These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Moving All Level 4 Agents to Low-Sec

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ryu Ibarazaki
Doomheim
#21 - 2013-04-12 04:07:56 UTC
OP stop the madness. Ninja Salvaging lvl 4 mission runners in high sec helps pay for my PvP habit.

Ersahi Kir
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2013-04-12 04:15:24 UTC
I would like to understand this argument better. Is the goal of moving level 4 missions to low sec to increase opportunities for PvP or to decrease the amount of isk being generated? Everything that I've seen tells me that the net positive of moving the missions would be...lets go with "minimal."

So these are my thoughts on moving the missions, lets figure out where I'm wrong.
1. PvE boats are built differently than PvP boats. PvE boats are designed to take a little beating over a long time, whereas PvP boats are designed to spike damage. With the difference between fitting ideology, PvP pilots will more easily steamroll the PvE pilots.

2. People that just want to fly around in a blingy ships won't be coerced to go to low sec to fly missions. If their enjoyment of the game is reduced enough, these are the people most likely to leave the game.

3. People that want to PvP have to be able to sustain their PvP habit. Other games have completely removed the barrier to PvP, namely if you die you just appear again with all your stuff and are free to go at it. Now I understand and agree that this isn't the way EvE is designed. You lose your ship and whatever else every time you get blown up. The idea still exists though, people will only be able to PvP as much as their able to replace losses. Make it harder to recover from losses and you're going to effectively kill PvP for the small fish.

4. Risk vs Reward is all kinds of screwed up in low sec. You can't just pile on ridiculous amounts of risk, provide a marginal amount of reward, and expect things to be balanced. How much more risk is low sec than high sec, particularly for any PvE-ish activity (missions, hauling, mining, etc)? Twice as dangerous? Three times? Fifty times? For it to be worth going into low sec the additional profits need to exceed the additional risk taken. As everyone goes to low sec to mindlessly blow up anything that isn't their gang the risk vs reward is ridiculously out of wack. Simply moving level 4's into low sec doesn't change that balance.

5. A lot of isk is added from missions, but it's spread across a lot of players. Barring bots or something of the sorts, players having access to isk generating activities is what gives players personal options and allows the player ran economy to exist.

I would really like to understand the ideas from the other side, but I simply don't see the benefits of moving level 4's to low sec. But if there's a good counter argument, I would like to understand it.
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#23 - 2013-04-12 04:24:06 UTC
Why not buff low/null instead? The only way I can pay for my drunken pvp is through missions and since I'm equally bad at pve, I don't earn much either.

Sugar Von MurdererTits : Jake Warbird gets my vote for most intriguing and attractive male character in Eve.
Tesal
#24 - 2013-04-12 04:45:05 UTC
CCP: Were moving all level 4 missions to lowsec. **** you carebears.

Carebear 1: I quit.

Carebear 2: WAAAAAAAAAAAAH, my butt hurts.

1 week later at the carebear therapists office.

Therapist: You lost level 4 missions in hisec. How does that make you feel.

Carebear 2: I don't know what to do. I'm so depressed. My life is over.

Therapist: You know that EvE is a video game and its ok take your aggression out on other players. Its just a fantasy world, its not real. Explosions in an internet spaceships game might help your depression and anxiety.

Carebear 2: I'm a pirate now. I will go to lowsec. Yay I'm cured. I will go around killing other people for fun. EXPLOSIONS. Yay.

One week later.

CCP: Were getting rid of lowsec and making it hi-sec so carebears can do level 4's. **** you pirates.

The saga continues...
Angelique Duchemin
Team Evil
#25 - 2013-04-12 05:07:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Angelique Duchemin
I'm not sure what to think about low and null sec players who beg to CCP to feed them carebears. If you're in low and looking for a fight then just go to the nearest gate and there's one to be had.


Or are you looking to fight people in PVE ships who can't fight back? And if you are then how does that make you any better than the carebears?


How does acting tough go hand in hand with asking for opponents who can't fight? Surely the tough people will pick any number of the already available targets in low and null.


The OP talks about risk but wants to be fed PVE ships and claim the rewards for killing them in a PVP fit.

The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.

Josef Djugashvilis
#26 - 2013-04-12 06:01:39 UTC
Dear me, this again.

So, level 4 mission runners would take pve fit ships to be ganked whilst doing missions in lo-sec by gangs of pvp fit ships.

The OP has been playing since 2006. Hmm, perhaps the OP has only bought the character and has been playing Eve for a few hours and has much to learn.

Eve is about risk versus reward, not about losing ships just to pad some one else's kill board stat's.

This is not a signature.
Josef Djugashvilis
#27 - 2013-04-12 06:03:27 UTC
Karl Hobb wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
Karl Hobb wrote:
Marlona Sky wrote:
You are a fool to think anyone farming level 4 missions would all of the sudden decide to go to low sec to keep farming them. The only thing they would do is start farming level 3 missions.

This is what makes the idea so awesome.

translation: i don't need anything myself if it makes you lose something too Cool

It's pretty sad that you can make more money in nearly perfect safety running L4s as opposed to doing anoms in, say, low-sec. L4s are completely out of whack; L3s are plenty for high-sec.


If you get your production slots in null-sec, will you please stop whinging about hi-sec?

This is not a signature.
Xen Solarus
Furious Destruction and Salvage
#28 - 2013-04-12 06:27:42 UTC
Posting in a stealth pirate "feed me more victims" thread.

Seriously though, level 5 missions already lead to lowsec systems, and the main reason people don't do them is because of the OMGWTFPWNED that likely occurs. Lowsec is a wasteland for a reason! I would not agree, at all, that level 4 missions should be moved there too.

Though, perhaps some new level 4 missions could be put there, awesome ones with massive amounts of additional loot. I'd see no issue with that, as highsec players would still have the choice to decline such missions for ones that they know are safe, whilst still leaving the possibility open for those willing to take the additional risk for the additional reward.

Post with your main, like a BOSS!

And no, i don't live in highsec.  As if that would make your opinion any less wrong.  
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#29 - 2013-04-12 06:40:01 UTC
Mei Sui wrote:
... moving the level 4 agents to low sec.



Stopped reading there. Bad Idea is still bad, no matter how much time passes or how You try to justify that.

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
Stroumfita
Red Ring Research
#30 - 2013-04-12 06:40:40 UTC
Low sec has LvL 5 missions, and LvL 4 with better rewards.

If you don't know how to profit from PvE at low sec systems then grow some fu**ing balls and deal with it.
Caitlyn Tufy
Perkone
Caldari State
#31 - 2013-04-12 06:46:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Caitlyn Tufy
Dear OP: level 5 missions used to be in High Sec. Once they were moved, people simply downgraded to level 4 missions and continued doing those. What makes you think that they won't do the same swap from 4 to 3 if you move all level 4 missions to low sec? I mean, take high sec exploration for example - I think everyone here agrees that the high sec rewards there are tiny compared to jackpots you can get in null - yet still, the VAST majority of explorers remains in high sec. Why? Because there's this (false) belief that the moment you cross the low sec threshold, every pirate in the game will come crashing down on you, taking your hard earned iskies.

Stoicfaux is right, a bigger stick won't help, it'll only trigger endless whines. What you need is a bigger carrot, something to get the highbears' attention and make them go "you know what? This might be worth risking my almost certain death in the jaws of those evil pirates". The moment they enter low/null, you've already won them to your side, as they realize their ideas of imminent death were vastly exaggerated.

It would also help if there was some sort of "what to do in case of trouble" tutorials for new pilots, such as how to react to gate camps - the more people would feel ready to enter the "dangerous space", the more likely they would be to do it.

EDIT:

Xen Solarus wrote:
Though, perhaps some new level 4 missions could be put there, awesome ones with massive amounts of additional loot. I'd see no issue with that, as highsec players would still have the choice to decline such missions for ones that they know are safe, whilst still leaving the possibility open for those willing to take the additional risk for the additional reward.


There was this awesome post on EVE Evolved about a year ago on how the low sec should be changed. I still wholely agree with it:

http://massively.joystiq.com/2012/05/13/eve-evolved-risk-vs-reward-in-lowsec/
Beekeeper Bob
Beekeepers Anonymous
#32 - 2013-04-12 06:47:17 UTC
Gogela wrote:
I always like to post in these threads: Yah... ofc all level 4 missions should be in lowsec.

Not a new idea. It is a good idea though, but the entitlement party of highsec would cry too much.



Sounds like the lowsec people think they are entitled to easier kills....Oops

Signature removed - CCP Eterne
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#33 - 2013-04-12 06:49:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Well then, but let's rebalance those missions for PvP fits. Bonus points for coming up with the idea on how to do that without breaking those missions.

While we are at it, abstract risk/reward is irrelevant. It's all about ISK/hour, including delays due to won or avoided PvP encounters and average ISK drain from PvP losses. If the resulting number isn't better than number available to you in relatively safe and predictable space, then why bother with uncertainity of free space?

Finally, speaking of "carebears will be hit" argument. Those who actually blow up their ISK earned in missions on their PvP habit will be hit the most, and not the "carebears" who already have assets that are barely ever blown up, not to mention that it will reduce the diversity of ships available to such people.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#34 - 2013-04-12 06:53:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Indahmawar Fazmarai
I think you should invent a codeword for this idea. Something like "fukallevecozbored", so each time any of you feels the need to talk about these OLD issues, could just start a thread with a single word. FAI:

OP: fukallevezcozbored
2n post: Awful
3rd post: horrible
4th post: awesome
5th post: fukallevecozbored 2.0
6th post: hatebears
7th post: ib4l
8th post: riskreward
9th post: fukallevezcozbored
10th post: thisthreadagain
11th post: riskreward
12th post: hatebears
13th post: ISD lock
Josef Djugashvilis
#35 - 2013-04-12 06:56:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
Most folk do level 4 missions solo, so even if missions were to be made more like pvp, a solo pvp fit mission runner is still easy game for bored lo-sec gate campers.

This is not a signature.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#36 - 2013-04-12 07:01:31 UTC
Xen Solarus wrote:
(...)

Though, perhaps some new level 4 missions could be put there, awesome ones with massive amounts of additional loot. I'd see no issue with that, as highsec players would still have the choice to decline such missions for ones that they know are safe, whilst still leaving the possibility open for those willing to take the additional risk for the additional reward.


Rule #1, every player is a min-maxer.

If those missions were really good pay, would be farmed to death by professional farmers = inflation + bloc whining until they're nerfed as incursions were.

If they are not that good, runners will balance them in terms of iSK/hour and will find them as lacking as Lvl5s are.

(ISK/hour includes potential loss of a specialyzed and very expensive ship)
Alec Enderas
Space Wolves ind.
Solyaris Chtonium
#37 - 2013-04-12 07:13:09 UTC
Enough threads about this topic. What i think was not mentioned here yet is - you can't force players to go to lowsec. Most of the carebears would just move to grind lvl 3 missions. It's the mentality. Somebody mentioned risk vs. reward - how about lvl 4 missions (like worlds collide, extravaganzas...that already exist) getting a nice chance of having a faction drop ? (like 30-50%)

I am not old, just bitter.
Super spikinator
Hegemonous Conscripts
#38 - 2013-04-12 07:24:57 UTC
Mei Sui wrote:
Ready the flamethrowers, but I think it's time to consider moving the level 4 agents to low sec.

One of the key tenants of the EVE universe has been the risk to reward scale going from hi-sec to low-sec to null-sec. The farther you go, the greater the rewards. When it comes to mining for example, the base ores are in high sec with the most valuable in null sec. Added to that the population density in high sec and all of the belts are picked clean with the need to either move farther out into the frontier or into low sec. This shows a good example of the risk to reward escalation.

Missions on the other hand are different. While there are better paying missions in the lowsec/null sec areas, they are a small increase versus the change in risk that is associated. Level 4 missions in high sec give a substantial, multi-million ISK reward for practically no risk at all. And a character can easily get to level 4 agents in a few weeks with good Social skills.

While I do agree that new pilots need a foothold when they join EVE, this mechanic should scale with the rewards offered and I believe that by moving the level 4 agents into low sec, the risk can match the reward more effectively. (While keeping Level 1-3 agents in high sec)

There is another reason for this and that is to fight the large influx of ISK entering the EVE economy from missions. During last years Fanfest in 2012, it was pointed out that 26 Trillion ISK enters the EVE economy via missions. I believe this will go a long way in curbing inflation as pilots must now truly asses the risk of entering low sec with the greater rewards that level 4 and 5 agents offer.

Anyways, that's my idea. Flame away! P


I have no problem with l4s in high sec. I would like it if they occasionally sent people out into low sec or were a bit further from major trade hubs (like 1 in 10 or 1 in 15 missions) but I do not see the entire need to remove them from high sec.
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#39 - 2013-04-12 07:26:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Debora Tsung
Super spikinator wrote:

... I would like it if they occasionally sent people out into low sec


They already, do. Only noboy can ever force You to accept such missions. Big smile

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
Ritsum
Perkone
Caldari State
#40 - 2013-04-12 07:36:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Ritsum
Moving L4's to low is pretty stupid imho. People already lose their ships to ganks and so on in High sec so low sec is not much of a difference apart from people with lower sec status can do it too.

They should just reduce the bounty's and LP rewards from L4's and review a new mission system for low/npc null.

Much more simple then changing every single mission location and agents etc and forcing High sec players into low/null.

Edit: On a side note making a new rewarding mission system in low/npc null would not even make sense since the people that live there do not endorse that playstyle >.>. So why bother trying to coerce High sec players to low by changing the locations of missions? They would just stop doing those missions and either quit or do something else in high sec.

Play EvE how you want to play it and do not let others dictate how you play. Evolve your playstyle to protect yourself from others! Even in "PVE", "PVP" is there, lurking in the shadows.