Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gyle
Caldari Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 18:13:00 -
[1]
Move all level 4 agents in high sec into low sec...
no qualification necessary, the benefits are obvious. nuff said.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 18:17:00 -
[2]
"mom, i dont have enough targets and they dont want to move the lvl4 agents into lowsec so i can gank more people."
this has been beaten to death like once per week. not everyone wants to play your way of the game. some people just want to run the casual mission after the work. highsec lvl4 mission runner are the ones buying most of the faction loot you get in your vast of 0.0 space. (want to ruin your own market?) most people would stick to highsec lvl3s. there are already lvl4 ql20 in lowsec and still people run in highsec. there are lvl5s with much higher rewards and still people run lvl4s in highsec.
just to some up the arguments that i remembered without reading the old threads.
|
FISHANDCHIPS
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 19:23:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Gyle Move all level 4 agents in high sec into low sec...
no qualification necessary, the benefits are obvious. nuff said.
then people will start farming L3 missions and you will be back here crying your eyes out
try to think of a good idea that will benefit everyone
|
annab
Amarr Dromedaworks inc The Crimson Federation
|
Posted - 2009.11.01 19:34:00 -
[4]
Personally moving all lvl4s to low sec will just mean people move to lower agents or start mining. I think there should be a level 4.5 of missions low sec only.
Big bonuses and isk rewards would make people go for them. At the monment lvl4 risk to reward in low sec is not higher enough to be worth it. I mean an isk bonus of .5 mil but I could get shot vs safe space. .5 mil is not worth it if it was something like 15mil thats worth the risk.
Also lvl5 need a few people to help to do them. Spread that isk around a few players and lvl4 start to make more isk again.
The answer is simple make all low sec agents give double pay and bounty. After all the mission runner is taking twice the risk.
|
Gyle
Caldari Arcana Imperii Ltd. Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 00:45:00 -
[5]
Originally by: darius mclever
this has been beaten to death like once per week. not everyone wants to play your way of the game. some people just want to run the casual mission after the work. highsec lvl4 mission runner are the ones buying most of the faction loot you get in your vast of 0.0 space. (want to ruin your own market?) most people would stick to highsec lvl3s. there are already lvl4 ql20 in lowsec and still people run in highsec. there are lvl5s with much higher rewards and still people run lvl4s in highsec.
just to some up the arguments that i remembered without reading the old threads.
Interesting points but unfortunately not valid. The market will be just fine. If the price goes up the risks become more worth while and of course the people are running in high sec that is my point take away the option! LVL 5's aren't more cost effective then lvl 4's they often work out around the same with the speed you can do LVL 4's
Originally by: FISHANDCHIPS
then people will start farming L3 missions and you will be back here crying your eyes out
try to think of a good idea that will benefit everyone
LVL 3's mark the end of the the lower end of mission running rewards. Most pilots would baulk at the idea of being stuck to those for the rest of their gametime. EVE is never about rewarding everyone, its about having a balanced game mechanic, not leaving players who have played for several years to sit farm huge quantities of isk with impunity.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 01:28:00 -
[6]
ok simple market 101: nobody will use faction items for missioning in lowsec. so the demand will go down. while all the people doing ratting and probing will still bring the same amount to jita. so more stock + less demand => falling prices.
your point was?
|
tezteztez
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 01:38:00 -
[7]
you say - theres not much risk for the reward in high sec i say - theres not much reward for the risk in low sec
until pvp fit/ships can be used for pve and vice versa, the current status quo will be the same.
right now we just have spill overs, bored mission runners brimming with isk go pvp in low sec, bored pvpers with low isk go mission with alts in high sec. and im fine with that.
|
Zahorite
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 02:23:00 -
[8]
If you moved lvl 4 agents to low sec, well I wouldn't do lvl 4 missions anymore. I would either do lvl 3's, mine, or spend more time on my main in 0.0 space. Currently I only do missions when I'm bored with ratting anyway, it's a way to make a little bit of money while doing something different.
I don't care what the risk to reward ratio is, I play Eve to have a bit of fun. Getting my ship blown up by pirates a couple times a week isn't what I call fun.
|
Dacryphile
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 02:30:00 -
[9]
Keep L4s in high sec. Make them more profitable so people can spend less time grinding and more time pvping.
Originally by: Doc Robertson ...take a good look at this pic and tell us which one is you.
|
Markus Reese
Caldari Lorentzian Expeditionaries
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 03:21:00 -
[10]
I do L4's for the standing more than the isk. I would just start doing L3s. If L4s got moved the the lowsec, all mining and manufacturing would start more to switch to cruiser sized since that is what peeps would start to fly. a bil isk wouldn't be a goal anymore as more will focus on training and fitting T2 Hacs and T3 which would be more valued investments.
|
|
Terianna Eri
Amarr Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 04:31:00 -
[11]
"whaaa, i suck at PVP, please mommy send me a horde of PVE fit BS that pose absolutely no threat to me so i can stroke my e-peen on the killboard."
**** off, you whining carebear. ________________
Originally by: CCP Incognito PS the "time to P*nis" is the shortest time recorded in human history. :)
|
King Rothgar
Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 05:58:00 -
[12]
I've often supported this idea but let's face it, people in high sec will just farm lvl3's instead. People in high sec absolutely refuse to take any risk at all in the game so they will just watch their income get slashed rather than learn to mission in low sec safely. That said I still support the idea.
I also think either bounties should go away and mission rewards should go up or bounties should be scaled with sec status just like mission rewards. This could be done without removing lvl4's from high sec and would have an equally significant impact on low sec vs high sec mission income. -----------------------------------------------------
|
Markus Reese
Caldari Lorentzian Expeditionaries
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 06:06:00 -
[13]
Another reason ccp won't do it, is face it. Lotsa paying customers just like to hang out. Some people just have no interest in pvp and play MMO's for the multiplayer part and enjoy co-op play. Trying to use attrition to get them into low sec won't get them into lowsec. Interest would just change to another game. Regardless of the CCP mantra of eve being a harsh place, it is still their nest egg, alienating players will not do anything for business.
|
Vadimik
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 08:48:00 -
[14]
I support this idea(though, I'd rather move all lvl 4 missions out of highsec, not all lvl 4 agents). Simply because at this point, highsec lvl 4's are too profitable(as compared to other things to do in highsec). On top of that, dozens upon dozens of pirat BS's in *high* sec? Even after years (and I mean *years*) of extermination by pod pilots? Sure pirat factions should have figured by now that heavy ships in highsec only result in them being destroyed even faster.
To stress my main argument: highsec mission running should be about as profitable as highsec exploration/highsec mining.
|
Shitzen Giggles
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 09:07:00 -
[15]
This is a terrible idea and one that's been brought up before. Personally if CCP actually did this I would probably cancel my subscription.
Now before you label me a carebear let me tell you, first and foremost I am a pvp pilot. That is what I have spent the majority of my 3+ years of playing eve doing. But to pvp one needs the ships and fittings to do it. Any decent pvp'er knows that you can't pvp in a pve fit ship and vice versa. Mission runners in low sec are a huge target, not only with how easy it is to probe most people out but the jumping to and from, through gates is a huge risk in PVE fit battleships. I would soon find myself without PVE ships and no income to replace my pve or pvp ships...and then what? buy GTC's constantly? Move to 0.0 and deal with all the politics, mandatory ops and other BS again? No thanks, I would just move on to a different game. And I bet I wouldn't be the only one.
The OP knows all this and just wants these easy targets, that is "the benefits" from his point of view.
I wouldn't mind it if the rewards for level 5 missions and/or level 4s in low sec were increased. I would definitely like to see the rat bounties in low sec substantially increased. But moving such an important income source to so many would be a huge detriment to the game as a whole.
|
Washell Olivaw
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 09:08:00 -
[16]
Only things that increase in lowsec are the LP's and the mission reward. Reward is insignificant compared to bounties, salvage and LP. LP however can be twice as much in low sec. This is however countered by the fact that losing a pimp factionfitted BS or Marauder pretty much kills your monthly income. Having to safespot/dock each time unknowns/hostiles enter the system slows you down. Having a regular T1/2 fitted BS or HAC is less effective. The only reason people do it now is because converting LP to faction items is good money. Biggest market for faction items: Hi-sec mission runners.
Removing hi-sec level 4 mission running also removes low sec level 4 mission running. It would be safer and more efficient to rat and mine.
Originally by: Signature Everybody has a photographic memory, some people just don't have film.
|
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 09:13:00 -
[17]
Edited by: ropnes on 03/11/2009 09:16:29 If you haven't done a lot of high level missions in lowsec then pls STFU
"Buhu I would do level 3s". No you wouldn't, because they are crap You would learn how to adapt. It's not that hard. You don't need to mission in 1bn+ ships. It's ridiculous that so many do
People say no to this because they're scared of such a change. They're not evaluating it in the context of the whole game. Moving them to lowsec would make it harder for every mission runner to make isk, me included, but it would be beneficial to the game overall. The impunity with which you can hoard isk in highsec is broken
|
Vadimik
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 09:28:00 -
[18]
Originally by: ****zen Giggles This is a terrible idea and one that's been brought up before. Personally if CCP actually did this I would probably cancel my subscription.
Now before you label me a carebear let me tell you, first and foremost I am a pvp pilot. That is what I have spent the majority of my 3+ years of playing eve doing. But to pvp one needs the ships and fittings to do it. Any decent pvp'er knows that you can't pvp in a pve fit ship and vice versa. Mission runners in low sec are a huge target, not only with how easy it is to probe most people out but the jumping to and from, through gates is a huge risk in PVE fit battleships. I would soon find myself without PVE ships and no income to replace my pve or pvp ships...and then what? buy GTC's constantly? Move to 0.0 and deal with all the politics, mandatory ops and other BS again? No thanks, I would just move on to a different game. And I bet I wouldn't be the only one.
The OP knows all this and just wants these easy targets, that is "the benefits" from his point of view.
I wouldn't mind it if the rewards for level 5 missions and/or level 4s in low sec were increased. I would definitely like to see the rat bounties in low sec substantially increased. But moving such an important income source to so many would be a huge detriment to the game as a whole.
1)Nobody cares much if you quit. Nobody cares much if OP quits or I quit. So, please, stop bringing this agrument, it's plain lame. 2)I, for one, don't care if missionrunners will go into lowsec or not. I just want for this ridiculously overrated no-brainer to come to an end. 3)If you need external funds to PvP - too bad for you.
|
Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 09:31:00 -
[19]
Quote: People say no to this because they're scared of such a change. They're not evaluating it in the context of the whole game. Moving them to lowsec would make it harder for every mission runner to make isk, me included, but it would be beneficial to the game overall. The impunity with which you can hoard isk in highsec is broken
Quote: no qualification necessary, the benefits are obvious. nuff said.
I have yet to see anyone explain what the bennefits to the whole game are here?
------------------------ Jint Hikaru - Miner / Salvager / Explorer "I've got a couple of Strippers on my ship... and they just love to dance!" ------------------------ |
Vincea Vega
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 09:32:00 -
[20]
Everyone either runs missions to get income to pvp with or because they like to pve. Trying to force them into lowsec will not work for over 90% of the playerbase now running lvl4's.
I would just go ratting / WH'ing if L4's where nerfed or moved to lowsec. the isk/hr rating (after time loss due to having to safe up / kill annoying pirates) will simply not be worth it. If you want fights in eve, make the other party commit to it, because in all other instances they will just run / dock up / logoffski.
Its just the result of a game with consequences, people do their best to negate negative impacts (just like you, who wants only to gank defenceless pve fitted ships).
|
|
Vadimik
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 09:37:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Vincea Vega
I would just go ratting / WH'ing if L4's where nerfed or moved to lowsec. the isk/hr rating (after time loss due to having to safe up / kill annoying pirates) will simply not be worth it.
And this is exactly the outcome I want.
|
Shitzen Giggles
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 09:45:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Vadimik
1)Nobody cares much if you quit. Nobody cares much if OP quits or I quit. So, please, stop bringing this agrument, it's plain lame. 2)I, for one, don't care if missionrunners will go into lowsec or not. I just want for this ridiculously overrated no-brainer to come to an end. 3)If you need external funds to PvP - too bad for you.
LOL, ok well... to 1) You are right. No one really cares if a handfull of players quit. Players quit everyday. but CCP is running a business and they care about their market share and profit margins. So why would they implement something that would seriously risk them losing large numbers of players? to 2) If you don't care, why are you reading this thread or taking the time to respond to it? to 3) You're right again! That would be too bad for me, fortunately as it is now I don't need external funds.
But seriously are you angry or something? I re-read my statement wondering if I had written something that could have seemed offensive and I didn't find anything, so I wonder if you're just one of those guys that comes on the forums full of hostility to vent it on other people by attempting to belittle them or something. But seriously nothing I said warrants it and your not going to get under my skin.
So relax, angry typing breaks keyboards
|
Tylara duChelm
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 10:23:00 -
[23]
I'm new to the game (2 months) so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong about anything.
Lets start with a question: Various people in favor of moving l4s to lowsec, do you want to do this because you are against single-box mission runners doing one or two after work, or are you after the extreme-multiboxer AFKing the l4s?
I see the second issue (People being able to run 6x l4s in 2xlar domis) being a problem, with the first bit not being much of one. IMO, the issue could be accomplished a little more easily by revamping the drone controls than by forcing the legit single account mission runners into lowsec.
Now those people that just want ALL l4 mission runners in lowsec. . . what are you thinking? Very few PvE fit battleships are good at ALL in PvP combat, solo or fleet. Further, most l4 mission runners solo. So the people that are against solo mission runners seem to me like they're just whining about how they can't get cheap, easy kills.
Quote: until pvp fit/ships can be used for pve and vice versa, the current status quo will be the same.
EXACTLY the point. If a PvE fit battleship stood a chance against a gank attempt, this conversation wouldn't be happening. The arguement here is actually quite hypocritical. . . "I think they're making too much money for no risk in highsec" actually ends up meaning "I want no-risk missioning battleships for easy ganking in lowsec!" Pot, kettle.
Quote: "whaaa, i suck at PVP, please mommy send me a horde of PVE fit BS that pose absolutely no threat to me so i can stroke my e-peen on the killboard."
aside from being inappropriate, imo, this poster both nails the issue on the head, AND totally discards it like the troll they're acting like. You see the issue: PvE fit BS pose no threat to PvPers. Thus they're easy kills.
Quote: People in high sec absolutely refuse to take any risk at all in the game so they will just watch their income get slashed rather than learn to mission in low sec safely.
That's just it. There IS no safety in lowsec missioning, unless you have a whole fleet with you missioning. Then you need higher payout per mission. . . it is as the earlier poster stated: NPCs need to be fought the same way as PCs, then the whole point will be rendered essentially moot.
Now I do both PvP in 0.0 and missioning in highsec, and honestly I'm comfortable doing both. I kinda dislike lowsec in that it is supposed to be part of the "empire"s space, but it really has no law at all. It is actually more dangerous than being in 0.0 Fewer frothing at the mouth greifers, TBH.
|
Vadimik
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 10:23:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Vadimik on 03/11/2009 10:26:05 Angry? Not in the slightest. I just want lvl 4 missions to be moved out of highsec, because I see it as beneficial to EvE.
Quote: So why would they implement something that would seriously risk them losing large numbers of players?
Because it's beneficial to EvE in the long term. And because people that would quit due to inability to run lvl 4's in highsec are hardly numerous.
|
wallenbergaren
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 10:24:00 -
[25]
It's not about wanting more targets in lowsec, it's about people playing this game like a totally mindless grind MMO. I don't care if you remove lvl 4s from highsec or simply make the ones outside highsec five times as profitable, but the current balance is f***ed because right now there is no real incentive to make money outside highsec (on a personal level)
|
Vadimik
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 10:33:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Tylara duChelm stuff...
Ok, look, what many people here imply is that lvl 4's in highsec are ridiculously too easy and profitable, as compared to other (highsec) activities. A no-brainer with these levels of profit has no place in highsec.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 10:56:00 -
[27]
Originally by: wallenbergaren It's not about wanting more targets in lowsec, it's about people playing this game like a totally mindless grind MMO. I don't care if you remove lvl 4s from highsec or simply make the ones outside highsec five times as profitable, but the current balance is f***ed because right now there is no real incentive to make money outside highsec (on a personal level)
so because people build different sandcastles in the sandbox, they need to be nerfed? they are still big part of the player base and contribute on other levels to the game. you should step back from dictating how people should play the game. |
Angry Poster
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 11:02:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Angry Poster on 03/11/2009 11:02:10 The only thing that needs to change is that CCP actually gives sufficiently better mission rewards in lowsec to actually justify the risks (0.0 is even worse). This has been the problem since day one.
Currently the difference between flying missions in a 0.5 or a 0.4 are pretty much negligible from the reward side of things. Both give pretty much the same amount of LP, the same crappy bounties and the same lame rewards. No wonder nobody is willing to increase their risk by a factor of 10 when the reward only scales by 5%.
If it were up to me then I'd keep highsec level 4s about the way they are (maybe a slight nerf is in order) but I would drastically increase the rewards of lowsec agents so it's actually worth taking the risk. To further make lowsec missioning viable I'd also implement a script that looks at the number of ship- and pod-kills in the last hour or 24 hours and then further scale the reward by this (so you might only get +20% more ISK compared to highsec if you are in a calm and quite lowsec system but you'd get +500% reward if you mission in rancer or other high-risk systems). It's only logical that an agent giving out jobs to freelancers would also take the risk-factor into account. God knows why CCP doesn't do this from the very beginning...
So in conclusion: leave highsec level 4s the way they are, boost lowsec missions by about a factor of 5 and 0.0 by a factor of 10. Then implement a script that scales these bonuses up or down depending on the amount of action that the mission hub sees. If you mission in a save place with only a few kills then you might only get 30% more then you would in highsec but if you're willing to take the risk then the reward would actually scale and you might get a further 100% bonus on the mission reward, LP and perhaps even bounty.
That way the carebears can continue to run their 10mil ISK an hour missions and the ones that want to earn proper ISK can head to lowsec and earn the real money.
As it currently stands there is just no justification to run missions in lowsec (and the solution is not to nerf highsec to total uselessness thereby punishing carebears - the solution is to make the carebears WANT to run missions in lowsec.. not because they can't earn any ISK at all in empire but simply by the fact that they can earn more ISK in lowsec relative to the risk they are taking).
That's what CCP would do if they wanted more people in lowsec. |
Tylara duChelm
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 11:08:00 -
[29]
Quote: Because it's beneficial to EvE in the long term.
How? I see isk-farmers as being harmful. I see isk buyers as being harmful (Though I've had people tell me I should buy isk. . .) I see Griefers as being harmful. I see sloppy coding as being harmful. (Broken cosmos missions anyone?) What is it that a normal, single-box player doing that is hurting the game?
Sure, I'm in 2 months and am earning 20m isk an hour, average, when I play. I'm currently unemployed, so I've put far more time into it than most people would, but time==isk. But how am I, running a single high-sec alt, doing l4s in order to earn enough money to effectively do WH exploration, harming the game?
In the two months I've been playing I've seen the bottom drop out of the minerals market. When I started Trit was north of 3. Currently there are massive quantities up at 2.65. This is right after CCP nuked a bunch of isk-farmer accounts. . . OTOH, missioning is stable income. Less risky than going mining where something can blow along and drop profits by a quarter for a month on end.
And honestly if isk per hour of l4 missioning is really an issue, have excess kill damage to the hull damage the wreck. You overkill the wreck you lose the loot and salvage.
or are you saying that the payout+bounty is too much by itself?
|
Vadimik
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 11:09:00 -
[30]
Originally by: darius mclever
so because people build different sandcastles in the sandbox, they need to be nerfed? they are still big part of the player base and contribute on other levels to the game. you should step back from dictating how people should play the game.
Exactly to the opposite. With lvl 4's as profitable as they are, everything in highsec is pretty obvious: either you build the same castle everyone does, or you get only a fraction of the profit you may have made while building it.
While we want for there be no clear "best castle design" in highsec.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |