| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ix Method
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
176
   |
Posted - 2014.10.07 09:52:00 -
[31] - Quote
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.
Travelling at the speed of love. |
Jill Antaris
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
104
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 11:16:00 -
[32] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote: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.
The point is that the people that die by afk travelling in empire don't fly out to the islands with her BS(that is not really a bad thing, because the same people are also mostly semi afk on grid in our fleets as well). I fly Island Incursions since over a year with the same Paladin I use to FC in High sec as well and I never had issues, since low sec isn't a big problem if you have a scout, mwd, mjd and cloak.
I never used the blockade runners for myself(outside of some quick ammo, fuel or module trips), since my prowler last year couldn't even move a cruiser. Her use for stuff like this is actually fairly limited compared to proper fitted tier 1 haulers(that can move a BC + fitting) or a warp speed DST(that can move 1 BS, 1 Cruiser and the fitting at 8 AU/s).
Lena Lazair wrote: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.
Well it actually was last week, since Incs died every day by the conflict between ISN and TVP. Then again that does only lead to slightly more people on the Islands, people that like Island Incs follow the channels and channels can only move if you have a lot of time on your hand to run the logistics and FC for hours each day(helix is still fully burned out from the last 3 weeks doing Islands and didn't do a single fleet since days). I did most of the logistics for Island Incs last year for IIC and TDF and the OIC channel was actually created for Island Incursions on a Island and only later I did give in and agreed to providing fleets in Empire to.
You will always have the people that will not leave high sec(even if others provide ships or transport for her own stuff) and people that like the Islands because it is a lot more relaxed and a very friendly environment between channels out there.
Btw, not everybody in Incursions is like that, OIC is my hobby and I founded the channel because a lot of people asked me to provide armor based Inc fleets again after leaving TDF last year, all of our FCs actually live in Low Sec, WH space or 0.0 instead of empire and this is also true for a lot of other Channel leaders and FCs(and most consider it more enjoyable shooting pos halve the day or afk rat on your own). This is also true for most smaller channels or high end fleets, where the low/WH/0.0 player is far more common and the normal high sec player is often the minority.
Incursions just on islands however is still a bad idea, because it actually burns out the orga staff(for every hour on grid there is at least 1h of hauling, scouting, organising or planning involved) fairly quick and it should not be considered as a thing we could do every week. It took me over 8h to move everything off the Island again, including some BS from other people to and 3h after that, not even done with sorting out all the inventory used over there in containers that include the full fitting for my 8 Island Logis and my own 12 island BS, I had to move to the next incursion again because the players did look for a FC. Self organisation doesn't work for any big Low Sec, WH or 0.0 entity and it doesn't work for Incursion channels once you leave high sec, most of the the logistics are in both cases done by a very small minority that has to spend a lot of hours to do it. I for myself just spend like 40h over the last 2 weeks on the Island Incs for hauling and orga stuff, that comes on top of my hours as FC on grid and this is only for one channel, you can do the math how many man hours it takes some of us to enable 100 people to fly out there every day. |
CA Ambraelle
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 11:18:00 -
[33] - Quote
I do not think mission runners are as spineless as many non-mission-runners seem to think.
Of course I can not speak for others so let me explain my own attitudes towards mission running and pvp.
Mission running:
I sit in front of my screen drinking a good glass of wine, listening to some classical music and chatting with my friends and maybe even watching tv on a second screen.
I am in a completely relaxed mood paying only a small part of my attention to what is happening in game.
PvP:
I am exited.
Adrenaline pumps through my veins.
I am 100% focused on the game
So you see: in both activities you meet me in a completely different mood.
And there are times for both activities.
BUT
I want to dictate when I do which activity.
When I am in a mission-running mood I do not want others to be able to force me into pvp.
Being in mission-running mood my low attention and reaction times will make me an easy prey.
Sitting in a mission-running boat will most likely not let me any options left once I am pointed making me feel helpless.
Nobody likes feeling helpless or an easy prey - that's nothing to do with being spineless.
Meet me in one of my pvp fitted ships and in mood for pvp an you will see how spineless I am ... or well ... most probably it is you who soon would have blown your spine out of your body 
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 :)
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.
Ix Method wrote:
That said it may be worth making sure each of these islands has decent Security/Mining L4s and a place to do Industry. Highsec islands are great and fostering small communities in them is a worthwhile goal.
Well as far as I do understand the OP that is exactly the proposal by Lena Lazair :)
Maybe even going further by having L4s exclusively in such pockets.
It's not about increasing rewards in those pockets, it's about making those pockets an imperative for making isk through mission running. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
157
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 11:50:00 -
[34] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote: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.
I guess I just don't see what all this accomplishes. Personally I think that highsec should have L5s, and that all highsec PvE could use a buff to make it on par with wormholes and npc null, where the rewards can often be staggering.
Personally, I see only downsides in the island idea. 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.
So all you are really doing is creating some work for JF services and inconveniencing mission runners, who will by and large pay someone else to assume the risk rather than do so themselves. Why do we want this? I guess the L5 angle is something, but we could just put those in regular highsec.
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. |
Jill Antaris
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
104
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 12:30:00 -
[35] - Quote
Veers Belvar wrote:Personally I think that highsec should have L5s, and that all highsec PvE could use a buff to make it on par with wormholes and npc null, where the rewards can often be staggering.
If you want the rewards there, then you have to invest some effort like everybody else does to get them. I mean even high sec Incursions would be unreachable for like 95% of player base if a very small minority wouldn't organize fleets, spend hours each day on grid FCing or do the busy work behind the scenes to move spare dps, logis, boosters, ammo, modules and lots of other stuff over empire each day. Point in case are all the people sitting around on wait lists for hours or waiting for FCs because they are to bad to FC and organize it herself real quick.
For us it doesn't matter if we do Incursions, WH, Low Sec or 0.0 stuff, actually running a Incursion channel is more work for me than grinding away in WH, Low Sec or 0.0 in my personal experience and even gives less ISK/h because of the massive organisation overhead and spare chars you use that don't get paid on grid with the fleet. |
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
33
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 14:42:00 -
[36] - Quote
NO
-1
And whatever other negatives you want to apply to this idea.
Mission running received a huge nerf with the reprocessing changes dropping average income by approximately 20% for everyone I know. How much more of nerf do you think lvl 4's need?
The usual disclaimer about your mileage may vary applies. I have seen charts indicating a drop of as little as 10% to some that indicate a drop of nearly 50% so apply whatever your experience has shown.
The only players I see that would benefit from this are
1. gankers who will congregate in the low sec pipes to get the idiots that try to fly a mission BS through to these islands or try to fly the loot out to a place where they can get a better price
2. gankers in the "islands" because they can set up shop in a tightly controlled space making it extremely easy to find the mission runners. KNowing all the while that ALL lvl 4 mission runner will have to come into an "island".
3. those who manufacture and sell ships/fitiings and ammo in the area. Which would likely mean the larger alliances because they are the ones that will have the resources and abilities to safely move the required materials into these "islands"
4. those who offer jf services into and out of these islands
You may consider this adding content, I call it just a plain old bad idea for the game as a whole. We do not need more ways to pour ungodly amounts of ISK into the wallets of the largest alliances in the game and I fear that would be the ultiamte outcome of this idea. More ISK for ferry servies, more ISK for the ship replacements, more ISK from the ammo.
And yes I have played in one of these "islands" before. When I was there they called it the Mili loop. I hated it when I was there as a permanent resident because of the risks associated with the low sec pipe and our CEO even offered free JF service on a twice a month round trip into and out of the area to minimize the risks. He moved the corp there to try and get the mining fleets etc away from gankers and war decs but it really made it worse because we were so tightly confined it made us easier targets. And gankers/war dec players usually do not have the same aversion to low sec that the carebears do. Ultimately being there and the CEO's refusal to move out kiklled the corp because we could not attract new layers because of the risks of the low sec pipe. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/map/Devoid/Mili
No 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? |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars
Khanid's Legion
175
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 15:06:00 -
[37] - 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 -
[38] - 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. |
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
3845
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 15:16:00 -
[39] - Quote
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.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars
Khanid's Legion
175
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 15:20:00 -
[40] - 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 -
[41] - 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 -
[42] - 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. |
Notorious Fellon
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
338
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 15:46:00 -
[43] - Quote
There are not enough hisec islands to make this work at all well.
-1
no. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars
Khanid's Legion
175
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 15:53:00 -
[44] - 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. |
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
3848
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 16:09:00 -
[45] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:The thread is now and always was about putting the most lucrative PvE content exclusively into high-sec islands.
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.
Still no (-1).
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
206
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 16:15:00 -
[46] - Quote
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.
Also L4 income is fine where it is it doesn't need to be nerfed. Additionally the old if we nerf their income they will become less risk averse is a tired argument that, as all before, it neglects to realize that should our incomes become much lower we will take the option your type never seems to understand we can and that is to find another game to play.
In short go back to whatever you were doing before you came up with this horrid idea and leave us alone.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really. |
Austrene Kanenald
Pilots of Epic
Test Alliance Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 16:29:00 -
[47] - Quote
Donnachadh wrote:You may consider this adding content, I call it just a plain old bad idea for the game as a whole. We do not need more ways to pour ungodly amounts of ISK into the wallets of the largest alliances in the game and I fear that would be the ultiamte outcome of this idea. More ISK for ferry servies, more ISK for the ship replacements, more ISK from the ammo.
I would like to buy your +14 tinfoil hat please. |
Vyl Vit
841
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 16:29:00 -
[48] - Quote
"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.
Anyone with any sense has already left town. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars
Khanid's Legion
175
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 16:30:00 -
[49] - 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 -
[50] - 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 -
[51] - 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. |
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
159
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 17:50:00 -
[52] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote:
Osmon is a massive ganker hub. As are the incursion hubs. Concentrated PvE play ALREADY happens in massive quantities, so saying that islands would somehow increase this is, IMO, both untrue and inconsequential.
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.
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. |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars
Khanid's Legion
175
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 18:11:00 -
[53] - 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. |
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
The Revenant Order
2077
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 18:30:00 -
[54] - Quote
Ways to circumvent the risks are plentiful. So no.
"War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives"-á |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars
Khanid's Legion
175
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 19:03:00 -
[55] - 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. |
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
The Revenant Order
2078
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 19:22:00 -
[56] - Quote
JF to out gate, jump to HS.
Risk = Gone.
"War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives"-á |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars
Khanid's Legion
175
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 19:30:00 -
[57] - 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? |
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
3849
|
Posted - 2014.10.07 21:26:00 -
[58] - Quote
Lena Lazair wrote: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.
I said reprocessing took a 50% hit; I didn't say salvaging was 'drastically' affected. There are a variety of ways to run L4s - including but not limited to blitzing and full-on salvaging. I could probably add standings gain to the listGǪ I'll echo the sentiments posted by others: L4 missioning is fine where it is.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
The Revenant Order
2087
|
Posted - 2014.10.08 03:35:00 -
[59] - Quote
D'aww, I struck a nerve. Look how quickly OP got defensive and downright condescending. That's really cute. Go ****post somewhere else.
"War is not measured in terms of who wins or loses, who is right or wrong.-á It is measured in terms of who survives"-á |
Lena Lazair
Khanid Irregulars
Khanid's Legion
176
|
Posted - 2014.10.08 03:43:00 -
[60] - 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. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |