Tiny Tom
   |
Posted - 2007.03.19 01:30:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Godar Marak
I think maybe Blizzard games is more your thing.
Quite honestly, EVE sounds like it's becoming *more* like WOW, not less.
I haven't played WOW, but I have a friend who did and got to high levels. He quit because at high levels, all that was available was raids, and to do a raid, you had to assemble some huge group.
Furthermore, the primary benefit from the raid came in the rare drops. But of course, it can't be left to chance who gets a good drop, so people start keeping spreadsheets about who did what raids, and those spreadsheets determining who gets the good loot.
In short, the high level game became about dealing with political garbage, rather than doing anything enjoyable.
Quote:
Most people who pvp got their stuff from taking risks.
But mission runners think they are special, that they deserve more stuff without risk and that the rules somehow dont apply to them. If you want more isk, take more risk.
Bull. Those who think reward always accompany risk need to study more economics. Classic economic theory assumes that risk reflects potential reward--but only in the long term. Furthermore, this long term result is expected under the assumption that markets are universally transparent and people behave rationally. In the short term, high-risk, low-reward scenarios exist, but people learn to shun them. Likewise, low-risk, high-reward scenarios exist, but people flock to them and exhaust them (or otherwise change market conditions in a manner that increases their risk).
However, modern economic thinking tries to understand how and why reality can differ from this ideal. Bounties are a good example of irrational. Why in blazes should a player *ever* put a bounty on a pirate that has ganked them? If a pirate has slapped you down, it's likely that he has more skills and resources. As a result, your bounty is likey to either cripple you, not be terribly enticing to the people who can actually defeat the pirate, or both.
Quite frankly, a lot of griefers out there are similarly irrational (if one assumes that the primary reward is ISK). Consider ore theft. For all the mocking of care bears, I have a hard time believing that ore theft is really that much--if any--more profitable than mining (at least since the theft patch went in). The miners either leave, leaving you with nothing to steal, or they grab a combat ship and gun you down when you try again. You can avoid that by jumping system to system...but that's not productive time.
Of course, the reason ore thiefs continue to exist is that the primary reward isn't ISK, it's ego. The same can probably be said of the people paying bounties.
Frankly, I think this mission change is similarly irrational. If CCP wants to really *control* risk, they'd keep as many missions as possible in high sec, not low sec or 0.0. The reward for missions is fixed at design time. In contrast, for missions in low sec, a good chunk of the risk is controlled by players, and there is no guarantee they won't inflate the risk beyond the rewards.
I suspect that is exactly what will happen. The "I rule you," comments seem to suggest what the PvP'ers really want--simple cannon fodder. To be honest, in wanting to just do missions in high sec, I want the same things. There are, however, two differences:
(1) I admit it
(2) I want it for the exhiliration of a mild challenge, rather than for the perversion of ruining someone's day.
|