EVE Search - Why do you think level 4 missions should be nerfed?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Missions & Complexes

Why do you think level 4 missions should be nerfed?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Helen McMoney	Posted - 2009.12.16 18:19:00 - [121] this topic and its implications are far(!) more complex then we can grasp in a single post. I mean missionrunner create ISK through bounty and rewards. Its most likely the single biggest counter deflation mechanism (with insurance payouts coming in second) then missionrunners are a big market for perfection items, like officer loot, deadspace loot and even some of the more expensive faction loot. Then missionrunner are ppl who buy lots of GTC for isk, so the plex price would likely drop. All in all we would have to deal with a serious deflation that would most likely be very bad. first of all the value of insurence payouts would drop like a stone. ofc this is all in case of a real nerf to L4s. All other nerfs would hit the "casual" folk much harder then the "pimped out officer equiped" hardcore missionrunners and in that would not cure the problem
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.16 18:27:00 - [122] Mission mechanics in a nutshell- Alternate title- "why none of the above crap would be good" WARNING- WALL O TEXT AHEAD- Travel at your own risk Missions generate isk through bounties, mission rewards. Missions recycle isk through loot, salvage. Missions drain isk through the lp store. The isk generated relative to isk drained- its variable, depends on the lp items you choose. No personal studies have been done that im aware of but overall id say its either a net loss of isk or very close to it. In other words- missions are not the isk generating inflation machines you think they are. Bounties and rewards could be drastically reduced and not have a huge effect on overall profitability. Lp is generally the biggest source of mission income. The question then becomes is the isk/hour of missions out of line with other isk making "grind" activities. Missions basic limitation on income per hour is literally the "per hour" part. The very best ships, with near perfect skills and a knowledgeable pilot- can make an income approaching 50 mill per hour. Odds are most make less due to efficiency and because of uncounted time sinks. Moving/selling/reprocessing the mission loot/ lp items is largely ignored in isk/hour estimates. The average lv 4 missioner makes way less- on the scale of 25 mill per hour. Missioning is not "risk free" as some like to parrot. Your ship in not safe anywhere- my hat goes off to goons for their regular mission ship killing ops. Their km's make me laugh. Isk recycled is mostly irrelevant in the sense that any change hurts others more then it hurts the missioner. Loot/minerals that drop are traded for isk. If this feature is changed you basically kill off the profession of ninja salvaging. Yes miners may see a buff- but not much of one. Realistically you would need to change drone mineral drops to see any sort of market price effects on minerals. Which would nerf null sec drone regions more then missions. Builders may see a rise if loot tables are nerfed- but do they need one? Incidental it would be the builders of t1 mods used in invention that would see their profits rise. Your t2 mods would rise in price to compensate. Wrote this quickly- prolly missed a few things, but this is a nice starting point. The gist is changing an aspect of missions would hurt other professions more then missioners. Things i could support- Re-balancing of certain aspects. Loot drops, rewards, bounties, lp, the lp store prices. Re-balancing should not buff one profession at the expense of another. Rather it should be done to keep salvaging "roughly" as profitable as not salvaging. Interesting side note- my golem that loots and salvages makes roughly the same income as my tengu that only blitzes missions and does no looting and salvaging. An indication that it is balanced but yes the balance should be looked at occasionally and modified if needed. Variable agent quality- lower quality for frequently used agents and higher quality for lesser used agents. Would have to be balanced so that all hi sec agents dont become -20 quality while all lowsecs become +20 quality. But otherwise an interesting idea. Sleeper ai in missions (especially lvl 4's and up). More and harder missions are needed. More that act like escalations- perhaps some that require probing out the site before you can begin. Obviously a lot of room for improvement on missions in the variety and quality area. Moving lvl 5's to hi sec. Would be necessary to make them harder first. Maybe with a sleeper ai this would be possible.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.16 18:28:00 - [123] Things i do not support Moving lvl 4's to lowsec. Wouldnt work. Not a chance. Not even a small chance. Ppl that think it would work need to get over their fascist impulses- others are not playing the game wrong. Spending all your time only engaged in pve is as acceptable as spending all your time pvp'ing. I do not support making lvl 3's (or less) pay less per hour- lvl 1's- 3's are about as balanced as theyre going to get. New players need an income too. So any "decrease" in lvl 4 profitability is going to quickly hit the lvl 3 income/hour ceiling.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.12.16 19:06:00 - [124] Originally by: Dandy Lyon I don't wanna whine without offering a solution, so here goes. Why not do away with loot as we see it now. Instead of dropping fully functioning t1, and named items, why not drop broken ones? These items would require blue prints, and minerals to repair by skilled industrialists, but cannot be melted down to minerals. Now, the mission runner still has a valuable item to sell, so it hasn't affected their income very much. The industrialists can finally manufacture named items, and have some value for their t1 items, and the miners mine minerals without being undercut by mission runners. Everyone has a purpose without the other person rooting them out. And, we've added value to low sec and 0.0 minerals again. Everybody wins. At first glance it seem a good suggestion, until you stop and look the effect: 1) a lot of new market entries, so more lag, especially when using the market; 2) very long queues in all manufacturing slots as people will be using them to repair the stuff; 3) a lot of mission runners stop looting and go for fast completion of the mission, increasing the isk inflow and reducing the material inflow. It all depend how the different numbers play out, but I think it will not make anyone really happy.
Junko Togawa Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.16 19:23:00 - [125] Want to see all these whiny little *****es that claim L4's hurt EVE sooo much exercise some nuts and show CCP how mad they really are and declare a BECAUSE OF MISSIONS boycott. For one month, stop playing EVE in protest. Ready? GO! ... Yeah, that's what I thought you'd do. Go back to whoring for your j00gold and STFU.
Gevic	Posted - 2009.12.16 20:57:00 - [126] To answer to OPs question: Well the quick and easy answer would be because it attracts the wrong sort players. Having a single cluster MMO being populated by significant population of players who wouldn't notice the difference if CCP decided to reduce the map to a handful of systems and made the game single player with a IRC chat box is sad. CCP probably won't ever nerf Lvl 4s significantly because they've allowed it to exist mostly unchecked, and thus accumulated hordes of these players. To make things even worse, this takes away from other parts of the game - Nullsec and losec, because it gives those players options to "opt-out" and simply have an alt parked in Motsu grinding away. If this didn't exist then both sections of space may actually have people trying to defend it, as it would be an actual source of income for the standard alliance/corporation player. Of course before Dominion this wasn't even possible because a REGION would only support 50? possibly 100, people tops. Other people would actually care about whats going on in lowsec, and maybe find a way to turn it into something other than the armpit of EvE (even though thats technically Geminate). I started this game with the idea that CCP would continuously find ways to make the in game world more vibrant and dynamic. Factional Warfare, L4s and the general situation with lowsec more or less has shown me otherwise. Ultimately L4s are only a part of what is wrong with EvE. I think the lack of consequence is what really plagues EvE, and while CCP doesn't need to hire people to break a players kneecap everytime they lose a ship, having some accountability would open up a lot of venues, such as a functioning secondary market for corp stocks, an actual working banking system where people aren't afraid of the CEO making off with the funds. People would be more inclined to work with one another because they can't just simply hide behind yet another NPC corp mission running alt to fund w/e they are doing. Of course in order for this to happen, CCP would have to do something that they would sooner shoot their own mothers first. No more alts. Holy **** did I go off topic. TL;DR : Carebears do nothing but take up space.
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2009.12.16 21:11:00 - [127] Originally by: Empire Dweller Ppl that think it would work need to get over their fascist impulses- others are not playing the game wrong. You are saying people who disagree with you about a spaceship game have "fascist impulses."
Wet Ferret	Posted - 2009.12.16 21:20:00 - [128] Originally by: Emperor Cheney Originally by: Empire Dweller Ppl that think it would work need to get over their fascist impulses- others are not playing the game wrong. You are saying people who disagree with you about a spaceship game have "fascist impulses." He's saying that more about people who have no clue about the implications of their *****ed ideas. But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started. EVE has devs that care about sound? (Ha ha ha! Gotcha. It actually* doesn't!)
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2009.12.16 21:23:00 - [129] Edited by: Emperor Cheney on 16/12/2009 21:25:19 Originally by: Wet Ferret Originally by: Emperor Cheney Originally by: Empire Dweller Ppl that think it would work need to get over their fascist impulses- others are not playing the game wrong. You are saying people who disagree with you about a spaceship game have "fascist impulses." He's saying that more about people who have no clue about the implications of their ******ed ideas. What you are saying is not even close to what fascism means. You're lining up behind a guy calling people fascist over a spaceship video game. Unreal. edit to add - I'm reporting the original "fascist" comment post. Calling people undemocratic totalitarians because they disagree with your views on a spaceship video game would be comically inept if it weren't for the very real horror and tragedy of real life fascism. This is just unacceptable, and you should be ashamed for making excuses for him.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.16 21:24:00 - [130] Originally by: Emperor Cheney Originally by: Empire Dweller Ppl that think it would work need to get over their fascist impulses- others are not playing the game wrong. You are saying people who disagree with you about a spaceship game have "fascist impulses." A bit of harshness on my part. Let me clarify. It is possible to disagree with me and not be a fascist. On the other hand- if you believe that drastic measures (such as nerfing lvl 4's into the ground) are needed because some people are not playing the game how you believe they should, and your intentions of these changes are to force a change in playstyle, then yes that is fascist line of thought. Eve is a PvP game. That does not mean there are no Pve aspects. If i wish to do nothing but pve- then i may. It is a valid playstyle- just as valid as those who wish to pvp all day. What makes my pve sublimely pvp is that you have the ability to destroy my ship. It does not mean i should be forced to go to you so that you may destroy my ship. For a good example of those who would banish all carebears- look above your post. Ill go on record here and say- yes saying that "carebears" should be banished is a fascist line of thought. It also shows a complete lack of understanding in certain areas such as the ship market, ammo market, and deadspace/officer items. What would happen to those prices if suddenly 80% of the eve playerbase were to disappear? If carebears have no other use at all- they are great at paying huge sums for lucky finds.

Wet Ferret	Posted - 2009.12.16 21:30:00 - [131] Originally by: Emperor Cheney What you are saying is not even close to what fascism means. You're lining up behind a guy calling people fascist over a spaceship video game. Unreal. I couldn't give two ***s what the meaning of the word is. I was simply telling you the type of people he was referring to. It's not a matter of simple disagreement, it's idiots wanting to gut the entire mission system, remove content for everyone who lives in highsec, yet ultimately change nothing about the actual perceived problems with mission running. But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started. EVE has devs that care about sound? (Ha ha ha! Gotcha. It actually* doesn't!)
Emperor Cheney Celebrity Sex Tape	Posted - 2009.12.16 21:31:00 - [132] Originally by: Empire Dweller For a good example of those who would banish all carebears- look above your post. Ill go on record here and say- yes saying that "carebears" should be banished is a fascist line of thought. First, I've never said anything like carebears should be "banished," second you have no idea what fascism even means. Might be a good idea to avoid calling people terms associated with starting the most brutal war in human history and the cold blooded murder of millions just in general. Especially in regards to your feelings about a spaceship video game. I hope for your sake you are literally a child, so that you may someday outgrow whatever horrible little phase you're in.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.16 21:39:00 - [133] Edited by: Empire Dweller on 16/12/2009 21:41:58 Originally by: Emperor Cheney Originally by: Empire Dweller For a good example of those who would banish all carebears- look above your post. Ill go on record here and say- yes saying that "carebears" should be banished is a fascist line of thought. First, I've never said anything like carebears should be "banished," second you have no idea what fascism even means. Might be a good idea to avoid calling people terms associated with starting the most brutal war in human history and the cold blooded murder of millions just in general. Especially in regards to your feelings about a spaceship video game. I hope for your sake you are literally a child, so that you may someday outgrow whatever horrible little phase you're in. You seem to have a center of the universe complex. Where did you get the idea i was referring to anything you said? If you actually went to the trouble of looking at the original post i quoted- then looked up one post above yours you would find this comment. TL;DR : Carebears do nothing but take up space. Made by another toon. And while i admit saying that line of thought may be facist is an over reaction on my part. Your butthurt tantrum makes it look reasonable by comparison.
Pantload Gallente The Underpants Gnomes Deep Space Engineering	Posted - 2009.12.16 21:42:00 - [134] Edited by: Pantload on 16/12/2009 21:43:57 I am now in love with this thread. 10 of 10. Somebody say Socialism or Communism or something and we get some more righteous indignation going on. I may even be willing to leave a tip if the show is good enough. Thanks y'all! P.S. Let's just leave the L4 missions alone. The only thing that would make sense as an adjustment to me, is to reduce the amount of T1 item drops in loot. TUG: The Underpants Gnomes. Buy corporations here
Gevic	Posted - 2009.12.16 21:56:00 - [135] Edited by: Gevic on 16/12/2009 21:56:09 lol @ "80%" of Eve players - from the pulling numbers of out my ass department. As for the anything that is produced, oh I don't know, it would be produced by the hordes of players that are actually making them right now? Or others will fill the ranks. They certainly aren't being made by johnny missonrunner. And who said anything about "banishing".
Angst IronShard	Posted - 2009.12.16 22:22:00 - [136] I don't see a nerf to move lvl 4 missions in low, I see it as an adjustment. In fact, I'm for a move of the level 4 missions to low sec for only one reason: - To have the right to shoot at the er who steal my final loot. In High sec, a 15 days noob, with a probe ship, can grab your loot too much easily. You did the job, and the bastard loots. This is not fair at all as it works atm. If at least we can have a kill right on the thief ! Not even ! I'm bored to run mission for the wallet of others. So I'm up for lvl4 in low sec/null sec. o7
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.16 22:27:00 - [137] Originally by: Angst IronShard I don't see a nerf to move lvl 4 missions in low, I see it as an adjustment. In fact, I'm for a move of the level 4 missions to low sec for only one reason: - To have the right to shoot at the er who steal my final loot. In High sec, a 15 days noob, with a probe ship, can grab your loot too much easily. You did the job, and the bastard loots. This is not fair at all as it works atm. If at least we can have a kill right on the thief ! Not even ! I'm bored to run mission for the wallet of others. So I'm up for lvl4 in low sec/null sec. o7 I assume you mean salvage and not loot because if someone steals loot you do get agro rights. And when he salvages your wrecks its not "stealing" because he created the salvage- with his salvage module. You created the wreck- he created the salvage. Looked at this way it is not stealing- it is competing. If you worked faster you would have gotten that salvage.
Tau Cabalander Caldari	Posted - 2009.12.16 22:57:00 - [138] Edited by: Tau Cabalander on 16/12/2009 22:58:58 Seems like this thread is getting close to triggering Godwin's Law.
Daemonspirit Redhawk Tribal Trust	Posted - 2009.12.17 00:19:00 - [139] Originally by: Gevic TL;DR : Carebears do nothing but take up space. Eve started as a "pure" pvp game. That game topped out at roughly 30K subs, and 10K concurrent users. In a Dev-Blog (I still can't be arsed to find) CCP stated that Eve became financially viable at 50K subs. This says to me that Carebears do more than take up space... ôEveryone has a right to be stupid; some people just abuse the privilege.ö
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.12.17 00:41:00 - [140] Originally by: Angst IronShard I don't see a nerf to move lvl 4 missions in low, I see it as an adjustment. In fact, I'm for a move of the level 4 missions to low sec for only one reason: - To have the right to shoot at the er who steal my final loot. In High sec, a 15 days noob, with a probe ship, can grab your loot too much easily. You did the job, and the bastard loots. This is not fair at all as it works atm. If at least we can have a kill right on the thief ! Not even ! I'm bored to run mission for the wallet of others. So I'm up for lvl4 in low sec/null sec. o7 You can do low sec level 4 and even 5 missions already. You will have access to q20 agents in low sec and you will get more LP and mission pay from them as there is a modificator based on security system to the rewards. So why you don't do them in low sec already?

Le Skunk Low Sec Liberators	Posted - 2009.12.17 01:18:00 - [141] Edited by: Le Skunk on 17/12/2009 01:24:39 Originally by: Vherr Arkhar Also: 6 months after level 4 would get moved to lowsec: Forum thread: "Why level 3s need to be in lowsec." Forum thread2: "Battleship market crash." Forum thread3: "Tengu and Level3's make me fall asleep." THREAD 1: Thread 1 would be ridiculous. Level 3 payouts would be in line with other high sec empire professions and be more in line with the risk/reward ratio currently nominally championed by CCP. Nobody would call for them to be moved to low sec. In fact calling for LV4's to be moved to low sec is only a quick fix to the woefull risk of lv4 missions. If the AI could be significantly improved to provide a fair element of risk, then pvp players would not be required to provide the risk element - it would be inherent in the mission itself. If a mission runner was risk adverse to a sufficent degree to wish to accept the more reasonable payouts for a no risk profession (running lv3s in empire) this would be his choice and I would back it. The current situation however, is that the high sec mission runner (as has been analysed to death in many other threads) currently one of (if not the most) profitable mainstream professions in terms of risk/reward. It is practically impossible for a even semi alert mission runner to lose his ship (barring lag) and the per hour reward totally outruns other low risk options such as mining whilst being comparable to much higher risk options such as belt ratting in 0.0 That is the disparity people are complaining about. Nothing to do with traffic to lowsec. THREAD 2: Battleships are already currently being sold around or even just under insurance value which is ridiculous. In many cases it is profitable to buy a ship - insure - undock - self destruct. So im not too sure where you think the BS market has left to go. THREAD 3: Indeed, in the absecene of: * a move of LV4 missions to lowsec OR * a massive downgrading of rewards for highsec LV4 I would like to see some the rats in these missions being souped up, both in equpiment and AI - to provide a challenge to the mission runner and indeed shock horror some excitement to their lives. Currently, it is an open joke that the opposition is so weak that missions are run semi AFK, with the most challenging aspect of the mission the salvaging of choice wrecks. TLDR: Nerf LV4's - There is really no logical argument not to SKUNK (o)
MatrixSkye Mk2 Minmatar	Posted - 2009.12.17 01:50:00 - [142] Le Skunk, Your argument fails. You preach risk vs rewards, add Lv 4 here and there, and say it's all logical reasoning. But... You gatecamp almost the entire time you log in to play. According to Battleclinic, your last loss was in September, 2009. Gatecamping has virtually ZERO RISK if you even have 1 brain cell active. So I ask you, do you feel gatecamping should be nerfed as well? As soon as one of your scouts notices a fleet on its way to attack your camp you flee. There is NO RISK to your gatecamps. Yet, you see no one wasting their time on nerfing you. I'm just curious why you come up with this logical reasoning that level 4s need nerfing but, your own profession, a profession that is risk-free, I see you make no attempts to have nerfed. Why? Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today!
Iamid Ichabod	Posted - 2009.12.17 06:41:00 - [143] I don't see an imbalance between hi sec MR and low/null/wspace income potential. But, hi sec minig has a bit to be desired. Therefore, I wouldn't mind seeing less loot drops for MR, but like quantities of like mineral producing ores available to high sec miners by some means. The reasoning being is I beleive resources for T1 production should all be available in high sec. Currently, mission drops are the only high sec source for certain minerals at decent quantity in high sec needed for T1 production. Removing T1 drops, but not shifting the minerals to mining would hurt high sec T1 production costs and not help hi sec miners imo. As an aside, often left out of these discussions are how easy it is to train alts for: minig, MR, datacore harvesting, invention, exploration/probing, trading, etc. Further a character may be able to start level 4 missions early in its development, but it is 1 of the most sp intensive for income alts in terms of sp v income potential. Other alt professions seem to have a relatively short training time before they can plateau out. I'd like to see other carrer paths have a similarly long curve (not a nerfing way, but buffing way for those who'd be interested in those carreers for their main).
Space Wanderer	Posted - 2009.12.17 09:31:00 - [144] Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 Your argument fails. You preach risk vs rewards, add Lv 4 here and there, and say it's all logical reasoning. But... You gatecamp almost the entire time you log in to play. According to Battleclinic, your last loss was in September, 2009. Gatecamping has virtually ZERO RISK if you even have 1 brain cell active. So I ask you, do you feel gatecamping should be nerfed as well? Well, I have had many disagreements with leskunk on the piracy part of the game (because you know I am not a pvper, unless you count "running away" as pvp), but the answer to your question question is so easy... Gatecamping is a TEAM activity (call it "zerg" if you like). Le Skunk pays for his safety by sharing the loot with other people (5? 10?). Whom are the mission runners sharing their loot with? Now, if lvl4 required to assemble a 5 person team to be run in decent safety I would agree that they are not over the top. But as they are now? Please... If you want to run missions in complete safety you should reap your rewards from LPs by selling them the market. As highsec miners do. Why should mission runners have so much advantages over highsec miners?
Wet Ferret	Posted - 2009.12.17 09:40:00 - [145] Originally by: Space Wanderer If you want to run missions in complete safety you should reap your rewards from LPs by selling them the market. As highsec miners do. Why should mission runners have so much advantages over highsec miners? That's a silly question. Mining is something you do practically AFK, why does it deserve to be profitable at all? It's fine exactly as it is. But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started. EVE has devs that care about sound? (Ha ha ha! Gotcha. It actually doesn't!)
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.17 09:48:00 - [146] Quote: You can do low sec level 4 and even 5 missions already. You will have access to q20 agents in low sec and you will get more LP and mission pay from them as there is a modificator based on security system to the rewards. So why you don't do them in low sec already? Beware, you'll be pointed at as a riotous, envious, trolling low sec pirate now. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
zigman123 Caldari Caffiene Injection Corporation	Posted - 2009.12.17 09:57:00 - [147] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: You can do low sec level 4 and even 5 missions already. You will have access to q20 agents in low sec and you will get more LP and mission pay from them as there is a modificator based on security system to the rewards. So why you don't do them in low sec already? Beware, you'll be pointed at as a riotous, envious, trolling low sec pirate now. VV, I never took you for a dumb person, but the point he was trying to make is, there is higher paying level 4 missions now that nobody uses (en mass) and the reason is no one wants to mission in low sec. Moving missions to low sec will simply force people to quit the game or drop the extra accounts. Which goes back to the previous revelation that when eve was a PVP game, ccp was loosing money, when they brought carebears on board full tilt, the sub numbers went up 10x.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Brutor tribe	Posted - 2009.12.17 10:03:00 - [148] Quote: VV, I never took you for a dumb person, but the point he was trying to make is, there is higher paying level 4 missions now that nobody uses (en mass) and the reason is no one wants to mission in low sec. I know the point he is making. I am just so laughing at the posts in this thread that I see VM's reply will not even be understood by someone of the parading guerrillas. - Auditing and consulting Before asking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h and http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Wet Ferret	Posted - 2009.12.17 10:14:00 - [149] Edited by: Wet Ferret on 17/12/2009 10:20:24 Quote: So, WTF is worth doing in EvE? It's an endless, super excruciantly easy mode, boring sequence of day by day same routine, ad nauseam. Yeah, well nobody is arguing that. But there are a lot of things to consider between activities, like SP needed, ISK investment, attention required etc. Mining requires so little attention I literally fell asleep doing it and it was still good money even if I got killed every once in awhile cause it was just an Osprey (that's cause I was mining crokite and the zydrine was highly valuable at the time). To reach that point with missions required a lot of specialized combat training and a 1bil + investment (unless I want to do it in a hardcore passive Drake or something, you know, the last word in inefficiency). And I still can't just sit there and tank damage, it's not possible in most missions without a dedicated tank. Also, your mining ships are juicy gank targets? Maybe try something cheaper then, like rohk. You might be interested to know that my mission ship is rarely tanked against EM, I fly in gallente space against mostly serpentis and a cheap, insurable gank harbi could very easily suicide gank it if someone actually could be bothered. But I undock with my 1.2b investment knowing that anyone who really wants to destroy my stuff is 1) waiting in vain for me to come to them and 2) whining on the forums that I'm making a fortune in "complete safety" Edit: but I want to make it clear that I don't hate miners. Many of my in-game buddies are miners, from various highsec corps full of carebear industrialists. They like to mine while doing housework, reading forums, looking at ***, you know.. things you do while mining (ie: other things, since mining apparently doesn't require you to be playing the game). It's just something that when I sit down and think about, I can't say "yeah, this thing needs to be paying more to those who do it". But perhaps you can change my mind But, yeah. These forums seriously need some indicator that the post has ended and the sig has started. EVE has devs that care about sound? (Ha ha ha! Gotcha. It actually* doesn't!)
Space Wanderer	Posted - 2009.12.17 10:52:00 - [150] Edited by: Space Wanderer on 17/12/2009 10:54:32 Originally by: Wet Ferret Originally by: Space Wanderer If you want to run missions in complete safety you should reap your rewards from LPs by selling them the market. As highsec miners do. Why should mission runners have so much advantages over highsec miners? That's a silly question. Mining is something you do practically AFK, why does it deserve to be profitable at all? Last time I checked there's plenty of people missioning in highsec practically AFK. So, I rebound the same question to you: "Why does it deserve to be profitable at all?" Thanks for the assist. You see, nobody in this thread has been able to tell me why mission runners rewards should be unaffected by the market when the rest of eve is completely tied to it.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 .. 13 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.