Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Connner
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:17:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Theocrates There is NO solution to the High Sec "Issue". None. There never will be a solution. There are simply too many people who will never leave high sec simply because they PREFER NPC mission running. If you cut the cash value in half most won't leave anyway. If you cut it to the bone in some attempt to increase the "value" of Low Sec all you will do is harm the subscription base. Most will still remain in High Sec if they stay in Eve at all.
You see they don't ENJOY the game in the same method you do. I don't expect most Low Sec people to understand it since its like trying to describe the color blue to someone born with no eyes. You see, they like to shoot NPC ships, buy ships of their own, talk to friends, build stuff, and not have it blown to snot so someone else can have a good day. As long as that's High Sec they will remain there.
That simple. The two play styles can not be reconciled by value adjustments or brute force game mechanics.
Quoted for truth! Leave high sec missioning as/is. There is no reason to nerf it. If anything, boost it. Give mission runners more epic arcs or somesuch.
|
Trathen
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:20:00 -
[62]
I've said this before, but all they have to do is what they have been doing: Continue to introduce new missions that are more complicated and fun, yet less rewarding than previous missions. It's harder to farm Blockade when its lost in a sea of Buzzsaws, etc. Mission runners will be happier also, because they aren't just going to quit. _ |
Maria Kalista
Amarr Emerald Forest Securities
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:21:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Roger11 moving some of the best quality lvl4's to low sec,
Most best quality level 4 agents *ARE ALREADY IN LOW SEC*. Heck they are often clustered together in 1 station. How is that important? If you want the best out of level 4's you want to decline all but the most profitable missions. Having just 1 agent in 1 station, you only get the luxery of declining 1 mission every 4 hours. Now think about a station filled with best quality agents, you are almost in mission heaven. And yet few that run them. --> Sandbox? Probably.
There is nothing wrong with high sec level 4's. Like said before, low sec should get buffed, so they get the same, or near the same amount/ option to earn as much as in high sec. Just with a little bit extra more risk. A cookie for everybody but with different flavors -> risk or near no risk.
Originally by: Jacharian This sounds like a bad idea. I'm in.
|
Armoured C
Gallente Federation of Freedom Fighters Aggression.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:28:00 -
[64]
least my way it is delicate to the economy and it put mission on par with other high sec career earning :)
nerf loot drops :)
and slightly boost bounty but a little OFFLINE[ONLINE]
|
Durzel
The Xenodus Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:37:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Durzel on 27/05/2009 18:39:56 On a slightly different note what I could see working in terms of getting more activity in low-sec from people are who marginally interested in going there would be making it so L4 missions require PvP-fit ships & tactics.
Right now there is a such a disparity between PvE and PvP fits for the same ship. Cap injectors are standard fare in PvP whereas they're generally a sign of a poor PvE fit. Perma-tanking is the usual aim in PvE whereas in PvP there seems to be a distinct bias towards buffer tanking. Neuts, scrams, TDs and other ECM are totally useless in missions, and NOS and webs are largely unconventional. MWDs are uncommon for PvE because they couldn't even be used in most missions (I believe this is being changed), whereas - you've guessed it - they're practically de facto in PvP.
You can blame the NPC AI for that, but there is also blame to be laid at the fact that nothing in this game prepares you for PvP except PvP itself. When you do the tutorial (this may have changed - so correct me if I'm wrong) you aren't taught that losing your ship isn't a big deal, you're given a ship & mods, sent off on your merry way to start the grind up from L1 to L4 missions. Is it so peculiar that ni the absence of guidance people just do this and get uncomfortably attached to their ships and don't want to lose them? For a PvP centric game there seems to be scant regard for actually prepping people for it. FW, and particularly the boxed set "instant FW access" was a step in the right direction but more needs to be done.
The big issue imo though is the fact that PvE fits & inexperience means that any mission runner who ventures into low-sec is a lamb to the slaughter. Assuming they don't get caught on the gate going in then the moment they get probed out in deadspace they're toast. No way to fight back, no escape.
But maybe that's actually what a lot of people who are pro-L4 mission nerf actually want, I'm struggling to really understand where some people are coming from in this thread. Either they're anti-mission running completely and just want L4 missions moved to low-sec to have some sheep to shoot, or - as Akita suggests - they want to run missions in low-sec/0.0 for "2-5x the current ISK reward", in which case why not just run L4 missions as they are now with absolutely no knock-on effect to the economy?
|
IVeige
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 18:43:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Theocrates There is NO solution to the High Sec "Issue". None. There never will be a solution. There are simply too many people who will never leave high sec simply because they PREFER NPC mission running. If you cut the cash value in half most won't leave anyway. If you cut it to the bone in some attempt to increase the "value" of Low Sec all you will do is harm the subscription base. Most will still remain in High Sec if they stay in Eve at all.
You see they don't ENJOY the game in the same method you do. I don't expect most Low Sec people to understand it since its like trying to describe the color blue to someone born with no eyes. You see, they like to shoot NPC ships, buy ships of their own, talk to friends, build stuff, and not have it blown to snot so someone else can have a good day. As long as that's High Sec they will remain there.
That simple. The two play styles can not be reconciled by value adjustments or brute force game mechanics.
This should be sticky.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 19:24:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Akita T THIS is a much better solution.
Wouldn't it be simpler just to tweak the existing mission payout balancer to work by agent / system / region as well as by mission, and bias it more heavily in favour of low-sec? Result: people spread out across high sec, reducing local lag, and some might be tempted out altogether. --- 20:1 mineral compression ISRC Racing, Season 7 - schedule |
Alex Raptos
Caldari Phoenix Rising.
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 19:40:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Originally by: Akita T THIS is a much better solution.
Wouldn't it be simpler just to tweak the existing mission payout balancer to work by agent / system / region as well as by mission, and bias it more heavily in favour of low-sec? Result: people spread out across high sec, reducing local lag, and some might be tempted out altogether.
That would only work if there was a vast increase in the amount of agents all over the place.
__________________
|
Lindsay Logan
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 22:30:00 -
[69]
Horrible idea at solving somthing that needs no solving.
Introduce NPC AI is all that is needed to "fix" level 4s.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2009.05.27 23:54:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Akita T THIS is a much better solution.
Wow... way to over-design a solution.
Just limit each character to a certain number of missions per day - the number of missions that a normative player would be expected to run in an arbitrary play time (eg: two hours).
Three level 4 missions per day per agent sounds like a good starting point.
Have missions accrue like RP, and casual players who are also mission runners would then have an alternate form of income - trading mission privileges for ISK. This would give ultra-casual players more income, while still allowing the hardcore mission-runners to run missions all day every day in the hope of getting some nice salvage or meta-4 items.
|
|
Jensen Blayloc
Minmatar Galtech Alloy and Nanotech Group
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 00:09:00 -
[71]
There is no problem. No player has an unfair monetary advantage, because everybody can do them. If you think it is boring to chain quests from the same agent, you may freely move between missions if you wish. Nothing stopping you. If you want more "challenge" you may feel free to low sec them if you like.
I fail to see the problem. I have no freaking idea why I would want to drag my expensive missioning ship into a lowsec gate camp or a bored MS sitting by a gate popping everything coming through, where I have exactly ZERO chance of getting away or even putting up a decent fight. How does that get to be fun for me? Where is the value for my $15. My goal is to play the game the way I want, taking advantage of its versatility, not provide amusement and cheap loot for someone else. There are PLENTY of people in lowsec to play with when you want some of that. You probably just get killed by the people who WANT to be there, and want to get some easy kills. Makes you sound like a n00blet honestly.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 00:23:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Jensen Blayloc There is no problem. No player has an unfair monetary advantage, because everybody can do them.
There is a problem when ISK is in over-supply - the prices of rare items will rise steadily as people have more and more ISK to spare on acquiring those rare items. The prices of commodity items will remain low, since people can easily go and manufacture their own stuff if the market price gets too high.
Balancing the ISK-faucets versus ISK-sinks is an important part of maintaining the EVE economy. When ISK is used for trade (eg: buying a ship, ammunition, modules), that's good for the EVE economy. When ISK is generated out of thin air (bounties, mission rewards) there needs to be some means of destroying that ISK. At present the ISK sinks are things like implants (which you buy from NPC corps, thus destroying that ISK), faction ships and POS fuel.
To get an idea of how much deflation there is in the actual value of ISK, check the prices of high-end implants such as Crystal or perhaps Snake.
We need more mechanisms for "sinking" ISK out of the game, or some restrictions on "pouring" ISK into the game. At the same time, heavy PvPers need a steady income in order to maintain their supply of consumables.
The argument about encouraging people into lowsec is entirely separate from maintaining the EVE economy.
|
Sturdy Girl
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 00:39:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Alex Raptos What do people complain about most regarding empire level fours?
The lack of risk. This, is honestly, all you have to "Fix".
I would split the lower half of hisec (from 0.7 to 0.5 inclusive), so that whilst concord still responds at gates and stations exactly as it does already, either it ignores deadspaces and possibly anything outside of public areas... or alternatively it still responds (maybe with the new sleeper ai), but at a diminishing speed the further away from a station or gate you are (and one is allowed the luxury of escape if one is capable).
Just a couple of thoughts.
|
Becq Starforged
Minmatar Ship Construction Services Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 00:50:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Becq Starforged on 28/05/2009 00:50:30 Akita's got the answer. The fact is that there are some people who will never leave high-sec for any reason; if you change the game to force them to do so they will simply stop playing. There's no point in continuing to try to force them to play your game. Other mission-runners (or miners), on the other hand, are a bit more business-minded about it. They do what they do to earn isk, and the do it in high-sec because there's absolutely no advantage (and lots of disadvantage) to do so anywhere else. If you have a choice between earning 10-20m per hour in high-sec or 11-22m per hour in low-sec, the smart money-makers are going to operate in safe space.
How do you get these people to go to low-sec? Frankly, bribe them. Make it worth the added risk. Given a choice between running the same mission in high-sec for 10m or in low-sec for 100m, the low-sec agent is going to start getting a lot more business. The die-hard risk-adverse folks are still going to stay in high-sec, but a lot of other mission-runners are going to go for the bonus cash.
By the way, I think that a x10 multiplier is far too much, I'm just tossing out an example. It's probably better to make the rewards somewhat dynamic; that is, an agent that nobody runs missions for (because of a backwater or dangerous location) should have their mission rewards slowly creep up over time. Conversely, overused agents should have their rewards reduced slowly over time. Eventually, the low-sec missions will gain attention and the laggy hubs will disperse a bit.
To be honest, I don't understand the self-righteous hatred the pirate crowd bears toward those who choose not to play the role of sitting ducks for them. But I'm convinced that incentivizing lowsec properly is the the way to increase the population of low-sec, which is (I think) what is really what the gank-bears are looking for. 'Nerfing' missions will only **** people off.
Oh, and as an aside, this applies double for mining. Lowsec mining is a joke. The ore value per miner-hour is slightly better, but to realize that increase you need to divide the profits between 2-3 times as many people, making it less profitable per person than high-sec, with greatly increased risk. Give lowsec enhanced ores (for example, ore that refines to more minerals with a multiplier similar to the increased mission payout) and people might start hazarding low-sec mining ops.
-- Becq Starforged
The Flame of Freedom Burns On! |
Sturdy Girl
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 00:55:00 -
[75]
I like the idea of variable quality agents aswell.... i saw it explained in another thread.
Essentially, have all agents gradually increase in quality, with a very high upper cap. As people run more missions for an agent his quality decreases. If an agent isn't in use, his/her payouts will end up 10 to 20 times more profitable, so people will end up spreading out to start using the agents with the most cash.
Market forces thereby prevail!
|
Myra2007
Shafrak Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 01:12:00 -
[76]
I disagree. I will agree that there could be a somewhat higher level of competition between mission runners. Missions as a resource should not be unlimited (be it in 0.0 or empire) in my opinion. But two things are imo wrong:
1) The perception that they pay too much. Their payout wouldn't be a concern if particular activities in lowsec/0.0 would pay better. This way we only have winners. *ding ding* And don't give me some economic knick-knack about how this will collapse the markets where nerfing lvl4 income will not only make us all more worthy as humans but also (potentially) cure cancer.
2) The idea that they need to go to lowsec. There are a number of activities that can be done in hisec and that incorporate competition and risk elements just fine. (see trading, invention, manufacturing, exploration...) If any fix is needed then its about more competition/more relative scarceness of missions as a resource.
More specifically the idea to make people travel large distances all the freaking time. I mean how cruel is that? lol - this made my day. Now that i think about it this might be a hilarious troll.
--
Originally by: Jasper Dark
I agree! Lets go back into caves and lick rocks!
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 01:27:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Becq Starforged To be honest, I don't understand the self-righteous hatred the pirate crowd bears toward those who choose not to play the role of sitting ducks for them.
I'm pretty sure the "nerf level 4 missions to force people to enter lowsec" crowd don't actually believe that more people will come to lowsec if level 4 missions are nerfed. My expectation is that they're only interested in having someone else's playstyle affected, preferably with a great gushing of carebear tears in the forums.
|
Agent Known
Apotheosis of Virtue
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 01:27:00 -
[78]
I'd say just leave it alone and go back and play in your sandbox like everyone else. No need to change game mechanics just to make someone else happy. People pay for the game so they should be able to do what they like without it being spanked with the nerfbat 9001 times.
Risk vs Reward != Fun vs Work. Have you ever thought that the people who mission and fly around in CNRs might actually find it fun?
|
Jer Bu
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 01:31:00 -
[79]
Level 4 risk/time spent/reward is fine.
|
|
CCP Mitnal
C C P
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 01:46:00 -
[80]
Moved to Features & Ideas.
Mitnal Community Representative CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
|
Parmala Udoni
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 03:05:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Theocrates There is NO solution to the High Sec "Issue". None. There never will be a solution. There are simply too many people who will never leave high sec simply because they PREFER NPC mission running. If you cut the cash value in half most won't leave anyway. If you cut it to the bone in some attempt to increase the "value" of Low Sec all you will do is harm the subscription base. Most will still remain in High Sec if they stay in Eve at all.
You see they don't ENJOY the game in the same method you do. I don't expect most Low Sec people to understand it since its like trying to describe the color blue to someone born with no eyes. You see, they like to shoot NPC ships, buy ships of their own, talk to friends, build stuff, and not have it blown to snot so someone else can have a good day. As long as that's High Sec they will remain there.
That simple. The two play styles can not be reconciled by value adjustments or brute force game mechanics.
Do I know you? Because you describe me to a "T".
When CCP nerfs high-sec to make me go to low-sec, I'll go find a different game to play.
You pirates and gankers, look at it from our perspective: what would you do if CCP nerfed low-sec and made it so you couldn't kill us anymore?
|
Aston Vette
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 04:38:00 -
[82]
There isn't a problem with High sec or L4 Missions, per se. I don't see why people shouldn't be able to sit in high sec all day and safely grind missions and make isk to their hearts' content.
However, the problem is that the isk earned by high sec missioning is the highest (or equal to it) available in EVE with the lowest risk. So, we could nerf the payouts in high sec, or boost the payouts in the other areas; either way would be fine.
The reason the people are complaining is that there is very little incentive for people to venture forth from high sec since there are massive profits and minimal risk. If the profit/risk ratio were the same in low sec and 0.0 the end result would be that some people would STILL choose the low risk option, and others would begin to expand into low sec and 0.0.
Honestly I think the easiest way to deal the issue is scale the mission rewards and the bounties like this: Isk = Nominal * Scalar * (1 - System Sec) If you don't want to move to low sec, that's cool, but you'll always be restricted to less isk than you could potentially be making in a lower security system.
|
Phantom Slave
JUDGE DREAD Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 05:23:00 -
[83]
Here's the problem I see:
1.) Buffing everything else will cause inflation. This will cause hi-sec mission runners to run more missions than before to buy the same things they buy now.
2.) Nerfing level 4 missions causes hi-sec mission runners to run more missions than before to buy the same things they buy now.
Changing anything will nerf a massive playerbase, whether on purpose or on accident.
It's also hard to compare level 4 missions with anything else. Not everybody runs around with an uber plex/officer fit nightmare with a salvager alt to make maximum isk/hour. Some people run level 4 missions in Drakes, just because they can. Some even do easier level 4's in Assault frigs just to shake things up. Not everybody spams missions non-stop 24/7 making billions of isk a month.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 07:29:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Phantom Slave 1.) Buffing everything else will cause inflation. This will cause hi-sec mission runners to run more missions than before to buy the same things they buy now.
I agree - buffing "everything else" isn't going to stop level 4 missions being ISK-faucets, it's just going to devalue ISK.
Quote: 2.) Nerfing level 4 missions causes hi-sec mission runners to run more missions than before to buy the same things they buy now.
There are ways to nerf level 4 missions that won't significantly impact on most mission runners, will deleteriously affect a significant portion, but will actually be of great benefit to those people running level 4 missions to support their PvP play.
Quote: Changing anything will nerf a massive playerbase, whether on purpose or on accident.
I disagree!
Quote: Not everybody spams missions non-stop 24/7 making billions of isk a month.
And that is why I disagree.
If missions were doled out like datacores, CCP could have finer control over how much ISK enters the system. A mission-runner gets to talk to an agent by building up reputation as they currently do, but then the agent gives them a certain number of "mission points" each day which can then be redeemed for "mission briefing pages" (a physical, transportable and saleable item). The mission briefing pages are then surrendered at an agent (any agent the mission-runner has access to) to obtain a mission.
Moving to a redeemable token means that level 1 agents might require, for example, 5 mission briefing pages, level 2 agents require 7, level 3 agents require 11, level 4 agents require 51. These agents would contribute enough mission points to allow you to buy three missions a day from that same level of agent.
People running missions as a form of income to support PvP could then go on a mission-running bender, gaining access to as many mission agents as their Military Connections, etc skills allow (in the same way that Research Project Management affects the number of research agents you have access to). Then that PvPer can make a tour of all his mission agents once a month, collect all the mission briefings they're eligible for, run a few missions to make the most of their "chill-out" time, and sell the rest of the briefings on the market.
This would change the income generated through mission agents from "created" ISK to "recycled" ISK. ie: some other player is giving you ISK that already existed in the game, in return for an item you have that the other player wants.
In the meantime, the mining corporations can build standings with level 4 agents, spam level 1 agents looking for the good mining missions, and flog the rest of the mission briefing pages off on the market for extra income :)
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 11:19:00 -
[85]
It's so simple! Let's make lvl 4's, which are already boring, so boring that anyone who used to run them, quits the game.
I'm all for it.
|
Robert Caldera
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 11:45:00 -
[86]
I dont like missions and I dont like grinding mission runners but despite this I am against the idea.
What do you think will happen if mission runners suddenly would go into lowsec for their missions?? Within seconds there will be a camp set up by some pirates behind the gate, resulting in a mission runner who never would go into lowsec.
My conclusion from this is that moving missions into lowsec would have absolutely no effect on the lowsec population.
|
MacMasters
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 12:05:00 -
[87]
the whole risk/reward concept is flawed. its missing "boredom". in which case L4's are perfect as is. risk/reward/boredom where risk vs boredom are compared to reward.
|
Phantom Slave
JUDGE DREAD Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 15:01:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Mara Rinn Stuff
While I do agree that some form of level 4 nerf needs to come about, your idea of reducing the amount of missions available per month is asinine. I have to pay for 2 accounts with PLEX cards because I can't afford real money to play the game. At current prices, that's 800 mil or so a month. Add on my PvP costs, and I can easily push 2 billion isk a month. Exactly how would limiting me from doing as many missions make things better? Limit me enough, and I can't PvP. Limit me further and I can't pay for my accounts.
What do you hope to accomplish by limiting the amount of isk that mission runners can make? If you limited me to 1 billion isk worth of missions a month, I would have to cut my PvP way down.
|
Hariya
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 17:06:00 -
[89]
Stupid idea. The more people will have to grind for equipment, the more valuable equipment will be perceived. People would enter even less to low sec and 0.0.
|
Jade Mitch
The Scope
|
Posted - 2009.05.28 18:37:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Jade Mitch on 28/05/2009 18:38:42
No, this would increase "grinding", not eliminate it. Risk is just a statistic. In reality you either have a 0% chance or 100% chance of loosing everything at a gate camp, which would become more popular. This would not reduce the risk/reward. More time and more risk for less money? Wrong! How about less time and less risk for more ISK?! Why do level 4 missions need to be dented in the first place?
If all you want is for more rookie players to come into low sec and pvp, make it quicker and cheaper for them to recover from it. Make all missions 10x more rewarding and make all blueprint prices, material requirements, and production run times 90% less. Lower production costs, increase competition and let the price wars force prices to minimum. Then nobody would feel the enormous crush of loosing a black ops BS fully fitting with T2 everything to a group of HACs and ewar frigs with crack progs. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |