Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Cearain
Caldari ReSlavers
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 14:53:00 -
[1]
Pirates (when they are truly pirating - as in fighting those who don't really want to pvp) often engage in no risk pvp. The ratters they attack often will not have a scram&web becasue they have to use all their slots to fight the npcs in order to make what they are doing worthwhile. So the pirates can attack them and if things go poorly just warp off. No risk.
There are a few other things that make the pirates task in attacking pve ships extremely low risk when it comes to pvp fights. 1) The pve character will usually be using pve guns. Either long distance guns/missiles or missiles that won't do much damage to smaller ships.
2) They are often specifically tanked for the rats they fight.
3) they often have their tank pushed pretty hard already by the time the pirate comes so the pirate just needs to tip them past/ or even hold them in place and not even shoot.
I think the risk reward for this type of "pvp" is obviously out of whack. This is why so few mission runners stick around when they can't possibly kill the pirate who likes to "pvp" with no risk. I propose some changes that would balance the scales a bit and make a pirate have some risk.
1) Once the pirate attacks any player on grid 60% of the npcs would start attacking him. 60% because the mission runner has the disadvantages enumerated above. (but, whatever, a certain percent of the rats should attack once the pve character is attacked)
2) The npcs should scram the pirate until he/she kills the pve ship.
3) Once the pve ship is killed the npc scrams should drop and the pirate could warp out but he will then, as normal, start to draw the full aggro.
In this system I wouldn't always rather be the pirate than the carebear. It would put some risk into pirating.
|
Altieki Maradir
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 15:13:00 -
[2]
I support this. No-risk PvP shouldn't exist.
|
King Rothgar
Violent By Design Rough Necks
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 15:22:00 -
[3]
Ideally, I'd give all npc's the sleeper AI. That would certainly make attacking a missioner a bit trickier. It would also make missions themselves far more interesting. AFK domi pilots hate that idea though. Sadly they hold so much sway I don't think the change will happen.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 15:38:00 -
[4]
Originally by: King Rothgar Ideally, I'd give all npc's the sleeper AI. That would certainly make attacking a missioner a bit trickier. It would also make missions themselves far more interesting. AFK domi pilots hate that idea though. Sadly they hold so much sway I don't think the change will happen.
CCP always said that the sleeper AI was just the start. but iirc the next step was plexes and officer spawns. but i really hope missions will get sleeper AI, then my corp mates have to tank their ships again and dont rely on me tanking all the time.^^
|
Altieki Maradir
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 16:00:00 -
[5]
Well, a sleeper-esque AI would certainly be good for that. Maybe one the prioritizes damage dealing over EWAR, though, to serve the purpose we're discussing. As long as the aggro triggers are the same (group sizes, proximity range etc.)
|
Grarr Dexx
Amarr GK inc. Panda Team
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 16:13:00 -
[6]
So where's the risk in it for you? They're not the ones engages the NPC pirates, but you are. It doesn't make sense that the NPCs would suddenly start engaging the people who are actually HELPING them kill their aggressor. Also, no-risk pvp in lowsec? Anyone can engage them, hotdrop them, or bring a much larger force to kill them. If they're careful about who they engage and how they react, what's wrong with that? Nothing at all, I say.
This idea is not supported. ___
|
mchief117
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 16:27:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Grarr Dexx So where's the risk in it for you? They're not the ones engages the NPC pirates, but you are. It doesn't make sense that the NPCs would suddenly start engaging the people who are actually HELPING them kill their aggressor. Also, no-risk pvp in lowsec? Anyone can engage them, hotdrop them, or bring a much larger force to kill them. If they're careful about who they engage and how they react, what's wrong with that? Nothing at all, I say.
This idea is not supported.
from what i can tell , 90% of the time when you encounter NPC hostiles and a player its generally under the terms "we were doings something we shouldn't and he found us so we shoot him" so i doubt that some one shooting some one to get rid of witness would care about shooting some one else who came in as they are now a witness to.
granted i dont think that all of the NPC's should change target but a random number perhaps,
|
Cearain
Caldari ReSlavers
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 16:43:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Grarr Dexx So where's the risk in it for you? They're not the ones engages the NPC pirates, but you are. It doesn't make sense that the NPCs would suddenly start engaging the people who are actually HELPING them kill their aggressor. Also, no-risk pvp in lowsec? Anyone can engage them, hotdrop them, or bring a much larger force to kill them. If they're careful about who they engage and how they react, what's wrong with that? Nothing at all, I say.
This idea is not supported.
For me? I'm in faction war so I bust up minmatar missions as much as I have them bust up my missions. I view this as part of the war rather than piracy but for purposes of this thread I am the "pirate" almost as much as I am the "pirated."
Currently I think the mechanics make it absurdly easy when I am the pirate. I can go in with an af against a bc and just try to hold the guy down. If I can take him out I look like some sort of killboard hero bc versus af. If I start to take damage - well I can warp off.
As for why would npcs attack the pirate? I guess in the context of faction war you are right. My own factions shouldn't/and usually don't atttack me. But in your standard mission the npcs attack *anyone* who enters. They rarely wait until you start shooting them. Your invading their space. Even in fw missions the npcs attack neutrals - any neutrals.
As for *anyone* being able to hot drop or bring a larger force or being careful, I agree. The carebear and the pirate are on a level playing field there so I am not suggesting any changes there. I'm just suggesting changes that make the current playing field unbalanced and leads to so many carebears running from pirates or staying in high sec.
I imagine there are pirates who feel like heroes when they risklessly take down a bc in their af with the help of a ton of npc dps. They won't be happy with this proposal. But there are also pirates who want good fights and more people in low sec. I'm just saying balance this currently lopsided encounter out a bit and making some suggestions in that line.
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 18:11:00 -
[9]
I notice you use the words "often" and "usually" many times in your post. "Often" and "usually" do not mean the same as "always" or "never". So what it appears you are saying is that ratters sometimes have webs/scrams, sometimes are omni tanked, and sometimes have guns that would also be used on a pvp fit. If these things do occur, then sometimes the pirate is risking his ship. Unless the pirate has scanned your ship and learned what you have fit, he/she/it will not know when the "sometime" is actually "now". Therefore, it seems prudent and pragmatic for the pirate to always assume the worst; he is at risk.
I do beleive this entire argument is also how PvE'ers justify how they engage in risky activities in regard to rats. Sometimes they mess up aggro, sometimes they get scrammed...therefore PvE (of the combat nature) is not totally "risk free".
Regardless of the validity of the PvE'er argument, I just wanted to point out that by definitional terms the pirate does not engage in "risk free" PvP.
|
Cearain
Caldari ReSlavers
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 18:41:00 -
[10]
Ok, thats fine, we can say pirating "rarely" involves risk because the mission runner "rarely" can effectively mission if he also fits tackle and pvp guns/launchers. I suppose nothing is completely risk free in eve. But when it comes to *pvp* pirating is ridiculously safe. Would you agree?
I'm just thinking what could be safer pvp and can only think of docking games. But the solution there is easy. Don't fight on stations. The solution of: don't mission in low sec is also easy. However, it sort of kills piracy as a profession doesn't it?
My intent is not to demonstrate there is risk in high sec missions. (of course there is,but that is beside the point) My intent is to bring a realistic balance to tactical level of low sec mission running and piracy. Because right now pirates have it too easy. In fact they have it so easy no one wants to be in the low sec mission runner shoes and therefore "piracy" is no real profession at all.
|
|
Evelgrivion
Ignatium. Aggressive Dissonance
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 18:47:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Cearain Ok, thats fine, we can say pirating "rarely" involves risk because the mission runner "rarely" can effectively mission if he also fits tackle and pvp guns/launchers. I suppose nothing is completely risk free in eve. But when it comes to *pvp* pirating is ridiculously safe. Would you agree?
I'm just thinking what could be safer pvp and can only think of docking games. But the solution there is easy. Don't fight on stations. The solution of: don't mission in low sec is also easy. However, it sort of kills piracy as a profession doesn't it?
My intent is not to demonstrate there is risk in high sec missions. (of course there is,but that is beside the point) My intent is to bring a realistic balance to tactical level of low sec mission running and piracy. Because right now pirates have it too easy. In fact they have it so easy no one wants to be in the low sec mission runner shoes and therefore "piracy" is no real profession at all.
The intent is somewhat noble, I'll give you that, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Mechanics like this are yet another newb cushion that makes no sense from an RP perspective. All it really does protect someone who already made the mistake of sticking in a belt to kill rats while someone was or could be on the prowl for them.
The only way lowsec is going to become good is for there to be a lot more of it (it's a pretty small chunk of the overall universe really), level 4s get their profitability gutted and lowsec starts carrying materials that people want or need and can't get anywhere else.
|
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 19:44:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Slade Hoo on 15/03/2010 19:46:24 Pirate NPCs suddenly attacking Pirates is utter bull****. And no, its only "no risk pvp" because you have a crappy pve-fitting that is useless in pvp. PvE is harder in lowsec/0.0 so adapt to it with a fitting that suits both pve and pvp. There are lots of pve fittings involving cap booster, omni damage resists and shortrange guns which are a first step for a capable lowsec mission fitting. I used that kind of fitting in highsec and it worked for all lvl 4 missions. Amarr and Minmatar are very good choices for this. But they of course aren't specialized pve-fittings suited for maximum performance in highsec.
Use them and you may get a chance vs. pirates.
Adapt (your fitting) or die. As simple as that. ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 20:06:00 -
[13]
Sometimes an idea comes along that is just so bad, I have to comment. This is one of those ideas. And it's not just this idea in particular, it's the ENTIRE CLASS of ideas that this idea belongs to.
A while back I fixed my sec by missioning in lowsec. I missioned a LOT. I got jumped by pirates while missioning, a LOT. I killed them all. Never lost my "missioning" ship. Why? Because I'm not some idiot carebear.
Your three items you list about mission runners: PVE guns/fit, specific tank for NPCs and a tank pushed to it's limit just to fight NPCs: DON'T DO THAT. The only reason to do that is because you're super greedy and want every last little ISK/hour.
One specific occasion I had two Sleipnirs attack me in a mission when I was in my Dominix. I had full aggro from all the NPCs and of course I could see them (the Sleipnirs) coming from a mile away once they finally probed me out. Each Sleipnir had over ONE BILLION in faction/deadspace fittings, not including the HG crystal sets of the pilots. They both died. Because I'm not a carebear.
THE ONLY REASON MISSION RUNNERS DIE IN LOWSEC IS BECAUSE THEY'RE STUPID AND MADE A MISTAKE. That's it. You can mission in a fully PVP fit ship. I do it all the time. It's easy.
The only reason there's 'no risk' to pirates when they attack mission runners is because that mission runner chose to not provide any risk. It's not up to CCP to provide that risk for you.
Worst idea ever. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
ddred
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 20:14:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Sometimes an idea comes along that is just so bad, I have to comment. This is one of those ideas. And it's not just this idea in particular, it's the ENTIRE CLASS of ideas that this idea belongs to.
A while back I fixed my sec by missioning in lowsec. I missioned a LOT. I got jumped by pirates while missioning, a LOT. I killed them all. Never lost my "missioning" ship. Why? Because I'm not some idiot carebear.
Your three items you list about mission runners: PVE guns/fit, specific tank for NPCs and a tank pushed to it's limit just to fight NPCs: DON'T DO THAT. The only reason to do that is because you're super greedy and want every last little ISK/hour.
One specific occasion I had two Sleipnirs attack me in a mission when I was in my Dominix. I had full aggro from all the NPCs and of course I could see them (the Sleipnirs) coming from a mile away once they finally probed me out. Each Sleipnir had over ONE BILLION in faction/deadspace fittings, not including the HG crystal sets of the pilots. They both died. Because I'm not a carebear.
THE ONLY REASON MISSION RUNNERS DIE IN LOWSEC IS BECAUSE THEY'RE STUPID AND MADE A MISTAKE. That's it. You can mission in a fully PVP fit ship. I do it all the time. It's easy.
The only reason there's 'no risk' to pirates when they attack mission runners is because that mission runner chose to not provide any risk. It's not up to CCP to provide that risk for you.
Worst idea ever.
^ This
Also, it makes the AI seem dumber. "I'm being killed, oh look someone's here to kill the person who's killing me. I guess I'll kill him and save the person who's killing me. Aren't I smart?"
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 20:33:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Cearain Ok, thats fine, we can say pirating "rarely" involves risk because the mission runner "rarely" can effectively mission if he also fits tackle and pvp guns/launchers. I suppose nothing is completely risk free in eve. But when it comes to *pvp* pirating is ridiculously safe. Would you agree?
1) "effective" does not mean "most efficient for running a mission". It seems to me that an effective fit must take into consideration all the scenario's one will encounter in some way. An effective setup in highsec is much different than an effective setup for lowsec given that the likelyhood of being PvP'd is lower. As the likelyhood of pvp increases (even inside highsec) the risks associated with those changes must be considered.
2)If your main concern is, really, that in certain circumstances the attackers are at very little risk then we are dealing with an entirely different beast. For example, if I take my rifter out to lowsec and a group of people in t2 frigs attacks me, there is very little danger or "risk" to them. Should we change game mechanics to only allow even fights? What about gang/fleet warfare? Should there be a mechanic where one side can invalidate the use of certain ship types or numbers because it would mean the other side has a clear advantage and runs little risk of being defeated? I.E. I get to chose whether you can use ECM boats/ logistics?
All that said; would i love the opportunity to mission with almost little (comparitive) risk from solo pirates in lowsec? Oh HELLZ YEAH! Do i think that your ideas would do anything but create more blobs.... no :( But hey, EvE has changed since i was playing last so maybe people dont use overwhlming force anymore.
P.S.- if piracy is not a real proffession any longer, then it seems as if we are discussing something that doesnt take place (mission busting)
|
Cearain
Caldari ReSlavers
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 21:08:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Sometimes an idea comes along that is just so bad, I have to comment. This is one of those ideas. And it's not just this idea in particular, it's the ENTIRE CLASS of ideas that this idea belongs to...
Your post is indeed such a bad idea. Your whole idea of posting like this "Let grandpa tell you a story about when I was missioning and how I had thousands of rats coming yet I still managed to take out a fleet of titans because I'm a pvp tiger RAAAWWRRR!"
Yep your silly "anecdotal story" arguments constitute an entire class of fallacious reasoning that this board can do without.
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
A while back I fixed my sec by missioning in lowsec. I missioned a LOT. I got jumped by pirates while missioning, a LOT. I killed them all. Never lost my "missioning" ship. Why? Because I'm not some idiot carebear.
Your three items you list about mission runners: PVE guns/fit, specific tank for NPCs and a tank pushed to it's limit just to fight NPCs: DON'T DO THAT. The only reason to do that is because you're super greedy and want every last little ISK/hour...
Grandpa wasn't greedy no. In fact he gave all the isk he earned to the sisterhood. All those people who mission for the isk are just greedy.
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
One specific occasion I had two Sleipnirs attack me in a mission when I was in my Dominix. I had full aggro from all the NPCs and of course I could see them (the Sleipnirs) coming from a mile away once they finally probed me out. Each Sleipnir had over ONE BILLION in faction/deadspace fittings, not including the HG crystal sets of the pilots. They both died. Because I'm not a carebear..
No they both died because you are so UUUUBER. I bet you didn't even have to use guns. I bet you just looked at those pathetic pirates and they died immediately. Perhaps they died trying to pull those implants out of their head to give to you, in all your uberness.
As it stands almost no one but superstars like you mission in low sec. If you want consider why that may be and even entertain the idea that maybe *just maybe* the odds are stacked against the mission runner who is getting agro I'm interested in your thoughts. But if you want give me more of your hero stories ... well then I will assume logic is not your bag.
|
Cearain
Caldari ReSlavers
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 21:26:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Slade Hoo Edited by: Slade Hoo on 15/03/2010 19:50:22 Edited by: Slade Hoo on 15/03/2010 19:48:51 Pirate NPCs suddenly attacking Pirates is utter bull****.
Yeah right. I can hear you now "Hey we are all on the same side right? I mean we are all "bad guys"! Us bad guys need to stick together. So why are you attacking me!?" NPC pirates attack everyone.
Yeah mission runners could split their profits in half or a third by bringing multiple people who happen to want to mission at the exact same time. Great idea just more ships to gank.
As far as alternating fittings I agree pilots should do that. But there needs to be some balance. I mean with the current mechanics its way too hard and definitely not worth it. Your best low sec mission set ups are ones that do dps to your rats some tank your rats and have the added ability to gtfo. Not the added ability to stay around to pvp. Thats just stupid to do when you are taking all the agro from npcs.
Adapt your fitting or die? Are those the only options? How about stay in high sec to mission until there is some balance in the game mechanice when pirates come to crash the mission? Isn't that the better option? It seems the vast majority of eve players think so.
|
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 21:38:00 -
[18]
Originally by: ddred Also, it makes the AI more human. "I'm killing this idiot, oh look someone's here to kill the person I'm killing. I guess I'll kill him to prevent him from stealing my kill. Aren't I smart?"
Yeah, sorry, but that's works better for me if you really need a RP point of view. Then again I don't RP, so doesn't matter to me.
Concerning the change, well, that's one way of doing it. Two things remain certain though:
1. Pirates would like to see more soft targets, ideally in lowsec. 2. Highsec mission runners will not go to lowsec unless something changes.
Now, we can argue about how it should be done, but IMO boosting the rewards is pointless. I heard a nice statement from some guy in another thread earlier, and I think that says it all:
Originally by: Botrias Pirabus Tell someone you'll give them 100m, but only if they can sprint through a minefield while people shoot them in the face, and chances are, they'll pass.
Basically, I think lowering the risk is the only way to success, and as mentioned above, this is one way to go about it.
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 21:51:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Cearain As far as alternating fittings I agree pilots should do that. But there needs to be some balance. I mean with the current mechanics its way too hard and definitely not worth it. Your best low sec mission set ups are ones that do dps to your rats some tank your rats and have the added ability to gtfo. Not the added ability to stay around to pvp. Thats just stupid to do when you are taking all the agro from npcs.
Unless you discount Bellum's post as mere lies, fighting and winning against the odds is definately possible. Therefore it is not necessarily stupid to set up your ship to stick around. Or do you mean it is stupid to engage in pvp when you do not have a clear advantage over your opponent?
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 22:10:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Fille Balle 1. Pirates would like to see more soft targets, ideally in lowsec.
I would like to see building civilian modules become more profitable. It falls well below the ISK/hr rates of all other professions.
And no, I refuse to do something else that might be more profitable and/or fun.
|
|
whose joe
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 00:31:00 -
[21]
Edited by: whose joe on 16/03/2010 00:31:36
|
Exlegion
Caldari Salva Veritate
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 00:52:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro Unless you discount Bellum's post as mere lies...
Bellum's "advice" is ill and more of a bitter rant. His advice is akin to a dedicated mission runner pompously scolding pirates because he can do the job better. He is a known troll when it comes to anything having to do with mission-running.
He left out (whether deliberately or out of ignorance) the most important factors in low sec mission-running; profits and efficiency. If you're going to do it for profit you'll soon find you're better off in high sec rather than in a PVP fit in low sec. Any decent mission runner would figure this out sooner rather than later.
To be honest, his post (and others posts dealing with carebearism/mission-running) is more hateful vitriol and shouldn't be taken to be more than that.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 01:16:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Sometimes an idea comes along that is just so bad, I have to comment. This is one of those ideas. And it's not just this idea in particular, it's the ENTIRE CLASS of ideas that this idea belongs to.
A while back I fixed my sec by missioning in lowsec. I missioned a LOT. I got jumped by pirates while missioning, a LOT. I killed them all. Never lost my "missioning" ship. Why? Because I'm not some idiot carebear.
Your three items you list about mission runners: PVE guns/fit, specific tank for NPCs and a tank pushed to it's limit just to fight NPCs: DON'T DO THAT. The only reason to do that is because you're super greedy and want every last little ISK/hour.
One specific occasion I had two Sleipnirs attack me in a mission when I was in my Dominix. I had full aggro from all the NPCs and of course I could see them (the Sleipnirs) coming from a mile away once they finally probed me out. Each Sleipnir had over ONE BILLION in faction/deadspace fittings, not including the HG crystal sets of the pilots. They both died. Because I'm not a carebear.
THE ONLY REASON MISSION RUNNERS DIE IN LOWSEC IS BECAUSE THEY'RE STUPID AND MADE A MISTAKE. That's it. You can mission in a fully PVP fit ship. I do it all the time. It's easy.
The only reason there's 'no risk' to pirates when they attack mission runners is because that mission runner chose to not provide any risk. It's not up to CCP to provide that risk for you.
Worst idea ever.
indeed.
and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. why would the npcs shoot someone attacking the person shooting at them?
and if you want to run lowsec missions for profit your first concern should be getting a blue to/from the pirates in the area.
|
Exlegion
Caldari Salva Veritate
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 11:48:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton and if you want to run lowsec missions for profit your first concern should be getting a blue to/from the pirates in the area.
This sounds good in theory. But from experience I can tell you that pirates aren't interested in blue-ing potential targets. I've even offered my carrier to defend the system against future eneimes. Their response is usually followed with a "comical" comment along the lines of "pay each one of us 100 million isk every day hehe".
Now I'm not saying don't ask, because it's the first thing I do when I make a new home out of low sec. What I am saying is don't hold your breath on this one.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 12:17:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Slade Hoo on 16/03/2010 12:19:03
Originally by: Exlegion If you're going to do it for profit you'll soon find you're better off in high sec rather than in a PVP fit in low sec.
If you have access to highsec, then run missions there...where is the problem? You simply want to do missions in lowsec as you would do in highsec. You don't want to adapt your fitting and you want to do it alone without blue standings or bring some friends to share your profits. This isn't possible. Lowsec/0.0 isn't highsec ffs! You want higher profits in lowsec but at a minimum risk and maximum isk-output. You're simply spoiled by highsec and nothing more.
Bellum is no troll at all. All that he said is 100% correct.
P.S.: If you don't get blue standings in that specific lowsec area you can do what every player has to do to get access to valuable ressources in lowsec/0.0: - Join corp/ally of the locals - bring friends and conquer the area for your demands.
Ressources in lowsec/0.0 aren't available for every player in EVE. You have to work for it. I for myself want to have some technetium moons and access to 10/10 complexes, but everytime i want to access them i get shot in no-risk pvp by some evil pirates...ehh...0.0 alliances. ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
Exlegion
Caldari Salva Veritate
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 13:12:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Exlegion on 16/03/2010 13:16:40
Originally by: Slade Hoo Edited by: Slade Hoo on 16/03/2010 12:19:03 If you have access to highsec, then run missions there...where is the problem? You simply want to do missions in lowsec as you would do in highsec. You don't want to adapt your fitting and you want to do it alone without blue standings or bring some friends to share your profits. This isn't possible. Lowsec/0.0 isn't highsec ffs!
It always perplexes me as to why those that don't know are the ones that love to criticise and ridicule. I'm sure you're good at pirating and I won't go into that. Is there a chance you could leave the low sec mission advice to those that have some experience rather than offer your hateful "insights"?
I've been running low sec missions for years now and I happen to get blue standings from local corps but almost never from pirates. They just aren't interested. You saying otherwise doesn't change the fact. And running missions on a PVP fit is for players wanting to kill time and aren't interested in efficiency; not for players running missions for profit. And that PVP fit won't help you against that 5-man gank mob anyway.
Quote: You want higher profits in lowsec but at a minimum risk and maximum isk-output. You're simply spoiled by highsec and nothing more.
Again, this is just hateful rhetoric against mission runners. What I want is better profits than what I'd make in high sec, this after taking everything else into account (sharing with other players, downtime, etc.). But honestly, this isn't something I expect you to understand. For some reason it is difficult for some of you.
Quote: Bellum is no troll at all. All that he said is 100% correct.
IMO, his posting history proves otherwise. This isn't the first time he posts some hateful bitter rant against mission runners.
But in the end there is abolustely no reason to continue in discussing this with you as it is a massive waste of time.
One of us equals many of us. Disrespect one of us, you'll see plenty of us. - Gang Starr |
JeanLuc Blindtard
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 13:40:00 -
[27]
In high sec I run missions in a pve fit raven and have a pvp ship on standby in case a pirate comes to steal.
(I only engage the bait ship and hope I kill it before hes help arrives :D:D )
In low sec I run missions in pvp fit legion.
In 0.0 I run anoms in pve fit abaddon with warp sram on it. Or a raven with 2 heavy neuts.
So the way it is now I see it as ok.
If I'd change anything about the runing missions thing, is giveng aggro to the salvaging. So I can kill those that come and salvage my wrecks..
|
Cearain
Caldari ReSlavers
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 14:22:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Slade Hoo Edited by: Slade Hoo on 16/03/2010 12:19:03
Originally by: Exlegion If you're going to do it for profit you'll soon find you're better off in high sec rather than in a PVP fit in low sec.
If you have access to highsec, then run missions there...where is the problem?
Many people said piracy needs a boost. Many people say they wish some mission runners would come into low sec. But even you can crack the code that its silly to do that. Change the mechanics a bit and instead of pirates having virtually no targets to shoot they will have some (albeit challenging) targets to shoot.
As far as bluing with the local pirates: At least where I fly in low sec it seems the majority of pirates are members of 2-6 member corps. Am I to pay them all off? Also I tend not to ask so they don't know my intentions. I don't want "mision runner" painted on my forehead. Either tiny corps or the big pirate corps - and with them I don't think I would be willing to pay what they ask.(although I haven't tried mainly because I don't want to be labeled as a mission runner) But I go through so many different systems in what I do - fw missions - nobody "controls" the space. You just get too many random ships to even think its possible to economically pay them all off. Maybe if there was just one or 2 systems you hit it would be a good idea. I would defer to those who have experience in that.
I just gtfo when pirates come. As do most low sec mission runners I would bet. But hey I don't really care. If you want the vast majority of mission runners to stay in high sec then keep the mechanic as it is. I'm surprised there aren't more pirates taking my side on this. Maybe they think what I propose is too strong but surely some pirates would like some ships to pirate. Are there plenty of low sec mission runners as it is?
|
Skex Relbore
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 17:41:00 -
[29]
Bellum is of the same school of thought that so many of the "Elite PVPer" like suicide gankers, can flippers, gatecampers and other soft target "pirates" who think that risk vs reward means that their victims take all the risk while the pirates reap all the rewards.
These are the same folks who honestly believe that if L4 missions were moved to low sec that more people would come there in their pretty CNR's to get ganked.
Don't expect rational thoughts from them much less support for anything resembling an idea that might take their "IWIN" button away.
|
Epicbeardman
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 18:24:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus One specific occasion I had two Sleipnirs attack me in a mission when I was in my Dominix. I had full aggro from all the NPCs and of course I could see them (the Sleipnirs) coming from a mile away once they finally probed me out. Each Sleipnir had over ONE BILLION in faction/deadspace fittings, not including the HG crystal sets of the pilots. They both died. Because I'm not a carebear.
I'd love to see that kill-mail.
|
|
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 18:49:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Epicbeardman
I'd love to see that kill-mail.
capless sleipnir is dead sleipnir. heavy neuts ftw! ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 18:56:00 -
[32]
1)Well I have seen a lot of character attacks on Bellum but not a lot of rational explanations for why he is wrong outside of "he is troll; he is irrational;etc". Can someone make specific refutations of his arguments? Attacking the character of an interlocouter does not, unfortunately, make a valid argument.
2)Given that there are pirates in lowsec and given that there are (supposedly) very few mission runners in lowsec, the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn is either that pirates will play the game with no "soft" targets in lowsec (ie they are content with "hard" targets)... or there are more "soft" targets than people expect. If the latter is true then it makes me wonder about the validity of the "efficiency" argument. As Cearain evidently runs mission in lowsec is he just "stupid" for doing so? Or do the rewards he gets outweigh the risks? If reward is greater than risk, and risk is currently very high, then what is being asked for is making an already lucrative venture even more so. I do not see this as a valid reason to change game mechanics. But thats my opinion.
3) I thought all the "pirates" that only want soft targets were already in Highsec wardec'ing, suicide ganking, can flipping, etc..
|
Daniel Cordova
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 19:08:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro 1)Well I have seen a lot of character attacks on Bellum but not a lot of rational explanations for why he is wrong outside of "he is troll; he is irrational;etc".
Originally by: Bellum Eternus THE ONLY REASON MISSION RUNNERS DIE IN LOWSEC IS BECAUSE THEY'RE STUPID
I see what you mean. I also can't see why he'd be called a troll. It just doesn't make any sense.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 19:11:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Epicbeardman
Originally by: Bellum Eternus One specific occasion I had two Sleipnirs attack me in a mission when I was in my Dominix. I had full aggro from all the NPCs and of course I could see them (the Sleipnirs) coming from a mile away once they finally probed me out. Each Sleipnir had over ONE BILLION in faction/deadspace fittings, not including the HG crystal sets of the pilots. They both died. Because I'm not a carebear.
I'd love to see that kill-mail.
It's on my corp killboard if you want to find it. Look for an engagement with two virtually identical Sleipnir (faction) fits, in lowsec, and I was flying a Dominix if I recall correctly. Also- the ISK amount I quoted for the fitting cost was how much the Sleipnir pilots said they spent per ship, as I talked to them just after the fight. They had just finished putting their ships together.
Also- **** you for doubting me. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 19:17:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Daniel Cordova
Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro 1)Well I have seen a lot of character attacks on Bellum but not a lot of rational explanations for why he is wrong outside of "he is troll; he is irrational;etc".
Originally by: Bellum Eternus THE ONLY REASON MISSION RUNNERS DIE IN LOWSEC IS BECAUSE THEY'RE STUPID
I see what you mean. I also can't see why he'd be called a troll. It just doesn't make any sense.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (I just *know* you will), but this is how I view ship losses:
#1. It's a calculated risk. As in: Okay guys, we're going to use this ship as bait, but it's fully insured (lol) so we won't lose any ISK. And in the overall balance of the engagement you come out ahead vis a vis ship losses. To me that is a 'non stupid' loss of a ship.
#2. (And this is where all the carebears fit in) YOU were stupid, YOU made a mistake and now YOU have to deal with the loss of your ship. For whatever reason, the fault lies with YOU the pilot. You got lazy, you got careless, you were complacent, you were too sure of yourself. Whatever the reason, it all falls back on you the pilot. How can this not be the case?
I'm not trolling. I'm trying to point out that the responsibility for survival rests solely with the pilot of the ship, not everyone else around him/her. If you want your hand held and your diaper changed, stay in high sec. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 19:26:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus If you want your hand held and your diaper changed, stay in high sec.
I didn't want to post in this thread because it is so stupid it isn't worth bumping up on the list. However since it is at the top of the list I will go ahead and say that Bellum is 100% correct.
The problem isn't with low sec mechanics. The problem is the people who fear even the idea of low sec and the people who refuse to understand it.
|
Nick Bete
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 19:28:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
If you want your hand held and your diaper changed, stay in high sec.
And people are doing just that in large numbers, but then guys like you complain about having no targets and want the game changed so that people are forced to come to you, i.e., the monthly "nerf L4 missions" threads.
|
Zercix
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 19:29:00 -
[38]
From my recent reads it seems that I may be a lowsec carebear. I am running missions, level 2's currently, and ratting in low sec. I get a thrill out of trying not to get caught. Just got busted again, this weekend. Lost my Retribution and the pirates were not happy since it was tech 2 and meta 1 fit
I think it would be stupid if the NPC battleship I was taking out and the two crusier escorts would have switched fire on the two BS pirates that engaged me. I doubt I will be moving on to level 3's or 4's anytime soon since there are so many skills that I have yet to play with. I plan on not having many issues with loosing ships when I do move onto level 3's. If I get in a hard spot after moving up in ship class I will just drop to previous avenue for isk production, replenish the isk and minerals, rebuild the ship, and try again.
If low sec ores of all levels started showing up in low sec missions I would be very happy though
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 19:38:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Zercix From my recent reads it seems that I may be a lowsec carebear. I am running missions, level 2's currently, and ratting in low sec. I get a thrill out of trying not to get caught. Just got busted again, this weekend. Lost my Retribution and the pirates were not happy since it was tech 2 and meta 1 fit
I think it would be stupid if the NPC battleship I was taking out and the two crusier escorts would have switched fire on the two BS pirates that engaged me. I doubt I will be moving on to level 3's or 4's anytime soon since there are so many skills that I have yet to play with. I plan on not having many issues with loosing ships when I do move onto level 3's. If I get in a hard spot after moving up in ship class I will just drop to previous avenue for isk production, replenish the isk and minerals, rebuild the ship, and try again.
If low sec ores of all levels started showing up in low sec missions I would be very happy though
I wouldn't classify yourself as a carebear of any sort. Clearly you're an intelligent and reasonable pilot who takes responsibility for his own actions and losses.
Carebears (by my personal definition) are those players who make mistakes in the game (autopiloting haulers with billions in loot and then getting suicide ganked is a good example) and then cry that it's the games fault for not taking care of them and protecting them. Same with low sec mission running.
I tip my (pirate) hat to you good sir.
Also, I don't know if you have a corp or not, but evemail me in game if you're looking for a leg up. I'd be happy to help someone such as yourself succeed in Eve. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Skex Relbore
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 22:03:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Zercix From my recent reads it seems that I may be a lowsec carebear. I am running missions, level 2's currently, and ratting in low sec. I get a thrill out of trying not to get caught. Just got busted again, this weekend. Lost my Retribution and the pirates were not happy since it was tech 2 and meta 1 fit
I think it would be stupid if the NPC battleship I was taking out and the two crusier escorts would have switched fire on the two BS pirates that engaged me. I doubt I will be moving on to level 3's or 4's anytime soon since there are so many skills that I have yet to play with. I plan on not having many issues with loosing ships when I do move onto level 3's. If I get in a hard spot after moving up in ship class I will just drop to previous avenue for isk production, replenish the isk and minerals, rebuild the ship, and try again.
If low sec ores of all levels started showing up in low sec missions I would be very happy though
I wouldn't classify yourself as a carebear of any sort. Clearly you're an intelligent and reasonable pilot who takes responsibility for his own actions and losses.
Carebears (by my personal definition) are those players who make mistakes in the game (autopiloting haulers with billions in loot and then getting suicide ganked is a good example) and then cry that it's the games fault for not taking care of them and protecting them. Same with low sec mission running.
I tip my (pirate) hat to you good sir.
Also, I don't know if you have a corp or not, but evemail me in game if you're looking for a leg up. I'd be happy to help someone such as yourself succeed in Eve.
Ah redefining Carebear again I see.
It seems to me that your definition of Carebear is what ever is convinient for you too attack at a given moment.
People who run missions in high sec instead of low aren't stupid. They've done the risk/effort vs reward calculations and determined that the payoff isn't worth the risk.
The only way to get more people to decide to mission in low sec (and give you more targets) is to change the variables so that a different conclusion is reached.
As it stands now missioning in low sec is extremely risky with very little upside. The pirates have most of the advantage. They have the innitiative they get to choose whether they engage or not and when. The missioner either has to make sacrifices to efficiency or else they aren't going to be equipped properly to defend themselves. Which means that the reward side of the equation goes down. Further the missioner generally gets to start any engagement already damaged.
It's not stupidity to avoid missioning in low sec is basic sensible behavior.
Even in your example you weren't missioning for ISK (which is why most people mission in highsec) you were missioning for standings. One can reasonably conclude that had your security status been sufficient you'd have been missioning in high sec unless you were a complete idiot.
The problem stated is that not enough people are willing to mission in low sec. Now lots of these mission runners in high sec are also PVPers who are perfectly happy to go get ships blown up when they have a reasonable chance of winning and not all of them are idiots so why don't they come down to low sec to mission?
Because they are sensible rational individuals who calculate the risk vs reward and come to a rational conclusion that it isn't worth their time.
The solution is to either lower the risk to the mission runner by either tilting the odds of winning an engagement back into their favor or increase the rewards to the point where the risk vs reward favors the riskier activity. Or some mixture of the two.
|
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 22:24:00 -
[41]
@ skex
I've been perfectly consistent with my use of the word carebear. And I agree that the high sec noobs have made the correct assessment- high sec is much too profitable compared to lowsec.
As I have always said, lowsec missions need to be far more profitable than they are now, and high sec needs a massive nerf.
Thr way to get the lowsec population up is to make it immensely profitable to operate there, not make it safer. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Ogogov
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 18:39:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus @ skex
I've been perfectly consistent with my use of the word carebear. And I agree that the high sec noobs have made the correct assessment- high sec is much too profitable compared to lowsec.
As I have always said, lowsec missions need to be far more profitable than they are now, and high sec needs a massive nerf.
Thr way to get the lowsec population up is to make it immensely profitable to operate there, not make it safer.
Nerfing hisec will result in nothing but the markets slowing down, cheaper ships being used for missioning and prices for items dependent on salvage and mission loot going up.
It won't make anyone more likely to travel out to low sec because the risk/reward calculation High Sec mission runners use isn't entirely based on numbers - unsurprisingly people don't seem to enjoy waking up in a new clone after they saw blink blink on their overview.
Lowsec is already plenty profitable if you head out with a decent scanning covops... but it's really not worth the bother. Making it less attractive to mission in high sec will STILL not make it worth the bother, because it's ultimately preferable to many people to slowly accumulate wealth with no risk than to gamble with their clone/ship for the higher gains. If you nerf that wealth generating ability in hisec, people will just accumulate wealth that much slower.
Until there's a 'fun' mechanic involved in running low sec pipes, nobody's going to bother. It might come as a surprise to you that getting your industrial splattered by six hurricanes sitting on a gate isn't really fun for alot of people.
|
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 18:58:00 -
[43]
PVE fitted ships are optimised, just as PVP ships are optimised to fufill one given role. Demanding that CCP changes elements of the games mechanics to favour one or other group is just illogical.
You could equally say "mining ships are vulnerable to combat ships - CCP should change the game mechanics so that combat ships automatically blow up if they lock a mining ship; this is only fair because mining ships cant shhot back". It's a nuts idea.
If you want to solo PVE mission content then yes, you'll sacrifice your ability to counter a "PVP" ship thats not optimised in that fashion. Have you consider that perhaps the content you're attempting could be completed with non-PVE fitted ships as a group? No? I thought perhaps not.
C.
the hydrostatic capsule blog
|
Cassidy Solo
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 19:18:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus Sometimes an idea comes along that is just so bad, I have to comment. This is one of those ideas. And it's not just this idea in particular, it's the ENTIRE CLASS of ideas that this idea belongs to.
A while back I fixed my sec by missioning in lowsec. I missioned a LOT. I got jumped by pirates while missioning, a LOT. I killed them all. Never lost my "missioning" ship. Why? Because I'm not some idiot carebear.
Your three items you list about mission runners: PVE guns/fit, specific tank for NPCs and a tank pushed to it's limit just to fight NPCs: DON'T DO THAT. The only reason to do that is because you're super greedy and want every last little ISK/hour.
One specific occasion I had two Sleipnirs attack me in a mission when I was in my Dominix. I had full aggro from all the NPCs and of course I could see them (the Sleipnirs) coming from a mile away once they finally probed me out. Each Sleipnir had over ONE BILLION in faction/deadspace fittings, not including the HG crystal sets of the pilots. They both died. Because I'm not a carebear.
THE ONLY REASON MISSION RUNNERS DIE IN LOWSEC IS BECAUSE THEY'RE STUPID AND MADE A MISTAKE. That's it. You can mission in a fully PVP fit ship. I do it all the time. It's easy.
The only reason there's 'no risk' to pirates when they attack mission runners is because that mission runner chose to not provide any risk. It's not up to CCP to provide that risk for you.
Worst idea ever.
First off, I am calling you a liar. I also would bet money that your "missions" were level 1 or level 2. I'm sure that while you were running your level 1 missions, you fought off an entire army of Titans.
Originally by: Slade Hoo Edited by: Slade Hoo on 15/03/2010 19:50:22 Edited by: Slade Hoo on 15/03/2010 19:48:51 Pirate NPCs suddenly attacking Pirates is utter bull****. And no, its only "no risk pvp" because you have a crappy pve-fitting that is useless in pvp. PvE is harder in lowsec/0.0 so adapt to it with a fitting that suits both pve and pvp. There are lots of pve fittings involving cap booster, omni damage resists and shortrange guns which are a first step for a capable lowsec mission fitting. I used that kind of fitting in highsec and it worked for all lvl 4 missions. Amarr and Minmatar are very good choices for this. But they of course aren't specialized pve-fittings suited for maximum performance in highsec. You also have the option to bring a friend and do missions together which will further improve your survivability.
Use them and you may get a chance vs. pirates. If your demand is to do highsec-missionrunning-style in lowsec, you're wrong.
Adapt (your fitting) or die. As simple as that.
Have you ever tried running an L5 with a PVP-setup? I thought so. I'm you don't even have high enough standings for an L4 agent, let alone an L5. Hard to "omni-tank" when you have 2800+ incoming DPS, and 8 neut towers that can empty your cap in 15 seconds. Until they give me a 100,000m3 cargohold to hold Cap Booster 800's, I can't run a PVP fit with a Cap Booster that works without constant warp-outs, and hopefully a large stash of cap boosters somewhere.
|
Cassidy Solo
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 19:38:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro
Originally by: Cearain As far as alternating fittings I agree pilots should do that. But there needs to be some balance. I mean with the current mechanics its way too hard and definitely not worth it. Your best low sec mission set ups are ones that do dps to your rats some tank your rats and have the added ability to gtfo. Not the added ability to stay around to pvp. Thats just stupid to do when you are taking all the agro from npcs.
Unless you discount Bellum's post as mere lies, fighting and winning against the odds is definately possible. Therefore it is not necessarily stupid to set up your ship to stick around. Or do you mean it is stupid to engage in pvp when you do not have a clear advantage over your opponent?
Yep, I'm discounting Bellum's post as mere lies. All he does is post about how awesome he is, and how carebears are evil people who don't know how to play the game and they are all stupid, blah blah blah. Bellum is a 10 year old kid trying to make himself appear to be some amazing player. Unfortunately, we as an EVE community have to deal with the consequences of letting mentally handicapped people copulate and reproduce. Otherwise Bellum would never have been born.
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
indeed.
and the enemy of my enemy is my friend. why would the npcs shoot someone attacking the person shooting at them?
and if you want to run lowsec missions for profit your first concern should be getting a blue to/from the pirates in the area.
Yeah, first off, that isn't going to happen. Why would the pirates want you as blue? All they do all day is complain about how few targets they have, and then they would set potential targets as blue? No, it doesn't happen. Not to mention, the vast amounts of different people who traverse the lowsec systems in their PVP roams makes it impossible to be set friendly for even the majority of people that go through an area. I make notes about each group that comes through my lowsec home. I've had over 1600 UNIQUE people come through (While I was online keeping tabs) the system in four months that I've been there. Of those, I've had 116 people who have been in the system more than 20 times in that time period, a few have been solo, most of those have been in groups. There are 14 distinct roam fleets that come in regularly, and a small handful of fleets that have been in a few times, but not regularly. There would be no way to get blue status with everyone.
Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro
2)Given that there are pirates in lowsec and given that there are (supposedly) very few mission runners in lowsec, the most reasonable conclusion to be drawn is either that pirates will play the game with no "soft" targets in lowsec (ie they are content with "hard" targets)... or there are more "soft" targets than people expect. If the latter is true then it makes me wonder about the validity of the "efficiency" argument. As Cearain evidently runs mission in lowsec is he just "stupid" for doing so? Or do the rewards he gets outweigh the risks? If reward is greater than risk, and risk is currently very high, then what is being asked for is making an already lucrative venture even more so. I do not see this as a valid reason to change game mechanics. But thats my opinion.
The reward is not greater. There are not that many missioners in lowsec, either. That is why you have so many pirates/low-sec gankers whining to get CCP to force more people to low-sec! The only missions that are good to run in low-sec are L5's, and those are difficult to run even apart from PVP issues.
|
MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 19:47:00 -
[46]
Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 17/03/2010 19:47:16
Originally by: Cailais If you want to solo PVE mission content then yes, you'll sacrifice your ability to counter a "PVP" ship thats not optimised in that fashion. Have you consider that perhaps the content you're attempting could be completed with non-PVE fitted ships as a group? No? I thought perhaps not.
C.
Doing level3 and level4 missions in groups fit for PVP is very much worth the effort. I've heard lots of pirates say this and therefore must be true.
Grief a PVP'er. Run a mission today! |
Cassidy Solo
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 19:50:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Daniel Cordova
Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro 1)Well I have seen a lot of character attacks on Bellum but not a lot of rational explanations for why he is wrong outside of "he is troll; he is irrational;etc".
Originally by: Bellum Eternus THE ONLY REASON MISSION RUNNERS DIE IN LOWSEC IS BECAUSE THEY'RE STUPID
I see what you mean. I also can't see why he'd be called a troll. It just doesn't make any sense.
Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong (I just *know* you will), but this is how I view ship losses:
#1. It's a calculated risk. As in: Okay guys, we're going to use this ship as bait, but it's fully insured (lol) so we won't lose any ISK. And in the overall balance of the engagement you come out ahead vis a vis ship losses. To me that is a 'non stupid' loss of a ship.
#2. (And this is where all the carebears fit in) YOU were stupid, YOU made a mistake and now YOU have to deal with the loss of your ship. For whatever reason, the fault lies with YOU the pilot. You got lazy, you got careless, you were complacent, you were too sure of yourself. Whatever the reason, it all falls back on you the pilot. How can this not be the case?
I'm not trolling. I'm trying to point out that the responsibility for survival rests solely with the pilot of the ship, not everyone else around him/her. If you want your hand held and your diaper changed, stay in high sec.
Again with the frothing, foaming at the mouth when you talk about carebears. Seriously, man, you should shoot yourself and let everyone be rid of you once and for all. I guarantee that if you were going to run a mission in lowsec, I would kill you. I don't care how your ship is setup, but if you are doing a mission in lowsec, and I find you, you'll be a dead mission-runner. I don't care what you supposedly did to two n00b sleipnir pilots, all of your "PVP skill" wouldn't matter.
Originally by: Cailais PVE fitted ships are optimised, just as PVP ships are optimised to fufill one given role. Demanding that CCP changes elements of the games mechanics to favour one or other group is just illogical.
You could equally say "mining ships are vulnerable to combat ships - CCP should change the game mechanics so that combat ships automatically blow up if they lock a mining ship; this is only fair because mining ships cant shhot back". It's a nuts idea.
If you want to solo PVE mission content then yes, you'll sacrifice your ability to counter a "PVP" ship thats not optimised in that fashion. Have you consider that perhaps the content you're attempting could be completed with non-PVE fitted ships as a group? No? I thought perhaps not.
C.
Have you ever attempted an L5 mission? No? I thought perhaps not. You will not be able to tank an L5 mission with omni-resist, without having an entire FLEET of ships, and if you are having to get 10 people to run an L5, there is a problem. As it stands right now you need two ships to run an L5 (Or a very expensive ship, with a lot of unnecessary risk.) If your "tank" was in a PVP ship, you'd need to be running a full RR gang with at least 4-5 ships able to RR him, and that really doesn't take into effect the extra damage/e-war you'd be taking when a pirate jumped in. I mean, if you're running L5's in a carrier or something, it may be different, but otherwise, you just need too much tank to overcome the incoming DPS/neuts from the mission, let alone people jumping in.
|
Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc. Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 20:32:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Cassidy Solo You will not be able to tank an L5 mission with omni-resist, without having an entire FLEET of ships, and if you are having to get 10 people to run an L5, there is a problem. As it stands right now you need two ships to run an L5 (Or a very expensive ship, with a lot of unnecessary risk.) If your "tank" was in a PVP ship, you'd need to be running a full RR gang with at least 4-5 ships able to RR him.
This is an MMORPG. Just saying.
Slade
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!
≡v≡ |
Cailais
Amarr Diablo Advocatus Rote Kapelle
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:06:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Cailais on 17/03/2010 22:07:43 Edited by: Cailais on 17/03/2010 22:06:53
Originally by: Cassidy Solo
Have you ever attempted an L5 mission? No? I thought perhaps not. You will not be able to tank an L5 mission with omni-resist, without having an entire FLEET of ships, and if you are having to get 10 people to run an L5, there is a problem. As it stands right now you need two ships to run an L5 (Or a very expensive ship, with a lot of unnecessary risk.) If your "tank" was in a PVP ship, you'd need to be running a full RR gang with at least 4-5 ships able to RR him, and that really doesn't take into effect the extra damage/e-war you'd be taking when a pirate jumped in.
Solo Level V? No - but sure I have run them with a group of friends. I just dont see it as 'solo' content. Why is it a problem having to get more people?
PVP players operate as group, combining ship types to get an effective fleet. Many industrial players have to join forces to manufacture efficiently. Why should PVE be exclusively solo content: or rather more specifically regarding the OP why should PVE content be 'protected' content??
C.
the hydrostatic capsule blog
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:45:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Cassidy Solo
First off, I am calling you a liar. I also would bet money that your "missions" were level 1 or level 2. I'm sure that while you were running your level 1 missions, you fought off an entire army of Titans.
Clearly you don't know who you're speaking to.
Why would I lie when the evidence is there for anyone to find on my killboard? Good or bad? And/or on other player's independent killboards, easily verified?
Second, I'm sure you haven't run anything over a L1 mission yourself. Why? Because I say so. See how that works? You're a liar as well.
And no, there is literally no way you would kill me while I was mission running. If nobody else can do it, you can't either. Avoiding being killed while running missions is the easiest thing ever. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 15:19:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Cassidy Solo The reward is not greater. There are not that many missioners in lowsec, either. That is why you have so many pirates/low-sec gankers whining to get CCP to force more people to low-sec! The only missions that are good to run in low-sec are L5's, and those are difficult to run even apart from PVP issues.
1)You claim the reward is not greater but offer no support for this claim. I would be interested in seeing someone post a realiable comparison of high and lowsec mission rewards (total)where the lowsec ship is fit similar to Bellum's ship. If the fits themselves make the missioning less rewarding, even with the higher rewards because of system sec, then perhaps something should be done about the rewards.
Until that happens, however, I will assume that people like Cearain are not lolFail irrational players. Meaning, I will assume that they have evaluated the situation and determined that lowsec missions are worth the risk because of the added rewards.
2) You claim that there are not many mission runners in lowsec. Is this "not many" in proportion to highsec or are you saying you have made an intensive study of all lowsec systems with mission agents and found a small number? If the latter, then things have changed since I played last. The Amamake-> Evati pipe used to turn up several mission runners a night.
3)I thought the point of moving L4 missions was to put a clamp on the isk faucet that they have become. Not all the people (that i have seen at least)who support the change are pirates. Pirates,naturally, support a move because it adds more targets...but they would say the same thing REGARDLESS of how many targets they had inthe first place. The fact that some people spit venom at any and all perceieved pirates..using using personal attacks and being censored by the GM's in thier posts ... just makes it fun for them to post more often.
|
The Djego
Minmatar Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 15:50:00 -
[52]
Edited by: The Djego on 18/03/2010 15:53:44
Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro If the fits themselves make the missioning less rewarding, even with the higher rewards because of system sec, then perhaps something should be done about the rewards.
It is considerable lower, not having run much missions in a PVP fitted domi but done some plexes(also with a Ishtar). A PVP fit will never beat a well designed PVE fit(it is 25-50% slower in my experience). That's mostly the problem that both ships are set up for different tasks. It has nothing to do with greed, more like that a special tool will be better for the job than a more general even if the job pays less the special tool wins overall(high sec LP are not worth this much most of the time if you want to trade in big amounts of them on a constant basis).
The problem is more the LP shop that offers the same things like in High Sec. FW solved this very good(high LP flow, exclusive LP rewards, better LP/ISK ratio) and some corps like Trucker Tribe also made it very attractive by offering considerable more gains for your LP in the past(before the titan nerf).
If CCP would change the LP rewards for missions in Low Sec(by introducing new corps with different LP shops) similar to FW or add some pirate agents to low sec the extra LP would offer a serious advantage and the better reward would make it more considerable in the long run.
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 16:12:00 -
[53]
Or perhaps just decrease the LP/mission rewards substantially in highsec? As much as I would like to see new and exclusive rewards from lowsec agents, it requires more time and programming on CCP's part (not to mention possible balancing issues). Seems easier to just make lowsec more rewarding (though if a pvp fit domi is only 25% slower than a pve fit domi i dont see the adjustment needing to be very drastic). It also might have the added effect of nerfing the rediculous income potential of mostly afk mission running in highsec. Somehow I think this would **** off too many people who abuse such mechanics...so probably wouldnt ever pass |
The Djego
Minmatar Hellequin Inc. Mean Coalition
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 17:11:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro Or perhaps just decrease the LP/mission rewards substantially in highsec? As much as I would like to see new and exclusive rewards from lowsec agents, it requires more time and programming on CCP's part (not to mention possible balancing issues).
You see considerable more people doing plexes or WH in Low Sec than missions, so the issue might be very simply reward(or lack of it). Keep in mind, constant nerfing L4 from 2006 till now or the introduction of L5 didn't change much in this department.
|
lookatzebirdie
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 18:28:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Cearain
Currently I think the mechanics make it absurdly easy when I am the pirate. I can go in with an af against a bc and just try to hold the guy down. If I can take him out I look like some sort of killboard hero bc versus af. If I start to take damage - well I can warp off.
I assume you are talking hypothetically as a brief perusal of ur battleclinic history suggest you have never actually done this. Perhaps you are just tee'd off having had someone do it to you and would rather they change the game for you than bother to L2Scan.
also you should make it clear you are talking about FW missions as they are a different kettle of fish entirely to normal agent missions.
1. they can be done in a ship with full tackle, I know, I have.
2. they are supposed to generate pvp as much as they are supposed to generate isk, learn to adapt to this or learn to know when to run away / come back later.
If you had been talking about normal agent missions I'd say you have more of a point, but 60% of the room aggroing the pirate seems like too much of a safety net for losec carebearing despite the fact that losec missioning should be getting buffed. Really losec mission running (standard missions) should be biuffed in terms of earnings comparable to the risk rather than lowering the risk.
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 19:37:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Mimiru Minahiro on 18/03/2010 19:38:23
Originally by: The Djego You see considerable more people doing plexes or WH in Low Sec than missions, so the issue might be very simply reward(or lack of it). Keep in mind, constant nerfing L4 from 2006 till now or the introduction of L5 didn't change much in this department.
on L5's- As one poster said earlier L5's are the only missions worth doing (i assume he meant normal and not FW)in lowsec atm. As he pointed out, however, these are hard to do with a single account. Not being able to solo them like L4's eliminates a large chunk of the player base from running them (regardless of reward)for several different reasons (which i wont get into, but can if people want). Combine this with the constant and increasing downward pressure on non FW/pirate LP prices due to the high volumes of highsec L4 runners, and its a recipe for not doing L5's in general. Although, evidently, the rewards are still good enough to justify at the moment per a previous poster.
on L4 nerf's over time- I dont recall L4's really gettting nerf'd in the ISK/hr rate per se. The distribution of rewards has changed yes, but an all out nerf? Maybe I just didnt care at the time or didnt notice when they happened, as i only remember the rat numbers being decreased (but overall bounty stayed relatively the same) and changes in the lewt tables (but salvage compensates).
on plex'ing- I agree that this is more common than mission running. Thats partially because of the faction lewtsies that can drop (some worth A LOT of isk in relation to time spent)but also because you can do them where/when ever. No need to be tied down to one system.
If you nerf the LP substantially in highsec (now that there are drastically less farmers due to Holy Rage...or whatever it was called)it makes people spend more time to get enough for LPstore items...this makes prices go up for LP. As LP prices go up, it becomes more and more lucrative to run L5's and lowsec L4's, which shifts the active mission runners into those area's more and more. I think this also has added benefits long term for lowsec...once people know how to survive there they become much bolder...start pvp'ing more...etc. But thats for another post perhaps. |
Tulisin Dragonflame
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 19:56:00 -
[57]
Edited by: Tulisin Dragonflame on 18/03/2010 19:56:53 tl;dr on the entire thread, nay, the entire debate:
Lowsec/nullsec missions are only slightly more profitable by income. Risk-countering measures required to make them realistically profitable in the RvR equation result in failure due to increased costs.
Result: Non-hisec missons are never profitable, and cannot be made so by players. The only people who claim they're more profitable are those who aren't factoring in their protection costs or haven't actually incurred the result of risk yet.
Solution: Increase the money gap between hisec and non-hisec missions so that running more risky missions rewards enough ISK to hire protection/fit PvP gear and still come out ahead. IMO: Do it by moving good missons to lowsec exclusively. |
Cearain
Caldari ReSlavers
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 23:33:00 -
[58]
Originally by: lookatzebirdie
Originally by: Cearain
Currently I think the mechanics make it absurdly easy when I am the pirate. I can go in with an af against a bc and just try to hold the guy down. If I can take him out I look like some sort of killboard hero bc versus af. If I start to take damage - well I can warp off.
I assume you are talking hypothetically as a brief perusal of ur battleclinic history suggest you have never actually done this. Perhaps you are just tee'd off having had someone do it to you and would rather they change the game for you than bother to L2Scan.
also you should make it clear you are talking about FW missions as they are a different kettle of fish entirely to normal agent missions.
1. they can be done in a ship with full tackle, I know, I have....
First you are right I haven't ganked any BC mission runners in an af. I generally don't fly afs. Moreover unless they are in the opposing faction in FW I generally have no interest in scanning down and shooting at ships that are not even set up for pvp. I don't really see the challenge so this activity has always seemed a lame way to play the game. To each his own.
I still remember one guy who was chest thumping in a corp channel that he killed a raven in a cruiser (or something like a cruiser.) He posted the kill mail and so I took a look. Sure enough the raven had all mining guns on it! I was a bit confused as to why he was so proud of this kill. Never a miner myself, I asked him "do mining guns do any damage to ships?" He said they did not. So I said "ok you killed his hammerhead drones and then sat there chewing through his tank then huh?" Yes, indeed, that was the big news. My point is not to suggest that I was in a corp with people as uber as bellum. Its just that I don't really get what made this guy so proud. But whatever.
I'm pretty sure I never lost a BC to an af either. However, I have had afs come and attack me since my bc does not have tackle. I shot at them and they warped off. No risk pvp. Certainly there have been times when my tank was running low that if they came in at the right time they would only need to have a scram fit and I would die to the npcs.
But anyway I am indeed mainly talking about standard missions not FW missions. I actually do agree that it would be odd for say the minmatar militia to stop shooting at the Amaar militia when say a gallente neutral comes in. So no this idea really has nothing to do with my own game play. I do not go about trying to gank pve fits nor do I think the missions I run in low sec would be the best candidate for these changes.
As far as what you say about running "FW missions" with tackle - I say sure you can. Certainly I always run level 1 faction war missions with tackle. I generally go in kill the rats (except the trigger) and wait for some frig on frig pvp. I usually don't even bother to turn these missions in though because they are practically worthless.
If the mission is a level four FW mission I certainly can not do them with a BC or down and carry decent tackle/and pvp guns (at least if you if you are fighting for Amaar and against Minmatar.) If you want to use a BS I suppose you can do that but then you wont be able to gtfo very well, nor will you have much fun doing the 12 or so jumps through low sec to actually get to your mission. But hey if you have a fit in mind I'm all ears. :)
Using a directional scanner is obviously important. But you do occassionally land on gate at the same time as pirates/wts. Or get caught soon after you jump through or have people with cov ops etc.
Yes you can cloak/dock up and wait. I usually either leave the system or just cloak/dock up and go afk. But these are in my opinion all inferior options to being able to stay and put up some sort of fight. I'm looking for a way to increase pvp and make pirating somewhat challenging. I might actually pirate if the mechanics I suggest were implemented as it would be some sort of challenge.
Of course I have been chased out of several missions. My thoughts were usually that it would be great if the mechanics weren't so lopsided and I could stay and fight. Of course that is usually sort of silly to do since if I get the upperhand he can just warp off. But pirates who would rather have one soft target instead of 50 challenging fights would certainly not want the changes I propose.
As far as people saying its unrealistic if npcs every switch targets - well they must think the sleeper ai is horrible. |
Cearain
Caldari ReSlavers
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 23:40:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Cearain on 18/03/2010 23:40:21
Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro 1)Well I have seen a lot of character attacks on Bellum but not a lot of rational explanations for why he is wrong outside of "he is troll; he is irrational;etc". Can someone make specific refutations of his arguments? ....
Bellum told us a story about his pvp prowess. This is different than making an argument against changes to game mechanics. An inability to distinguish these two activities is a strong indicator of irrationality. |
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 00:39:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Cearain Bellum told us a story about his pvp prowess. This is different than making an argument against changes to game mechanics. An inability to distinguish these two activities is a strong indicator of irrationality.
First, I do not think rationality and irrationality mean what you (and others in this thread)think they do... but regardless:
If I told you my ingame experience dropping dual repp'ed t3 ships in PvP because of their lack of any buffer, and that experience negated your comment that dualrep t3 ships are uber in pvp because they have UBERTANK, would you be able to see the argument being made for what it is? (That your EFT theory craft does not equate to ingame "reality"?) Or would I just be "telling stories about my pvp prowess"?
Same thing applies here imo.
Was his statement "They both died. Because I am not a carebear" abraasive and provacative? Yes. Did he probably use those words to make you angry...prolly (but i dont know for sure). Does his point about missioning and fighting at the same time suffer because of his tone? No. If it does then I think you should learn to control your feelings as they seem to cloud your rational brain.
But its your life to live, not mine. So whatev. |
|
SDragoon
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 06:00:00 -
[61]
Personally I think the current system in place is fine. If you are running missions in dangerous space, you need to come prepared. If that means having some PVP modules fit then so be it. And yes you can still mission with a scrambler fit.
There are lots of things you can do to thwart pirates. Look for probes. Use local. Use alts on mission entry. Stay away from warp in so they land 60km off and can't scram. Set up an ambush. Or use a T3 that is unscannable.
There are plenty of ways to deal with pirates in mission as is. No needed to tweak mechanics. However a small increase in low sec mission rewards wouldn't be misplaced.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 13:58:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Cearain Edited by: Cearain on 18/03/2010 23:40:21
Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro 1)Well I have seen a lot of character attacks on Bellum but not a lot of rational explanations for why he is wrong outside of "he is troll; he is irrational;etc". Can someone make specific refutations of his arguments? ....
Bellum told us a story about his pvp prowess. This is different than making an argument against changes to game mechanics. An inability to distinguish these two activities is a strong indicator of irrationality.
No, I was using terms that someone like yourself would understand, that is, simple and plain and remedial.
If someone is capable of running missions with a PVP fit then clearly it's not impossible, and anyone else doing otherwise is simply 'doing it wrong'.
Since you realize that you don't have any sort of foundation for your argument you now resort to personal attacks and simply calling me a 'liar' which I don't appreciate.
You're also mad because I'm being condescending and antagonistic, which is amusing to me.
Regardless, lowsec doesn't need any hand holding. That's what high sec is for. There simply needs to be an exponential increase in profit available for lowsec mission runners compared to that of high security space. Problem solved. Greed is *the* prime motivator when it comes to carebears. They will *always* go where the money is, if there's enough of it.
If you could guarantee each one a dyspro moon in the nearest 0.4 system from their cushy little mission hub, they'd be there with bells on. Tell me I'm wrong.
So how about you realize your place and shut your pie hole and let the adults continue. Thanks in advance. -
Originally by: Bellum Eternus That is the beauty of Eve, it's a crucible in which great minds are formed and the rest are ground to dust.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Cearain
Caldari ReSlavers
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 14:22:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Cearain on 19/03/2010 14:23:24 Edited by: Cearain on 19/03/2010 14:23:02 Edited by: Cearain on 19/03/2010 14:21:58
Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro
Originally by: Cearain Bellum told us a story about his pvp prowess. This is different than making an argument against changes to game mechanics. An inability to distinguish these two activities is a strong indicator of irrationality.
First, I do not think rationality and irrationality mean what you (and others in this thread)think they do... but regardless:
If I told you my ingame experience dropping dual repp'ed t3 ships in PvP because of their lack of any buffer, and that experience negated your comment that dualrep t3 ships are uber in pvp because they have UBERTANK, would you be able to see the argument being made for what it is? (That your EFT theory craft does not equate to ingame "reality"?) Or would I just be "telling stories about my pvp prowess"?
Same thing applies here imo.
Was his statement "They both died. Because I am not a carebear" abraasive and provacative? Yes. Did he probably use those words to make you angry...prolly (but i dont know for sure). Does his point about missioning and fighting at the same time suffer because of his tone? No. If it does then I think you should learn to control your feelings as they seem to cloud your rational brain.
But its your life to live, not mine. So whatev.
Perhaps we don't have the same view of rationality. Bellum's story is the same thing as the guy who claims smoking can't be related to cancer because one time he knew a guy who smoked 3 packs a day for 80 years and lived to be 90 years old and never developed cancer. If you think that story proves there is no link between smoking and cancer you will think Bellum's post is logical and rational. If you are irrational you will think the 90 year old's story proves there is no link between cancer and smoking. Bellum is like that 90 year old.
Bellum's own words: "I missioned a LOT. I got jumped by pirates while missioning, a LOT. I killed them all." lets think about this. Bellum appearanlty never even had to run from them even once. Incdeed despite doing "a LOT" of missions in low sec he always killed *every* pirate that jumped in. Appearantly none of the pirates ever managed to warp out either. (Can't you hear the 90 year old guy saying I smoked allot and never used a filter and always finished each cigarrette until my fingers burned)
Bellums story will cause the irrational to agree with bellum's conclusion and I quote: "THE ONLY REASON MISSION RUNNERS DIE IN LOWSEC IS BECAUSE THEY'RE STUPID AND MADE A MISTAKE." (all caps were Bellum's) Surely we should all be able to mission in a dominix in low sec like bellum does and *every* time pirates come we should "always" be able to kill "every" one of them. Everyone who claims the npc aggro was too much so they couldn't quite kill the pirate *must* be stupid.
And certainly we can discount the overwhelming evidence from just about *everyone* else who thinks your best bet is to warp out when pirates come - because the rat aggro will make it unreasonably hard to win the fight. After all Bellum says he never had to warp out and despite being "jumped by pirates a LOT" he killed *every* one.
Was Bellum "abrasive and provacative?" No, I would describe his post as abrasive and irrational. Or actually I think Exlegion better described Bellum's post as "ill".
|
Cearain
Caldari ReSlavers
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 14:43:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Cearain Edited by: Cearain on 18/03/2010 23:40:21
Originally by: Mimiru Minahiro 1)Well I have seen a lot of character attacks on Bellum but not a lot of rational explanations for why he is wrong outside of "he is troll; he is irrational;etc". Can someone make specific refutations of his arguments? ....
Bellum told us a story about his pvp prowess. This is different than making an argument against changes to game mechanics. An inability to distinguish these two activities is a strong indicator of irrationality.
...
Since you realize that you don't have any sort of foundation for your argument you now resort to personal attacks and simply calling me a 'liar' which I don't appreciate.
You're also mad because I'm being condescending and antagonistic, which is amusing to me.
The foundation for my proposal is quite strong almost everyone except you agrees that the best thing to do when you see pirates coming and your running a mission is to run.
Please show me where I called you a liar. I never did. I did quote you quite a bit. If your own words look so much like BS even to yourself that you think I'm implying you are lying ...well I can't help that.
I'm not mad at you for your post. I am somewhat annoyed but also feel sorry for you. I agree your post might be called condescending and antagonistic. But those traits, alone, don't make the post annoying. Its more the combination of being condescending, antagonistic, irrational, and iggnorrant that makes the post rub me the wrong way.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 15:18:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Cearain
The foundation for my proposal is quite strong almost everyone except you agrees that the best thing to do when you see pirates coming and your running a mission is to run.
Please show me where I called you a liar. I never did. I did quote you quite a bit. If your own words look so much like BS even to yourself that you think I'm implying you are lying ...well I can't help that.
I'm not mad at you for your post. I am somewhat annoyed but also feel sorry for you. I agree your post might be called condescending and antagonistic. But those traits, alone, don't make the post annoying. Its more the combination of being condescending, antagonistic, irrational, and iggnorrant that makes the post rub me the wrong way.
Ah, my bad, I had you confused with that other dood in the thread. I apologize.
Let's please continue the debate and I'll try not to be so abrasive. Shall we?
Once pirates have found you in your mission, you have two options: run or fight. If you have to run often enough and lose standings for canceled missions then clearly it becomes counter productive to run missions in lowsec.
So then the answer is to either stop missioning in lowsec or to stand and fight. Now, if we increased the lowsec mission rewards by oh, 50-100x, you could fail numerous missions and still make a profit, OR you could bring in 50-100x as many people and still make the same ISK/hour. Either way, it solves the problem of lowsec mission running without any hand holding.
All too often people in Eve (IMO) adopt this position of 'save me!' when they really need to look at saving themselves. That is the beauty of Eve, it's a crucible in which great minds are formed and the rest are ground to dust. -
Originally by: Bellum Eternus That is the beauty of Eve, it's a crucible in which great minds are formed and the rest are ground to dust.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
bff Jill
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 15:51:00 -
[66]
They just need to rebalance the game so that a a pvp fit and a pve fit are the same fit.
|
Cearain
Caldari ReSlavers
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 16:11:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Cearain
The foundation for my proposal is quite strong almost everyone except you agrees that the best thing to do when you see pirates coming and your running a mission is to run.
Please show me where I called you a liar. I never did. I did quote you quite a bit. If your own words look so much like BS even to yourself that you think I'm implying you are lying ...well I can't help that.
I'm not mad at you for your post. I am somewhat annoyed but also feel sorry for you. I agree your post might be called condescending and antagonistic. But those traits, alone, don't make the post annoying. Its more the combination of being condescending, antagonistic, irrational, and iggnorrant that makes the post rub me the wrong way.
Ah, my bad, I had you confused with that other dood in the thread. I apologize.
Let's please continue the debate and I'll try not to be so abrasive. Shall we?
Once pirates have found you in your mission, you have two options: run or fight. If you have to run often enough and lose standings for canceled missions then clearly it becomes counter productive to run missions in lowsec.
So then the answer is to either stop missioning in lowsec or to stand and fight. Now, if we increased the lowsec mission rewards by oh, 50-100x, you could fail numerous missions and still make a profit, OR you could bring in 50-100x as many people and still make the same ISK/hour. Either way, it solves the problem of lowsec mission running without any hand holding.
All too often people in Eve (IMO) adopt this position of 'save me!' when they really need to look at saving themselves. That is the beauty of Eve, it's a crucible in which great minds are formed and the rest are ground to dust.
Right now the pirates get all the hand holding as far as npcs are concerned. Unlike the sleeper AI the npcs will never switch off of that same target. We could increas the rewards for running missions to get more in low sec. Or we could simply change it so the npcs aren't doing so much hand holding for the pirates. If you increase the rewards to the point you talk about then people will do the missions of course. It would likely change the game in many ways. Maybe good maybe bad I really haven't thought that through. Its just a much larger change than what I am proposing. I'm just saying have the rats spread the wealth a bit and hold some tackle. Maybe like the poster above me said - design an ai where you need a pvp fit and this problem may be solved. But the thing is I think it would be great if there was *some* balance in the npcs such that missioners could realistically consider fighting.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 17:26:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Cearain
Right now the pirates get all the hand holding as far as npcs are concerned. Unlike the sleeper AI the npcs will never switch off of that same target. We could increas the rewards for running missions to get more in low sec. Or we could simply change it so the npcs aren't doing so much hand holding for the pirates. If you increase the rewards to the point you talk about then people will do the missions of course. It would likely change the game in many ways. Maybe good maybe bad I really haven't thought that through. Its just a much larger change than what I am proposing. I'm just saying have the rats spread the wealth a bit and hold some tackle. Maybe like the poster above me said - design an ai where you need a pvp fit and this problem may be solved. But the thing is I think it would be great if there was *some* balance in the npcs such that missioners could realistically consider fighting.
I don't have any issue with sleeper AI being used in all missions. Additionally, I *do* very much agree that the AI needs to be redesigned such that PVP fits and PVE fits are more congruent. That has always bugged me about Eve. It shouldn't be the case. -
Originally by: Bellum Eternus That is the beauty of Eve, it's a crucible in which great minds are formed and the rest are ground to dust.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 18:39:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Cearain Perhaps we don't have the same view of rationality. Bellum's story is the same thing as the guy who claims smoking can't be related to cancer because one time he knew a guy who smoked 3 packs a day for 80 years and lived to be 90 years old and never developed cancer. If you think that story proves there is no link between smoking and cancer you will think Bellum's post is logical and rational. If you are irrational you will think the 90 year old's story proves there is no link between cancer and smoking. Bellum is like that 90 year old.
If the man is claiming that there is no necessary causal link between smoking and cancer he would be correct. Lets put the argument to the test- Premise: Smoking CAUSES cancer 1)If 90y/o grandpa smokes then he will get cancer 2)90y/o grandpa smokes 3)90y/o grandpa does not get cancer
See how the rules of logical implication negates the premise?
In your original post you say mission runners(and i quote)"cant possibly kill the pirate". Unless you use the words "cant possibly" in a way that means "possibly" then: Premise: A mission runner cannot kill a pirate (who has invaded his mission) 1)If Bellum runs missions then he cannot kill pirates 2) Bellum runs missions 3)Bellum kills pirates
Again the rules of logical implication negate the original premise.
So how is Bellum's claim that you CAN kill pirates and mission irrational? It seems more irrational to hold the premise "mission runners cant possibly kill pirates".
You also claim only irrational people will agree with bellums claim re: people dying because they screwed up (though i do agree stupidity being a reason seems kinda lol...but thats because stupidity can be the root of mistakes, but not the cause of the destruction for it requires other factors). You can even generalize his statement out farther and say: The only reason why anyone dies is because they made a mistake. They made a mistake in fitting, tactic, double click, or in estimation of risk posed. Why is this such a bitter pill to swallow? The only logical caveat to this is connection failures outside of the realm of you control. If you died in a mission it is your fault for not gtfo. You made a mistake by not scanning for probes, not being aligned, not assessing the risk correctly. If you decided to stay in the mission and fight (and you lost) you made a mistake there too by not choosing the correct primary, not managing your ship/drones properly,or by simply choosing to fight when you should have run (niether list is meant to be exhaustive). The irrational thing, imo, is to blame, not yourself, but outside factors for your loss. Outside factors can contribute to a loss (ie rat aggro), but ultimately these things are in your control so the fault lies with you. The game mechanic change you ask for is an attempt to give you a higher chance of sucess via an external factor, when internal skills (personal fighting skills AND sp)and decision making can yield the same result.
BTW- I am all for making all NPC AI follow the sleeper AI (as i understand it), but this argument is best served in another post
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 03:03:00 -
[70]
Mimiru is my hero. -
Originally by: Bellum Eternus That is the beauty of Eve, it's a crucible in which great minds are formed and the rest are ground to dust.
Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
|
Cearain
Caldari ReSlavers
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 03:11:00 -
[71]
Edited by: Cearain on 20/03/2010 03:12:03 mimiro I never claimed either of your first premises was true.
There is a link between smoking and cancer. An anecdotal story of someone smoking for a long time and not getting cancer doesn't really change this.
There is also a link between 1) the mechanic where all the npcs stay attacking the mission runner and never swithcing to the pirate and 2) it is overwhelmingly a good idea for the mission runner to run away from pirates who crash the mission, instead of fighting. Anecdotal instances of some mission runner beating certain pirates does not really change this.
What you will learn
|
Mimiru Minahiro
|
Posted - 2010.03.20 05:52:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Cearain Edited by: Cearain on 20/03/2010 03:12:03 mimiro I never claimed either of your first premises was true..... There is also a link between 1) the mechanic where all the npcs stay attacking the mission runner and never swithcing to the pirate and 2) it is overwhelmingly a good idea for the mission runner to run away from pirates who crash the mission, instead of fighting. Anecdotal instances of some mission runner beating certain pirates does not really change this.
Ok, well I am not sure how to formulate the words "cant possibly" into symbolic logic in any other way than the way I did.
I agree with you that 1)as the amount of rat DPS (as a ratio of your overall tank)increases so does 2)the attractiveness of running away given that 3)the aggro does not switch. I would also agree with you if you said there is a link between the value of your fittings and the same attractivness.
I do not *necessarily* agree with a blanket statement that says "it is overwhelmingly a good idea for the mission runner to run away from pirates who crash missions". It is true that an overwhelming number of people do, in fact, say this. But, unlike when people talk about ammo and what type of ore to mine,the conventional wisdom of the overwhelming majority isnt necessarily gold. There are probably a lot of people who know so little about pvp that for them the best option is to run for the hills. There are also a lot of people who would rather run for the hills than have a BS loss on thier killboards (especially if it opens them up to being mocked by corpmates)or just a BS loss in general (regardless of whether they can afford the loss and whether the ship has "paid" for itself already).
What I am saying is that there are a number of reasons why A LOT of people say the mission runner should just leave. Many of those reasons have nothing to do with DPS from rats. The people who constantly espouse such a doctrine are the many times people who are terrible at pvp, have no desire to become better at pvp, only face blobs (so its always 10v1 in thier mind), or are pvp'ers legitimately trying to help people whom they consider to be terrible at pvp. This is not a value judgment on those players (before someone starts saying all i am doing is spitting hate at carebears) who dont want pvp or who dont want to pvp in that ship/at that time. I am fine with people playing the game for the PVE only/primarily. Nor am I hating on people who dont have uber pvp skillzz and know it. But asking for a mechanic that circumvents the need for skills seems kind of lol. Perhaps, instead, you should be asking yourself and others "what do i need to be able to BOTH mission and effectively shoot pirates?" Whether its efficient ISK wise to do those things is another matter.... but running away is just as detrimental to the efficiency rates over time.
Long story long.... IMO Changing the agro mechanics isnt going to do diddly to the number of people who claim its best to always run away (hint: they are the same ones that always warp off inside wormholes). And so the link you speak of may only have a marginal correlation rate anyway.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |