| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
   |
Posted - 2008.08.25 03:16:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Daelin Blackleaf on 25/08/2008 03:18:39
I don't care about the "carebears" in hi-sec doing their thing. That's how they choose to play the game and I'm fine with it. I'm fine with people retiring to hi-sec to build up their wallets when their wallets have taken a beating.
I care that because of that largely risk free ISK when I want to actively make money the most efficient way, by far, is to run missions in hi-sec. There's really little incentive to do anything else beyond novelty.
Beyond devaluing a lot of content it's devaluing entire professions and it's making a mockery of those of us who want to take risks and reap the rewards. The easy supply of cash is also making everything less meaningful and the perceived security is pushing up the prices on items that could be considered "mission runner goods" to the point where the only thing they are good for is mission running.
Perhaps worst of all it makes playing solo the most profitable way to make an income in what is supposed to be multi-player game.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 20:58:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: DigitalCommunist
Their job is to make the best possible game from our millions of dollars, youth, failed marriages and firstborn children. Sometimes that means taking a financial hit in the present to preserve the future. Sometimes that means ignoring the ignorant and selfish majority. Sometimes that means playing their game, ignoring Accounting, and realizing how superbly right I am.
This, oh so much this.
When the PvE-centric space based MMO's start hitting the market the majority of EVE's PvE preferring population is going to migrate to games where the AI provides a challenge, the rewards progress, teamwork is meaningful, and you generally get all the things that WoW offers with regard to PvE with such success.
If, in the mean time CCP has managed to make the game unattractive to the high consequence PvP demographic they have always appealed to this place is going to be a ghost town.
Not saying they shouldn't improve the PvE (because while for there to be consequences there has to be "work" and man-hours to lose those hours should be as enjoyable as possible) but as I said before CCP need to remember which side their bread is buttered. If they lose their focus and try to please everyone they will lose out to games that have focused on their target demographics.
If what happens in hi-sec didn't effect everywhere else then this wouldn't be a problem. But it does and it is.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 00:49:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Sheriff Jones
Edited by: Sheriff Jones on 28/08/2008 18:37:47
One quick question to those who say "insane amount of cash the missions bring in"....do you mission?
If you do, you're a hypocrite and you can rectify this by giving me your excess income you feel inappropriate for the reward.
If you don't, you don't have any grasp of how much, how numbing, boring, interesting, hard and/or safe it is.
So, which would it be good sir?
< Unrepentant Hypocrite
Yes, I mission when I feel the need to actively make more ISK.
Yes, the amount of money for the effort, risk, and intellect required is too high.
Yes, I feel this is bad for the game as it lessens the value of the other professions and the efforts, risks, and intellects of the players.
No, you can't have my stuff. I'd rather be rich than right and the moral high-ground won't buy me new ships. Besides all the cool kids are doing it. 
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 19:52:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Sheriff Jones
Does ANYONE look at mission/ratting/pvp/whatnot balance from an INTENDED point of view, not from a "this is how to get the best isk out of the system we have" perspective¦
Few. We would if missions and ratting were fun and challenging but as it stands they're just a means to an end and that end is ISK.
Says more about the sorry state of EVE's PvE than it's playerbase to be honest..
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.08.29 23:34:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Galton Grimm
20 mil an hour is a load of crap. You've obviously never run missions. They aren't all lucrative so you have to balance out the lucrative kill missions with the ones that aren't. Average isk per hour is what counts, not some fluke string of good missions.
Your doing it wrong.
No one is forcing you to run the missions you are offered one after another, there are many stations with several level 4 agents and there's always several in the constellation if not the system.
29m/hr is the mean average result I received for a t2 fitted Raven averaged over 20 missions without chreeypicking missions or looting/salvaging. Not that big a sample I'll admit but it's the only data for the Raven I have to hand.
43m/hr is the mean average result I received for a t2 fitted CNR cherrypicking missions and salvaging/looting the worthwhile wrecks in the missions where it seemed worth doing so over a sample of over 50 missions (56 to be exact).
These results are from around eight and six months ago respectively, but I don't think missions have changed much since then.
I don't fly a Golem but and I'm not an expert mission runniner so I imagine it's quite possible to make significantly more with a greater knowledge on which missions to take, how best to apply your LP, pulling foes for faster looting, better knowledge of what wrecks are worth looting, and the Marauder tractor bonus. I've heard values of around 55-60m/hr and given the talent some people have for missions I don't find it that far fetched.
20m/hr is what you can get in a t2 fitted Raven running missions with little to no actual player-skill, the average mission runner is probably bringing in almost twice as much and the skilled are bringing in much more.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.08.30 01:13:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Galton Grimm
I... I'm... I'm... I'm... I... I'm... I've... I've... I... I... I... I... I... I.
This isn't about you. It's not personal. I don't care if you make 5m/hr or 500.
Originally by: Galton Grimm
This whole thread smells to me like the scene from a zombie movie where the zombies call in over the ambulance radio "send...more...paramedics...". Send more carebears to 0.0, right? No thanks.
Then you haven't been reading my posts or many others in this thread. So again just for you, many of us don't care if you never come out of hi-sec. Personally I don't shoot anyone in lo-sec outside of FW who doesn't shoot at me first. The issue is that there is currently no point, beyond novelty, doing anything to earn ISK other than running missions in hi-sec.
This means that a lot of people who don't like missions, and don't like hi-sec, and don't like the lack of variety are heavily impacted by the existance of such an easy way to make ISK.
> If everyone in the game was focused on PvP it would still be a problem:
High income makes losses meaningless which removes the adrenalin factor and feeling of meaningful combat from the game.
> If everyone in the game was focused on PvE it would still be a problem:
Poor balance between mission income and exploration, mining, etc removes variety and makes the game far less enjoyable.
If level 4 missions were a ship they'd be pretty much the only ship worth flying.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.08.30 17:03:00 -
[7]
There's nothing wrong with a high degree of safety in hi-sec. Nothing wrong with people spending their entire EVE "lives" there. Nothing wrong with grinding missions all day if that's what players want to do.
The problem is the impact it has on variety and the economy for everyone else.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.08.30 20:22:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Ruze
Ignorance is simply not KNOWING, and anyone with any level of real intelligence will know that the things they are ignorant of far and away outnumber the things they 'know'.
This is why we should all try to be either polite or at least not take things too seriously when we're posting in what we think is an educative manner.
Originally by: Ruze
Stupidity, on the other hand, is where a player KNOWS something, and chooses to ignore it.
No that's tactics. Forum PvP has become an art around here, a quick look at the level of deliberate flawed logic in many threads will point that out.
Stupid is when people keep telling you, you are presented with clear evidence, but you still don't know.
There's a lot of people in both camps that are trying to educate, many who are using forum PvP tactics, but very few who are actually stupid. A pity, because stupidity is much more easily forgivable than trying to manipulate the opinions of others by feigning stupidity.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 05:47:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Kelli Flay
Stuff
If CCP never listened to the community then forum PvP or whatever people want to call it wouldn't exist. In time neither would the game itself most likely.
While some of us may have a discussion where our opinion may change or we may learn or educate many are trying to mislead with the end goal of gaining an in-game advantage.
My definition of the very much invented term of "Forum PvP" would be any post made with the intent to sway public opinion and thus affect changes that are made to the game so that they are in the posters favor as opposed to being beneficial to the community, the game, or the developers. This is done, among other means, by making statements that do not represent your actual opinion, are unrelated to the topic at hand, are intentionally misleading, deride the discussion as a whole, attack a poster rather than their statement, or include any other deliberate use of flawed logic.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 21:07:00 -
[10]
Ruze stop feeding the troll. It's not like this ones even bothering with a disguise.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.08.31 21:37:00 -
[11]
I made it into the top 10? With 9 previous posts.
Kelli you have managed 7 yourself with no actual contribution to the thread. Indeed your posts have been made up of such gems as:
Originally by: Kelli Flay
You truly are a clueless noob.
Some would argue that you need a life.
It is just a small grp of anti-carebear trolls whining because Suicide ganking was nerfed.
What i am saying is a no lifer who does nothing but post on this forum
You failed.
one of the clowns on the top ten posters
Your a prime example of why the lack of moderation is having a huge negative impact on this community.
...and now I'm feeding the troll so feel free to continue without any further comment from me.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 11:12:00 -
[12]
I'm seeing some pretty awful comparisons being made here.
0.0 Complexes: These are not typically a resource available to individual players, they are an alliance resource. As soon as everyone has the opportunity to head out to 0.0 and gain sole access to high-end complexes then it becomes worthy of comparison.
0.0 Mining: Again a limited resource that is not available to all, and running multiple-accounts is most definitely an extra penalty even if it is an out-of-game one. Once we all have access to non-depleting belts and multiple accounts you could say that it makes a good comparison.
Even 0.0 mission running is available only to those who can survive at a profit in the alliance controlled NPC sov space which can be difficult even if you are part of a major alliance let alone for the "average" player.
Comparing the income of the highest upper-percentile with the average is just as bad as comparing the lower. One could just as easily argue against level 4's based on the income of an unskilled or inexperienced player, of someone mining in hi-sec, someone engaging in hi-sec complexing, etc. The arguments are equally flawed.
It would make for a more reasonable discussion to compare the sources of income available to the average player, those not tied to a strictly limited resource, and that do not require an alliance of players to secure and defend the asset. If you are going to compare these methods of income you will have to take into account every player that works towards keeping it secure, the logistics involved, the inherent limitations, and the insurmountable fact that not everyone has access to these methods of income.
The factors involved in working out the ISK/hr value lost to time consuming issues only present outside of hi-sec and the calculation of the average players losses as an ISK/hr value to be deducted from their income is complex enough and these must be considered in any comparison of income. Comparison should be made not on the basis of the elite who never lose a ship, not on the basis of alliance secured assets, but on that available to and attainable by the average player.
While we don't have exact figures on the average we can at least acknowledge that certain numbers or methods are going to be well beyond it and worth discussion only as a separate issue with a title such as "the most skilled players and/or most powerful alliances are making more ISK than they should be." |
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 09:16:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Ruze
I doubt either of us think in the extreme ink the other paints with. Penalties are all well and good. Suiciding was imbalanced as hell. But with added security, those choosing to live in hisec should be forced to pay the piper, somehow. Tax them. 10-15% off every bounty, mission payout, market action, rental fee, etc, etc.
This. With an added 5-10% if you chose to remain in an NPC corp. New prices will become the standard amongst the hi-sec only crowd and so the impact would not be as harsh as it may initially seem. Anyone can form a one-man-corp to avoid NPC corp tax and if you want stuff cheaper (because market taxes will be passed onto the customer) then you can make your purchases outside of hi-security space and run the risk of losing your cargo.
CONCORD tax you for their protection much as any alliance expects returns from it's members.
NPC corps tax their members just as player corps have their own taxes and expectations.
Then, as far as I'm concerned, CCP can do whatever they like about hi-sec security and war-decs.
|
| |
|