These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1221 - 2013-09-09 14:38:28 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Malcanis 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.


That's rubbish and you know it. Unless you think CONCORD has exactly zero deterrent value.

Do you?


Concords deterrent factor is directly related to the value of the ship your flying. And in high sec where your alliance doesn't control space as many as 2000 non allied people can be in your system. 0-1999 could theoretically be planning your demise. You either stay docked up or play with the risk.

In nullsec avoiding the danger is as simple as checking local. If a target is there that isn't allied you can dock/safe up and avoid the risk. Awoxing doesn't need be considered as that can happen in highsec as well.


You can prevent the risk in the exact same way in high sec. You even usually have more stations you can dock in to make you ahrder to find should you ever want to undock.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1222 - 2013-09-09 14:40:12 UTC
You're an idiot. The thread has nothing to do with buffing high sec. Ive not suggested it.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1223 - 2013-09-09 14:41:30 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
You're an idiot. The thread has nothing to do with buffing high sec. Ive not suggested it.


Liar, you want highsec buffed to force us all into highsec. You just want nullsec to be worthless so you can horde all of the highsec moons and mine them to fuel your highsec empire.

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
#1224 - 2013-09-09 14:43:06 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Malcanis 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.


That's rubbish and you know it. Unless you think CONCORD has exactly zero deterrent value.

Do you?


Concords deterrent factor is directly related to the value of the ship your flying. And in high sec where your alliance doesn't control space as many as 2000 non allied people can be in your system. 0-1999 could theoretically be planning your demise. You either stay docked up or play with the risk.

In nullsec avoiding the danger is as simple as checking local. If a target is there that isn't allied you can dock/safe up and avoid the risk. Awoxing doesn't need be considered as that can happen in highsec as well.


You can prevent the risk in the exact same way in high sec. You even usually have more stations you can dock in to make you ahrder to find should you ever want to undock.


You can't see it coming like you can in nullsec. Im not going to write out a thesis.

Load up a 5 billion or so ship in jita and park it at a gate. Detect whos coming to kill you.

Load up a 5 billion isk ship in nullsec. Go park at a gate. Detect who coming to kill you.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1225 - 2013-09-09 14:43:27 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
i'll go with after 10 years of being around you cap out at roughly 35k playing at any given time. Many of which are alts. Players that stick around are not anywhere near the level you imply they are. Dedicated EVE players are not easily replaceable. If that needs proving i'll concede you technically win that argument but everyone else knows better. Not being able to disprove doesn't prove anything true. Google Celestial Teapot.


Yep those alts being nullsec people who are being forced into highsec. You just want to force people into highsec.


Why would I want to force you into high sec? I don't care where you play. It doesn't affect me. You aren't being forced. You're choosing too. Why you make that choice is of a personal nature.


Liar, you want highsec to be buffed so we all have to move to highsec. You want to force us into highsec because you want to force us into highsec.


~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~


Technically, forcing you all into high would nerf high-sec missioner income because statistically, some people would end up missioning for the good ratio LP stores factions wich would bring down the ratio due to over feeding of the market.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1226 - 2013-09-09 14:45:08 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Malcanis 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.


That's rubbish and you know it. Unless you think CONCORD has exactly zero deterrent value.

Do you?


Concords deterrent factor is directly related to the value of the ship your flying. And in high sec where your alliance doesn't control space as many as 2000 non allied people can be in your system. 0-1999 could theoretically be planning your demise. You either stay docked up or play with the risk.

In nullsec avoiding the danger is as simple as checking local. If a target is there that isn't allied you can dock/safe up and avoid the risk. Awoxing doesn't need be considered as that can happen in highsec as well.


You can prevent the risk in the exact same way in high sec. You even usually have more stations you can dock in to make you ahrder to find should you ever want to undock.


You can't see it coming like you can in nullsec. Im not going to write out a thesis.

Load up a 5 billion or so ship in jita and park it at a gate. Detect whos coming to kill you.

Load up a 5 billion isk ship in nullsec. Go park at a gate. Detect who coming to kill you.


So "some people might kill you" is more risk than "anyone not blue and possibly some blue will kill you"?
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1227 - 2013-09-09 14:45:28 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
i'll go with after 10 years of being around you cap out at roughly 35k playing at any given time. Many of which are alts. Players that stick around are not anywhere near the level you imply they are. Dedicated EVE players are not easily replaceable. If that needs proving i'll concede you technically win that argument but everyone else knows better. Not being able to disprove doesn't prove anything true. Google Celestial Teapot.


Yep those alts being nullsec people who are being forced into highsec. You just want to force people into highsec.


Why would I want to force you into high sec? I don't care where you play. It doesn't affect me. You aren't being forced. You're choosing too. Why you make that choice is of a personal nature.


Liar, you want highsec to be buffed so we all have to move to highsec. You want to force us into highsec because you want to force us into highsec.


~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~


Technically, forcing you all into high would nerf high-sec missioner income because statistically, some people would end up missioning for the good ratio LP stores factions wich would bring down the ratio due to over feeding of the market.


No no no, that's logic, logic doesn't apply to highsec. Highsec will have to be buffed then so it can maintain its high income and nullsec will get nerfed again since people must be forced into highsec.

~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~

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
#1228 - 2013-09-09 14:47:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
La Nariz wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
You're an idiot. The thread has nothing to do with buffing high sec. Ive not suggested it.


Liar, you want highsec buffed to force us all into highsec. You just want nullsec to be worthless so you can horde all of the highsec moons and mine them to fuel your highsec empire.



Are you high? Or young? Or just trolling? I haven't asked for a buff to highsec at all, nor do I run an empire. What I have stated explicitly is the economy is fine. That level 4s are just another of many ways to make isk, certainly not the most lucrative or least time consuming. Who would argue them being the most entertaining?

I've also argued that level 3s are not an acceptable high end activity for skilled mission runners in high sec.

Mining high sec moons? SMH.

Group think is sad.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1229 - 2013-09-09 14:54:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:

You can't see it coming like you can in nullsec. Im not going to write out a thesis.

Load up a 5 billion or so ship in jita and park it at a gate. Detect whos coming to kill you.

Load up a 5 billion isk ship in nullsec. Go park at a gate. Detect who coming to kill you.


So "some people might kill you" is more risk than "anyone not blue and possibly some blue will kill you"?



I've already elaborated the difference, if you want to reduce to absurdity what i've stated do so. It's the interwebs.

Is sitting in a 20 million isk cruiser in null sec more risky than sitting in a 5 billion isk battleship through high sec? IDK, you tell me.

Risk is not an absolute.
Lady Areola Fappington
#1230 - 2013-09-09 14:56:51 UTC
ITT I've also learned that Caliph Muhammed (pbuh) wants to buff highsec, and force everyone to play there.

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
#1231 - 2013-09-09 14:58:08 UTC
What am I doing is winning. Hence the "caliph versus nullsec" arguments. I like winning.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1232 - 2013-09-09 14:58:12 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:

You can't see it coming like you can in nullsec. Im not going to write out a thesis.

Load up a 5 billion or so ship in jita and park it at a gate. Detect whos coming to kill you.

Load up a 5 billion isk ship in nullsec. Go park at a gate. Detect who coming to kill you.


So "some people might kill you" is more risk than "anyone not blue and possibly some blue will kill you"?



I've already elaborated the difference, if you want to reduce to absurdity what i've stated do so. It's the interwebs.

Is sitting in a 20 million isk cruiser in null sec more risky than sitting in a 5 billion isk battleship through high sec? IDK, you tell me.

Risk is not an absolute.


You still have more chance of getting blow up in null in that cruiser. Also what is preventing you from flying the same 5bill pimp mobile in null? Is it the risk?
embrel
BamBam Inc.
#1233 - 2013-09-09 14:58:39 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


That has nothing to do with buying a good product versus a bad product, try again.


If CCP had to depend upon EVE being a "good product", they would run in trouble quite soon. Being "the right" product is worth x100 of being "a good product". Blink


You're kidding me right? There are plenty of average products that do okay. Please though in the spirit of this thread show me your peer reviewed scientific double-blind quantramillion-controlled study showing that entitled highsec pubbies cannot possibly be replaced by new players. Also cite another study showing that they are integral to game design and that all games without them will die.


As a nerf to mission income will within a few weeks/months have an impact on general prices, any nerf could be less efficient than expected.

I am wondering whether the whole risk/reward discussion is not ignoring that people - as it's not their real life - are not incentivised that much by risk/reward like they should be IRL (assuming rational behaviour).

A casual gamer just might, after a days work, not fancy the thought of having to be on high alert, so he goes on a mission in Empire no matter whether the reward is 30 or 60 million per hour.

And who says that all the alliance alts missioning in Empire are doing that purely because there's the better reward and not because they're just fed up with corporatism for the moment?

I started again with Eve few months back and have been ratting in NPC 0 and have done L4 missions. After I have now found the knack on L4's, to me it seems they pay better. Especially if I take my losses (a Domi and a Myrm so far) in 0 into account. I plan to go back to ratting as I just like the openness of the setting more (I can stop when I want to and don't have to "finish").

But, I have to PLAN to go there again. Meaning I need to stuff up again and have to take an alt as scout (didn't have that and this will have been one of the reasons for the losses). The whole planning thing is currently not very enticing, so I'm back to L4 for now.

Long story short: at least to me, risk/reward is not the single decision factor. It's a game after all and there at least I should be allowed to do something that's irrational just because I like doing it.

ah, regarding the quotes: I don't see a contradiction in the two. The right product can be just an ok product when it's the right one.
Lady Areola Fappington
#1234 - 2013-09-09 14:58:49 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:

You can't see it coming like you can in nullsec. Im not going to write out a thesis.

Load up a 5 billion or so ship in jita and park it at a gate. Detect whos coming to kill you.

Load up a 5 billion isk ship in nullsec. Go park at a gate. Detect who coming to kill you.


So "some people might kill you" is more risk than "anyone not blue and possibly some blue will kill you"?



I've already elaborated the difference, if you want to reduce to absurdity what i've stated do so. It's the interwebs.

Is sitting in a 20 million isk cruiser in null sec more risky than sitting in a 5 billion isk battleship through high sec? IDK, you tell me.

Risk is not an absolute.



Entirely more risky in Nullsec. Any Joe with a ship can fly up and try to kill you.

In high, they'd have to be organized enough to overwhelm you with damage before CONCORD shows up. Not many can, or are willing to do it.

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
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#1235 - 2013-09-09 14:59:28 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Malcanis 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.


That's rubbish and you know it. Unless you think CONCORD has exactly zero deterrent value.

Do you?


Concords deterrent factor is directly related to the value of the ship your flying. .


This is the exact opposite of the truth. The deterrent factor is inversely proportional to the ganked value of the ship.

"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
#1236 - 2013-09-09 15:00:12 UTC
You have more chance getting blown up in a ibis than that cruiser, it doesn't reflect risk in the way you imply it does. Value lost is risk, not loss itself.

I could lose 200 damage control 1's. I could lose 50 damage control 2s. which is worse?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1237 - 2013-09-09 15:02:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
What am I doing is winning. Hence the "caliph versus nullsec" arguments. I like winning.

Lying and being wrong about everything is not a generally accepted definition of winning, so you should probably stop lying about that as well.

Quote:
You have more chance getting blown up in a ibis than that cruiser
No, because causing you to lose an ibis is a waste of the attacker's time.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1238 - 2013-09-09 15:05:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
The more expensive ship you fly the less likely Concord will act as a deterrent for you being killed. You understood what I said just fine.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1239 - 2013-09-09 15:07:42 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Malcanis 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.


That's rubbish and you know it. Unless you think CONCORD has exactly zero deterrent value.

Do you?


Concords deterrent factor is directly related to the value of the ship your flying. .


This is the exact opposite of the truth. The deterrent factor is inversely proportional to the ganked value of the ship.


The more expensive ship you fly the less likely Concord will act as a deterrent for you being killed. You understood what I said just fine.



WIch mean CONCORD is a bigger deterrant as your price goes down. Inversly proportionnal.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1240 - 2013-09-09 15:09:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Which proves what point exactly? That suicide ganking is pointless to do on newbie and slightly better than newbie ships? Wellokay. If that needed stating so be it. You could also say that it becomes cheaper to kill those ships at the same time right? Obvious point is obvious.

Semantics arguments are fun.