Player Features and Ideas Discussion

If you PvP in Low Sec now, go do that and leave the High Sec missioners to their thing.


You problems stem from the disparity in PvE and PvP fits. Ask instead for things that make PvP and PvE more compatible. When a bear has a chance of winning a random forced engagement, he will feel more inclined to try and fight it out rather than staying away or docking up as soon as opposition comes into local.

Solo Low Sec bear hunting 'pvp' is just some loser looking to kick puppies in his spare time, because this game does not penalize grief play.

News flash. Those guys you want to shoot pay to play too, and mostly don't care about PvP. Not because they are risk adverse, but because they just don't like it and prefer to do things like explore and exploit the environment. EVE has focused so much on the PvP aspects over the years that the PVE portions still feel unfinished and poorly done, but some of us still love the look and feel of the game portions of the game. EVE has moved away from the sandbox by allowing PvE and PvP to require such a different fitting style that the PvE guys can dock or explode, but not enjoy their game.

You want to fix your target poor environment? Stop hunting your prey to extinction. Want to agitate for improvements to your game? Try and understand why the PvE guy actually logs in, and work together to find a compromise that is fun for both. Victims Online isn't a fun game to play, so you don't get many that are willing to do it.

It's not about ISK. ISK is a means to an end. For the PvE guy, it means more neat stuff to play with, and if the PVE part of the game ever got attention, it means new stuff to see and do. PvP for them isn't about risk, it's about game ruining hassle because the fits that let them do what they want are not compatible with PvP. Give them the ability to both PvE and have a chance fighting off the PvP guys, and you will find targets in Low Sec, but you will have to work to kill them--- and as soon as you find a way to do so with the frequency that exists in Low Sec now, they will go away, so balance is important.

Is this supposed to be a lot of isk? Those ships made 100x of this isk already and thier owners cba , now they will just have 99x of this money since now they need to buy new ship.

I will even go further , those nados owners would go isk dry before maruders guys keeping with such ganks

This thread could have a sense 3-4 years ago, when llevel 4 missions were used to be a gold mine.

It's no longer so, missions had several nerfs and are actually a decent income for solo PvE but not the top. Many other activities are more remunerative (also considering the isk:reward ratio).

And anyway better missions are already more remunerative in low and null.

The problem I see with missions is not the payout or if they're "safe" or not. The main problem IMO is that are an unlimited resource spawned directly by the player: each one can spawn his own mission, and there's no competition for this resources.

Anomalies, Incursions, rats, WH and so on spawn based on their own timers or other triggers not controlled by the players (beside exploits and bug abusing); also are limited resources avaiable for any player, so can produce direct or indirect competition.

And this can eventually prompt to search areas with less competitors.

Supported on one condition:

The rewards of L4 missions are boosted greatly to correspond with the overinflated risk of suddenly pirate PvP gangs out of nowhere. If you're going to risk an expensive ship, then the missions you're using it for should be able to make the ship replaceable even if you manage to lose it in a gatecamp. If you were to be sufficiently ganked by pirates in lowsec (who no doubt would congregate in systems where L4 missions are seen for extremely obvious reasons) then everyone would likely stop doing them, given that the risk is wholly disproportionate to the reward.

We need to remember that marauders are not hard to kill. Nor are any mission ships, really, if you know what mission is happening. That being said battlecruisers will not really be useful for L4 missions either after retribution 1.1, so the only option will be expensive battleships. And regardless of how much ISK you make, if you're making it in a mission but then you lose a large expensive ship, your profit falls flat on it's face.

Actually it's not his point, if they don't want go low sec then fine. Do lvl 3 for less isk. Lvl 3 mission isk is adequate to effort you put in high sec almost no risk space.

For me it's not more targets to shoot. IT's more about effort to get your money.

If it's not about shooting people comeing into lowsec, why do you care how much money they do or don't make? Go do your thing, and leave mission runners to theirs.

tis basically....ccp is following pay per month set in stone commandments here


thou shall give pve content to attract the bears
thou shall give pvp'ers pvp content that does not negate fully commandment 1


Look at most any mmo and lets get real about population trends:

PVE server count > pvp server count > neckbeard roleplay server count.

More people like to shoot NPC's than people. Cold hard fact. This market is ccp's best bet to keep rl money flowing. It can take up to 9 months for a player to plex consistently full time. thats 9 months of $15 per head coming in.

Meanwhile in 0.0, there is the bitter vet who sneezes and makes hundreds of millions weekely if doing ti right who is plexing his main, 2 cyno alt accounts...and still has billions in the bank left over.

Pirates get screwed but they screwed themselves really. "Damn no bears jump into our gate". No crap, they checked automap for kills/poddings last hour and saw you popped 10 people. your gate/system is a no go. this isn't risk aversion, its common sense. Hitting your system be as smart as solo jumping into ec- from torrinos not blue to the residents of ec-.

Wow "let thier do whatever they want" ... Sure fine for me. Most of you fail to understand that it's not about them doing what they want but about how much they earn from this. OP never said there should be no security missions in high sec.

Wtf is wrong with you guys ? It's all about ******** payout from missions. You see ******** km's where some mission runners are ganked ... very often ? Why because those carebears couldn't care less they can afford countless deadspace fitted ships - doing mind numbing easy and repeative lvl 4 missions.

All i'm asking is not to move them to low sec but cut thier income. No **** there is such inflation if they "print" such amounts of cash.

Stop trying to tell me i want them moved to low sec. I'm not stupid i know they will not move no matter what. I think they should earn good money from mission running , but as it's now it's way too much.

UNLESS MY INFO is wrong and people cannot earn 50kk isk per hour from mission running. If they cant and it's closer to 20-30kk then i guess i can live with that. If they can earn 50kk then nerf this .

There was someone who was claiming you could do this earlier, but I don't know anyone who has ever actually done it. People say if you're not making 70M ISK per hour in missions, then you're doing them wrong. Well clearly lots and lots of people are doing them wrong and the payouts just aren't that good on average.

And while there may be some professional mission runners who do nothing but making huge amounts of money like the other poster said, they're in the minority.

In my experience missions tend to be something that people do as a one-off. Maybe two in a row. But, frankly, it's not the most lucrative thing you can do in only hi-sec. I think 10-15M ISK per hour for a good mission is more typical.

The basic problem is that the average mission runner makes 15-20kk, and there are a few hardcores, many of them alts of nullseccers in my personal experience, who chain them and farm them in painstakingly researched ships and fits to maximize ISK/hr for other things, usually PVP. Those guys can pull down 50kk/hr, easily. So the problem you have with a straight nerf is that you're decreasing the optimal mission payout to a level you consider reasonable, and the other 80% or 90% of mission runners, from the beginners in T1 battleships to the loners in failfit shinies, end up making less than ice miners, at considerably greater risk.

L4s used to pay so well because they were intended to be run by small groups. Unfortunately, CCP buffed their ships and not their missions, and so we arrive at the present day, when a friend of mine can solo both Angels Extravaganza (including the bonus room) and Worlds Collide in a T2 fit Drake--not quickly, mind you, but reliably. That, plus the fact that rewards don't scale with the number of participants, means that the ideal number of participants tends strongly toward one. (Scaling rewards to participants, however, would increase the overall ISK faucet and result in fleets of alts, so it's not that simple to fix.)

I'm not a particularly enthusiastic mission runner myself; I run them for standings, and I prefer to run them with other people just for the company. I use vanilla-fit T1 ships. I've never noticed L4 income as being all that great, but I've made very little effort to optimize it. The major change I've noticed is that I used to make a relative killing on loot and salvage, and now I only haul the Noctis out if there are an impressive number of elites and battleships in the mission.