| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
DarkFenix
Caldari
Pilots Of Honour
   |
Posted - 2007.06.15 22:06:00 -
[61]
 Originally by: Mogrin
Edited by: Mogrin on 15/06/2007 18:30:34
So missions are about getting money.
People mission run in their mission battleships.
Mission battleships are often Elite with tech 2 and officer fittings, meaning nobody in their right mind is going to take it to lowsec. (don't fly what you can't afford to lose amirite?)
So out come level 5s which will only be in lowsec as some lame attempt by CCP to get people to pvp in their mission running ships.
Well CCP this shows that you're out of touch with your customer base and it simply won't work.
So either put level 5s in highsec as well or just don't bother spending time on them.
Cry more, your river of tears provides me with sustenance. YARRRRRR  .
Risk vs reward. Deal with it or GTFO/STFU/CIHYS.
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 22:16:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Mogrin
Quote:
Level 5s will only be in low sec. CCP have done this to make people PvP in said really expensive set ups. (Which is patently wrong, by the way- CCP have done it because they want you to visit low sec, not so you risk expensive things).
And you would be patently WRONG.
How the hell can you believe that they want you to not risk expensive ships to gankers?
What the hell are you going to mission run in?
Tech 1 battleships?
Who the hell is going to come after you? Random wandering alliance wars?
No.
Its gonna be expensive mission setups vs people specifically setup to wtfgank your gang.
This is all assuming that anyone is tricked into thinking it will be more profitable. If based on law of averages of risk vs reward these level 5s turn out to be more profitable factoring in the fact that they will probably lose CAPITAL SHIPS to surprise butsekz ganks, then people will do them. And they would have to be ridiculously profitable in order for them income to average out.
Otherwise the people that level 5s were attempting to bait into lowsec simply won't do them.
Useless content, failed attempt at forcing pvp on those who make their isk in empire, etc etc.
I honestly don't believe that is CCP's aim with this (and I challenge you to find a Dev quote saying it is).
For as long as I can remember, the cause on everyone's lips (forum warriors and Devs alike) has been how to populate low sec. Low sec has been a disaster- all the risk of 0.0 space, no rewards that can't be found in abundance in high sec. Quite simply, it had nothing special- either you didn't want risk and stayed in high sec, or you did want risk and went to 0.0. Low sec was desolate. What are lvl 5 missions? Well, they'd be something special that neither high sec nor 0.0 had- a reason to visit low sec.
Whether you believe it'll be successful or not (and you obviously have said you think not), the obvious reason CCP are doing it is because they want to put an attraction in low sec. Something to do. Something that'll draw in the crowds. to make the leap that the only reason they're doing it is because they want you to become juicy pirate targets?! I honestly don't think CCP give a **** about what set up you fly, as long as you go there and stay a while.
On the other hand, I do see your point. And its one that I've been thinking about myself recently, there being a lot of these threads around. The thing is, the EVE population at large can be divided in to 3 basic categories:
1: People who do not want to take a risk. Ever. They like high-sec. they enjoy playing EVE in Empire. Nothing will ever make them want to leave high-sec; if you try to force them, they'd probably just stop playing and play a different game.
2: People who don't care about risk. They're happy to sally out in to the great unknown of low-sec and 0.0, and do so on a regular basis. Odds are, they're already there.
3: People who are undecided. They live in high-sec because its convenient, but might go to low-sec if they're presented with sufficient reason- like, for example, a decent reward.
Obviously, it's pointless trying to tempt group number one out- they'll never go, whatever you do. It's pointless trying to tempt group number two- they're already there. But group number three...they're the bunnies that low-sec boosts need to focus on. I feel that putting a high reward mission network in low-sec is about the only thing acceptable- it doesn't force them to leave high sec, but it gives them a good reason to give it a go, if they're that way inclined.
--------
|
Doppleganger
Minmatar
Band of Builders Inc.
Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 22:20:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Doppleganger on 15/06/2007 22:22:58
Originally by: Mogrin
Originally by: Doppleganger
Not many will try to PvP in a mission running setup but then I have many times PvE in a PvP setup before. I like the idea the mission spots in low sec will give ppl something to fight over just like some complexs in 0.0 do. I mean after all what else is there to fight over in low sec? Not much that I can tell.
Complexes are static areas that people have to fight over. They're already there, for exactly that purpose.
Level 5 agents will spawn as many level 5 missions as necessary.
What is a more likely scenario is having a level 5 mission running corps ally and pay mercenaries to defend the system of known pirates. Might as well be 0.0 at that point.
Well after patch complexs will no longer be static Quote:
The following static sites have been removed from static spawn locations and distributed evenly across the appropriate factionsÆ space. Each site can only be found within systems with specific security statuses.
For saying it might as well be 0.0 well it won't be. Ppl always comment on that low sec is useless well CCP adds new missions to try to give low sec more of a reason to go there and then it gets slammed as wasted content before its even on tranq.
{edit} If these lvl 5 missions turn out cool enough it might give me a reason to visit low sec more often and get out of 0.0 for short a short spell.
|
Candyman Dyer
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 22:24:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Patch86
Are you telling me that if I were to warp in to a dead space mission in a Megathron and shoot at a guy in a Raven, I have zero risk of getting destroyed by him (despite the fact I have one of my highslots filled by a probe launcher, while he'll have aall weapons and tanking modules, all be it specialised for the NPCs in the area), when compared with the perils of running lvl4 missions in high sec?
Seriously?
Yeah, SERIOUSLY!!!
See, you can NOT attack, you can turn around and flee while the mission runner is engaged with NPCs. If you think, I mean HONESTLY think, that there is a big risk that the mission runner will scram/web you and then destroy you before you can escape you are truly an idiot.
However the mission runner has a HIGH chance that you will scram/web him and prevent his escape, if you CHOOSE to attack him.
Or am I wrong about this?
Pirates that hunt mission runners have VERY LITTLE risk.
|
Patch86
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 22:33:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Patch86 on 15/06/2007 22:37:43
Originally by: Candyman Dyer
Originally by: Patch86
Are you telling me that if I were to warp in to a dead space mission in a Megathron and shoot at a guy in a Raven, I have zero risk of getting destroyed by him (despite the fact I have one of my highslots filled by a probe launcher, while he'll have aall weapons and tanking modules, all be it specialised for the NPCs in the area), when compared with the perils of running lvl4 missions in high sec?
Seriously?
Yeah, SERIOUSLY!!!
See, you can NOT attack, you can turn around and flee while the mission runner is engaged with NPCs. If you think, I mean HONESTLY think, that there is a big risk that the mission runner will scram/web you and then destroy you before you can escape you are truly an idiot.
However the mission runner has a HIGH chance that you will scram/web him and prevent his escape, if you CHOOSE to attack him.
Or am I wrong about this?
Pirates that hunt mission runners have VERY LITTLE risk.
Oh no, agreed that there isn't MUCH risk in hunting mission runners. But I'd still warrant that there's more risk in it than running lvl 4 missions in high sec.
EDIT: Just in case you didn't read it properly, the quote I was replying to was trying to argue that there is less risk in low-sec piracy than there is in soloing lvl 4 missions. It boggles my mind that anyone can think that ANYTHING is less risk than high sec mission running, with the possible exception of high sec manufacturing.
--------
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 22:48:00 -
[66]
There's a ton I could say about LowSec, risk/reward, and effort/reward, but I think people just need to chill and see how it works out before they start casting judgement on the system. LowSec may not be very safe for mission runners, but it's the safest possible place CCP could have put these L5s to see how they work out.
In the meantime, if you don't want to go to LowSec, don't. And if it just kills you that there's this content you don't have access to, whether because you're in 0.0 or 1.0, well, you can always play with it in the meantime on sisi.
For my part, even though I won't be running L5s or busting them, I've very excited to see what happens to LowSec now that it will have something unique. At least for a little while.
* * *
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Candyman Dyer
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 22:54:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Patch86
Oh no, agreed that there isn't MUCH risk in hunting mission runners. But I'd still warrant that there's more risk in it than running lvl 4 missions in high sec.
EDIT: Just in case you didn't read it properly, the quote I was replying to was trying to argue that there is less risk in low-sec piracy than there is in soloing lvl 4 missions. It boggles my mind that anyone can think that ANYTHING is less risk than high sec mission running, with the possible exception of high sec manufacturing.
Ok, I will give you thin much...the risk involved in running missions (minus pirates probing you) is about the same amount of risk involved in hunting mission runners. High sec or low sec dosent matter.
The problem arises when you compare the risk involved in the actual fact that you in are low sec/no sec. The pirate will be in a PvP setup where as the mission runner will be PvE. I would argue that the mission runners have more overall risk as compared to mission hunters.
|
Joerd Toastius
Octavian Vanguard
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 23:31:00 -
[68]
Eve 101
|
Susan Acid
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 23:40:00 -
[69]
To quote others:
Risk vs Reward.
Nobody is being 'forced' to PvP.
Most lvl 4's are a pushover and present no risk at all to the kind of people who would be prepared to take on a lvl 5 with a full faction fit.
Risk v Reward
|
Baccala
|
Posted - 2007.06.15 23:50:00 -
[70]
I'm all for lvl 5s in low sec, I just don't want them camped somehow, or probed somehow by grievers that just want to get their rocks off.
Personally, I think they should be in 0.0.
|
Al Thorr
Caldari
The Wheel
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 00:10:00 -
[71]
All in favor of low sec only missions. after all no one after all these articulate in part posts and moot arguments has actually stated why lev 5s should be in high sec- apart from low sec is "scary" an "I might lose my ship" - isnt that the point of the mission in the first place.
Must admit could never see the point of doing missions when there was absolutely no chance of suffering a loss. unless copiuos amounts of alcohol were added.
Any how thats the rules , like em or lump em. after all more ship losses = more profits for ship builders.
some isks in the pond
Al Thorr
"You cant polish a turd" - The new rendered font is living proof.
|
Cudaya Ebsldes
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 00:17:00 -
[72]
When I was on the test server the agent was in lo sec but the mission was in 0.5 space. I don't know if that was a mistake or not.
|
Gaius Sejanus
Gallente
Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 00:21:00 -
[73]
Quote:
So either put level 5s in highsec as well or just don't bother spending time on them.
Sure thing. You just point out the easy method by which dreadnaughts and carriers can be moved into highsec, and then L5 highsec agents will become commonplace.
Quote:
Great! ugh Now I just need to wait like a year for my corp mates to reach the mission-running-uberness level that I currently have... Sad
Entitlement much? I missed the part where releasing level 5 missions automatically meant that you should be able to do them.
Actually, I missed that part about level 1-4 missions too.
Quote:
Complexes are static areas that people have to fight over. They're already there, for exactly that purpose.
All those easy to find complexes are going bye bye, and very soon. And by "very soon", I mean Tuesday.
Quote:
Oh no, agreed that there isn't MUCH risk in hunting mission runners. But I'd still warrant that there's more risk in it than running lvl 4 missions in high sec.
I wouldn't. How many mission runners fit scramblers? Just about none. If you aren't scrambled, then you can always leave with no risk. On the other hand, it's far more likely for a mistake, a lagstorm, or a client crash to lose you your ship while doing highsec missions. Does it happen often? No, of course not. Missions are generally not very difficult. But the incidence of mission ships blowing up vs pirates losing when going after mission runners is not the least bit proportionate.
|
heheheh
Singularity.
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 00:28:00 -
[74]
Quote:
Mission battleships are often Elite with tech 2 and officer fittings, meaning nobody in their right mind is going to take it to lowsec.
no, not at all,
Not everyone is poor.
|
MehTheTrader
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 00:29:00 -
[75]
lvl 5's in low sec... You will need dreads anyways. But why ccp is messing with the original lvl4's, they used to be always there. CPP I thought this was a sandbox game, why do you constantly change rules. Are lvl 5's in 0.0? I doubt anyone will do lvl5 missions.. exploration and 10/10's are way more profitable. lvl5's have dreads.. like good luck having people do that in low sec with a small gang oO.
|
heheheh
Singularity.
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 00:29:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Candyman Dyer
Originally by: Patch86
Are you telling me that if I were to warp in to a dead space mission in a Megathron and shoot at a guy in a Raven, I have zero risk of getting destroyed by him (despite the fact I have one of my highslots filled by a probe launcher, while he'll have aall weapons and tanking modules, all be it specialised for the NPCs in the area), when compared with the perils of running lvl4 missions in high sec?
Seriously?
Yeah, SERIOUSLY!!!
See, you can NOT attack, you can turn around and flee while the mission runner is engaged with NPCs. If you think, I mean HONESTLY think, that there is a big risk that the mission runner will scram/web you and then destroy you before you can escape you are truly an idiot.
However the mission runner has a HIGH chance that you will scram/web him and prevent his escape, if you CHOOSE to attack him.
Or am I wrong about this?
Pirates that hunt mission runners have VERY LITTLE risk.
Contrary to popular belief, or rather yours, pirates actually attack other pirates.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Guardians of the Dawn
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 01:51:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Kagura Nikon on 16/06/2007 01:52:32
If you think your conception of risk has any value you are nuts! (that is to the carebear guy)
You WONT DO LEVEL 5 IN A BATLESHIP ALONE!!! Put taht in your mind!!! You wil be in LARGE BS groups or in a a CArrier or dread.
If you think its no risk for a piar of pirates to attack a carrier. You reall y have NO idea how strong a carrier is.. He can simply stop attackign the rats and put fighters on your BS and you are gon in a blink ! You need to learn about real VPV before giving any impression on risk of pvping. Even worse.. you might jump in to hunt an NPCer and find a MOthership. Then your gang of pirates is completely f****d!
Attackign a carrier is a HIGHLY risky operation unles syou have a LARGE force.
I reapaet.. YOU CANNOT DO LEVEL 5 IN YOUR RAVEN!! Do not think on risk as if you were alone in a raven!!!!
NO way in 1 zillion years a raven can kil a dread, and there will be dreads in these missions!!!!
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Candyman Dyer
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 02:17:00 -
[78]
Originally by: heheheh
Contrary to popular belief, or rather yours, pirates actually attack other pirates.
And your point was? Do you have one? I said that mission runners have more risk running missions in low sec than the people that hunt them, you proceed tell me pirates attack each other. Do you even speak English? I am honestly sitting here scratching my head trying to figure out why you said this. Its obvious that you think yourself witty for saying so, and that what you said negates everything I said, but I just don't get it.
Maybe you are saying that because pirates can attack each other, they are at more risk than a mission runner? If that is the case please explain why you think that. They are at the same risk as mission runners to be attacked by outside pirates, just that they have a PvP setup as opposed to a PvE one and have a better chance of defense. Perhaps you are saying that pirates are targeted MORE than non-pirates (if this is the case I recommend you don't post ever again) and ANYONE that has actually played Eve could tell you that is not the case.
Anyway, next time you decide to put your thoughts into words and share them with the world........don't.
|
Qaed
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 02:44:00 -
[79]
Quote:
And your point was? Do you have one? I said that mission runners have more risk running missions in low sec than the people that hunt them, you proceed tell me pirates attack each other. Do you even speak English? I am honestly sitting here scratching my head trying to figure out why you said this. Its obvious that you think yourself witty for saying so, and that what you said negates everything I said, but I just don't get it.
Maybe you are saying that because pirates can attack each other, they are at more risk than a mission runner? If that is the case please explain why you think that. They are at the same risk as mission runners to be attacked by outside pirates, just that they have a PvP setup as opposed to a PvE one and have a better chance of defense. Perhaps you are saying that pirates are targeted MORE than non-pirates (if this is the case I recommend you don't post ever again) and ANYONE that has actually played Eve could tell you that is not the case.
Anyway, next time you decide to put your thoughts into words and share them with the world........don't.
QFT. There isn't anything a mission runner could do to protect themselves that a pirate couldn't, and in most cases the pirate probably will while the mission runner will be hindered by the "economics" of running missions.
Mission runners will be in gangs? So will the pirates, etc...
Bottom line is, mission runners will have to deal with pirates and NPC aggro at the same time, so the mission runner will always be at a disadvantage. And increasing the rewards for running missions will benefit the pirates as much as the mission runners, so that's a push.
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar
Guardians of the Dawn
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 02:54:00 -
[80]
How long do you think it takes to assemble a gang taht is able to kill a carrier? (you knwo very very few pirates have carriers ). Pirates won 't have large gans runnign around assembled all time. And when they have (you know killing a capital ship requires specific fittings) they will be EASY picking for anti pirates. So attracting lots of AP.
0.0 people play huge risk much larger than that ones every day and they don 't complain!
just stop thinking as in single player and you will be fine!
If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough |
Kylar Renpurs
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 02:55:00 -
[81]
@OP
Learn what a travel fit is, and learn how to play the game before you ***** and moan. Thanks.
Improve Market Competition! |
Stone Calf
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 03:00:00 -
[82]
In no time at all the systems that house the higher quality level 5 agents will be as choked up as motsu or jita. The large alliances and or pirate sorts (like myself) will be free of any concord interference and camping/killing anyone that tries to enter. Arguing about them being in low security will soon become a whine about the systems being camped and the dev's will of course cater to the whiners and move them to high security. This whole discussion is so pointless it's laughable. |
Niccolado Starwalker
Shadow Templars
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 03:28:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Mogrin
Edited by: Mogrin on 15/06/2007 18:30:34
So missions are about getting money.
People mission run in their mission battleships.
Mission battleships are often Elite with tech 2 and officer fittings, meaning nobody in their right mind is going to take it to lowsec. (don't fly what you can't afford to lose amirite?)
So out come level 5s which will only be in lowsec as some lame attempt by CCP to get people to pvp in their mission running ships.
Well CCP this shows that you're out of touch with your customer base and it simply won't work.
So either put level 5s in highsec as well or just don't bother spending time on them.
How do you intend of bringing capital ships into empire? because thats what you will find in level 5 agent missions. And thats why you find it in Low Sec because: you cant bring capitals into empire!!
Originally by: Eldo Davip
PORTRAITS OMFG WOOT.
WE R GONIG FOR MROE BREEE!!!!11
|
Camilo Cienfuegos
EP0CH
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 03:35:00 -
[84]
This doesn't go far enough!
Mission/Ratting setups are a stupid "feature" (like jetcans), and we all know it. They're a pure product of empire, as anyone who operates in lowsec knows to keep their wits about them and not to leave any gaping holes in their tank.
All combat missions should have been moved to lowsec a long, long time ago: There's no valid lore reason for combat missions in an area of space that's controlled by CONCORD. If they can wtfpwn us, they sure as hell can do it to NPCs, right?
--
Fix Caldari | Fix Rigs |
Opium
Minmatar
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 03:38:00 -
[85]
with all that empire miussion running, u should be ready for a cap ship,.there will be several lvl. 5 missions u can have cap ships in.
there several lvl 4's u can do in cap ships now,i think it;s great and it will bring ppl out to low sec,
a cnr fitted up costs more than a carrier and doiesnt pay the insurance a carrier pays,
you cant have capital ships in anyhting over .4
|
Candyman Dyer
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 03:40:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Stone Calf
In no time at all the systems that house the higher quality level 5 agents will be as choked up as motsu or jita. The large alliances and or pirate sorts (like myself) will be free of any concord interference and camping/killing anyone that tries to enter. Arguing about them being in low security will soon become a whine about the systems being camped and the dev's will of course cater to the whiners and move them to high security. This whole discussion is so pointless it's laughable.
This is too true. These areas will be either mega-corp only or a place for pirates to slaughter people. The idea that the only way to progress in the game is to grow larger 'in numbers' as opposed to 'in skill' reminds me of other mmorpgs ^^ The same one where content was constantly added that only the 'Elite' would only see, ya know the big 'hardcore' guilds, I mean Alliances. I pray Eve does not become like that...
|
Kuseka Adama
Gallente
WOLFPACK DELTA
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 03:54:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Kuseka Adama on 16/06/2007 03:55:23
Originally by: Mogrin
*insert whine here*
Do us all a favor op quit the friggin thread and change your corp name. While i might be invoking the 300 quoters you sure as hell dont know what spartan means.
I dont normally flame but you are really beginning to get on my nerves with the whine level and the fact you dont explain everything out.
First off. What the hell makes you think you can read the minds of CCP? Or any of you nutcases for that matter. You want to ask the question go right ahead but dont even think you can ***** the mind of a game dev.
As far as i am concerned level 4's should be in low sec. The problem in this is game mechanics. Now OP if you actually took time to explain just how friggin hard it is to make a combination setup to these people maybe they wouldn't think of you as a whiner so much.
To create a pvp+pvm setup you have two options.
1 Create an omni tank putting your total resists at manageable levels. You sacrifice internal necessity to strengthen your armor or shields for tanking purposes.
2 Create a dual tank of faction mob damage + explosive either way you are sacrificing internal possibly ship necessary items to increase your tanking capabilites.
Mechanic wise this is difficult in the extreme sense. Most ships dont have more than 6 low slots the rare few that do tend to be very expensive. Same with mid slots. Gangs will help but a dedicated force with one or two more ships might make all your plans go up in smoke. The problem with a level 5 mission is the lack of revenge protection once they hit low sec. No concord there to make sure the gankers dont make off with ill gotten gains. Boofrigginhoo. Speaking as someone who has lost EXTREMELY expensive ships to gate camps and other mistakes you get the @#$ over it and move on. I have a setup BC which probably costs about as much as a megathron unarmed right now. I am likely going to have to bring that into low sec at some point not for the level 5's but for other needs.
If a pvm'er could create a config that could at least compete in a pvp fight while still allowing him to complete the mission i think you would see a lot less of people like mogrin. If you dont want to come out here and play thats fine. I really dont care. We who have the balls will reap the rewards and salvage.
To get an idea of what a level 5 is likely to hold...think about the spawns. Freighters. Dreadnaughts along with carriers are all rumored to be in these missions. What the heck do you think the SALVAGERS will rip off their hulls? In some cases i wouldnt be surprised if i could build a rig per ship with that kind of salvage. What the heck do you think freighter drops will be like? The loot alone will probably be obscene. Mission rewards arent the fun part of these. Its the loot and the absurd amount of loyalty points that are likely to be gained from one of these that makes this all worth while.
While i did get side tracked the op while being an idiot does have an actual point. To make a setup for pvp and pvm is very difficult near impossible really. The best way to do it is probably with a carrier as a remote station and change setups once the area is secured. Anyway thats my two c-bills on the issue.
|
SUPER J0SH
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 04:07:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Doppleganger
Originally by: Mogrin
Well then in that case we'll be seeing raiding corps forming and pirate corps camping them, sending the majority back to solo 4s in their mission battleships.
Well actually when lvl 4's 1st came out CCP said they never intended on them being solo-able missions either but so many ppl complained and whinned about it.... guess what happened.
So now you are asking for another lvl of missions to be dumbed down as well and moved to high sec space? (I say dumbed down cause by moving them to high sec you would need to remove the cap ship element)
No, they can be in both.... cap ships can do them in low sec, but the same in high sec would require a good sized gang! As it should! If hi-sec ones require group interaction it would be a good thing. Force teamwork, but not low-sec.
|
Fuk Mi
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 04:18:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Al Thorr
All in favor of low sec only missions. after all no one after all these articulate in part posts and moot arguments has actually stated why lev 5s should be in high sec- apart from low sec is "scary" an "I might lose my ship" - isnt that the point of the mission in the first place.
OK how about a story reason.... A high ranking member of a corporation with a bigger operating budget than anyone else in it, would not be stuck out in some lawless armpit of the galaxy.
Explain that.
|
Keira Fordring
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2007.06.16 04:18:00 -
[90]
Quote:
For as long as I can remember, the cause on everyone's lips (forum warriors and Devs alike) has been how to populate low sec. Low sec has been a disaster- all the risk of 0.0 space, no rewards that can't be found in abundance in high sec. Quite simply, it had nothing special- either you didn't want risk and stayed in high sec, or you did want risk and went to 0.0. Low sec was desolate. What are lvl 5 missions? Well, they'd be something special that neither high sec nor 0.0 had- a reason to visit low sec.
I think the point the OP is trying to make, and one that I agree with, is that missions are not an effective way to populate low-sec.
There is a vast difference between PvE and PvP setups. Even if both the pirate and missionrunner have the exact same ship, the pirate has two advantages:
1) PvE setups are not good for PvP
2) The missionrunner has the mission rats to tank
If CCP really wants to get people into low-sec, they should create missions where you actually hunt other players. Agents pay you for pieces of their ships or tags or whatever. Either that or create a PvE mission that requires your ship to have a PvP fit (impossible unless they rework the rat AI).
The only way to entice people to low-sec is to level the playingfield. Just throwing in random level 5 missions doesn't cut it IMO.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |