoint: the combat means of targeting non-combat activities have been unduly nerfed in a way that very much speaks against the "I play my way; you play your way" mode of reasoning.
Quote: And the difference between the trader and the mission runner is nothing. […] The trader in high sec these days is (with even a minimal setup) is not going to be taken out by a gank […]
The thing is, it's far too easy to be blinded by the gank side of PvP, when PvP in EVE is a matter of competition above all. Blowing others up is just a way of ensuring they no longer take part in that competition (for a little while, at least). When discussing trade, the "risk" isn't so much a question of exploding, but of losing all your money on a deal that falls through.
Trading inherently involves competition, and therefore also inherently involves risk. Whether or not a ship is involved in that risk-taking is an irrelevant distraction.
Earning vast sums from trading isn't a problem because it takes place in a competetive environment, just like everything else in EVE (bar missions). It is also not a problem because it only involves shuffling ISK around from one person to another. Neither is true for missions: they earn you ISK without any kind of competition (yes, salvage and loot can be stolen, but you earn ISK nevertheless), and that ISK is created out of nowhere, which has some rather far-reaching effects on the game economy (granted, the CCP economist claims that we have deflation right now, so it may largely be a non-issue). ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:18:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Drunk Driver Risk adverse players will not follow level 4 missions into low sec.
Plain, simple, truth.
Which is why no-one who has actually thought things through suggests that. The solution to L4s is to either cut down on their profitability (the less optimal solution) or to introduce a competetive element to bring them in line with all other activities in EVE. Only then can their profitability be balanced against those other activities — I'd even go so far as to argue that unless missions are made competetive, they are fundamentally impossible to balance because they work on principles that vastly differ from everything else in the game. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
|
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 16:31:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Herzog Wolfhammer This entire argument can come to a screeching halt with that age old MMO saw:
"When you are paying my subscription fee, THEN you can tell me how to play."
Works both way though, so for this particular argument, it's kind of a risky nuke to set off… ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 17:22:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Rhinanna No there aren't. There is no set-up that can do every mission like this. Quite a few missions have Nos/Neut that whips out your tank pretty quick, even with a passive tank as they turn your hardeners off.
WC4 sansha side can easily break 1000 dps/second (before resists) shield tank. A lot of rats react fairly randomly to drones in particular.
Nos/neuts in L4s are a nuisance, not a threat to well-set up ship. And no, WC4 does not do 1000dps/s… although it might reach 1000dps…
…sorry, it's a pet niggle of mine. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 19:19:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Rhinanna Lvl 4s generate less income than a decent trader.
Irrelevant, for reasons already explained.
Quote: Decent traders can often generate this risk without leaving a station.... how is that less safe than running missions? Death by boredom?
Has already been explained.
Quote: Loot/Bounties/Salvage can all be stolen, just like when ratting.
Doesn't incur a loss of ISK — only lowers your earning, as previously explained. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 19:52:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Hurtado Soneka people play eve and complete missions obviously enjoying it the way it is.
Plenty of people enjoy faulty mechanics when they're faulty in their favour.
Quote: Am thinking some people are jealous of the isk their making,
Well, you'd be wrong (in more ways than one). ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 20:42:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Tippia on 27/05/2009 20:44:47
Originally by: Maren Jensen I fail to see the problem with missions.
They artificially inflate the value of certain goods because mission runners very rarely lose the stuff they buy and can afford to overbid those who lose stuff habitually. They drastically reduce the value of other goods because they are spawned out of nowhere, thus reducing the viability of large swaths of the manufacturing field. They [to some disputed degree] reduce the value of mining and also remove some of the competetive nature of the mining that remains. They provide untouchable revenue streams. In essence, they inject large amounts of ISK and items without any decent sinks of either kind on the other end. All of this while offering very little in the way of effort, risk, competition or any other balancing factor.
All of it is bad.
Quote: You're indirectly nerfing PVP by reducing income from missions.
And that's (partly) the point: to give others the ability to wage economic warfare against your PvP-funding activities. Untouchable revenue streams are bad. It doesn't really matter if those streams are small or lage — for all intents and purposes, mission rewards could very well stay the same, or even be increased, as long as they were balanced against mechanisms and strategies that allowed other parties to deny you that money flow. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 20:56:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Maren Jensen Then get rid of noob corps. That's all that's needed.
No. Noob corps are needed, and removing them doesn't solve anything since there are other ways to route the money.
You need to be able to attack the source of the income, not just the pipeline from source to endpoint. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 07:48:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Venkul Mul You can steal someone sales selling under his prices but you can't target me;
Again, irrelevant. You get hurt — I get my wish.
Quote: You can mine some asteroid but you can't mine enough asteroid to stop me from mining;
(I assume you mean't "can't mine enough"?) I can effectively keep you from mining by forcing you to spend more time finding belts than actually mining them.
Quote: You can use some invention slot, but you can't take them all (and I can always put up a tower and invent there).
Sure I can, and if you have a tower, I can blow it up. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 12:49:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Rhinanna Its irrelevant because you make money trading rather than running Lvl4s? Thats about the only reason that makes it irrelevant.
No. It's irrelevant because trading is a competetive, self-balancing, zero-sum activity.
Quote: If anything the chances of losing ISK mission running are much greater than losing ISK while trading, if you have half a brain anyway.....
If you have half a brain, your chance of losing ISK in a mission is zero. Unfortunately, I haven't read enough statistics and probability theory to answer what happens when a probability is negative, so I don't really know how to respond to this.
Quote: Basically you are saying 'Well this reason only counts against missioning because I don't want it to count against trading.'
Basically you are saying 'well I don't understand your argument so I'm going to make one up'. See? I can use strawmen too…
Or, put anothwe way, no. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the reason people complain about missions is because they are non-competetive and therefore go against the grain of every other mechanic in EVE — in short, they don't belong in the game in their current incarnation. Trading is competetive, and therefore people accept it, no matter how much you can potentially earn from it. I'm saying that bringing up trading as a counter-example means you don't understand the argument that's being made. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 13:42:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Rhinanna Same applies to any equipment purchased for hi-sec activies.
No it does not because you edited out the second part of the problem.
Quote: Baseline does not mean highest, it just a steady income/hour where as most other activies provide a variable income.
No-one is arguing that it is the highest — the argument is that it is too high for what it is and therefore push other activities out because they earn less for the same risk or risk more for the same earnings.
Quote: So basically due to the fact you lack the intelligence/willingness to use the methods avaialable to interrupt the revenue stream makes it uninterruptable? No.....
Since those methods are easily avoidable, yes.
Quote: Same applies to trading.
So?
Quote: There is nothing wrong with a non-competetive activity. Is been different wrong? No.
In a PvP game, yes, being different — as in "not being PvP" — is wrong.
Quote: Only them causing harm to the game in general is and I think the general concenus seems to be that they in fact ENCOURAGE other actives rather than harm them. Particually PvP.
A large number of PvPers use L4 missions as their way of making ISK for their PvP, particually when learning to PvP. Take away this resource and you are nerfing PvP and basically forcing them to do trading instead to make ISK or join a 0.0 corp that makes their money from moon farming or similar.
…and if you've been paying attention, you'd have noticed that I don't talk about nerfing missions or reducing their profitability — quite the opposite. I'm talking about bringing that earning mechanic in line with every other rearning mechanic in the game.
Quote: We noticed this since almost all your arguements so far have been strawmen.
You don't know what a strawman is, do you? If you want to accuse me of anything, it is to warp "my side" — i.e. the "reform missions" side — of the argument, to deal with the introduction of competition rather than a relocation to lowsec (which, I agree, is a full-bore-drool-dripping 'tard idea). ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tippia
Raddick Explorations Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 18:01:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Rhinanna Err what?
Learn to quote, ok?
Quote: If its not the highest, nor the least risky then WHY the hell would you want missions changed?
To remove the static baseline that renders other activities obsolete; to increase the variety of worth-while gameplay.
Quote: All you are doing is nerfing mission runners in comparison to the other occupations and making mission running useless. Thats a good idea is it?
No. It makes them work on the same principles as other occupations — only then can we start talking about buffs and nerfs because only then do we have two comparable designs. You are the one talking about nerfing them — not me. Yet another strawman on your part.
Quote: Errr what? How do you stop someone from coming in your mission and looting e.t.c. while you are killing.
As previously mentioned, it doesn't matter if he steals your loot — you make money anyway (in fact, some mission runners claim you lose precious ISK/h by stopping to loot and salvage). In order to kill your revenue, he has to kill all the ships so he gets all the bounties; hack into the CCP database to flag the mission as his; go back to your agent and claim the ISK, LP and standings rewards… Which, of course, can't be done.
The other alternative is to resort to violence, but that quickly becomes a cost-prohibitive method of economic warfare (that's also very easy to avoid).
Quote: Get off your high horse and look at the facts. It's CCP's game, just cos you think EVERYTHING should be PvP doesn't mean you are right.
Given how often they've been wrong about their own game, I think I'll stay up here, thankyouverymuch…
Quote: If its NOT the most profitable, nor the least risky then how is it out of line? Because its not PvP?
Yes. For the simple reason that, as long as it isn't competetive, it will remain a cast-iron [female dog] to balance against those other activities. Introduce competition, and it will balance itself and allow for more variety and be far easier to adjust when the self-balancing doesn't quite cut it. It's far easier to create a wide and appetizing range of apple hybrids if you don't try to throw an organge in the mix…
Quote: A strawman is an argument with no logical backing behind it, coming from the fact that a strawman looks like a person but isn't.
No. A straw man is a misrepresentation of the opponents point of view that is set up only for the purpose of being easy to attack.
Eg: Me: Missions should be made competetive. You: Nerfing missions is bad for the game (the strawman being that you misrepresent what I'm saying as me wanting to nerf missions, and then you present a case why such a nerf would be bad). ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
|
|
|
|