Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Junko Togawa
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 22:20:00 -
[31]
IF B > P THEN C.
Where: B=Number of bull**** whines resulting in lost subs. P=Number of players actually happy with current system and resulting in paying subs. C=CCP giving a **** about said whines and doing something.
|
DeadlySPade
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 22:38:00 -
[32]
I don't think there is a problem with level 4 mission at all if people wanna do that it fine. I think the problem is in the fact that they can sit in a npc corperation and I can't war deck them. How is it fair that my coperation allaince can get war decked and have ngihtmareish logistical problem in empire and a player can just sit there all day in an npc corperation and never have to worry.
like you can say that it was my choice to join a corp and then an allaince and with it i took the risk. but then again you level 4 people wine cause you don't want your way of playing eve to change, well i don't want to change my way of playing eve either which is being in 0.0 and an allaince but hey how bout some fairness in my ability to run level 4 and get masssive amount of isk which i can't do cause i'm currently war deck by goonswarm. pretty much turning high sec in to lowsec for me.
So i think the bottom line is leave thing the same just change the way npc corperation work. like npc corp are there for new player in eve to learn how to play but there should be a time in the game or a skill point limit to how long a player can be in there till they get switch to a npc corperation that I can put a war deck on.
|
Karentaki
Gallente Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 22:47:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Cat Molina Again? We're doing this again?
A small and vocal (but rather stupid) group simply cannot accept that not everyone in this game plays the way they think they should.
Open your map and set to show population. Now... where are the most populated systems? Right... in Empire. Not in 0.0 and not in low-sec (where I live). Most paying accounts... erm... I mean players, are in Empire.
Now... who do you think CCP wants to please the very, very most? The few, or the many?
It's a business people. Get it through your thick skulls. A business... not your perfect little universe, not your fantasy f**king getaway where you can blob up some killmails and feel good about yourself.
Good grief.
When will you get it through your thick skull that 'balancing gameplay' is not 'forcing people to play the way you want'? I don't want L4 missions removed; I don't even want them nerfed. I just want most other aspects of the game boosted to bring them in line.
Think of it like the falcons debate: Some people wanted them nerfed, others wanted them kept as they were, but the fact was that they were becoming seriously overused. You couldn't argue that nerfing them was 'forcing people to play the way others wanted', and in the same way you can't say that for missions. The fact is that they generate too much isk/items and denying this just shows that you don't have a clue about market dynamics.
As for EVE being a business, sorry, but I was under the impression we were here to debate gameplay not business strategies. If 10 million people suddenly came along and demanded that CCP permaban you, your hardware ID numbers, your credit cards, and all your ingame friends from ever being involved in eve again would you still side with the majority? No. Leave the business decisions to CCP while we come to a consensus over gameplay.
Oh, and one other point to consider. How many of those subscribers who spend all day running missions in highsec are humans? I think you'd be surprised at the number who are either running a macro (yes they do exist), or simply are shared accounts where an RMT company owns hundreds of accounts and farms them 23/7 with a few poorly-paid workers. When a system is full of people called 'asdasfsdfdasd100213', 'asdsdfDAF3423', etc it really doesn't support your argument.
Quote:
EVE is like a sandbox with landmines. Deal with it.
|
Adamantor
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 23:25:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Adamantor on 01/07/2009 23:27:29 I'm a mission carebear (for now) and enjoying upgrading my ship as I train skills and earn some much needed ISK.
That said, I think adding more variables to missions would make for a much more fun and challenging mission experience. More random modules (NOS, Neuts, damps, resists etc) equipped on enemy ships, more random ships or spawns. I think every mission should have some elements of surprise, not just a select few as it is right now. This might even get a few more people to fleet up for L4 missions to help manage any nasty surprises that spawn.
As I think about it, would be fun to have to scout some of these missions out before engaging a group. Definitely would add alot more challenge, fun and risk (maybe even some extra rewards) to missions.
|
Hotice
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 00:14:00 -
[35]
First, Other than a bit boring, there is no problem with mission in term of reward in high sec. Why people doing them alone mostly? Because of the reward is too low to be shared. So missions are done in solo mode until reward is good enough for more than one person.
Second, everybody pays their own montyly bill to play this game. Nobody got more rights than the other player. Thus, until you started to pay monthly fee for everybody, you have no rights to force other people play the way you like. There is no right or wrong way to play a game. Pirates/pvp or carebear have no real difference from a game stand point. So, go play your game and let others play their game. If your game fun is based on killing other players, then you can go find people that want to fight you. Forcing one group of people to pay and playing a game that is not fun for them means cancelled accounts. CCP is not going do it no matter what you are saying.
|
Hellanna
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 01:15:00 -
[36]
Quote: A fairly casual player speaks. If I can't make some relatively straightforward ISK in high sec, how am I going to finance PvP ship losses?
You should make it slower then the individual in 0.0 who's ship is free game to anyone. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Not by a long shot. L4 mission running is far more profitable this ratting/mining in 0.0, and that is the problem. L4 mission running completely breaks the risk vs reward investment.
|
Ezekiel Sulastin
Gallente Shiva Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 01:27:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Hellanna
Quote: A fairly casual player speaks. If I can't make some relatively straightforward ISK in high sec, how am I going to finance PvP ship losses?
You should make it slower then the individual in 0.0 who's ship is free game to anyone. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Not by a long shot. L4 mission running is far more profitable this ratting/mining in 0.0, and that is the problem. L4 mission running completely breaks the risk vs reward investment.
It is? Really? Maybe if you're out ratting/mining in a t1 frigate ... ----
|
tommo1642uk
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 01:57:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Hellanna
Quote: A fairly casual player speaks. If I can't make some relatively straightforward ISK in high sec, how am I going to finance PvP ship losses?
You should make it slower then the individual in 0.0 who's ship is free game to anyone. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Not by a long shot. L4 mission running is far more profitable this ratting/mining in 0.0, and that is the problem. L4 mission running completely breaks the risk vs reward investment.
Because all those intel channels that you dont pay any attention to doesnt take the risk factor away from 0.0 ratting? Sure is annoying popping all those bs and leaving the frigs and cruisers
|
tommo1642uk
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 02:02:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Karentaki
Originally by: Cat Molina
Oh, and one other point to consider. How many of those subscribers who spend all day running missions in highsec are humans? I think you'd be surprised at the number who are either running a macro (yes they do exist), or simply are shared accounts where an RMT company owns hundreds of accounts and farms them 23/7 with a few poorly-paid workers. When a system is full of people called 'asdasfsdfdasd100213', 'asdsdfDAF3423', etc it really doesn't support your argument.
There`s no 'asdasfsdfdasd100213', 'asdsdfDAF3423' macro ratters obviously |
Serpents smile
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 02:27:00 -
[40]
They should nerf mining. No really. It's ridiculous how much you make doing nearly nothing. At least the level 4 runners work for their money but miners..... bleh.
Just did it the other day, went to look for a nice belt with veld, found one within 6 jumps of base camp, throttle Hulk towards the first 3 rocks, launch 2 defender and 3 mining drones, run one of those roid scanners, aim 3 lasors & mining drones check local for bad guys and sit back. Meanwhile my alt comes in with an Ity 5 and 12 GSC's keeps distance to me of 50 meters, pops out 1 veld locks tractor beam on the can created and waits until I drop something in the can so he can move it into one of the 12 GSC's.
Once the 12 cans are filled he docks at the nearest station empties the lot and comes back for another round. The only excitement is when one or 3 stupid low level rats enter the belt and you hope their loot or salvage brings something yummy.
Really no risk at all and at the end you have tons of rock with little to non work done.
|
|
Cat Molina
Minmatar Intransigent
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 03:37:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Karentaki I just want most other aspects of the game boosted to bring them in line.
There it is. Bring them in line with what? With what you're doing? Hold on... let me guess; you want to boost low-sec ratting so that you and your endgame-buddies make more isk in less time than anyone in the game.
Am I right? It's what it always boils down to. Given your previous response, I'd guess you've a little manufacturing business going? Would that be correct? Would you make more money if L4's were changed?
That's what it's always about with you guys. It's never enough to simply take your marbles and go home... you want to take everyone's marbles and go home. Self-centered to a deleterious degree.
You know, I don't sit in Empire grinding missions. I'm out fighting solo in the pirate hubs. I've got more risk than you do with your POS networks (predominately fueled by macro-mined Empire Ice) and intel channels and blob-buddies. Do you see me posting on forums trying to nerf other's styles of play? Or somehow convince CCP that I should be making more than anyone else?
So some guy likes to run missions when he gets home from work? What's the big deal? Personally, I don't think it's fun (I'd rather PvP). So what if he's making more money than I am?
The most irritating thing about this topic is that everyone gets so self-centered; behind every suggestion to nerf L4's (or boost everything else, which is the same) is someone looking to make more money or have an easier path. It's sad.
Fake Edit: You know who we should really go after in this little risk vs reward session? Nullsec alliances purchasing the majority of their fuel from Empire and jumping it safely and without risk to their bloated POS networks. Biggest reward for the smallest amount of risk. Funny... don't see to many 0.0 PvP'ers yelling about that one. Guess they just don't like to mine ice.
|
Drakarin
Gallente Amarrian-Guard
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 06:13:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Irida Mershkov
Originally by: Jamyl TashMurkon 1st, We already have point 1 2nd THERE IS NO FRICKING PROBLEM YOU UTTER PILLAR !
Pillar?
The problem is that people can pull in ridiculous amounts of cash without any risk at all.
Huh?
There's risk. You can be scrambled by small ships. If your drones fail for whatever reason it can be a painfully slow death with no chance of escape.
Though the risk is vastly smaller than in PvP, it most certainly is still present.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 06:30:00 -
[43]
My, this all seems oddly familiar...
you know what: This has all been said before, a lot of times. You people should read the threads I linked in my post above. If, after reading them, you can think of something that wasn't said at least 5 times already in each of them, then post it here.
|
Insa Rexion
Minmatar Ray of Matar Assembly
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 07:12:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Argent Lansing
1) Make mission ships more disposable (ie: annoyance impact on your wallet, not devastating impact on wallet)
Mission ships are not expensive.....you bears just choose to pimp ur rides for ur own enjoyment. you don't need any more than a reasonbly cheaply fitted and fully insurable T1 Battleship to do level 4s. If you lose a billion isk when ur mission ship gets popped it is ur own stupid fault for spending so much un-necessary isk well mannered a**h***
|
Dirk Magnum
Royal Hiigaran Navy SCUM.
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 07:28:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Argent Lansing
1) Make mission ships more disposable (ie: annoyance impact on your wallet, not devastating impact on wallet)
Insa pointed out the obvious, but the fact that it needed to be pointed out is kind of disappointing.
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 07:31:00 -
[46]
anyway whtas the risk of doing lvl4s in best implants and t3 ship ? 60D GTC - shattared link |
Space Wanderer
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 07:47:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Cat Molina A small and vocal (but rather stupid) group simply cannot accept that not everyone in this game plays the way they think they should.
Stupider than somebody who thinks that L4 do not affect everybody's else gameplay? Ooook...
It might come as a shock to an intelligent person like you, but many who support L4 nerf are NOT pvpers.
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 08:10:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Space Wanderer
Originally by: Cat Molina A small and vocal (but rather stupid) group simply cannot accept that not everyone in this game plays the way they think they should.
Stupider than somebody who thinks that L4 do not affect everybody's else gameplay? Ooook...
It might come as a shock to an intelligent person like you, but many who support L4 nerf are NOT pvpers.
40% minerals come from reprocesed loot another 40% from alloys, also isk rewards in lvl 4s better than 80% 0.0
60D GTC - shattared link |
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 09:00:00 -
[49]
Remove t1 drops from rats (yes that includes 0.0 rats), and maybe some nerf to named drops. So the industrial people can be happy, and the pvp'ers keep on whining. Exactly how it is supposed to be.
|
Space Pinata
Amarr Discount Napkin Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 09:15:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Space Pinata on 02/07/2009 09:19:37 Edit: Fail double post is fail. |
|
Space Pinata
Amarr Discount Napkin Industries
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 09:18:00 -
[51]
Meh, l4 missions. They're mostly harmless. Yes, yes, they effect the economy... by keeping prices down on minerals (which leads to ships being more affordable), meta items (which help anyone who wants to buy them, and only hurts people selling them, IE, other mission runners or maybe ratters), and faction items (again, this helps everyone except the people selling.. the people selling, again, are the mission runners themselves.)
Oh, and salvage. Low salvage prices hurt other.. you guessed it.. mission runners.
Aside from their minerals hurting miners, they're pretty beneficial to everyone. Inflation? That's a laugh. Didn't the last economic report more or less say that insurance was the only thing keeping the economy from deflating in mass? (IE, minerals won't drop below the point where it's cheaper to just self destruct a ship.)
As for the pain to miners, I'd just suggest something new or a boost to mining, rather than a nerf to l4's.
Now, if you're worried about carebears, that's a different story. People who never leave highsec, never take risks, never pvp, etc... they're a problem. The people who will refuse to log on for a week or run to npc corps to avoid a war. Or people who exploit any mechanic the game has to avoid ever having to fight anything but npcs.
Nerfing level four missions won't make people that afraid pvp, though. It's just going to make them run level three missions or quit altogether. I can't understand someone like that, but there seem to be a lot of people without a spine.
tl;dr: The only way you'll make these people PVP is to make it attractive. I doubt it's possible. Anyone who would come to EVE with 'No PVP' in mind is not the type of person that can be convinced to take off the protective padding.
It's less about removing people making money in level fours, and more about making them less risk averse elsewhere. No 'risk/reward' in level fours is going to change that.
...For example, people whine about being ganked in that other game that starts with a W and shan't be named. Do you think these people are going to accept any ship loss for any reason whatsoever? No. No they aren't. I don't like it, no pirate or anyone who has ever fought a war likes it...
But what are you going to do about it? If it was my game (And not a business but a private amusement), I'd ban these people. Incidentally, CCP likes their money (No, I don't blame them, they're a business and their employees enjoy things like having a job, and having homes, and feeding their children), so the bleeding heart carebears are a demographic in EVE. It's a mistake to assume anything will convince these people to do more than squeeze risk free ISK to grow their monopoly money. Nerf that, and they'll accept making less through whatever is left (level 3's), or cancel their accounts.
|
Rordan D'Kherr
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 09:20:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Kalintos Tyl anyway whtas the risk of doing lvl4s in best implants and t3 ship ?
You could failfit your ship or get scrambled by NPC frigates. Or you could meet a salvage ninja
Horribly high risk! And such a high risk for 50M per hour - oh poor mission grinders.
|
David Caldera
Gallente Strix Armaments and Defence
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 10:29:00 -
[53]
I'm only concerned about the amount of ISK entering th economy through L4s. Which is why I hope CCP comes with it's storefront and WiS patch as soon as possible next year. Rentable bars? Strippers? Clothing? All you "l33t" "veteran" players can whine about them all you want, fact still is people *will* use them, and that such content adds quite a few ISK sinks to the game for Empire players.
|
Roy Batty68
Caldari Immortal Dead
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 10:34:00 -
[54]
This is not directed at the OP necessarily. Just towards the same-old, same-old L4 arguments.
Public Service Announcement
1) No matter how many people complain, or how many threads on the subject is created, what CCP has done over the long haul is boost and create more Mission Running content. They have not ever severely nerfed or taken that content away. They have made a few changes that have nerfed mission running, such as LP store devaluing certain things or lowering drop ammounts, but by and large their changes have been of the theme of improving mission running and/or adding more content to it.
Ever since Lvl4 missions were added to the game, people have been complaining about it. It does logically represent an apparent aberation from the rest of the game's design, being an unlimited resource that can't really be competed for, however it is what it is at this point. CCP has never shown any sign of wanting to get away from what was likely an original design mistake that stuck.
Conclusion: Time has shown it is a fool's errand to campaign against mission running no matter how logical it appears to be.
2) In every single thread about nerfing some playstyle's way of life a statement to the effect of, "You are just trying to force people to play your way" will be made. It has become so predictable on this forum as to be nearly on level with Goodwin's Law.
What is ironic about this is that while arguing this point, the one making that argument is rarely capable of considering all the other playstyles that are nerfed due to one being buffed or unchanged. For instance, there are entire playstyles that are now extinct because someone's playstyle got love. Mission running has gotten alot of love. But most players are unable to see things from a minority point of view, mainly because they just don't know.
Conclusion: Most "you just want to shoot everyone" arguments are suspect. I'm all for diversity of playstyles. But it appears to me that diversity has been nothing but marginalized over the years as a result of leaning towards those who "just want to play their way". It is a hypocritical statement in most cases. Perhaps made unknowingly, but the proof is in the results. I contend that the popular playstyles force the hands of those with less popular habits, all while they scream, "quit trying to force me to play your way"! Ironic, no?
3) I was not around at the beginning, but it appears to me that Eve has always suffered from a certain amount of, "what do I do now?" problem for players. Mission running is apparently an answer to that question. And that's a pretty big problem for an MMO that worries about subsciption retention. A quantum leap from having an answer to taking it away is probably not the best business plan. What Eve needs is some different kinds of content added that answers that question while maintaining the player v. player theme. A trend to phase out the mission running addiction.
I would argue that CCP is on that path with their additions of Exploration, Faction Warfare, and now recently Worm Holes. All of those add content with a certain amount of pvp in the mix. It has just been a very slow change over a great amount of time that is likely hard to register by most. Not fast enough change? Maybe. But CCP has always been very wait and see.
Conclusion: I think CCP is aware. They're just a bit glacial in their reactions. Mission running may have been a can of worms to open originally, and likely they didn't know the scale it would turn out to be, but the genie is out of the bottle now and it isn't going back in without a fight. Extreme actions will likely never be taken on that front. Very viable answers to the "what do I do next" question is probably the best course of action. Chopping it off at the knees isn't.
You can now resume your normal "L4s should be ______" thread.
----
Thus ev'ry kind their pleasure find, The savage and the tender; Some social join, and leagues combine; Some solitary wander. ~ Robert Burns |
Karentaki
Gallente Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 16:01:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Cat Molina There it is. Bring them in line with what? With what you're doing? Hold on... let me guess; you want to boost low-sec ratting so that you and your endgame-buddies make more isk in less time than anyone in the game.
Am I right? It's what it always boils down to. Given your previous response, I'd guess you've a little manufacturing business going? Would that be correct? Would you make more money if L4's were changed?
That's what it's always about with you guys. It's never enough to simply take your marbles and go home... you want to take everyone's marbles and go home. Self-centered to a deleterious degree.
You know, I don't sit in Empire grinding missions. I'm out fighting solo in the pirate hubs. I've got more risk than you do with your POS networks (predominately fueled by macro-mined Empire Ice) and intel channels and blob-buddies. Do you see me posting on forums trying to nerf other's styles of play? Or somehow convince CCP that I should be making more than anyone else?
So some guy likes to run missions when he gets home from work? What's the big deal? Personally, I don't think it's fun (I'd rather PvP). So what if he's making more money than I am?
The most irritating thing about this topic is that everyone gets so self-centered; behind every suggestion to nerf L4's (or boost everything else, which is the same) is someone looking to make more money or have an easier path. It's sad.
Fake Edit: You know who we should really go after in this little risk vs reward session? Nullsec alliances purchasing the majority of their fuel from Empire and jumping it safely and without risk to their bloated POS networks. Biggest reward for the smallest amount of risk. Funny... don't see to many 0.0 PvP'ers yelling about that one. Guess they just don't like to mine ice.
1. Actually, I have no financial interests in nerfing L4 missions beyond the obvious decrease in inflation. I never rat in lowsec. I rarely rat in 0.0. I get most of my isk through exploration which is actually quite balanced with L4 missions.
2. I assume running L4 missions in a CNR with officer mods isn't endgame enough for you then?
3. Calling people self-centred because they are complaining about balance and actually providing evidence to support their views is the height of stupidity and hypocrisy.
4. I am not saying I should be making more than other people. I'm talking about balance. I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat it before you understand.
5. I don't see how risk has anything to do with this. I'm not arguing about the overused 'risk vs reward'. Presenting my argument as one of 'risk vs reward' is called a straw-man argument. It makes you look stupid.
6. No matter how much you try and present missions as 'a way for people with jobs to get quick isk' you have to consider the wider gameplay. Say I implemented a system where anyone at any time could spawn 100 million ISK into their wallets, reusable once every 10 seconds. How many people do you think would actually use this as a way to make up for lack of play time and how many would use it to get massive amounts of ISK over a matter of days? The problem with missions isn't the guy logging on for 2 hours a day using them to fund PvP. The problem is the people who do nothing but run missions 23/7 and create ridiculous quantities of isk and resources. This is what imbalances the economy. In fact, I fully support any system to boost missions for people who only log on for an hour or two a day, but nerf them for farmers.
7. Oh really. Name one way in which nerfing L4 missions would increase my profits. Here's a list of what I do, along with an estimate of how much they contribute to my income: 0.0 Exploration (80%) 0.0 Ratting (5%) Invention (10%) Moon mining (5%)
8. Actually, I am strongly against macros of any sort. I am also pretty poor. Please try being in a 0.0 alliance before you complain.
Quote:
EVE is like a sandbox with landmines. Deal with it.
|
Cat Molina
Minmatar Intransigent
|
Posted - 2009.07.02 18:49:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Karentaki I am not saying I should be making more than other people. I'm talking about balance. I'm not sure how many times I need to repeat it before you understand.
Oh, I understand balance. I have credits in titles which performed well in the marketplace. I've also done more free work for space-sim single-player start-ups than I would care to admit. So I assure you, I understand game design and the need for balance.
There is a massive difference between players and devs/designers. They actually seek different goals. So, as a player (any player), I tend view your ideas of balance as suspect. Players seem to always attempt to stack odds in their favor. (If you like I'd be happy to relate an experience I had with a start-up where the devs were catering to every whim posted by the players while in development. It was an unsettling experience which I exited as soon as humanly possible.)
Originally by: Karentaki I don't see how risk has anything to do with this. I'm not arguing about the overused 'risk vs reward'. Presenting my argument as one of 'risk vs reward' is called a straw-man argument. It makes you look stupid.
That portion of my post was not specifically aimed at you, but at another who brought up the risk vs reward issue. Which we both seem to agree is overused and false.
Hint: try to see past your dislike of me and attack my argument, not my person. You'll do far better.
Originally by: Karentaki No matter how much you try and present missions as 'a way for people with jobs to get quick isk' you have to consider the wider gameplay.
I always consider the wider gameplay. But Eve is also a product. There's sort of a meta-balance between developers and publishers there.
You cannot deny that there are more people in Empire than in low-sec and 0.0 put together. This element, as alien as it is to you and I, represents the largest and most stable portion of the player base. That the minorities cry out that their rivals in Empire have it too easy is expected.
Originally by: Karentaki The problem with missions isn't the guy logging on for 2 hours a day using them to fund PvP. The problem is the people who do nothing but run missions 23/7 and create ridiculous quantities of isk and resources. This is what imbalances the economy. In fact, I fully support any system to boost missions for people who only log on for an hour or two a day, but nerf them for farmers.
Then your battle is with macros and not mission runners. Why would you seek to nerf the actual mission runners just to get the macros?
I dislike macros too. Let's say I've heard of 0.0 alliances utilizing macros. Shall I petition to have 0.0 space made poorer just to get rid of the macros? Shall we nerf mining to hurt the macros?
Originally by: Karentaki Oh really. Name one way in which nerfing L4 missions would increase my profits. Here's a list of what I do, along with an estimate of how much they contribute to my income: 0.0 Exploration (80%) 0.0 Ratting (5%) Invention (10%) Moon mining (5%)
Moon mining. Don't even get me started on that subject. Seriously.
As you yourself mentioned at the top of this post, you would benefit from "the obvious decrease in inflation".
Originally by: Karentaki Actually, I am strongly against macros of any sort. I am also pretty poor. Please try being in a 0.0 alliance before you complain.
Curious. What makes you think I was never in a 0.0 alliance? I've worn many different hats during my time in this game.
|
Tom Peeping
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 01:41:00 -
[57]
The problem occurs when L4 missions are injecting massive quantities of ISK, T1 modules (meta 0-4), and faction items from the LP store,
while
at the same time the mission runners are buying up huge quantities of a very limited item set, especially faction BS's, active tanking modules, cap modules, and large weapons.
It's not like I totally disagree... but surely you see that you can't make the argument that L4 missions inject massive quantities of ISK/modules and faction items while also arguing that they are buying up all of the limited item set of those very same things...
Which is it... are they using the LP to inject the game with isk/stuff, or are they depleting the game? You can't have it both ways at the same time.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 02:28:00 -
[58]
Edited by: Mara Rinn on 03/07/2009 02:35:00 Edited by: Mara Rinn on 03/07/2009 02:33:44
Originally by: Karentaki 6. No matter how much you try and present missions as 'a way for people with jobs to get quick isk' you have to consider the wider gameplay. ... The problem with missions isn't the guy logging on for 2 hours a day using them to fund PvP. The problem is the people who do nothing but run missions 23/7 and create ridiculous quantities of isk and resources. This is what imbalances the economy. In fact, I fully support any system to boost missions for people who only log on for an hour or two a day, but nerf them for farmers.
I second this: there are ways to "nerf" mission running that actually benefit the 2-hours-a-day crowd but harm the 23x7 crowd.
Just switch mission running to a similar income style to research agents: each agent will queue up a number of missions for you a day, and you can choose to run them or not as you see fit. Each of the "X Connections" skills then restricts the number of agents of that class you can elect to receive missions from.
Heck, have mission agents accrue "mission points", which you can then redeem for "mission cores" (or "Mission Briefings"). Then you can have folks who are bored of mission running selling their mission briefings on the market, so other people can buy them to then run missions. Again, the rate of production would be limited so that an officer-fit Golem pilot will have to buy mission briefings to fill their three hour stint with missions, while a T2-fit Raven pilot will have missions to spare. The target here would be three missions an hour per pilot with 9.x standings with the agent and maxed out "Military Connections".
(edit: added link to the Features & Ideas discussion thread where I propose the idea of doling combat missions out like datacores) (edit: fixed links to point at EVE forums, not EVE Search)
|
Shidhe
Minmatar The Babylon5 Consortuim
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 12:35:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Shidhe on 03/07/2009 12:42:48 Edited by: Shidhe on 03/07/2009 12:40:13 Sigh... OK, since people have brought up the isk source thing as being the `only thing' that they are worried about:
There is little sign of inflation in the general EvE economy - sources are needed to balance sinks, and you have to look at both. There are some major movements: Trit UP, most minerals DOWN and prom/dyspro UP. Also industrial profitability at the new player end is a bit of a concern. Oh... ice prices too, but that is largely a macro issue, or maybe increasing the threat by rats in ice belts to force escorts.
Trit UP: Increased demand for caps etc meets limited supply of a difficult to move item. Supply probably needs to be boosted slightly to help noobs but in such a way as to not make it easy for macroers - veld grav sites anyone?
most minerals DOWN: This is a mission related problem - too much supply, obtained too easliy. Solution - reduce amount of loot (esp T1 loot) from missions. Make named items rare and desirable again! This would also help noob players get established with T1 manufacturing. The mineral over-production also reduces the profitability of low sec mining to stupid levels = fewer targets for pirates
prom/dyspro UP: This urgently needs intervention from CCP, as it results in industrial corps in low sec getting penalised (=less targets for pirates), and hands colossal amounts of isk to a few alliances and market manipulators. This is the problem that alchemy failed to solve. If you are wondering about high T2 prices, look no further. My guess is that this is distorting any clear picture about whether EvE is suffering from inflation or not - the effect is huge.
|
Spurty
Caldari Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 13:42:00 -
[60]
I can't even remember the last time i ran a level 4 mission.
I like the idea of boosting the L4 missions so they are worth actually running if you only get 2-3 hours a day to play.
Can chose to do 2 missions for your ENTIRE DAYS PLAY TIME or pvp.
Nerfing a way to fund pvp is not 'thinking with your dipstick Jimmy'. Nerfing grinding and repetition, now thats actually useful. If people have 23 hours to play (Go get married, have kids and buy a house, that'll drag you away for 20 of those 23 hours ;0) then fine, but you have to do something other than just run missions all that time to make isk.
Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails hi cat here
i was thinking earlier about corpses...
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |