EVE General Discussion

Yes I agree CCP will try arbitrarily and without reason to make nullsec more attractive. Ever so slowly making hisec tedious and unrewarding. That's not evidence though. That's just CCP trying an ineffectual method to fix a design problem. If you want people in Nullsec there are a few issues.

#1: Logistics. Its a royal pain in the ass to move things to and fro. Paying someone to do it is an option technically but is it an option people feel satisfied in using? No, in most cases. There is no guarantee any invite to nullsec will turn out to be worth the trouble or cost.

#2: Sovereignty of the individual. The thought of paying to play a game and living under the rule of people you may or may not like with likely no chance of ever being able to rise in rank to the level of control or ability to affect that controlling entities agenda is about as alluring as chomping into a excrement sandwich.

#3: Profit Sharing. There is no culture of where joining an alliance nets you great wealth. Sure, you can go and farm wealth in the regions the alliance controls but it comes at the cost of great risk to your own personal wealth. Yes replacement programs exist for ship losses, few cover anything your typical HISEC mission runner would want to fly. I know I can kill battleships with frigates but what if I just don't want to?

#4: Stress. Every time someone logs in they may not be up for playing with the protocols that are required to operate in nullsec. This is often replicated in hisec when you begin pimping out your ships but in nullsec it's like this for every ship.

#5: Self-Interest. Why would I want to join your alliance? I'd rather run my own!

Now, if you want people in nullsec there is one solution. And that is to remove local intel. You won't often get more people in the alliances currently established but you will get more there to visit. Without that option you can go beyond lowering the wealth generation of level 4s, hell remove them from game and leave just level 1s in hisec. None of any significant number are going to suddenly forget about the 5 reasons I just mentioned.

Just ignored every point I made eh?

Don't worry, 95% of everyone else will too because facts and realities don't matter. Pie in the sky delusions of hisec mission ships prancing into low/null sec for the plundering just sounds so awesome!

Who am I to awaken the dim masses with reality? Spend as much time as you'd like with fact-less armchair economics and delusions of success. This time next year you'll be just as bored in null/low as you are now. CCP has no way to force anyone to be a victim that won't cut into their profits. And no one is going to be allowed to do that.

It was once said level 5s in low sec would make it a vibrant land of death and destruction. And now its level 4s. What is it they say about repeating the same exact action and expecting different results?

If missionning income is so out of wack, why are people throwing billions of ISK to large alliance just for the right to live in a sull system? Are they all idiots not understanding where the money is?

If the income is so unbalanced, why are people going through all the trouble of moving **** to and from null to farm in thier system insetad of farming with no problem in high?

Who said all of the "prancing" bling boats would be trapesing around low, I would hope that better sense would prevail. It may no but it may. More importantly its a conflict driver, once you accept a mission you are on a timer do it or lose statnding, and there are only so many 2% hits that you can take before you lose access to an agent.

It takes ten or more people to pull incrusion level incomes, and there is stiff competition to actually make that happen. But, you get myrid claims here that people are pulling anomally level incomes......all safe and secure under concord.

So much for risk vs reward eh?



What gives you the idea that I am the slightest bit bored? I moved out of both hi sec and low sec because they were boring, I spent a lot more time looking for things to do than actually doing them....and running level 4s in high makes me want slit my wrists after about 3.



Yes, but the simple fact is that there is a HUGE divergence between the income available. A T1 BS with T1 rigs runs in the neighborhood or 300mil now meaning you would need 30 hours to replace a battleship on level 3 income, around the same for the T2 cruisers a full workweek for a T3.

...or just sit in hi and do what? Run level 3s with a Drake?

This is demonstrating a lack of what is being discussed.

Mission income isn't unbalanced because it provides so much isk to an individual pilot. it's a prblem because of 150,000 people injecting isk into a game's economy while suffering very VERY few loses to compensate (thus Malcanis' comment about the risk being too low).

Many activities provide more isk. When those other activities stuff to much isk into the economy (like null sec anoms before the system's upgrade nerf and the Titan tracking nerf or like the original incursions), they get nerfed despite injecting less overall isk than missions do.

The proper fix is injecting more risk in to level 4 missions. The NPC AI change was a good start and is healthy for the EVE economy in that it actually spurred more drone consumption and production. Prior to the npc AI change, the only time dropnes were lost were in pvp or if a mission runner warped off and forgot them.

Yes, level 4s must be the reason EVE's economy is out of wack. Care to provide some evidence for that claim? If you don't mind the general public won't be taking your word for it. Its akin to me saying nullsec rats are the real unchecked faucet. All that safe alliance space generating heaps of income well beyond a hisec rat and requiring not a mission objective one other than land, target, fire, kill & collect. Unlike the rest however I won't parrot that and pretend it quantified as evidence.

And why is it that every mention of level 4 mission running assumes the runner is in a shiffit poor mans drake? There isn't as much risk strolling through nullsec in a 20 mil ISK cruiser as there is in hisec with a 5bil ISK marauder or other such ship.

I disagree with that, if for no other reason is it fuels that irrational "high sec persecution complex" where they allow themeslve to think that the ONLY motivation I and those like me have is that "you don't like my playstyle" lol. But also because it doesn't work.

Put lvl 4s in low sec and watch the brand spanking new LEVEL 3 community burst into existence like the Big Bang. Lvl 5s and incursions and all the rewards outside of high sec prove that no level of reward justifies any level of risk for a great many PVE players. Lvl 4s in low sec just means waste content.

No, HIGH SEC lvl 4s should be more dangerous, to reinforce the core spirit of EVE online to it's players: No where is safe but you can mitigate the danger with creativity and teamwork. As it is now the only high sec PVE players forced to pay attention to their screens for any lenght of time are mission runners with blinged ships and Incursion runners moving to the next incursion because ISN or DIN killed the freaking MOM again.

Hell, If lvl 4s were more dangerous (ie lets make EVERY lvl 4 the same as enemies abound 5/5) and thus killed more ships, it would be ok to BUFF mission rewards.

Could you provide evidence or data showing Eve's economy is not only in turmoil or imminent danger, but that it is being caused by mission running? Could you show the numbers indicating that "very very few" player losses is part of the "problem"? How much more losses should players be incurring to fix this "problem"?

That's idiotic. I don't pvp much, what spears of mine do you want to throw yourself at, the one I keep in the closet for a keep sake?

People like yoiu like to believe that other people "want you to do something" because then you can lie to yourself and say your existence is actually relevant lol. No one cares how or where you play.

Some of us do care about the health of our game, however. I didn't like the anom or incursion or FW nerfs as it dried up some of my isk making, but I accepted them as needed for the game, the same way I'm going to cry when ccp nerfs my mach and cynabal soon lol. See, some of us can be unselfish when it comes to a communal activity like a video game.

You should try it.

Jenn aSide,

You're saying that there's "a problem because of 150,000 people injecting isk into a game's economy while suffering very VERY few losses to compensate". I am trying to see where the problem is. Do you have data to back this up?

If this is a problem that you personally have, well then, I can very much respect that. But please understand that that is what it is, a personal problem with mission running, and not a problem with the game's economy itself.