open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Risk versus reward - low sec missions
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Senghir
Amarr
Sword Of The Empire
Posted - 2009.05.19 22:31:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Senghir on 19/05/2009 22:33:19
I understand there is a drive to get more people like me into low sec and beyond.
I'm coming from the perspective of a mission runner, not a miner, so I'll have to leave those alone for now.

I would love to head into low sec a lot more often and escape the congestion. There are risks to low sec of course, but it's not those in and of themselves that puts me off. For me, it's that the risk far exceeds the reward.

So far, CCP's solution has been to make the low sec agents offer more ISK as a reward for the mission. But this is ineffective. The game has moved on far enough that the money made from missions is really from bounties, loot and salvage, and this doesnt change from just doing those missions in low sec. In some missions, I can earn 20 million in bounties alone. By going to low sec, the agent would perhaps offer me an extra million or two as the reward.
What I get in exchange for this though, is the very real risk of losing my battleship (a lot of griefers out there), which at a minimum is going to have cost me anything from 120-200 million. And as some of the bigger missions are tough, the standard issue un-named kit wont cut it. Therefore, as a mission runner, there just isn't the incentive to go out there. It's far easier to stay at home in high sec.

Solution number 1 for me would be to increase the agent reward offered in low sec. This would persuade me to move out there.
But, assuming the above, or some other solution you come up with drives mission runners into low sec, there is a second problem. Griefers and thieves are already rife in high sec mission spots, where there is no risk. And several of these do it simply because they hate mission runners.
Given how prevalent ganking already is in low sec, and the drive and impetus displayed in high sec to disrupt a mission (whether to make money from salvage or just to grief), this problem would become much worse for the low sec mission runner. The agent sites would be quickly swarmed by people scanning out the mission runners, and I think this effect would drive them back to high sec. It would for me at least. PVP against a gank squad is complicated enough. Enduring it when taking the fire from an entire mission is impossible.
The solution here isn't to "corp up".
Firstly, though the corps seem to be the most voiciferous on the forums, they do not represent the player base accurately. There are plenty of solo players out there, or players who are part of corps that would be insufficient and/or indifferent to dealing with low sec threats.
Secondly, as someone already pointed out in another thread, mission runners will be fairly static, and will not have hte manouverability of a roaming grief gang. The places to mission run are limited by availability, and by standings of the player/s.

For this problem, I think a solution could be to dramatically increase the amount of agents in low sec. This decreases the chances of ganking "hotspots" and gives more chance for a mission runner to stay alive. The risk is still there of course, but it's not as unmanageable. And for the PVPers out there, yes it will be harder to find us, but then there will be LOTS of us. PVPers get an easy ride finding their target for the evening. PVEers get the probability it's them reduced by having so many others to choose from.
I think doing both of these things would greatly increase the amount of players in low sec, and properly implement the theory of:
High sec = no risk, low reward
Low sec = risk, high reward

That's all I have for now.

- Marshal Commander Senghir

*Edit - less wall, more paragraph spacing

Lucas Tigh
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.05.19 22:33:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Lucas Tigh on 19/05/2009 23:00:27
I was waiting for you to change that before I read/replied. (And you'll do well to note that I made this post 19 seconds before you fixed the wall of text. Razz)

Reading now...

Hmkay, so, in no particular order:

-Don't use the word "grief" in this sense. You're begging to be flamed if you do. Just because they kill you doesn't make them griefers. As a side note, these people aren't "real" PVPers either, save for in the most literal sense of the phrase, when most mission runners are quite easy to kill and pose no real challenge to another, competent player.

-You seem to contradict yourself by saying that nobody cares about rewards to missions and later moving on to say that increasing rewards would entice you to move out to lowsec. I think I see what you're saying, though...buff the rewards to the point where they are a real benefit as opposed to a post-bounty flood drop in the ISK bucket.

-High sec does hold a risk. As you stated, people will do their best to goad you (or your drones set on aggressive Laughing) into attacking them by stealing from your loot drops or just sitting there menacingly (I've done it once before, heh). Speaking as someone that got suicide ganked as a noob in high sec running missions, high sec is not "no risk" space, but rather "less risk."

-Rereading...

Senghir
Amarr
Sword Of The Empire
Posted - 2009.05.19 22:34:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: Lucas Tigh
Sweet wall of text, Batman!

(Double line breaks: use them.)


Already changed. Please be more constructive in future.

Lucas Tigh
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2009.05.19 23:02:00 - [4]
 

Made it a proper post now. Cool

Cat o'Ninetails
Caldari
Rancer Defence League
Posted - 2009.05.19 23:11:00 - [5]
 

Actually, my 'friend's alliance runs missions very profitably in lowsec. We have the people to run the level 5s, the people in surrounding systems to watch for incomings (and do their own thing at the same time), and backup if something does go wrong.

Don't expect to solo missions in lowsec, that's just asking for trouble. Get friends.

Senghir
Amarr
Sword Of The Empire
Posted - 2009.05.19 23:14:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Lucas Tigh


-Don't use the word "grief" in this sense. You're begging to be flamed if you do. Just because they kill you doesn't make them griefers. As a side note, these people aren't "real" PVPers either, save for in the most literal sense of the phrase, when most mission runners are quite easy to kill and pose no real challenge to another, competent player.


Fair points. The last one I can only confirm there are always exceptions.

Quote:
-You seem to contradict yourself by saying that nobody cares about rewards to missions and later moving on to say that increasing rewards would entice you to move out to lowsec. I think I see what you're saying, though...buff the rewards to the point where they are a real benefit as opposed to a post-bounty flood drop in the ISK bucket.


Nobody cares about the rewards on missions now, because they're low and crappy. I move on to suggest increasing them because this would make them not crappy, and facilitate a higher reward without having to change the mechanics of each and every mission and wreck instead.
Aaand just got to the last sentence there. Yeah, that is what I'm saying :)

Quote:
-High sec does hold a risk. As you stated, people will do their best to goad you (or your drones set on aggressive Laughing) into attacking them by stealing from your loot drops or just sitting there menacingly (I've done it once before, heh). Speaking as someone that got suicide ganked as a noob in high sec running missions, high sec is not "no risk" space, but rather "less risk."


Yeah there is risk. But providing you're careful about not being a noob and giving in to the baiters there is next to no risk. On the suicide ganking, yeah it happens, but it's not such a problem in that it's unlikely to happen to you*.

*You being the individual mission runner.

Senghir
Amarr
Sword Of The Empire
Posted - 2009.05.19 23:20:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails
Actually, my 'friend's alliance runs missions very profitably in lowsec. We have the people to run the level 5s, the people in surrounding systems to watch for incomings (and do their own thing at the same time), and backup if something does go wrong.

Don't expect to solo missions in lowsec, that's just asking for trouble. Get friends.


This is irrelevant.
Fact = there are very few players in low sec compared to high sec.
Fact = your friend has a successful mission running alliance.
Fact = there are very few players in low sec compared to high sec.

I'm trying to point out that successful alliances aren't the solution. I sort of said that in my post already (corp/alliance, whatever). If they were the solution, then we wouldnt have a problem.
I do expect to solo mission in low sec. It's exactly that ability that would get people to do it. My solution introduces less risk to the mission runner, and a higher reward.
For the PVPer, it increases the amount of targets in low sec, something I have seen numerous complaints about on the forum. Although mostly their solutions seem to revolve around nerfing high sec.
Nerfing is not a solution. It upsets half of the player base.
My solution changes nothing for those people who wish to stay in high sec, and increases reward and player count for those in low sec. Something people have asked for for a long time.
It also decreases the congestion in high sec. Something also asked for for a long time.

Mendolence
Posted - 2009.05.20 00:32:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Mendolence on 20/05/2009 00:35:06
To me it's a question of efficiency. Doing task X in low-sec is more inefficient than doing task X in hi-sec. If you don't want to get "ganked" in low-sec you have to take the necessary precautions. These precautionary steps directly hamper your ability to mission / mine as efficient as in hi-sec.

I personally believe that the only way you'll get more people into low-sec is if you drastically increase the rewards, or somehow convince the vast majority of hi-sec denizens that losing a ship/fittings isn't the end of the world.

The people who go there want to be there. Low-sec is a lot more entertaining / engaging than hi-sec, but not nearly as profitable.

-M

edit: stupidity

Alastarine Denine
Posted - 2009.05.20 00:35:00 - [9]
 

(by advance, sorry for my poor english, it's not my native language).

The problem is, in my opinion, that boosting the rewards do not change anything, until being seriously unbalanced.

1) No one will take the risk on 200M (to take your own numbers) to earn 20M. Ask every trader, they accept to make 10% of benefits if there is no risk. For a real risk of lose the investissment, they attempt 30 or 50% of benefits.
Deployed on missions reward, it would let you rewarding missioners half a BS each missions... Unbalanced.
2) the more rewards you give, the more rich becames the already biggest alliances. If the rewards became interresting, they will NEVER let you make some profits. Never. But O gods, how many values they will earn !

So no, as usual with this types of subjects, nerfing hight sec, buffing low sec would be really un-productiv.


If you really are interresting by attracting people in more risk/more reward areas, without having to unbalanced the rewards, you will have to take the other part of the problem.

Make things less riskies.
Ho, I already hear the pirates who should certainly not let this part been changed. Because honestly, all they want is not more people in 0.4, but more kills on their killboard.
But, let imagine they are not here yet ;)

according to me, the real thing to do is to secure the mission's gates access. To make that only the missioner fleet can jump in the pockets.
Of course, to not let missions became "free heavens", you should stop the restricted access as soon as the bonus reward end (it's a deadline easy to implement and seams IMO pretty fair). This way, no one will take a mission in each 0.4 system to have free areas for 7 days.

Oh, and of course, reducing the bonus timer seams pretty fair. Taking account that a classic BS, ends a mission in less than an hour. Fitting the bonus reward in 0.4(-) areas, to this scale seams fair.
If it would be mine, I would start to fit the bonus time to "classic accomplishment time" + half "salvaging time". It will let open many options for pirates to interact I think, considering that all the stations with agents will be camped ;)




Jhagiti Tyran
Muppet Ninja's
Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
Posted - 2009.05.20 00:58:00 - [10]
 

Running missions in low sec isn't that difficult all you need to do is watch out for probes which is really easy since the mechanics where changed in Apocrypha because it now takes four probes to pinpoint someone so as soon as you see a bunch of combat probes on scan you align to a safe area and be ready to warp.

Low sec missions also give more LP than High sec missions and finding safe(ish) places is fairly easy and staying alive is not that difficult either, the only thing stopping people from running low sec missions is risk aversion and a lack of knowledge.

F'nog
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2009.05.20 01:10:00 - [11]
 

Right now the only reason to go to lowsec to mission run is the added sense of excitement from potentially facing PvP. And a slight increase in the LP payout which is probably offset by the extra time one needs to avoid being destroyed.

So changing missions won't draw players to low sec. Only a complete overhaul of the system will work. There should be different rewards in low sec than in either high or null. Different goods and services that are unique to there than the others. Unless low sec agents start offering billions of ISK per mission in rewards, most people won't bother. So there must be something else that draws people to it besides heightened risk. There was an excellent thread on this many months ago that was quite a few pages in length with many good ideas and much debate. CCP seems to have ignored it. Unfortunately I don't remember what it was, or who the OP was, or I'd list it.

TraininVain
Posted - 2009.05.20 01:30:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: TraininVain on 20/05/2009 01:33:10
Originally by: Jhagiti Tyran
Running missions in low sec isn't that difficult all you need to do is watch out for probes which is really easy since the mechanics where changed in Apocrypha because it now takes four probes to pinpoint someone so as soon as you see a bunch of combat probes on scan you align to a safe area and be ready to warp.

Low sec missions also give more LP than High sec missions and finding safe(ish) places is fairly easy and staying alive is not that difficult either, the only thing stopping people from running low sec missions is risk aversion and a lack of knowledge.


It's several orders of magnitude more ****ing about to run missions in low sec than high sec.

It also basically necessitates friends or dual boxes. Plus I imagine any low sec mission hub is crawling (to be fair, I haven't checked that all that carefully. I know the couple I know of for the corps I mission are crawling when I pass through them).

And yeah, it is a risk thing. The objective is to make ISK. Risking getting unlucky or inattentive (L4s are boring) and losing a BS kind of defeats the purpose of the exercise particularly if you actually spend your ISK.

It's not like they're not fun enough to run in groups either. It just emphasizes how much of a drag PvE is. Maybe L5s are better.

I honestly can't see why you'd bother with 4's in lowsec.

Verx Interis
Amarr
SkyNet.
Posted - 2009.05.20 02:49:00 - [13]
 

I support the general concept, to increase rewards in lowsec and reduce risk somewhat. For those concerned it would become too carebeary if reward goes up and risk goes down, consider this:

Low risk high reward = lots of people in lowsec.
Lots of people in lowsec = lots of targets
Lots of targets = pirates move in
Pirates move in = Carebears need security
Carebears need security = Anti-pirate groups move in (ones that don't suck)

If lowsec is repopulated with industry and carebearing, it means there will be more targets in belts and other places, and that puts an incentive to actually make a group to defend the space properly. Since the defense group benefits from the local economic stimulus, they would be interested in defending well.

In my opinion, however, the key thing that must be done is to strongly reduce rewards in hisec. This has to be done in a number of ways, from controlling the price of trit to reducing high end minerals available to nerfing hisec mission running. As for industrial jobs in hisec, they'll be able to get more by going into lowsec. Market hubs would also be much better stocked in lowsec systems, meaning traders could exploit this for extra profit.

Unless hisec is nerfed hard, a lot of people will just not want to be in lowsec cause their ship might have a chance of dying. Rolling Eyes

Xiao LoPan
Posted - 2009.05.20 03:38:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Xiao LoPan on 20/05/2009 03:53:42
the reason mission runners won't go to lowsec no matter what ccp does is easy to see, in every mmo out there to win at pvp you have to be set up in pvp gear, to win at pve you have top be set up in pve gear, you can't do both in one set up, so if you are out missioning and you are spotted, scanned down, or caught at a gate you WILL lose, they would have to make the missions so over the top profitable that you can shrug off constant battleship losses, which would throw all kinds of monkey wrenches into the eve economy.

nerfing hisec will lead many to emoquit, say you lose your battleship, then what? if you cant make enough money in highsec to get fit out again what can you do? pirates wanting more easy kills which is honestly what they want, to
kill people who aren't fit for pvp risk for others, no risk for them, isn't going to keep a majority of people playing.

Verx Interis
Amarr
SkyNet.
Posted - 2009.05.20 05:13:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Verx Interis on 20/05/2009 05:13:52
Originally by: Xiao LoPan
Edited by: Xiao LoPan on 20/05/2009 03:53:42
the reason mission runners won't go to lowsec no matter what ccp does is easy to see, in every mmo out there to win at pvp you have to be set up in pvp gear, to win at pve you have top be set up in pve gear, you can't do both in one set up, so if you are out missioning and you are spotted, scanned down, or caught at a gate you WILL lose, they would have to make the missions so over the top profitable that you can shrug off constant battleship losses, which would throw all kinds of monkey wrenches into the eve economy.

nerfing hisec will lead many to emoquit, say you lose your battleship, then what? if you cant make enough money in highsec to get fit out again what can you do? pirates wanting more easy kills which is honestly what they want, to
kill people who aren't fit for pvp risk for others, no risk for them, isn't going to keep a majority of people playing.


A good portion of people will ragequit. However, think about how many missioning alts are tied to a 0.0 PvPer. As well as indy alts and other stuff.

I outlined this in my reply above, but I'll re-iterate - If you populate lowsec and make it significantly better than hisec by both nerfing hisec and increasing lowsec, people will start to work to defend the area, they will form intel channels for their clumps of space, and missioning will get a lot safer.

It all comes down to forcing big moneymaking to happen almost entirely out of hisec, and players will follow to try to protect the industry.

DTson Gauur
Caldari
Blend.
Nulli Tertius
Posted - 2009.05.20 05:30:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Verx Interis
A good portion of people will ragequit. However, think about how many missioning alts are tied to a 0.0 PvPer. As well as indy alts and other stuff.

I outlined this in my reply above, but I'll re-iterate - If you populate lowsec and make it significantly better than hisec by both nerfing hisec and increasing lowsec, people will start to work to defend the area, they will form intel channels for their clumps of space, and missioning will get a lot safer.

It all comes down to forcing big moneymaking to happen almost entirely out of hisec, and players will follow to try to protect the industry.


No, they won't. You underestimate the decision making of players who inhabit highsec. Most of them work on the principles of low risk, decent rewards. If what you say would happen (forcing big money making out of highsec) it would mean that of that 80% cut of playerbase that is the highsec dwellers in EVE, roughly half would quit right over just because risk vs reward just became unjustifiable to continue playing, the other half wouldn't move either, they're making their isk from other things than mission running.

As has been said countless times over: NERFING highsec IS NOT THE ANSWER

Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
Posted - 2009.05.20 05:55:00 - [17]
 

Low sec missions - Single or small gang npc encounters requiring pvp fit ships - EHP rather then tank over time.

Ie if you attack an npc without a scrambler, webber, when it gets low on hp, it uses its deadspace mwd to get the frig out of there till it repairs. ECM npcs that require backup arrays etc.


But for now you can mission in low sec providing you follow these simple guidelines.

1: Use a scout for travelling.
2: When you get to your mission drop a few cans at the warp in to decloak any covert that scans you down.
3: Stay 150km away from the can and stay aligned to dock.

Nothing can possibly sneak up on you and kill you.

Agent Known
Posted - 2009.05.20 05:58:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Agent Known on 20/05/2009 06:01:06
Originally by: Infinity Ziona
Low sec missions - Single or small gang npc encounters requiring pvp fit ships - EHP rather then tank over time.

Ie if you attack an npc without a scrambler, webber, when it gets low on hp, it uses its deadspace mwd to get the frig out of there till it repairs. ECM npcs that require backup arrays etc.


But for now you can mission in low sec providing you follow these simple guidelines.

1: Use a scout for travelling.
2: When you get to your mission drop a few cans at the warp in to decloak any covert that scans you down.
3: Stay 150km away from the can and stay aligned to dock.

Nothing can possibly sneak up on you and kill you.



Unless of course you get a mission where there's no acceleration gate at the start, so it's easy to just warp in at 100km or something.

Edit: Also, throw that whole risk vs. reward crap out. This is a game after all; some people play casually and don't have a care if something gives less isk/hour or something like that. I see it countless times and find it senseless. After all, a game is supposed to be fun, right? It's not supposed to be a second job, although for some people it is...

Nerfing high-sec will just ruin the game for the casual players who don't want to watch their backs 23/7 while trying to have fun. Heck, I mine when I just want to chill out and not care about how much isk/m3 I'm getting. Instead of risk vs reward it should be work vs fun.

Infinity Ziona
Minmatar
Cloakers
Posted - 2009.05.20 06:01:00 - [19]
 

Turn it down.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2009.05.20 06:17:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Infinity Ziona

1: Use a scout for travelling.


I.e.: use an alt or constantly bother corpmates.

Quote:

2: When you get to your mission drop a few cans at the warp in to decloak any covert that scans you down.



Can have stopped decloaking ship a lot of time ago, the day they have become immaterial.

Quote:

3: Stay 150km away from the can and stay aligned to dock.
Nothing can possibly sneak up on you and kill you.



An this require that:
1) there are stations in system;
2) you aren't webbed to 1 m/s by 10 NPC frigates;
3) there is a clear entry point for the mission;
4) you had the time to move 150 km with a mission ship, generally not the fastest ship around.



Benzaiten Reverse
Caldari
Shokei
Posted - 2009.05.20 06:38:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Verx Interis
Edited by: Verx Interis on 20/05/2009 05:13:52
Originally by: Xiao LoPan
Edited by: Xiao LoPan on 20/05/2009 03:53:42
the reason mission runners won't go to lowsec no matter what ccp does is easy to see, in every mmo out there to win at pvp you have to be set up in pvp gear, to win at pve you have top be set up in pve gear, you can't do both in one set up, so if you are out missioning and you are spotted, scanned down, or caught at a gate you WILL lose, they would have to make the missions so over the top profitable that you can shrug off constant battleship losses, which would throw all kinds of monkey wrenches into the eve economy.

nerfing hisec will lead many to emoquit, say you lose your battleship, then what? if you cant make enough money in highsec to get fit out again what can you do? pirates wanting more easy kills which is honestly what they want, to
kill people who aren't fit for pvp risk for others, no risk for them, isn't going to keep a majority of people playing.


A good portion of people will ragequit. However, think about how many missioning alts are tied to a 0.0 PvPer. As well as indy alts and other stuff.

I outlined this in my reply above, but I'll re-iterate - If you populate lowsec and make it significantly better than hisec by both nerfing hisec and increasing lowsec, people will start to work to defend the area, they will form intel channels for their clumps of space, and missioning will get a lot safer.

It all comes down to forcing big moneymaking to happen almost entirely out of hisec, and players will follow to try to protect the industry.

No they wont,
it could work only for big corps and alliances, but why they should bother when they already in 0.0.
Also for 0.0 players alts, even those want to have some "safe" income, as they are risking and loosing ships every day in 0.0 and also sometime want break from pvp.

Senghir
Amarr
Sword Of The Empire
Posted - 2009.05.20 07:07:00 - [22]
 

Thanks for the general support for this idea guys.
Like myself and others have said, part of the solution cannot be "nerf high sec". There needs to be a solution that doesn't alienate players.

Space Wanderer
Posted - 2009.05.20 08:01:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Senghir
Thanks for the general support for this idea guys.
Like myself and others have said, part of the solution cannot be "nerf high sec". There needs to be a solution that doesn't alienate players.


I am sorry to say that, but some of what I read above is wishful thinking.

Why? Let's analyze it. There are two ways to "buff lowsec".
1) Let lowsec missions generate (much) more money than highsec missions (bounties, rewards, etc...).
2) Let lowsec mission drop some essential stuff that other players might want to buy, for whatever reason.

In case of 1 the problem is obvious. More money injected into the economy means more inflation, which means that the money generated by the "unbuffed" highsec missions will soon lose its value and soon people will start screaming to "buff highsec". This would be a nerf on highsec, plain and simple, just a bit stealthier. Actually, it would be a nerf to whoever gains "fixed" amount of isks, which means missioners and ratters, thus being a nerf to 0.0 as well. There would clearly be a chain of gamebreaking issues generated by this "idea".

More complex (and perhaps more viable) is case 2. Dropping some new material required for production, research, whatever, would at least not generate inflation, although it would require a hello of rebalance (What material should it be? What parts of production should it affect? etc...). That would be the equivalent of using a cannon to kill a fly. Besides, how much time would pass before highsec mission runners started whining asking for the same rewards placed in highsec?

Reven Cordelle
Caldari
Total Mayhem.
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2009.05.20 08:28:00 - [24]
 

You want to know why people don't go into low sec? Because the key points people will take are eternally bubblecamped.

Its that simple. Whenever I ask someone if they're going to go to low sec - its not the combat, its the fact of jumping through a gate and getting anally violated before they even have a chance.

Risk vs Reward is bull****. The reward in high sec is because people have the hollow-headed patience to grind boring content.

Also, this arguement has been done to death. The reward in Low/Null exists - people just have huge issues finding it before anyone else does. Thus they cite there is no reward just because its not thrown in their face as soon as they hit 0.4.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2009.05.20 08:49:00 - [25]
 

The problem with lowsec missions can in essence be boiled down to one thing: they don't scale to match the required precautions.
  • Fit PvP gear
    ⇒ requires warpouts and/or a gang
    ⇒ slows down the earning speed
    ⇒ you're better off in highsec.
  • Use a gang
    ⇒ gives you split (aka lowered) earnings
    ⇒ you're better off in highsec.
  • Look out for probes and dock up
    ⇒ slows down the earning speed
    ⇒ you're better off in highsec.
This can't simply be solved by a blanket increase of the rewards because as mentioned that would make them insane, but rather requires some formula that modifies the rewards with the environment and method with which the mission is run. Even high-sec missions could benefit from such an approach since it might incentivise "good" behaviour in those regions as well.

Eg. introduce a "risk" bonus that depends on the number of kills in the mission system and/or a "group" bonus that increases with the number of people who visit the mission area (which, incidentally, would also increase the rewards if someone uninvited pops in as well…).

The issue of being forced to dock up is tricker since it would essentially require rewarding slow and careful behaviour, but mustn't make it profitable to just accept a mission and then do nothing for a week.

Space Wanderer
Posted - 2009.05.20 09:02:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Reven Cordelle
You want to know why people don't go into low sec? Because the key points people will take are eternally bubblecamped.


Bolded the relevant parts...

Dramaan
Posted - 2009.05.20 09:05:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Dramaan on 20/05/2009 09:08:39
Is easy to avoid the key points to low sec.
You can solo mission in low sec if you have fast agile ship.

Is true that chanse to get killed is higher but if you are in corp whit good players in same system
it can be avoided to get killed.
To coperate in mission is true it gives lower reward in a singe mission,
but it will go faster the mission is done less risk.
If you do more mission in one time when you coperate more isk you get, then if you done one mission solo.

Su Yildiz
Posted - 2009.05.20 09:06:00 - [28]
 

How to fix mission-running/mining and generally getting people into low-sec/0.0:

1. Remove local chat as an intel tool. (How? Look at WH space...)
2. Buff probe-scanning slightly in the direction of ship-scanning.
3. Add a deploy-able beacon that people can use for "bookmarks" (Easily destructed, quick to setup)
4. Extend the solar-system map, and give it more functionality. (FC's can set rallypoints and other stuff in space)
5. Fix mission-running and belt-rats so they require more of a pvp-setup ship than the usual mission-running death-dealers people fly currently. (Spider-rep rats, ECM, Cloaking, Neuts etc)
6. Make gate-camping in low-sec a bit harder for pirates, push them into 0.0 (Increase sec-loss and buff gate-guns or increase cool-down timer)

Arguments for and against removing local chat as an intel tool:...
a. Its silly, an irc channel should not dictate if a system is "safe" or not. (Besides this is ruined by camping cloakers)
b. In all fairness and even though this is a sci-fi game, its completely unrealistic... (Flame all you want... but you know Im right here...)
c. There are far more game-enhancing ways of doing it, like IE. probe-scanning etc.
d. Its instant, its extremely difficult to jump someone even with a small BS fleet, because once people go into a system, local chat "spikes", and everybody runs away.
e. It won't ruin it for miners, just force them to bring some backup/scouts.
f. It won't ruin it for pirates, just force them to do some more work. (Time vs. Reward)


Vrabac
Zawa's Fan Club
Posted - 2009.05.20 09:14:00 - [29]
 

You need to have control over low sec mission hub system, one way or the other. Either youre part of a big enough corp/ally for previous locals to just go away, or youre scary enough for them to stay docked while you farm. Alternatively, you can simply be very cautious, aligned, scan for probes etc etc. This works, but can be too much of a pain if done for prolonged time especially if locals are determined enough to scan you down every time you warp off for a mission.

Also, apart from slightly greater reward, amount of LPs received is also much higher, and LPs can often be turned into very good isk, increasing isk/h dramatically. So reward is greater than OP suggests.

Ultimately, mission running in low sec is about pvp. This is imo quite good. If you can't deal with it, don't go to low sec to run missions. If you want to do it, be prepared to fight for your farming.

Benzaiten Reverse
Caldari
Shokei
Posted - 2009.05.20 15:53:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Vrabac
You need to have control over low sec mission hub system, one way or the other. Either youre part of a big enough corp/ally for previous locals to just go away, or youre scary enough for them to stay docked while you farm. Alternatively, you can simply be very cautious, aligned, scan for probes etc etc. This works, but can be too much of a pain if done for prolonged time especially if locals are determined enough to scan you down every time you warp off for a mission.

Also, apart from slightly greater reward, amount of LPs received is also much higher, and LPs can often be turned into very good isk, increasing isk/h dramatically. So reward is greater than OP suggests.

Ultimately, mission running in low sec is about pvp. This is imo quite good. If you can't deal with it, don't go to low sec to run missions. If you want to do it, be prepared to fight for your farming.

difference between reward in 0.5 and0.4 mission is not that big and even if it was 30m vs 10m per mission difference (which is not even in dream), i will still not take expensive mission fitted ship there, not even with fleet to protect it as suicide gang still can 1-2hit it if big and fast enogh before your fleet even start shooting back.

Also what most forgetting failing mission is easy with huge standing loss, but getting standing back is hard and take weeks if you are "lucky" to lose mission required item (even months for failed storyline).


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only