| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Stepford Wife
   |
Posted - 2007.12.28 21:10:00 -
[1]
Pirates are ôcrying wolfö that there is no more sheep to slaughter in low sec. space? Carebears are whining that all the high level missions are in low sec. space? Null space alliances are sobbing over constant wars that deplete their industrial base and force them to go back to Empire space to make ISK? Empire space dwellers are ôyellow with rageö over macro miners and macro haulers?
There may be an answer! How about a PVP challenge? Here is how I would envision this. Player X invites player Y to PVP with a cancelable by X challenge with a settable ransom capped at the platinum insurance pay out value of YÆs current ship. This action starts a timer for both players. The timer has two parts: (a)ccept and (c)ombat. During accept timer Y may accept or combat. If Y concedes, he simply pays the ransom, the both timers end and could not be restarted by X for another 6 hours. If the acceptance timer runs out and Y does not concede, then X can open fire on Y without any retribution from Concord until YÆs combat timer runs out. Conversely, Y may chose to hide or to log off until combat timer runs out. During concede timer Y may change his mind and pay the ransom, thus zeroing the concede timer.
As soon as X issues a challenge, X could be fired upon by Y for the entire duration of the total timer. The act of firing/ECM/Drone attack on X by Y will automatically make the challenge accepted by Y, zeroes the accept timer and starts combat timer. X can only fire at Y without any retribution from Concord only after YÆs accept timer reaches 0 and before YÆs combat timer reaches 0. If Y accepts the challenge but chooses to hide, the total timer must runs out for Y to be safe from X once again.
Important Note: regardless of the outcome, there is no security status negative adjustment for either X or Y.
Example (1):
Macro miner Y is drilling some roids in Empire belt 1-1. A law abiding miner X shows up at the belt 1-1. He deduces that Y is macro mining. X issues the challenge. Y macro reacts to the challenge by logging off or docking. Micro mining averted.
Example (2):
An afk miner Y is drilling some roids in Empire belt 1-1. Another miner X shows up at the same belt. He deduces that Y is macro mining and issues the challenge. Y comes back to the screen to see the challenge, he docks to change ships. He returns back to belt 1-1 and wtfpwns X who is blissfully unaware of the upcoming misfortune.
Example (3):
Y is hauling some very high value goods through Empire on his way to a major trading hub using T2 Transport. Enterprising X is issues a challenge to Y. If Y is not AFK, and thinks that time is money then he simply concedes, after all what is few dozen millions of ISK of ship vs. potentially few dozen hundreds of millions of his trade goods?
Example (4):
Mission grinder Y is in the middle of level 4 mission when he is probed by "highway road romantic" X who is issuing the challenge. Y invites X to a conversation explaining to him that IRL he has to go to a store to buy food anyway so he will simply hide until the timer runs out. As an alternative Y asks X to cancel the challenge and join him in the mission so that both may benefit. X, of course, declines to acquiesce to such request and gets Y docking and at the station and going AFK.
You get the ideaà.
Thank you.
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar
mUfFiN fAcToRy
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 21:20:00 -
[2]
How about simply put all level 4 agents in lowsec?
 Originally by: Tarminic
Okay, that's it. You are on the KOS list, and you better pray that I don't have access to a locater agent. 
|
Sarkkon
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 21:25:00 -
[3]
SICK and tired of the same griefers trying to turn EVE into one big shooter game.
|
Stepford Wife
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 21:27:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny
How about simply put all level 4 agents in lowsec?
Unfortunately, that idea is a no-starter for now. Perhaps as a "penance for your sins" you will have to rat your way back to acceptable security status to enter Empire space to be able to issue PVP challenges?
BTW, your corp podded me in low sec. space a few months back. I know it was nothing personal, all fun.
|
Miki Fin
Gallente
Independant Union of Rangers
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 21:28:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny
How about simply put all level 4 agents in lowsec?
That will solve what exactly?
|
Windjammer
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 21:28:00 -
[6]
I can see how this would benefit pirates. They'd be able to hit anyone, anywhere, anytime and then repeat after 6 hours wait. Presumably you envision no limit to the number of challenges that a player can issue simultaneously. Therefore a single pirate or group of like minded pirates could paralyze mining in any system they enter.
Obvious troll attempt here.
|
Bish Ounen
Gallente
Omni-Core Freedom Fighters
Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 21:28:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny
How about simply put all level 4 agents in lowsec?
If level 4 agents are in lowsec, I'm not doing level 4 missions. Period. I refuse to be anyone's "sheep to the slaughter".
I guarantee that other mission runners will tell you exactly the same thing.
So nobody will do level 4 missions, and you pirates will still have nobody to shoot at.  Get it yet?
Stop trying to wreck other people's fun just because you foolishly chose piracy as a profession. Go join a 0-sec alliance for PVP and leave mission runners alone.
As far as the OP's idea goes, That's basically a variation on WOW style consensual PVP. It doesn't fit in EVE. consider yourself flamed.
/me sits back and roasts a marshmallow. *yum*! 
----------------------------------------------
How much would it cost to roll back to RevII CCP?
|
Praxis1452
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 21:43:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Bish Ounen
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny
How about simply put all level 4 agents in lowsec?
If level 4 agents are in lowsec, I'm not doing level 4 missions. Period. I refuse to be anyone's "sheep to the slaughter".
I guarantee that other mission runners will tell you exactly the same thing.
So nobody will do level 4 missions, and you pirates will still have nobody to shoot at. Get it yet?
Stop trying to wreck other people's fun just because you foolishly chose piracy as a profession. Go join a 0-sec alliance for PVP and leave mission runners alone.
As far as the OP's idea goes, That's basically a variation on WOW style consensual PVP. It doesn't fit in EVE. consider yourself flamed.
/me sits back and roasts a marshmallow. *yum*!
----------------------------------------------
You won't. Other's will. Piracy is still alive and it's fine. Lvl 4's if put all into low-sec should have rewards boosted significantly as well. Risk v Reward.
People will do lvl 4's as they give the most amount of isk. They will stop fitting their ships with T2 everything and faction mods. t1 fit raven's can't cost that much to lose. Oh well.
"sheep to the slaughter" lol it's a pvp game. Get over it.
ôHe who must expend his life to prolong life cannot enjoy it, and he who is still seeking for his life does not have it and can as little enjoy it.ö
|
Ovek
Gallente
Cosmic Fusion
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 21:51:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Sarkkon
SICK and tired of the same griefers trying to turn EVE into one big shooter game.
It is one big shooter game already.
Get used to it.
|
Impee
The Shadow Order
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 22:01:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Praxis1452
Originally by: Bish Ounen
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny
How about simply put all level 4 agents in lowsec?
If level 4 agents are in lowsec, I'm not doing level 4 missions. Period. I refuse to be anyone's "sheep to the slaughter".
I guarantee that other mission runners will tell you exactly the same thing.
So nobody will do level 4 missions, and you pirates will still have nobody to shoot at. Get it yet?
Stop trying to wreck other people's fun just because you foolishly chose piracy as a profession. Go join a 0-sec alliance for PVP and leave mission runners alone.
As far as the OP's idea goes, That's basically a variation on WOW style consensual PVP. It doesn't fit in EVE. consider yourself flamed.
/me sits back and roasts a marshmallow. *yum*!
----------------------------------------------
You won't. Other's will. Piracy is still alive and it's fine. Lvl 4's if put all into low-sec should have rewards boosted significantly as well. Risk v Reward.
People will do lvl 4's as they give the most amount of isk. They will stop fitting their ships with T2 everything and faction mods. t1 fit raven's can't cost that much to lose. Oh well.
"sheep to the slaughter" lol it's a pvp game. Get over it.
If Piracy is fine, then lvl 4s are fine where they as well, no? Personally I don't really care as I don't usually run missions (only for a change of pace from 0.0).
|
Xaen
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 22:03:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Stepford Wife
Edited by: Stepford Wife on 28/12/2007 21:32:34
Pirates are ôcrying wolfö that there is no more sheep to slaughter in low sec. space? Carebears are whining that all the high level missions are in low sec. space? Null space alliances are sobbing over constant wars that deplete their industrial base and force them to go back to Empire space to make ISK? Empire space dwellers are ôyellow with rageö over macro miners and macro haulers?
There may be an answer! How about a PVP challenge? Here is how I would envision this. Player X invites player Y to PVP with a cancelable by X challenge with a settable ransom capped at the platinum insurance pay out value of YÆs current ship. This action starts a timer for both players. The timer has two parts: (a)ccept and (c)ombat. During accept timer Y may accept or combat. If Y concedes, he simply pays the ransom, the both timers end and could not be restarted by X for another 6 hours. If the acceptance timer runs out and Y does not concede, then X can open fire on Y without any retribution from Concord until YÆs combat timer runs out. Conversely, Y may chose to hide or to log off until combat timer runs out. During concede timer Y may change his mind and pay the ransom, thus zeroing the concede timer.
As soon as X issues a challenge, X could be fired upon by Y for the entire duration of the total timer. The act of firing/ECM/Drone attack on X by Y will automatically make the challenge accepted by Y, zeroes the accept timer and starts combat timer. X can only fire at Y without any retribution from Concord only after YÆs accept timer reaches 0 and before YÆs combat timer reaches 0. If Y accepts the challenge but chooses to hide, the total timer must runs out for Y to be safe from X once again.
Important Note (1): regardless of the outcome, there is no security status negative adjustment for either X or Y.
Important Note (2): Only similar number of challengers could issue a challenge to challengees. In other words no 2 on 3. Only 2 on 2 or similar.
Example (1):
Macro miner Y is drilling some roids in Empire belt 1-1. A law abiding miner X shows up at the belt 1-1. He deduces that Y is macro mining. X issues the challenge. Y macro reacts to the challenge by logging off or docking. Micro mining averted.
Example (2):
An afk miner Y is drilling some roids in Empire belt 1-1. Another miner X shows up at the same belt. He deduces that Y is macro mining and issues the challenge. Y comes back to the screen to see the challenge, he docks to change ships. He returns back to belt 1-1 and wtfpwns X who is blissfully unaware of the upcoming misfortune.
Example (3):
Y is hauling some very high value goods through Empire on his way to a major trading hub using T2 Transport. Enterprising X is issues a challenge to Y. If Y is not AFK, and thinks that time is money then he simply concedes, after all what is few dozen millions of ISK of ship vs. potentially few dozen hundreds of millions of his trade goods?
Example (4):
Mission grinder Y is in the middle of level 4 mission when he is probed by "highway road romantic" X who is issuing the challenge. Y invites X to a conversation explaining to him that IRL he has to go to a store to buy food anyway so he will simply hide until the timer runs out. As an alternative Y asks X to cancel the challenge and join him in the mission so that both may benefit. X, of course, declines to acquiesce to such request and gets Y docking and at the station and going AFK.
You get the ideaà.
Thank you.
Wall of text defeated my level of interest.
--
Support fixing the EVE UI | Suggest Jita fixes
|
Paulo Damarr
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 22:05:00 -
[12]
Moving level 4 missions to low sec will not populate low sec, tbh I cant see anything achieving it other than completely reworking the whole idea and that would leave piracy high and dry. Increasing low sec rewards wont happen because that would upset the 0.0 players and is still unlikely to encourage high sec players and it will most likely fill it with players from 0.0.
I roam low sec and there is hardly anyone in the belts and sometimes you see the odd player at a gate but they rarely agress and usually there are going about their own business or warp as soon as they see you, every now and then you see a gate camp but most the time everyone is at a POS or safe spot or docked up.
And the OPs idea sucks so hard it has to be troll.
*moderated - removed to facilitate search query* |
Snowcrash Winterheart2
Gallente
Concordia Discors
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 22:19:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Praxis1452
"sheep to the slaughter" lol it's a pvp game. Get over it.
Nope. It's officially a Sandbox game. That's according to CCP. As said by them repeatedly at the FanFest. Get used to those two words.
-----
Four paws... four sets of claws. |
000Hunter000
Gallente
Magners Marauders
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 22:24:00 -
[14]
I Lolled! 
Moving L4 agents to low sec would mean people would simply grind L3's instead, moving them to low sec would mean mass cancellations and the death of eve in a nutshell, if u think this will not happen u are kidding urselves.
I thought of 2 ways of dealing with mission lag.
1. Make a mechanism that will send u further away to doing ur mission if systems around ur agent home base get too crowded.
2. do away with levels on agents, but instead, the longer u work for an agent the better the missions will become. (so it's more like the agent levels up with u)
CCP, let us pay the online shop with Direct Debit!!!
Magners is now recruiting, evemail me or Dagazbo ingame.
|
Cambarus
The Baros Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 22:36:00 -
[15]
Lvl 4s being moved to lowsec would not get carebears to move to lowsec. As has been said many times before carebears would just grind lvl 3 missions.
As for increasing the rewards in lowsec, it's not gonna happen. Not because of CCP being stubborn or anything like that, but because if lowsec became more profitable you'd see large alliances crowd in to control it.
0.0 is, by design, more dangerous then lowsec. The problem is that because the rewards are so much higher, large alliances started controlling and policing nullsec space. The game started off with 0.0 being dangerous, players changed that. Make lowsec more valuable and it will lose it's danger as well.
|
Mazaron
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 23:02:00 -
[16]
http://www.worldofwarcraft.com/info/basics/duels.html
Why does this sound somewhat familiar....
|
Praxis1452
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 23:10:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Praxis1452 on 28/12/2007 23:20:23
Originally by: Snowcrash Winterheart2
Originally by: Praxis1452
"sheep to the slaughter" lol it's a pvp game. Get over it.
Nope. It's officially a Sandbox game. That's according to CCP. As said by them repeatedly at the FanFest. Get used to those two words.
...of which the main element is pvp. Semantics.
I'm betting that pvp drives most of the game economy which in turn is the essential point of EVE. ISK. Ships, pilots, etc. Everything comes down to ISK and PvP drives it.
I'm not saying that mission running is wrong, I'm saying that people who choose to limit themselves to most of the game world is wrong. Trading is an entirely different matter. It has it's uses. Missioning's only use is for isk/loot to use... for what? Pimping is the only thing that comes to mind. They deny the main drive of EVE. Fine if they enjoy it but I'll still call them cowards.
ôHe who must expend his life to prolong life cannot enjoy it, and he who is still seeking for his life does not have it and can as little enjoy it.ö
|
Hamfast
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 23:17:00 -
[18]
As we are into "Ideas that will go nowhere"...
How about granting us the ability to "Rent" concord support?
I pay concord to protect me, as long as my contract is in force, and I do not start the fight, anyone in any security space that fires on me gets blasted by Concord... I call this the "Carebear Protection Act"...
In the case of the OP's idea, as I rented Concord and some pirate challenged me, I make the call to Concord and he gets popped before he knew what hit him... he need not even fire on me...
There, I have no reason to whine any more...
--------*****--------
It takes 43 muscles to frown and 17 to smile, but it doesn't take any to just sit there with a dumb look on your face.
|
Verone
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 23:32:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Miki Fin
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny
How about simply put all level 4 agents in lowsec?
That will solve what exactly?
Lag in hub systems.
Population Density in highsec space.
Latency on the market and other services in highsec syatems.
Risk vs Reward issues of being able to farm high end NPC's in 1.0 sec space.
RP Backstory issues with explaining how exactly a fleet of pirate battleships managed to suddenly bypass CONCORD and set up a fully operational criminal space in Patrolled sovreign space?
I could go on... but I can't really be bothered.
>>> TRIBUTE TO A FALLEN WINGMAN <<<
|
zynoc
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 23:33:00 -
[20]
Put plex's back in lowsec the ones where you have beacons and know they are there not these cosmic anamolys.
Personally I now think low sec is redundent yet in my eve life some of my best exp was in low sec. But now there is no real reason to go there when i can make more isk running lvl 4 missions in empire large profit minimal risk! low sec is the forgotten areas of eve imo
Or as someone else mentioned put all lvl 4 missions in 0.4 to 0.1
|
Plaetean
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 23:36:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Miki Fin
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny
How about simply put all level 4 agents in lowsec?
That will solve what exactly?
Risk vs reward.
(and would have a significant impact on isk farming/selling)
-----
|
Ursula LeGuinn
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 23:40:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Ursula LeGuinn on 28/12/2007 23:40:50
Edited by: Ursula LeGuinn on 28/12/2007 23:40:40
The problem, dear pirates, with forcing people to run missions in low-sec space, is that if you happen to find a L4 mission runner (for example), they probably don't have a chance to win or escape. Why? Because well, you're in a group, and your ships have likely been set up specifically to scramble, webify, jam, speed tank, and whittle down stuff like PvE Battleships.
There's no actual PvP involved. It's entirely one-sided. It would be different if you were looking for opponents, but you're not looking for opponents... you're looking for victims. No one wants to be a victim, even brave people and people with lots of will and enthusiasm to fight.
Start looking for more opponents, and fewer victims. Of course people who don't have a chance in hell of escaping from or defeating you don't want to fight you. They want to avoid you, and in that position, you would want to do exactly the same thing.
If it's victims you want, don't beg CCP to deliver them to you more conveniently. It's kind of pathetic.
|
dum dumpy
|
Posted - 2007.12.28 23:52:00 -
[23]
If the mission runners worked together they could fight off the pirates last time i looked in a system where there was a decent lvl 4 agent you could find 50+ players running missions i'm sure with a bit of leadership they could fight off the raiders or break camps I see it all the time when organised players bust up gate camps. The reason pirates do so well they work together or with all that isk you make hire a pvp corp to defend the area.
|
Ursula LeGuinn
|
Posted - 2007.12.29 00:18:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Ursula LeGuinn on 29/12/2007 00:19:25
Originally by: dum dumpy
If the mission runners worked together they could fight off the pirates last time i looked in a system where there was a decent lvl 4 agent you could find 50+ players running missions i'm sure with a bit of leadership they could fight off the raiders or break camps I see it all the time when organised players bust up gate camps. The reason pirates do so well they work together or with all that isk you make hire a pvp corp to defend the area.
Don't take what I said too harshly. I'm not a pirate, and I probably won't ever be (except as a pirate hunter, perhaps, later on down the line), but I'm glad they're in the game. I heartily approve of the pirate play style, even if it means, oops, I just lost my new Bustard because I wasn't paying attention for a minute.
EVE would be a lot more boring without pirates, and less fun.
My main point is that no one, including pirates, actually wants to become a victim. They'll avoid it if at all possible. A fair (at least as fair as it gets in warfare) fight is one thing, but straight pwnage is quite another.
As for what you said about missions... well. I'm not sure about that. Even with fifty people running missions in the same area, none of them would know each other, few would be inclined to run missions in a group larger than two, and I think it would probably hurt their profits and standing gains anyway, depending. Being able to kill enemies 2x faster does not mean COMPLETING the mission 2x faster. You both still have the same travel time to the mission, the same travel time back, the same time heading to acceleration gates, plus extra time chatting and coordinating. These things are NOT halved by doing it with two people, even though the reward is shared evenly.
The more people you have doing a mission, the less rewarding it is for them (which makes sense since it's easier not to die). So for people to make groups of 3-4 running L4 missions in low-sec, you would need to increase rewards VERY substantially, just to make up for the fact they aren't safe to solo.
|
Praxis1452
The Bastards
|
Posted - 2007.12.29 00:28:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Ursula LeGuinn
Edited by: Ursula LeGuinn on 28/12/2007 23:40:50
Edited by: Ursula LeGuinn on 28/12/2007 23:40:40
The problem, dear pirates, with forcing people to run missions in low-sec space, is that if you happen to find a L4 mission runner (for example), they probably don't have a chance to win or escape. Why? Because well, you're in a group, and your ships have likely been set up specifically to scramble, webify, jam, speed tank, and whittle down stuff like PvE Battleships.
There's no actual PvP involved. It's entirely one-sided. It would be different if you were looking for opponents, but you're not looking for opponents... you're looking for victims. No one wants to be a victim, even brave people and people with lots of will and enthusiasm to fight.
Start looking for more opponents, and fewer victims. Of course people who don't have a chance in hell of escaping from or defeating you don't want to fight you. They want to avoid you, and in that position, you would want to do exactly the same thing.
If it's victims you want, don't beg CCP to deliver them to you more conveniently. It's kind of pathetic.
We want more targets. Yes how horrible of us. We should look for evenly fought battles all the time.
Pirating doesn't make as much isk as you think. Pirates seek to mix pvp and profit. that's why people gank-mission runners.
Pirating CANNOT survive if you make sure it's a "fair" fight.
ôHe who must expend his life to prolong life cannot enjoy it, and he who is still seeking for his life does not have it and can as little enjoy it.ö
|
Kharadran Sullath
Caldari
Digital Fury Corporation
Digital Renegades
|
Posted - 2007.12.29 00:29:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny
How about simply put all level 4 agents in lowsec?
Oh you'd like that wouldn't you?
------
Originally by: Graveyard Tan
I call bull**** and troll. If you are deaf, how are you even able to read this or type replies?
|
dum dumpy
|
Posted - 2007.12.29 00:32:00 -
[27]
Hmmmm a possible solution dunno if possible make certain lvl 4 missions only acceptable if you are in a gang of say 4 and you then get higher rewards.
But on another note the corp and alliance i'm in has a a substantail pirate/PVP base and defend the mission runners in low sec we also run intel channels for other corps who operate in that region running missions so we know when hostiles are near and we respond accordingly so it's possible but would require more people to join corps with the same interest and start working together
|
Ursula LeGuinn
|
Posted - 2007.12.29 00:43:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Praxis1452
We want more targets. Yes how horrible of us. We should look for evenly fought battles all the time.
I'm not saying that, really. But for every pirate who wants a target, there are five or ten people who fervently do NOT want to be targets. They don't want to encounter you, for whatever reason.
It's one thing for EVE to be a PvP game with fully encouraged piracy, but another thing entirely for every person everywhere to be looking over their shoulder all the time, lest they meet with instant death.
Quote:
Pirating doesn't make as much isk as you think. Pirates seek to mix pvp and profit. that's why people gank-mission runners.
Oh, I don't think it makes great ISK. I know you could make more money with average mining or missioning than you could pirating, don't get me wrong.
But remember, your profits come at the expense of other players' lost time and effort, often. I know that's the name of the game, and it is not a bad thing at all IMO, but it's only natural, then, that it's going to be difficult for you to find targets once people learn how to avoid you.
Quote:
Pirating CANNOT survive if you make sure it's a "fair" fight.
Eh... that's true. My point with that is calling people "cowards" because they don't wish to become victims may not entirely be fair. Most PvPers would rather do all the ganking, and RECEIVE none, eh?
|
xena zena
Dragons Of Redemption
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.12.29 00:52:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Snowcrash Winterheart2
Of course there are two really simple way to get mission runners in to low sec/0.0
1. Make mission areas unprobeable, undetectable black holes that runners vanish in to.
2. Lock the first acceleration gate to the person accepting the mission (or their gang). Others in a mission won't need it... see point 1.
Sorted. And still you won't get new victims, unless they're stupid.
How about keep some high-sec level 4 missions but make concord not respond while in the deadspace? (Deadspace = 0.0).
Really, it boils down to people wanting to play a multi-player pvp oriented game solo with no-pvp. CCP wanted there to be risk with your reward. What risk you have now running level 4s in high-sec?
_________________________
|
Ursula LeGuinn
|
Posted - 2007.12.29 00:59:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Ursula LeGuinn on 29/12/2007 01:00:08
Originally by: xena zena
Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny
How about simply put all level 4 agents in lowsec?
/signed
Move all level 4 agents to low-sec, all level 5 agents to 0.0 npc regions and drastically reduce profitability of level 3 agents. Add more level 5 agents, reduce the number of level 4 agents, so theres more people clustered together in a low-sec system (good for defending against the big bad pirates, right?)
Heavens forbid mission runners actually have to talk and work with other people in a vastly huge MMOG. Thats unthinkable. The whole "put level 4s in low-sec no one will run them" is bull crap. Level 4 agents in low-sec now are already ran like mad anyway. Even HEAVILY pirated low-sec systems, dosn't keep the mission runners away.
Endless solo high-income pve farming in high-sec systems is not in harmony with how CCP wanted eve to be. It's just how it turned out be and eventually they will fix that. So I wouldn't hold your breath about being able to keep running level 4 agents safely for much longer.
How much ISK do people make, on average, from running a L4 mission? I think my friend makes 24-30m, including bounties, salvage, loot, and rewards.
And how much does it cost to purchase and fit a battleship? ~100 million for the basic ship, and ~50 million for passable modules?
This means that if a mission runner gets caught and killed by player pirates every fifth mission he does, he has to pay 3-4 missions worth of ISK again to get his new ship and modules, plus spend the hour it takes to go find and buy those replacements. And, very likely, a failed mission will mean five missions worth of lost standing, in that case.
IMO, they need to increase the rewards for doing the missions enough to make up for those potential losses; that way you pirates get more targets, and the mission runners still make as much money as they were before in high-sec.
When that happens, you will see a lot more targets. If on the other hand, missioners get less reward for far more risk risk, you won't see many new targets.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |