EVE Search - Level 5 Missions in High-Sec Islands

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Level 5 Missions in High-Sec Islands

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 148	Posted - 2014.10.07 04:48:00 - [1] - Quote Apologies if this idea has been floated before; couldn't find anything relevant in my forum searches. I suggest CCP add Level 5 missions to High-Sec islands along with a corresponding nerf to incursion and level 4 mission income. high-sec islands are some of the most lifeless areas in all of EVE we know incursion/mission runners are not going to run stuff in anything but high-sec; no amount of incentive will pull them to a place where their PvE boats are vulnerable while running the content likewise, we know the current, almost entirely safe ISK generation from incursions/level 4 missions in contiguous high-sec is... slightly imbalanced putting level 5 missions in islands gives mission/ISK/incentive that PvE pilots will actually respond to; however, it is not without risk as it requires supplies and logistics through low-sec chokepoints; added risk, added chances for kablooies, added "content" for everyone supplying high-sec island mission pockets would also gives JF pilots something useful to do once the 5ly nerf goes into effect building mission boats in these islands would add more terrain to the terrain-filled industrial changes of Crius (JFs to bring in raw mats/BPCs, local mining and local industrialists to build all those blingy mission boats that won't fit in JFs) The best part is, the core of this suggestion can already be seen in action. There are several lucrative COSMOS missions in high-sec island pockets already in Caldari space. Despite the one-time nature of these missions and general inaccessibility of COSMOS missions in general, these are some of the most active high-sec islands I've ever seen with correspondingly "fun" and "content filled" low-sec chokepoints back to contiguous empire.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 148	Posted - 2014.10.07 05:47:00 - [2] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: You want to run lvl 5s do it out of HS You sound like someone who would like to shoot PvE mission runners. Granted it's subtle, so I'll spell out how this actually makes your life better. This suggestion would change the process of earning level 4/incursion-style income to have MORE RISK than it currently does. With a paired nerf to level 4/incursion income, players earning ISK through PvE activity would want to run these level 5's in highsec islands to maintain income levels. This is something they'll actually do, as they are not risk averse in the general sense, they are simply risk averse while flying blingy PvE ships in the middle of missions. Putting them in high sec islands means the actual PvE activity remains a soloable, low-attention affair, just like it is now. HOWEVER, logistics and supplies are now at significantly increased risk. That's OK; PvE players are more than happy to outsource their risky transportation/logistics to other groups and/or do it themselves in separate ships at separate times when they are in different moods. The net-effect of this change would be to put the high-income PvE players at MORE RISK of losing their stuff while trying to move it to/from market. You will have more juicy targets to shoot in the pipes. The mistake in just about any other approach is thinking that 1) mission runners will EVER respond to any incentive to run missions in anything but soloable, low-attention, high-sec safety (they won't) while 2) conflating their risk averseness during mission content with a generic unwillingness to put anything at risk ever, which isn't true. High-sec islands provide the perfect mechanism to add risk in a way acceptable to most mission runners because it leaves the core mission activity itself unchanged and no more risky than now (and in particular soloable and low attention), while still adding risk at a separate stage of the process to justify the income levels.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 148	Posted - 2014.10.07 05:50:00 - [3] - Quote Celthric Kanerian wrote: Hisec islands already have a purpose, this doesn't add any content to it... Simply just gives us another isk faucet. I'm talking about replacing the essentially risk-free ISK faucet of level 4/incursion activities with this somewhat riskier ISK faucet to actually justify the level of income. Obviously the suggestion only makes sense in conjunction with a nerf to level 4/incursion income (as stated in the OP). The difference between this suggestion to add risk to mission/PvE income activites and every other suggestion is that every other suggestion puts the PvE player at risk WHILE RUNNING THE CONTENT. They will never do this, ever. We all know it, but most people fail to understand the reasons for it (hint; it's not about being risk averse). This suggestion allows the risk to be inserted at a different point of the process that most PvE/mission running players I know would be perfectly fine with.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 148	Posted - 2014.10.07 06:05:00 - [4] - Quote Steppa Musana wrote: The problem is that low-sec already has few reasons to PVE in. This would just further increase that. High-sec mission runners will never run missions in low-sec. Not ever. No amount of incentive not bordering on ridiculous will ever change that. Quote: L5s themselves should stay out of high though IMO. They should be offered in more systems, and low should also have a full distribution of ores like null. Yeah, honestly this suggestion isn't about L5's specifically. I don't care what the content is called; nerf incursion income, buff L4 income a bit, and move L4's exclusively to high-sec islands while leaving L5's where they are. Sure, whatever. The basic point is simply that putting the most lucrative high-sec PvE content in high-sec islands exclusively is something that will actually resonate and fly with mission runners while adding some risk to help justify the income levels.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 148	Posted - 2014.10.07 08:28:00 - [5] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: This will not add risk moving through the LS to the island since that will mostly just be done in T2 trans ports like it currently is for anyone who has spent time in an island. This assumes all people always transport all things "the right way". This is demonstrably false. I still see officer fit incursion ships getting ganked while traveling AFK on autopilot in hisec. There's no reason to think these same folks suddenly grow wise when transporting their officer mods through the pipe to their island mission hub.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 148	Posted - 2014.10.07 08:29:00 - [6] - Quote Tabyll Altol wrote: If you wanna run Lv 5 mssion got to lowsec. -1 Thread not actually about running level 5 missions, but I guess reading the whole thing would be too hard.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 148	Posted - 2014.10.07 08:30:00 - [7] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Lena Lazair wrote: High-sec mission runners will never run missions in low-sec. Not ever. No amount of incentive not bordering on ridiculous will ever change that. Then they don't get to do low sec content and get the reward. They already get the reward; it's called running level 4's/incursions in perfect safety with essentially no risk. So you are saying that you are on record as being perfectly fine with the current zero-risk PvE high-sec ISK fountain? Good to know.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 148	Posted - 2014.10.07 08:37:00 - [8] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: I'm not sure if this is a proposal for limited high-sec L5s, relocating L4s out of high-sec or nerfing incursionsGÇª It would be nice to have a discussion and simply leave Incursions out of the equation for once. L5s in high-sec "islands" would be an interesting idea, although the LP reward would probably be 1/2 or less than that available from a typical low-sec system and typically less than most Faction Warfare missions - so the idea has some merit. Whether or not there is enough risk vs. reward to trek across low-sec remains to be seen... The proposal is to move the most lucrative high-sec PvE content (currently level 4's/incursions) from contiguous high-sec to island high-sec. Whatever mechanism used to accomplish this (moving L4s to islands or adding nerfed L5s to them or whatever other mechanism) is not important. As to the risk/reward of crossing low-sec... I guarantee they'll do it. Either they'll do it themselves or they'll pay someone else to do it for them or else they'll support a local mission hub/island market that requires the risk be taken somewhere down the chain. Most likely some of each. Mission runners are not risk averse, they just don't want to mix their relaxing PvE/income activity with the risky PvP bit, for any number of reasons I'm not getting into. Sticking the most lucrative PvE content in high-sec islands allows this basic fact to remain unchanged. Any suggestion to add risk to high-sec PvE/mission ISK generation is doomed to fail if that suggestion depends on mixing the PvE activity with the risk. Those players will simply fall back to the best income they can get while still pursuing an activity in the safety of high-sec. That is exactly what makes this suggestion unique... using islands allows the activity itself to remain unchanged while risk is still being added along the supply chain to justify the levels of ISK generation.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 148	Posted - 2014.10.07 08:46:00 - [9] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: There certainly is risk....incursion ships blow up to rats....mission ships blow up to rats.....people get suicide ganked. Forcing everyone to go relocate to miserable islands because you hope a few people will be stupid enough to die on the way there is ridiculous. I mean I guess I would understand if you wanted to remove all L3 and L4 missions and mining from highsec to force everyone into low/null. I mean I would oppose it, but at least it is a logical idea. But to waste everyone's time and make them relocate to islands for literally no benefit? You must be kidding. It is exactly this mentality that guarantees that if the most lucrative PvE content were moved to high-sec islands, mission runners will flock to it in droves. Mission runners are NOT RISK AVERSE. I already know that, you don't need to tell me. They know how to factor in risk and costs and potential losses. It happens all the time in mission running and incursion sites. Absolutely. What they don't want is to have the groove of their mission running interrupted by unpredictability. This is precisely why low/null-sec PvE content will NEVER attract them, no matter how lucrative. In contrast, high-sec islands allow this fundamental requirement to remain unchanged. Trying to force everyone into low/null is exactly what I don't want to do because it will never, ever work. Ever. High-sec islands give us a unique opportunity to add some risk to offset the very high income levels possible with L4/incursion PvE content in high-sec in a way that is palatable to mission runners. (An income level that is widely acknowledged to be unbalanced in risk/reward ratio; if you think otherwise then I guess there's nothing else I can say to convince you if you don't accept the basic reality that high-sec PvE content needs more risk SOMEhow). This suggestion allows the risk to be entirely in the logistic/supply of things, with the LP rewards to be shipped back to Jita and the raw materials/supplies needed to keep the hub running coming in from Jita. Many mission runners won't even bother to take on that risk themselves, preferring to outsource it; which is fine because it still has to happen by someone. As to "everyone will just move their stuff through the pipes in the safest way and therefore no risk is added" argument... yeah and everyone who carrier rats in null is paying complete attention to intel and local and never ever loses any carriers ever, right?
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 148	Posted - 2014.10.07 08:52:00 - [10] - Quote Onslaughtor wrote: So not to take any sides. But lvl5s are actually not a ISK faucet but a sink. This is due to them having insane LP rewards, which the LP store is a sink. IF you were to nerf LP rewards for lvl5s in highsec and reduce the bounties. These would be great group content for those who don't want to do lvl4s. You would not be able to blitz LVL5s with carriers in high sec so they would be naturally harder. Yes, the economic semantics are not relevant here. The basic gist is : move the most lucrative high-sec PvE content from contiguous to island high-sec. Leave all else unchanged. I wish I hadn't even mentioned L5s at this point honestly, it's just confusing the important point for people :) The fact that LP stores are sinks rather than faucets, etc. are also not important details to the impact this would have. I'm using faucet in the non-technical and EVE-colloquial sense of "repeatable/farmable content that allows a person to earn a ton of ISK", not in the technically correct "activity that generates new ISK out of server code" sense.

Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 148	Posted - 2014.10.07 08:55:00 - [11] - Quote baltec1 wrote: I have been pushing to improve reward outside of high sec for years, putting level 5s into high sec does not help matters. As I mentioned, not really about L5's (I know, that's my bad; I should never have mentioned them). It's about a method of adding risk to existing high-sec PvE content in a way that would actually be palatable to the people consuming that content. That's very different than improving rewards outside of high-sec -- we all know improving rewards outside of high-sec will do nothing to draw mission runners out of high-sec. That would just put the game back in a balance where low- and null-dwellers don't have to run high-sec L4/incursion alts just to access some of the most lucrative solo/simple ISK-making activities in the game.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 148	Posted - 2014.10.07 09:10:00 - [12] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Improving income outside of high sec is not to try to drag out the spineless mission running bears. Its to give people like me a reason to earn my isk in null rather than high sec. That's... exactly what I just said. So yes, we agree completely. More importantly, this suggestion is about making the PvE content that the "spineless mission running bears" consume bear (haha) more risk to offset its stupendous ISK rewards. But in a way that the "spineless mission running bears" would actually not balk at completely. For some reason that phrase must be read with a Russian accent.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 148	Posted - 2014.10.07 09:21:00 - [13] - Quote Jill Antaris wrote: Just for your interest, Goins last week where run by over 100 Incursion pilots, every day had 3-4 VG fleets, 0-1 AS fleet and almost always a HQ fleet up by the channels Helix, DIN, The Vanguard Project, IIC pub, D-Inc, TDF and OIC and the fleets out there where nearly 100% pirate BS or Marauder(only exception was TDF bouncing back and forth every day, that only did use a few BS and mostly T3s). Exactly this. I'm certain that if islands were the ONLY place to find this content, the vast % of high-sec "carebears" would happily sort out the logistics of making it happen. In fact they might even enjoy it more as a result. And frankly I suspect few if any of them would begrudge the pirates and privateers camping the low-sec pipes trying to foul up those logistics. Frankly they'd probably think more highly of those folks than they do of the average gank fleets incursion and mission runners are used to dealing with. This suggestion is absolutely about acknowledging that high-sec PvE players are not "risk averse carebears" as they are so often labeled. It addresses directly the fact that what they want is a way to consume their PvE content either alone (L4's) or with a group (incursions) in relative peace and "ungriefed" by the PvP ambitions of other players 24/7. That does NOT mean they feel that they are entitled to that activity/ISK with absolutely no risk at all; just that the risk needs to be added in a way that is different than the low/null perspective of risk, which is "getting shot at by strangers at any moment". That's fun for some people some of the time, but it's not an approach to risk that will ever fly with most high-sec PvE players.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 175	Posted - 2014.10.07 15:06:00 - [14] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: I guess I just don't see what all this accomplishes. As I said somewhere before, if you are not in the large group that understands high-sec L4/incursion income is fundamentally imbalanced in risk/reward currently, there's really nothing in this thread for you. The entire suggestion is based on the assumption that high-sec PvE content needs SOME form of balancing in its risk/reward. The options are to nerf the reward or increase the risk. Quote: Personally, I see only downsides in the island idea. It's been notoriously difficult to increase risk of PvE content in a way that actually affects most high-sec PvE players; this suggestion is a way to do that. The only other alternative is to expect the reward to eventually get nerfed instead. I don't actually want to see that happen. So the upside to the island idea is that it will prevent an otherwise inevitable nerf to high-sec PvE content rewards by bringing the risk/reward closer into balance. As far as compared to the current status quo; yeah, sure, it's all downsides. Quote: I'm definitely not taking any kind of risk in getting my ship to an island - I'm just going to pay someone to do it. I could care less about the whole pirate, pvp, blah blah, whatever stuff, it's just another one time cost I pay and never think about again. Being on an island makes loot even more sucky, so now I'm super incentivized to blitz missions and ignore loot, which makes them even more boring. That's fine; the risk still has to be taken by SOMEone to move it across null. That's precisely what makes this idea feasible to most high-sec PvE players; they CAN and many WILL outsource the risk to someone else independent to the PvE content, which is pretty much the only way CCP could ever add real risk to this content in a way that would be successfully embraced by these players. The LP store rewards being shipped to Jita is the relevant output bit; mission loot rewards have been lame for a while now and I would expect to be reprocessed/resold completely local to the island anyway. Quote: I guess I'm saying if you really think the risk/reward of L4's and incursions in highsec is out of whack (and personally I don't - I think they need a buff), then forcing everyone to islands isn't going to change that, because the mission runners will outsource the risk, and the risk/reward will stay the same....except for some one time fees paid to JF pilots. If you outsource the risk you'll pay the premium of doing so and your effective reward goes down. If you take on the risk yourself to cut out the middle man you get to keep more reward, but at the risk of losing your stuff in transport. The fact that it reduces the risk/reward imbalance -- that yes I do believe to be out of whack -- in a way that doesn't force that risk onto the PvE content itself is exactly why it would be successful with the target audience.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 175	Posted - 2014.10.07 15:13:00 - [15] - Quote Ix Method wrote: Lena Lazair wrote: we know incursion/mission runners are not going to run stuff in anything but high-sec; no amount of incentive will pull them to a place where their PvE boats are vulnerable while running the content. This is flat out untrue. People who are willing are doing so even now and reaping the rewards. Your suggestion simply gives the 'risk-averse bears' a way to move once to somewhere with a stocked market and enjoy a bump in earnings. Nothing is solved, Black Frog might see a few more contracts but nothing really changes either. You just said it yourself; "people who are willing are doing so even now". Exactly. Anyone who was going to leave high-sec to pursue PvE content in null/low/WH space for its increased reward incentives IS ALREADY DOING SO. Every suggestion to buff incentive in these zones has nothing to do with getting those players NOT doing so out into that space (and never will accomplish that goal); it's merely to give the denizens of those regions a reason to stay instead of having to create high-sec L4/incursion alts to farm ISK competitively. Further, of the small % of high-sec PvE players who might willingly choose to move to low/null if only they knew, this is one more chance to expose that small % to the joys of low/null life without unduly burdening the vast majority of high-sec PvE players that simply want to run their PvE content in peace. Getting logistics sorted across a low/null barrier is an entirely different form of risk and pain than actually trying to run PvE content in low/null; one that I'm certain high-sec PvE players would accept. Finally, I'm not sure how they would see a bump in earnings when I'm talking about taking the existing rewards for L4/incursion content OUT of contiguous high-sec entirely. At best, taking on transport risks yourself, you'd be making the same rewards as before for somewhat more risk. The alternative is to wait for CCP to get around to nerfing L4/incursion income, which seems like a fairly inevitable outcome to anyone looking at the balance of this stuff currently.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 175	Posted - 2014.10.07 15:20:00 - [16] - Quote Donnachadh wrote: As the phrase goes been there done that and have no desire to do it again. Move level 4 missions into one of these "islands" and I for one will just quit playing. Wondering how many others would do that same and wondering how that adds content to the game? Your choice is to accept more risk in the balance of earning L4/incursion income, or expect more nerfs to that income. I suspect you'd be just as likely to threaten to quit if the latter were suggested instead of the former. Either way, expect one of the two as the current balance is simply off. The reproc nerf helped a bit, but only really impacted mission runners and had no effect on the cash cow of incursion content.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 175	Posted - 2014.10.07 15:25:00 - [17] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Donnachadh wrote: Move level 4 missions into one of these "islands" and I for one will just quit playing. Wondering how many others would do that same and wondering how that adds content to the game? This thread initially started out (see OP edit) to establish L5s in high-sec "islands" and has now progressed to nerfing Incursions and relocating high-sec L4 missions to high-sec "islands" as well. While I appreciate that the discussion is evolving, at this point I'm going to give it a flat-out "no". -1 for me. The thread is now and always was about putting the most lucrative PvE content exclusively into high-sec islands. I initially used L5's as a basic example of how this might be easily accomplished, but that was far too volatile a suggestion for people to see past the surface terminology. I have since corrected that error in my communication. This thread is certainly not about nerfing incursion or L4 rewards (any such suggestion to do so would have been in conjunction with the L5 suggestion, which again is too specifically volatile and I should have never brought it up that way). If you take incursions and L4's and put them exclusively in high-sec islands, the current rewards would be just fine IMO and wouldn't need to be touched at all. The increase in risk would be sufficient to bring the risk/reward into balance. I DO believe that if L4/incursion content is left untouched in high-sec as it is today, that yes, more reward nerfs are inevitable if CCP wants to keep the game balanced. I'm not even remotely alone in this belief. So this thread is, fundamentally, about finding a way to NOT nerf L4/incursion content.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 175	Posted - 2014.10.07 15:36:00 - [18] - Quote CA Ambraelle wrote: That is why I like your idea, Lena Lazair, as it would preserve my ability to do relaxed mission-running when I am in mission-running mood while at the same time giving me more potential targets when I am in pvp mood and that in direct vicinity to my mission-running pocket :) It is this precisely; my firm belief that the majority of high-sec PvE players are similar to this. I know this is certainly how I feel when I am in the mood to run some PvE content. Quote: I do see one weak point in your proposal though. Most such pockets are within 5 ly to continuous high sec so even with the upcoming changes it will be possible to do logistics with jf completely avoiding the risky low-sec-passage. This is intentional. JF's are going to get hit hard with the upcoming range changes. This would give them a new niche to fulfill for the high-sec PvE crowd, and basically make the entire thing somewhat more dependent on player interaction as a whole without forcing it onto individuals all the time. Imagine a mission running corp that actually had a reason to exist now; providing these logistics to its members. And incursion communities doing the same. All while being able to avoid it entirely if you choose because there will always be public, anonymous courier services to make this happen. Nevermind the potential boon to haulers doing work in BR/low-sec service. More content for everyone! :) More importantly, JF transport is not risk free. Kickouts, bad cyno bounces, inexperienced pilots, people being lazy and taking shortcuts... all these things are a reality that make it a not-100% safe and perfect endeavor. Not even BR use is risk free; smart-bombing BS gate camps still pop people in runners and inties all the time. Further, not everyone is going to use a JF or a courier to do this work. Sure, a lot will, but just as many are likely to think "man.. I don't want to pay 80m to a courier to move my stack of LP implants to Jita... I'll just load this up in a shuttle after downtime and I'm sure no one will catch me". It's exactly these sort of imperfections that provide most of the real PvP content already; mistakes, not perfect play, lead to fun content. The best we can do is provide a scenario where these mistakes are more likely to occur.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 175	Posted - 2014.10.07 15:53:00 - [19] - Quote Notorious Fellon wrote: There are not enough hisec islands to make this work at all well. -1 no. While I suspect you might be correct, the nice thing is that CCP could easily rectify this problem if necessary. So it's not really a valid counter-argument; at most, a possible implementation detail. CCP has changed empire geography before for lesser balance reasons than this. Further, from a lore perspective, this would fit in perfectly with their current trend to more fractured Empire space. For that matter, from a lore perspective, it's about time Sansha tried something new with this incursion thing. Trying to annex high-sec island exclaves sounds like exactly the sort of new strategy they should be considering, seeing as how well their "send capitals to contiguous high-sec for ritual slaughter" campaign has been going so far... EDIT: Also, between Osmon being the mission capital of the world and simply not that many high-sec incursions going on at any one time, I really think there probably ARE enough islands to manage. The REAL important change here would be the need to update mission objective code for high-sec island agents to not send people to the bordering low-sec systems from time to time, as that is simply annoying and already a reason people avoid agents in border systems.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 175	Posted - 2014.10.07 16:30:00 - [20] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Missioning is probably the second-lowest form of income in high-sec, right above mining. Salvaging just took a 50% reprocessing hit and most Faction LP has a 1:2 ISK-conversion ratio. I could also point out that a good chunk of mission salvage also feeds the resale item market and if that were to disappear you'd see corresponding prices on items jump considerably. Uh... if your L4 mission income was drastically affected by the salvage nerf, you're not doing it effectively in the first place. High-sec L4 mission income is dictated almost entirely by LP blitzing rates. Most people min/maxing these things don't bother with loot or salvage at all. I've also seen absolutely no indication that the LP conversion rates have changed fundamentally. Sure there have been the usual market fluctuations as meta changes and ship/item balance passes ripple through the markets, but that's not even remotely new. Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying people who like to loot/salvage are "doing it wrong"; whatever floats your boat. Just that it's not a valid argument when talking about the current state of L4 income risk/reward balance because it's nowhere near optimal or representative of how people use L4's to generate ISK.

Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 175	Posted - 2014.10.07 16:35:00 - [21] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: Your fundamental contention that high sec mission runners are not risk averse is incorrect. We are and shall remain so. We have made this point in arguments in discussions like this repeatedly and more importantly in our actual game play. High-sec missions runners are risk averse while running high-sec mission content, yes. For reasons that actually have very little to do with risk and everything to do with what constitutes enjoyable gameplay dynamics for them. Every time they undock from Jita or fly a blingy boat to an incursion hub, however, it proves that they are no more risk averse than anyone else in EVE and most nullsec carrier ratters. Flying around space is a risky endeavor and high-sec mission runners are just as likely to take on the reasonable and necessary risks that entails. My contention that high-sec mission runners are not risk averse is simply a statement that they are no more risk averse than anyone else playing EVE. Their desire to enjoy high-sec PvE content in unmolested peace has very little to do with risk at all, in fact. Like everyone else in EVE they are more than happy to accept risk in general as a basic part of overall gameplay. Just don't screw with the leisure and enjoyment they derive from the peaceful process of running high-sec PvE content specifically.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 175	Posted - 2014.10.07 16:37:00 - [22] - Quote Vyl Vit wrote: "lifeless" ? Where do people get off making this assertion? Your bias becomes obvious when you say this. What's the point? Bad mouthing HS and acting like it's not there won't make it go away. In fact, HS isn't going away. If you want an uncluttered discussion... get real. The only high-sec island I've ever seen that wasn't lifeless was the one in which Caldari COSMOS missions are run. Well that and a few mid-points between major FW battlefronts.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 175	Posted - 2014.10.07 18:11:00 - [23] - Quote Veers Belvar wrote: In the past 3 days is Osmon there have been....wait for it....0 suicide ganks of mission runners. Gankers barely ever bother with mission runners. Right, because the relevance of ganking to mission runners is vastly overstated. Meaning that the argument my quote countered -- that concentrating mission runners in high-sec islands would somehow make them more vulnerable to high-sec ganking than currently -- was completely invalid. Veers Belvar wrote: Can't speak for others but I travel fit the heck out of my ship in highsec when going to incursions, and there is an extremely small risk of gankers bothering me. So yes, I think mission runners are (properly) risk averse. Yep, and someone moving their ratting carriers in null travel fits too. Basically we are all risk averse to the same degree; nobody goes out of their way to get their PvE ships blown up and most people take reasonable precautions to avoid this where possible. The point is simply that in no way does this suggest that high-sec PvE players would be unwilling to take on the acceptable and controllable risks of moving supplies/LP loot to/from high-sec islands. At worst, they'll simply outsource it so that it becomes fixed cost to them if they don't want to deal with the risk at all. Either way, provided the risk and style of the actual PvE content itself remains unchanged (which it will, since PvE in a high-sec hub is the same whether it's an island or not), it will be acceptable to high-sec PvE players.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 175	Posted - 2014.10.07 19:03:00 - [24] - Quote Jack Carrigan wrote: Ways to circumvent the risks are plentiful. So no. Forcing logistics through low-sec for the best high-sec PvE content is inherently more risky than the current scenario. Of course there are still plenty of methods to mitigate the risks in this proposal, mainly because there are methods to mitigate risk in ALL of EVE. That doesn't mean it's zero risk or not riskier than the current contiguous high-sec environment. The process of forcing people to have a risk to mitigate in the first place is kind of where most "content' comes from. It adds the potential for mistakes, poor judgement, lack of attention, and all the other factors that actually cause explosions.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 175	Posted - 2014.10.07 19:30:00 - [25] - Quote Jack Carrigan wrote: JF to out gate, jump to HS. Risk = Gone. Yeah, I've never seen a single JF bounce off the station and/or gate, get bumped by a cloaked mach, or make any other mistake. It's, like... no JF has ever been destroyed in the entire history of low and null because it's a perfect system and we are all perfect players. Further, we all know that JF's, their pilots' time, and the fuel they use are totally free. So adding JF logistics onto the existing high-sec L4/incursion PvE supply chain will do absolutely nothing to affect the reward/risk balance at all. It's not like you'll have to pay extra (reduce your reward) if you don't want to deal with the risk yourself. Lastly, every single L4/incursion runner obviously has access to JF alts and the capital necessary to run one. And tons of experience flying JF's into low-sec. Oh wait, is it opposite day again?
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 176	Posted - 2014.10.08 03:43:00 - [26] - Quote Jack Carrigan wrote: D'aww, I struck a nerve. Look how quickly OP got defensive and downright condescending. That's really cute. Go ****post somewhere else. Pfft. That was basic sarcasm. If I'd wanted to be condescending I would have used much smaller words. Your contribution to the discussion was an absolutist and flawed argument. I dissected it in kind. I'm sorry if you thought it was personal. I gave you a Like so you can feel better about it.
Lena Lazair Khanid Irregulars Khanid's Legion 176	Posted - 2014.10.08 05:06:00 - [27] - Quote Maldiro Selkurk wrote: But you are entirely wrong is my point. Your contention that those in wh, low and null are equally risk averse as high sec mission runners is so absurd as to leave me at a total loss for words as to how even to respond. You act like "risk averseness" is a singular stat per player. People accept different risks during different activities in EVE. No one here is arguing against the reality that high-sec mission runners do not derive enjoyment from taking the risk of being shot at randomly by strangers while consuming PvE content, and consequently take all reasonable precautions to mitigate this risk (most commonly, by staying in high-sec while running the PvE content). While engaged in the specific PvE content, yes, these players are very risk averse. That in no way means these players never take risks or engage in other riskier behaviors while playing EVE. It just means they don't chose to do so while running the PvE content. Hell, we are often talking about the SAME people that, on a different alt, spend the rest of their time out in null in, as you contend, very high risk environments. The entire point of this suggestion is that it's a false premise to conflate the risk-averseness of high-sec PvE players while they are flying PvE content with a general, overall risk-averseness inherent in their gameplay. And further, the repetition of this false equivalence has led to a failure to add reasonable and acceptable risk to balance out high-sec PvE rewards that the average high-sec PvE player would actually accept and deal with. The idea that you can't get a high-sec PvE player to do PvE content in low or null no matter the incentive is definitely true; that in no way means you can't ever get them to do anything risky at all as part of the overall balance of that PvE content. The point of this distinction is that you can't simply dismiss the suggestion with "they won't go to islands because it's risky". The suggestion intentionally separates the risk they assume while traveling/dealing with logistics from the risk they assume while actually flying PvE content in a PvE boat. It recognizes the fact that these are two different scenarios in the eyes of a high-sec PvE player and their risk tolerance will be at very different levels during these separate activities.

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.