EVE Search - Eve-mag.com, Nerfing L4 missions..

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Eve-mag.com, Nerfing L4 missions..

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
ShardowRhino Caldari Legion 0f The Damned	Posted - 2008.08.21 02:44:00 - [1] As a writer for Eve-mag.com I've decided to do a bit of shameless plugging. Heres one of my new articles covering in game topics. This one covers the call for nerfing L4s in empire . Feel free to leave feedback. Hopefully people on both sides of the topic will check it out Linkage
Judas Jones Amarr Black Company	Posted - 2008.08.21 02:59:00 - [2] Edited by: Judas Jones on 21/08/2008 03:03:51 Nice article, well thought out!
Soporo Caldari	Posted - 2008.08.21 03:06:00 - [3] Edited by: Soporo on 21/08/2008 03:07:01 The only "nerf" I would be down with would be to remove all low meta T1 crap loot from the drop tables of lvl 3-4 mission AND belt and Drone rats. This would mean a slight payout nerf, shrugs but whatevers best for the game as a whole. MINERS SHOULD BE THE BIGGEST SOURCE OF MINERALS IN THE GAME. THEY ARE MINERS, LET THEM BE THE BEST AT GETTING MINERALS. This would have the twofold benefit of making LowSuck ores more attractive and it would stop mining with guns (which marginalizes an entire profession).
Mecinia Lua Galactic Express Burning Horizons	Posted - 2008.08.21 03:49:00 - [4] Your logic is flawed. Nerfing level 4s in Empire will not get more folks to move out of Empire. All it will do is have them switch to Level 3s. It's kinda how removing the belts in Jita and other 1.0 and some .9 systems did not reduce traffic in those systems...
Marie Trudeau Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.21 03:54:00 - [5] I don't think he was saying that, I think he was saying that the call for nerfing l4 is flawed. To me, it's very odd that this is coming up now, when l4s are nothing particularly new. I think it's true that as more players enter EVE, and more do l4s, more ISK is created by them, as well as more minerals in total. But other than that I can't see why the outcry is happening now, other than because some people are bitter about the nano-nerf and want a nerf in their own favor.
Clair Bear Coalition of Nations Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2008.08.21 04:02:00 - [6] Because there's been a flood of new players since 11/2006. The analytical ones look at their competition in lowsec/0.0, decide they need some skill & ISK before venturing forth and carebear up. Once used to grinding they realize they never have to leave empire. And thus the angst -- newbies get rich, pirates just have each other to shoot. So, cue forum whining.
sableye principle of motion Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.08.21 04:05:00 - [7] Originally by: Marie Trudeau I don't think he was saying that, I think he was saying that the call for nerfing l4 is flawed. To me, it's very odd that this is coming up now, when l4s are nothing particularly new. I think it's true that as more players enter EVE, and more do l4s, more ISK is created by them, as well as more minerals in total. But other than that I can't see why the outcry is happening now, other than because some people are bitter about the nano-nerf and want a nerf in their own favor. its not coming up now the call to nerf them has been going on since before they were released. The rats in level 4 missions used to be same bounty as 0.0 and they were nerfed due to complaints which proves its gone on a long time, they then added lp reards which made it so it became better than 0.0 rewards again.
Marie Trudeau Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.21 04:06:00 - [8] Well, but the proportion of Empire dwellers to 0.0 dwellers hasn't budged much at all since I have been playing in 2004. I just don't see why people think more people are in Empire than before -- as a proportion, it seems to be about the same as it always was. Yes there are more people in absolute terms, and as I say I can understand how this has an aggregating impact in terms of total ISK and mins floating around, but there are also more people, so again this doesn't seem like it should be an issue. It's very curious to me as to why the outcry is happening now. There have been the same proportion (i.e, the vast majority of the online people when you check the map) carebearing in high sec since the game was released -- it's nothing new.
ShardowRhino Caldari Legion 0f The Damned	Posted - 2008.08.21 05:13:00 - [9] Originally by: Judas Jones Edited by: Judas Jones on 21/08/2008 03:03:51 Nice article, well thought out! Thanks:) As for what the others are talking about, I find it strange that people are calling for a nerf to L4s. If its to lure people out of empire and into lowsec why bother asking for a nerf? The L4s don't really have an effect on 0.0 or even low sec players, as opposed to those calling for a nerf to nano because they couldn't do more then 2 points of damage to such players. CCP could level L4s down to L1s but people are still going to look for something to do in empire where its safe ,to make isk. The outcry is rather pointless simply due to the fact that FW has drawn so many people outside of their comfort zones to shoot at each other. This stimulates the markets,which boosts the needs for minerals, this also gives pirates more to shoot at. I have personally encountered a few pirate gangs roaming in FW territory. Since FW had delivered and is in the process of delivering more targets into low sec and eventually 0.0, theres no point in whining. So there is obviously another reason why people are crying out about L4s. Unless they want to see more induttrials and miners out in lowsec and hate the idea of pvp,even t1,ships out there. Cheap ganks > challenge? Regardless of the side your on about the argument, if you liked the article,by all means feel free to leave a comment on the site especially. One on the forums is good but on the site shows how many actually read it. :) Hope to see the discussion continue on.
Trathen Minmatar SniggWaffe	Posted - 2008.08.21 05:24:00 - [10] Edited by: Trathen on 21/08/2008 05:24:43 Originally by: ShardowRhino As for what the others are talking about, I find it strange that people are calling for a nerf to L4s. If its to lure people out of empire and into lowsec why bother asking for a nerf? The L4s don't really have an effect on 0.0 or even low sec players, as opposed to those calling for a nerf to nano because they couldn't do more then 2 points of damage to such players. Incentive is always nice but that's not the entire story. L4 missions are also an economic issue. In a nutshell, mission runners drive up the prices of certain modules and create a problem similar to a "twink economy" (veterans buy good low-level weapons at unobtainable prices to true newbies) in other games. In the case of EvE, its not a newbie issue so much as a PvP loss issue. See: price of 'Arbalest' launchers.

Mankirks Wife	Posted - 2008.08.21 05:28:00 - [11] I think the solution is not to nerf lv. 4s but to give the bears an incentive to go get blown up. I've been bouncing an idea around that would basically cause systems bordering systems that the enemy has occupancy is to gradually lower in sec. level. If the mission/trading hubs were in any way threatened with turning into lowsec you can be you'd see people rushing to defend them.
Clair Bear Coalition of Nations Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2008.08.21 05:31:00 - [12] Originally by: Marie Trudeau Edited by: Marie Trudeau on 21/08/2008 04:07:02 There have been the same proportion (i.e, the vast majority of the online people when you check the map) carebearing in high sec since the game was released -- it's nothing new. Sable, I know there have been people whining about it since forever, but it's curious that the whining seems to be reaching a fever pitch now. I'm not sure comparisons to the past are very valid. In the olden days eve was all about mining. Now it's all about blowing up rats. We carebears have much better tools to fluff up than ever before. Navy ravens are barely more expensive than standard t1 ships. Marauders bust out a faction-level permatank on a budget. T2 gear is nearly free for the asking. Warp to zero has been rough on the non-blobby lowsec pirates. Modern carebears can optimize their grinding to the point where it's comprable if not superior to what's practical anywhere else in eve. Combine that with the convenience of empire life and there you go. That grass starts looking pretty green from the other side of the fence.
Hairy Manballs	Posted - 2008.08.21 05:36:00 - [13] Is the wrong kind of "to" in the first paragraph intentional?
Clair Bear Coalition of Nations Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2008.08.21 05:37:00 - [14] Originally by: Mankirks Wife If the mission/trading hubs were in any way threatened with turning into lowsec you can be you'd see people rushing to defend them. Or, people would just move to 0.0. If you gotta pew all day might as well move where the ISK flows freer.
Brigsby5987 Caldari 32nd Amarrian Imperial Navy Regiment.	Posted - 2008.08.21 05:42:00 - [15] Originally by: Mecinia Lua Your logic is flawed. Nerfing level 4s in Empire will not get more folks to move out of Empire. All it will do is have them switch to Level 3s. It's kinda how removing the belts in Jita and other 1.0 and some .9 systems did not reduce traffic in those systems... Or they will quit the game. Personally I would just go rat in 0,0 out in CVA space in a black ops. Id have a point and web on their for good measure should a fair fight come my way as well Tbh remove the loot from missions, increase bounties 25% to make up for removing the loot. Leave salvage as is. I do agree mining should be just as profitable as killing rats, if not more profitable as god that's a boring job.
Carniflex Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.08.21 05:51:00 - [16] Well tought out article.
Tiirae The New Era HUZZAH FEDERATION	Posted - 2008.08.21 05:52:00 - [17] I'm not going to comment on the actual topic, but if your are going to take the time to have something 'published', even online, you should take the time to write it properly. An e-zine article isn't just a permanent forum post. It looks like you knoecked that out in about 15 minutes and didn't even read it back to yourself. First, you need some structure: 1. Introduction - tell us what the topic is, the background, what your background is. 2. Summary - tell us what you think the answer is; for the tl;dr crowd. 3. Argument - here's the meat of the thing. Identify each of your main points and introduce them one at a time. Follow the same structure for each point as for the whole article : Introduction, summary, detail. Each of these is a separate paragraph with clear breaks. Don't let two points overlap each other, make sure each point is about a different aspect of the argument. Use formatting such as bulleted lists to make the thing more readable and less cluttered. 4. Conclusion - Basically the same as summary in section 2. above. You'll find people more receptive to your opinions if you make reading them less like work. And eve-mag.com... needs an editor, they shouldn't accept stuff without it being reasonably professional.
Mistress Frome Life. Universe. Everything.	Posted - 2008.08.21 05:59:00 - [18] Originally by: ShardowRhino Originally by: Judas Jones Edited by: Judas Jones on 21/08/2008 03:03:51 Nice article, well thought out! Thanks:) As for what the others are talking about, I find it strange that people are calling for a nerf to L4s. If its to lure people out of empire and into lowsec why bother asking for a nerf? The L4s don't really have an effect on 0.0 or even low sec players, as opposed to those calling for a nerf to nano because they couldn't do more then 2 points of damage to such players. A lot of people call for a nerf for reasons like hisec missions making mining worthless as a profession and other stuff like that, but also because it also makes living anywhere outside of hisec space damn near worthless. People will say that 0.0 has officer spawns and better bounty bs but does that really make it worth being there? Officer spawns are rare and decent bounty bs are in low truesec systems. So in 0.0 not only do you have to rat in a low truesec system to make more than in hisec, but you also have to hope it has a decent number of belts so you can chain so you arent' waiting half an hour for respawn, you have to wipe out crappy spawns completely so they get replaced by better ones that you can chain then get stuck waiting for those to respawn, you have to deal with other people who have the same idea as you and want to rat there, you have to deal with potential hostiles, you might be lucky enough to have an afk cloaker in system, all this crap to make money. Alternatively you can just go run missions in hisec, make the same as the dude out in 0.0 while killing mining as a profession and getting LP to exchange for even more isk as well. And in 99% safety. You can either be in an npc corp or hop to one to avoid wardecs. You probably aren't gonna get ganked and most likely aren't anymore unless you like flying battleships that get confused for motherships when people read the killmail. ...so why live outside of hisec again? But yeah, some people want missions nerfed, smoe want everythign else buffed. THe point is that people want there to be an actual reason to be out in 0.0. If there was one, yeah you could say that pirates will be ganking carebears a lot. But the carebears will also be getting mad spacerich. And for the dumber ones who take a couple helpings of gankage and none of the spacerich, there's always just staying in empire and making less money.
Aureleus Thaen Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.08.21 07:49:00 - [19] One mistake that people continuously make in this discussion is the "High sec doesn't affect nullsec so why do they care" thing. The entire economy of the game is linked, the money making utility of High Sec missions affects prices as well as the money making ability of people in nullsec who use alts to run the missions because it is the best way to make money--> thus affecting 0.0 war economics
Kerfira	Posted - 2008.08.21 08:03:00 - [20] Originally by: ShardowRhino ....The L4s don't really have an effect on 0.0 or even low sec players.... This is actually where you're wrong. High-sec L4's are so profitable that they're outcompeting almost any activity in 0.0. When you take into account the difficulty of getting loot to market, the need for constant attendance, the occational losses, lost time when safespotted/camped etc, 0.0 mission running, exploration, ratting and mining are inferior to high-sec L4 missions, which often can be done semi-afk. This has the effect that there essentially are no people LIVING in 0.0! People go there only to fight, but as there are no small targets to hunt the only thing left is to hunt other hunters. As these targets are not 'small', this is another factor encouraging blobbing. So yes, very profitable high-sec L4's ARE affecting 0.0. I happen to support 2 0.0 characters in one of the most active PvP corp by doing empire L4's. Why? Because it over time provides the most best and most stable income, and I can do them while working/reading/browsing, or when I have my other characters in fleet.

Evelgrivion Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.08.21 08:04:00 - [21] I donÆt care that the non-ISK rewards are poor. I donÆt care that you canÆt make the vast fortunes of people who get obscenely lucky and get an officer spawn (I have had four, and only two, the crappiest of them, gave any officer loot - the grand total I have received, ISK wise, is less than a billion from four officers). What I care about is that it is risk free money, and is enough for an easy living. Risk/Reward is broken, and people who do little beyond grinding for ISK are doing very little for the economics that actually pertain to the fun part of the game; blowing people up. People need to take some risks if they are out to make significant money, and IÆll concede that lowsec is not worth the dangers it currently provides. However, I think level 4s are doing way too much to just pour ISK into an already crazy economy, which for far too many people, revolves around getting shinier and shinier ships. It seems like they do it for the sake of having them. This is the World of Warcraft game mentality, and I do not like seeing it in EVE Online. CCP has been taking great strides in trying to be the game I want to play, and WoW is not the game I want to play.
Furb Killer Gallente The first genesis Veritas Immortalis	Posted - 2008.08.21 08:17:00 - [22] They DO it for the sake of having shinier ships. But how is that a problem? If they enjoy that then let them have fun. I only agree that the loot drops of lvl 4 mission rats should be changed, less loot dropped and maybe they should even stop dropping unnamed t1 loot. But besides that i dont see any problem with lvl 4 missions.
Falaricae	Posted - 2008.08.21 08:21:00 - [23] Missioning in highsec will always have a good risk vs reward ratio. It is a safetynet for all players. It has to provide the means for people down on their luck, to get back on their feet again. That said less minerals from looting rats isn't going to bankrupt anyone. I'm not that into industry or mining, so I don't know how big the benefits to those professions would be. Highsec is the only place for a casual playstyle in EVE for everyone. While adrenaline pumping action and paranoia are welcome at times, I want to be able to log on even when I just want to relax, make some iskies and see pretty explosions. I would think that mining/trading/industry has similar appeal to people who want to chat or do things outside of EVE while playing. This casual playstyle is the reason I'm not convinced that tweaking isk rewards will bring many people to lowsec or 0.0. If they want to attract bigger portion of the population they have to offer things that simply aren't available in highsec. Offering missions and rats that are basicly identical to highsec with a bit more reward is not really interesting or attractive in any way. 0.0 is unique enough for people to have reasons for living there, but lowsec really isn't. Maybe for a pirate. FW gave a reason for others to visit there, but not really to live there. Maybe some unique playstyles and rewards would make it more interesting place to live. Reworking the bounty/criminal system might give an opportunity to implement new playstyles to liven up lowsec.
Ricdics Corporate Placement Holding	Posted - 2008.08.21 08:37:00 - [24] It's pointless even talking about this. Mission Runners pay a significant portion of CCP's salary, quite possibly more than any other sector in Eve. CCP nerfing L4 missions into lowsec would be mass stupidity risking the subscriptions of a large share of their main subscribers. Rather than nerfing existing content enjoyed by so many CCP need to add new and exciting reasons to encourage the playerbase into lowsec. Guess what, this is exactly what they are doing: 1) Increased mission related rewards for lowsec/nullsec 2) Level 5 agents in lowsec/nullsec 3) Addition of FW with lowsec space requirement So, I haven't read the article yet however as far as I am concerned this is the answer to every "nerf L4" whine thread out there.
kibbeard Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.21 08:57:00 - [25] You deleted my comment on the website so I'll go ahead and say it again here in the hopes that you take some classes or something. You said "to profitable". Let me say that again; "to profitable". If you are going to play space journalist I'd see about sitting in on a sixth grade English class or something to try to get the basics right. I stopped reading after that because you are clearly an idiot and thus any time spent reading about your opinion is time wasted.
Elrca Brutor tribe	Posted - 2008.08.21 09:24:00 - [26] The simple reason people complain about Lvl4 missions is the fact that they are 99% risk free. Yes you earn more in 0.0, but only if you have the system to yourself and no hostiles. I've been in many 0.0 regions and all of them had several players in the same system ratting, spawns where limited as you where sharing the system. Well you can move out further away..this becomes more risky, safe spotting on every non blue that comes in local. 0.0 is over crowded now, 2 years ago it wasn't (25k players online) Now we have 35-40k players online with more out reaching 0.0 this puts pressure on 0.0 outpost systems and tougher to rat. The point is lvl4's are easier to do, risk free, and not shared. In my, almost 3 years of playing, in the begining 0.0 was a gold mine, ores where profitable, ratting was great...but now 0.0 is over crowded, ores aren't worth the mining and the crowding situation doesn't make ratting worth it. Maybe its becuse I'm from the UK Time-zone, and the majority of eve players online is during UK peak time (or euro really) The last 0.0 corp I was in the directors specifically said "Don't bother ratting here, better of doing lvl4's its safer and easier to make isk"
Deviana Sevidon Gallente Panta-Rhei United Front Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.21 09:24:00 - [27] Missionrunners are also good and regular customers for top-end faction modules that are most often found via exporation in 0.0, sometimes while ratting or handed out by pirate agents. Most people who whine about L4 Missions, do not give a damn about the economy. It is more a whine, that others do not play the way, they think EVE should be played. I could not care less about them and their opinions...
Atlas Elestra Titan Mining LLC	Posted - 2008.08.21 09:25:00 - [28] Originally by: Trathen In the case of EvE, its not a newbie issue so much as a PvP loss issue. See: price of 'Arbalest' launchers. I also think your article adds some hyperbole to missions, particularly loot. Meta 4s drop there, dude. I run a lot of missions right now. I actually want to go PvP but I'm not ready to solo PvP and my corp is kinda in a holding pattern... (long story) anyway. I've NEVER had an Arbalest launcher of any kind drop for me. All the other names have but that one. It's not the demand that has been driving it's price up, but the supply IMO. In order to really get some of the named mods prices to come down then you need to be able somehow get BPs. Weather they be copies or origionals.
Eldar Boon	Posted - 2008.08.21 09:29:00 - [29] I believe that most people who are asking for a change to the mission system to address the risk to reward balance. Another reason that I think the current mission system is flawed is because it does not allow players to compete. There is not a limited resource, so missions can be indefinitely farmed in relative safety. This creates an environment where skill and innovation is not rewarded, and mind numbing "grind" becomes the easiest way to make ISK. I'm not an advocate of removing level 4 missions from hi-sec, but I do think that some re-balance is required. Ideally, I would like to see a more dynamic missions system where rewards are effected by the supply of pilots for an agent. It stands to reason that agents should obey the laws of supply and demand as the rest of Eve does. Also, with 200 pilots running missions, then I think any descent NPC pirates would find a slightly safer system.
Ogul Caldari ZiTek Deepspace Explorations United Front Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.21 09:46:00 - [30] Risk vs. reward is flawed as a concept and an argument.



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.