|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.05.30 09:10:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Afrodite Draconis
Originally by: Jarloo Griffin what ccp should do, is to lessen the difference between pvp and pve fits. then we can start talk about making people out of hisec.
CCP would never buff active tanking so much that you could tank a gang of enemies by yourself, stop dreaming.
That's not what he said though, and he's perfectly correct: making PvE combat much more like PvP combat is something that CCP should do as a matter of urgency.
|
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.01 13:47:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Xiu Wenyin Edited by: Xiu Wenyin on 30/05/2010 09:12:11
Originally by: Malcanis making PvE combat much more like PvP combat is something that CCP should do as a matter of urgency.
The fastest and best (and only) way to accomplish this is to get rid of all PVE. CCP is not going to do that, nor should they.
That doesn't even make any sense. What on earth are you talking about? Would you like to explain your reply to me? Because I really dont understand it.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.09 13:31:00 -
[3]
I did a couple of days of hi-sec L4s after Dominion. The only real changes I noticed were that I got sent to this neighbouring system more than that one I used to get sent to all the time, and that Damsel/Informant/Thief/Beserk are blitz missions now.
My ISK/Hr was barely affected at all, so far as I could tell. (The above missions where the only ones I ever really bothered to loot, and not always then.
Cruise CNR.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 13:51:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Captain Mastiff Making low sec more valuable than high sec would be very silly.
It's low security for a reason because its less lucrative for the empires to maintain a big presence over it. If it were more lucrative then the empires would simply make it a high sec system.
Low sec isn't broken.
One could make a similar argument against having combat missions in hi-sec. That's silly! The pirates are in lo-sec!
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.14 20:34:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Sky Mart
Quote: seriously, I only get 1-2m isk and a few thousand LP per mission and each lvl 4 mission takes me 1-3 hrs from killing targets to loot mission item then salvage, I've no idea how you get a quote as 10m isk/hr, isn't that too much? Plus, it seems the drops are really worthless since the new patch. I'm totally having no motivations for missions anymore, might cancel the subscription in the next billing cycle. :( And hopefully your idea will not be accepted or it'll driven even more players out of eve.
spend your loyalty points for the skill books to increase the payouts in ISK and in Loyatly points with your agent. For each type mission their are 2 skill books that affect it and bonuses stack.
I could have kicked myself when I look back at how many mission I did BEFORE I read the books. I was blown away by how much it helped. With out them doing level 4 missions was less ISK than mining Veldspar in Hi Sec. Prior to the skill books I could do close to 10mill(dual boxing) an hour mining or 10 mill an hour missioning. The skill books are what make missioning worth more, that and having proper skills. Doing Level 4 missions at 10 million skill points is NOT the ISK per hour you get when your doing it at say 30 million skill points. Most of the guys quoting the ISK per hour are basing it off what they get as a high skill point character. They forget the new guys can't get anywhere near that.
That being said, Level 4 missions are less ISK than I make in 0.0. They need to NOT nerf the level 4's as that is one of the main sources of ISK for many of the guy's I PVP with. When they loose a few ships, they bounce back to do level 4's to buy more ships to get blown up. It isn't as good as they can get in 0.0, but if you fight till your down to your last missioning ship, you really need the safety of Hi Sec to rebuild, or you might end up back there running level 1's in your nice shiny new IBIS
It also helps when you know exactly how your ship will perform, and exactly what will happen in p. much every mission. After a while it gets to the point where you can fly every mission optimally.
But yeah the social skills help too. I have mine at 3/4, so I'm getting 135 out of every possible 150 LP.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.15 13:48:00 -
[6]
You're assuming that missioning has no effect on the rest of the game.
Hint: it does
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Malcanis
Caldari Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.06.15 21:50:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Backho Null sec corporations have trillions of ISK.
You need to mission run for 31 lifetimes without sleeping to earn that much =)
Obviously, mission running is just a drop of water in the sea. There are much dangerous and profitable places in eve to earn ISKies.
brb setting up a nullsec corp to collect trillions of ISK!
Fake Edit: It's been 3 minutes and I have no trillions not even 1 trillion CCP FIX THIS OBVIOUS CODING PROBLEM WHERE ARE MY TRILLIONS?!?!
PS Should I petition this?
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
|
|
|