EVE Search - Level 4 missions in high sec gives too much reward for too little risk

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Level 4 missions in high sec gives too much reward for too little risk

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Crae Matreki Sten Industries	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:29:00 - [61] Originally by: Tippia Define "expensive" û you need 80mil worth of ships + rigs and maybe 10-20mil more worth of mods. You can earn that back in 6-7 hours. Assuming I don't get ganked again in those 6-7 hours.
Jerid Verges	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:34:00 - [62] Edited by: Jerid Verges on 06/08/2008 14:34:33 Originally by: TrulyKosh Originally by: heheheh /signed all level 4s should be moved to low sec. beating a dead horse there, are you? creating lvl5 mission in exclusively low sec has not had the effect of luring people to low sec. moving the even I don't see people moving to Low sec until they fix the ****ing WCSs.
Malcanis We are Legend	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:36:00 - [63] Originally by: Viqtoria Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Viqtoria it would make the rich vastly richer, so no. Yeah, you're right: endless, unlimited money-fountains should be kept in hi-sec. they are the staple source of income for the vast majority of players, players who keep ccp fridges full of beer. Take that isk lubricating the economy away funding pvp and industry everywhere and eve goes bye-bye along with the wages of ccp staff. You have to make a distinction between what you want a game to be like, what you think it should be like, and real word responsibilities That's a huge steaming pile of unsupported assertion you just unloaded on the thread. Care to back it up? CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that.
TrulyKosh Gallente Solo for UNCLE	Posted - 2008.08.07 01:22:00 - [64] Originally by: Crumplecorn Edited by: Crumplecorn on 06/08/2008 13:46:40 If you rat risk free in 0.0, it's because your corp/alliance works to protect the space. In highsec risk free is a given. Slight difference there. In 0.0 you can have gatecamps protecting you. In "risk-free" high sec, you cannot open fire on a known suicide ganker before he does. Quite a difference there as well.
TrulyKosh Gallente Solo for UNCLE	Posted - 2008.08.07 01:27:00 - [65] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Viqtoria Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Viqtoria it would make the rich vastly richer, so no. Yeah, you're right: endless, unlimited money-fountains should be kept in hi-sec. they are the staple source of income for the vast majority of players, players who keep ccp fridges full of beer. Take that isk lubricating the economy away funding pvp and industry everywhere and eve goes bye-bye along with the wages of ccp staff. You have to make a distinction between what you want a game to be like, what you think it should be like, and real word responsibilities That's a huge steaming pile of unsupported assertion you just unloaded on the thread. Care to back it up? When was the last time you saw a new "most players online" record? 6 months ago?, maybe 12. If suicide gankers are a deterrent to new subscribers, which keep this game and ccp well fed and drunk, get rid of them, now.
Valle Deelite	Posted - 2008.08.07 02:00:00 - [66] Edited by: Valle Deelite on 07/08/2008 02:01:57 It's a non-starter. Some people don't like to PvP, full-stop, but they still want some challenges in the game, or they won't play. As it is, missions aren't nearly as challenging as some of the end-game dungeons in other games, simply because dying several times trying to figure out a mission in EvE would be way too costly. If you make it so that there is nothing interesting at all to do in Empire players who don't like to PvP will simply go to some other game that has segregated PvE only servers. As it is, the high-quality level 4s in Empire are almost like a reward for having paid your dues running lesser level 4s and level 3s in low-sec. The (potential) rewards in 0.0 are already far greater than what you can do in Empire. If someone wants to play a PvE only game, which would be boring for many of us, let them. Their 14.95 a month spends just as well as yours and helps to keep the lights on so that you can pew-pew to your heart's content. If you want to lure people to low-sec, you need to make the rewards obtainable there on a par with what you can do in 0.0, IMO, because, as the game stands today with the mega-blocs and nap-fests, the risks in low-sec are the same, or probably higher, so those with an inclination to leave empire leave it for the relative safety of big-alliance 0.0, rather than venturing into "wild west" low-sec. Right now there just isn't anything that would lure folks to low-sec (i.e. officer spawns, high-end exploration sites, or ABC ore). Level 4 missions ain't going to do it. The risk-reward curve is screwed up in the middle, not on the ends.
Tarron Sarek Gallente Cadien Cybernetics	Posted - 2008.08.07 02:49:00 - [67] Why not just make the missions harder? I mean.. that would be kind of an obvious solution. There was a time when mission were actually a bit challenging, exept for the most expensive CNRs. The introduction of rigs and the attenuation of some harder L4 missions changed that. ___________________________________ Balance is power, ~~guard~~ hide it well "Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam"
Valle Deelite	Posted - 2008.08.07 03:05:00 - [68] Originally by: Tarron Sarek Why not just make the missions harder? I mean.. that would be kind of an obvious solution. There was a time when mission were actually a bit challenging, exept for the most expensive CNRs. The introduction of rigs and the attenuation of some harder L4 missions changed that. Yeah, I'd like to see that. I'd also like to see the missions set up so that they encourage fits that are more like PvP fits (i.e. more oriented toward a sequence of encounters with high spike damage, rather than the sustained damage that missions feature now). Would help too if NPCs would warp away when they're in trouble, thus requiring mission runners to fit scrams. Changes like that might encourage PvE players to try their hand at PvP, since the fits and tactics would be more similar.
Takashi X2	Posted - 2008.08.07 06:28:00 - [69] i wouldnt nessesarily say lvl 4's in high sec dont follow the risk vs reward.. granted there is little risk (not none cuz the minute a pirate catches wind you have a guisti X or something your prime ribs to them)but there is also little fun involved. fun is a reward i would say. take pvp for example. obviously the risk is very high and in many cases the monetary rewards suck hardcore but how much fun do you have while pvp'ing? also while ratting it is much easier to make isk then it is lvl 4's. Im not gunna say you can out earn missioning cuz if you know what yoru doing and invest billions into a mission ship you can see soem nice returns but in turn your risking a very expensive ship.
Sir Substance Minmatar Sunspot Requisitions Worlds End Consortium	Posted - 2008.08.07 07:49:00 - [70] the problem is valid. your solution is *****ed. - PvPers always say "GB2WoW". the message is that EVE is hard, and people just need to deal with it. wasn't it funny how when nano's started making it hard for them*, that all went out the window?
Astria Tiphareth Caldari 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.08.07 09:53:00 - [71] Oh not this again. What part of the 'boost low-sec' threads for the last year alone have you been asleep for? Your unsupported statements that it messes up the economy and makes the game unbalanced just neatly illustrate that you can't think of an original argument and must resort to wild accusations instead. So far you come across as a low-sec pirate upset by the fact that the hordes of FW new players that you thought would be easy prey are actually capable of defending themselves. Getting people into low-sec is about carrots, not sticks. People who currently go to low-sec have accepted the risk of doing so. Those that don't go, don't accept the risk. Whilstever a mission-fit ship performs badly compared to a PvP-fit ship, this is a dumb idea. Whilstever gatecamps work the way they do, this is a dumb idea. It's also been done to death, oh I don't know, a good hundred times already. You also missed that there are level 5 missions in high-sec, and curiously nobody has ever complained about those. Now who in this discussion is the idiot again? ___ My views may not represent those of my corporation or alliance, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties...
Thirzarr	Posted - 2008.08.07 10:38:00 - [72] Now what again is positive about low-sec and 0.0? If you don't like being ganked?
Pesadel0 Minmatar Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.08.07 11:13:00 - [73] Agreed move all level 4 to low secs. ------------------------------------------------------------------
Morcam	Posted - 2008.08.07 12:14:00 - [74] I agree that level 4 missions in highsec are a bit crazy in the risk/reward department, but I don't see why moving them all to lowsec will help. Just making them give less isk/less loot/harder NPC's would work perfectly fine, and it would not make half of the population scream and whine on the forums. Only about 20%.
Andreus Ixiris Gallente Mixed Metaphor	Posted - 2008.08.07 12:22:00 - [75] No. ----- CEO, Mixed Metaphor Dance Commander Asuka Smith > not even goons can make 30m ISK this interesting.
Esmenet Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.07 14:33:00 - [76] Originally by: Tippia More to the point, though. The problem with moving missions out of high-sec is that PvE is simply too dissimilar to PvP, so fitting for one means you can't do the other. As a result, doing PvE in any area where you run the risk of being jump is just downright stupid. Make the two more similar, and low-sec missioning will become far more viable. Its easy to stay safe if you want to, but it will lower your isk/hr. Thats one of the reasons that high sec rewards are way too high. Vote against the nano nerf!
Aarin Wrath	Posted - 2008.08.07 14:48:00 - [77] Edited by: Aarin Wrath on 07/08/2008 14:54:17 Edit:Bah not worth it. This topic has been done over and over. It's always the same narrow view from the OP about risk vs. reward, followed by a tirade of valid counterpoints which the OP and supporters ignore.
Arna Padrona Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.08.07 15:03:00 - [78] While I disagree with the tone of voice used in the op, he does have a bit of a point... The best source of income really shouldn't be available in high sec. I'd prefer a cut in bounties and loot for high-sec agent missons myself, but yeah, what are the incentives to go into low sec? Do we earn more money in low-sec to counter-balance the risks we take? No, not really. At the moment, low-sec just feels like a ganking-ground, not a place to make money. I think that's a shame.
Aiko Intaki	Posted - 2008.08.07 15:24:00 - [79] The mechanics of low sec aren't fun for the majority of EvE players. Some improvement is being made, but the ease with which missioners are spotted, probed out and disrupted is simply absurd. The mechanics of low sec favor light, roving gangs ganking solitary pilots - and missioners persisting in single systems are perfect targets. Without changing those mechanics, any forcible move of players to low sec would only result in a massive loss of the EvE player base. It's a far better idea to change the nature of low sec such that mission runners and miners can do their things with a reasonable chance of survival. You'll get more coming in on their own that way. Example changes that could draw missioners out of high sec: Local Chat Changes (missioners suppress their Local Chat listing via rigs) Lockable Acceleration Gates (more time to see mission-crashers on scanner)
Maximillian Bayonette White Lion Manufacture and Salvage	Posted - 2008.08.07 15:37:00 - [80] Originally by: Aiko Intaki Example changes that could draw missioners out of high sec: Local Chat Changes (missioners suppress their Local Chat listing via rigs) Lockable Acceleration Gates (more time to see mission-crashers on scanner) None of those would draw missioners out of high sec. The risk would still be higher, and rewars in high sec are so rediculously high that there's no need to relocate. What's needed is a boost of low sec COUPLED with a serious nerf of high sec. Also, lockable acceleration gates is instancing a part of Eve. That's probably the worst thing that could happen.
Fallorn GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.07 15:40:00 - [81] Put all lvl 4 missions in 0.0 all lvl 3 missions in low sec and all lvl two missions in .7 sec or lower. The higher the sec status the lower levels of missions because that is were the easy jobs are and the harder jobs are closer to the border of an empires space or going out of their space to do missions for them. Sig removed. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] with a link to your signature. - Elmo Pug
Maximillian Bayonette White Lion Manufacture and Salvage	Posted - 2008.08.07 15:42:00 - [82] Originally by: Fallorn Put all lvl 4 missions in 0.0 all lvl 3 missions in low sec and all lvl two missions in .7 sec or lower. The higher the sec status the lower levels of missions because that is were the easy jobs are and the harder jobs are closer to the border of an empires space or going out of their space to do missions for them. Yep, this is a good start.
Arna Padrona Amarr Viziam	Posted - 2008.08.07 15:54:00 - [83] Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette Originally by: Fallorn Put all lvl 4 missions in 0.0 all lvl 3 missions in low sec and all lvl two missions in .7 sec or lower. The higher the sec status the lower levels of missions because that is were the easy jobs are and the harder jobs are closer to the border of an empires space or going out of their space to do missions for them. Yep, this is a good start. But it's not going to happen. CCP are trying to keep the game open to both pvp and non-pvp players. If you couldn't do more than level 2 missions in high-sec, people would travel to iceland with pitchforks and torches - and ccp would be on "their side". I think the only realistic way to accomplish anything is to keep the missions available in low and high sec, but make sure the rewards are lower in high sec, than they are in low-sec. This will let non-pvp player continue their high-sec game, and it attracts people to low-sec - which by the way CCP claim they WANT.
Fallorn GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:08:00 - [84] Does it make sense to have one of your best agents in an area that is running smoothly or one that is in need of a helping hand. They also might move agents around the empire and not have them so static so that people have to move to where their honey pot is. And have agents on a thing where they go and take time in low and null sec so they will either not be used or people will work together to make the area work for them. Sig removed. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] with a link to your signature. - Elmo Pug
Maximillian Bayonette White Lion Manufacture and Salvage	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:29:00 - [85] Originally by: Arna Padrona But it's not going to happen. If we whine enough it might. I'll do my part. Originally by: Arna Padrona CCP are trying to keep the game open to both pvp and non-pvp players. If you couldn't do more than level 2 missions in high-sec, people would travel to iceland with pitchforks and torches - and ccp would be on "their side". No, CCP are shitting on their old customers in favor of hordes of new customers who will stay for six months until they realise what a horrible PvE game EvE has. Also, carebears would never travel to iceland or anything of the kind. They are far too passive agressive for that. Originally by: Arna Padrona I think the only realistic way to accomplish anything is to keep the missions available in low and high sec, but make sure the rewards are lower in high sec, than they are in low-sec. This will let non-pvp player continue their high-sec game, and it attracts people to low-sec - which by the way CCP claim they WANT. But that's the way it is now. Low sec missions pay more. The problem is that missions in general pay out too damned much. Take away 90% of the rewards from missions and we are starting to get something resembling balance.
Aiko Intaki	Posted - 2008.08.07 18:00:00 - [86] Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette Originally by: Aiko Intaki Example changes that could draw missioners out of high sec: Local Chat Changes (missioners suppress their Local Chat listing via rigs) Lockable Acceleration Gates (more time to see mission-crashers on scanner) None of those would draw missioners out of high sec. The risk would still be higher, and rewars in high sec are so rediculously high that there's no need to relocate. What's needed is a boost of low sec COUPLED with a serious nerf of high sec. Also, lockable acceleration gates is instancing a part of Eve. That's probably the worst thing that could happen. I guess I can only speak for myself, but as an L4 mission runner in high sec (primarily), I'd absolutely start running missions in low sec if I could toss a rig into my Raven to take me off local and have an extra couple minutes of buffer as a result of locked gates to catch would be mission crashers on my scanner. On the flip side, the PvE content that is relatively free of non-consensual PvP is already quite scant in EvE. Lessening it any way would be a bad idea if your primary concern is the size of the player base (and it may not be). Lessening it in the way the OP suggested would likely result in the loss of a large percentage of high sec players, which is to say that it would likely result in a loss of large percentage of the majority of EvE's players.
Tarron Sarek Gallente Cadien Cybernetics	Posted - 2008.08.07 19:15:00 - [87] Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 07/08/2008 19:20:12 Originally by: Arna Padrona While I disagree with the tone of voice used in the op, he does have a bit of a point... The best source of income really shouldn't be available in high sec. From the top of my head, two of the best sources of income I can think of are: 1. Trading. Good luck removing that from high-sec. 2. Rare moon minerals. These are not a high-sec property. So that statement was a bit over the top. It is a good source, yes, but there are better ones. It is a high-sec source, yes, but there are other ISK sources in high sec. Oh, and let's not forget about insurance when talking about messed up economy.. High-sec missions are just simply the most comfortable source of income. Maybe risk-free, but that depends on your skills, the system and your fitting.. Remove permatanks from the game and missions stop being too easy. ___________________________________ Balance is power, ~~guard~~ hide it well "Ceterum censeo Polycarbonem esse delendam"
Freezehunter Gallente Black Knight Squadron OWN Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.07 19:46:00 - [88] Originally by: Crae Matreki Edited by: Crae Matreki on 06/08/2008 14:22:03 If they moved lvl 4 missions to lowsec, I just wouldn't do them. To do a level 4 requires some very expensive fittings, and it's so easy to scan down mission runners that I'd probably end up losing more than I was gaining. Risk vs. reward? The reward wouldn't be worth it. edit: Ratting in 0.0 would be less risky than doing lowsec missions. You can kill most spawns using a T1 fitted battlecuiser, so losing it would be no biggie, unlike losing the T2 rigged Domi which I need for missions. Oh BOO HOO! mister carebear... You know, noone's forcing you to rat in a faction battleship with faction modules on it, right? Damn carebears screwin' up eve all the time >.> MOVE LVL4 TO LOWSEC! Oh, and to the guy that said that noone came to lowsec when LVL 5 were implemented, MAYBE it's because in those missions you have to kill CAPITAL SHIPS... DUUUH! I can't even imagine a 2 month old carebear n00b in a shit fitted battleship going on a mission like that lol... 0.0 players lose 2 or 3 BS a week on average, and dumb carebear lvl 4 highsec mission runners don't have a care in the world while making tons of isk... Boo hoo, i don't want to lose my battleship which i have been using in LVL 4 missions and made a bil in BOO HOO! DIE CAREBEARS, go do lvl 4 in lowsec and DIE, like the rest of us... Ya pussies...
Aiko Intaki	Posted - 2008.08.07 20:39:00 - [89] Originally by: Freezehunter Originally by: Crae Matreki Oh, and to the guy that said that noone came to lowsec when LVL 5 were implemented, MAYBE it's because in those missions you have to kill CAPITAL SHIPS... DUUUH! In my case, I would be more than happy to try L5 missions (and likely lose a number of ships in the process) if low sec weren't so stacked against the mission runner. The current mechanics of it make anything but highly selective mission running (rejecting everything but "Recon" and a few of the other easily blitzed missions) a fool's choice. It has very little to do with the rewards involved and far more to do with the lack of challenge posed to roving gangs of missioner-killers.
Andreus Ixiris Gallente Mixed Metaphor	Posted - 2008.08.08 00:27:00 - [90] Moving all level 4 to lowsec is a dumb idea in the extreme, because it's actually how quite a lot of non-pirate PvPers get their income. I fight in FW (a decidedly un-carebear profession) and when I'm not fighting in FW I either grind missions or mine (both traditional carebear professions). My carebear pursuits allow me to amass enough money to regularly fly tech-2 fitted battleships or HACs into PvP, which is more fun for the both sides than endless frigate or cruiser swarms. And we all know that this thread isn't about "ease" - it's about pirates whining about the lack of targets to shoot in lowsec. Missioning in hi-sec is safer, not safe - if you don't like me missioning in hi-sec, you can suicide gank me (risking the loss of your ship), or flip my cans (risking me bringing back a bigger, nastier ship) or you can wardec me (risking me actually being good at PvP). If you cannot be bothered to find ways of coping with the lack of targets in low-sec, join FW, or go to a different region, or start throwing out wardecs. ----- CEO, Mixed Metaphor Dance Commander Asuka Smith > not even goons can make 30m ISK this interesting.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.