These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Do Level 4 missions pay too much compared to 1 through 3?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lady Areola Fappington
#1181 - 2013-09-09 13:35:50 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

grr goons.

How dare we not engage people in pve ships.



I demand all goons from now on rat in blingfit battleships, just like highsec folks.

Also, ITT we find out working together and playing smart are OP. CCP plz nurf friendship and intelligence.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1182 - 2013-09-09 13:36:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
I thought you wanted higher risk? It's funny you advocate changes for high secs risk factor while admitting that in null sec you make plans to lower the risk in your pve activities.

Sounds like you're just a bunch of carebear pubs masquerading as balls to the wall hardcores.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1183 - 2013-09-09 13:38:16 UTC
Sal Landry wrote:
risk averse


This doesn't mean what you think it means. People who rat in null are taking a risk. Using gameplay knowledge and ships to optimise the risk:reward ratio whilst taking that risk isn't "hypocritical" or "risk averse", it's simply playing the game well.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1184 - 2013-09-09 13:39:43 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
I thought you wanted higher risk? It's funny you advocate changes for high secs risk factor while admitting that in null sec you make plans to lower the risk in your pve activities.

Sounds like you're just a bunch of carebear pubs masquerading as balls to the wall hardcores.


The point being that they have to actually make some effort, interact with other players, make compromises in their fitting and ship choices that reduce their optimal ISK/hr. You know, play the game.

None of which applies in hi-sec missioning.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1185 - 2013-09-09 13:40:14 UTC
Lady Areola Fappington wrote:
baltec1 wrote:

grr goons.

How dare we not engage people in pve ships.



I demand all goons from now on rat in blingfit battleships, just like highsec folks.

Also, ITT we find out working together and playing smart are OP. CCP plz nurf friendship and intelligence.


Caliph has neither of those things and it's not fair, I tell you.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1186 - 2013-09-09 13:40:56 UTC
They are taking as much risk as the high secs. Local enables you to function in null with the same level of risk.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1187 - 2013-09-09 13:45:55 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
I thought you wanted higher risk? It's funny you advocate changes for high secs risk factor while admitting that in null sec you make plans to lower the risk in your pve activities.

Sounds like you're just a bunch of carebear pubs masquerading as balls to the wall hardcores.


Yea, we have asked for no such thing.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#1188 - 2013-09-09 13:47:08 UTC
Pr1ncess Alia wrote:
Malcanis wrote:

As I originally said I'm not in favour of nerfing mission income, preferring to increase the risk. But removing LP would be a horrible idea: they're the biggest ISK sink in EVE.


Sorry I didn't read the entire thread, how would we do this?

I think more difficult missions and rats could be interesting. Give them sleeper type ai.. anything to mix it up. (smart change is always good in a game, people like new things)

But if the idea is to inherently increase the risk of player versus player opposition even in high security space, that's a mixture for failure. You will see subs drop.

As has been said 1,000 times in this thread, it's all about the RISK levels not the ISK levels. Always has been, always will be. If people see a system they can't comfortably farm as a hobby, you will lose subs.

If they need to go to low sec, if they have war dec mechanics they can't duck out of, etc etc etc...

I don't expect everyone to be able to relate to it, but I've known many of these people in eve. I'm not sure how they can do the same missions over and over and over and over and over again, but that's what they come to Eve for, that's what they pay their sub money for and if you take that away, we'll lose those people and their money. In game balance and economics be damned. And there are a shockingly large group of them, (you would know better than I just how much of the pie is made up of these players.)

Is a shoot yourself in the foot move Straight


Quoted for truth. Hiseccers with a very strict sense of "acceptable risk" are the single largest minority in EVE.

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1189 - 2013-09-09 13:48:00 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
They are taking as much risk as the high secs. Local enables you to function in null with the same level of risk.


So people in high sec dock up their pve boats every time there neutrals in local?
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1190 - 2013-09-09 13:50:07 UTC
Remove local chat. Then everyone's risk materializes at the level it should based on sec. No one will know what lurks around the corner.

Trying to justify nerfing one while the same cure for stupid exists in all three is quite amusing.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1191 - 2013-09-09 13:51:00 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Remove local chat. Then everyone's risk materializes at the level it should based on sec. No one will know what lurks around the corner.

Trying to justify nerfing one while the same cure for stupid exists in all three is quite amusing.


This fixes the lack of reward in null how?
Lady Areola Fappington
#1192 - 2013-09-09 13:51:11 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
They are taking as much risk as the high secs. Local enables you to function in null with the same level of risk.



Here, let me give it a shot, maybe I can break through the wall.

Highsec is low risk because an outside, artificial intervention (CONCORD) makes it low risk.

Sovereign nullsec is low risk (for the owning alliance) because the people who live in the area make it low risk.


Depending on an outside, artificial intervention to protect you is quite unEVEish.

As is, ask TEST about how safe and low-risk null is. They might have a...unique perspective.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#1193 - 2013-09-09 13:51:28 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
(...)

EvE should do the same: implement really engaging AI enemies who fight with the basics of a real PvPer. That would also teach PvP basics.

These missions would be "others" (new epics?), the current ones can't be adapted to such AI as they have way too many clusters of opponents. Plus the new missions would require PvP setups not PvE.


I already suggested that, but some CCP dev figured we wanted to get rid of current missions AI and replace it so we had exclusively PvP-fit missions.

"Getting it right" is not one of CCP's strongest points... Roll

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1194 - 2013-09-09 13:51:42 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
They are taking as much risk as the high secs. Local enables you to function in null with the same level of risk.


So people in high sec dock up their pve boats every time there neutrals in local?


No because it would be a waste of time to do. Theres too many people in the mission hubs. In nullsec you can belt rat in empty systems and make 1 mil per kill. A neutral in null is a lot different than a neutral in high sec. One has meaning and can be viewed as a threat. In high sec not so much.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1195 - 2013-09-09 13:52:38 UTC
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Perhaps the way to go would be to remove LP from high sec missions. It would end the blitzing, the bad pilots wouldnt see any change in their ticks and low sec would get a nice buff without injecting any more isk into the system. Null would also become a more viable place to be.


Hisec LP stores are a ISK sink, are you sure you want to get rid of it? Because what will NOT happen, is people suddenly saying "oh, I NEED those LP, I'm so much going to fly my high end mission runner ship to low and get them where they are".

Not. People will look at the skyrocketing price of LP stuff as supply is decimated, then they will search for a better ISK source to pay the higher price (say, Incursions) and you'll have Incursion farming 23.5/7 as inflation breaks through the ceiling once more ISK enter the system and less ISK leave it.

Hiseccing 101: It's the risk, stupid!


Well we would have to be nerfing high sec incursions more anyway. These things should never have been put into high sec.


(A hiseccer returns to game after a year. Some months ago, the nerf bat hit high security space according to everyone but hiseccer's desires, and now the once thriving hisec is empty, deserted. Markets are crashing under hyperinflation and PCU is at a record low. Startled, the comebacker undocks and sees an advertisement container righ outside of the station:

"Star Citizen is that way --> So long, and thanks for all the ISK!" Lol)

Nerfing hisec haves a net positive effect of nerfing PCU rather than anything else...


Oh look another "if you nerf highsec I will quit the game" post. Please do, making EVE a good product by balancing risk:reward among other things, combined with advertising will attract more than enough people to replace entitled highsec pubbies.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1196 - 2013-09-09 13:53:42 UTC
Oh look another they won't react to anything we do to them post.. Then remove all missions save for level 1s and lets watch the outcome.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1197 - 2013-09-09 13:55:32 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Oh look another they won't react to anything we do to them post.. Then remove all missions save for level 1s and lets watch the outcome.

Stop putting words in other people's mouths, liar.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1198 - 2013-09-09 13:58:02 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
They are taking as much risk as the high secs. Local enables you to function in null with the same level of risk.


So people in high sec dock up their pve boats every time there neutrals in local?


No because it would be a waste of time to do. Theres too many people in the mission hubs. In nullsec you can belt rat in empty systems and make 1 mil per kill. A neutral in null is a lot different than a neutral in high sec. One has meaning and can be viewed as a threat. In high sec not so much.


Right so there is more risk in null.
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#1199 - 2013-09-09 14:00:29 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
Tippia wrote:
No.

Yes. Again, if said alliance chooses to allow its POSes to consistently be put into re-enforcement time after time after time again then it sounds like serious alliance incompetence to me and it will need to re-evaluate its territorial control and what it's doing with its resources. But this is NOT a hi sec problem nor should hi sec have to emulate this behavior with its stations. I'm sorry, but that is just silly.

Your issue with the inability to track and stalk NPC alts is just that, an issue with NPC alts. Changing the way mission running works to affect everyone in hi sec alike simply because you take up issue with how NPC alts work sounds to me like nuking your home because you think you have a termite problem; nevermind that you have yet to show in a verifiable way that NPC alts running missions in hi sec is indeed a problem in need of fixing.

Quote:
Yes, there are other ways to lose your ship while doing an L4

Ah! Finally We're making progress :).

Quote:
Anything that relies on an unavoidable unlimited random element.

I'm curious, is human error not an "unavoidable unlimited random element"? Could you give some examples on what you consider to be "unavoidable unlimited random element"? Caution on how you answer this because I have a follow-up question :).

Quote:
A PST Ishtar will do for most purposes, or a PST Rattler if you're a sissy who flies battleships… P
And before you go down that road, note that I've already said that once you really push the envelope on income, risk does indeed come creeping in because a lot of that additional pushing comes at the cost of sacrificing large portions of what would otherwise be considered a suitable tank.

You're finally (some what) coming clean. But what I really wanted to see was the "magic bullet" fitting that you claim can protect you, say from an all-out room agro from any of the tougher missions and compare how it fares in making that crazy insanely amount of isk that is being thrown around here. In any case, this is now moot, because you've admitted that "risk does indeed come creeping in" and that the isk per hour is lowered. So you've essentially closed the door you had initially left open behind you with your original claim.

I can't speak on what E-2 claimed because, shamefully and admittedly, I haven't read all posts on this thread. What I can say, as a moon owner, I have made multiple times more from my moons than I ever made running missions. My time has always been better spent maintaining my moons. I still run missions for fun when I get around to them, but profit is not my goal with them.

The moral of the story is there are way more lucrative ways to make isk in Eve. MIssion running has its perks. It is a safer way to make isk. But it is not the way to make the isk. Nor is it absolutely safe and without risks.


Thanks for being honest. Most people don’t want to acknowledge or have attention drawn to the income from moons as compared to mission running.

They allow their blind hate for hi-sec to overrule any common sense.

Also thanks for taking the time to point out tippia’s flip flopping. I have zero respect for people that argue on the forums all day just for something to do.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1200 - 2013-09-09 14:00:51 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
I have no idea what I am talking about and enjoy making myself look like a moron


Go on...

E-2C Hawkeye wrote:


Thanks for being honest. Most people don’t want to acknowledge or have attention drawn to the income from moons as compared to mission running.

They allow their blind hate for hi-sec to overrule any common sense.

Also thanks for taking the time to point out tippia’s flip flopping. I have zero respect for people that argue on the forums all day just for something to do.


It isn't a blind hatred there have been plenty of well reasoned arguments presented in favor of nerfing highsec reward. Yet these arguments aren't countered with other well reasoned arguments, instead they are loudly shouted and then told all that incoherent screaming is evidence that highsec is fine.

The thing here people don't like is that there are maybe 2-3 people who can post a coherent argument against nerfing highsec reward and they get drowned out by the fetid cesspit of other shitposting highsec pubbies.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133