open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Why we need a SIGNIFICANT nerf on lvl4s in hisec.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 ... : last (43)

Author Topic

Traidor Disloyal
Private Nuisance
Segregati0n
Posted - 2008.08.26 03:51:00 - [511]
 

Edited by: Traidor Disloyal on 26/08/2008 03:51:10
Originally by: Dave Davies
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.


Now you're taking away my fun. Very Happy

DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
Posted - 2008.08.26 03:59:00 - [512]
 

Many people here fail to grasp the basic reasons that made this game good. It's called full PVP, or total competition. You stick a bunch of people in a room with limited resources, and see what happens. That's it.

The moment you undock, you should be subject to player competition on all levels. The moment this fails, the whole game ceases to hold greater meaning. James Lyrus was closest in spelling it out for you people.

Missions violate the economic competition of EVE by:

- creating infinite resources in a single system
- giving you a high enough income to ignore lowsec/0.0

A system's capacity for trade, mining and NPCing is limited by quantity and time. If more people use the system, your slice of the pie is not only smaller but you might have to fight for it. In missions, the limit to how many agent runners a system can support is the number of people you can squeeze onto a node.

The second point is why incentives and boosts to the more dangerous areas of EVE always failed. Empire income is five times where it should be, and ten times where it was. Prior to the agent overhaul, your best empire income was an Apoc, 8 miners, and a belt of Scordite. These days, it takes you one mission to buy a T1 Cruiser.

And those are just the ways agenting has screwed the economy. Its a great insult on top of said injury, that for nearly two years, scanning down a mission bookmark was impossible. Its still completely skewed, unreasonable, and unexplainable that a mission runner should get superior treatment to someone at a belt or safespot.

1. EVE shouldn't have lvl 4 agents in empire space at all.

2. Those agents in empire shouldn't provide income that is higher than mining in equivalent security.

3. Agents should come to YOU with mission offers from a constellation pool, so that CCP have some goddamn control and a crowded area results in some player competition.

4. Missions that change your security > missions that change your standings > missions that change nothing.

5. You should be flagged for Factional Warfare for supporting one faction too much.

6. Social skills should be made far more relevant, so becoming a career mission runner is a choice akin to training for mining.

7. Scanning down mission sites should be no different from scanning down a ship in empty space.

8. Special keys to access acceleration gates should be removed from the game. Clearing NPCs only.

9. Level 4 missions should have an equal chance of spawning anywhere within your constellation. Region for level 5.

10. Both standings and security should decay very slowly, as in the past.

11. Far more services. All corporations with agents should offer at least one. All services should cost ISK and LP.

12. Standings should matter far more for office/lab/factory rentals in lowsec and 0.0.

13. All NPC trade should be done through agents, with LP as both reward and leverage.

14. All cruiser and larger NPCs should scramble in lowsec, asteroid belts and exploration included.

15. Anyone who disagrees is wrong.

16. I'm right, I'm DigitalCommunist.

In my perfect vision of EVE, agenting wouldn't get special treatment when it comes to PVP or economic rewards. It would become a true career choice you train for and actively pursue to be the best. And as with everything else in EVE, it would still be subject to player competition - both passive and active.

Because of standings opting you into Factional Warfare automatically, it would make the system more meaningful and integrated with everything else that happens. The jump to pvp and lowsec would be a more natural progression for anyone wishing to avoid taxation.

The discounts you'd get to rents, insurance, and clones would be a major benefit of faction standings (and agenting). Not like today, where the reward is all in your wallet. This also has the effect of making you think harder about running away from local strife and politics.

Lastly, the services are a good ISK sink for the game.

Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.08.26 04:10:00 - [513]
 

Quote:
7. Scanning down mission sites should be no different from scanning down a ship in empty space.


Agree with most everything except this. Missions in their current form force people to stay in one spot for long periods of time in a fit that is suboptimal for PVP.

DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
Posted - 2008.08.26 04:10:00 - [514]
 

Ah screw it, lets keep going.

Services are there to give solo players, and people with a buttload of money to take advantage. They'd provide information primarily, and other minor advantages. The state of EVE is always in flux, and information is always in demand.

Currently, a rich person has no outlet to **** his money away, and by God, I believe in the idea that a man who controls the power of civilizations should be able to find a decent space hooker.

Maybe I want to purchase faction-inspired corp logos, available for the right standings and the right price. Maybe I'm so goddamn rich I'll put a perma trace on some douchebag I don't like. That way, I'll go harass him every time he is near.

Why is it that you can't even find a corp's member list without infiltration or killboard churn?

Timaeus Cynic
Amarr
X-pell
vae Victis .
Posted - 2008.08.26 04:12:00 - [515]
 

I like level 4 missions, they give me pretty ravens to kill.

DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
Posted - 2008.08.26 04:13:00 - [516]
 

Originally by: Kahega Amielden
Quote:
7. Scanning down mission sites should be no different from scanning down a ship in empty space.


Agree with most everything except this. Missions in their current form force people to stay in one spot for long periods of time in a fit that is suboptimal for PVP.


BUT.. MINING DOESN'T?

And with local chat being the crappy intel mechanic it is, you'll be lucky to fire off a probe before someone instadocks. Oh hey, warp to zero. There's another crappy mechanic.

But that's okay, you can always catch them at the jumpin.. EXCEPT WHEN THEY DON'T GET MISSIONS ANYWHERE OUTSIDE THE SYSTEM.

For disagreeing with me, and the holiest reason of mankind, I deem you should drink bleach. And that you're wrong.

DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
Posted - 2008.08.26 04:16:00 - [517]
 

Using faction ships without appropriate faction standing in areas controlled by said faction should make you a target. For virtual insolence and disrespect.

Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.08.26 04:22:00 - [518]
 



Quote:
BUT.. MINING DOESN'T?


No. There are belts you can mine in EVERY SYSTEM.

DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
Posted - 2008.08.26 04:24:00 - [519]
 

Hey, just noticed. If we tax the living crap out of people living in 0.0 NPC stations with no standings, imagine what happens to those who kill pirates all day? Everything is so.. interesting.

Small corps living out of POS. Alliances breaking instead of turtling. RP nonsense.. making sense.

Gamesguy
Amarr
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2008.08.26 05:10:00 - [520]
 

Edited by: Gamesguy on 26/08/2008 05:42:36
Edited by: Gamesguy on 26/08/2008 05:10:43
Originally by: Veldya
Originally by: Gamesguy

Actually, I know lots of people who lived in the some of the richest 0.0 regions in eve who run missions in empire to make isk.

You don't see something wrong with that?


If you have a strong enough tank you can do a lot of missions without paying a great deal of attention. That is more about convenience than anything else. You can't afford to not pay attention in 0.0 space.

If you don't pay attention then the mission invariably takes signficantly longer. You can make the same comparisons to mining in 0.0 vs mining in high-sec. You don't typically need to pay as much attention in high-sec space but the risk is significantly lower.

high-sec doesn't compete with 0.0, not even remotely. You should be making 5x to 10x per hour ratting what you do running missions.

It has less to do with the reward and more to do with the risk part. There are a lot of ship types and setups you just don't want to be flying in 0.0 space.


5-10 times? I want to know where the hell you are ratting, because thats certainly not what mine and lots of other people's experiences have been.

I know a guy who missions in a golem, he salvages and loots. He makes about 25mil an hour running L4s for some minmatar agent in highsec.

When I rat(which isnt often), I rat with a blaster mega with assigned fighters. I typically make about 30-35mil an hour if I have the entire system to myself, and spent an hour building up chains(or inherited the system from an EU TZ player). When you chain, there is basically no chance of faction/officer spawns btw. When I don't chain, I only make about 20-25mil an hour but have a much greater chance of faction spawns, which usually drop crap but has a nice 10 mil bounty. If I only rat with one account, then I only make about 15-20mil without chaining and 25mil while chaining.

TheTrueHorror
Posted - 2008.08.26 05:37:00 - [521]
 

Originally by: DigitalCommunist

The moment you undock, you should be subject to player competition on all levels.


I agree with everything Digital Comunist has said. Devs should read this post carefully. The suggestions are all good and would make for a better game.

Le Skunk
Low Sec Liberators
Chubby Chuppers Chubba Chups
Posted - 2008.08.26 07:48:00 - [522]
 

Originally by: TheTrueHorror
Originally by: DigitalCommunist

The moment you undock, you should be subject to player competition on all levels.


I agree with everything Digital Comunist has said. Devs should read this post carefully. The suggestions are all good and would make for a better game.


Yes Digital Communist makes good points and may well save CCP from both their spiral of self hatred and disillusionment, and the twisted legion of wormtongue bears whispering in their ears.

SKUNK

Empyre
Chaotic Balance
Posted - 2008.08.26 08:19:00 - [523]
 

Originally by: Gamesguy
Oh noes, the peanut gallery smacked me,


I get this part. Like buying a gold digger girlfriend a cheap Hallmark card for her birthday, you probably just shouldn't have bothered. If there was a betting pool going on your age, I'd guess the ones with the money on over 18 are conceding defeat at this point.. but what I don't get? this:

Originally by: Gamesguy
why don't you go run some missions about it?Rolling Eyes


What were you going for there, little fella? I never in my life figured I'd have someone try to insult me out of context.

You wanna try again? I really didn't get anything out of your reply at all. You've let down a lot of BoB fans, all three of them I think.

Dzajic
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.26 09:15:00 - [524]
 

Even if CCP removed high sec L4s, you would still fail to achieve your true aims. People who played EVE in order to do L4s in CNR or Golem would quit, certainly. People like myself who waste their personal time on stupid and boring L4s just to buy skillbooks and GTCs (15 bucks a month isnt that much, 15$ per month for several years is waaaaay to much) would switch to highsec plexes or L3 mission hubs with several good agents.

You would have to nerf those too. People who accumulate sufficient funds before L4 nerf will be able to try to trade, you would have to nerf highsec trade as well...

Be honest, without 10-15 mill SP you wont be joining a meaningful 0 sec PVP corp these days, EVE today isnt EVE of 2005. Still, 0.0 is far lucrative proposal than trying to earn a living in low sec. Watch local, watch alliance intel, and in good alliance you are far safer ratting in deep 0.0 than trying to do missions in low sec.

Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.26 09:47:00 - [525]
 

Edited by: Maximillian Bayonette on 26/08/2008 09:47:08
Originally by: Dzajic
Even if CCP removed high sec L4s, you would still fail to achieve your true aims. People who played EVE in order to do L4s in CNR or Golem would quit, certainly. People like myself who waste their personal time on stupid and boring L4s just to buy skillbooks and GTCs (15 bucks a month isnt that much, 15$ per month for several years is waaaaay to much) would switch to highsec plexes or L3 mission hubs with several good agents.


Missions in high sec needs to be balanced. Not only level 4 missions. Missions in general. Also, what do you know about the true aims of those who wants to nerf high sec? My true aim is to nerf High sec. I want this because High sec should not give even half the rewards of low sec or 0.0. Risk in high sec, barring the occational war dec and up until now, suicide ganks, is 0. According to the risk/reward mechanic, the reward should be 0 as well. It can't be 0, though, but it can be much much less than it is today.

Originally by: Dzajic

You would have to nerf those too. People who accumulate sufficient funds before L4 nerf will be able to try to trade, you would have to nerf highsec trade as well...


No, because trade is a pvp activity, pitting you against other players. Competition like that is what this game is about, and as such, trade should not be regulated by NPC mechanics.

Originally by: Dzajic

Be honest, without 10-15 mill SP you wont be joining a meaningful 0 sec PVP corp these days, EVE today isnt EVE of 2005. Still, 0.0 is far lucrative proposal than trying to earn a living in low sec. Watch local, watch alliance intel, and in good alliance you are far safer ratting in deep 0.0 than trying to do missions in low sec.


A: You don't need 10-15 mil SP to join a 0.0 alliance.
B: 0.0 is not far more lucrative than high sec. That's the problem.
C: The only reason 0.0 can be percieved as safe is because the 0.0 alliance players go through the effort of protecting their systems. This takes them away from lucrative opportunities. Also, even the safest of 0.0 systems are still less safe than high sec.

knobber Jobbler
Holding Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.26 10:35:00 - [526]
 

Edited by: knobber Jobbler on 26/08/2008 10:47:57
Don't people realise that people run lvl4's to make money so they can supply themselves with PVP ships? Remove lvl4's from Empire or nerfing them will nerf the EVE economy. People just won't PVP because they cannot afford to loose even a cheaply fitted Cruiser.

Theres also the solo player/small corp groups that use level 4's to make money or they don't have time to hang out in low sec all day. I get maybe an hours play time once every few days and a couple at weekends. Thats enough for a level4 mission and maybe some low sec stuff if I have time at weekends where I can spend my money getting blown up.

Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2008.08.26 10:48:00 - [527]
 

Oh how I've enjoyed reading this thread. All of it. Wow. I'm lost for words. Actually, I'm not, but most of them would get moderated.

I think a serious part of the problem with this debate is that we actually have several different camps pulling this in different directions, and it's worth trying to actually separate those concerns before going nuts and arguing about who killed who.

PvE vs PvP - this has been, is, and always will be a pointless debate, in every MMO I've ever been in. No matter where you stand on the subject, someone else is going to stand somewhere else. It's an argument not worth having. Claiming you have 'the right view' of EVE as a PvP game is doomed to failure. Pushing that view, whilst laudable for your own self-aggrandisement, is equally pointless. Ultimately a bunch of people at CCP have a view, they have expressed it time and time again, and no matter what you express, at best you can nudge them subtly. Look at the majority of changes they have made. People have complained, people have whined, and no matter what they did, some changes were made, and others were not. CCP genuinely don't give a damn what you personally think, they care about the game as a whole compared against their view of it. They know they can't please everyone.

Getting more people into low-sec: Welcome to a dead horse. Low-sec is never going to effectively compete with 0.0. Those with the drive to group up, organise, etc. in a true PvP environment get everything they need in 0.0 - why do it in low-sec and be restricted? Conversely, those without that available infrastructure or the time to commit to it will stick to living in high-sec, because it's safer. Low-sec is doomed to be a highway, frequented by drunks, homeless and robbers, and therefore vastly more dangerous, and so it should be. The notion of getting truly large numbers of people to live there is just nonsense.

Rewards & Risk: Ohh what a popular one this is. Unfortunately, people often mistake reward for ISK. This is an economic game, true, but ultimately it's about having fun. If you're logging into EVE each day and not having fun, what precisely are you paying for? Thus the more important question we should be asking is 'what are we making this ISK for?'. Making billions in trade, millions from missioning or mining, for some it will be the thrill of economic cut&thrust, for others it's a means to an end, and others still it's a tedious inconvenience getting in the way of Unreal Tournament in space.

Let me put this another way. As a purely personal playstyle, at no point do I log in and in Pavlovian fashion do some task in EVE and get a rush from my wallet getting a bit bigger. I'm sure some do, but for the PvP crowd who are so vocal, I suspect it doesn't apply. Risk can be reward itself - the thrill of being out, hunting or hunted, the thrill of PvP, and so on. Therefore I am sceptical of the 'nerf high-sec' bandwagon, because they seem to be missing the point of the game, which is to have fun, not complain when someone else has made more money than they have. They equally seem to miss that reducing the money supply in high-sec isn't going to cause people to stream into low-sec.

This isn't real money we're making. When at some point in the future CCP turns the server off, it will all cease to exist. What matters is the journey, what you do in the game, fun times etc.

If someone can come up with a good economic argument as to why making money in any form in high-sec somehow disadvantages another playstyle, then I'm all ears. Seriously. Spell it out, be clear, avoid assuming I'm dumb, because I'm not but like every other player I cannot see every point of view. Those who know me well know I'm passionate about balance, which is why I'm very sceptical and violently against badly-thought-through notions. Show me a real problem, and a good solution, and I'll back it as though it were my own. So far no-one has.

Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2008.08.26 11:10:00 - [528]
 

Just an additional thought to the above - in contrast, if the real issue is more that people feel a pressure to go to high-sec to make money, rather than stay where they happen to live, then perhaps we ought to be addressing low-sec and null-sec money-making?

Oh and by the way as an aside, they fixed level 5 mission rewards, so people confined to low-sec should have no trouble doing this if they are short on cash. Yes it was a problem previously, but they are now fixed. Just in case someone isn't up-to-date or missed it.

Trind2222
Amarr
The Red Ring
Posted - 2008.08.26 11:14:00 - [529]
 

Move all lvl 4 agents to low sec.

Add new ore in low sec add new ice ore in low sec.

Add new pirate mission and plex for pirate based factions in low sec.

Make people like low sec more then high sec is challenge but removing
lvl 4 in high sec is part of the way.
I think if made low sec more fun it will help to get people
like low sec but if you find out you don't like it
always go to high sec doing lvl 3.









Andreus Ixiris
Gallente
Mixed Metaphor
Posted - 2008.08.26 11:25:00 - [530]
 

There is nothing wrong with level 4s in hi-sec. How do I know this?

Because the people who run level 4s in hi-sec are never the ones who complain about them. It's always, without exception, the people who stick to low-sec or 0.0 who whine about them.

You're right, level 4s in hi-sec are a high-profit, low-risk venture. What you're totally wrong about is that this somehow "breaks" or "violates" EVE. Not everyone is a PvPer, nor do they want to be, and while we must always take into account that hi-sec is safer but not safe, it's a fairly risk-free environment for people who don't want to get attacked by gatecampers or roaming gangs. The main risks that happen for mission runners are easily avoidable:

a. can-flippers, dealt with either by killing them (which encourages PvP and is thus not a bad thing) or by ignoring them.
b. suicide gankers, dealt with by being careful at all times (as you should be everywhere)
c. wars, dealt with by winning them (which encourages PvP and is thus not a bad thing) or by sitting in station until the attacker loses interest (which at the very least forces the mission runner to go somewhere else to do his missions, and quite probably stagnates his income for the duration of the war)

If hi-sec mission runners were such a bad thing for the economy, it would be in much worse shape than it was now, and more importantly, CCP would have done something about it. Basically, the thing is, this whole thing about it somehow harming the economy or "violating" the "spirit" of EVE is a lie. This is low-sec or 0.0 PvPers wanting more targets to shoot at, and BAWWWWWWWWWWing because some people prefer to say in hi-sec and run missions. Suck it up, adapt or die, like everyone else in EVE. That, or go to the factional warfare regions - I can provide a watertight guarantee of an abundance of targets.

Basically, there's a lot of talk in the anti-hisec-level-4-mission crowd about EVE being a cold hard universe but the truth is they want it to be a cold hard universe for everyone except them.

Ohhitsa SNAKE
Posted - 2008.08.26 11:31:00 - [531]
 

It depends where the mission is in hi sec > if u go to some locations u will find 300 + folks in those situations u will not be able to do much/ sometimes even see ur ship/ be able to controll ur drones/ be able to align, be able to tell ur drones to kill that one scramming frig/ when u consider that with the lagg in some systems u are bound to have troubles even completing one mission, or just the sheer bravery u need to be able to stomic the boafdem of wating for ur moduels to respond... u friggen deserve a medal and more iskies for putting up with it not the loss of ur ship, just to get back to the same spot in 4 more missions after rebuying mods just to see it hapeen again.. visouse circul I tell u.

Ruze
Amarr
Next Stage Initiative
Posted - 2008.08.26 11:33:00 - [532]
 

Originally by: Andreus Ixiris
There is nothing wrong with level 4s in hi-sec. How do I know this?

Because the people who run level 4s in hi-sec are never the ones who complain about them. It's always, without exception, the people who stick to low-sec or 0.0 who whine about them.

You're right, level 4s in hi-sec are a high-profit, low-risk venture. What you're totally wrong about is that this somehow "breaks" or "violates" EVE. Not everyone is a PvPer, nor do they want to be, and while we must always take into account that hi-sec is safer but not safe, it's a fairly risk-free environment for people who don't want to get attacked by gatecampers or roaming gangs. The main risks that happen for mission runners are easily avoidable:

a. can-flippers, dealt with either by killing them (which encourages PvP and is thus not a bad thing) or by ignoring them.
b. suicide gankers, dealt with by being careful at all times (as you should be everywhere)
c. wars, dealt with by winning them (which encourages PvP and is thus not a bad thing) or by sitting in station until the attacker loses interest (which at the very least forces the mission runner to go somewhere else to do his missions, and quite probably stagnates his income for the duration of the war)

If hi-sec mission runners were such a bad thing for the economy, it would be in much worse shape than it was now, and more importantly, CCP would have done something about it. Basically, the thing is, this whole thing about it somehow harming the economy or "violating" the "spirit" of EVE is a lie. This is low-sec or 0.0 PvPers wanting more targets to shoot at, and BAWWWWWWWWWWing because some people prefer to say in hi-sec and run missions. Suck it up, adapt or die, like everyone else in EVE. That, or go to the factional warfare regions - I can provide a watertight guarantee of an abundance of targets.

Basically, there's a lot of talk in the anti-hisec-level-4-mission crowd about EVE being a cold hard universe but the truth is they want it to be a cold hard universe for everyone except them.


Your, um, wrong. You know this, right? I live in hisec and do level 4 missions, and I'm complaining. Sorry to burst your bubble of opinion.

You disagree with the point and opinions posted by others. From where I stand, neither you, nor they, are in any case 'wrong' due to their opinions. You obviously don't think it breaks or violates anything, and if you've read up on the massive number of posts on this topic, you can see where the reasoning lies, and don't agree.

But I don't think a 'reasonable' discussion and exchange of opinions is what you were REALLY after. Seems you were trying to do more to show how tough and macho you can be with words. To 'close the deal', so to speak, with your finalized comments. You've said all that anyone else needs to hear, given all the facts that they should care about, and the argument is now finished. You won. Right?

If that's the case, here's another point where I think your wrong.

Andreus Ixiris
Gallente
Mixed Metaphor
Posted - 2008.08.26 11:41:00 - [533]
 

Originally by: Ruze
Your, um, wrong. You know this, right? I live in hisec and do level 4 missions, and I'm complaining. Sorry to burst your bubble of opinion.


So you would intentionally inconvenience yourself over a vision of what EVE "should" be like?

Originally by: Ruze
You disagree with the point and opinions posted by others. From where I stand, neither you, nor they, are in any case 'wrong' due to their opinions. You obviously don't think it breaks or violates anything, and if you've read up on the massive number of posts on this topic, you can see where the reasoning lies, and don't agree.


Majority opinion is not a yardstick for being right. Remember when most people thought it was OK to drown spinsters?

Originally by: Ruze
But I don't think a 'reasonable' discussion and exchange of opinions is what you were REALLY after. Seems you were trying to do more to show how tough and macho you can be with words. To 'close the deal', so to speak, with your finalized comments. You've said all that anyone else needs to hear, given all the facts that they should care about, and the argument is now finished. You won. Right?

If that's the case, here's another point where I think your wrong.


How grandiose of you. But basically, here's the lynchpin:

Level 4s have been around a lot longer than, say, problems with nanofibres (or speed in general), or NOS, or whatever the module of the week is. If it was as big a problem as you seem to think, there's no way CCP wouldn't have done something about it by now. Talking of which, a not inconsiderable ammount of their income comes from people who do a lot of mission running in hi-sec. The traffic around Dodixie, Auvergne, Aunia and Motsu are fairly good indicators of this, paying host to, between them, roughly 1% of the active pilots online at any given time. Threads complaining about level 4 missions are nothing new, and you see them spring up pretty much every week, and then die a few days later - quite notably unlike level 4 missions in hi-sec.

It's a cruel, harsh and completely broken world in EVE where people can make respectable incomes in hi-sec, isn't it?

Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2008.08.26 11:50:00 - [534]
 

Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 26/08/2008 11:59:37
Originally by: Andreus Ixiris
Because the people who run level 4s in hi-sec are never the ones who complain about them. It's always, without exception, the people who stick to low-sec or 0.0 who whine about them.

To be fair, actually several of the key proponents of changes do mission. Unfortunately your point does seem to still apply to a lot of supporters. Regardless that shouldn't detract from the point they're trying to make (though it usually does) - argue it on the merits of the idea.
Originally by: Andreus Ixiris
If hi-sec mission runners were such a bad thing for the economy, it would be in much worse shape than it was now

Thankfully most haven't been stupid enough to try and allege that mission runners affect the economy in any dramatic way - a lot of the argument comes down to a difference in perception about how people should play the game.

Just for clarification's sake, as far as I know (and I don't claim to be an expert) the notion usually goes something like this: running missions injects ISK into the game. This is perfectly true, unfortunately many then go on to claim this is inflationary. There's two issues with this; firstly, ratting does exactly the same, and changes to missions could result in more ratting, so the argument falls into question right there, but secondly, ISK injection is not necessarily inflation. Early economic models assumed that money injection directly caused inflation, but today this is a subject of much debate amongst different schools. The generally agreed effect of inflation is 'it means a decline in the real value of money'.

Suffice it to say that whilstever prices are generally dropping (and they have dropped significantly even with the recent FW-related upturn), and thus 1 ISK actually buys more than it used to despite there being more of it, one struggles to argue that ISK generation has a serious negative economic impact in EVE. Conversely the mining vs mission loot discussion is an interesting one entirely unrelated to ISK, and worth discussing.

Edit: Equally to take a simplistic alternative tack, bear in mind that for comparison purposes, this would be like a country's money supply increasing, but equally the country's population exploding to something like 10-50 times what it previously was (depending on where you graphed from). This is why money injection is much worse in the real world than in EVE.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.08.26 11:58:00 - [535]
 

Originally by: Kahega Amielden
Quote:
7. Scanning down mission sites should be no different from scanning down a ship in empty space.


Agree with most everything except this. Missions in their current form force people to stay in one spot for long periods of time in a fit that is suboptimal for PVP.



There is a very strong case for the nature of missions to be completely changed even without changing the mission probing rules. The current "biggest tankiest BS you can get vs legions of dumb, predictable rat BS who all use the same damage type" model for kill -missions is a very large part of the problem.

Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.26 11:59:00 - [536]
 

Oh, it's another one of the "Didn't read the thread but I know everything anyway so I'll post"-guys. Well, I'm not all dried out yet, so I guess I can correct one more idiot.

Originally by: Andreus Ixiris
Level 4s have been around a lot longer than, say, problems with nanofibres (or speed in general), or NOS, or whatever the module of the week is. If it was as big a problem as you seem to think, there's no way CCP wouldn't have done something about it by now.


It wasn't a problem before. Earlier, level 4 missions where A: harder to solo, and B: less rewarding. Coupled with security boosts of high sec and nerfs of low sec, high sec missions are no longer just another profession. It's the required profession. That's imbalanced. That's why it needs change. Nanos wheren't a problem until everyone started using them. Same with NOS. Same with suicide ganks.

Originally by: Andreus Ixiris

Talking of which, a not inconsiderable ammount of their income comes from people who do a lot of mission running in hi-sec. The traffic around Dodixie, Auvergne, Aunia and Motsu are fairly good indicators of this, paying host to, between them, roughly 1% of the active pilots online at any given time.


The reason for this is easy to understand if you're not completely stupid. It's the best payed safe profession in the game. It pays almost as much as 0.0 ratting, and weighing in security, it's considerably better than 0.0 ratting. All this in safe space. It's imbalanced, and that's why so many people are doing it.

Originally by: Andreus Ixiris

Threads complaining about level 4 missions are nothing new, and you see them spring up pretty much every week, and then die a few days later - quite notably unlike level 4 missions in hi-sec.


This thread is a good indication that a lot of the player base has had enough and now demand changes. It's a game breaking mechanic, and it needs to be dealt with. Unlike other game breaking stuff like lag, this is easily fixed.

Originally by: Andreus Ixiris

It's a cruel, harsh and completely broken world in EVE where people can make respectable incomes in hi-sec, isn't it?


It's broken, but hardly cruel and harsh. It's the cruelness and harshness we are trying to reestablish.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.08.26 12:00:00 - [537]
 

Originally by: Andreus Ixiris
But basically, here's the lynchpin:

Level 4s have been around a lot longer than, say, problems with nanofibres (or speed in general), or NOS, or whatever the module of the week is. If it was as big a problem as you seem to think, there's no way CCP wouldn't have done something about it by now.



Um...


..you are being ironic, right?

Ruze
Amarr
Next Stage Initiative
Posted - 2008.08.26 12:00:00 - [538]
 

First, the answer is yes. I play the game as much because I love the game, as because I want to win. Many points in the past I have used mechanics that I have felt were exploitations, but as they were generally accepted, I continued to use them.

I use alts, both regular account and trial accounts, for the purpose of spying, gathering intel, and riskless labor. I view these as exploits and generally bad for the game, and have spoken many times that I felt it was bad, but I'm not going to lie and say that I am all 'high and mighty' and above using them myself.

Nanos. Stabs. Blobbing. Hisec missions.



This is a hard principle for many to understand. I'm not some saint who never does wrong, yadda yadda yadda. I'll use what it takes to win, just like the next guy. But I don't lie to myself, either. If I'm using what it takes to win, and it feels imbalanced as hell, I'll say it. 'Shoot myself in the foot?' Only if you value the 'win' above the 'game', so to speak.

And on the second no, by no means do the posts on these forums represent majority opinion. I am wholeheartedly against using 'democracy' as a scale for developers. I don't care if more people seem to complain about a topic, and I sure to hell hope the devs don't, either. Because we all know how to use alts, we all know how to market 'opinion'.

The only thing to do is to try to post a reasonable suggestion, give your opinion and what information you want to back it up with, and go from there. The only reason I argue with people is because it's fun. Else, everything is said in the first post or first page that needs to be said to CCP. They don't even have to read replies, which I'm sure they are aware are full of flames and hate and violence. If it catches their attention and makes them see something in a new light, they have more means of verifying with 'facts', than anything else.

See, I don't believe that whining actually causes fixes. CCP has had a great record of turning the fixes back over on the whiners, anyway. I just think whining catches attention. As I think it should. Whether it's a reasonable argument or not, is up to CCP to decide.

Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2008.08.26 12:03:00 - [539]
 

Edited by: Astria Tiphareth on 26/08/2008 12:07:36
Originally by: Malcanis
There is a very strong case for the nature of missions to be completely changed even without changing the mission probing rules. The current "biggest tankiest BS you can get vs legions of dumb, predictable rat BS who all use the same damage type" model for kill -missions is a very large part of the problem.

Too right. Change that and we are in a far better situation to discuss alternative placement/rewards for missions.

However, for every pure mission runner who wants variety and interest in their missions, you'll meet a fair few pure PvPers who want a stable, easy-to-predict money supply. Me, I'm somewhere in-between. Whatever is done is going to face an uphill battle from someone.

Edit: The proponents of this stupid 'PvE vs PvP' side-debate do realise it's the PvPers that treat missions as a stable cash-cow, and almost every week a pure PvEer is in Features and Ideas asking for harder missions and more variety?

Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
Posted - 2008.08.26 12:05:00 - [540]
 

Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
This thread is a good indication that a lot of the player base has had enough and now demand changes.

As Ruze has commented before, would people stop trying to claim the majority high-ground here please? We're all entitled to our opinion but if you total up the number of posters in this thread, it maybe comes to 100-200, out of 200000 accounts. Less than 0.1%. Nobody here can claim their point is the majority one.


Pages: first : previous : ... 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 ... : last (43)

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