| 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.
|
Tylara duChelm
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 11:22:00 -
[31]
Move more interesting oretypes to highsec roid-fields. One of the complaints about l4 missioners is that they're producing too large a % of the rare ores. . .
|
Laevateinn
Novus Aevum Dominatus
Novus Aevum
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 11:24:00 -
[32]
What's the matter OP, want to ruin the experience of those players who actually like High Sec for their own varied and legitimate reasons? Missioning is in itself a profession and generates its own market, a demand for modules, an outflow of loot/reprocessed ore, tax for corporations and a desire for expensive faction modules. Level 4's are fine in high security the way they are.
You want more people to shoot in low sec? Make low security a more tempting place and balance the risk vs reward equation, right now its High Sec for missioning, low sec for PvP, null sec for blobs. For the solo missioner or small corporation just finding their feet, low sec is probably the last place they would want to mission right now. And the industrial potential is a joke.
|
Vadimik
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 11:27:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Vadimik on 03/11/2009 11:30:32
Originally by: Tylara duChelm
Quote:
Because it's beneficial to EvE in the long term.
How?
You have pretty much answered your own question - by offering too easy and mindless of a way to earn isk. (Again, as compared to other highsec activities.)
Sure there can be some other way to balance out lvl 4's - but simply forcing them into lowsec it both easy and pretty foolproof. And makes sense storyline-wise, too.
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 11:58:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 03/11/2009 11:59:15
Originally by: Gyle
Interesting points but unfortunately not valid. The market will be just fine.
That's interesting.
Will you take the responsibility if it goes wrong?
Originally by: King Rothgar
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.
To mission safely in low sec means becoming a pirate, doesn't it?
Apart from that, how do you think pirate population will develop with L4s in low sec?
Even if running missions in L4 is fase now, it won't be safe then.
The only valid argument I've read so far is that high-sec missions are too safe and easy. And I agree.
Well the direct solution would be to make them harder.
So boosting mission NPCs and include ways to screw up and get into dire problems seems like the way to go.
Regarding NPCs, what's with those NPC batttlecruisers anyway? They're total pushovers and seem to have stats like pre-boost BCs.
___________________________________
Balance is power, guard hide it well
"Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam" |
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 12:22:00 -
[35]
Edited by: ropnes on 03/11/2009 12:24:00
What do you think would happen if you made them harder?
People would either not do them or do them in large groups, because for the people we're talking about loss is unacceptable. You can't have real risk in missions as long as they're static and predictable because people will min/max them to the point where they never lose ships and make the most profit.
People not doing the missions is the same thing as moving them to low sec, people doing them in groups is good.
Honestly though, if you aren't capable of missioning in low sec then you suck. If you don't dare to try then you're a coward (not that I care). I do care about the first point though, because you're not rewarded for not sucking. The reason you'd move L4 missions to lowsec is to make the difference in rewards between highsec and lowsec / 0.0 very big. If it's very big then people will be encouraged to go there. You could do that by increasing the mission rewards outside empire by an insane amount but the problem with that is that they would be a bit too good. Maybe nerf highsec L4s and buff lowsec / 0.0 ones at the same time?
Realistically lowsec wouldn't be able to support a large missioning population because surviving there has a lot to do with it not being very populated, but that will balance itself out. We still need a buff of the rewards. Dominion seems like it could remedy this problem in 0.0 but we won't be seeing changes to NPC space...
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 12:43:00 -
[36]
Originally by: ropnes
Honestly though, if you aren't capable of missioning in low sec then you suck. If you don't dare to try then you're a coward (not that I care).
The same could be said about posting with your main. 
Honestly though, I don't get your arguments, if there are any.
Making them harder doesn't mean making them impossible for single, smart, pilots.
If you make missions harder, people have to actually think about what they're doing, instead of aggroing the whole room and permatanking it.
That would be the first step anyway. Increase overall NPC dps per mission room to a level that can't be permatanked. There's nothing worse than AFK missionrunning.
Next thing would be slight randomization.
You could argue about low sec missions just the same. Either people will not do them, because loss is unacceptable, and pirate population will grow if L4s would be moved there, or you are/become a pirate, effectively negating most of the risk.
This whole discussion seems like a big "boost us pirates" request in disguise.
___________________________________
Balance is power, guard hide it well
"Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam" |
ropnes
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 13:17:00 -
[37]
If you make them harder people fit more tank and the missions take longer. It's the same thing as nerfing the rewards. If you make them harder to the point where people actually risks their ships then people stop doing them. Missions can never be hard. You can't add difficulty to them as long as they don't require skill, and missions currently don't.
It's not about boosting pirates it's about rewarding players who dare step outside of highsec. In my opinion the rewards outside highsec should be SIGNIFICANTLY better than in highsec and they're not.
|
Dis Assemble
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 13:22:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
The same could be said about posting with your main.
Alt or main, who cares? Only in WoW people care, and even there only when lvl 1 toons post.
Add to that the default posting toon settings sometimes act quirky on these forums, and the simple fact that specialization of seperate characters doesn't make the person behind it any less credible, and it really doesn't matter what people post with.
For all it matters, a 5 year old character could have less than 2 mill skillpoints spent and never seen lowsec. That still won't tell you whether it's maincharacter ever saw lowsec either. The main character might even be as young as 2 weeks!
|
nafiy gnaw
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 13:45:00 -
[39]
Not gonna happen: People will just switch to another method to make hi-sec money.
Not gonna happen: One less reliable method of making money, even harder to replace lost ships, even less incentive to PVP.
Not gonna happen: Lets blow up the faction loot market.
It has been said before, it will be said again. Lvl4 missions will be in high-sec until the last bit of EvE is deleted from this universe.
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Majesta Empire
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 14:38:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 03/11/2009 14:42:31
Originally by: Dis Assemble
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
The same could be said about posting with your main.
Alt or main, who cares? Only in WoW people care, and even there only when lvl 1 toons post.
Add to that the default posting toon settings sometimes act quirky on these forums, and the simple fact that specialization of seperate characters doesn't make the person behind it any less credible, and it really doesn't matter what people post with.
For all it matters, a 5 year old character could have less than 2 mill skillpoints spent and never seen lowsec. That still won't tell you whether it's maincharacter ever saw lowsec either. The main character might even be as young as 2 weeks!
Quoting out of context is not useful.
Wasting a whole reply on a quote that's not relevant to the topic is also not useful.
Actually that was the point of my comment, which you slightly missed.
Chest-beating statements about people being cowards or just 'sucking' without the slightest evidence to back it up is not useful for the topic.
Apart from that it might be interesting to know if someone is a pirate or not ingame.
Players posting here in F&I should be impartial, but most are not. It's always good to know who you're talking with.
___________________________________
Balance is power, guard hide it well
"Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam" |
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 15:04:00 -
[41]
just fiddle with the lolly point equation in regards to system security rating
[unless unprobe'able t3 in null-sec would be able to flood the market with slave imps and machariels -.-]
-
putting the gist back into logistics |
Traidor Disloyal
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 15:05:00 -
[42]
Originally by: nafiy gnaw
It has been said before, it will be said again. Lvl4 missions will be in high-sec until the last bit of EvE is deleted from this universe.
Not going to happen. CCP seems to be going down the "Easy Road" in this game. CCP is making the game more "friendly" for people and easier for people to make isk. Does anyone honestly think that CCP will make a major change and move Level 4 mission agents into low sec just to please a small number of players?
If you do believe this then I have some prime swamp land in Florida that has your name on it.
*************************************************
I have three characters. One has Cov Ops V along with all the bells and whistles that goes with it. |
Misanthra
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 16:37:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Misanthra on 03/11/2009 16:37:11
If level 4 moved to null sec...noone would run them. 2 problems
1. Agents are not creative. Same missions, same locations. Even a really slow pirate will learn mission station A sends every missioner to system b severals tims a day. Be like delivering people to gate camp pirates.
2. Or say you ninjya by the gate camp...you are now a pve ship running missions that can take time to run. NOt all pirates are lazy gate humpers...some actually scan and hunt your down. So...they give the missioner time to run the mission abit , find them and pop them when fighting off several bs's since softened up. Kill mail, t2/named fittings off the killed missioner since kind of hard to tank and fight lv 4 bs's on t1 gear, and the millions in salvage left behind for the taking.
Sounds sooo good, if a low sec pirate.
|
Cearain
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 18:18:00 -
[44]
Originally by: annab
Personally moving all lvl4s to low sec will just mean people move to lower agents or start mining....
You forgot not logging in to eve anymore.
Some people like running missions. They look forward to getting that golem or other t2 ship or whatever. It would simply take too long running level 3s. Obviously CCP has done something right with missions since so many people enjoy that aspect of the game why should they f it up?
Why don't they move level fours to low sec? Because itÆs too much fun swimming in the tears of pirates who are too incompetent to get kills against anything other than pve setup ships. Why does the op want to fight ships that are set up for pve? Why not fight pilots who have their ship set up for pvp? DonÆt bother answering - we know the answer.
|
FISHANDCHIPS
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 18:21:00 -
[45]
you know thinking about it the low and null sec carebears are crying more than most of the high sec carebears
|
Markus Reese
Caldari
Lorentzian Expeditionaries
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 19:19:00 -
[46]
Counterpoint to the profit arguement that the L4s are too much isk, just think, if mining was revamped to remove macros and tritanium hit 4isk/unit again, tritanium mining would outprofit missioning. Should all tritanium be moved to lowsec? As well, if this happened, cost of ships would go up, as would ammo, fittings, etc and suddlenly mission running isn't so profitable.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 19:53:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Markus Reese
Counterpoint to the profit arguement that the L4s are too much isk, just think, if mining was revamped to remove macros and tritanium hit 4isk/unit again, tritanium mining would outprofit missioning. Should all tritanium be moved to lowsec? As well, if this happened, cost of ships would go up, as would ammo, fittings, etc and suddlenly mission running isn't so profitable.
my corp mate really liked the 15+m/hour during the 4isk/trit period^^
|
DeputyFruitfly
|
Posted - 2009.11.03 21:49:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Gyle
Move all level 4 agents in high sec into low sec...
no qualification necessary, the benefits are obvious. nuff said.
If you want targets, go to 00, wuss.
It's all relative, eh?
|
Freya Vistari
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 18:54:00 -
[49]
CCP really needs to act on this. Its been beaten to death for a reason its an idea that should have been implemented years ago.
Essentially there are two types of players who are against it.
1)The Noobs. Not meant as a slur, there are plenty out there and lots of the above posts seem to go over the same old arguments such as "we are a high sec corp and we just want to play the game that way." That statement is fine you can go on to do so but at the moment you are being rewarded too heavily for your game time. As inflation becomes more and more noticeable in EVE CCP really needs to work on their handling of this matter.
2) The experienced players with ALTS. These guys should know better. CCP Has never been about making a fluffy game where everyone can get their fair share on their alts whilst pvping in low sec or 0.0 with mains.
CCP is all about doing what is best for the game and although there are plenty of whiners who would always make colossal noise over changes they don't like, it doesn't change the fact that something needs to be done. All the 0.0 Alliances are about to loose huge tracts of space in the coming Dominion patch no doubt upsetting thousands of players but that doesn't change the fact that these are changes that NEED to happen.
Back when i used to live in highsec there was a nice quiet little system where i used to hang out. but then CCP plonked a LVL 4 agent in there and it ballooned to 170 member average. TBH its makes me queezy seeing all these people crowding these systems while lowsec stays partially deserted. Bottom line is if you take enough reward out of what's happening in highsec and throw it into lowsec people (whether they will admit to it on here or not) will HAVE to move there. It would be how eve used to be with anti-pie corps banding together to try and secure the lowsec systems from pirates so they can run the missions.
PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE CCP. Listen to this suggestion and lay this matter to bed once and for all.
|
Gyle
Caldari
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 19:11:00 -
[50]
Originally by: DeputyFruitfly
Originally by: Gyle
Move all level 4 agents in high sec into low sec...
no qualification necessary, the benefits are obvious. nuff said.
If you want targets, go to 00, wuss.
It's all relative, eh?
Yeah I live in 0.0 bro. Perhaps stop trying to make out you understand more about peoples play habits then you do?
My Issue is with all cowardly grinders hiding in Highsec and clogging up the space. CCP has been trying to shift people out to low sec and and 0.0. Hence fctional warfare and sov changes.
If, they want to do it properly then all they have to do is hit the nervous stote-like grinders in their pocket.
|
Aqriue
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 20:19:00 -
[51]
I have yet to any reasonable explanination as to why all level 4s need to be moved to low sec other then "to shoot with impunity because low sec is safer to do so" . The opposite of shooting people in high sec. To balance any chance between both sides of the pirate and mission runner, CCP would have to something to make it equal such as any one of the following
1)Reduce NPC damage so you don't need 2x2 damage specific hardeners + 1 rep eatting up 5 low slots for armor tank.
2)Increase resist on hardeners, such as 90% to that resist so you only need one instead of 2. Buffer disseappers very quickly in PVE and landing in the middle of a pirate ambush reduces your chance of getting to sniper range with buffer to avoid damage.
3)Find a use for capacitor in pvp other then laser/hybrid cost, because its not used on buffer tanks for repairing during battle and neuts make it useless while overly large cap boosters make it pointless to store ammo charges in your cargo hold.
4)Make pvp more dynamnic rather then relying on Counterstrike/Halo online method of grinding buffer tanks/hitpoints down to zero. What about hits to engineering or rendering weapons systems inoperable (ECM don't count )
5)Lowsec is part of empire, but they don't patrol it. Then its not part of their empire. Or perhaps CONCORD should respond to lowsec encounters with a hugely delayed reaction time and pirates need to destroy the ship quickly, but need to run for 15 minues and its legal to do so without fearing the BANHAMMER.
6) Gateguns and Station Sentries should be loaded with CONCORD One-hit-wonder rounds, so you can't choke/gate/station camp in lowsec. Doing so completely negates any reason to put more rewarding missions in lowsec.
7) Scanning would have to be made more difficult. Why mission when in 30 seconds you know a pirate is going to warp on top of you. You can't go back, because they will be waiting. so cancel and try again, taking a faction hit. Ultimately, they will have to leave because the level 4 agent will no longer talk to them and then you the pirate will log off to kvetch on the official boards about lack of targets.
8)There would have to be much greater reward for missioning in low sec to offset the cost of bringing in 3/4s of a billion in implants in my head. I know I am not going to spend 2 months in highsec grinding my skill que doing missions with crappy rewards to get a set of tech II large guns, then jump out and training at a slower rate while missioning for higher risk/reward. I want to move on to the next ship I want as quickly as possible and don't say "spam warp to celestial" because it only takes 1 or 2 unlucky lag spikes to get my pod locked by an interceptor because the pilot wanted to polish his e-peen and my wallet allows me to afford only a set of +3. My subscription is my time, not yours (otherwise "mining your own minerals" is actually free) and I would sooner cancel my sub then sit in station spinning a newbship because I have nothing better to do.
Once I feel comfortable to PVP, I will do so with a wallet to fund the activity.
|
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 21:59:00 -
[52]
If level 4 missions were moved to low sec, people would just run level 3's yes. There would be by far less isk being seeded. Level 4's would be extremely profitable. And maybe, just maybe, a few mission runners seeking fortune might go into *gasp* low sec.
|
Mike Voidstar
|
Posted - 2009.11.10 14:25:00 -
[53]
Don't fool yourselves. Believe it or not, the vast majority of carebears will never enter low-sec for a simple reason:
They don't like to be killed in PvP.
Give them 2 free faction fit ships for every time they get killed in low sec, and most of them still would not go. They simply don't like that style of play. It goes beyond Risk Vs. Reward, the same guy that would laugh off the loss of his ship because he forgot to turn on his armor rep 20 minutes after his insurance cancelled will not go to low-sec regardless of the reward because he does not want to pvp with mouth-breathing baby eaters.
Add to that the sheer number of mouth-breathing baby eaters that live in low-sec, camping gates and waiting to kill (and for some reason, pod) defenseless newbs trying to do that first courier run into lowsec and the situation is just un-acceptable to the actual carebears.
It is just not going to happen.
|
Van Gend
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 12:53:00 -
[54]
I just wonder why you want them there? Would you not rather have PVP players there to do combat with? Why would you ask CCP to force PVE people into your little trap?
Or is it a matter of you being tired of highsec missiongrinding and you would like CCP to increase the profit in lowsec, so you can afford to do so even if you lose ships now and then. Becouse thats what you are offering the highsec PVE players mate!
|
Thenoran
Caldari
Pelican.
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 14:10:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Thenoran on 13/11/2009 14:12:52
Are level 4's too easy money? Yes, deffo on that one.
But if you move it to low-sec, people won't run them, even for the current ISK.
The pirates and other pilots looking for a profit would swarm all the L4 agent stations like mad, killing anything that undocks.
On top of that, any pirate with half a brain would quickly know where the agents are sending the mission runners.
That means gate camps, and quite a few as well.
No one would fit faction gear to their battleship anymore (I never have actually), killing off the faction loot market as very few would dare putting an X-Type XL Shield Booster on a PvP ship.
Moving it to low-sec is just a boost to pirates in disguise, nothing more.
I do agree level 4 missions need a change, but not this kind of change that is entirely one sided towards pirates getting easy kills.
Make the level 4 missions harder, especially the ones issues by L4Q18-20 agents.
Add neut towers, add statis towers, more scrambling frigs and overall DPS.
If that makes people group up to run the missions, good! (would also split the rewards)
That's what EVE is about, teamwork.
The other option is to make level 4s in low-sec runnable in something other than a battleship.
PvE battleship in low-sec is NEVER EVER going to work, no matter what other say.
A T2 fitted PvE Raven will always die very quickly if missioning in low-sec due to its crappy mobility.
However, if level 4 missions that appear in low-sec were adjusted a little so you could run them in a HAC or a CS, maybe then it would be a little more equal terms.
Also, the mission itself should be a lot harder to scan down in order to give the mission runner a chance.
------------------------
Low-sec is like sailing along the coast of Somalia...
|
Doctor Penguin
Amarr
Viziam
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 14:30:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Doctor Penguin on 13/11/2009 14:30:43
I would quit if this happened. I only have about 10m SP, lvl 4s are not "money making machines" for me. I need that ISK to enjoy PVPing in 0.0 when I stockpile enough so I don't have to worry about losing a few BS.
Oh, hang on, I have an idea. Sure, move all lvl 4 agents to lowsec, but also remove local and make them unscannable in mission rooms. And buff the rewards.
________________________________________________
Originally by: CCP Soundwave
Get out Mindstar, or I'll punch you in the ovaries. |
Duchess Starbuckington
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 17:06:00 -
[57]
Originally by: FISHANDCHIPS
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
Pretty much what I'd do if they nerfed level 4s. I only run them casually in a Raven to fund pvp, but if they trashed it I'd just switch over to a horribly pimped out Drake and steamroller 3s. Everyone loses.
|
Athar Mu
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 17:41:00 -
[58]
Ok if you do move them to lowsec, make it so all missions in lowsec have acceleration gates and if the mission isn't yours or you are not in the same gang as the mission runner then you cant enter the mission area. This way mission runners are safe in there mission BUT they are not safe when going too and from the mission so lowsec pirates have the chance as they undock from the station, go to gates to move systems and come back to the station.
Mission runners don't need to have PvP fit BS's to fend off the gank that would usually come, if they did them in lowsec but it would up the risk of running them so make the quality of the agents in lowsec higher to counter this, so only low quality agents are in highsec and the high ones in lowsec. So you get more rewards in lowsec BUT you also have more risk if you get caught on the undock. Plus if you have to warp out and a pirate is waiting on your acceleration gate into the mission you could get caught then as well.
|
Tylara duChelm
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 18:20:00 -
[59]
The PvE system, as it stands currently, creates a huge wall between low and high-sec missioning. The wall is there for many reasons. Several people have touched on the differences between PvE and PvP fitted ships. What few people are recognizing is the strategic value of opportunity.
Say you're a solo missioner doing level 4s. Lets even say that you are fully set up for PvP, and it doesn't hamper your PvE abilities.
Some PvPer scans you down and jumps in on top of you. Now here's the problem. You already have the NPCs to worry about, and now here's a PvP ship honed to a fine edge for killing ships like yours. Not only do you have to worry about the PvPer, but the NPCs don't miraculously go away. What's worse, more likely than not the PvPer won't be alone. The battle is HIGHLY HIGHLY stacked against the Missioner. Further, the PvPers can warp in at no risk. If they don't like the ship they see, they can warp out before the missioner has a chance to respond.
PvPing mission runners is PvP easy-mode. In fact, I would go on to say that demanding more people move PvP to lowsec is cowardly and shameful. If the problem is "too much profit in too little time" the solution isn't to "spank them like a naughty monkey!" it is to either increase the amount of time needed to make the same profit, or reduce the profit per mission.
If the problem is that level 4s are too profitable compared to other high-sec methods, you need to either reduce the profitability of level 4s, or increase the profitability of the other isk-generators.
If the problem with level 4s is that they "out mine mining" then reduce the minerals one gets from the loot in level 4s.
If the problem with level 4s is that they aren't risky enough for the reward, either increase the risk, or reduce the reward.
if the problem with level 4s is that they are more profitable than level 5s due to the risk of level 5s, then either reduce the profit of level 4s, increase the profit of level 5s, or reduce the risk of level 5s. (like, oh, make missioning deadspace unprobeable)
|
mettisitis sindicis
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 18:52:00 -
[60]
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)
That's a fundamental design flaw of the game. PvP in this game is only sustained through pve farming(directly or indirectly), but pve is not sustainable in systems without some form of protection. When the gank crowd throws about the term "risk vs. reward" they completely ignore that fact. The risk of losing ships, items and isk is really measured in how much time you have to spend doing boring stuff to get it back. There are already more lucrative opportunities outside hi-sec, but mission running will never be one of them. You can not efficiently take on 30 NPC rats, while watching the d-scan every 5-seconds, and running away (since your pve fit is useless pvp fits) every time someone finds you. Couple this with ganks and podkills when you occasionally get caught off guard and the potential standing loss for failing missions and it simply isn't worth it.
|
mettisitis sindicis
|
Posted - 2009.11.13 19:02:00 -
[61]
Originally by: Freya Vistari
CCP Has never been about making a fluffy game where everyone can get their fair share on their alts whilst pvping in low sec or 0.0 with mains.
Are you being sarcastic? WTH do you call the power of two promotion?
|
Cearain
|
Posted - 2009.11.16 19:54:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Freya Vistari
CCP really needs to act on this. Its been beaten to death for a reason its an idea that should have been implemented years ago.
Essentially there are two types of players who are against it.
The number or reasons why this is a bad idea are way more than 2. CCP does not listen to you or the other pirates that can't fight properly fit pvp ships and therefore want to gank PVE ships, because they have brains.
Just listen to yourself:
"Back when i used to live in highsec there was a nice quiet little system where i used to hang out. but then CCP plonked a LVL 4 agent in there and it ballooned to 170 member average. TBH its makes me queezy seeing all these people crowding these systems while lowsec stays partially deserted. Bottom line is if you take enough reward out of what's happening in highsec and throw it into lowsec people (whether they will admit to it on here or not) will HAVE to move there."
Do you think CCP is ôqueezyö seeing all these players playing eve and running missions? Do you think CCP is all gung hoe to change their game so these people canÆt do what they enjoy doing in this game? Do you think CCP wants to teach their player base a lesson!? No one will HAVE to go to low sec to get ganked by incompetent pirates, because no one HAS to play eve. Eve missioning is a different game than eve pvp. CCP IÆm sure likes both sources of income so it will not likely completely decimate one way to play.
|
Altaica Amur
Ichizoku
|
Posted - 2009.11.16 20:34:00 -
[63]
Those of you suggesting that faction prices would go down if level 4 mission running was hurt in some manner are being just a bit silly. Sure some of the buyers would go away but I'd suggest that even more of the suppliers would as well, just take a look at how many caldari navy invul fields, or BCUs vs the number of DGs. This fundamental imbalance I think has more to do with the high value of level 4 missions then many suspect, a dip in the price of faction gear would hurt missioners quite a bit as well as if it goes below a certain threshold they'll invest their LP in other things.
As such I think doubling the drop rate or the spawn rate of faction gear in 0.0 would be a step towards weakening level 4 missions and strengthening the profit available in 0.0, exactly what many people want, right? For the record DG BCUs compose less then a third of the market for high end faction BCUs, the rest all being caldari navy.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |