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 : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : last (43)

Author Topic

TheEndofTheWorld
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.08.22 14:16:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Krxon Blade
Originally by: Mikal Drey

EVE whine generator
if you/anyone makes this spinable I'll give you 100mil



Spin-able EVE Whine generator
Donation is not necessary, but would be appreciated Very Happy

Not just /thread, but /forum, IMO.


Yeah, but where was this when the nano/suicidegank whines were at large?

Viqtoria
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2008.08.22 14:18:00 - [122]
 

The funny thing is this 'we' you speak of is an insignificant portion of the player base when it comes to filling ccp's pockets. you're never going to get level 4s nerfed

Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.22 14:21:00 - [123]
 

Originally by: Viqtoria
The funny thing is this 'we' you speak of is an insignificant portion of the player base when it comes to filling ccp's pockets. you're never going to get level 4s nerfed


No harm in trying. So far it's going pretty well. The CSM have started discussing the topic, so I feel changes are already in motion.

Mithrantir Ob'lontra
Gallente
Ixion Defence Systems
Sc0rched Earth
Posted - 2008.08.22 14:25:00 - [124]
 

Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
Originally by: Viqtoria
The funny thing is this 'we' you speak of is an insignificant portion of the player base when it comes to filling ccp's pockets. you're never going to get level 4s nerfed


No harm in trying. So far it's going pretty well. The CSM have started discussing the topic, so I feel changes are already in motion.



If you believe that CSM is capable of doing anything than only bringing up suggestions to CCP, you are gravely mistaken.


Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.22 14:28:00 - [125]
 

Originally by: Mithrantir Ob'lontra
If you believe that CSM is capable of doing anything than only bringing up suggestions to CCP, you are gravely mistaken.




I don't. However, the CSM WILL bring this up to CCP. CCP will then have to look at it seriously. They are then faced with the decision of wether to act as they have proclaimed, or to leave an imbalance in the game to placate wow-kiddies. That's the decision I'm personally the most interested in.

Faife
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.08.22 14:31:00 - [126]
 

Edited by: Faife on 22/08/2008 14:32:06
nerf 0.0 tbh. and piracy. too much money in piracy.

Candice Dice
Posted - 2008.08.22 14:37:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
Originally by: Mithrantir Ob'lontra
If you believe that CSM is capable of doing anything than only bringing up suggestions to CCP, you are gravely mistaken.




I don't. However, the CSM WILL bring this up to CCP. CCP will then have to look at it seriously. They are then faced with the decision of wether to act as they have proclaimed, or to leave an imbalance in the game to placate wow-kiddies. That's the decision I'm personally the most interested in.



Rolling EyesRolling EyesRolling Eyes

Your right! CCP should completely **** over the majority of the people and thus there income in order to please the loud minority becuase this and this alone makes perfect buisness sense!

Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.22 14:39:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Candice Dice

Your right! CCP should completely **** over the majority of the people and thus there income in order to please the loud minority becuase this and this alone makes perfect buisness sense!


It's called game balance.

Fakeedit: Almost forgot LaughingShockedCoolEmbarassedEvil or Very MadQuestionRolling EyesEmbarassedShockedCool

Ruze
Amarr
Next Stage Initiative
Posted - 2008.08.22 14:39:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: Viqtoria
The funny thing is this 'we' you speak of is an insignificant portion of the player base when it comes to filling ccp's pockets. you're never going to get level 4s nerfed


I love how you seem so ready to deem another part of the playerbase as 'insignificant'. How are they insignificant?

No portion of the playerbase should be more important or 'significant' than any other. And if 'marketing' is your scheme, please don't forget that there are more than one way to market and sell and build a powerful business. Selling to the 'broadest audience' is only one of those schemes, and though a few businesses have been successful with it, the majority that try, fail. (Examples? Kmart vs. Walmart)

Besides, I haven't seen any hard facts one way or the other saying that more players are pro-PvP or anti-PvP, etc, etc. Only FACTS I have seen was a release by the devs stating that approximately 50% of the playerbase spends the majority of their time in hisec.

Does this mean they are anti-pvp? Seems the word 'majority' would imply they leave hisec for various reasons, no? And in the same line of questionings, are they there for trading, do they enjoy missions, is it because hisec has the best money to be made at the least effort?

I don't know. But some of us have our own opinions. Obviously you have yours. Please don't try to call those who disagree with you 'insignificant' unless you are ready and willing to admit that there aren't facts to back up your claim.

Got facts? Show them. I'll happily admit I'm wrong.

Whineroy
Posted - 2008.08.22 14:44:00 - [130]
 

Edited by: Whineroy on 22/08/2008 14:45:51
Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette

I don't. However, the CSM WILL bring this up to CCP. CCP will then have to look at it seriously. They are then faced with the decision of wether to act as they have proclaimed, or to leave an imbalance in the game to placate wow-kiddies. That's the decision I'm personally the most interested in.



Sure, nerf L4s so that only lowsec L4 missions are good income... Just that at same time change NPCs and fix bounty hunting system so that "pirates" also get to enjoy the feeling of being victims while hunting for mission runners. After all, the concept of risk and reward has to apply to mission runners and pirates equally.

Oh, and CCP should force GTC traders to fly in lowsec for extended time while GTC trading. After all, making billions via GTC trade with zero risk to one's character goes directly against "risk and reward".

Karentaki
Gallente
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.08.22 14:45:00 - [131]
 

Edited by: Karentaki on 22/08/2008 14:45:48
Originally by: Matalino
Edited by: Matalino on 21/08/2008 21:30:43
Why do people keep talking about Risk vs Reward ratio when calling for nerfs against high sec mission?

It is pointless to talk about Risk vs Reward ratio when Risk is effectively zero.

It is not a matter of Risk vs Reward, it is a question of what level of reward should be possible with zero risk.

If you take away high-sec level 4 mission, people will simply move to the next most profitable zero-risk activity.

So the question is, how much should someone be able to make per hour with zero risk: being able to earn approx 20 million per hour sounds reasonable enough to me.

But if you think that is unreasable, how much do you think should be possible make with out taking any risk?


Finally, someone who understands the problem!

Obviously I can't give an exact figure, but I think that it should never be possible to make more ISK in highsec than a similar activity in low or null sec. Therefore, L4 missions should be balanced to be about 75% of the ISK you can make ratting in the worst areas of 0.0. I'm not sure, but I think this is somewhere a bit under 10 mill per hour, so 7 mill per hour sounds reasonable for L4 missions (including, LP, salvage, and bounties).

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2008.08.22 14:46:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
Quote:
Risk vs Reward.


Stopped reading here. This is pretty much an infallible indicator that whatever the poster is on about, they're entirely full of ****.


Well spotted.

Mithrantir Ob'lontra
Gallente
Ixion Defence Systems
Sc0rched Earth
Posted - 2008.08.22 14:55:00 - [133]
 

Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
Originally by: Mithrantir Ob'lontra
If you believe that CSM is capable of doing anything than only bringing up suggestions to CCP, you are gravely mistaken.




I don't. However, the CSM WILL bring this up to CCP. CCP will then have to look at it seriously. They are then faced with the decision of wether to act as they have proclaimed, or to leave an imbalance in the game to placate wow-kiddies. That's the decision I'm personally the most interested in.



First of the numbers i see from the pro-nerf crowd are wildly exaggerated and there is only a very very small percentage of the missioning population that maybe is able to make them. The mission farming is a problem i agree, but that is something that can be solved by other solutions and not by moving all lv4 agents to low sec/0.0

If you believe that CCP is not already looking at the various open issues (perceived imbalances) of the game, you are delusional. They have already made the low sec missioning more attractive by doubling the rewards one can gain, in relevance to high sec missioning. Also at the same patch they removed most of the lv4 agents in high sec, and relocated them in low sec

That removal had the outcome of creating mission hubs, since no one was interested in going to low sec with a missioning ship, in other words a disaster waiting to happen.

Level 4 missions are the best possible way for an income to someone who has mainly fighting skills trained and few or none in science or industry. I can accept the low risk argument (in high sec), but then again the low risk argument can be applied to 0.0 alliance space.

Maybe the rewards should be dumped down in 0.0 space that is hold by an alliance over a period of time too then?



Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:00:00 - [134]
 

Originally by: Whineroy

Sure, nerf L4s so that only lowsec L4 missions are good income... Just that at same time change NPCs and fix bounty hunting system so that "pirates" also get to enjoy the feeling of being victims while hunting for mission runners. After all, the concept of risk and reward has to apply to mission runners and pirates equally.


Totally agreed. Bounty hunting should be a prioritized fix. It will add dynamic to the game, and I'm sure everyone will welcom it.

Originally by: Whineroy

Oh, and CCP should force GTC traders to fly in lowsec for extended time while GTC trading. After all, making billions via GTC trade with zero risk to one's character goes directly against "risk and reward".


I agree that GTC trade is bad. However, it's something that is the only currently viable option for CCP to combat isk sellers. Find another way to solve that problem and GTCs can go out the window.

Exlegion
Caldari
Salva Veritate
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:02:00 - [135]
 

As long as piracy has the upper hand in low sec high sec space activities will remain more efficient and profitable; whether it be by completing level 4, level 3, level 2 missions, or simply mining veldspar. Carebears don't want to be daily targets. It just doesn't make financial sense to make 80 million one week and lose 200 million the following.

As soon as carebears enter low sec they'll be over-hunted... Again. Sending them right back to high sec where they can earn isk with a net profit. Most pirates want to play the bad guy. Very few want to play the good guy (anti-pirates). Before anything happens to high sec CCP needs to give better tools in combatting piracy, including fixes to the anti-pirate profession to encourage a better balance between it and piracy.



5pinDizzy
Amarr
Pillow Fighters Inc
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:05:00 - [136]
 

Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 22/08/2008 15:07:35

It might just be possible to keep everyone happy by buffing lowsec and nullsec much more instead.

Therefore letting inflation take it's course.

In effect, nerfing highsec level 4 missions, but not in a way that has all the mission runners foaming at the mouth, and brings the ship prices up away from the bottomed out insurance cap and makes the market a bit more free, no?

I certainly don't think we should be forcing people out of highsec, nor are we, but it's funny that term is used if you were to make low and nullsec much more profitable.

Just don't nerf the level 4's badly or then they are right you sort of are forcing them.

Lowsec is around about populated right for my liking, I don't care much for a carebear stampede nor would it happen.


Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:08:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: Whineroy
Edited by: Whineroy on 22/08/2008 14:45:51
Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette

I don't. However, the CSM WILL bring this up to CCP. CCP will then have to look at it seriously. They are then faced with the decision of wether to act as they have proclaimed, or to leave an imbalance in the game to placate wow-kiddies. That's the decision I'm personally the most interested in.



Sure, nerf L4s so that only lowsec L4 missions are good income... Just that at same time change NPCs and fix bounty hunting system so that "pirates" also get to enjoy the feeling of being victims while hunting for mission runners. After all, the concept of risk and reward has to apply to mission runners and pirates equally.

Oh, and CCP should force GTC traders to fly in lowsec for extended time while GTC trading. After all, making billions via GTC trade with zero risk to one's character goes directly against "risk and reward".


I think you'll find most PvPers, including Pirates, would dearly love to see the bounty system fixed.

Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:09:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: Mithrantir Ob'lontra

First of the numbers i see from the pro-nerf crowd are wildly exaggerated and there is only a very very small percentage of the missioning population that maybe is able to make them.


I make those numbers with a standard T1/T2 fitted Raven. It's not exaggerated at all.

Originally by: Mithrantir Ob'lontra

The mission farming is a problem i agree, but that is something that can be solved by other solutions and not by moving all lv4 agents to low sec/0.0


This I agree with. Much better would be to significantly nerf the rewards of high sec missions. This, coupled with an appropriate buff to low sec, and to a lesser extent 0.0, would be just the ticket.

Originally by: Mithrantir Ob'lontra

If you believe that CCP is not already looking at the various open issues (perceived imbalances) of the game, you are delusional. They have already made the low sec missioning more attractive by doubling the rewards one can gain, in relevance to high sec missioning. Also at the same patch they removed most of the lv4 agents in high sec, and relocated them in low sec


Low sec mission running does not give double rewards compared to high sec. Also, CCP has never removed 'most' level 4 agents to low sec.

Originally by: Mithrantir Ob'lontra

Level 4 missions are the best possible way for an income to someone who has mainly fighting skills trained and few or none in science or industry. I can accept the low risk argument (in high sec), but then again the low risk argument can be applied to 0.0 alliance space.


No, it can't, because the percieved 'safety' of nul-sec comes from hard working players making the space secure. Even then, they can't guarantee 100% safety like the one you find in high sec.

Originally by: Mithrantir Ob'lontra

Maybe the rewards should be dumped down in 0.0 space that is hold by an alliance over a period of time too then?


No. Why should it?


Exlegion
Caldari
Salva Veritate
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:09:00 - [139]
 

Edited by: Exlegion on 22/08/2008 15:14:36
I would also like to add that infinipoint warp scramblers make Level 4 missioning in low sec highly inefficient. It's highly improbable that a PVE battleship (the primary player ship against level 4 missions) survive a camped gate with an HIC present. Also, CCP should consider resetting NPC aggro when other units intrude on missions. As it stands a lone missioner has to fight off whatever NPC's remain aggroed plus whatever other player intruders show up. In some instances pirates need not even to warp scramble, web, or ECM as aggroed NPC's may already have the target pinned down with the above.



Mithrantir Ob'lontra
Gallente
Ixion Defence Systems
Sc0rched Earth
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:12:00 - [140]
 

Originally by: 5pinDizzy
Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 22/08/2008 15:07:35

It might just be possible to keep everyone happy by buffing lowsec and nullsec much more instead.

Therefore letting inflation take it's course.

In effect, nerfing highsec level 4 missions, but not in a way that has all the mission runners foaming at the mouth, and brings the ship prices up away from the bottomed out insurance cap and makes the market a bit more free, no?

I certainly don't think we should be forcing people out of highsec, nor are we, but it's funny that term is used if you were to make low and nullsec much more profitable.

Just don't nerf the level 4's badly or then they are right you sort of are forcing them.

Lowsec is around about populated right for my liking, I don't care much for a carebear stampede nor would it happen.




They don't have to nerf lv4 missions rewards or move lv4 agents in low sec/0.0

They can take measures to stop mission farming (that is taking missions from many agents in parallel, or respawning the NPCs every downtime, and i don't know what else there might be).

That is the main problem not the existence of missions in high security space.

Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:16:00 - [141]
 

Originally by: Mithrantir Ob'lontra

They don't have to nerf lv4 missions rewards or move lv4 agents in low sec/0.0

They can take measures to stop mission farming (that is taking missions from many agents in parallel, or respawning the NPCs every downtime, and i don't know what else there might be).

That is the main problem not the existence of missions in high security space.


No, that's not the main problem. The main problem is that the most beneficial means of aquiring isk is located in safe space.

5pinDizzy
Amarr
Pillow Fighters Inc
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:17:00 - [142]
 

lol, I've done that, rolled a very profitable kill storyline mission that took around 30 min but gave 20 mill in bounties alone.

I went to another agent and did that ones missions all the time, then farmed the storyline mission again after every downtime. Laughing

Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:18:00 - [143]
 

Originally by: Exlegion
Edited by: Exlegion on 22/08/2008 15:14:36
I would also like to add that infinipoint warp scramblers make Level 4 missioning in low sec highly inefficient. It's highly improbable that a PVE battleship (the primary player ship against level 4 missions) survive a camped gate with an HIC present. Also, CCP should consider resetting NPC aggro when other units intrude on missions. As it stands a lone missioner has to fight off whatever NPC's remain aggroed plus whatever other player intruders show up. In some instances pirates need not even to warp scramble, web, or ECM as aggroed NPC's may already have the target pinned down with the above.





You are aware that HICs where introduced as a counter to gate camping super caps in low sec after a massive whinefest on the forums about it, right? So, it was supposed to be another nerf to pirates. Well, lookit dat! That's done gone and bittne ye in the ass, hasn't it, boy?

Mikael Mechka
Gallente
Time Bandits.
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:20:00 - [144]
 

Originally by: Mithrantir Ob'lontra
Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
Originally by: Mithrantir Ob'lontra
If you believe that CSM is capable of doing anything than only bringing up suggestions to CCP, you are gravely mistaken.




I don't. However, the CSM WILL bring this up to CCP. CCP will then have to look at it seriously. They are then faced with the decision of wether to act as they have proclaimed, or to leave an imbalance in the game to placate wow-kiddies. That's the decision I'm personally the most interested in.



First of the numbers i see from the pro-nerf crowd are wildly exaggerated and there is only a very very small percentage of the missioning population that maybe is able to make them. The mission farming is a problem i agree, but that is something that can be solved by other solutions and not by moving all lv4 agents to low sec/0.0

If you believe that CCP is not already looking at the various open issues (perceived imbalances) of the game, you are delusional. They have already made the low sec missioning more attractive by doubling the rewards one can gain, in relevance to high sec missioning. Also at the same patch they removed most of the lv4 agents in high sec, and relocated them in low sec

That removal had the outcome of creating mission hubs, since no one was interested in going to low sec with a missioning ship, in other words a disaster waiting to happen.

Level 4 missions are the best possible way for an income to someone who has mainly fighting skills trained and few or none in science or industry. I can accept the low risk argument (in high sec), but then again the low risk argument can be applied to 0.0 alliance space.

Maybe the rewards should be dumped down in 0.0 space that is hold by an alliance over a period of time too then?





This is a very good point. Having skills in gunnery, etc really limits your method of money making to either mission running/piracy/ratting. The latter 2 carry moderate to extreme risks, and rely heavily on destroying ships to loot/salvage claim bounty from. They also rely on either other players being the victim or not interferring, which when it goes wrong severely cuts into you wallet. Now, missions, you blow stuff up, you get paid, what else do you expect someone with gunnery and relatively few other skills to do?

People need a reliable "safe" method of making isk (I put "safe" due to the fact it's not 100% safe, I personally lost my Mega on a L4 due to a client freeze a couple of months ago, and haven't bothered doing a L4 since), and if there isn't one, they will find one.
How are people with gunnery/salvage skills going to make isk if you nerf L4's? They will do L3's, nerf them, they'll do L2's in fast ships and blitz them, cue everyone moving to minmatar and amarr space to fight angels and sansha/blood raiders every other mission, and salvage in the hopes of melted caps and trit bars.

When I did L4's, I didn't make the insane amount people are saying runners earn, if I had, my wallet would look a HELL of a lot healthier than it does. No, I made maybe 10 mil in a mission, and I took my time. Most I've ever made on a single L4 is maybe 25mil, and for that one I think I had to call in a corp mate for remote rep assistance, too much dps. Quit waving these numbers as if they mean anything, we're not machines, some of us do other stuff besides running missions 23/7.

Personally, I invested a little into industry and make my own ships and modules for pvp, I also mine, and rat out in 0.0. Variety is the spice of life as they say.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:24:00 - [145]
 

Originally by: 5pinDizzy
Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 22/08/2008 15:07:35

It might just be possible to keep everyone happy by buffing lowsec and nullsec much more instead.

Therefore letting inflation take it's course.

In effect, nerfing highsec level 4 missions, but not in a way that has all the mission runners foaming at the mouth, and brings the ship prices up away from the bottomed out insurance cap and makes the market a bit more free, no?

I certainly don't think we should be forcing people out of highsec, nor are we, but it's funny that term is used if you were to make low and nullsec much more profitable.

Just don't nerf the level 4's badly or then they are right you sort of are forcing them.

Lowsec is around about populated right for my liking, I don't care much for a carebear stampede nor would it happen.




Actually, inflating our way out of the insurance problem would be an interesting idea... but too many other ISK sink prices would have to be raised to compensate. Changing virtually every other economic indicator in the game to avoid changing the numbers on 2 broken ISK sources seems a a bit silly. Lower insurance values 10-20% and reform missions so they pay more fun, items and intangibles (eg: ranks, standings, etc) and less ISK.

It's such a damb shame that people are so irrational about ratios. People are in effect saying that they don't at all mind Some Other Guy making twice as much ISK as them, but they'd rather quit than earn half as much ISK as him. What the hell, people?

Ruze
Amarr
Next Stage Initiative
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:28:00 - [146]
 

The real problem (as I see it) is lag generated by overly congested hisec systems, due in part to the profitability of hisec missioning (especially for older characters like myself, with great social skills and pimped out ships), the ease of hisec life (no annoying alliances, or having to defend the system, or being prevented from operating due to an annoying enemy), and the relevance of living near trade hubs.

But that's only one that everyone complains about. I'll list a few of them:

- Lag caused by overpopulated systems, which in turn create lag in nearly empty systems, as multiple systems usually exist on one node, meaning even a small mission system (average 20 members) can cause another dozen systems to receive poor performance.

- Mineral imbalances due to drone regions and mission loot reprocessing, causing veldspar to be one of the most profitable minerals for a miner to mine (which is also one of the most proliferate minerals in hisec, thus very easy to find and mine, with little effort involved in being secure).

- Missions are a unique resource in the EvE universe, as they are the only one that does not require competition and cannot be 'taken' from another player.

- Isk sellers, using macros to mine and mission with extreme profitability, usually using multiple accounts, running 24/7, and essentially free from any outsider aggressions.

- The pure number of players who require hisec missions in order to fund their ventures, be they PvP or other. The massive number of losec and nulsec players who find themselves in the same boat I am, whereas the ease and profitability of hisec so greatly outweighs anything else I might do.

Exlegion
Caldari
Salva Veritate
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:36:00 - [147]
 

Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette
Originally by: Exlegion
...


You are aware that HICs where introduced as a counter to gate camping super caps in low sec after a massive whinefest on the forums about it, right? So, it was supposed to be another nerf to pirates. Well, lookit dat! That's done gone and bittne ye in the ass, hasn't it, boy?



1. Irregardless of the reason they were introduced they are currently a deterrent to flying battleships in low sec.

2. I've never whined about capitals in low sec.

3. HIC's are contributing to the underpopulation of low sec. Not really something that's biting me in ass, as I could really care less whether pirates have more vulnerable targets to shoot at or not. In the long run, it won't be carebears complaining on how high sec needs a nerf because low sec is so underpopulated and unprofitable.



SurrenderMonkey
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:39:00 - [148]
 

Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 22/08/2008 15:46:59
Originally by: Karentaki
Edited by: Karentaki on 22/08/2008 14:45:48
Originally by: Matalino
Edited by: Matalino on 21/08/2008 21:30:43
Why do people keep talking about Risk vs Reward ratio when calling for nerfs against high sec mission?

It is pointless to talk about Risk vs Reward ratio when Risk is effectively zero.

It is not a matter of Risk vs Reward, it is a question of what level of reward should be possible with zero risk.

If you take away high-sec level 4 mission, people will simply move to the next most profitable zero-risk activity.

So the question is, how much should someone be able to make per hour with zero risk: being able to earn approx 20 million per hour sounds reasonable enough to me.

But if you think that is unreasable, how much do you think should be possible make with out taking any risk?


Finally, someone who understands the problem!

Obviously I can't give an exact figure, but I think that it should never be possible to make more ISK in highsec than a similar activity in low or null sec. Therefore, L4 missions should be balanced to be about 75% of the ISK you can make ratting in the worst areas of 0.0. I'm not sure, but I think this is somewhere a bit under 10 mill per hour, so 7 mill per hour sounds reasonable for L4 missions (including, LP, salvage, and bounties).


Hi. You're stupid. I bolded the exact statement that identifies you as stupid.

This statement makes you stupid because in several cases, it actually defies logic. Take, for instance, trading. You simply won't make as much money trading in low or null sec as you will in high sec because there aren't enough people to work in volume. You might pull better margins, but the ease of travel guarantees that you will never be able to increase margin to a point where you can beat out volume trading in a high sec trade hub, because at a certain profit margin (FAR beneath where you would need it to be), your buyers will simply go to high sec and buy it cheap. That's not even getting into the hassles involving logistics (and the time consumed, too).

Thus, without some form of wholly illogical mechanic (ludicrous taxes/fees, etc.) implemented to ensure that a wholly illogical circumstance comes about (all low-sec activity is more profitable than high-sec), some high-sec activities will always be more profitable.

This fairly well cuts the support out of arbitrarily making the best high sec activities worth only "75% of ratting in the worst 0.0 system".

Pro-tip: A good trader will make VASTLY more than that 10 million per hour you cite for bad null sec. Without ever undocking, at that.

Additionally, let's look a bit more closely at the aforementioned stupid statement: "I think that it should never be possible to make more ISK in highsec than a similar activity in low or null sec," as well as the statement that followed it: "Therefore, L4 missions should be balanced to be about 75% of the ISK you can make [/b]ratting in the worst areas of 0.0."

It's interesting to note that you can, in fact, mission in 0.0 space. Since you're sounding off about similar activities, I would say that mission running is much more similar to...well, mission running...than ratting is to mission running. About the only way mission running and ratting are similar is that both involve shooting things, which is fairly poor criteria.


Mithrantir Ob'lontra
Gallente
Ixion Defence Systems
Sc0rched Earth
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:40:00 - [149]
 

Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette


I make those numbers with a standard T1/T2 fitted Raven. It's not exaggerated at all.

Yes they are. Especially the ones above 40 millions per hour are indication of some good smoking stuff.


Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette

This I agree with. Much better would be to significantly nerf the rewards of high sec missions. This, coupled with an appropriate buff to low sec, and to a lesser extent 0.0, would be just the ticket.

No it's not, by stopping the mission farming the possible income of the people doing it is greatly reduced. Also the risk involved in doing lv4s without high SP is bigger than the one is implied here.

Low sec is not bad now. And the real problem of low sec is not the low rewards but the current mechanics that put the pirates always in an advantageous position. Especially against pve ships.

Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette

Low sec mission running does not give double rewards compared to high sec. Also, CCP has never removed 'most' level 4 agents to low sec.

Well i may be wrong, but i remember about a year or two ago, that this is what they did. Not doubling the rewards granted, but still they have the rewards increased for low sec missioning in comparison to high sec missioning. And they did remove most high quality lv4 agents from high security space.

Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette

No, it can't, because the percieved 'safety' of nul-sec comes from hard working players making the space secure. Even then, they can't guarantee 100% safety like the one you find in high sec.


That perceived safety is something that the Empires have also worked hard for according to the backstory, and whether you like it or not, this game has also a RPG element too. Not to mention that no matter what you say there is no 100% safety in high security space either. Everyone can bust a mission DS and kill the one doing it. Or steal from him by salvaging the wrecks, enjoying the same safety. Something that is not going to happen in low sec or 0.0, where the thief will be shot and/or podded.

But we are not taking that into account, are we?
Originally by: Maximillian Bayonette

Originally by: Mithrantir Ob'lontra

Maybe the rewards should be dumped down in 0.0 space that is hold by an alliance over a period of time too then?


No. Why should it?




Because there is that perceived safety, which helps people get rich very quick. The effect of the safety should be dumbing down the NPCs size and numbers, that cause trouble and force pod pilots to shoot them. (In RP terms this is true).

Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.22 15:44:00 - [150]
 

Originally by: Exlegion

1. Irregardless of the reason they were introduced they are currently a deterrent to flying battleships in low sec.

2. I've never whined about capitals in low sec.

3. HIC's are contributing to the underpopulation of low sec. Not really something that's biting me in ass, as I could really care less whether pirates have more vulnerable targets to shoot at or not. In the long run, it won't be carebears complaining on how high sec needs a nerf because low sec is so underpopulated and unprofitable.





It's just pretty ironic that useless carebears like yourself once again managed to whine themselves into a world of hurt. Brings back that whole jetcan-debacle Laughing

Of course, HICs aren't the reason for people staying out of low sec. It's another excuse for keeping their isk prints in high sec. I run around in low sec every day, and I have never once seens a HIC camp. Not once.


Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 ... : 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