EVE Search - Constantly receiving missions into low sec from a high sec lvl4 agent

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Missions & Complexes

Constantly receiving missions into low sec from a high sec lvl4 agent

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Geriegras	Posted - 2010.06.14 06:52:00 - [1] Since the last patch Ive been using my regular agent and am consistently receiving missions into the adjacent low sec system this used to be a rare occurrence, but now it seems every missions is into this low sec system with only the odd one being into the other 2 adjacent high sec systems. Has anyone else had the same problem? Should I petition/bug report this? It doesn't seem right that a system with 3 adjacent systems, 2 being high sec and 1 being low sec should constantly send me into low sec, at the very most it should be every third mission. If I wanted to do missions in low sec I would use a low sec agent (their is a lvl4 agent in this low sec system) and get the extra benefits that this gives. Geri
Ran Khanon Amarr Swords Horses and Heavy Metal	Posted - 2010.06.14 08:22:00 - [2] Quote: Finally, we are aware of the problems players are currently facing with level 1-4 mission distribution as a result of the aforementioned load balancing fix. While all missions are intended to have a chance of occurring in a nearby low-/null-security system, we are aware of the disproportionate rate at which this is now occurring. The matter is being examined. This is a separate issue from that noted above, and it has no bearing on the intended low-/null-sec system restriction of level 5 missions. CCP Molock and GM Nythanos link Help us to make parrots game related today!
Kenny Dalglish	Posted - 2010.06.14 10:41:00 - [3] Originally by: Geriegras Since the last patch Ive been using my regular agent and am consistently receiving missions into the adjacent low sec system this used to be a rare occurrence, but now it seems every missions is into this low sec system with only the odd one being into the other 2 adjacent high sec systems. Has anyone else had the same problem? Should I petition/bug report this? It doesn't seem right that a system with 3 adjacent systems, 2 being high sec and 1 being low sec should constantly send me into low sec, at the very most it should be every third mission. If I wanted to do missions in low sec I would use a low sec agent (their is a lvl4 agent in this low sec system) and get the extra benefits that this gives. Geri The new plan is for you to add to the load of already heavy systems, so please go to the more populated mission hubs.
Asuka Hachimoto Caldari Secret Squirrel Readiness Group	Posted - 2010.06.15 12:22:00 - [4] Yeah pretty much what kenny said, this whole travel time and border empire lvl 4 agents sending people into lowsec is utter *******s, we left the hubs to ESCAPE the massive locals and therefore lag. Now those of us smart enough to leave are being pushed into lowsec. And i doubt any mission runner whos been steadyly pimping thier ship over several months is gonna want to do lowsec, or downgrade to t2 to run them anyway. The travel time is surposed to break up the Hubs, but its screwing every agent, they could atleast limit it to these particular agents to spread ppl out.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2010.06.15 18:42:00 - [5] Yeah well we've seen a couple examples of how the rocket scientists working on the problems of missions think. We want spread people out more. Since most people fly Caldari agents we're going to add a disproportionate number of additional Caldari agents and that should cause people to spread out.... More people are running Gallente currier missions we thus conclude taht Gallente currier missions are too good.. We will ignore all the evidence that suggests that it's a lack of good quality combat agent that's causing mission runners using non-combat agents to take all those short hop currier contracts to avoid the 4 hour cool down on mission turn down. We're going to help congestion by making agents send people further away to run missions and we're going to accomplish this using a method that should have been obvious to anyone with half a brain would have known would funnel all boarder agent missions into low sec. Oh yeah and forget about currier mission into low sec that might actually be doable (as in cargo would fit in a fast aligning frig or hell even a Blockade runner) no we don't want anyone doing any missions. Makes me glad I'm changing my income source to the market shame there will be less isk to actually buy all that crap.
Militia ManOWar	Posted - 2010.06.15 18:44:00 - [6] To be fair ALL L3/L4 missions should be lowsec ONLY. Only L1/L2 for new characters should be in high sec.
Stry'ph	Posted - 2010.06.15 18:58:00 - [7] Originally by: Militia ManOWar To be fair ALL L3/L4 missions should be lowsec ONLY. Only L1/L2 for new characters should be in high sec. As soon as a PvE/Mission fit is viable for PvP, sure. Until then, I will continue to decline any/all low-sec missions.
Skex Relbore Gallente Red Federation	Posted - 2010.06.15 19:40:00 - [8] Originally by: Militia ManOWar To be fair ALL L3/L4 missions should be lowsec ONLY. Only L1/L2 for new characters should be in high sec. Careful your stupid is showing.
Militia ManOWar	Posted - 2010.06.15 20:16:00 - [9] Originally by: Skex Relbore Originally by: Militia ManOWar To be fair ALL L3/L4 missions should be lowsec ONLY. Only L1/L2 for new characters should be in high sec. Careful your stupid is showing. high sec mission runners are exploiting the system. either L3/L4 rewards should be reduced by 80% or they should be increased and moved to lowsec only. fair missioning benefits everyone.
Lupalis Longtail	Posted - 2010.06.15 20:22:00 - [10] Originally by: Militia ManOWar Originally by: Skex Relbore Originally by: Militia ManOWar To be fair ALL L3/L4 missions should be lowsec ONLY. Only L1/L2 for new characters should be in high sec. Careful your stupid is showing. high sec mission runners are exploiting the system. fair missioning benefits everyone. Low sec missioning benefits only griefer easy kill pvpers. Get of your high pvp horse. Im sick of pvpers telling me this game is a must-pvp game. There is a million things to do beside it, there are a million manhours in missions in high sec, so who made you god of eve, and since when did you declare your reign pvp only?

Militia ManOWar	Posted - 2010.06.15 20:29:00 - [11] Originally by: Lupalis Longtail Originally by: Militia ManOWar Originally by: Skex Relbore Originally by: Militia ManOWar To be fair ALL L3/L4 missions should be lowsec ONLY. Only L1/L2 for new characters should be in high sec. Careful your stupid is showing. high sec mission runners are exploiting the system. fair missioning benefits everyone. Low sec missioning benefits only griefer easy kill pvpers. Get of your high pvp horse. Im sick of pvpers telling me this game is a must-pvp game. There is a million things to do beside it, there are a million manhours in missions in high sec, so who made you god of eve, and since when did you declare your reign pvp only? I am not a pvper nor will I ever be. griefers kill me too. however missioning is unfair unbalanced income and needs to be balanced as i stated above. risk vs reward should be honored. the only logical solution is lowsec/nullsec for L3/L4 missions only. high sec miners and missioners should be safe but at a much lower income level than low/null sec miners and mission runners.
Lupalis Longtail	Posted - 2010.06.15 22:19:00 - [12] Originally by: Militia ManOWar the only logical solution is lowsec/nullsec for L3/L4 missions only. high sec miners and missioners should be safe but at a much lower income level than low/null sec miners and mission runners. What nonsense. Your solution will effectively -kill- missioning. First of all, the money in EvE is in trade, then in advanced industries, and maybe a very distant third, heavy missioning. L4 missions arent a big fat money cow, you will loose ships, and they will take time. Second, PvE =! PvP. It has been said so many times, and been constantly ignored. Yes! You -can- survive a gank in low sec, if you keep yourself aligned and alert, but its crippling the mission. Yes! Some people can do them in capitals, but how much do you want to bet those people are funded elsewise? There is no good reason why missioneers must pve in pvp space, and there is no moneycow in them either. High level mission grouping? Im all for it, but in closed deadspace. About the only thing that makes less money, but with less risk also is mining hisec. Well I guess income is also the least of my worries, as Im wise enough to industry-alt. I -like- missions, and I love doing them in groups if they are a challenge. ATM l4 are too easy to group for, and l5's are just suicide. * I cant pyramid quote? Concord is notified? :) And now i have to wait for 5 minutes?, boo
Lunewrath Amarr	Posted - 2010.06.15 23:29:00 - [13] Hah thank god Militia Manowar is not the lead game designer, he would effectively cut out half the entire playerbase.
Militia ManOWar	Posted - 2010.06.15 23:35:00 - [14] Originally by: Lunewrath Hah thank god Militia Manowar is not the lead game designer, he would effectively cut out half the entire playerbase. they are not a valid playerbase if they are exploiting risk v reward mechanics. the only LOGICAL solution to a fair risk/reward model is that L1/L2 missions are in high sec and L3/L4 missions are only in lowsec and L5 only in nullsec. If players do not wish risk vs reward they can play a single player game. You cannot argue against my logic, it is sound.
Lunewrath Amarr	Posted - 2010.06.15 23:45:00 - [15] Originally by: Militia ManOWar Originally by: Lunewrath Hah thank god Militia Manowar is not the lead game designer, he would effectively cut out half the entire playerbase. they are not a valid playerbase if they are exploiting risk v reward mechanics. the only LOGICAL solution to a fair risk/reward model is that L1/L2 missions are in high sec and L3/L4 missions are only in lowsec and L5 only in nullsec. If players do not wish risk vs reward they can play a single player game. You cannot argue against my logic, it is sound. Missioning is a choice in the "grind" for currency, just like station trading (even more lucrative, even more safe), invention, mining, manufacturing etc etc. Most have extremely low risk and can be done in high sec. Should we make it so they should all be low sec too since they can all bring in the same income for low risk? I mission to fund PVP and various other projects and if there was a real problem with the income then I am sure the developers would have done something about it already. There is no exploit like you claim there is. And to be honest I think you're trolling because you have put very little thought into your argument.
Lupalis Longtail	Posted - 2010.06.16 00:16:00 - [16] Edited by: Lupalis Longtail on 16/06/2010 00:19:12 Edited by: Lupalis Longtail on 16/06/2010 00:18:43 Edited by: Lupalis Longtail on 16/06/2010 00:16:57 Originally by: Militia ManOWar If players do not wish risk vs reward they can play a single player game. You cannot argue against my logic, it is sound. Your logic is flawed: - The risk/reward of missioning l5's CURRENTLY in low sec is -not worth any isk at all-. Its a loss. The risks are WAY too big. Lowering standards to the the lowest income group (which is really a negative income) will make it a glorified, and useless, tutorial on how to NOT play eve. - Grouping does not help much if its pve fit against pvp fit. - Grouping is not -always- fun. - Forcing missions in lowsec does NOT HELP grouping. If group missions is what we want, and I would like those, there are tried and true ways of doing it. Close the missionspace during fight for one thing. Require fleets to pick up l5 missions. Require fleet warps to mission space. Heck, then they even can start in low sec, at least we have a chance then.
Tianzi Q'triann	Posted - 2010.06.16 06:05:00 - [17] Edited by: Tianzi Q''triann on 16/06/2010 06:18:15 Originally by: Militia ManOWar To be fair ALL L3/L4 missions should be lowsec ONLY. Only L1/L2 for new characters should be in high sec. No, your in denial that you can't admit that your lowsec has the best agents that pay 60k+ points and require a group to do. Your in denil that PVE is Boring! to you and want an easy target in a fat battleship or marauder to that took 3x or longer to train then your piece of **** cruiser or battlecruiser with a load of T1 meta 0 modules on it so it won't hurt your wallet and stroke your epeen while using the killmail to clean up after like a tissue, while frustrated you didn't get an XBOX achievement unlocked. Your in denial, that you can't accept that possibly "Am I doing it wrong?" that you can shoot targets anywhere with consequences and terrified of loosing security status and CONCORD gang **s. Quote:** they are not a valid playerbase if they are exploiting risk v reward mechanics. the only LOGICAL solution to a fair risk/reward model is that L1/L2 missions are in high sec and L3/L4 missions are only in lowsec and L5 only in nullsec. If players do not wish risk vs reward they can play a single player game. You cannot argue against my logic, it is sound. Editing in because I don't want to wait 5 minutes. There is more risk involved undocking in a 2 billion ship everytime to do a mission, regardless where it is, ya know a gank does happen. There is zero sitting in station changing numbers by .01 every five minutes, you can't touch the pilot if they don't undock and the least likely scenario someone will manipulate the market to dump a bunch of modules on you for a huge profit. There is high pointless risk of taking a battleship or marauder into lowsec with a sustained required tank vs npc and some punk ass with a fraction of the skills can burn through the tank in seconds that can withstand NPCs for hours, as it takes about 3 minutes or less (I don't think even Golems can WTFpwn! missions that fast) before the mission is found, you warp out, and guess what? Let me keep you in suspense for a moment....can't finish it! So you cancel, take a sec hit, and possibly are unable to use that agent in lowsec. And while your at it, try comming up with something more constructive then this on the forums instead of attention whoring. Perhaps lowsec missions should be dumbed down a grade so level 4 is 3 and level 3 is 2, requiring battlecruisers or cruisers but a bit more difficult then the standard level 2 or 3.
Geriegras	Posted - 2010.06.16 06:43:00 - [18] Thanks guys, you've clearly gone of topic. Does anyone know the time frame for this getting fixed? Possibly someone at ccp could answer? also on the l3/l4 in low sec only debate I feel that the players should be given the choice (as we are) but the reward vs risk of low sec missions is no where near rewarding enough for it too be tempting. Also why are CCP developers thick ****s? they all seem to have no ability to think in a joined up and coherent manner?
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2010.06.16 06:46:00 - [19] Quote: There is zero sitting in station changing numbers by .01 every five minutes, you can't touch the pilot if they don't undock and the least likely scenario someone will manipulate the market to dump a bunch of modules on you for a huge profit. Pure station trading should be drastically nerfed so that you either lose a nice sum for flipping orders or you bring the stuff to another station and risk the consequences. As of now, station trading is like having botting parasites just eating in profits, while inter-regional traders have all the risk but not the profit increase to justify for it. Quote: Perhaps lowsec missions should be dumbed down a grade so level 4 is 3 and level 3 is 2, requiring battlecruisers or cruisers but a bit more difficult then the standard level 2 or 3 Nah, low sec missions difficulty is fine as is. What I'd change: 1) Remove low sec missions that force you to stay at the warp in point for the full duration (the typical warp in, mega-"melee" NPC blob insta aggro kind). 2) Make the directional scanner refresh in automatic, it's the single thing that forced me out of low sec L4. 3) Make defending something more viable, as of now it's so easy to scan & gank vs so hard to endure the rabid 5 sec scanner clicking to defend. - Auditing & consulting When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Geriegras	Posted - 2010.06.16 07:04:00 - [20] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: There is zero sitting in station changing numbers by .01 every five minutes, you can't touch the pilot if they don't undock and the least likely scenario someone will manipulate the market to dump a bunch of modules on you for a huge profit. Pure station trading should be drastically nerfed so that you either lose a nice sum for flipping orders or you bring the stuff to another station and risk the consequences. As of now, station trading is like having botting parasites just eating in profits, while inter-regional traders have all the risk but not the profit increase to justify for it. Quote: Perhaps lowsec missions should be dumbed down a grade so level 4 is 3 and level 3 is 2, requiring battlecruisers or cruisers but a bit more difficult then the standard level 2 or 3 Nah, low sec missions difficulty is fine as is. What I'd change: 1) Remove low sec missions that force you to stay at the warp in point for the full duration (the typical warp in, mega-"melee" NPC blob insta aggro kind). 2) Make the directional scanner refresh in automatic, it's the single thing that forced me out of low sec L4. 3) Make defending something more viable, as of now it's so easy to scan & gank vs so hard to endure the rabid 5 sec scanner clicking to defend. Carrot is always better than stick, ccp should have introduced an sp/hour gain for being undocked (and not cloaked) and an sp/hour gain buff for killing npcs and players. Scanner is another area (of many) where ccp fall short of what could actually be achieved, each should could have 2 scanners similar to an active and passive sonar setup. With passive giving you a distance and shiptype, and being always upto date (with a range limit, 20au etc) and active giving direction and ship name, pilot name. But also giving away that you are actively hunting a target (sonar ping) and lighting you up in space (for say 10seconds) with a marker that cant be warped too.

Jessica Verne Minute to Midnight	Posted - 2010.06.16 09:13:00 - [21] Originally by: Lunewrath Hah thank god Militia ManOWar is not the lead game designer, he would effectively cut out half the entire playerbase. You say that as if it would be a bad thing and change anything about eve except less idle wallets going up...
Natalie Caladan Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2010.06.16 11:16:00 - [22] Edited by: Natalie Caladan on 16/06/2010 11:17:31 I do hope CCP will reconsider their changes because it doesn't make a lot of sense nor does it have the desired effect. If they want people to spread out, why force them all to move to the same few mission hub deep in highsec space because the others are too close to lowsec? Because that's what basically is happening. I also think it's a mistake to randomly send people to lowsec. Missions ships are simply too expensive to make the effort worth it. You're not going to risk 2 billion to make say 20 million. Another problem is that if you have to warp out because of gankers, you can't finish your mission and you lose standings and get no reward at all. Of course I agree: a courier through lowsec isn't always that bad. I'm missioning in a system bordering one lowsec and 3 or 4 highsec systems and the only ones I have to do in lowsec are a few 5 m3 couriers that I can do with a shuttle. While I see wrecks of industrials and battlecruisers on the way. Not exactly encouraging to go missioning there! And well, about balanced income: L4 may earn a bit more than mining but at least it requires a little more attention. Imo EVE is far too much an AFK game!
Tiima Tuscan	Posted - 2010.06.16 12:17:00 - [23] What I don't get is why, in a game as diverse and open as Eve, players decide to make running computer missions their main focus. Have you no imagination? Low-sec and null-sec are by far the most exciting parts of Eve.
Newbi McNublette	Posted - 2010.06.16 13:58:00 - [24] Originally by: Tiima Tuscan What I don't get is why, in a game as diverse and open as Eve, players decide to make running computer missions their main focus. Have you no imagination? Low-sec and null-sec are by far the most exciting parts of Eve. Some people play to relax and socialise, you cant really do that if you are having to watch the scanner every 5 seconds. I agree that grinding missions as fast as possible 23/7 is not everyones idea of fun, mine included, but some people do like it. Why should they be forced to give up their play style?
Lonestar Antares Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2010.06.16 14:19:00 - [25] Originally by: Tiima Tuscan What I don't get is why, in a game as diverse and open as Eve, players decide to make running computer missions their main focus. Have you no imagination? Low-sec and null-sec are by far the most exciting parts of Eve. What I don't get is why, in a game as diverse and open as Eve, some players decide that the only "true way to play" is flying around lowsec ganking eachother over and over and constantly argue to funnel everyone into their way of playing. There was a game where everything was pvp. It was called ultima online. You never left town with anything of value because you knew you were going to die anyway, slaughtered by roving groups of pvp bandits. Its nice that in EVE, there is a haven where I can have my nice ship AND use it for something to further my gaming experience. No, I do not want to jump my expensive ship into lowsec so you can kill me and take my stuff. No thanks. I worked hard to get what I have and I am not going to throw it away because some other player feels "whoa dude, pvp is the way to go man". I think missions ARE fun. I can try different combos, I can admire the way the light gleams off my megathron. I can play with mixed batteries of guns and less than optimal fits. I can truly enjoy the game mechanics against a predictable opponent. What I really feel CCP should do is to make the NPC's act like players! Random npc warp ins with "gank fits", neuting you and using pvp tactics while they scramble and web. It wouldnt be that hard. Have npc's repping eachother. Then the distinction between pvp and pve is not so dramatic.
Jennifer Fenring Amarr	Posted - 2010.06.16 14:35:00 - [26] Edited by: Jennifer Fenring on 16/06/2010 14:46:28 Originally by: Tiima Tuscan What I don't get is why, in a game as diverse and open as Eve, players decide to make running computer missions their main focus. Have you no imagination? Low-sec and null-sec are by far the most exciting parts of Eve. Of course you can do both. Most people want to be able to farm some money in peace to replenish their losses or get better things. And mining is really TOO dull for many players. Hence the abundance of macro miners, I suppose. And if low/nulsec is the "meaning" of EVE, what's the use of multi-billion officer stuff anyway? Might as well remove faction and officer/deadspace stuff from the game as well. OH and implants, away with them! If these things weren't in the game, PvP would hurt a lot less. Most of us just don't want to lose a few billion that we had to grind for for weeks in a split second. By introducing them, CCP also implicitely introduced a very PvP unfriendly risk/reward ratio for everything below highsec. Especially the implants, as if skilltraining doesn't already go at a crawl. I have a low SP character that I stopped training months ago because I screwed up her remaps. Whenever I mission with her I don't really mind going to lowsec to do an occasional courier mission. She has no implants to lose. An industrial doesn't cost anything either. A 1.8 million clone is dead cheap. Suddenly risk/reward is a lot better. True story.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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