open All Channels
seplocked Missions & Complexes
blankseplocked Do not nerf the highsec missions any more.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

Author Topic

eyeoffgod
Posted - 2011.04.10 19:11:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Irani Firecam
It makes complete sense for missions to follow the availability scale of cosmic anomalies by security status, such that:
1.0-0.8 level 1 missions
0.8-0.6 level 2 missions
0.6-0.4 level 3 missions
0.4-0.2 level 4 missions
0.2-0.0 level 5 missions


The above makes sense to me, although I would only have level 5 missions in 0.0, afterall CCP went through a lot of trouble to take sanctums and even haven's out of -0.1 to -0.2 and hub only compare to level 3 missions, so why the hell should CCP let you get level 4 missions in high sec?

CCP Spitfire


C C P
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2011.04.11 07:01:00 - [32]
 

Moved from 'EVE General Discussion'.


Fi1ippo
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2011.04.11 09:56:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: Fi1ippo on 11/04/2011 10:11:14
Originally by: Irani Firecam
It makes complete sense for missions to follow the availability scale of cosmic anomalies by security status, such that:
1.0-0.8 level 1 missions
0.8-0.6 level 2 missions
0.6-0.4 level 3 missions
0.4-0.2 level 4 missions
0.2-0.0 level 5 missions


They wont ever do this if they have common sense.

I might be new to this game, but not to MMOs. CCP should be trying to make it better for everyone envolved. Sure some people maintain the fact that they deserve more because they are risking more but, and heres the kicker, its your choice to risk more. Just like its joe shmoes choice to stay in hisec and run with less fear of being the victim of a pirate attack. Naturally people assume the higher the risk, the higher the reward...sure, that makes some sense...but think passed what you want personally and think of the other people playing this game who may not reach the level of skill and expertise to achieve those levels for rewards.

Plenty of mmos are converting into the carebear sector, star wars galaxies converted a long long time ago, and world of warcraft pretty recently. The most challenging loot, and rewards, still come from dedication to the game. That wont change. And you null sec grunts who think yourselves so high above everyone else will get better loot overall, but you wont be the only ones who have the 'chance' to get that loot, just with less risk which is what a lot of ppl want. 'LESS' risk, not zero risk. While i dont think CCP will go as far, they have to make some comprommise in order to gain more subscribers and keep the current ones...lets face it, EVE isnt very populated...im sure CCP would like that to change, but in order for that to happen, some sacrifices may be in order. Now what i HOPE is that if they do decide to soften things up they wont do it as ******edly as SOE did to Star Wars Galaxies and effectively ruin the entire game and its community...im hoping they arent like them.

SWG and WoW have changed the same way, pvpers and hardcore raiders used to be an exclusive and elite group of people, gaining the best reputations and some of the better rewards for putting in the time to compete. Now all content is pretty much accessable with random groups of bads...but for example, heroic raids, they are still only doable by the games upper echelon of 10 or 25 players who know what they are doing. I was one of those people, and i stood where you null secs are right now but in the end, it fell into line...know why? Because the skill factor outweighed any loot or rewards that were given with less of a risk. The value of what you do wont diminish.

Wet Ferret
Posted - 2011.04.11 10:01:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Wet Ferret on 11/04/2011 10:01:16
Originally by: The Old Chap
The game needs more isk sinks to match the increased number of faucets introduced over the years. It is unreal to take a ship out, jump through gates, dock in stations etc. etc, and it doesn't cost me a single isk.

Fuel costs, periodic ship servicing and 'wear and tear' repairs, docking fees and jump gate tolls would all help restore the balance.


Good luck with that. Character recustomization was a perfect opportunity for an ISK sink and we get it completely free!ô I mean, yay for that but wtf?

Irani Firecam
Posted - 2011.04.11 13:55:00 - [35]
 

Fi1ippo: It was precisely because skill-less players with no expertise were running around with OMGPURPLEZ loot in WoW (BC onwards) that I left to fly internet spaceships. There was no challenge involved in getting epic level loot, no reason to better myself when purples were literally being handed out, and ultimately there was no fun anymore.

As for 'other people playing this game who may not reach the level of skill and expertise to achieve those levels for rewards', my answer to that can only be to improve your skill and experience so that the journey you took to achieve something was worthwhile and meant something.

Personally, I got started in this game because of those epic player-driven stories and epic wars that I was reading, and I hope that this game will continue to stay this way for the majority of new players.

Turning Eve into a carebear universe may attract prospective players in the short term, but as the trend already shows, it does not retain those new players because they get bored and leave. What needs to happen is for CCP to make the endgame more interesting, and to ensure they are given the resources to prepare them for the transition out of CONCORD space.

Your argument still does not address why there should be a drop in the reward scale for 0.0 to -0.4 security space.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2011.04.11 15:03:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Irani Firecam
It makes complete sense for missions to follow the availability scale of cosmic anomalies by security status, such that:
1.0-0.8 level 1 missions
0.8-0.6 level 2 missions
0.6-0.4 level 3 missions
0.4-0.2 level 4 missions
0.2-0.0 level 5 missions


So, then I quit running missions and mine high sec instead. This gets you, what? Mineral price drop? Fine, I build and self destruct ships for insurance. Drop insurance? Fine, we continue the mass deflation that happened last time they dropped insurance payouts.

Carebears will NEVER come out to low sec to mission. Never going to happen.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2011.04.11 15:13:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Irani Firecam
Personally, I got started in this game because of those epic player-driven stories and epic wars that I was reading, and I hope that this game will continue to stay this way for the majority of new players.


More players = more in low sec = larger coalitions = larger blobs and massive lag.

Or... Lag = limit to 0.0 mega battles = limit on max players = limit of CCP revenue.

Epic 0.0 battles as the goal is a massive limit to CCP's potential revenue.


Originally by: Irani Firecam
What needs to happen is for CCP to make the endgame more interesting,



EVE has no endgame.



Originally by: Irani Firecam
and to ensure they are given the resources to prepare them for the transition out of CONCORD space.

Your argument still does not address why there should be a drop in the reward scale for 0.0 to -0.4 security space.


Players with an interest in PVP prepare themselves to leave CONCORD space wihtout game mechanics frocing them out.

Players without interest in PVP will never leave CONCORD space no matter what game mechanics change.

Any way you slice it, you are not going to the the carebears out to lowsec where they can easily be victimized by the PVPers.

Stop thinking of carebears as potential victims. They are not. There are plenty enough people in low sec and 0.0. Oh, but those people are either good at PVP, fly in blobs, are part of the major alliances...

Yeah... and how does that change by nerfing high sec L4s?

Oh, that's right. The PVPers will have to grind high sec missions for days instead of hours to make the ISK to replace thier losses. Nerfing high sec L4s put a larger % of players in high sec grinding mission, not fewer.

Irani Firecam
Posted - 2011.04.11 15:24:00 - [38]
 

Well then, it's obvious what the solution is - a new station service should be implemented, with the following typical usage scenario:

Dock ship into station
Press new station service
Receive bacon isk

In this way, no one has to leave the comfort and security of the station into the big bad world of highsec to make isk.

Cipher Jones
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.04.11 15:31:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: Cipher Jones on 11/04/2011 15:35:35
Quote:
Leave LP shop as it is. Full removal of bounty will do better.


If that's not a troll you need to learn EvE asap.

That being said I genuinely believe a couple of things.

1. That the LP payouts aren't as lucrative as some members would lead you to believe.
2. That they can be lucrative, but if everyone cashed in it would ruin the lp item market.

Therefore a LP balance (upcoming) will not hurt most mission runners.

Hisec mission running is OK. It makes more money than hisec mining and exploration, much less money than anything but lowsec ratting as far as null/low/wh space is concerned. Even a C1 makes much more cash than hisec l4 missions.

ExcalibursTemplar
Caldari
Citadel Enterprises
Posted - 2011.04.11 15:34:00 - [40]
 

Can I just give you guys a perspective from a bitter noob (10 months old). ATM im grinding L4 missions like hell (4+ hours a day) not only for isk but for standing so I can get myself a POS in high sec. With the POS im going to get myself a research alt that mi going to use to research bpo and try my hand at invention. Basically im trying my hardest to set myself up a nice passive income stream. So in around 12 months time I can pvp all the time and never have to grind another flipping rat ever again (I cant wait).

As things are now im going to be nearly 2 years old before I can start to do what I actually want to do in this game. That is one incredibly ****ed up grind, the only thing I can think of that can be compared to that is real life. If L4 missions running gets nerfed or moved to a different security area so I can't run them the length of time its going to take me to grind up to what I want to do is going to possibly increase dramatically. Which will be a major kick in the balls and I donít think I could take it.

Now im not saying I want everything on a plate and I want it now. I'm willing to wait and work hard for 2 years to get were I want to be. Its just I donít think I could take much more of a grind on top of 2 years already as thatís just a stupidly long length of time to get were I want to be in this game anyway and ill still be a bloody noob.

BTW before the trolls and bitter vets start ;-). I am actually in the process of moving out to 0.0 Iím just waiting on my application to be approved. Although I am slightly disappointed as ive been told by the RO as a caldari im pretty much useless and need to cross-train asap so basically im back to square one near enough as a bloody tackler. That and im not allowed to set-up a pos in the alliance territory which would have been a nice short cut for me so I still have to grind the crap out of L4 missions to get myself set-up properly.

Cipher Jones
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.04.11 15:38:00 - [41]
 

Originally by: ExcalibursTemplar
Can I just give you guys a perspective from a bitter noob (10 months old). ATM im grinding L4 missions like hell (4+ hours a day) not only for isk but for standing so I can get myself a POS in high sec. With the POS im going to get myself a research alt that mi going to use to research bpo and try my hand at invention. Basically im trying my hardest to set myself up a nice passive income stream. So in around 12 months time I can pvp all the time and never have to grind another flipping rat ever again (I cant wait).

As things are now im going to be nearly 2 years old before I can start to do what I actually want to do in this game. That is one incredibly ****ed up grind, the only thing I can think of that can be compared to that is real life. If L4 missions running gets nerfed or moved to a different security area so I can't run them the length of time its going to take me to grind up to what I want to do is going to possibly increase dramatically. Which will be a major kick in the balls and I donít think I could take it.

Now im not saying I want everything on a plate and I want it now. I'm willing to wait and work hard for 2 years to get were I want to be. Its just I donít think I could take much more of a grind on top of 2 years already as thatís just a stupidly long length of time to get were I want to be in this game anyway and ill still be a bloody noob.

BTW before the trolls and bitter vets start ;-). I am actually in the process of moving out to 0.0 Iím just waiting on my application to be approved. Although I am slightly disappointed as ive been told by the RO as a caldari im pretty much useless and need to cross-train asap so basically im back to square one near enough as a bloody tackler. That and im not allowed to set-up a pos in the alliance territory which would have been a nice short cut for me so I still have to grind the crap out of L4 missions to get myself set-up properly.


Risk vs reward good sir. With the training time you already have under your belt you could be doing everything you stated you want to do in a W space. Without running a single mission.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2011.04.11 15:43:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Illwill Bill
Originally by: Irani Firecam
It makes complete sense for missions to follow the availability scale of cosmic anomalies by security status, such that:
1.0-0.8 level 1 missions
0.8-0.6 level 2 missions
0.6-0.4 level 3 missions
0.4-0.2 level 4 missions
0.2-0.0 level 5 missions

Quotin' dis


The truth no-one wants to hear.

ExcalibursTemplar
Caldari
Citadel Enterprises
Posted - 2011.04.11 15:56:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Cipher Jones
Risk vs reward good sir. With the training time you already have under your belt you could be doing everything you stated you want to do in a W space. Without running a single mission.


Its easier saying that from a perspective of experience and hmm knowledge. The reality is though noobs like myself dont know there arse from there elbow and go of and do daft things. Like spend 4 months training to be an uber minner without remapping and then realize at the end of all that training that theres sod all money in high sec mining.

Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2011.04.11 16:45:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Irani Firecam
Well then, it's obvious what the solution is - a new station service should be implemented, with the following typical usage scenario:

Dock ship into station
Press new station service
Receive bacon isk

In this way, no one has to leave the comfort and security of the station into the big bad world of highsec to make isk.


Or, we could just leave things as they are. People interested in PVP go hang out in low sec and null, while people with no interest in PVP hang out in high sec.

I never hear carebears complaining about low and null. Why do the PVPers alwys have their panties in a bunch about high sec?

My opnion: They see all those carebears as easy targets. Well, you are wrong. They are not easy targets. They will quit playing long before they can be forced into being easy targets.

Grinding L4s for hours or mining for hours or playing the penny wars in a trading hub... none of it is anything close to equivilant to putting a "give me..." button in stations.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2011.04.11 16:48:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: ExcalibursTemplar
ATM im grinding L4 missions like hell (4+ hours a day) not only for isk but for standing so I can get myself a POS in high sec.


Then you are doing it wrong. Epic arc, turning tags into datacenters, and running COSMOS missions are super quick way of getting standing for a POS. Trying to get standings by grinding 16 L4s for a storyline is just NUTS!!!

Ecks Orion
Proposition Thirteen
The Third Rail
Posted - 2011.04.11 19:56:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Irani Firecam
It makes complete sense for missions to follow the availability scale of cosmic anomalies by security status, such that:
1.0-0.8 level 1 missions
0.8-0.6 level 2 missions
0.6-0.4 level 3 missions
0.4-0.2 level 4 missions
0.2-0.0 level 5 missions


What do you think this would accomplish, exactly?

Irani Firecam
Posted - 2011.04.11 19:59:00 - [47]
 

It accomplishes to return the security status to reward balance to a logical progression from -1 to 1 truesec.

stoicfaux
Gallente
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:00:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Ecks Orion
Originally by: Irani Firecam
It makes complete sense for missions to follow the availability scale of cosmic anomalies by security status, such that:
1.0-0.8 level 1 missions
0.8-0.6 level 2 missions
0.6-0.4 level 3 missions
0.4-0.2 level 4 missions
0.2-0.0 level 5 missions


What do you think this would accomplish, exactly?


A crash in the battleship and marauder ship markets apparently. Plus any modules related to those ships.


LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:14:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: LHA Tarawa on 11/04/2011 20:14:56
Originally by: Irani Firecam
It accomplishes to return the security status to reward balance to a logical progression from -1 to 1 truesec.


So, will my strip miners mine less m3 an hour in higher sec?

Or are you just trying to push more people into the mega allainces in 0.0 for protection so they can amass even larger blobs?

The only thing I'm sure of is that your changes will not get more carebears into low sec where they can easily be killed. They may quit, they may find other things to do, but they will NOT go to low sec for L4 missions.

Irani Firecam
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:19:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: LHA Tarawa
So, will my strip miners mine less m3 an hour in higher sec?
Of course not, just like weapons are not going to do less damage (although it would be a benefit for carebears being harassed by wardecs). Asteroid availability already follow the security status progression from veldspar in +1.0 systems to arkonor in -0.0 systems, so it doesn't need to be changed.

Cambarus
Malicious Destruction
War Against the Manifest
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:34:00 - [51]
 

TBH the nerf to nullsec was a horrendous idea. If anything they need to be buffing it (as well as lowsec). Nerfing highsec isn't the answer, buffing low/null is. You nerf highsec then you've got an army of carebears ****ed off because they make less isk than they used to. Buff low/null, and you're effectively doing the same thing as nerfing highsec, but without all the QQ.

As for the people freaking out about suggested changes to ANY security system: The reason is simple: the idea that holding space is only beneficial in that it forces you to pvp more is stupid. Changes to isk making in x.x sec space is a good idea not because it will get whiny carebears into lowsec (IE, you), it WILL however get people into lowsec/nullsec if their main reason for staying in HS is that there just isn't enough isk to be made elsewhere.

There should be much more isk available (enough so that after you factor in the drawbacks of being a billion jumps from a market hub, there is still more effective isk/hour) in null/lowsec than there is in HS, as it gives an incentive for people to try to head out and maintain some space. As it stands, were I to all on my friends to try and take some space with me, the result would be a resounding "Why should we? We make more isk in highsec and can head out to null any time to pvp." That's a problem that needs to be fixed.

Irani Firecam
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:40:00 - [52]
 

Well said, Cambarus.

Cipher Jones
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.04.11 20:42:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: ExcalibursTemplar
Originally by: Cipher Jones
Risk vs reward good sir. With the training time you already have under your belt you could be doing everything you stated you want to do in a W space. Without running a single mission.


Its easier saying that from a perspective of experience and hmm knowledge. The reality is though noobs like myself dont know there arse from there elbow and go of and do daft things. Like spend 4 months training to be an uber minner without remapping and then realize at the end of all that training that theres sod all money in high sec mining.




I had to learn EvE from scratch too bro. I'm not condescending to you in my last post, I'm "just sayin'".

Goose99
Posted - 2011.04.11 21:22:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: stoicfaux
Originally by: Ecks Orion
Originally by: Irani Firecam
It makes complete sense for missions to follow the availability scale of cosmic anomalies by security status, such that:
1.0-0.8 level 1 missions
0.8-0.6 level 2 missions
0.6-0.4 level 3 missions
0.4-0.2 level 4 missions
0.2-0.0 level 5 missions


What do you think this would accomplish, exactly?


A crash in the battleship and marauder ship markets apparently. Plus any modules related to those ships.




More like a crash in Eve subscriber base. CCP will do it if they ever think they're making too much money and would like customers to leave.Laughing

Blackjack EvE
Posted - 2011.04.11 21:37:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Irani Firecam
It makes complete sense for missions to follow the availability scale of cosmic anomalies by security status, such that:
1.0-0.8 level 1 missions
0.8-0.6 level 2 missions
0.6-0.4 level 3 missions
0.4-0.2 level 4 missions
0.2-0.0 level 5 missions


I thought the msj from "cccp" was clear " MOVE to High Sec ! " with the last pach. Why ohh why would they do something to grief the clueless high sec carebear Question like life in space for him is already hard , no reason to shoot a dieing man ( Send a incursion to fuu... his day instead )

New Moto "The Universe is yours" - " If you have the money to pay for it "

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2011.04.11 21:39:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Irani Firecam
Asteroid availability already follow the security status progression from veldspar in +1.0 systems to arkonor in -0.0 systems, so it doesn't need to be changed.


But the market is not tied to the rocks directly. Drone poo was crushing the low sec ore prices. A small change in drone poo reprocessing and low sec rocks skyrocketed to being worth almost as much as the ABCs.

So soon, mining null will be worth the same as low. In fact, he price of crokite is already on par with the best low sec ores. And, as the price of null rocks falls, it actually pulls up the cost of the 0.0 rocks as it is all tied to the insurance exchange rate.

And, I still do not understand why you want 80% of the players to quit, or why you want PVPers to have to spend more time in high sec recovering from ship losses, or how pushing more people into the huge 0.0 coalitions, making the blobs even larger and lag even worse will make the gmae more fun to you.


What postive effects do you expect from nerfing high sec? Are you looking for mass deflation? Are you trying to bankrupt CCP?


I suspect a lot of the "nerf high sec" calls are coming from PVPers that are having a hard time dealing with the blobs of the major alliances and are having a hard time dealing with their fellow PVPers that know how to live and fight in low/null. They see these carebears as potential targets if they could just get these clueless PVEers to come out of high sec. The one thing I'm absolutely sure of is that a nerf of high sec will NOT result in better PVP in low sec.

L5s pay better than L4s. The reward is not worth the risk. I see no reason to think that moving L4s to low sec will make them worth the risk.

Low sec POSes don't need standings or charters, not worth the risk.

Low sec PI pays much better than high sec. Not worth the risk.

Now low sec mining pays better than high. Not worth the risk.

I do not think it is possible to nerf high sec enough to make carebears move to low sec and become the victims of PVPers.

I really think PVPers attention would be better spent trying to figure out how to PVP against the people that want to PVP and less attention spent trying to figure out ways to try to force PVEers out of high sec.

People with no interest in PVP have no interest in PVP. Pushing them into PVP just pushes them out of the game, and that isn't good for anyone.

Ecks Orion
Proposition Thirteen
The Third Rail
Posted - 2011.04.11 21:46:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Irani Firecam
It accomplishes to return the security status to reward balance to a logical progression from -1 to 1 truesec.


No it doesn't. It creates a vast risk/reward discrepancy in the move from Level 3 to Level 4 missions, enough that it is simply not worth the risk to do Level 4s any more for most people. It goes way, WAY too far.

Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2011.04.11 21:59:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: Kahega Amielden on 11/04/2011 22:03:05


Quote:
TBH the nerf to nullsec was a horrendous idea. If anything they need to be buffing it (as well as lowsec). Nerfing highsec isn't the answer, buffing low/null is. You nerf highsec then you've got an army of carebears ****ed off because they make less isk than they used to. Buff low/null, and you're effectively doing the same thing as nerfing highsec, but without all the QQ.

The problem is that if you just keep buffing rewards then the income gap between established players and new players, and the amount of money required to remain competitive in PVP increases.

there's only one profession in one security level that is out of balance, and that is hisec missionrunning. Hisec exploration and mining earn just a fraction of what missionrunners do. Buffing lowsec, nullsec, AND hisec exploration/mining is stupid when you could just nerf hisec missions instead.

Personally I think an interesting solution would be, instead of actually reducing the payouts, make almost all hisec missions force you to fight other empire factions...A long term missionrunner would make a lot of ISK with little risk BUT in doing so he would be locking himself out of portions of hisec.

Quote:
I suspect a lot of the "nerf high sec" calls are coming from PVPers that are having a hard time dealing with the blobs of the major alliances and are having a hard time dealing with their fellow PVPers that know how to live and fight in low/null. They see these carebears as potential targets if they could just get these clueless PVEers to come out of high sec. The one thing I'm absolutely sure of is that a nerf of high sec will NOT result in better PVP in low sec.


It was a dumb theory when the first person posted it years ago and it's a dumb theory now.

Quote:

L5s pay better than L4s. The reward is not worth the risk. I see no reason to think that moving L4s to low sec will make them worth the risk.

Low sec POSes don't need standings or charters, not worth the risk.

Low sec PI pays much better than high sec. Not worth the risk.

Now low sec mining pays better than high. Not worth the risk.


These are all wrong. Plenty of people run level 5s and make ****loads of money off of them.

There are a lot of POSes in lowsec.

There's a lot of people doing PI in lowsec (myself included).

Lowsec mining barely pays better than hisec; just not by enough given that mining ships are incredibly slow and fragile that even getting out there is a logistical concern.

Oh, and you forgot exploration. Exploration in lowsec is VERY good..

Irani Firecam
Posted - 2011.04.11 22:02:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Ecks Orion
Originally by: Irani Firecam
It accomplishes to return the security status to reward balance to a logical progression from -1 to 1 truesec.


No it doesn't. It creates a vast risk/reward discrepancy in the move from Level 3 to Level 4 missions, enough that it is simply not worth the risk to do Level 4s any more for most people. It goes way, WAY too far.


I completely agree, there is a vast risk/reward discrepancy in the move from 0.5+ to 0.0 security space, in that there is a decreased level of reward for an increased level of risk.

Ecks Orion
Proposition Thirteen
The Third Rail
Posted - 2011.04.11 22:09:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Irani Firecam
Originally by: Ecks Orion
Originally by: Irani Firecam
It accomplishes to return the security status to reward balance to a logical progression from -1 to 1 truesec.


No it doesn't. It creates a vast risk/reward discrepancy in the move from Level 3 to Level 4 missions, enough that it is simply not worth the risk to do Level 4s any more for most people. It goes way, WAY too far.


I completely agree, there is a vast risk/reward discrepancy in the move from 0.5+ to 0.0 security space, in that there is a decreased level of reward for an increased level of risk.


And the answer to that isn't to simply move L4s into Lowsec carte blanche. That goes way too far in the other direction.

What is your REAL goal with this suggestion?


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4

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