open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked Bloggers #54, So my Agent called and has this offer...
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 : last (25)

Author Topic

G'Kar5
Gallente
Intaki Research and Manufacturing
Distorted Percepts
Posted - 2007.03.02 13:36:00 - [631]
 

Edited by: G''Kar5 on 02/03/2007 13:54:33

CCP, please don't do this. I'm a highsec mission runner who just finally saved up the 200M required to buy and fit a BS. At my rate of play, that took me about 90 days to save up for. Now you are going to force me to take that setup into lowsec where I will be pwned in about 30 seconds? Don't get me wrong, I'm not anti-PVP, I actually like going ratting in lowsec in a pack of frigs/cruisers. Its fun trying to beat the pirates (although I always lose), but I don't care because my losses are minimal.

The best solution to the problem that I read:

Keep existing L4's as they are now with similar ISK reward and bounties. I can continue to farm these missions with my BS.

Make the new L5 missions in lowsec, but make them doable in a BC or gang of cruisers. Also, the reward for these must be higher than the L4's. In other words, easier missions, higher rewards. Make L5 agents require ridiculously high standing (9.0 or something corp standing, and 3 or 4 faction standing, positive sec status, etc) so the pirates cannot farm them all day and that only players that are career mission runners can get them.

Make the level6's the capital ship type missions in lowsec. This should give the L6 mission runners plenty of "cannon fodder" cruiser/BC pilots to gang up with to lock a system down from the pirates for their mutual benefit.

Change the security standing system such that not only does security status control which systems you can enter, but the size of the ship you can bring into the system. Something -5 to -10 cannot bring anything bigger than a frigate/assault ship into 0.3 and up, etc. The sec status and ship class may be way off, but you get the idea. Make the pirates work to be able to bring ships into the system to pwn missioner runners. Give the advantage to the mission runners in 0.3 and 0.4 space, and the advantage to the pirates in 0.1 and 0.2 space.

Now THIS gives me incentive to go into lowsec. There is ample reward and I have no problem risking a frig/cruiser with 20M in fittings once in a while. Heck, it might even be fun to mix it up in PVP if I know when my ship gets popped, I can easily go back to L4's to recoup my loss (with my BS that still exists). Now if it takes me months to aquire enough ISK to purchase and refit my ship, I'm done with lowsec.

If CCP does this, everybody is happy. Pirates get more targets with named/T2 fittings, mission runners get into lowsec because its financially viable for them, and CCP gets lowsec populated.

Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Emminent Terraforming
O.G.-Alliance
Posted - 2007.03.02 14:43:00 - [632]
 

dont remove the bounties unless you intend to make them more likely to drop modules that i can sell, a 425mm railgun 1 just doesnt sell on the market and i have a ****load of them, i usually just melt em and make more missles for my raven.

Reidn
Posted - 2007.03.02 16:13:00 - [633]
 

I like most of what I'm hearing here, new missions more graduations in dificulty are all good things, more variance in game play is good too. I support having less ships to fight in missions, for one reducing server load and for two making the mission running more inline with a PvP engaement. However unless the Devs address the AI of NPCs and Drones it'll just be more of the same thing.

Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari
Emminent Terraforming
O.G.-Alliance
Posted - 2007.03.02 17:56:00 - [634]
 

EVE NPCs need in a way something like WoW or Everquest AI where mobs dont just let someone shoot at them because someone else already agroed.

Megadon
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.03.03 01:10:00 - [635]
 

Sounds good until you see the steel toe'd boot heading for your nuts.

Thanks

Melwitax
Posted - 2007.03.03 06:52:00 - [636]
 

Call me a carebear but I didn't come to Eve to blow up other players. I came because I want to fly a spaceship rather then swing a sword. You want to reduce lag, add more agents. People will move when they see there are options.

Yes there is a PvP element to everything we do in the game. Heck look at it that way and everything we do is screwing someone else. I drink a glass of water and someone somewhere else is going thirsty because of it. Does that mean I should be drinking water to make someone thirsty?

I understand that the best things in the game are always going to be in 0.0. I have no complaints about that but I'm having fun doing what I'm doing. I'm making decent money off of level 4 missions but I figure that even doing the extravaganzas (some of the most lucrative missions) it would take me more than 300 hours to earn enough money to buy a cap ship. That represents at least 3 months of game time for me and assumes that I get nothing but extravaganzas.

You want to give me more options with missions, maybe I'll take them, maybe I won't but that's my choice. Don't try to force me to play the game the way YOU think it should be played. I want more missions, I want more challenging missions. I want as little as possible to do with fighting other players, I have nothing to prove, I do not enjoy PvP and if there were an in game way to opt out of it I would take it in a heartbeat. I deeply resent that you might even think of penalizing me because my idea of what is fun in Eve does not conform to your vision of what I "should" be doing.

Oh and if you need a money sink then how about allowing us to insure our modules?

Mycophobia
Posted - 2007.03.03 08:02:00 - [637]
 

Well, this devblog just made me fire up a new trial account. I like the way this looks.

I've seen comments from people who said "I used to be a PvPer, but it got too time consuming". And a lot of comments from people worried about ganks.

Hopefully this will change low-sec in a new way. Group rewards will encourage at least small gangs. Since you lose standing for aggressing in low-sec, it should be pretty obvious who the pirates are.

A new class of player will form. The anti-PK. The "PvP is too time/cost prohibitive, but I like it" crowd will contribute a good share of them. We had them in UO, which had far worse communication methods (you basically had to alt-tab and IM someone for help). You get hit, you yell for help. Yeah, you will still die sometimes. But sometimes the antis will show up in time to save you. And even if they don't, they may show up in time to save your can.

Those casual PvPers can surf popular mission systems, looking for someone to save.

The low-sec mission runners will become dozens of eyes for people hunting pirates. Mission runners group up, and go a little overpowered on missions. If nobody comes, you rip thru them faster and all get rewarded. If you do get hit, you have the ability to fight back, or at least stall for time till help arrives.

And something as simple as counter-scrambling the pirate while you wait for the cavalry to warp in is the first step on the road to PvP. Not 0.0 wars, just being able to stick up for yourself.

I died to PKs a lot in UO. Tried to run for a long time, then tried fighting back. One day I won. That opened the door to 4 years of PvP for me there. I killed blues, but very rarely, and usually because they were helping reds or criminals. Closest thing I got to PKing was deliberately flagging criminal (usually on a friend) to see if another blue wanted to take a shot at me.

NBSI is a 0.0 condition. It's full of wolves, and a few carefully guarded sheep.

Empire (except for war-decs) is sheep, or wolves-in-sheeps-clothing there to shop.

Low-sec is full of rabid wolves right now, and nothing else. But it will have a 3rd class of players. Sheep-dogs. There to protect the sheep and hunt those wolves. Those sheep-dogs will come from both classes of existing players

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.03.03 10:08:00 - [638]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 03/03/2007 10:07:31
My opinion. You may agree or not, but this is from 1.5 years of EVE experience....
Originally by: Mycophobia
Since you lose standing for aggressing in low-sec, it should be pretty obvious who the pirates are.

You don't know game mechanics then. The smart ganker has a neutral sec rating (easily enough obtained by wasting a few NPC's).
Originally by: Mycophobia
A new class of player will form. The anti-PK. The "PvP is too time/cost prohibitive, but I like it" crowd will contribute a good share of them.

Been tried before in EVE, lots of times. Problem is that it just doesn't work because:
a) It's boring
b) It's not profitable
c) The few who does it are easily recognisable by gankers and will get ganked
There has been plenty of anti-pirate corp, and they go for a week or two before they go inactive or move to something else.
Originally by: Mycophobia
If you do get hit, you have the ability to fight back, or at least stall for time till help arrives.

No, in EVE, if you're hit by a gank squad, you're already dead.
Not to mention the fact that half of those coming to 'help' you just want to kill you themselves. You have to somehow reveal your position to call for help, and guess what, your position is all the gankers need.
Originally by: Mycophobia
And something as simple as counter-scrambling the pirate while you wait for the cavalry to warp in is the first step on the road to PvP. Not 0.0 wars, just being able to stick up for yourself.

No, their combat recons will have you damped and warp scrambled. You can't target them.
Remember, they're choosing to attack you. They're setup for it, and they only do it if they're sure to win. Forget about the utopia of 'fair fights', EVE is all ganking now (probably because ships/fittings are so expensive nobody wants to risk them in a 'fair fight').
Originally by: Mycophobia
I died to PKs a lot in UO.

How much grind did a death cost in UO? In EVE dying in a reasonable fitted lvl 4 mission ship cost you at least 20+ hours of grind (and this is lvl 4 missioning in high sec as it is now).
Originally by: Mycophobia
Sheep-dogs. There to protect the sheep and hunt those wolves. Those sheep-dogs will come from both classes of existing players

No, the people so inclined are already in 0.0.
---
All talk about grouping up and playing with other people is fine for the 3-6 hour per day player, who doesn't mind spending half an hour or more getting a gang together, and who has the time to learn others well enough to trust them (and you HAVE to trust people in EVE since if you go on missions with them they can attack you).
It's NOT ok for all the casual players! There are a hell of a lot of players who can log on for maybe an hour when the kids have been put to bed or whatever. They don't have the time to do all this, but just want to run an NPC mission before they go to bed.
If this game is to be limited to the power-gamer, CCP should just come straight out and say so... This nerf of high-sec missions is basically that!

Richard Aiel
Caldari
Umbra Exitium
Order Of The Unforgiving
Posted - 2007.03.04 00:28:00 - [639]
 

See thats the one thing I REALLY REALLY hate about WoW and even though Im gonna cancel my EVE accounts, Ill likely not go back... The searching for frigging groups that takes forever.
LFG this.... 30 mins later... LFG this.... another 30 min... LFG this... god I hated that

Mycophobia
Posted - 2007.03.04 09:04:00 - [640]
 

Edited by: Mycophobia on 04/03/2007 09:01:08
People running missions means more targets for the pirates. Fixing your security rating is something you do when you are bored. If fixing it is too easy, the devs could probably easily tweak the rates. How much ratting should make up for killing one player? 10 minutes? 1 hour? 10 hours?

Anti-pirate groups. yeah, searching around everywhere for pirates probably gets old. When the pirates congregate in the mission systems, you spend less time searching, more time fighting.

Getting insta-ganked, scrambled, jammed, whatever. You are still assuming you are solo, and running missions on the edge of your ships capabilites. Surely you have 1 friend you can duo missions with.

Same with replacement costs. Bring a partner and you don't need that super-expensive faction fit. How fast can 4 T2 equipped battleships run a mission, compared to one faction-fitted one?

A death/loss of gear in UO wasn't 20hours to replace, but if you weren't wearing PvP gear (cheap), it might take a couple hours. Of course, like here, we had massive storage space, so while the cost might be high, you had replacements in storage. You just kept items that were useful-but-not-needed instead of immediately tossing them up for sale.

And UO didn't have local to warn you. The PKs generally dropped right in on top of you, and had even more mobility than here. They could hit dozens of PvE locations within a couple minutes. Think how bad it would be if the same mission sent you to the exact same place every time. PKs would have bookmarks and just warp there directly without even bothering to scan. UO was that bad. At times the PKs were literally lined up outside the newbie zones, waiting for people to step out and try to kill their first rat.

Trust issues. Yeah, EVE has lots of them. UO was actually kinda middle-ground compared to other games I've played. Go to DAoC or EQ and people think nothing of handing a medium fortune to a high-level stranger, to give to their alt. Nobody does that here, because the tools exist to bypass it. Even without escrow, you'd just warp to a safe-spot and drop a can if you had to. EVE players as a whole are pretty paranoid.

You mission runners are a sub-community, or should be. Stop playing it like a solo game. If 30 of you are running missions from the same agent, why not talk to one another. Yeah, you'll have some spies or jerks in your midst. Just like every other facet of the game, you will learn who they are. Even the simple step of making a channel and sitting in it silently, other than to say "everyone safespot, I just got ganked in PVE-HQ system" would help. Yeah, it didn't help you any. But when I get ganked tomorrow and call the warning, you just got your payback.

Mission runners could inspire a change in all of us. The NBSI paranoid mentality is holding back the social aspect of the game. If that mentality changes in low-sec thanks to mission runners, it WILL spread, and to the benefit of all of us.

Mycophobia
Posted - 2007.03.04 09:09:00 - [641]
 

Originally by: Richard Aiel
See thats the one thing I REALLY REALLY hate about WoW and even though Im gonna cancel my EVE accounts, Ill likely not go back... The searching for frigging groups that takes forever.
LFG this.... 30 mins later... LFG this.... another 30 min... LFG this... god I hated that


But WoW (and the other "traditionals", EQ, DAoC, etc), needed certain makeups for a group. You needed a tank, a dmgdealer, a healer, etc..

Here everyone is all of those things. Tank your own damage, shoot back, and heal yourself. Grab some random people and go. Make friends in the process. It takes a lot less time when you don't have to build the perfect setup.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.03.04 11:50:00 - [642]
 

Originally by: Mycophobia
...Stuff

Your point of view is from the power gamers perspective. Most of what you say is simply NOT viable for the casual gamer, but if you don't understand that......

Beside that, you're telling a lot of players to play another game than they want. Some people don't want to socialise, and have been able to play the game until now without doing so and still have a game which they like with nice challenges.

Please be more accepting that not all players want to play the game 'your way'.

Roy Gordon
Caldari
Caldari Advanced Response Division
Power Of 3
Posted - 2007.03.04 20:34:00 - [643]
 

Edited by: Roy Gordon on 04/03/2007 20:31:04
Mycophobia, EvE is a completely different game than UO. I've been playing UO for quite a few years now. You dont even have to go down dungeons to get stuff anymore, just haunt brit bank or haven and within a few minutes your kitted out in tons of gear.
I started playing EvE because it held the promise of being able to deliver everything I enjoy in a space-based game- Trading, Mining, Combat, mission running, manufacturing etc etc. And for me, only being able to play for a max of 2-3 hours per day, I find mission running gets me to do at least a fair bit of this.
I have no desire to go to low/0.0 to mix it up with the PvP'ers who will ultimately destroy my enjoyment of the game. They will do this by making mission running more of a chore than a delight by having to worry about being attacked not only by the mission rats but by gankers.
Nope, best thing to do is to leave things exactly as they are and sprinkle the 5/6/7 level missions in all sec space as well.

Richard Aiel
Caldari
Umbra Exitium
Order Of The Unforgiving
Posted - 2007.03.04 21:22:00 - [644]
 

See, the problem seems to be that the Devs/GMs are power player types and (as seen in other threads) have the characters to back them up. Its seems that theyre just interested in this being a power gamer type game.

Casual gamers not welcome
Power 23/7 only

DrDethHunter
Caldari
Shoal of the Intrepid Righteousness
Posted - 2007.03.04 21:28:00 - [645]
 

CCP does care about the average player, ONly Cares about Pushing everyone out to Low Sec or 0.0 If you take away bounties on ships, You Make it so only way to make money to BNuy sell to Players only. Then your Gonna lose at least half the player base. I have played wow, EQ, EQ2, Star Wars Galaxies, Earth and Beyond, City of Heroes, Diablo and Diablo2, Alot of these games were good for awhile but when radical changes were made people lost interest. And sure some still go back to these game because of bordom or Check for Changes but you damage a games Rep and playability it hard to get those people back. You have good thing going now Dont damage it. You might you make it were when you attack a player in High Sec .5 to 1.0 they take sever fation hits to what ever empire space they in when they are not war declared. of course it would % based the higher the system the higher the hit
same for low sec. 0.0 on the other hand is different all blood bad there with no consequences except from other players lol. and the faction hit in low Sec Space would near the sentry guns lets say 1 au from the stargate/jump gate. And work out the bugs in user interface like with caps not dislaying the right amount showing full when not. Missle and turret reloads no reloading on the link reload all but having to log out to fix the bug.

Verone
Gallente
Veto Corp
Posted - 2007.03.05 01:08:00 - [646]
 

Originally by: G'Kar5
Edited by: G''Kar5 on 02/03/2007 13:54:33
Keep existing L4's as they are now with similar ISK reward and bounties. I can continue to farm these missions with my BS.


I have quoted this piece of text, and bolded the part which is exactly the problem with high sec mission running.

There is VERY little risk, and potentially massive reward for running these missions, putting the game completely out of balance with regards to risk vs reward.

These changes have been a long time coming, and are welcomed my a lot of people because they stop the rediculous farming of high end spawns in high security systems.

It also does a lot of justice for the backstory of the game. I've never met anyone who roleplays before who has been able to explain how 15 highly wanted elite Gistii battleships manage to sit in high security space unmolested by the faction navy and CONCORD until yours truly arrives.

If people want to fight high end spawns, and get rich, they need to take the risk to do so.


Mycophobia
Posted - 2007.03.05 07:08:00 - [647]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Mycophobia
...Stuff

Your point of view is from the power gamers perspective. Most of what you say is simply NOT viable for the casual gamer, but if you don't understand that......

Beside that, you're telling a lot of players to play another game than they want. Some people don't want to socialise, and have been able to play the game until now without doing so and still have a game which they like with nice challenges.

Please be more accepting that not all players want to play the game 'your way'.



If you are tearing thru L4s in a faction battleship, you ARE a powergamer. The devs already posted that the majority of the L4s will remain the same, and more new ones added. If you like your anti-social playstyle, continue with those. Nobody will be forcing you to switch to L5s in low-sec.

It just opens up a new option. Want a break? Strip your ship down to T2 or whatever, grab some friends, and go try a 5. Yeah, you might get ganked. You also just might have fun, and turn a nice profit in the process.

And I'm sure there are people who would like a social activity more fun than shooting rocks.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.03.05 08:15:00 - [648]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 05/03/2007 08:17:12
Originally by: Mycophobia
Originally by: Kerfira
My stuff...


If you are tearing thru L4s in a faction battleship, you ARE a powergamer. The devs already posted that the majority of the L4s will remain the same, and more new ones added. If you like your anti-social playstyle, continue with those. Nobody will be forcing you to switch to L5s in low-sec.

It just opens up a new option. Want a break? Strip your ship down to T2 or whatever, grab some friends, and go try a 5. Yeah, you might get ganked. You also just might have fun, and turn a nice profit in the process.

And I'm sure there are people who would like a social activity more fun than shooting rocks.

Whatever gave you the idea that I wasn't a powergamer myself? I've never said I wasn't. As a matter of fact I have 4 accounts, and participate mostly in 0.0 activities (lots of pew-pew right now Laughing).
Sometimes though, I don't want to have to be alert all the time, and EVE does require an extraordinary amount of GRIND to keep up with combat losses. Those times I like to do that GRIND in safe space with my mission character.
The GRIND in EVE is excessive enough, and now CCP want to make that even HARDER??????

Also, just because I play the game at a power level doesn't mean that I can't understand other players situation (something which you unfortunately seem unable to).

Calling people 'anti-social' also show how poorly you understand the casual player. They're not 'anti-social', they're simply playing EVE in another way, restricted by not having 3-6 hours to play every day.

And also, this nerf is not 'adding' stuff for the casual player. It's taking stuff AWAY!!!!!

To Verone, the amount of money made in L4 missions in Empire is pitiful in comparison to the money being made in 0.0, and you know it (1b/day plex'es anyone?). You being a pirate though, I understand your POW Smile
If the problem with L4's is ISK inflation, that'd be utterly simple to fix by just switching the missions to have better loot and lower bounties. That way ISK inflow in EVE would be reduced (that takes care inflation), and player options would not have been restricted.

Some players don't want to PvP. CCP has ACTIVELY promoted the game to those players, so it's not very decent for them to now decide that these players are not playing EVE the 'right' way after they've invested months, maybe even years into their characters.

Fitz VonHeise
Eye Bee Em
Stellar Defense Alliance
Posted - 2007.03.05 22:48:00 - [649]
 

If CCP forces people to play PvP when all they want to do is play PvE then CCP is going to loose 20-30% of their player base. Do they really want to loose that much money?

CCP I would seriously reconsider your plans to push even some Level IV agents to low sec. Make the level 5's down there: sure. Make them harder with better rewards: sure.

Some people play games to kill people; some play to build empires and some play to see how much isk they can make and buy cool stuff.

Limit game play and you will limit the money you will make.


Mycophobia
Posted - 2007.03.06 08:17:00 - [650]
 

Originally by: Kerfira

Calling people 'anti-social' also show how poorly you understand the casual player. They're not 'anti-social', they're simply playing EVE in another way, restricted by not having 3-6 hours to play every day.



Yet if you go back a few posts (before my response to you, where I used the phrase anti-social), you will see...

Originally by: Kerfira
....Some people don't want to socialise....


Not wanting to socialize=anti-social.

Nobody will force the mission runners to go do L5s, just like nobody can force you into 0.0

A select few people will cry about it. Just like a select few people will cry about non-consensual Empire wars and trade-scams/trickery and gate-camps and logoffskis and blobs and whatever else.

What are the reasons to leave Empire currently? Other than actively looking for PvP. Hunting bigger&badder belt rats? Hunting bigger&badder rocks? People leave empire for those reasons all the time. Seems reasonable that some will make the same jump to hunt bigger&badder missions. I don't see droves of miners here complaining that all the good ore is in deep 0.0 Yeah, there are a few, but by and large, the population understands that the best reward for mining involves getting shot at occasionally. Why should missions be any different.

Hell, missions may be safer than mining. Sure, either way you can die to a gate-camp, but once you are insystem with no badguys, if one does show up, the act of having to probe you out takes a lot more time than just randomly warping to belts looking for you.

Besides, you can always ctrl-q every time someone sticks their head in local.

Ghan Tylous
Posted - 2007.03.06 08:24:00 - [651]
 

Edited by: Ghan Tylous on 06/03/2007 09:19:20
Originally by: Oveur


It's true that some of the Level 4 mission we feel are too lucrative to have in such high security space. These are the ones we're moving to Level 5. However, I realize I failed to mention that we are filling up Level 4 with more missions than we are removing. They'll be fun, challenging and more akin to most Level 4. Zrakor has been going over the missions and it looks like we're moving somewhere between 5-10 but we're adding 20 already - probably ending up with 30 new ones while we wait for the new agent levels to be delivered from the software department.

For short, this isn't the end of the world, rather than before, I should simply have clarified more what's happening with Level 4 itself.



I won't read all the 20+ pages through to see what lvl 4 missions you are moving to lvl 5 missions.

But here is my view on that matter:
You want to remove somewhere between 5-10 lvl 4 missions to lvl 5 agents, most lucrative ones. I did WC lvl 4 the other day and it was a blast, it was fun, challenging. It could be hard for a new player to lvl 4s yes. With bounties that mission is lucrative, in your opinion?

I haven't done EA 1-5 yet, simple of that matter I want to do them, when I feel ready.

Now could you give a name of the 5-10 missions you are thinking about moving to lvl 5 agents Oveur?

The missions where you are fighting empire factions don't give out bounties, they only give good loot.

Some of the the lvl 4 missions have issues, mass aggro when you bring a buddy or take out your drones. You pull back your drones and suddenly you face 1500+ DPS incoming, but you can't warp out because you see yourself scrambled.

Don't move the 5-10 most lucrative missions to low sec(lvl 5), but look at what you can change, so they become less farmable/lucrative or less hard, but still is a challenge for the common mission runner.

One last thing: I love EVE, you have done a great job!

Edit: Spelling Embarassed

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.03.06 08:43:00 - [652]
 

Originally by: Mycophobia
Nobody will force the mission runners to go do L5s, just like nobody can force you into 0.0

Right, whatever you're smoking, stop it. It's illegal in most countries.... Smile
If you take away any challenge for a player that is more than 3 months 'old', then it IS 'forcing' (at least if you want to continue enjoying the game). CCP is trying to make it sound nicer by using the term 'nudge', but it is 'forcing'.
Originally by: Mycophobia
A select few people will cry about it.

I'd say 20+ pages (plus all the other threads about it) is more than a 'select few'.
Originally by: Mycophobia
Hell, missions may be safer than mining. Sure, either way you can die to a gate-camp, but once you are insystem with no badguys, if one does show up, the act of having to probe you out takes a lot more time than just randomly warping to belts looking for you.

Have you ever BEEN to one of the high-traffic low-sec systems? If mission runners are there, the gankers follow. You can't compare empty systems with mission systems, but that is what you're doing..... Mr. Ganker alt....???
Probing is 25 seconds with top skills/rigs. That's way faster than searching belts.
Originally by: Mycophobia
Besides, you can always ctrl-q every time someone sticks their head in local.

With 20+ in local in that mission system? How are you going to recognise who's 'bad'?
If you have to log off every time someone sticks his head in, that's a sure way NOT to enjoy playing either.
CTRL-Q should be banned anyway!!!!!
---
Your attempt to get more targets for your ganking is probably all well from your point of view, but please stop lying about how things are to achieve it.
Also, you still don't understand that some people are NOT power-players. Please buy a clue somewhere.....

Veinfiller
Posted - 2007.03.06 19:27:00 - [653]
 

Edited by: Veinfiller on 06/03/2007 19:25:52
Edited by: Veinfiller on 06/03/2007 19:23:52
Having thought some more about this, i have reached the conclusion that most of these changes are actually quite good. When i started flying level 4's in a T1 Raven with mediocre skills and no rigs, some of them were really, really hard...a steep step up from lvl 3's. For people starting out on lvl 4's it will be a good thing to have the hardest missions be moved to level 5. Introducing more challenging/group-playable content in higher level missions in lower security systems could also work out rather well. The only thing that still makes me scratch my head and mumble some diappointed stuff is the following consideration: what happens to the players that currently run the hardest lvl 4 missions without issues that would like to see a new challenge in harder missions....in high-sec. They loose income and what little challenge the hardest lvl 4's still pose. "Loose" as in "no way i'm going to lowsec for a 15 mil kill mission".

So why not have soloable lvl 5 missions in highsec AND lowsec (with the q12+ agents mainly in low-sec), and have level 6+ be what you have on the drawing board for lvl 5 now? If you're worried about too much ISK generated by that make them LP-focused. That way solo-/casual-/empire-only-players get some new challenge with lvl 5 (the ones who can/want to handle lowsec will get the fatter rewards in lowsec), you get the people who fly carriers and are in active co-op-corps into lowsec running lvl 6's (which require a gang anyway, so yeah, you're somewhat safer in lowsec then...but a bigger pirate gang still means loads of trouble ;-) ) and maybe have level 7's in 0.1 and below for full-on fleet-vs-NPC action...


d026
temp holding
Posted - 2007.03.07 13:56:00 - [654]
 

Quote:
dont remove the bounties unless you intend to make them more likely to drop modules that i can sell, a 425mm railgun 1 just doesnt sell on the market and i have a ****load of them, i usually just melt em and make more missles for my raven.


are you nuts? 425mm rails I sell damn nice!

Snabbik Shigen
Posted - 2007.03.07 20:06:00 - [655]
 

Forcing mission runners into low-sec is not going to work (there are already missions in low-sec - what percentage of them get canceled by the players instead of completed?).

CCP needs to fix the drastic change between high-sec and low-sec. Security status with CONCORD needs to matter.

1) Once your security status goes below -1.0, you can no longer dock at stations in 0.9 or higher space. Unless you have gained faction with a particular corp (say +2.00 or better). As your security status drops, you have more and more trouble docking at high-sec stations unless you have good faction with the owner corp. So at -5.00 Security Standing, you have to have a +5.00 with the corp to dock at stations in 0.5 or above. At -10.0 you'd have trouble docking even in 0.1 or 0.2 space without standing above 8.00.

2) CONCORD Security standing should determine whether or not they respond to attacks on a player in 0.4 and lower. If you have 1.00+ you're protected in 0.4, at 2.50 you're protected in 0.3, at 4.00 you're protected in 0.2 and above. The lowest security standing in a gang takes effect.

3) Killing a player with a standing at least 1.00 lower then yours should not result in a security standing hit. A lot of would-be pirate hunters have trouble (so I've heard) because they lose CONCORD standing when attacking pirates.

Zsurru
Posted - 2007.03.08 02:07:00 - [656]
 

Think this through carefully. One of the reasons I like EVE is that I can solo missions and, even though I have been playing every day for 14 months or so, I haven't "topped out" in terms of interest or challenge with Level 4 missions (although I am beginning to feel a bit of boredom I must admit). I've gotten used to doing missions in 0.4 space on occasion and the thought doesn't terrify me -- I simply strip my Typhoon of T2 components and slip into my jump clone. Pirates can kiss my ass. I'm even beginning to think about actually shooting at some of those clowns who warp into my mission. So if you can make these changes in such a manner that someone can continue to SOLO this game and make plenty of progress and isk, then it's all right with me. Force me to join a player corporation and then I'll have serious problems with this game. Make it so you have to join a 0.0 corp to get the good stuff and then I have a more minor problem (course, it's kinda that way already). Personally, I think you should always accommodate the non-PvP player so that he or she can play this game forever without shooting another player or running a mission in fear. I mean, really, what's the problem with that? Think of it as a two-track system. Carebear mission runners are people too!

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2007.03.08 09:09:00 - [657]
 

Originally by: Verone
Originally by: G'Kar5
Edited by: G''Kar5 on 02/03/2007 13:54:33
Keep existing L4's as they are now with similar ISK reward and bounties. I can continue to farm these missions with my BS.


I have quoted this piece of text, and bolded the part which is exactly the problem with high sec mission running.

There is VERY little risk, and potentially massive reward for running these missions, putting the game completely out of balance with regards to risk vs reward.



And I have bolded the part where you are very wrong.

Your massive rewards are between 10 and 20 million hours, the same rewards a miner can get in high sec (even a bit more if he has a buddy doing exploration and finding some good mining site [be there/done that]).

It is possible to exced the 20 million a bit if:
1) you run mission only for bountyes (and that should be fixed, movig bountyes value to loot);
2) you have a ship worth some billion and for wich you have worked for at least a year;
3) you have very high standing;
4) you have most or all the special connection skills.

So you are lamenting that with more skills involved, more time to get here and more more isk in gear used someone is doing more than a high sec miner?

No risk:
To repeat it again: open map, set ship destroyed, look mission hubs.
If there is not risk what are all those ship destroyed?
Risk is very low, but the loss of a ship, when fitted with high end gear is a painful blow for the wallet.

Most PvPers use ships that are easily replaceable, most PvEers use ship at the limit of what they can buy.

There is and there will be always the one getting bejond the limits I have show, finding the right angle to do the right missions with the right set up, ecc. but what most PvPers whant to do is cutting a stile of play because 1/1000 can get a lot of isk.

But that is possible even in PvP. I see PC pirates with very high bountyes, and those staing up for very long time.
So they are capable to do PvP without beging podded (chosing the right targets, using high powered ships, superb skills, wathever).

We should start to say PvP is to easy as ther is people that do it and isn't podded at least 1 time every month?


I dubt you will hear what I am saying, as there isn't worst deaf of he don't want to hear, but missin running isn't unbalanced.
Some adjustament can be done, cutting avay most of the current rewards no.




Depko
Posted - 2007.03.09 15:35:00 - [658]
 

Please developers, if you talk about economy, then use defined economy terms.
You can find "inflation" , "GDP" and other terms on e.g. wikipedia.
but what is a MONEY SINK ???

if you want to regulate inflation (which is an economy term) then try to use some legal economy tools and describe it with legal economy terms.

i think you understand destroying ships in pvp as a MONEY SINK.
and you somehow ended with the result, that pvp (destroying ships and fitting) results in lowering inflation.
the opposite is the true !!!
destroyind items you lower the supply on market (less items can be sold) and you rise the demand (new ships and items have to bought), resulting in higher inflation.
from monetary point of view, you lower the aggregate ammount of goods on marker while keeping the same sum of money in the system. which again results in inflation.

-----

if you want to ruin mission runners and force them do do pvp, then dont hide un der false economy statemens.

Richard Aiel
Caldari
Umbra Exitium
Order Of The Unforgiving
Posted - 2007.03.09 15:39:00 - [659]
 

Hey you guys that think this is ONLY a PVP game...

Originally by: Kieron

please keep in mind that PvE and/or PvP is not something that appeals to the entire player base and different players enjoy different things.



Very Happy

Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
Posted - 2007.03.09 18:49:00 - [660]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Verone

There is VERY little risk, and potentially massive reward for running these missions, putting the game completely out of balance with regards to risk vs reward.



And I have bolded the part where you are very wrong.

Your massive rewards are between 10 and 20 million hours, the same rewards a miner can get in high sec (even a bit more if he has a buddy doing exploration and finding some good mining site [be there/done that]).


I agree that Verone is slightly off. The issue with high sec missions isn't just Risk vs. Reward, it's the lack of Competition Over Resources in comparison to things like mining.

Quote:
To repeat it again: open map, set ship destroyed, look mission hubs.
If there is not risk what are all those ship destroyed?

Where is this "Show Only Mission Runners Destroyed Who Won't Get Their Ships Petitioned Back To Life, And Not Haulers, War Targets, Drunks, and Noobs" map filter you're talking about? Razz

Quote:
I dubt you will hear what I am saying, as there isn't worst deaf of he don't want to hear, but missin running isn't unbalanced.
Some adjustament can be done, cutting avay most of the current rewards no.


Fortunately for you then, Oveur seems to agree with you. "Adjustment" and not taking away "most of the current rewards" seems to be the theme of his statements.

Personally, I'm not convinced that any current missions need to be made LowSec only--I'd rather they tweaked bounties and increased the rewards in LowSec missions further--but you and CCP seem to be closer together on this than you think.




Pages: first : previous : ... 17 18 19 20 21 [22] 23 24 25 : last (25)

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