EVE Search - A Good Reson 4 High Sec Level 5's

All Channels

Missions & Complexes

A Good Reson 4 High Sec Level 5's

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 05:14:00 - [1] kk so this hole thing is based on risk V Reward right. Thats what I get from most of the posters. Now low sec people are always tring to claim there is no risk in runing missions so the good paying ones should be in low sec to inc the risk becouse there is no risk in runing high sec missions. Then your going to love this. I just wish they had one for all ships and not just tech 3. But we will use what they give us. first Quarterly Economic Newsletter of 2010 Security Group Count High Sec 1,228 PVE 964 PVP 264 Low sec 601 PVE 75 PVP 526 Null sec 1,514 PVE 449 PVP 1,065 Wormhole Space 680 PVE 283 PVP 397 Total 4,023 Now if we look at the high sec will see that 964 ships were lost in PVE and that in low sec only 526 ships were lost in pvp. I think thats a clear and cut case of high sec ;mission runers lossing more ship in PVE in high sec with out help dieing then ships were lost in low sec to PVP. So clearly level 5 missions should be in high sec becouse the greater risk is in losing a ship in a mission in high sec. Plz keep in mind this are just tech 3 ships only there is no telling out many ships are realy lost in high sec missions verses low sec pvp. But people were using them for both here and they are the best ships out there right now that are not Capitol class ships. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.06.15 05:26:00 - [2] Now normalise those numbers with how many ships were in use in each case. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 05:56:00 - [3] Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 06:06:01 Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 05:57:29 Originally by: Tippia Now normalise those numbers with how many ships were in use in each case. I not 100% on how to normalise Humanity. What I mean is just becouse a small % of people live to gank easy targets in low sec and a much biger % live to do pure pve content. But what is showen is that High sec Missions claim more resoures then Low sec PVP or PVP and PVE put together. So do's it not make a better case that the people using more of the resoures should get the better stuff? Edit: By better stuff I do mean better paying level 5 missions so they can Pay for the better stuff that there lossing. Every time a Mission runner loses and Navy/Fleet what ever fraction Pimp BS you know its the same as Carryer or Dreadnot loss in ISK. So is a Tech 3 ship. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 06:10:00 - [4] Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 06:10:43 I would be willing to go so far with out prof just personal opion from myself only. That the larger part of High Sec PVE Tech 3 ship loss was inside a level 5 High Sec mission. Beacouse you normal would never loss it in a level 4. You can fall asleep on your keyboard and wake up the next day after DT and your tank will still be holding in a level 4 or lower mission. But level 5's on the other hand have much nastier DPS and EW going on. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
King Rothgar Amarrian Retribution	Posted - 2010.06.15 06:20:00 - [5] Divide by number of players to get a ratio. Loss statistics without taking population into account mean nothing. Nice troll though, I'll give it an 8/10. Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig.
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 06:27:00 - [6] Originally by: King Rothgar Divide by number of players to get a ratio. Loss statistics without taking population into account mean nothing. Nice troll though, I'll give it an 8/10. If what your saying is there are a Ton more people in High sec PVEing and fewer people in low sec PVPing I am more then willing to say so. Do's not change the fact that More ships were lost in the High sec PVE activty and Fewer ships lost in the PVP activity. All it shows is that more people enjoy Doing High sec PVE over Low is PVP. And lets not forget that is shows High sec PVE is not risk free at all. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Vaerah Vahrokha Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting	Posted - 2010.06.15 06:31:00 - [7] Quote: Nice troll though, I'll give it an 8/10. I have the foul feeling he was not trolling So, OP, if you lose 1000 ships in hi sec with i.e. a 200k player base in hi sec and you lose 500 ships in low sec with a 20k player base, you say hi sec is riskier? For real? - Auditing & consulting When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 06:33:00 - [8] Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 06:33:46 Originally by: King Rothgar Divide by number of players to get a ratio. Loss statistics without taking population into account mean nothing. Nice troll though, I'll give it an 8/10. You see people this is how Low Sec crys about High sec and mission running. First they cry for mons that there is no Risk no Ship loss in High sec PVEing. And We the high sec PVE's cry that were the Larger crowed so give them to us. And they say the Larger Number do's not mean anything. And now we show that More ships are lost to High sec PVE then to Low sec PVP and now there Cry the Numbers matter the Numbers! WTF man is it just me or is he Crying the same thing that they told us did not Matter? Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 06:39:00 - [9] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha Quote: Nice troll though, I'll give it an 8/10. I have the foul feeling he was not trolling So, OP, if you lose 1000 ships in hi sec with i.e. a 200k player base in hi sec and you lose 500 ships in low sec with a 20k player base, you say hi sec is riskier? For real? Let me just Copy/Past this one too man I could probly copy/past this for every low sec reply as its going to be the Numbers Now Matter as there reply. You see people this is how Low Sec crys about High sec and mission running. First they cry for mons that there is no Risk no Ship loss in High sec PVEing. And We the high sec PVE's cry that were the Larger crowed so give them to us. And they say the Larger Number do's not mean anything. And now we show that More ships are lost to High sec PVE then to Low sec PVP and now there Cry the Numbers matter the Numbers! WTF man is it just me or is he Crying the same thing that they told us did not Matter? Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
ISEEUYOU	Posted - 2010.06.15 07:21:00 - [10] The most obvious answer to why more people lost ships in PvE in highsec: People there are just THAT MUCH thicker... I mean just take a glance at the average chat in local in highsec, hell even the smacktalk is bad And to loose you t3 in a lvl 4 mission... well look above. I'm asuming some of those t3 pve losses came from the "ma tengu so awsome in lvl 4, ima go try lvl 5 for sure"-crowd, who lost their ships because they couldn't bother to do any research (or don't want to for RP reasons) and didn't know most lvl 5 missions have neut towers in them that kills any active tank in seconds.
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 07:36:00 - [11] Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 07:42:14 Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 07:41:21 Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 07:36:29 Originally by: ISEEUYOU The most obvious answer to why more people lost ships in PvE in highsec: People there are just THAT MUCH thicker... I mean just take a glance at the average chat in local in highsec, hell even the smacktalk is bad And to loose you t3 in a lvl 4 mission... well look above. I'm asuming some of those t3 pve losses came from the "ma tengu so awsome in lvl 4, ima go try lvl 5 for sure"-crowd, who lost their ships because they couldn't bother to do any research (or don't want to for RP reasons) and didn't know most lvl 5 missions have neut towers in them that kills any active tank in seconds. But No Wait O O god do you mean High sec mission runing is not 100% safe and that you can slip up and Lose the same amount of ISK some one would Lose with a Capital? O-god no you must be lieing becouse High sec mission runners never loss isk or ships in high sec missions? O and the out rage that you should blam all ship losses on Level 5's. I see you just care so much for the High Sec mission runners that you can't bear the loss of them losing ships in a mission so they must be keept safe from this and so move them to low sec so it no longer bothers them right? Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
ISEEUYOU	Posted - 2010.06.15 07:42:00 - [12] Originally by: Rip Minner But No Wait O O god do you mean High sec mission runing is not 100% safe and that you can slip up and Lose the same amount of ISK some one would Loss with a Capital? O-god no you must be lieing becouse High sec mission runners never loss isk or ships in high sec missions? Yes, idiots are never safe. If you fly a ship in highsec, at the cost of a capital ship.... well you're either extremely unlucky, or just plain dumb to loose it to pve activity (could ofc be that you have too much isk and want to try out some fun deadspace fit frigate in a lvl 4, to each his own).
King Rothgar Amarrian Retribution	Posted - 2010.06.15 07:44:00 - [13] You should also think about this, how many of those losses were day old characters in frigates? I don't know about you, but I lost 2-3 frigates to npc's my first day playing cause I didn't have a ****ing clue. In any case it doesn't change anything. I assumed this was a troll as lvl5's are not difficult at all. They require certain ship configurations to counter neut towers but other than that they aren't really any different from lvl4's. They are high end content and as such belong in a more dangerous region than high sec. It's the same reason you won't find crockite in high sec. Mining it is no harder than mining veldspar but it's value (determined by rarity) mandates it be limited to more dangerous space. The same is true of sleeper crap. In any case I suggest you move on. Either learn to run them in low sec or get over it. I've been running them in low sec for more than a year, haven't lost a ship yet doing it. I assure you it's not nearly as suicidal as many claim. You can't afk it though, gotta pay attention to who is in system with you and what they are up to. Thus far you shall read, but no further; for this is my sig.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.06.15 07:44:00 - [14] Originally by: Rip Minner Do's not change the fact that More ships were lost in the High sec PVE activty and Fewer ships lost in the PVP activity. No, but it makes that rather irrelevant, and it also shows that you have no grounds for the claim that there is a "greater risk is in losing a ship in a mission in high sec." Your numbers do not show this. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Jennifer Fenring Amarr	Posted - 2010.06.15 07:44:00 - [15] Originally by: Rip Minner So clearly level 5 missions should be in high sec becouse the greater risk is in losing a ship in a mission in high sec. "Greater risk" should be an expression of how many t3 ships are lost compared to the total number of played hours in a t3 ship, split between PvP, PvE and other. Absolute numbers don't say anything. Of course there's a lot more car incidents in the US of A than in Vatican City, doesn't say anything about the safeness.
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 07:45:00 - [16] Originally by: ISEEUYOU Originally by: Rip Minner But No Wait O O god do you mean High sec mission runing is not 100% safe and that you can slip up and Lose the same amount of ISK some one would Loss with a Capital? O-god no you must be lieing becouse High sec mission runners never loss isk or ships in high sec missions? Yes, idiots are never safe. If you fly a ship in highsec, at the cost of a capital ship.... well you're either extremely unlucky, or just plain dumb to loose it to pve activity (could ofc be that you have too much isk and want to try out some fun deadspace fit frigate in a lvl 4, to each his own). You dont have to be a Idiot to lose a ship in PVE or PVP the fact is you have no good answers when faced with true. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 08:02:00 - [17] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Rip Minner Do's not change the fact that More ships were lost in the High sec PVE activty and Fewer ships lost in the PVP activity. No, but it makes that rather irrelevant, and it also shows that you have no grounds for the claim that there is a "greater risk is in losing a ship in a mission in high sec." Your numbers do not show this. Its right in front of your face. Higher Ship Loses in High Sec PVE then in Low Sec PVP. Or on the other hand we can go with Game Wide and cover 100% of players. PVE Loses 1771 or 44.02% PVP Loses 2252 or 55.98% So Game Wide there is close to a 10% high chance of Lossing a PVP ship then there is a PVE ship. And the Highest level of PVE is in WH and Null Sec and pays alot better then level 5's. But low sec should have something more profitalbe then High sec so what do they have that High sec dont. O ya Moon Mining/Capitals Better belts. Better Q level mission givers and lower sec states raising the pay outs of this missions. FW. So ya for a 10% diffence I do think High sec should have Level 5 missions Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
ISEEUYOU	Posted - 2010.06.15 08:06:00 - [18] Originally by: Rip Minner You dont have to be a Idiot to lose a ship in PVE or PVP the fact is you have no good answers when faced with true. You don't have to be an idot to loose a ship in pve, I agree. I myself have lost ships purely to pve, mostly as a nub but also a couple later. I said you where an idiot if you lost a ship at the cost of a capital ship in highsec to pve. I'll stand by that. I don't think I can give YOU any good answers, as for the ones who can understand the most difficult logic of risk/reward... well they just might get it. Also when talking about the truth... wherent you the one laughing of others claims about using proper mathematics when looking at statistics? You're possibly considering a career as a politician?
ISEEUYOU	Posted - 2010.06.15 08:11:00 - [19] Originally by: Rip Minner Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Rip Minner Do's not change the fact that More ships were lost in the High sec PVE activty and Fewer ships lost in the PVP activity. No, but it makes that rather irrelevant, and it also shows that you have no grounds for the claim that there is a "greater risk is in losing a ship in a mission in high sec." Your numbers do not show this. Its right in front of your face. Higher Ship Loses in High Sec PVE then in Low Sec PVP. Or on the other hand we can go with Game Wide and cover 100% of players. PVE Loses 1771 or 44.02% PVP Loses 2252 or 55.98% So Game Wide there is close to a 10% high chance of Lossing a PVP ship then there is a PVE ship. And the Highest level of PVE is in WH and Null Sec and pays alot better then level 5's. But low sec should have something more profitalbe then High sec so what do they have that High sec dont. O ya Moon Mining/Capitals Better belts. Better Q level mission givers and lower sec states raising the pay outs of this missions. FW. So ya for a 10% diffence I do think High sec should have Level 5 missions OK, you have convinced me it's not any idea to argue with you any further. You are either trolling or you suck so bad at understanding basic statistics that it would make a baby cry. Please refrain from ever using numbers again in your arguments until you finish elementary school statistics class. PS. I might still come back here for the tears and stuff
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 08:25:00 - [20] Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 08:25:32 Originally by: ISEEUYOU Originally by: Rip Minner Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Rip Minner Do's not change the fact that More ships were lost in the High sec PVE activty and Fewer ships lost in the PVP activity. No, but it makes that rather irrelevant, and it also shows that you have no grounds for the claim that there is a "greater risk is in losing a ship in a mission in high sec." Your numbers do not show this. Its right in front of your face. Higher Ship Loses in High Sec PVE then in Low Sec PVP. Or on the other hand we can go with Game Wide and cover 100% of players. PVE Loses 1771 or 44.02% PVP Loses 2252 or 55.98% So Game Wide there is close to a 10% high chance of Lossing a PVP ship then there is a PVE ship. And the Highest level of PVE is in WH and Null Sec and pays alot better then level 5's. But low sec should have something more profitalbe then High sec so what do they have that High sec dont. O ya Moon Mining/Capitals Better belts. Better Q level mission givers and lower sec states raising the pay outs of this missions. FW. So ya for a 10% diffence I do think High sec should have Level 5 missions OK, you have convinced me it's not any idea to argue with you any further. You are either trolling or you suck so bad at understanding basic statistics that it would make a baby cry. Please refrain from ever using numbers again in your arguments until you finish elementary school statistics class. PS. I might still come back here for the tears and stuff Statisticly thats game wide. Not weighted in anyway. I dont have the numbers for the acitve player base in High/Low/0.0/Null/and WH. But god you would think that at least 50% of the player base as to be active out in Low/0.0/Null and Wh as this places take up what 75% of the games World? If there were not at least 50% of the player base out there then that speaks of Failer on part of CCP to make them fun for the over weleming majority. And as active accounts keep going up this must not be so. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.06.15 08:38:00 - [21] Edited by: Tippia on 15/06/2010 08:40:37 Originally by: Rip Minner Its right in front of your face. Higher Ship Loses in High Sec PVE then in Low Sec PVP. Or on the other hand we can go with Game Wide and cover 100% of players. No we can't, because we don't have any kind of indication of what those losses represent in relation to other ship classes, in relation to the overall population, in relation to use and activity, in relation toà anything Quote: PVE Loses 1771 or 44.02% PVP Loses 2252 or 55.98% So Game Wide there is close to a 10% higher chance of Lossing a PVP ship then there is a PVE ship. No. Not game wide, just for T3, and it tells us nothing about why; it tells us nothing about where it's more dangerous; it has fsck-all to do with missions in low- and highsec. It does not tell you want you want to know in any way, shape or form. To make your claim, you need the following numbers: How many T3 ships are used in highsec? How many T3 ships are used for missions in highsec? How many outings do these highsec mission T3 ships have? How many outings do the non-mission highsec T3 ships see? How many T3 ships are used in lowsec? How many T3 ships are used for missions in lowsec? How many T3 ships are used in lowsec? How many of these ships are used for missions in lowsec? How many outings do they see? How many outings do the T3 lowsec PvP ships see? Without those numbers, the figures you quote tell us nothing. They are just absolute numbers with zero context ù i.e. they're worthless data (they're not even information). Quote: Statisticly thats game wide. Not weighted in anyway. I dont have the numbers for the acitve player base in High/Low/0.0/Null/and WH. Exactly. So you have exactly zero grounds for saying anything about the risk involved in PvE or PvP in any of the various sec classes. Statistically, the numbers you quote are void of any useful information. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 08:45:00 - [22] Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 15/06/2010 08:40:37 Originally by: Rip Minner Its right in front of your face. Higher Ship Loses in High Sec PVE then in Low Sec PVP. Or on the other hand we can go with Game Wide and cover 100% of players. No we can't, because we don't have any kind of indication of what those losses represent in relation to other ship classes, in relation to the overall population, in relation to use and activity, in relation toà anything Quote: PVE Loses 1771 or 44.02% PVP Loses 2252 or 55.98% So Game Wide there is close to a 10% higher chance of Lossing a PVP ship then there is a PVE ship. No. Not game wide, just for T3, and it tells us nothing about why; it tells us nothing about where it's more dangerous; it has fsck-all to do with missions in low- and highsec. It does not tell you want you want to know in any way, shape or form. To make your claim, you need the following numbers: How many T3 ships are used in highsec? How many T3 ships are used for missions in highsec? How many outings do these highsec mission T3 ships have? How many outings do the non-mission highsec T3 ships see? How many T3 ships are used in lowsec? How many T3 ships are used for missions in lowsec? How many T3 ships are used in lowsec? How many of these ships are used for missions in lowsec? How many outings do they see? How many outings do the T3 lowsec PvP ships see? Without those numbers, the figures you quote tell us nothing. They are just absolute numbers with zero context ù i.e. they're worthless data (they're not even information). Quote: Statisticly thats game wide. Not weighted in anyway. I dont have the numbers for the acitve player base in High/Low/0.0/Null/and WH. Exactly. So you have exactly zero grounds for saying anything about the risk involved in PvE or PvP in any of the various sec classes. Statistically, the numbers you quote are void of any useful information. Statisticly thats game wide. Not weighted in anyway. I dont have the numbers for the acitve player base in High/Low/0.0/Null/and WH. But god you would think that at least 50% of the player base as to be active out in Low/0.0/Null and Wh as this places take up what 75% of the games World? If there were not at least 50% of the player base out there then that speaks of Failer on part of CCP to make them fun for the over weleming majority. And as active accounts keep going up this must not be so. It do's tall a story Game wide Unweighted and uncaring about sec zone only careing about PVE or PVP activity. Only what is up with Tech 3 ships. And we do know that Tech 3 ships are loved just as much for pvp as for pve. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.06.15 09:04:00 - [23] Originally by: Rip Minner Statisticly thats game wide. Not weighted in anyway. I dont have the numbers for the acitve player base in High/Low/0.0/Null/and WH. In other words: it's worthless data. Quote: And it Tells us Most of all that game wide only 10% more tech 3 ships were lose in PVP activity then in PVE activity showing that PVE players do lose ships at a rate of about 10% less for game wide activity with tech 3 ships. So ya it do's show us something now dont it Yes, it says that in absolute numbers, more ships are lost to PvPà which means, what, exactly? Again, it's based on absolute numbers. So no, it doesn't tell us anything useful. It certainly does not provide us with any kind of reason why we should have L5:s in highsec. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 09:10:00 - [24] Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 09:12:37 Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 09:12:10 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Rip Minner Statisticly thats game wide. Not weighted in anyway. I dont have the numbers for the acitve player base in High/Low/0.0/Null/and WH. In other words: it's worthless data. Quote: And it Tells us Most of all that game wide only 10% more tech 3 ships were lose in PVP activity then in PVE activity showing that PVE players do lose ships at a rate of about 10% less for game wide activity with tech 3 ships. So ya it do's show us something now dont it Yes, it says that in absolute numbers, more ships are lost to PvPà which means, what, exactly? Again, it's based on absolute numbers. So no, it doesn't tell us anything useful. It certainly does not provide us with any kind of reason why we should have L5:s in highsec. Edit: You can even weight that if you like in the belife that most PVE content is ran in High sec and most PVP content is ran everywere alse if you like. It still means the same thing PVE players are lossing only 10% less in Tech 3 ships then PVP players game wide. And that was with Level 5's in high sec the one mission that most PVE players would loses a ship on is now gone. So ya with no level 5's in high sec I do belive you will be right in you thinking that taking into account only level 4's and lower missions are ran as the vast majority of PVE content for now on that Much few high level ships will be lose in PVE content. Let me just Copy/Past this one too man I could probly copy/past this for every low sec reply as its going to be the Numbers Now Matter as there reply. You see people this is how Low Sec crys about High sec and mission running. First they cry for mons that there is no Risk no Ship loss in High sec PVEing. And We the high sec PVE's cry that were the Larger crowed so give them to us. And they say the Larger Number do's not mean anything. And now we show that More ships are lost to High sec PVE then to Low sec PVP and now they Cry the Numbers matter the Numbers! WTF man is it just me or is he Crying the same thing that they told us did not Matter? Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
ISEEUYOU	Posted - 2010.06.15 09:34:00 - [25] OK, seems you understood that the numbers you wrote doesn't show what you thought they did. But just to make it extra clear: It sounded like you where saying pvp was only 10% more dangerous then pve? Now percantage is a relative number. And you used the relation between pve losses and pvp losses to get that number. That is as tippia have written incorrect way to calculate it. You want to use the losses compared to the usage of the ships in different situations. Originally by: Rip Minner Statisticly thats game wide. Not weighted in anyway. I dont have the numbers for the acitve player base in High/Low/0.0/Null/and WH. But god you would think that at least 50% of the player base as to be active out in Low/0.0/Null and Wh as this places take up what 75% of the games World? If there were not at least 50% of the player base out there then that speaks of Failer on part of CCP to make them fun for the over weleming majority. And as active accounts keep going up this must not be so. Well I don't have the complete staticstic for it either, but you can get a rough estimate by opening the map in eve, and using the statistics shown for pilots in space. A lot of systems in highsec with several hundred players in, and even systems without any apparently wortwhile in it seems full of people. 0.0 Seems mostly lowly populated, with a few extremely populated spots occuring where there are currently major conflicts. Then we have lowsec, which is also lowly populated, and with a lot of systems without a single pilot in them.... I have logged in hours after DT in lowsec, just to find that the system hasn't loaded = noone has been in the system since DT. My estimate is that it's A LOT more then 50% of the playerbase that is sitting in highsec, possibly over 75%. And yes CCP has in some ways failed, since they want you to leave highsec, at least once in a while. By making lvl 5:s highsec content, I would not see any reason to go to lowsec bar piracy and to pass by into 0.0 ..... DARE TO BE BOLD PILOT.... wth else do people need to understand that CCP want's to reward pilots who are willing to take some risks?
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 09:44:00 - [26] Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 09:45:02 Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 09:44:35 Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 09:44:04 Originally by: ISEEUYOU OK, seems you understood that the numbers you wrote doesn't show what you thought they did. But just to make it extra clear: It sounded like you where saying pvp was only 10% more dangerous then pve? Now percantage is a relative number. And you used the relation between pve losses and pvp losses to get that number. That is as tippia have written incorrect way to calculate it. You want to use the losses compared to the usage of the ships in different situations. Originally by: Rip Minner Statisticly thats game wide. Not weighted in anyway. I dont have the numbers for the acitve player base in High/Low/0.0/Null/and WH. But god you would think that at least 50% of the player base as to be active out in Low/0.0/Null and Wh as this places take up what 75% of the games World? If there were not at least 50% of the player base out there then that speaks of Failer on part of CCP to make them fun for the over weleming majority. And as active accounts keep going up this must not be so. Well I don't have the complete staticstic for it either, but you can get a rough estimate by opening the map in eve, and using the statistics shown for pilots in space. A lot of systems in highsec with several hundred players in, and even systems without any apparently wortwhile in it seems full of people. 0.0 Seems mostly lowly populated, with a few extremely populated spots occuring where there are currently major conflicts. Then we have lowsec, which is also lowly populated, and with a lot of systems without a single pilot in them.... I have logged in hours after DT in lowsec, just to find that the system hasn't loaded = noone has been in the system since DT. My estimate is that it's A LOT more then 50% of the playerbase that is sitting in highsec, possibly over 75%. And yes CCP has in some ways failed, since they want you to leave highsec, at least once in a while. By making lvl 5:s highsec content, I would not see any reason to go to lowsec bar piracy and to pass by into 0.0 ..... DARE TO BE BOLD PILOT.... wth else do people need to understand that CCP want's to reward pilots who are willing to take some risks? I'm a resonable guy I have not looked but I will later if that is the cass I can go with CCP failed at leting all the PVE people belive EVE is a sandbox and you can do anything. It should have read EVE is a sandbox and you can do anything if you can pvp and blob. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.06.15 10:03:00 - [27] Originally by: Rip Minner It still means the same thing PVE players are lossing only 10% less in Tech 3 ships then PVP players game wide. Yes, butà and let me repeat this in a way that you won't miss: THAT DOESN'T TELL US ANYTHING USEFUL You're trying to infer from this that highsec PvE is dangerous. The problem is, it cannot be determined from absolute numbers. To do that, you have to compare the losses to how much the ships are used in each case. You don't have those numbers, so you can't. Your ~~information~~ data is worthless if it cannot be put into context and related to what you want to tell us. Quote: And that was with Level 5's in high sec the one mission that most PVE players would loses a ship on is now gone. àand you have no data that says what caused these highsec losses, so the insinuation here is pure conjecture on your part ù it's not even worthless data any more. What you're essentially saying is: "Hey, people lose T3 ships in lowsec. They also lose T3 ships in highsec. We should have L5s in highsec." Notice how there is no logic connecting these statements and how no coherent argument is made? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Natalie Caladan Royal Amarr Institute	Posted - 2010.06.15 10:50:00 - [28] Edited by: Natalie Caladan on 15/06/2010 10:54:14 Originally by: Tippia You're trying to infer from this that highsec PvE is dangerous. The problem is, it cannot be determined from absolute numbers. Tippa is 100% right. Absolute numbers about losses don't say anything. If 40,000 players lose a few more ships in highsec PvE than 1,000 players in lowsec PvP the risk may still be a lot lower. And honestly I don't think anyone believes that the PvE high sec risk is actually higher than PvP risk in lowsec. Nice statistics but they don't prove any point and definitely not that L5 should be moved to highsec (although I wouldn't complain because I think mixing lowsec PvP ganking with PvE missions is a very bad idea). edit: typo
HowardStern	Posted - 2010.06.15 11:14:00 - [29] "Good Reson 4 High Sec Level 5's" L1s got easy, so I moved to L2s. L2s got easy, so I moved to L3s. L3s got easy, so I moved to L4s. L4s got easy, so I moved to L5s. L5s got removed, so that'll be that then. Eve was fun while it lasted. As far as I'm concerned. I don't want anyone to tell me how to spend my free. And I agree not to tell you how to spend your free time.
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 11:22:00 - [30] Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 11:23:28 Originally by: Tippia What you're essentially saying is: "Hey, people lose T3 ships in lowsec. They also lose T3 ships in highsec. We should have L5s in highsec." Notice how there is no logic connecting these statements and how no coherent argument is made? No what I'm saying is "Hey people lose T3 ships in pvp that includes the all secs only by 10% more then people that lose T3 ships in pve that includes all secs. So ya in light of the 800mil+ 10/10's in Null sec not counting fraction loot and the fact that low sec alreadys gets moon minning/Capitals better Q and lower sec better paying missions and better belts and FW. That level 5's in high sec is right on with Risk V Rewards. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Isebelle	Posted - 2010.06.15 11:37:00 - [31] I hate to break it too you but Eve is an MMO. Like all MMOs, The hardest content requires a GROUP of skilled, experienced and appropriately outfitted players to clear it. Actually scratch that, the other game you play now needs 8 noobs and 1 or 2 ppl who know wtf they are doing, but I digress... L5s, the endgame for mission runners can be soloed safely (not discussing the likelyhood of a pirate gank) in a passive Rattlesnake. This is imho counter to everything that MMOs are about and is unique to this one aspect of Eve. L5s should require team work and player skill (not just SP and a couple of bil in faction &/or officer mods). Every other facet of this game that can be considered endgame require teamwork and coordination - there isn't a good enough reason why the missioning endgame should be any different. Eve is a sandbox, so I agree that it is your right play the game as you see fit, be that in Highsec as a mission runner, suicide ganker, lowsec pirate or Nullsec politico... but it isn't your right to have access to the highest level content and the ability to clear it solo because this simply isn't what an MMO or Eve are about. So CCP, feel free to move L5s back to highsec - moving them exclusively into lowsec didn't fix the inherent problems there. Just be sure to make L5 mission content truely endgame - say as difficult as C5 or C6 Anoms. Oh, and because these 2 old chestnuts go hand in hand; Could you then fix Lowsec? thanks.
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 11:50:00 - [32] Originally by: Isebelle I hate to break it too you but Eve is an MMO. Like all MMOs, The hardest content requires a GROUP of skilled, experienced and appropriately outfitted players to clear it. Actually scratch that, the other game you play now needs 8 noobs and 1 or 2 ppl who know wtf they are doing, but I digress... L5s, the endgame for mission runners can be soloed safely (not discussing the likelyhood of a pirate gank) in a passive Rattlesnake. This is imho counter to everything that MMOs are about and is unique to this one aspect of Eve. L5s should require team work and player skill (not just SP and a couple of bil in faction &/or officer mods). Every other facet of this game that can be considered endgame require teamwork and coordination - there isn't a good enough reason why the missioning endgame should be any different. Eve is a sandbox, so I agree that it is your right play the game as you see fit, be that in Highsec as a mission runner, suicide ganker, lowsec pirate or Nullsec politico... but it isn't your right to have access to the highest level content and the ability to clear it solo because this simply isn't what an MMO or Eve are about. So CCP, feel free to move L5s back to highsec - moving them exclusively into lowsec didn't fix the inherent problems there. Just be sure to make L5 mission content truely endgame - say as difficult as C5 or C6 Anoms. Oh, and because these 2 old chestnuts go hand in hand; Could you then fix Lowsec? thanks. I can get behind this though I personly dont know anyone with a Rattlesnake that runs level 5 missions that dont need at least a second person there to help . But thats a differnt topic. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.06.15 12:47:00 - [33] Edited by: Did you know you can remove your old edit tags so you don't have to start each post with 50 of them? Quote: No what I'm saying is "Hey people lose T3 ships in pvp that includes the all secs only by 10% more then people that lose T3 ships in pve that includes all secs. [à] That level 5's in high sec is right on with Risk V Rewards. No, you're just assuming things because you have no data that shows how and why those T3:s were lost. Quote: So ya in light of the 800mil+ 10/10's in Null sec not counting fraction loot and the fact that low sec alreadys gets moon minning/Capitals better Q and lower sec better paying missions and better belts and FW. àand that has anything to do with the risk and reward of L5s how, exactly? Quote: And the math shows That over all losses of tech 3 ships in the hole game only 10% more are lost in pvp then pve you cant change that. Just becouse you dont the the ratio of pilots in each sec and what there using thoughs ships for. Becouse let me pull numbers out of my ars here if it is 10mil high sec Tech 3 ships flying Missions in high sec and only 1/2 million in low sec the over all Game ratio do's not change. Again: the problem is that the ratio you're pointing towards doesn't say anything. You need (at least) a second point of comparison, and your comparison needs to be structured and focused. Right now, you're comparing the combination of two unlreated and non-normalised data points withà nothing. The conclusion of this is: nothing. Quote: PVP pilots still only lose 10% more tech 3 ships then PVE pilots do. No. Without knowing how many pilots there are, there is no way for you to make that claim. Let's take your arse-sourced numbers above: 10M PvE pilots lose 964 ships. That's a 0.96ë ship loss per pilot on average. 0.5M PvP pilots lose 526 ships. That's 1.05ë ship loss per pilot on average. This means that the PvP pilots, on average lose ~10+ more ships than the PvE pilots do. Do you see why it matters that we know those extra numbers? What you say is true only if we read it as "PvP pilots as a group lose a larger number of ships than PvE Pilots as a group", but for roughly the bazillionth time: it doesn't show anything because we don't know how large those groups are, and how large those loss numbers are relative to the group sizes. Now, as it happens, we have something to work with here. The data you skipped on the previous page of the QEN for some unknown reason (the conspiratorial side of me would suggest that you did it because it doesn't make your numbers look as good): 3,457 T3 ships in highsec space → 964 PvE losses (27.9%) and 264 PvP losses (7.6%) 270 T3 ships flow in lowsec space → 75 PvE losses (27%) and 526 PvP losses (194.8%) ∴ Lowsec PvP causes 7+ more ship ship losses on average than highsec PvE. The PvE loss is roughly the same regardless of sec level. Lowsec PvP losses are 25+ higher than in highsec. You have more than 10+ the number of ships in highsec, but barely 2+ the number of losses. àand even with this information added, it still has no bearing on L5 missions. Hell, these numbers are still just ship numbers ù there is no data about how many pilots were actually involved (and as the lowsec numbers show, people were losing almost two on average in PvP), and there is nothing that tells us how well we can generalise the T3 population to other PvE ships. Quote: And the fact is still pvp only lost 10% more tech 3 ships then pve. And the fact is that this ratio completely ignores how common each occurence is; it is in no way connected to L5s; it is in no way connected to risk; it is in no way connected to rewards. It has ù in short ù fsck-all to do with your wish to see L5s in highsec and with the risks involved. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
ISEEUYOU	Posted - 2010.06.15 13:15:00 - [34] Originally by: Rip Minner So stop trying to sale me insurence This ship lose ratio is already set in stone no matter what number of people in what sec were doig what with there tech 3 ships. This is not a futar possibly mybe this has already happend carved in stone. And the fact is still pvp only lost 10% more tech 3 ships then pve. That means PVE is consuming tech 3 ships only 10% slower then pvp and that more to the point here that High sec PVE is consuming alot more tech 3 ships then low sec PVP. Explain again, and please read your text before posting to see if it even makes sense to you, how does the absolute ammount of t3 ships lost to pve in highsec have anything with balancing risk/reward for highsec/lowsec? And you mention that lowsec already has moon mining/capitals, and there fore is profitable. OK, then go to lowsec, smack up a POS at a random planet and see what that moon goo is worth on the market. Likely less then your fuel costs. Hint: good moons are often held by the 0.0 powerblocks, yes even the ones in lowsec. And trying to take them down usually causes a rice in local of titans and motherships. And capitals.. how do they make it more profitable? In highsec you can fly a pimpmobile, which is likely faster at clearing missions then carriers/dreads. Capital ships also attracts pirates as flies to ****. By your way of thinking, I could say highsec has to high reward, there are people there that are copying Titan BPO:s in their POS:s, making billions with little risk or effort .. They just had to make this small isk investment in the BPO, how unfair. That is ofc nonsense. We should be comparing the rewards/risks of missionrunning in highsec and lowsec. And NO, the higher quality of the lowsec lvl 4 agents do not make up for the increased risk (unless you're in a big corp enough to dominate the area). And as for not possible to solo with a rattlesnake.. I just checked in eft. And by only using t2 mods, and no implants I see that it will have a cakewalk through the easier lvl 5 missions, and likely clear the ones of medium difficulty (again without pimp or implants). That said, no I don't use a rattlesnake myself, since I like to run my missions in lowsec and a pirate BS running missions without support just screams "I AR NUB, PLAESE KILL NAOW".
Qui Shon	Posted - 2010.06.15 13:55:00 - [35] Originally by: Tippia THAT DOESN'T TELL US ANYTHING USEFUL Actually it does tell us something useful. It's concrete proof, as much as that's possible in Eve, that PvE in highsec is not without risk. It doesn't matter one bit if people can do L4's with invulnerable megatanks, the fact remains that PvE as practiced in Eve highsec includes risk. On a scale that nobody can claim is negligible, without looking like a liar. So, what it tells us is that all the losec pies claiming highsec pve to be riskless, are in fact wrong. And that's always nice to have proof of. PS. Virtually all losses in Eve is because someone ****ed up, doesn't matter if it's PvE or PvP; In 99% of cases something could have been done differently to save your ship. That last 1% are cases like, for example last weekend, when I collapsed the wh on a T3 prober who just jumped through into our gang sitting on the other side. That guy didn't stand a chance and had no way of knowing what was waiting for him. Felt a bit bad about that, because there's not much he could've done differently. Except use a covops instead of a T3 for scouting, maybe he'd have had a, say, 3% chance of survival then, because covops are faster and smaller. It's the one, and only example I have though, where the loser didn't do something wrong.
ISEEUYOU	Posted - 2010.06.15 14:02:00 - [36] Edited by: ISEEUYOU on 15/06/2010 14:02:27 Originally by: Qui Shon Originally by: Tippia THAT DOESN'T TELL US ANYTHING USEFUL Actually it does tell us something useful. It's concrete proof, as much as that's possible in Eve, that PvE in highsec is not without risk. It doesn't matter one bit if people can do L4's with invulnerable megatanks, the fact remains that PvE as practiced in Eve highsec includes risk. On a scale that nobody can claim is negligible, without looking like a liar. So, what it tells us is that all the losec pies claiming highsec pve to be riskless, are in fact wrong. And that's always nice to have proof of. It also proves that highsec people are completely and utterly worthless, even at pve edit: keep the lvl 5 missions away from them for their own safety
stoicfaux	Posted - 2010.06.15 14:17:00 - [37] Edited by: stoicfaux on 15/06/2010 14:19:57 From page 30 of the report: Quote: Strategic cruisers have a vastly different distribution than most other ship types. More than 35% of them are being flown outside of high security space. A snapshot of what ships were being flown by characters on active accounts was taken at the end of the first quarter, and at the time 5,392 Strategic Cruisers were being flown. Security Group Count High Security Space 3,457 Low security Space 270 Null security Space 994 Wormhole Space 671 Total 5,392 Also, Page 31 has the T3 loss numbers, which the OP already quoted, IIRC. These are just numbers from a "snapshot" so they're probably meaningless as a one point baseline. However, I'm not going to let that stop me. Also, I know enough about statistics to be dangerous (i.e. I know enough to sound reasonable to the math impaired, but real statisticians will want to tar and feather me.) High Sec - * 64.1% of the T3 population is in high sec * 24.0% of all T3s losses occurred in PvE in high sec * 6.6% of all T3s losses occurred in PvP in high sec Nearly two thirds of the T3 population lost 30.6% of the T3s. High sec T3 pilots are losing .37 T3s per person in PvE and .10 T3 losses per person in PvP Low Sec - * 5.0% of T3 population is in low sec * 1.9% of all T3s losses occurred in PvE in low sec * 13.1% all T3s losses occurred in PvP in low sec Five percent of the T3 population accounted for 15% of the T3 losses. Low sec T3 pilots are losing .38 T3s per person in PvE and 2.62 T3 losses per person in PvP. PvE loss rates appear to be the same in both low and high sec (.37 versus .38 loss rate per person.) The PvP loss rate is dramatically higher in low sec (.10 versus 2.62 loss rate per person.) Of course this doesn't really mean anything since PvP is much easier/encouraged in low sec (i.e. are people actively using their T3s for PvP?) And we don't know what a T3 population "snapshot" means. And we don't know how many mission runners were forced into non-consensual PvP. ----- "Are you a sociopathic paranoid schizophrenic with accounting skills? We have the game for you! -- Eve, the game of Alts, Economics, Machiavelli, and PvP"
Lubomir Penev interimo	Posted - 2010.06.15 15:53:00 - [38] Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha So, OP, if you lose 1000 ships in hi sec with i.e. a 200k player base in hi sec and you lose 500 ships in low sec with a 20k player base, you say hi sec is riskier? For real? He should act on his intuition and move to lowsec, because clearly he did the math, it's both safer and more profitable. -- 081014 : emoragequit, char transfered to a friend, 090317 : back to original owner blog
Mella Elcus	Posted - 2010.06.15 17:59:00 - [39] Originally by: HowardStern "Good Reson 4 High Sec Level 5's" L1s got easy, so I moved to L2s. L2s got easy, so I moved to L3s. L3s got easy, so I moved to L4s. L4s got easy, so I moved to L5s. L5s got removed, so that'll be that then. Eve was fun while it lasted. As far as I'm concerned. I don't want anyone to tell me how to spend my free. And I agree not to tell you how to spend your free time. Well, I spend my free time watching my bot mine ice, and that's how I want to play this game. So if CCP bans me they are actually telling me, ME, how to spend my free time!! Good argument there...
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 18:13:00 - [40] Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 18:16:17 Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 18:14:54 Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Did you know you can remove your old edit tags so you don't have to start each post with 50 of them? Quote: No what I'm saying is "Hey people lose T3 ships in pvp that includes the all secs only by 10% more then people that lose T3 ships in pve that includes all secs. [à] That level 5's in high sec is right on with Risk V Rewards. No, you're just assuming things because you have no data that shows how and why those T3:s were lost. And yet even with cuting out the heart of that that post you did nothing to prove that I'm wrong ether as you have no data to prove other wise then just a gut feeling that pve ships in a pvp sec are going to get ganked. And your dead wrong on capitals not meaning anything as they do let you realy solo level 5's very well. I know a few low sec level 5 runners that hated geting high sec level 5's becouse they can not get there carryers in them. And I still do not know of a high sec level 5 pilot not needing at least two ships for a level 5. So see Captials make runing level 5's more profital in low sec already. Tippia you mite make a great Trader in High sec and good pvper in low sec but you seam to know very little about runing real level 5's in ether high sec or low sec. I have done both. And the fact is if you place Carryers into a level 5 its crazy fast and easy and there for nets you alot more isk in a much shorter amount of time. That my friend is the added risk in low sec paying off twice as fast then the lower risk of level 5's in high sec right there. Real risk V reward wining out. Not this crap we have now. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.06.15 18:26:00 - [41] Edited by: Tippia on 15/06/2010 18:28:45 Originally by: Rip Minner And yet even with cuting out the heart of that that post you did nothing to prove that I'm wrong ether as you have no data to prove other wise then just a gut feeling that pve ships in a pvp sec are going to get ganked. I don't need to prove you wrong; you need to prove yourself right. Without data, you can't. That's the whole point. Oh, and I have not used any gut feelings ù that's what you're doing and why your data is worthless. I've shown what happens if you use your hypotheticals correctly, and I've used actual data from the exact same source you were usingà which also showed that your interpretation was wrong. Quote: And I still do not know of a high sec level 5 pilot not needing at least two ships for a level 5. Look harder. There are plenty of fits on BC (and on these boards, although finding them might be slightly trickier) for exactly that. Quote: That my friend is the added risk in low sec paying off twice as fast then the lower risk of level 5's in high sec right there. All very nice, but that doesn't change the fact that the risk/reward for L5s in highsec is completely off: you're just comparing it to the wrong thing. It's off compared to other highsec activities, and that's why it doesn't belong there. How much income it yields in low/nullsec is pretty much irrelevant to that balance consideration ù that's just the factor that is supposed to create a draw; to get people out of highsec. Oh, and you have exactly no clue about my activities and experiences in game, nor are they in any way relevant to this discussion except as red herrings to hide the fact that you have no data whatsoever to support your argument. Quote: so you see the only thing stoping low sec pirats from runing level 5's much faster then high sec pilots is that the pirats dont wish to place there isk were there mouths are and use a Carryer àand that's just another flawed generalisation. As it happens, there are plenty of pirates who gladly field carriers (or, hell, even supercarriers). ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 18:33:00 - [42] Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 15/06/2010 18:28:45 Originally by: Rip Minner And yet even with cuting out the heart of that that post you did nothing to prove that I'm wrong ether as you have no data to prove other wise then just a gut feeling that pve ships in a pvp sec are going to get ganked. I don't need to prove you wrong; you need to prove yourself right. Without data, you can't. That's the whole point. Oh, and I have not used any gut feelings ù that's what you're doing and why your data is worthless. I've shown what happens if you use your hypotheticals correctly, and I've used actual data from the exact same source you were usingà which also showed that your interpretation was wrong. Quote: And I still do not know of a high sec level 5 pilot not needing at least two ships for a level 5. Look harder. There are plenty of fits on BC (and on these boards, although finding them might be slightly trickier) for exactly that. Quote: That my friend is the added risk in low sec paying off twice as fast then the lower risk of level 5's in high sec right there. All very nice, but that doesn't change the fact that the risk/reward for L5s in highsec is completely off: you're just comparing it to the wrong thing. It's off compared to other highsec activities, and that's why it doesn't belong there. How much income it yields in low/nullsec is pretty much irrelevant to that balance consideration ù that's just the factor that is supposed to create a draw; to get people out of highsec. Oh, and you have exactly no clue about my activities and experiences in game, nor are they in any way relevant to this discussion except as red herrings to hide the fact that you have no data whatsoever to support your argument. Quote: so you see the only thing stoping low sec pirats from runing level 5's much faster then high sec pilots is that the pirats dont wish to place there isk were there mouths are and use a Carryer àand that's just another flawed generalisation. As it happens, there are plenty of pirates who gladly field carriers (or, hell, even supercarriers). Comparing to other high sec activitys I realy dont see anything making more isk for people in high sec then Trading not even level 5's. Now watch she is going to want to come back with something along the lines of trading do's not print isk but the fact that only bountys and npc market orders (tags) and mission rewards are the only real isk printing in the game is just left out when she ask me to compare it to other high sec activitys. Reather then the isk printing activitys posible in low sec or null sec. Becouse she dont want to face the fact that the isk printing ablitys of low sec is already higher then high sec and we all know that null sec is even higher. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.06.15 18:38:00 - [43] Edited by: Tippia on 15/06/2010 18:41:36 Originally by: Rip Minner Comparing to other high sec activitys I realy dont see anything making more isk for people in high sec then Trading Yup. And since that's an inherently competitive PvP activity, it gets a pass. As for ISK-faucets,¹ yes, the ones in low- and nullsec are slightly better, depending on the truesec and/or combat index, but again, that's ok because you're in a riskier environment. They have squat to do with the out-of-whack risk vs. reward of highsec L5s though. ¹ I assume that you actually meant "ISK faucet" rather than ISK printer since you went for the argument that trading doesn't print ISK ù it certainly does, if you do it well, but it is not an ISK faucet. Of course, if you are talking about ISK faucets, then many of the claims you made about the faucets in low/nullsec are wrongà ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 18:44:00 - [44] Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 15/06/2010 18:41:36 Originally by: Rip Minner Comparing to other high sec activitys I realy dont see anything making more isk for people in high sec then Trading Yup. And since that's an inherently competitive PvP activity, it gets a pass. As for ISK-faucets,¦ yes, the ones in low- and nullsec are slightly better, depending on the truesec and/or combat index, but again, that's ok because you're in a riskier environment. They have squat to do with the out-of-whack risk vs. reward of highsec L5s though. ¦ I assume that you actually meant "ISK faucet" rather than ISK printer since you went for the argument that trading doesn't print ISK ù it certainly does, if you do it well, but it is not an ISK faucet. Of course, if you are talking about ISK faucets, then many of the claims you made about the faucets in low/nullsec are wrongà Damn I thought I was out there but man Tippia your going to have to explain to me how trading is pvp man. I dont see it. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.06.15 18:49:00 - [45] Originally by: Rip Minner Damn I thought I was out there but man Tippia your going to have to explain to me how trading is pvp man. I dont see it. I was going to say that 'm not going to dignify that level of stupidity with an answerà àhowever, that would in and of itself be an answer, so I might as well: who do you think you're trading with? The great item fairy in the sky? ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 18:58:00 - [46] Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 19:06:05 Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 19:05:20 Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 19:02:08 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Rip Minner Damn I thought I was out there but man Tippia your going to have to explain to me how trading is pvp man. I dont see it. I was going to say that 'm not going to dignify that level of stupidity with an answerà àhowever, that would in and of itself be an answer, so I might as well: who do you think you're trading with? The great item fairy in the sky? Thats just called player interaction its not pvp. I also get my missions in the same systems as other players in high sec but thats not pvp ether. Player compitation do's not mean its pvp. You may make a better deal trading then the next guy but that realy do's not mean you cost the next guy anything ether. Edit: Let me try this another way. Trading is a pure PVE activity. Trader A can do much better then Trader B by making smarter trades but has no real way of harming trader B with purely Trading activits. Just like High sec mission runner A can make much more isk runing level 4 missions then High sec mission runner B. It do's not make it pvp. And as you pointed out there is no cap and no way to cap it in High sec or anywere alse and blow's the hole Risk V Reward right out of the water. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.06.15 19:14:00 - [47] Edited by: Tippia on 15/06/2010 19:15:33 Originally by: Rip Minner Thats just called player interaction its not pvp. No, it's player competition, and thus PvP. Quote: I also get my missions in the same systems as other players in high sec but thats not pvp ether. That's because you doing missions does not impact on his ability to do missions. You both draw them from the same infinite pool. Quote: Player compitation do's not mean its pvp. You may make a better deal trading then the next guy but that realy do's not mean you cost the next guy anything ether. Actually, it does. Competing against other players is, by very definition, player versus player. Oh, and you making a better deal most certainly costs the other guy. It means he didn't get the great deal and had to pay more. It means your actions makes it costlier for him. It means you now have more money than he does. It also means that, on the other end, one trader earned a bunch of ISK, whereas another did not because he couldn't compete on price ù one of them won and thus have a pile of (your) ISK because you fell for such a sucker deal, whereas the other has no ISK and no useful deal to compete with. Quote: Trading is a pure PVE activity. LMAO No. There is no "E" in what traders do. Quote: Trader A can do much better then Trader B by making smarter trades but has no real way of harming trader B with purely Trading activits. You have never looked at what goes on in any of the trading hubs, I take it? Oh yes you can hurt other traders through trading activities. Hurt them bad. If you cared to look, you'd notice that these forums have an entire section dedicated to hurting others badly through tradingà ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 19:40:00 - [48] Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 15/06/2010 19:15:33 Originally by: Rip Minner Thats just called player interaction its not pvp. No, it's player competition, and thus PvP. Play competition do's not make it player conflict and not what PvP is and still has the highest gains for the lowest risk. Just becouse Trader B sales Iteam X to Trader A for 200 isk and Trader A turns around as sale Iteam X at 2000 isk do's not mean that Trader B did not make profit. As for all we know Trader A got them for 100 isk still making 100% gain on investment just that Trader A did it better and not costing Trader B a isk. So you see Trader A's trading do's impact the Market but not Trader B. Actually, it does. Competing against other players is, by very definition, player versus player. And still as that mite be is shows that some forms of PvP have little to no risk but Very high Rewards in high sec already. That risk is not even on par with suicied ganking of pimp mission ships for mods or Hulk ganking and they both make alot less then Traders. So we have High sec mission runing being a pvp activity by your very definition of player versus player with suicid ganking and I guess even if its a littl risk that you should get great rewards for it as proven by your example of Trading. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Lupalis Longtail	Posted - 2010.06.15 19:48:00 - [49] Edited by: Lupalis Longtail on 15/06/2010 19:49:19 Edited by: Lupalis Longtail on 15/06/2010 19:48:10 Hi, ex-WoW player, but dont diss that game, it has got a tad more subscribers then this game, so they are doing something right. Low-sec missions are a stupid oxymoron. There I said it. I dont like them at all. Its like a wow Instance, except, at randow intervals, players 20 levels higher then you might drop in, close all gates, and slaughter you. Laughing. And taking your loot. And taking you LAST MONTHS worth of loot. Yes, that sounds like fun! Sign me up! Im all for pvp, Im all for groups. In fact, that was what I ws hoping for in the game. The combination of solo play against the machine, the non-flight play with science/trade/industry AND the whack all non blue you can see gang pvp thing, is what I like. But when im in the mood for that thing. If l5 missions required a gang to warp in, people seem to think the social aspect in an MMO is obligatory, and the mission deadspace was CLOSED, it could be fun. But as-is, the fun is not there.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.06.15 20:00:00 - [50] Edited by: Tippia on 15/06/2010 20:01:22 Originally by: Rip Minner Play competition do's not make it player conflict and not what PvP is and still has the highest gains for the lowest risk. Actually, yes. Yes it does (and is), and no ù the risks are certainly there if you want to earn big. Quote: Just becouse Trader B sales Iteam X to Trader A for 200 isk and Trader A turns around as sale Iteam X at 2000 isk do's not mean that Trader B did not make profit. It means that trader B lost out on ISK. It means trader A stole some of trader B's profit. It also means that buyer A got suckered into a bummer deal and lost that part of the game ù he got robbed of his ISK as well. Quote: And still as that mite be is shows that some forms of PvP have little to no risk but Very high Rewards in high sec already. You're assuming the risks are lowà For a quick lesson on why this is wrong, study the MD forums and the relevant price curves just before and after any greater change in the items on the market or in the mechanisms that brings those item to the market. Speculation kills more ISK than lasers. Quote: So we have High sec mission runing being a pvp activity by your very definition of player versus player with suicid ganking Nope. Suicide ganking isn't part of the mission running ù it's a risk that is connected to the completely separate activity of transporting around valuable goods. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 20:07:00 - [51] Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 20:11:06 Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 20:09:42 Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 15/06/2010 20:01:22 Originally by: Rip Minner Play competition do's not make it player conflict and not what PvP is and still has the highest gains for the lowest risk. Actually, yes. Yes it does (and is), and no ù the risks are certainly there if you want to earn big. Quote: Just becouse Trader B sales Iteam X to Trader A for 200 isk and Trader A turns around as sale Iteam X at 2000 isk do's not mean that Trader B did not make profit. It means that trader B lost out on ISK. It means trader A stole some of trader B's profit. It also means that buyer A got suckered into a bummer deal and lost that part of the game ù he got robbed of his ISK as well. Quote: And still as that mite be is shows that some forms of PvP have little to no risk but Very high Rewards in high sec already. You're assuming the risks are lowà For a quick lesson on why this is wrong, study the MD forums and the relevant price curves just before and after any greater change in the items on the market or in the mechanisms that brings those item to the market. Speculation kills more ISK than lasers. Quote: So we have High sec mission runing being a pvp activity by your very definition of player versus player with suicid ganking Nope. Suicide ganking isn't part of the mission running ù it's a risk that is connected to the completely separate activity of transporting around valuable goods. You could not be more worng I already trade and no it do's not mean that Trader A stoled anything from Trader B becouse Trader B happly sold it to Trader A. Man you did not fly your ars over to Trader B's Trade and blow it up and take all his iteams you payed for them. As for MD it's crap I would not use MD for anything other then to see what way MD thinks the wind mite be blowing. To many scamers in there and to many trying to use the bulk of Traders to help line there own pockets but you never have to go into MD to make great isk in trading. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.06.15 20:20:00 - [52] Originally by: Rip Minner it do's not mean that Trader A stoled anything from Trader B becouse Trader B happly sold it to Trader A. Trader B could have sold it for 2000; he didn't because trader A got there first, so trader B had to settle for 200. So yeahà Quote: As for MD it's crap I would not use MD for anything other then to see what way MD thinks the wind mite be blowing. To many scamers in thereà àand yet, trading somehow isn't PvP? Riiiiiight. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 20:28:00 - [53] Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 20:31:59 Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 20:31:16 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Rip Minner it do's not mean that Trader A stoled anything from Trader B becouse Trader B happly sold it to Trader A. Trader B could have sold it for 2000; he didn't because trader A got there first, so trader B had to settle for 200. So yeahà Quote: As for MD it's crap I would not use MD for anything other then to see what way MD thinks the wind mite be blowing. To many scamers in thereà àand yet, trading somehow isn't PvP? Riiiiiight. No not realy becouse Trader B happy set his price for his own resons and sold them at that price by your example anyone one can buy up Iteam X and relist but thats not true ether now is it. It just means the Trader with more know how makes more isk. And reflects in no way that you stoled isk from ether Trader B or the Consumer that also happy payed the price of iteam X and Trader A's prices to get want they wanted. As for Trading having a risk factor that equalls its payout thats just BS. Trading is the highest paying profection in the right hands so all Trading should only happen in Null sec right as the Risk in High sec is just to low right? You cant even support the risk V rewards in trading thats why its not ever used to balance out Sec income activitys. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.06.15 20:35:00 - [54] Originally by: Rip Minner No not realy becouse Trader B happy set his price for his own resons and sold them at that price àwhich makes him stupid on top of him being a loser in the competition for ISK. Quote: It just means the Trader with more know how makes more isk. àin competition with other players. Thus PvP. Quote: Trading is the highest paying profection in the right hands so all Trading should only happen in Null sec right as the Risk in High sec is just to low right? Again: it gets a pass because it's an inherently competitive PvP activity. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 20:44:00 - [55] Edited by: Rip Minner on 15/06/2010 20:54:11 Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Rip Minner No not realy becouse Trader B happy set his price for his own resons and sold them at that price àwhich makes him stupid on top of him being a loser in the competition for ISK. Quote: It just means the Trader with more know how makes more isk. àin competition with other players. Thus PvP. Quote: Trading is the highest paying profection in the right hands so all Trading should only happen in Null sec right as the Risk in High sec is just to low right? Again: it gets a pass because it's an inherently competitive PvP activity. No Tippia it do's not make him stupid or a loser it just means he is not greedie or as all knowing as the next trader. I have no ideal were you get this unwriten rule that if you dont make as much or more isk at trading then the other guy your just a loser. It has no bases or foundation to stand on. Fact is Trader B makes isk without any risk just not as much isk as Trader A. And kk just as stated before if Trading in High sec is pvp becouse of player cometition with other players then High sec gankers ganking Pimp mission ships for mods has every right to level 5 missions in high sec becouse he realy loses isk. And there is Player Competitive PvP activity happening in high sec with his Mission boat. And again by your same self standers for pvp risk high sec trading that high sec mission runers should get a pass for level 5 high sec missions as high sec gankers are inherently drawen to his pimp mission boat giving rise to inherent competitive PvP activity. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Lyra Blazing	Posted - 2010.06.15 20:57:00 - [56] Rip dont try to argue with Tippa. Her arguments are always pretty weak. But she wont stop to reply until you are tired of it and then she claims she was right all along. Just ignore her.
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.15 21:03:00 - [57] Originally by: Lyra Blazing Rip dont try to argue with Tippa. Her arguments are always pretty weak. But she wont stop to reply until you are tired of it and then she claims she was right all along. Just ignore her. You are probly right but she is also keeping my post on the first page so if she wishs to help me keep my post on the first page as I know run level 4 missions and dont need to put but a fraction of effert into it I will keep going with her for mons and even years if she wishs. Or till CCP pulls its head out of its ars and give high sec level 5's back. But I have never know CCP to beable to pull its head out of its ars before if its not low/null/0.0 or wh pilots doing the complaining. I have never seen CCP go back on a high sec nerf before and not realy think they will now. I on the other hand have years in this game and if I can keep a warning to new PVE pilots on first page to quit now and get out before they have years in then more the better. Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
epsilonion	Posted - 2010.06.15 21:28:00 - [58] IMO i think they should offer the odd high sec level 5 mission for the people that have not tried them may be not in the frequency that they have been in the past and to keep them as they should be in low/null, as a teaser soo to speak soo that the majority of people that live in high sec and that dont venture into low sec can try them and try them in there corp / alliance etc.. other wise you will find that only low sec/0.0 and pvp/pirate corp will do them and thats not fair on the other residence of new eden. this in turn might bring more people to low/null (doubt it) but might if they have anough allies/members etc, just speeking from a common sence point of view that is....
romex987	Posted - 2010.06.15 21:34:00 - [59] Originally by: Isebelle I hate to break it too you but Eve is an MMO. Like all MMOs, The hardest content requires a GROUP of skilled, experienced and appropriately outfitted players to clear it. Actually scratch that, yeah scratch that, this is a game that has many industries that you can have a career in, yeah beleive it or not... ccp are prmoting pvp low sec and null, in there oppinion there re too many people in high sec thats why they change everything about a good life, the other patch a while ago they just about said they wanted more people in low/null. the best way they can get people in these positions is to get rid of power blocks (aaa) or limit them as they have control of the most of the systems in a few regions (alot of regions) and to open up space for other people, thats my opinion... you carnt alter that... D and do a petition if your not happy .. :D and write like hell in the forms about it.. :D lolsome one has to listen, in the end that is.. :d lol
Lyra Blazing	Posted - 2010.06.15 22:55:00 - [60] Well anybody saw this change comming after the devs comment some time ago. I am pretty sure that this will result in almost nobody running lvl5s anymore. Which from my point of view is not all that bad. As someone who did a lot of them i must say that lvl5s are rather bad designed. They are basicly a lvl4 which everything in the room aggroing the first ship jumping in. You also have additional neut towers and often cant move because you get either webbed or a statsis tower hits you. Its true that they give a lot of lp. But the corps you get thoose lps have mostly ****ty lp shops. For Gallente its Fed navy which means anybody and his mom runs for in dodi. So 100 mill/hour only works if you dont count the time it takes to unload the lp items. Loot and salvage for most missions i did run was rather meh. Unless you got Mordus headhunter lvl5 or Wyrmsslayer which spawns a serp faction rat. ( Well at first you also got a mission that was basicly a lvl1. 70k lp in 3 minutes done with a velator and 1 hob. Yeah for QA CCP ) Since a lot of the missions are anti faction and almost anybody rejects them you often still had to wait for a a highsec mission that was ok. Running lvl5s in lowsec is possible but will be difficult. Every Pirate not totaly stupid can work out where to scan for the missioners. Look into the thread about what ppl think about lowsec. Almost all poster agree that its far to easy to scan out missoners. The only way i can work out to do it is to get at least 4 to 5 ppl together and blitz. Otherwise the fleet will sit around like ducks on a pod. Which kills the isk/time ratio. But since most lvl5s are even more boring then lvl4s Its not that big a loss. Btw Tippa you can run lvl5s in a drake or a ishtar. But you would be pretty stupid to do that in lowsec as it takes ages since you lack dps. That will give even the slowest pirate time to scan you out.
Ana'Lingus	Posted - 2010.06.16 05:34:00 - [61] OP is a "good reson 4" passing an English class..
Qui Shon	Posted - 2010.06.16 07:54:00 - [62] Originally by: Lyra Blazing Well at first you also got a mission that was basicly a lvl1. 70k lp in 3 minutes done with a velator and 1 hob. Yeah for QA CCP ) Which mission was that? I never got it working for Caldari agents. Best blitz mission I ever got was that one where you only need to take out a station, which spawns fighters and stuff when you shoot at it. Had 8 L2 neut towers iirc. Maybe 10. Took me about 10 minutes that one, with two chars. 3 minutes in a Velator sounds a bit better. Also the one time I got lazy and didn't travel fit my blitz raven for it, of course a lone guy got an easy kill on the gate. Still, at the time it worked out to some 600m/h (300/char), undock to dock, just that one mission. Quite a bit above average isk/h so it was my favorite even if it was boring.
Lyra Blazing	Posted - 2010.06.16 08:39:00 - [63] Originally by: Qui Shon Originally by: Lyra Blazing Well at first you also got a mission that was basicly a lvl1. 70k lp in 3 minutes done with a velator and 1 hob. Yeah for QA CCP ) Which mission was that? I never got it working for Caldari agents. http://eve-survival.org/wikka.php?wakka=AlluringEmanations5 You only got the 70k lp at the beginning. Since anybody completed it quite fast. Just before they pulled it you got about 15k. But still nice for 3 minutes of work in a Velator.
Grog Barrel	Posted - 2010.06.16 08:52:00 - [64] Originally by: Mella Elcus Originally by: HowardStern "Good Reson 4 High Sec Level 5's" L1s got easy, so I moved to L2s. L2s got easy, so I moved to L3s. L3s got easy, so I moved to L4s. L4s got easy, so I moved to L5s. L5s got removed, so that'll be that then. Eve was fun while it lasted. As far as I'm concerned. I don't want anyone to tell me how to spend my free. And I agree not to tell you how to spend your free time. Well, I spend my free time watching my bot mine ice, and that's how I want to play this game. So if CCP bans me they are actually telling me, ME, how to spend my free time!! Good argument there... this is bad post imo.
Derelicht	Posted - 2010.06.16 09:56:00 - [65] Originally by: Ana'Lingus OP is a "good reson 4" passing an English class.. I see what you did there. I used to be one of those people, too.
HowardStern	Posted - 2010.06.16 09:59:00 - [66] Originally by: Mella Elcus Originally by: HowardStern "Good Reson 4 High Sec Level 5's" L1s got easy, so I moved to L2s. L2s got easy, so I moved to L3s. L3s got easy, so I moved to L4s. L4s got easy, so I moved to L5s. L5s got removed, so that'll be that then. Eve was fun while it lasted. As far as I'm concerned. I don't want anyone to tell me how to spend my free. And I agree not to tell you how to spend your free time. Well, I spend my free time watching my bot mine ice, and that's how I want to play this game. So if CCP bans me they are actually telling me, ME, how to spend my free time!! Good argument there... lol, is it possible that you really are that stupid?
Qui Shon	Posted - 2010.06.16 11:59:00 - [67] Originally by: Lyra Blazing Originally by: Qui Shon Originally by: Lyra Blazing Well at first you also got a mission that was basicly a lvl1. 70k lp in 3 minutes done with a velator and 1 hob. Yeah for QA CCP ) Which mission was that? I never got it working for Caldari agents. http://eve-survival.org/wikka.php?wakka=AlluringEmanations5 You only got the 70k lp at the beginning. Since anybody completed it quite fast. Just before they pulled it you got about 15k. But still nice for 3 minutes of work in a Velator. Hehe, damn that's neato. I must've started L5's only after they pulled it then.
Takashi Halamoto No Limit Productions Looney Toons.	Posted - 2010.06.16 15:09:00 - [68] my word the exact same post in two places, who'd have thought, but yes if you want to quote numbers you need as a percentage of use, for instance if 500 PVE ships were lost in high sec on missions out of 1000missions attempted thats a 50% loss rate, if its out of 500000 missions thats 0.1% and irrelevant, the problem with statistics is if you only use statistics that seem to agree with you, you can make any case and have 'numbers' support it, 95% of all statistics are taken out of context and context is everything additionally, people try the oh but it was in high for 3 years, Getting it wrong for 3 years does not entitle a flaw to remain and i salute CCP for taking care of it and lastly as someone wonderfully posted in the other copy of this thread Loosing PVE ships in missions just proves you cant fit a ship, why should missions be moved around just cause some people cant fit and will suicide themselves by jumping into a fight they cant win, (and no Missions dont have rats to blow people up, they are to set a minimum competency bar for getting the gain, hey look l5's come with a whole extra competency bar called evading players) and please let this be the only other copy of this thread, Me? im just sitting here,
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.06.16 15:48:00 - [69] Edited by: Tippia on 16/06/2010 15:52:44 Originally by: Rip Minner No Tippia it do's not make him stupid or a loser it just means he is not greedie or as all knowing as the next trader. ài.e. stupid, if he's actually a trader. The whole point is to make money ù choosing not to make money means you're doing something wrong. And the fact that he lost the opportunity to make more money makes him ù as the very act implies ù a loser. Quote: Fact is Trader B makes isk without any risk just not as much isk as Trader A. Fact is also that trader B is missing out on a ton of ISK due to the actions of trader A, and (since you continuously ignore that part of the equation) buyer A is losing a ton of ISK since he's being fooled by trader A. Either way, the competition is there, and it's against other players. There is no way around the fact that trading is PvP through and through. And that's even without turning the tables on the situation: if trader B was genuinely happy with making 10+ less, he could have (re)placed his order at the same station as trader A and stolen the sale ù suddenly, he caused a 90% loss of value in A's stock, which may cause him to outright lose money because he can't match the price. Trader B will constantly put out orders that A (or someone else) picks up and then A can't sell his stuff at a profit because B's prices are always better. Quote: if Trading in High sec is pvp becouse of player cometition with other players then High sec gankers ganking Pimp mission ships for mods has every right to level 5 missions in high sec becouse he realy loses isk. And there is Player Competitive PvP activity happening in high sec with his Mission boat. Non sequitur. The fact that trading is PvP does not mean that L5:s have any place in highsec. The ISK loss you're talking about is not a part of the mission ù it's a risk inherent in carting around valuable goods, regardless of where and why. The PvP happens completely separately from the mission-running. It's not a part of some competitive aspect of running missions ù you haven't lost your mission, after all, have you? Quote: And again by your same self standers for pvp risk high sec trading that high sec mission runers should get a pass for level 5 high sec missions as high sec gankers are inherently drawen to his pimp mission boat giving rise to inherent competitive PvP activity. Same thing here: the risk has nothing to do with the mission; it has everything to do with hauling valuable cargo. You'd be just as much at risk if you were just showboating off of the Jita docking ramp. So no, it does not make PvE competitive (because then it wouldn't be PvE any more), and it certainly does not provide any kind of argument for why the out-of-whack risk-vs-reward of highsec L5:s should be allowed. Originally by: Lyra Blazing Rip dont try to argue with Tippa. Her arguments are always pretty weak. àwhich means they should be pretty easy to tear down, but instead people have to resort to ad hominems, presumably because their arguments are even worse (or just non-existent). Quote: Btw Tippa you can run lvl5s in a drake or a ishtar. Yes? And? Shouldn't you direct that comment at Rip, who claims that it's really risky and that you need pimped ships? It seems like the very good counter-argument to that claim. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
Miniemoo	Posted - 2010.06.16 16:29:00 - [70] i am against level 5's in high sec purely for the fact that people who live in null sec have a lot harder time and put a lot more effort to actually make isk, taken getting logistics for ships brought down actually grinding the iskies as well. what was it 6-8 mission for a guy with good skills and he gets enough LP for a navy raven and that person can log on when he likes. where as a person in null sec has to Grind his isk defend his space and be involved in political mumbo jumbo as well :P
Lyra Blazing	Posted - 2010.06.16 20:35:00 - [71] Edited by: Lyra Blazing on 16/06/2010 20:37:34 Quote: Originally by: Lyra Blazing Rip dont try to argue with Tippa. Her arguments are always pretty weak. àwhich means they should be pretty easy to tear down, but instead people have to resort to ad hominems, presumably because their arguments are even worse (or just non-existent). They are but you just ignore all replys and repeat your weak arguments until your conterpart gives up. And then claim you have been right all along. Quote: Originally by: Lyra Blazing Btw Tippa you can run lvl5s in a drake or a ishtar. Yes? And? Shouldn't you direct that comment at Rip, who claims that it's really risky and that you need pimped ships? It seems like the very good counter-argument to that claim. A i forgot your second trick quoting out of context. Yes you can do that but it takes ages. Very bright idea in lowsec. Even so i do agree with you that you dont need rattles to run lvl5s. Best would be a group of 4 or 5 rr bs. Maybe add a dedicated logistcs. But if you do that you might as well run lvl4s in highsec. Which all things considered is the much brighter idea now anyway. Unless you want to test out the badly designed lvl5s for a thrill.
Tippia Sunshine and Lollipops	Posted - 2010.06.16 21:01:00 - [72] Originally by: Lyra Blazing They are but you just ignore all replys and repeat your weak arguments until your conterpart gives up. And then claim you have been right all along. àsuch as? Quote: A i forgot your second trick quoting out of context. Yes you can do that but it takes ages. Very bright idea in lowsec. Even so i do agree with you that you dont need rattles to run lvl5s. No, I cut the quotes down so you know what I'm responding to. In this case, though, it's more a matter of me not quite understanding why you're addressing your comment to me since it goes off on a tangent that I have never touched, and rather seems to be an argument against what the OP is saying. I've not mentioned anything about what ships you need or should use. The OP has, partly by trying to generaliseà god knows whatà from a sample using T3 ships, partly by going on about how fitting expensive mods (and ships) somehow makes missions competitive. Even so, I'd still argue that Drakes and Ishtars are actually excellent L5 implements: not only can they survive them, but as a group they have more than a enough DPS to finish them in short order. As an added bonus, a bunch of Drakes and Ishtars (and maybe even the odd logistic ship) doesn't scream "mission runner!!" quite so much ù it rather edges towards "roaming gang", which may keep the ebil pirates awayà or at least give them pause for a second (so you can dock up). That said, howeverà Quote: Best would be a group of 4 or 5 rr bs. Maybe add a dedicated logistcs. But if you do that you might as well run lvl4s in highsec. Now, see, this is something I do agree with (hell, I've been banging on that drum for the last two years), but which is so rarely brought up nowadays: for missions that are supposedly indended to be done in groups, their rewards aren't really scaled up in such a way that running them in groups is a good idea. The payoff for doing them "the right way" just isn't there, and it comes as absolutely no surprise that highsec L4s are so much more popular as a result. Nor do I feel that the balance the increased completion time since you will have interruptions. almost by very definition of where these missions are run. So even with the right group payment balance, you still have to compare it against the uninterruptable flow of L4s you can get out of a highsec hub. It doesn't take much until that constant flow of missions pays more than the interrupted flow of L5s (but then again, this is a hard thing to balance since "all" you need is a quiet lowsec system and suddenly your ISK cup overfloweth). ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki
caboaddict	Posted - 2010.06.16 21:13:00 - [73] Rip you also need to factor in how many people inhabit each area (high, low, null) and provide a comparison of T3 loss per population percentage. Since I have never seen any data that identifies how many or what percentage of the player base resides solely or over 80% of the time in a given security set, we can't really prove my point. However, we know that there are more people in high sec than low sec which has more than null sec. So when you divide the losses by the population you see that empire is much much safer than low and null sec further proving that lvl 5 missions should be in low/null sec to provide greater rewards for the greater risk. how does losing a ship in a PvE present a risk to the player that demands higher mission rewards. The only reason a mission runner dies in PvE is when the mess up the aggro or underestimate the mission. In either case it's user error and should not require CCP to provide you with greater rewards which will more often than not only escalate the PvE ship loss statistic for those who are woefully unprepared for level 5 missions. My assumption is that CCP counts ship losses as a PvE loss when only NPC ships are involved in the loss. As soon as a ship is fired upon by a player it moves to PvP even if it happens in a mission.... tl;dr STFU, HTFU and realize highsec is carebear heaven and reality (and more profit) happens in .4 or less.
Lyra Blazing	Posted - 2010.06.16 21:26:00 - [74] Edited by: Lyra Blazing on 16/06/2010 21:28:13 Quote: It doesn't take much until that constant flow of missions pays more than the interrupted flow of L5s (but then again, this is a hard thing to balance since "all" you need is a quiet lowsec system and suddenly your ISK cup overfloweth). Sure problem is there is no such thing as a quite lowsec mission hub. If all lvl5s are no taking place in lowsec it will take the pirates no time to catch up to ppl stupid enough to try running lvl5s in lowsec. And since it takes a very short time to scan them out, they either secure the system or will be killed. Read up on this thread : http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1320395 Missoners almost zero, Scanner a lot. Lowsec mission are just plain ****ty with the current scaning system. You have to be at a rather easy to figure out place, and you will loose standing if you dont get it done. Scaning and Explo is a much better buissnes. Or if you want to do mission its highsec for you. Thats quite ok for me. I mission for standing in highsec. And i play around with explo in low or null. But placing lvl5s as they are now in lowsec mostly means that almost nobody going to run them. Which from my point of view is not a big loss. I did quite a lot of them and its not like CCP realy did a good job on them. At least most of them still work not like cosmos or epic arcs.
Ildryn The Inf1dels En Garde	Posted - 2010.06.17 13:59:00 - [75] Level 5 missions were somewhat fixed. Sooner or later they will be completely fixed. You guys really should stop arguing about this. The devs have spoken. Level 5 missions were never intended for high sec. Those of you that did them are lucky and should just move on. Let them go.
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.17 16:14:00 - [76] Edited by: Rip Minner on 17/06/2010 16:20:20 Originally by: Ildryn Level 5 missions were somewhat fixed. Sooner or later they will be completely fixed. You guys really should stop arguing about this. The devs have spoken. Level 5 missions were never intended for high sec. Those of you that did them are lucky and should just move on. Let them go. Truethfully I think your right Ildryn. We should just move on. Edit: I have started Buff Low sec post but well I dont think thats going to happen and there trying hard as hell to force me out of high sec. I been to null sec dont like it already know that first hand wh are kk but there is to much time needed to do them some of us have lifes like work wife's kids. And the the only reason I can think of going to 0.0 would be for pirat fraction missions Witch by now I They hate me and well I hate pirats npc or other wise. So that dont realy leve me much o well. cross my fingers and hope for a better expation next time lol Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.
Rip Minner Gallente ARMITAGE Logistics Salvage and Industries	Posted - 2010.06.18 07:21:00 - [77] Edited by: Rip Minner on 18/06/2010 07:24:17 Edited by: Rip Minner on 18/06/2010 07:22:03 Rant... Quote: Tippia you have your head so far up your own ars here I dont even realy know were to begin. I have already gone with your thinking that Trading is player Verses player compation. But Risk it is not. At best it is Mild very mild pvp. At best you mite if your very luck and find some 5th grader trading make there wallets go downwards reather then upwards. If you wish to prove me wrong you have my name and my corps name I trade in High sec both Amarr and Caldie so plz come and make my wallet go backwards I dare you! But I promise you can what you mite bealbe to do at best is slow the speed at witch my wallet go's up. Low sec pvp and Low sec missioning make your wallet go down not just up slower. So even trying to claim Trading is even close to the same level of risk as low sec puts you in your own little world. If you wish to chance my mind you have my toons name come make my Trading unprofitable plz show me I'm wrong. Make my wallet go backwards like low sec do's. And I will come back here and Show everyone I was wrong and show them you did in fact make my wallet go backwards with out trading me . Is it a rock? Point a Lazer at it and profit. Is it a ship? Point a Lazer at it and profit. I dont realy see any differnces here.

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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.