Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Eternum Praetorian
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 17:33:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Eternum Praetorian on 01/07/2009 17:34:07 I bet that title got your attention fast didn't it
But seriously . . . I'll admit that for starters, I donĘt really care what carebears do all day, and I think those who enjoy the endless epic grind should be allowed to do so. But since the majority of this forum and CCP seems to not agree with me . . .
This occurred to me . . .
In theory you could make Lv 4 missions more liken to PVP, without it actually being PVP.
1.) Give the NPCĘs (in all missions) the potential to randomly spawn all the same types of modules that players can fit. Neuts, smart bombs, remote rep. sensor damps ex.) This will create environment where you will have to pay careful attention to what is happening in every mission that you run. One time, a battleship or two might close on you and neut your cap, another (In the exact same mission) the cruisers may be setting off smart bombs when you put your drones on them. This singly addition would dramatically effect the PVE game play.
Result: PVE will become more of an intelligent act like PVP. You will need to pay better attention to what the NPCĘs are doing and when. Thusą no more easy near afk walk throughs of LV 4Ęs. If you let a known neut BS spawn steal your cap while putting your drones on a cruiser thatĘs setting off smart bombsą. your going to loose your multi-billion ISK ship.
2.) Give them something more interesting to do. Say maybeą A mission that requires a few DPS ships and a hauler. You need to haul an amount of ore between two gates, but the indy cannot survive unless it has RR from its fleet mates. The DPS ships would then have to clear the spawns as they go, while engaging in RR with their corp mate in the inty (something typically associated with only PVP. )
Result: Rewarding people to work as a group (and forcing them to do so in some instances) will help make stronger corporations and less of a division between those who have a clue about PVP and those who have none whatsoever.
Now I am not going to pretend like I have got it all figured out. But ideas like these would better EVE as a whole, while not inspiring an exodus of eMO-raging-quitting Carebears. Anyone who likes to pvp in mission hubs like amarr or jita knows that moving LV 4Ęs to low sec is a dumb idea. Those systems, stations and gates would be camped and scanned 23/7, that suggestion is simply not viable period. As fun as that may be for pirates.
Also . . . why lower the bounties and drop rates in the name of all that risk VS reward bull**** everyone keep quoting when you can instead make the risk in LV 4Ęs = to the reward.
P.S. I didn't post this expecting an intelligent debate so flame on.
|
Jamyl TashMurkon
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 17:39:00 -
[2]
1st, We already have point 1 2nd THERE IS NO FRICKING PROBLEM YOU UTTER PILLAR !
|
Irida Mershkov
Gallente War is Bliss
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 17:41:00 -
[3]
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.
|
Gunnanmon
Gallente UNITED STAR SYNDICATE
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 17:41:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Jamyl TashMurkon 1st, We already have point 1
We do? Signature locked for discussing moderation. Navigator
|
Jamyl TashMurkon
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 17:43:00 -
[5]
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.
NO THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM, THE FORUM WHINERS JUST NEED A NEW ASPECT OF THE GAME TO WHINE ABOUT,WHY THERE WERENT THESE THREADS WHEN FALCONS WERE THE THING TO WHINE ABOUT
i hate you (ingame)
|
Eternum Praetorian
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 17:43:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Jamyl TashMurkon 1st, We already have point 1!
No that is just an epic lack of reading comprehension
|
Gneeznow
Minmatar North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 17:45:00 -
[7]
I dont think lvl 4's in empire are a problem, people pay to play eve how they like and a safe way to make isk with friends is a form of socialising when doing lvl 4's together, grinding them on your own is a way to fund your pvp habits if you dont have the option or creativity to make isk other ways, live and let live man!
|
Joe Starbreaker
Valklear Guard
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 17:45:00 -
[8]
I say make all deadspace zones behave like 0.0. Let CONCORD patrol the asteroid belts, gates, and stations, okay, but having them instawarp to protect ships in missions is lame. If mission spaces become free-fire zones, the level 4 problem in empire would be solved very quickly.
- / buy my alt / - |
5pinDizzy
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 17:45:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
I bet that title got your attention fast didn't it
Damn you, if I had wanted to be misled into being an audience to an attention ***** I'd have gone and surfed youtube.
|
Allen Ramses
Caldari Typo Corp
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 17:46:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Irida Mershkov
Originally by: Jamyl TashMurkon 1st, We already have point 1 2nd THERE IS NO FRICKING PROBLEM YOU UTTER PILLAR !
Pillar?
UTTER PILLAR! UTTERS NEED SUPPORT TOO!
Originally by: Irida Mershkov The problem is that people can pull in ridiculous amounts of cash without any risk at all.
Hardly. Losing a nighthawk to 8 elite amarr frigs and a dozen BSs and such is not 'without any risk at all'. 3 weeks worth of grinding can easily be lost in a matter of 45 seconds. ____________________ CCP: Catering to the cowards of a cold, harsh universe since November, 2006. |
|
Eternum Praetorian
Retribution. Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 17:50:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker I say make all deadspace zones behave like 0.0. Let CONCORD patrol the asteroid belts, gates, and stations, okay, but having them instawarp to protect ships in missions is lame. If mission spaces become free-fire zones, the level 4 problem in empire would be solved very quickly.
Holy dumb idea batman...
Perhaps you need to eat more ginkgo biloba, only remedy I know of said to increasing brain power.
|
Kiri Serrensun
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 17:52:00 -
[12]
Point one seems a great idea--at the very least, the AI needs to be better than the "drown them in the blood of our dead" insano suicide NPC's we have now. What I'd really like to see gone is the need to learn two entirely different sets of tactics for PVE and PVP. If missions use the same tactics as players and have fewer better NPC's rather than a horde of idiots, then missions serve as a gentle introduction to PVP tactics and fittings. Also, I agree some degree of randomness in the mission would make them less dull.
Point 2...well, I like the idea of missions that reward bringing extra people. Right now, they're pretty much a solo activity because sharing means sharing the reward. But forcing that, (except for level 5's), not so keen. Perhaps have "you'll need a team for this" missions offered seperately to regular moneymaking ones.
|
Argent Lansing
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 18:03:00 -
[13]
Here is what the low/null crowd need to understand about carebears. For a while, running l4's is a kind of progression game of both training skills and isk to keep upgrading to a better mission ship. This progression is fun during the process because you keep seeing your dps improve, your mission time go down and profits go up. In essence, this is "the game" for the carebear. PvP is not part of that game for the carebear.
By the time you get to the later stages of this progression, your ship is fitted with extremely expensive modules yet is gimpy in a PvP scenario. Going into low/null sec to run missions is a exercise in stupidity. Asking CCP to do anything that pushes a mission runner into PvP will just make that person get frustrated with the part of the game they are playing and leave.
If you want to solve this perceived problem, one or more of the following would be necessary: 1) Make mission ships more disposable (ie: annoyance impact on your wallet, not devastating impact on wallet) 2) Alter missions to essentially require PvP fittings so that missioning in lowsec and encounting other players would be less of a gimp scenario. (ie: let warp core stabs actually negate NPC mission targets warb scrambling/disrupting). 3) Provide mechanisms whereby a player pirate that scans down a mission runner in lowsec will be at a disadvantage. Perhaps some kind of buff the mission runner gets only in the matching mission deadspace that the scanners will lack.
The point here is that some of us carbears would go into lowsec to mission if we felt there was at least some bit of a level playing field. Unfortunately, suicide will never be a viable option.
Lowsec players should keep in mind that all the juicy 1bil+ faction mods that are farmed from low/nullsec are purchased by mission runners, so all that farmed isk ends up in the hands of low/nullsec players anyway.
|
Niccolado Starwalker
Shadow Templars
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 18:14:00 -
[14]
What if we ditch this whol risk vs reward thought on the dung where it belongs?
And instead let us introduce a new formula:
Risk + time investment / reward
So not just should the risk involved being considered when it comes to paying out reward, but also the time invested into it?
have to admit I am tired of people yelling do this do that! Except ofcourse that most people who do just that usually have a private agenda of their own.
Why not accept this is also a game? Its not a weeding school for kamikaze pilots, where those who should remain are the most steadfast and the most loyal till death!
Originally by: Dianabolic Your tears are absolutely divine, like a fine fine wine, rolling down your cheeks until they flow down the river of LOL |
Cory Sopapilla
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 18:14:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Argent Lansing 3) Provide mechanisms whereby a player pirate that scans down a mission runner in lowsec will be at a disadvantage. Perhaps some kind of buff the mission runner gets only in the matching mission deadspace that the scanners will lack.
Instant aggro against the bigger threat that just warped in sort of like in WHs but without firing on the NPC. Having the aggro of the entire room while webbed, scrammed, and tank partially gone already is a handicap in itself when scanned down. I think it'd be funny to see a suicide ganker get warp scrammed and would probably be more likely to mission in low-sec for lol's.
|
Kane Starkiller
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 18:23:00 -
[16]
Convince the people who make more money than mission runners into lowsec. When the traders and scammers go low, mish runners will soon follow
|
Bonny Lee
Caldari The Guardian Agency Guardian Federation
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 18:24:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
What if we ditch this whol risk vs reward thought on the dung where it belongs?
And instead let us introduce a new formula:
Risk + time investment / reward
This scenario wouldnt change anything for lvl4... it has the best reward in the shortest amount of time... so it would be worse for you :p
|
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 18:26:00 -
[18]
Quote: 1) Make mission ships more disposable (ie: annoyance impact on your wallet, not devastating impact on wallet)
Already exists. You can run L4s with a t2-fit BS. Hell, probably could do it with the right T1 fit.
Quote: 2) Alter missions to essentially require PvP fittings so that missioning in lowsec and encounting other players would be less of a gimp scenario. (ie: let warp core stabs actually negate NPC mission targets warb scrambling/disrupting).
A PVP fitting would be unlikely to save you. You already have the tools to avoid a fight. D-scan can ALWAYS find their probes before they can find you.
Quote: 3) Provide mechanisms whereby a player pirate that scans down a mission runner in lowsec will be at a disadvantage. Perhaps some kind of buff the mission runner gets only in the matching mission deadspace that the scanners will lack.
]
A missionrunner shouldn't be rewarded for sitting with his thumb up his ass and not paying attention. He should be rewarded for paying attention and actively looking for threats to avoid. This already exists via local and Dscan.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 18:26:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Jamyl TashMurkon
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.
NO THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM, THE FORUM WHINERS JUST NEED A NEW ASPECT OF THE GAME TO WHINE ABOUT,WHY THERE WERENT THESE THREADS WHEN FALCONS WERE THE THING TO WHINE ABOUT
i hate you (ingame)
Oh, but there ....were ....
|
Frozen Fallout
Gallente Mecha Enterprises Group
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 18:27:00 -
[20]
I love how everyone has ideas on how to make this game better.
Really I do. I also find some of the ideas hilarious more then helpful.
Also there's a section on this Forum called Features and Ideas Discussion where real discussion on these idea's (or Jokes) should be openly discussed.
Thank you for your time Frozen Fallout
CCP gave my body back... wonder what I should do with my collection. |
|
Niccolado Starwalker
Shadow Templars
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 18:28:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Bonny Lee
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
What if we ditch this whol risk vs reward thought on the dung where it belongs?
And instead let us introduce a new formula:
Risk + time investment / reward
This scenario wouldnt change anything for lvl4... it has the best reward in the shortest amount of time... so it would be worse for you :p
Not if you consider todays standard to be the norm.
Originally by: Dianabolic Your tears are absolutely divine, like a fine fine wine, rolling down your cheeks until they flow down the river of LOL |
Kyra Felann
Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 19:55:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Kyra Felann on 01/07/2009 19:58:51 I agree with both of your points, with the addition of improved AI for all NPCs, not just sleepers.
Missions should be interesting and fun, like PvP combat, instead of a session of harvesting goodie-bags. Ideally, fighting NPCs should be almost as interesting and fun as fighting players.
As it is, I find missions at least as boring as mining. They're really quite similar--NPCs just happen to be mobile and able to shoot back, although they're almost as mindless as asteroids and not much more of a threat to a properly set up ship.
As it is, mission-running is the profitable activity I can do, yet I can't muster the patience to do more than one a night at the most, despite how lucrative they are. Usually each by the time I finish a level 4 mission, I'm regretting accepting it and feeling like swearing off missions forever.
When someone can literally go AFK while in a level 4 mission (as I can do in my Dominix), something is wrong with missions and NPCs.
|
Joiske
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 20:35:00 -
[23]
my bet on this is.. the majority of 'carebears' dont bother to read the forums, so for anyone to say that the majority of non carebears think there should be a change to lev 4's ... god damn this subject is so repetitive, no wonder the MAJORITY of eve never bothers to read the forums period... hey i bet a large number of potential eve subscribers are lost due to the minority of prats that post utter crap on eve -o ... jeez...
so .. lev 4's are fine
low sec is fine
0.0 needs a buff ....
pirates need to grow balls and find targets in 0.0 if there isnt enough targets in low sec ....
|
Sun Clausewitz
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 20:41:00 -
[24]
level 4's need a reduction in rewards
Here's an idea though, take that cool little sleeper AI and apply it to lvl 3 and 4 missions. Leave 1 & 2 alone for the noobies
Pick Three: Caldari/PVP/Solo/Success |
Mimi Ar'Skele
Minmatar Republic University
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 20:47:00 -
[25]
The only way to get any quantity missioners into lowsec is to provide blobbable PvE content. It's been said before -- anything else would be heinously broken or redundant from either the reward or effort standpoint. With PvP the larger your blob the smaller the risk (loss of ship) and more certain the reward (a killmail). Other than w-space PvE is solo content.
PvP in eve is mainly about hot blob on blob action -- it is, after all, a multi-player game. No amount of PvE will be a gentle introduction to PvP without involving blob and metagaming techniques: baiting, logonski, logoffski, OOG comms and forums, camping, alt scouting and so on. I'm not sure how to work station tanking into the PvE mix either.
Look at FW. It's eminently blobbable. It got people into lowsec, at least while it was shiny. Heck, even the elite PvPers from the alliance formerly known as bob are doing it. All it's missing is the reward piece.
|
Karentaki
Gallente Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 20:52:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Karentaki on 01/07/2009 20:52:37
Originally by: Jamyl TashMurkon
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.
NO THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM, THE FORUM WHINERS JUST NEED A NEW ASPECT OF THE GAME TO WHINE ABOUT,WHY THERE WERENT THESE THREADS WHEN FALCONS WERE THE THING TO WHINE ABOUT
i hate you (ingame)
I, TOO, CAN SPAM IN CAPS! LOOK HOW COOL I AM!
As for the topic at hand, it isn't that we care what other people do. It isn't that we want to gank you - In fact the alliance I'm in is anti-pirate. It isn't that we are jealous - anyone can run missions. It isn't that we think your play style is inferior - EVE is meant to be a sandbox. It's that we dislike the fact that farming L4 missions can earn more isk than a Dysprosium moon.
The issue is simple market dynamics. An item is only worth what people are willing to pay for it, and in any normal market this will be a reasonable price representative of how much money the average person has available, how easy to obtain the item is, and how useful it is. 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. No matter how you look at it, when you have 10-20% of the player base (estimate) running L4 missions every day, this is going to seriously imbalance the markets:
The prices of everything on average go up due to the extra isk (inflation). The prices of T1 and meta items go down. The prices of minerals, especially high-ends such as those found in lowsec and 0.0, go down. The prices of most faction items go down. The prices of many officer items go up.
Now, read through that list, and consider some of the problems in eve currently:
Very high trit price - low price of other 'rarer' minerals, making mining in all but the best 0.0 unprofitable. T1 manufacturing is mostly unprofitable. Massive inflation.
See any similarities?
Of course I'm not suggesting missions are solely to blame, but I think it would be a good step forward if CCP rebalanced missions to bring them more in line with other aspects of the game. It's stupid that someone making 5 mill an hour mining in highsec should have their profits cut by someone making 30 mill an hour doing a completely different activity.
Quote:
EVE is like a sandbox with landmines. Deal with it.
|
Bistot Kid
The First Thing You'll Ever See
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 21:36:00 -
[27]
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? -------------------- What? Me Worry? -------------------- |
Cat Molina
Minmatar Intransigent
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 21:55:00 -
[28]
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.
|
Passageway
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 21:55:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker I say make all deadspace zones behave like 0.0. Let CONCORD patrol the asteroid belts, gates, and stations, okay, but having them instawarp to protect ships in missions is lame. If mission spaces become free-fire zones, the level 4 problem in empire would be solved very quickly.
Frankly, as a previous poster has said, where exactly is the "problem" in high sec. A bit of history: I spent my entire first year in 0.0, where I learned a huge amount about the game, ad met some great people. I left because I didn't have the time to commit to any-hour alliance operations, and wanted to play the GAME on my own terms. This is an argument I hear from low sec pirates and ninja salvagers all the time, and it's a perfectly valid one.
The fact is that everyone who plays the game in their own way contributes to the Eve universe. Whether you PvP in 0.0, mine, run missions or work the market, you're always interacting with other players. I know I love talking to other players in corp/local, helping out etc, but at the moment, I'm a confirmed mission runner.
I guess my point is, that by trying to force people to play YOUR game, you've forgotten that it is a game, and that those "carebears" are as much a part of it as you are. Try to make everything like 0.0 and you'll just lose the casual players who are (from CCP's point of view) paying as much for the game as you are.
Having said that, I agree with your suggestion that mission AI and variety (such as escorting a hauler, although not necessarily player-piloted) would be a good thing.
|
Shidhe
Minmatar The Babylon5 Consortuim
|
Posted - 2009.07.01 22:16:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Shidhe on 01/07/2009 22:17:51 Dont nerf high sec, boost low sec... Unfortunately too many people just want to have easy kills of marauders using the new easier scanning methods - it aint going to happen as carebears are not completely dumb.
Now more interesting missions - even care bears might accept a higher death rate for a bit more spice in life.
It would be really interesting to see stats for number of missions by level done in low sec (done, not given by agent in low sec). I suspect that it would not be large. Getting more people to low sec is not so easy. The easiest way would be to boost low sec industry by fixing the prom/dyspro market manipulation, but that doesnt make such a catchy pirate whine.
|
|
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...
|
|
Spurty
Caldari Ore Mongers BricK sQuAD.
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 13:43:00 -
[61]
wtf with my font?!?!
Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails hi cat here
i was thinking earlier about corpses...
|
Raimo
Gallente Wrath of Fenris
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 16:19:00 -
[62]
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.
It's not "ridiculous amounts". More like baseline income with quite a bit of time and ISK invested for the bigger bucks, and/ or if you AFK it the ISK/ hour tends to go down. --- WOLFY is recruiting!
|
Black Leather
|
Posted - 2009.07.03 16:45:00 -
[63]
If you make mission running (may as well include mining as well) too much of a pain in the ass, then the people who do this for enjoyment will simply find another game to play.
What then?
Prices skyrocket and PVPers whine because their ships and mods are too expensive. They are more likely to run than fight. All the fun leaves the game. Eve closes it's doors.
The end
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 00:42:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Shidhe 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?
That would be very nice - move all the asteroids from system belts to grav sites. Then spawn grav sites around the constellation as they get consumed, and there will be a continual supply of veldspar for miners to chew on.
Quote: 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!
There are many "high end" minerals coming into the system from people ratting in the drone regions. In general I agree that meta 1 items should not be dropped by NPCs.
Quote: 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.
I expect the advent of T3 to render dysprosium/promethium less important. Until Alchemy can be made economically viable at current prices, nullsec warfare and the T2 economy will be focussed around who can jump the most Titans into any given system at any given time, while the rest of the game will be about market warfare in empire or small/medium fleet engagements in w-space.
Rationing missions to mission-runners is one way that CCP can finely control the ISK faucet if they need to. Removing meta 1 loot from NPCs will help restore mining as the source of minerals, while mission-running is the focus for standings and ISK.
|
Volitaire
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 00:49:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian
In theory you could make Lv 4 missions more liken to PVP, without it actually being PVP.
1.) Give the NPCĘs (in all missions) the potential to randomly spawn all the same types of modules that players can fit. Neuts, smart bombs, remote rep. sensor damps ex.) This will create environment where you will have to pay careful attention to what is happening in every mission that you run. One time, a battleship or two might close on you and neut your cap, another (In the exact same mission) the cruisers may be setting off smart bombs when you put your drones on them. This singly addition would dramatically effect the PVE game play.
Result: PVE will become more of an intelligent act like PVP. You will need to pay better attention to what the NPCĘs are doing and when. Thusą no more easy near afk walk throughs of LV 4Ęs. If you let a known neut BS spawn steal your cap while putting your drones on a cruiser thatĘs setting off smart bombsą. your going to loose your multi-billion ISK ship.
2.) Give them something more interesting to do. Say maybeą A mission that requires a few DPS ships and a hauler. You need to haul an amount of ore between two gates, but the indy cannot survive unless it has RR from its fleet mates. The DPS ships would then have to clear the spawns as they go, while engaging in RR with their corp mate in the inty (something typically associated with only PVP. )
Result: Rewarding people to work as a group (and forcing them to do so in some instances) will help make stronger corporations and less of a division between those who have a clue about PVP and those who have none whatsoever.
Wasn't this supposed to be done by Factional Warfare..
|
Ghoest
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 00:57:00 -
[66]
Missions are meant to be survived - thats the way it works.
If you dont like mission - do something else.
Wherever you went - Here you are.
|
Abulurd Boniface
Gallente Mercantile Exchange for Mining And Exploration
|
Posted - 2009.07.06 08:10:00 -
[67]
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.
I could feel the heat in that blast.
I delighted in it :-).
I also completely agree.
Abulurd Boniface ME ME CEO
For good to survive it suffices for evil to acquire a deadly, incapacitating disease. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |