open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked CCP fails at moving people to 0.0
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (15)

Author Topic

Daemonspirit
Six Degrees of Separation
Posted - 2009.12.09 12:08:00 - [211]
 

Edited by: Daemonspirit on 09/12/2009 12:12:13
Originally by: Tippia
No, the highsec dwellers won't move in either scenario, but the nullsec dwellers might, and that's a good start… But at the same time, "a good start" isn't really lofty enough a goal to ruin the economy over, so a combined nerf+buff to create the same kind of income disparity between the two areas is the only reasonable way to go.


I agree with you. 0.0 should provide rewards better than Hi-Sec.

I feel though, that to make that viable, the individual rewards in 0.0 are going to have to be extremely buffed because it is so easy to disrupt money making activities in 0.0. The ability to have a "safe" zone to make isk in, without the worry of being interrupted (hi-sec), will always be a powerful draw -out- of 0.0.

To overcome that safety factor, the rewards available in hi-sec would have to be nerfed 50% or more (across the board: Industry, Market, Exploration, Missions - EVERYTHING), or the rewards in 0.0 buffed by that much, or some combination of the two. Buffing rewards by that much would cause inflation, and nerfing hi-sec that much would negatively impact a lot of players besides the 0.0 MR alts. Negatively enough to make them leave? I dunno... But I suspect some.

How much nerf would Hi-Sec dwellers tolerate? I don't know, but there are a ton of people who don't want to be in a 0.0 power block, who don't want to put their gear into stations they might loose access to, who don't feel that 0.0 is interesting to them or (to be blunt) aren't attracted to the kinds of things that made Band of Brothers a historical footnote.

(Not being snide here - just pointing out that meta-gaming does NOT appeal to some people.)

There is also quite a big disincentive to moving to 0.0 in the perception of the "'leet pvp'rs" running these alliances, or in the fleets or FC'ing (whatever). People don't have to put up with "attitude", and so don't. CCP can say "HTFU", but people don't have to.

Eve started out as a "pure" pvp game. No hi-sec, no sec status, no concord, nada! It didn't do bad, but CCP (obviously) needed Eve to do better. So, to get the numbers they needed, they created "safer" space, police and all that goes with that.

This "safer" space brought in the numbers CCP needed to keep the game going, but brought in a new kind of player. Those players interests are just as valid as the 0.0 sov holders. That is where a lot of the friction comes from in threads like these - 0.0 people want more people in their corp/alliance as friends, and or more people out in 0.0 as targets, and the Hi-Sec people aren't interested, not motivated enough or don't want to be a cog in someone else's machine.



My personal belief is that 0.0 alliances, to get the people *out* of hi-sec, and into 0.0 need to create some kind of mechanism to train people up and move them. Hi-sec corps that take people in, train them up, assist them in getting isk and starting ships and then move them either to low-sec or directly to 0.0.

I don't have a good answer, but I don't believe that people can be "forced" to move out to 0.0 (if they don't already want to go).


(Edit - Sorry that turned into a WoT).





Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2009.12.09 12:27:00 - [212]
 

The reluctance for players to move out of high sec to 0.0 is already well understood. Nobody is throwing any new light on this subject here.

It's apparent that CCP don't want to advantage, or disadvantage any one group of play styles - hence why they are looking to create 'equal' rewards in both high sec and 0.0.

If players want more migration to 0.0 then it must be achieved by the players themselves, which means a radical shift in philosphy by the current .0 inhabitants. Currently the .0 Alliance population is predominantly (there are exceptions) elitist and 'non carebear friendly'. Unless this attitude changes (unlikely) then the current demographics will remain the same.

C.


Mad templar
Posted - 2009.12.09 12:34:00 - [213]
 

high sec mission running is good, but it has limit of 40-45mil isk per hour using one alt. You can't get more doesn't matter what ship you fly and what your skills are. Dunno how about factional missions. And in 0.0 sec there are many ways to get much more, that 40 mil an hour. And even more, most succesful PVP players I've met in 0.0 are at the same time either traders or experienced carebears, making 70-100 mil an hour in that or tha way. And its just cause thay are not laisy to look for new and better carebearing possibilities and not stick to ratting on belts.

Gun Gal
Posted - 2009.12.09 12:36:00 - [214]
 

If players want more migration to 0.0 then it must be achieved by the players themselves, which means a radical shift in philosphy by the current .0 inhabitants. Currently the .0 Alliance population is predominantly (there are exceptions) elitist and 'non carebear friendly'. Unless this attitude changes (unlikely) then the current demographics will remain the same.

------------------------------------------------------------

you guys still dont frikin get it.

its you that has to change, band together to move to 0.0 not those allready their.

you have played too much WoW type games and your philosophy is all screwed up. you guys have to grow a pair, thats all there is to it.

and frankly, some of eves biggest carebears live in 0.0. just look at the north


MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.12.09 12:38:00 - [215]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
blah blah... i know science you dont blah blah you're baptist blah blah me bettar dan U
Laughing See? I can do that too :P.

The only one that doesn't accept "the science" is you and a few other vocal minority. You're willing to bring this game to ****s and sacrifice a portion of its playerbase (ie carebears) to streamline it. You call me a southern baptist unwilling to accept [insert your rant here]. But in reality the one unwilling to yield and the one looking to shove its ideologies upon others is you. Here's a novel thought: Let others play the game how they want to and you stop trying to shove your religion on them. Could you even possibly do this? :P


Stu Pid
Posted - 2009.12.09 12:50:00 - [216]
 

Originally by: Gun Gal
If players want more migration to 0.0 then it must be achieved by the players themselves, which means a radical shift in philosphy by the current .0 inhabitants. Currently the .0 Alliance population is predominantly (there are exceptions) elitist and 'non carebear friendly'. Unless this attitude changes (unlikely) then the current demographics will remain the same.

------------------------------------------------------------

you guys still dont frikin get it.

its you that has to change, band together to move to 0.0 not those allready their.

you have played too much WoW type games and your philosophy is all screwed up. you guys have to grow a pair, thats all there is to it.

and frankly, some of eves biggest carebears live in 0.0. just look at the north




No it seems you dont get it as it is what he says. Now a carebear goes into low sec and he will be attacked as soon he is in sight just because their is a target in sight, no other reason, not even that he looked funny at them.

So carebears just dont enter low sec. If on the other hand the low sec habitants reduce their aggressivity and thirst for blood then you might actually achieve that more will move into low sec.

Ryoji Tanakama
Caldari
Indicium Technologies
Hephaestus Forge Alliance
Posted - 2009.12.09 12:58:00 - [217]
 

Edited by: Ryoji Tanakama on 09/12/2009 12:58:25
Originally by: Gun Gal
you guys still dont frikin get it.

its you that has to change, band together to move to 0.0 not those allready their.

you have played too much WoW type games and your philosophy is all screwed up. you guys have to grow a pair, thats all there is to it.

and frankly, some of eves biggest carebears live in 0.0. just look at the north




This post is awesome.

Virtual space bigots?

Real Edit: Virtual space dyslexia.

Santiago Fahahrri
Gallente
Galactic Geographic
Posted - 2009.12.09 13:00:00 - [218]
 

Originally by: Rordan D'Kherr
Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri
My corp has done it many times, and none of the pilots we taught have ever moved back to empire space.


... because ISK is not a requirement or need for them I guess.


From the exact same post you partially quoted:

Originally by: Santiago Fahahrri

There are small groups in deep 0.0 who make excellent isk through mostly PVE activities and who do not participate in sov wars.


Hey, if you've already made up your mind I don't care to convince you. I'm just telling my experience from about 4 years of 0.0 living.

Fer DeLance
Posted - 2009.12.09 13:00:00 - [219]
 

I think all of us must understand that EVE is actually two different games. There is Empire, and there is 0.0+Low Sec (low sec has actually become 0.0, especially after so many months of factional warefare, where at some point, all players involved have turned into pirates, shooting at anything that passes by, warfare or not).

The way i see it, Empire is the real game. If you want to make isk, you have to invest in time. With a little brain, you can keep out of trouble if you wish, while it takes tacticks and strategy to kill anyone. If you want to PvP you can wardec. Basically you can do anything you desire...

Now 0.0 and Low-sec are the fun side of the same game. Suitable for a few hours of enjoyment, suitable for people who just want to pew-pew a few hours a week... Huge blobs, where the possibility of being primaried is reduced, and possibility of shooting one shot to the victim before they die makes you a winner... I don't know why anyone would call this PvP, i think it's just the fun side of EvE.

If CCP nerfs Empire, not only will they loose some players that enjoy the sophisticated empire space more than 0.0, but they will also loose players that use empire alts to found their losses in 0.0. Because, don't fool yourselves, you can't really make isk in 0.0. Before you go to the next belt, there is a stranger in the system... before he leaves, CEO call everyone for an opereration etc etc.. add to that real life problems, and inevidable losses, and there you go, no isk made...

The actuall problem here is "please please please, make them jump in to our blob, because we hate missioning, we don't have much time on our hands, we don't want to put any effort in making isk in any possible way, we want victims now now now, so please make them jump in, if possible into their big fat mission running ships, thank you God, thank you CCP..."




Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2009.12.09 13:02:00 - [220]
 

Originally by: Gun Gal
If players want more migration to 0.0 then it must be achieved by the players themselves, which means a radical shift in philosphy by the current .0 inhabitants. Currently the .0 Alliance population is predominantly (there are exceptions) elitist and 'non carebear friendly'. Unless this attitude changes (unlikely) then the current demographics will remain the same.

------------------------------------------------------------

you guys still dont frikin get it.

its you that has to change, band together to move to 0.0 not those allready their.

you have played too much WoW type games and your philosophy is all screwed up. you guys have to grow a pair, thats all there is to it.

and frankly, some of eves biggest carebears live in 0.0. just look at the north




Unfortunately for you I do 'get it' as Im not a carebear. Ive lived in Low Sec or .0.0 for the vast majority of my time in game.

C.


Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2009.12.09 13:10:00 - [221]
 

Originally by: Darth Satanicus
Could someone please explain what this 'problem' is with high sec mission runners? I see them all the time and they never seem to cause anyone any problems, least of all people who are 40 odd jumps away doing 0.0 things. ugh


They have too much money, never lose stuff an thus pull prices for some stuff way too high. If not for mission runners hogging the supply it would be semi reasonable to PvP in a Gist-X tanked Sleip but thanks to our mission running pals it's of the realm of the super rich to do so.

The fact you got to be an idiot to lose a ship in a L4 (ok, it happened to me, but I was being an idiot) completely put mod value off the wall, as people don't have to do a value/risk assesment, as risk is nil (well, thanks to suicide gank not completely).

That's my main issue with people only running missions, they put modules on their safe pimpmobiles that would be better used on PvP ships.

Ryoji Tanakama
Caldari
Indicium Technologies
Hephaestus Forge Alliance
Posted - 2009.12.09 13:20:00 - [222]
 

Originally by: Lubomir Penev

They have too much money, never lose stuff an thus pull prices for some stuff way too high. If not for mission runners hogging the supply it would be semi reasonable to PvP in a Gist-X tanked Sleip but thanks to our mission running pals it's of the realm of the super rich to do so.

The fact you got to be an idiot to lose a ship in a L4 (ok, it happened to me, but I was being an idiot) completely put mod value off the wall, as people don't have to do a value/risk assesment, as risk is nil (well, thanks to suicide gank not completely).

That's my main issue with people only running missions, they put modules on their safe pimpmobiles that would be better used on PvP ships.


Yes... their never losing stuff, never replacing any ships or modules, and having no risk drives up market demand!

PvPers losing ships, creating demand, replacing ships, reducing supply <--- the source of inflation.

Oh... and the limit on the number of modules is based on the number of players producing them (including faction mods). So you can fit any module a mission runner can.

You make no sense.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.12.09 13:28:00 - [223]
 

Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Originally by: Malcanis
blah blah... i know science you dont blah blah you're baptist blah blah me bettar dan U
Laughing See? I can do that too :P.

The only one that doesn't accept "the science" is you and a few other vocal minority. You're willing to bring this game to ****s and sacrifice a portion of its playerbase (ie carebears) to streamline it.



Again, prove it. Come on, if "all" my posts are in this spirit, it shouldn't be so difficult for you. I'm not interested in this "vocal minority"; I will only answer for what I say.

This is the third time I've asked you to back up your accusations. Are you going to try and weasel out of doing it again?

Wesfahrn
WESCORP 2.0
Posted - 2009.12.09 13:39:00 - [224]
 

Can someone explain to me what the problem is again? So some people like to do high-sec stuff, others like to do low-sec, or 0.0 stuff.

But why should CCP actively pursue driving more players in 0.0?

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.12.09 13:40:00 - [225]
 

Originally by: Fer DeLance

The actuall problem here is "please please please, make them jump in to our blob, because we hate missioning, we don't have much time on our hands, we don't want to put any effort in making isk in any possible way, we want victims now now now, so please make them jump in, if possible into their big fat mission running ships, thank you God, thank you CCP..."



That's about as helpful as would me saying something like 'the actual problem here is "please please please dont nerf my empire macro income, I need to sell those iskies"'.

IE: not very. This IS NOT about MOAR EASY TARGET LULZ STOOPIT BEARZ. This is about balance, and economic balance is even more important than nanoships or Falcons or motherships ever were.

Industrialists and miners in 0.0 face a huge array of disadvantages compared to their brothers in hi-sec. Would you care to dispute that?

Therefore there needs to be some re-balancing, whether it be making hi-sec more expensive, or 0.0 richer, or some combination of both. Would you care to dispute that?

Hi-sec missioning gets mentioned over and over again in these disputes because it is by far the richest PvE income source in hi-sec - many times more lucrative than belt mining or belt ratting or anomalies, in addition to being an unlimited, uncontested resource. Would you care to dispute that?

So as you correctly state CCP can either boost everything esle to match missioning, or scale the rewards of missioning back to match, or they can leave the situation as it is and keep lo-sec & 0.0 a wasteland. Would you care to dispute that?

Boink'urr
Minmatar
Wasserette De Tarthorst
Posted - 2009.12.09 13:55:00 - [226]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Fer DeLance

The actuall problem here is "please please please, make them jump in to our blob, because we hate missioning, we don't have much time on our hands, we don't want to put any effort in making isk in any possible way, we want victims now now now, so please make them jump in, if possible into their big fat mission running ships, thank you God, thank you CCP..."



That's about as helpful as would me saying something like 'the actual problem here is "please please please dont nerf my empire macro income, I need to sell those iskies"'.

IE: not very. This IS NOT about MOAR EASY TARGET LULZ STOOPIT BEARZ. This is about balance, and economic balance is even more important than nanoships or Falcons or motherships ever were.

Industrialists and miners in 0.0 face a huge array of disadvantages compared to their brothers in hi-sec. Would you care to dispute that?

Therefore there needs to be some re-balancing, whether it be making hi-sec more expensive, or 0.0 richer, or some combination of both. Would you care to dispute that?

Hi-sec missioning gets mentioned over and over again in these disputes because it is by far the richest PvE income source in hi-sec - many times more lucrative than belt mining or belt ratting or anomalies, in addition to being an unlimited, uncontested resource. Would you care to dispute that?

So as you correctly state CCP can either boost everything esle to match missioning, or scale the rewards of missioning back to match, or they can leave the situation as it is and keep lo-sec & 0.0 a wasteland. Would you care to dispute that?


Wait what? This is about 0.0 industrialists all of a sudden?

Stu Pid
Posted - 2009.12.09 13:55:00 - [227]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Fer DeLance

The actuall problem here is "please please please, make them jump in to our blob, because we hate missioning, we don't have much time on our hands, we don't want to put any effort in making isk in any possible way, we want victims now now now, so please make them jump in, if possible into their big fat mission running ships, thank you God, thank you CCP..."



That's about as helpful as would me saying something like 'the actual problem here is "please please please dont nerf my empire macro income, I need to sell those iskies"'.

IE: not very. This IS NOT about MOAR EASY TARGET LULZ STOOPIT BEARZ. This is about balance, and economic balance is even more important than nanoships or Falcons or motherships ever were.

Industrialists and miners in 0.0 face a huge array of disadvantages compared to their brothers in hi-sec. Would you care to dispute that?

Therefore there needs to be some re-balancing, whether it be making hi-sec more expensive, or 0.0 richer, or some combination of both. Would you care to dispute that?

Hi-sec missioning gets mentioned over and over again in these disputes because it is by far the richest PvE income source in hi-sec - many times more lucrative than belt mining or belt ratting or anomalies, in addition to being an unlimited, uncontested resource. Would you care to dispute that?

So as you correctly state CCP can either boost everything esle to match missioning, or scale the rewards of missioning back to match, or they can leave the situation as it is and keep lo-sec & 0.0 a wasteland. Would you care to dispute that?


So in low sec you cant find good complexes and good loot which you can sell for loads of iskies to a carebear.

In low sec there are plenty of resources to make a hell lot more cash then you can in save space empire and that industrial and mining aint as easy making profit as in save space you cant make any cash ratting in belts in save space on the other hand.


oolk
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2009.12.09 14:00:00 - [228]
 

Edited by: oolk on 09/12/2009 14:00:48
Perhaps because we love to play without lag,perhaps we hate to be blobbed...

Its fun to blob a single ship,its not fun the get blobbed by 2+...there is no more 1v1 in EvE...so a lot of people are put off by PvPPPPP.

Myself,every time I get kill rights vs somebody,they either log for a month (rest assure I check every damn day,no matter where they are I'll go get them)or are in a 12 men gang in low sec.

0.0 alliances have a firm hold on the space,if you dont run into the roaming patrols,you run into their enemies.

Now tell me,how are we suppose to be drawn by 0.0 or even pvp for that matter.

Fer DeLance
Posted - 2009.12.09 14:04:00 - [229]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Fer DeLance

The actuall problem here is "please please please, make them jump in to our blob, because we hate missioning, we don't have much time on our hands, we don't want to put any effort in making isk in any possible way, we want victims now now now, so please make them jump in, if possible into their big fat mission running ships, thank you God, thank you CCP..."



That's about as helpful as would me saying something like 'the actual problem here is "please please please dont nerf my empire macro income, I need to sell those iskies"'.

IE: not very. This IS NOT about MOAR EASY TARGET LULZ STOOPIT BEARZ. This is about balance, and economic balance is even more important than nanoships or Falcons or motherships ever were.

Industrialists and miners in 0.0 face a huge array of disadvantages compared to their brothers in hi-sec. Would you care to dispute that?

Therefore there needs to be some re-balancing, whether it be making hi-sec more expensive, or 0.0 richer, or some combination of both. Would you care to dispute that?

Hi-sec missioning gets mentioned over and over again in these disputes because it is by far the richest PvE income source in hi-sec - many times more lucrative than belt mining or belt ratting or anomalies, in addition to being an unlimited, uncontested resource. Would you care to dispute that?

So as you correctly state CCP can either boost everything esle to match missioning, or scale the rewards of missioning back to match, or they can leave the situation as it is and keep lo-sec & 0.0 a wasteland. Would you care to dispute that?

Oh.
No need to despute anything.... just move out of 0.0 and there are your problems solved. Simple enough?

Santiago Fahahrri
Gallente
Galactic Geographic
Posted - 2009.12.09 14:06:00 - [230]
 

Edited by: Santiago Fahahrri on 09/12/2009 14:06:41
Originally by: oolk


0.0 alliances have a firm hold on the space,if you dont run into the roaming patrols,you run into their enemies.



Nope. There's plenty of room and free space. We consistently get plenty of free time, unharrased by alliances, to explore, rat, salvage, whatever. Sure, there are some systems where this isn't possible .. but they are the minority of the systems out there.

The alliances don't control anything outside of the range of their guns, and solar systems are very big places.

Wet Ferret
Posted - 2009.12.09 14:08:00 - [231]
 

Edited by: Wet Ferret on 09/12/2009 14:09:07
Originally by: Malcanis
Industrialists and miners in 0.0 face a huge array of disadvantages compared to their brothers in hi-sec. Would you care to dispute that?


Heh, yeah. Killmail fapping losers will shoot anything for no reason, especially if it can't fight back so there you go. Trade and industry has always been better in highsec and that will never change until the game mechanics themselves are drastically changed. There's plenty of trade in low-sec, I wonder why... could it be because every gate isn't a bubble camped death trap?

Quote:
Therefore there needs to be some re-balancing, whether it be making hi-sec more expensive, or 0.0 richer, or some combination of both. Would you care to dispute that?


Some minor changes needed, that's all. How about we make lowsec missions pay out 50% more and nullsec double what highsec missions pay out? Rolling Eyes

But I've already suggested the best highsec mission fix that would make it a competitive profession as well as preserve the content for those who enjoy doing it. Hasn't been implemented yet, so as far as I'm concerned things must be fine as they are.

Quote:
Hi-sec missioning gets mentioned over and over again in these disputes because it is by far the richest PvE income source in hi-sec - many times more lucrative than belt mining or belt ratting or anomalies, in addition to being an unlimited, uncontested resource. Would you care to dispute that?


Too easy. Take the "PvP" part of missioning out of the equation and you end up with crap pay, given the investment and SP needed to do it effectively. That means no LP (the majority of mission income figures), no loot and no salvage. Have fun topping out at about 20m/hour average.

Or if you want to include trading as part of the reason level 4s "pay too much" then it'd only be fair to look at the most profitable profession in game... highsec pure trading. Which, apparently, isn't a problem?

Quote:
So as you correctly state CCP can either boost everything esle to match missioning, or scale the rewards of missioning back to match, or they can leave the situation as it is and keep lo-sec & 0.0 a wasteland. Would you care to dispute that?


Lowsec and 0.0 have been a 'wasteland' since I started playing in '05 (and I enjoyed ratting up 30m/hour in any system of my choosing in the vast swathes of empty nullsec in Syndicate for the better part of a year, for what that's worth). 'Leaving the situation as is' may leave 0.0 a wasteland, but it wouldn't be what's keeping it that way.

failquote fixed

Anvalor
Gallente
Germania Inc.
D0GMA
Posted - 2009.12.09 14:15:00 - [232]
 

Some nooblets still do not get it after all those years. It is wasted time to argue about how other people play the game. If they want to stay in empire and do not like risking their stuff in low sec and 0.0 then what reason do they have to come to 0.0 for example.

I live in 0.0 mostly and i do not want those kind of people to come there, because they are no reall targets. They dock and cloak or log when you enter the system. I want people to come to 0.0 who are interested in pvp only.

So mission runners and miners, please stay in empire and make sure i can buy my t1 battleships and battlecruisers for less money than the insurance payout is. And ignore people who do not like how you play the game you pay for.

Lubomir Penev
Dark Nexxus
S I L E N T.
Posted - 2009.12.09 14:21:00 - [233]
 

Originally by: Ryoji Tanakama

Yes... their never losing stuff, never replacing any ships or modules, and having no risk drives up market demand!



It drives up market demand on pimp stuff, just because they know they won't lose it so their is no cost/risk equation to take in account.

Quote:

PvPers losing ships, creating demand, replacing ships, reducing supply <--- the source of inflation.



Driving up demand on cost effective modules yes, off which mission runners excluded for example about every pimp active shield tanking module.

Quote:

Oh... and the limit on the number of modules is based on the number of players producing them (including faction mods). So you can fit any module a mission runner can.



When one fit a module on a PvP ship he does a bit of cost/effectiveness assessment, something mission runners don't have the module is an investment but is unlikely to be blown up so not really an expense.

Quote:

You make no sense.


I do, look at prices for faction gear that is only used in PvP (e.g. disruptors, neutralizers) and on one some mission runner favorite, like shield tanking faction gear. You'll understand my position better. Mission runners take some prices high for everyone.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.12.09 14:23:00 - [234]
 

Originally by: Wet Ferret


Quote:
Therefore there needs to be some re-balancing, whether it be making hi-sec more expensive, or 0.0 richer, or some combination of both. Would you care to dispute that?


Some minor changes needed, that's all. How about we make lowsec missions pay out 50% more and nullsec double what highsec missions pay out? Rolling Eyes


How the hell will that help miners or industrialists? I'd be fascinated to learn from such a penetrating intellect as yours.

"Rolling Eyes"

Wet Ferret
Posted - 2009.12.09 14:26:00 - [235]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Wet Ferret


Quote:
Therefore there needs to be some re-balancing, whether it be making hi-sec more expensive, or 0.0 richer, or some combination of both. Would you care to dispute that?


Some minor changes needed, that's all. How about we make lowsec missions pay out 50% more and nullsec double what highsec missions pay out? Rolling Eyes


How the hell will that help miners or industrialists? I'd be fascinated to learn from such a penetrating intellect as yours.

"Rolling Eyes"


It wouldn't change anything. Because that's already how it is.

But you knew that. Right?

MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.12.09 14:27:00 - [236]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Originally by: Malcanis
blah blah... i know science you dont blah blah you're baptist blah blah me bettar dan U
Laughing See? I can do that too :P.

The only one that doesn't accept "the science" is you and a few other vocal minority. You're willing to bring this game to ****s and sacrifice a portion of its playerbase (ie carebears) to streamline it.



Again, prove it. Come on, if "all" my posts are in this spirit, it shouldn't be so difficult for you. I'm not interested in this "vocal minority"; I will only answer for what I say.

This is the third time I've asked you to back up your accusations. Are you going to try and weasel out of doing it again?
You did it on this VERY THREAD. Laughing.

And here you are lying, claiming that most 0.0 alliances, yours included according to you, are actually desperate for miners and other carebears. But that hi sec miners just aren't taking you up on your offer because the veldspar in hi sec is so much better Rolling Eyes.
Originally by: Malcanis
Sadly, we can't match the huge subsidies that high sec offers; free stations, no sov costs, free 23/7 protection, better refining, etc etc., so we only have a very few.
That's just priceless Laughing.
Let's see:
Free stations? WTF? Does your alliance charge its members to dock? Or are you referring to the "free refining" that isn't so free in hi sec?

And where is this effort your alliance has put forth in acquiring miners? Rolling Eyes Show me your alliance's desperate attempt in getting miners into 0.0. What have you offered them to entice them into 0.0? Go ahead, feel free to make the offer here. Lay it on the table.


MatrixSkye Mk2
Minmatar
Posted - 2009.12.09 14:32:00 - [237]
 

Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2 on 09/12/2009 14:40:06
Originally by: Malcanis
That's about as helpful as would me saying something like 'the actual problem here is "please please please dont nerf my empire macro income, I need to sell those iskies"'.

IE: not very. This IS NOT about MOAR EASY TARGET LULZ STOOPIT BEARZ. This is about balance, and economic balance is even more important than nanoships or Falcons or motherships ever were.

Industrialists and miners in 0.0 face a huge array of disadvantages compared to their brothers in hi-sec. Would you care to dispute that?

Therefore there needs to be some re-balancing, whether it be making hi-sec more expensive, or 0.0 richer, or some combination of both. Would you care to dispute that?

Hi-sec missioning gets mentioned over and over again in these disputes because it is by far the richest PvE income source in hi-sec - many times more lucrative than belt mining or belt ratting or anomalies, in addition to being an unlimited, uncontested resource. Would you care to dispute that?

So as you correctly state CCP can either boost everything esle to match missioning, or scale the rewards of missioning back to match, or they can leave the situation as it is and keep lo-sec & 0.0 a wasteland. Would you care to dispute that?

CCP has already come out and said the economy is pretty healthy. What problem exactly is it you're looking to fix?

And talk to your buddy Tippia. He happens to think that lo sec Lvl 4 FW missions are much more rewarding and easily accomplished than hi sec lvl 4s. He even went as far as saying there are pockets of systems in lo sec containing 400 players at any given time mining and missioning to their hearts' content. Go ahead and ask him. That is, unless you think your boy's lying and that was just said at the moment to try and get people into lo sec. Cuz you know, carebears are welcomed into lo sec and 0.0 with wide and open "arms", arms as in artilleries, bubbles, interdictors, and lasers.

The only place carebears are welcomed is in the other end of a killboard, as a trophy kill for a gank squad.


Morgals
Sturmgrenadier Inc
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2009.12.09 15:08:00 - [238]
 

Originally by: Cory Sopapilla
Everyone knows the majority of the ppl being whined about in lvl 4 missions are alts of ppl in 0.0. Until alliances take in miners/manufacturers in 0.0 it will stay this way.

Hopefully there will be a revival of something like Coalition of Free Stars.

not really i'm a missioner and it's hard to justify going to 0.0 when level 4's are easy secure isk.

there not hard to solo and once thats done not much to do. Only reason to go to 0.0 is for fun. Nothing else encourages me out there. i should want to go to 0.0 because the reward is worth the risk.

Stu Pid
Posted - 2009.12.09 15:14:00 - [239]
 

Originally by: Morgals

not really i'm a missioner and it's hard to justify going to 0.0 when level 4's are easy secure isk.

there not hard to solo and once thats done not much to do. .


Then its time ccp boost more interesting things in save space. Make more harder missions in save space, not directly the bounties and loot but more and harder lvl's for example sleeper style npc's.

Eliza Farcaster
Minmatar
Republic University
Posted - 2009.12.09 15:20:00 - [240]
 

High sec players are generally after money.
0.0 players are usually after a fight, a war, a cause.

Increase money in 0.0. This gives both parties a chance to be happy. People in 0.0 are losing stuff all the time, extra money there would only make things more interesting.

I dont see any problems with 0.0 players earning 10 times what high sec player earn in an hour. What does it matter to the players in high-sec that people taking risk with their ships earn more?


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (15)

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