EVE Search - Why we need a SIGNIFICANT nerf on lvl4s in hisec.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Why we need a SIGNIFICANT nerf on lvl4s in hisec.

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Dave Davies	Posted - 2008.08.22 20:13:00 - [1] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer No, it just kills us that no skilled people with the iq of a monkey can make more money then skilled pvpers living in dangerous space. Don't flatter yourself. "Boo hoo. I am morally, genetically and intellectually superior and yet totally underappreciated." Persecution complex much? Having sampled some of the "1337 pvp" mindset around here I'm going to go out on a limb and prognosticate the following reasons why you're having trouble making ISK: You've devoted all your play time and skill training to cool pvp stuff and never bothered to train or even look into the economic/ grind end of the game because you don't want to "look like a carebear." And now you're mad because the people who did do that stuff are having an easier time staying afloat than you are. But of course, they're "dumb" and you're not. I mean, how could it be otherwise? ----- Pop Quiz ----- Can you tell me what's wrong with this sentence.
Dave Davies	Posted - 2008.08.22 23:13:00 - [2] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Dave Davies they're "dumb" and you're not. I mean, how could it be otherwise? That is right my friend. Life is not worth living without our pet delusions. You go. ----- Pop Quiz ----- Can you tell me what's wrong with this sentence.
Dave Davies	Posted - 2008.08.25 00:00:00 - [3] Originally by: Ruze Don't nerf level 4's. Tax hisec dwellers. Tax them heavily. Give them all the security that you can manage, and tax them for it. Give a real advantage to those of us who choose not to live in hisec. You know? I like that. Really fits in with the whole capitalist dystopia thing this game sometimes exhibits. It would also add another layer of economic depth if done properly, and it would make lowsec more valuable by default regardless of what the market's been doing. ----- Pop Quiz ----- Can you tell me what's wrong with this sentence.
Dave Davies	Posted - 2008.08.25 00:17:00 - [4] Yeah, but the devil's in the details as always. How would you implement a concord tax? For mission rewards and bounties it would be pretty easy, you just skim some off the top. What about ore, though? I guess you could scale refine taxes by system sec so that it would be impossible to get "perfect" refining in 0.5 and above. Sales tax? That gets trickier, because it's already more profitable to sell in low sec in a lot of cases. I've advocated variable sales taxes before though to break up trade hubs. And Ruze, there's nothing inherently wrong with taxation. It can be an effective way to manage an economy if used prudently.
Dave Davies	Posted - 2008.08.25 05:43:00 - [5] Originally by: Patri Andari So many things about this quote just seem wrong but it made me wonder. Imagine a teacher [and so on and so on] ... because as everybody knows, Real Life(tm) is a game and an artificial environment that is constantly being adjusted for balance by a team of creators. As such it's a perfect analogy for what we're talking about. And what I really mean to say by that is, "go see if you can buy a clue and then come back and give us a long, boring post about the madcap adventures you had in the process." Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby /thread And your little alt, too. ----- Pop Quiz ----- Can you tell me what's wrong with this sentence.
Dave Davies	Posted - 2008.08.25 06:27:00 - [6] Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby Just thought the example was funny AND accurate. You were right on one count, it was pretty funny. But no. Maybe some day when somebody makes a "realism- oriented" MMORPG about building a career in 21st century industrialized society you and that guy and the other four people that play it can use that analogy to great effect. In the mean time, you can trust me when I say it bears zero relation to normal game design. ----- Pop Quiz ----- Can you tell me what's wrong with this sentence.
Dave Davies	Posted - 2008.08.25 20:27:00 - [7] Originally by: Mistress Evita To make money one has to please a majority of users. And from what I have seen in this game there are a lot of mission runners. There are the kind that all they do is run missions and there are the kind that run missions to get isk to do other things in the game. Here's where that mobius strip goes: Missions are the best way to make ISK by grinding -> more players run missions -> so many players run missions that we'd better not mess with missions -> missions are the best way to make ISK by grinding -> ad nauseam The people who run missions "just because they love running missions" would probably be just as happy with reduced rewards and more content. The people who run missions because they're currently the *****gun of isk grinding would bail for the new FotM the very second they discovered it. ----- Pop Quiz ----- Can you tell me what's wrong with this sentence.
Dave Davies	Posted - 2008.08.25 20:49:00 - [8] Originally by: Aria Seniste It's not the best ISK. It's just what happens when you, rather than making your own path, keep talking to agents and waiting for the NPCs to guide you on into greatness. It's true that it's not the best ISK. But it is better than some things that, aesthetically, it shouldn't be better than. 0.0 pilots jump cloning back in to run L4s rather than ratting? Lowsec pirates using their alts to run L4s rather than using them to exploit the resources of lowsec? I don't know. Missioning does have a lot going for it that other activities don't and which help broaden its appeal; the most prominent one to me being a dual- duty skill tree. In order to trade, you have to train up a bunch of trade skills that don't do anything else. In order to mine, you have to train up a bunch of mining skills that don't do anything else. In order to invent... etc etc. With L4s however, it's like: "you mean I can get paid to train into a BS? COOL!" And that probably accounts for its popularity as much as anything else, and if it's supposed to help reinforce the necessity of training pvp skills then it (sort of) works. But at the same time that situation also reinforces my perception that it pays entirely too much. ----- Pop Quiz ----- Can you tell me what's wrong with this sentence.
Dave Davies	Posted - 2008.08.25 20:57:00 - [9] Originally by: Mistress Evita How to do that I have no clue (if I did I would be working for CCP right now). But saying to just reduce the payout from the Level 4 missions or telling CCP to move all level 4 agents out to low sec aint going to cut it from a business point of view. That's a fair point and well put to boot, but on the other side of the coin Eve was also apparently growing at times in the past when (or so it's said, I wasn't here) ISK wasn't as easy to make and equipment was a lot more expensive. I'm not so sure that the kind of tightening of the ISK supply represented by a nerf to L4 payouts would cause the kind of mass exodus you may be implying it will; I think the core game is strong enough to survive a fluctuation in the economy, indeed it apparently has survived several just fine. ----- Pop Quiz ----- Can you tell me what's wrong with this sentence.
Dave Davies	Posted - 2008.08.25 21:48:00 - [10] Originally by: Mistress Evita CCP needs to be careful in what they change and how they change it. They need to be careful on major changes. They need to be careful on how they introduce changes. Ideally yes, but that doesn't seem to be the CCP Way. And the game's still here. ----- Pop Quiz ----- Can you tell me what's wrong with this sentence.
Dave Davies	Posted - 2008.08.26 03:46:00 - [11] Originally by: Traidor Disloyal I am not giving you a hard time here. But how do you know what is fun for everyone in game? You know what my idea of fun is? My idea of fun is finding a mission runner in a level 4 mission. A mission runner in a pimped out Battleship (faction/T2, I don't care). A mission runner who has not a clue on how aggression works in High Sec. A mission runner who will stay in that mission while I get my pimped out mission runner killing ship. A mission runner who will stay there and let me kill him and salvage his wreak and loot his faction mods. Me, I had fun. Him, not so much. I say let the mission runners have their level 4 missions in High Sec. I don't have a problem with that. Subsidized, low- risk/ high value piracy in high sec is no better than subsidized, low- risk/ high value grinding in high sec. Nerf plz. ----- Pop Quiz ----- Can you tell me what's wrong with this sentence.
Dave Davies	Posted - 2008.08.28 19:40:00 - [12] Edited by: Dave Davies on 28/08/2008 19:41:45 Originally by: Sheriff Jones But you keep the isk you make, even if you complain that it's too much? That, my friend, is hypocrisy. Why do some people feel that "you're a hypocrite, you hypocritical hypocrite you!" is tantamount to checkmate in an argument? It works in politics because people frequently vote based on subjective opinions; in an argument over a single point however, it's a completely useless line of reasoning. Being a hypocrite doesn't make somebody wrong, it just makes him a hypocrite. But regardless, I don't think it's hypocrisy to run L4s and call for a nerf to them. If I stopped doing them tomorrow they'd still be available to everybody else and they'd still be deprecating other professions. ----- Pop Quiz ----- Can you tell me what's wrong with this sentence.
Dave Davies	Posted - 2008.09.03 09:25:00 - [13] Originally by: Clair Bear Screw the pirates, the ganking nerf is going to be a major kick in the nuts for empire manufacturing carebears. Think about this for a moment. Whether by chilling effect or actual ganking there was a cost associated with hauling or mining AFK. Now that's all gone. Any slack jawed moron can haul or mine AFK. Which means more of the 'X I do is FREE since I live with my parents and they pay for electricity lol' types are going to be swimming in YOUR soup without natural predators to thin the herds. Suicide gankers bought (or built) ships and modules providing a mineral sink. Wave bye bye to that massive demand. FW is pretty much done. Which means expect ship hulls to sell at exactly insurance payout. And empire minerals to crash through the floor. Which leaves nullsec. And guess what -- nullsec residents are almost entirely self sufficient. They don't NEED you, except possibly to mine ice at 2M/hour. HOLY PEW PEWS IT'S TEH APAKALAPSE!!! ECONOMIC MELTDOWN!!! OPEN TEH DARN FED WINDOW!!! Well, either that or you've finally collected enough high- meta molehills to build your very own Mountain II. I got 5 ISK says it's the latter. ----- Pop Quiz ----- Can you tell me what's wrong with this sentence.

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.