These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Move Level 4 agents into lowsec

Author
Tamiya Sarossa
Resistance is Character Forming
#21 - 2011-11-29 23:55:15 UTC
I'd actually support more lvl IV agents in lowsec - I mission there frequently and a couple more hubs with multiple agents in the same system would be nice.

With mwd-cloak traveling through gates in lowsec is trivially easy, but I'd still like the option to decline anti-faction missions more often by using multiple agents like my highsec amigos. Make more lowsec systems with multiple agents!
Nephilius
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#22 - 2011-11-30 00:45:38 UTC
Rawls Canardly wrote:
Jenn Makanen wrote:
Rawls Canardly wrote:
Suddenly lowsec becomes popular. AMAZING.



Or suddenly people stop subscribing, as they can't be bothered with the risk.

Strangely, I'm ok with that.


I don't buy that answer for a second. This isn't even really about hurting the income of mission runners, but rather a way to try to force pilots into losec so you'll have some juicy targets. But once you've killed all of them what then? Do you honestly believe that people would keep coming into losec to do Level 4s when the chances that they'll get past the gates is slim to none?

The general population of losec is due to a blood thirsty attitude and an unrelenting quest for moar KMs, nothing more. I've been seeing this nonsense about moving L4s into losec since I first started playing three years ago, and if it had been a good idea, CCP would have implemented it. But they haven't cause it's not. It doesn't even resemble a solution to the problem of losec, and if anything, would create a greater problem overall.

Besides, doesn't losec have level 5s? Has no one thought of protection rackets, to help enable more of the PvE type to brave losec? Look at what the mafia did, take a few lessons from their histories, use the methods they did and you'll at the very least make some money. You might even get more pew out of the deal when rivals try to ome in and blow up the people you're paid to protect. Losec has possibilities, why no one uses them to their advantage is beyond me.
"If."
DooDoo Gum
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2011-11-30 01:15:35 UTC
Tahna Rouspel wrote:
Alright, lets play the what if game.

If there was a boost of population in low sec - every gate would be camped to catch people. It would be impossible to do pve without some way to run the blockade.

Doing level 4 missions in low sec is only viable if either the gate isn't camped or you have a way to run/break the gate camp.
PvE is meant to earn isk, not lose it; that's why your idea is flawed. Level 4 missioners would be caught too easily by gate camps.

The only PvE I would do in low sec;
-An empty system
-A system controlled by my alliance
-A cloakie scanning ship for sites


Very true, you only need to look at the statistics of a low/null system when there is an incursion on an 'island' and pilots need to pass through it

camped and bubbled like crazy
Jazz Styles
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2011-11-30 04:36:19 UTC
The real problem here is that you're asking people with pve ships to fight pvp fit ships, which just does not work. I have a potential fix for this at the following link.

mission system overhaul
Rina Asanari
CitadeI
#25 - 2011-11-30 06:32:43 UTC
*with an announcer's voice*

"And with our esteemed OP we have another one who is too stingy to suicide gank in hisec and a failure at real PvP. So he's asking to force mission runners, with mission fitted ships, to enter lowsec. Will he succeed where the concept of L5 missions purely in lowsec and 0.0 mostly failed?"

In other words: I cannot think the OP's posting to be a honest proposal.
Durzel
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#26 - 2011-11-30 10:58:55 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Rawls Canardly wrote:
Jenn Makanen wrote:
Rawls Canardly wrote:
Suddenly lowsec becomes popular. AMAZING.



Or suddenly people stop subscribing, as they can't be bothered with the risk.

Strangely, I'm ok with that.

CCP isn't.Lol

I fear the OP wouldn't be ok with paying 300m for Vagabonds, etc since the bears have dried up and aren't contributing towards the industrial machinery.

There is a symbiotic relationship between hunters and the hunted, anyone who doesn't appreciate that is pretty stupid really.

Why force a change on a group of people who wouldn't go to lowsec anyway? You'll just make them quit with the inevitable consequence of the market adjusting itself accordingly.
Talia Nachtigall
State War Academy
Caldari State
#27 - 2011-11-30 11:34:57 UTC
Level-4 agents are just fine how they are right now. If you can't find PVP either in low security or in null security at the moment then you're not trying hard enough. CCP is not going to move the level-4 agents to low security so you're literally beating a dead horse here. Give it up, move on, and find something else to ***** about. Pirate

Don't pray for my soul. ;)

Jaketh Ivanes
Rigorous Rivals
#28 - 2011-11-30 13:46:24 UTC
Jazz Styles wrote:
The real problem here is that you're asking people with pve ships to fight pvp fit ships, which just does not work. I have a potential fix for this at the following link.

mission system overhaul


I think this is an interresting idea and does make a lot of sense. Why shouldn't mission prepare pilots for PvP, even if it's just the basics. That said, there already is a lot of EWAR in missions. Sansha uses tracking disruptors, Serpentis dampens, Gurista jams, Angels paint and Blood nos/neut... But it's not in the ordered way you sugggest.

@OP: Short answer, no. If you move lvl4's to low sec, I would just run lvl3's and incursions. If you want people to do low sec missions so you can get your KM fix, then the low sec missions needs to change in a way they can be done with GTFO setups and ships (thinking cruisers and down). Or they could make it so, that the NPC's will switch to you, the pirate.
Sun sue
311. Bomber squadron
GaNg BaNg TeAm
#29 - 2011-11-30 15:11:15 UTC
Tahna Rouspel wrote:
Alright, lets play the what if game.

If there was a boost of population in low sec - every gate would be camped to catch people. It would be impossible to do pve without some way to run the blockade.

Doing level 4 missions in low sec is only viable if either the gate isn't camped or you have a way to run/break the gate camp.
PvE is meant to earn isk, not lose it; that's why your idea is flawed. Level 4 missioners would be caught too easily by gate camps.

The only PvE I would do in low sec;
-An empty system
-A system controlled by my alliance
-A cloakie scanning ship for sites



Ummmm T3 tengu or any t3 really. if it works for null sec missions then it can work in low sec. Other then that Bash the camp don't be a carbear 24/7.
Fidelium Mortis
Minor Major Miners LLC
#30 - 2011-11-30 16:02:16 UTC
I would like to see more L1-L3 missions in low sec that have a better reward. Also the gate restrictions should be reviewed probably in line with the system currently used in FW. Essentially, L1 missions are restricted to T1 frigs, L2 are T2 frigs, dessies, and T1 cruisers, L3 are T2 cruisers and BC. T3 cruisers really need to be reevaluated for these restrictions, probably relegated to only L4 missions if at all =P The pirate faction ships also tend to be an issue from a balance perspective.

This way the average joe has a legitimate chance of running a mission without getting facerolled, and also encourages more small ship warfare in low sec.

ICRS - Intergalactic Certified Rocket Surgeon

grazer gin
Raving Rednecks
#31 - 2011-11-30 16:08:59 UTC
People like the OP should have a corp mother to undock with them to wipe away the tears as i really do think they are unable to undock without crying about something.
Zagdul
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#32 - 2011-11-30 16:53:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Zagdul
Hirana Yoshida wrote:
Rawls Canardly wrote:
...Lowsec is supposed to not be safe...

Actually the lower the security the lower the safety .. yet null is generally accepted as being the safest place in Eve .. go figure, so there goes your whole argument down the drain. Naomi's concept of giving us tools to up the protection network is a lot more in the spirit of Eve and has a lot more going for it than your delusional ditto.

If you want to hurt high-sec mission runners (and that IS your goal, yes?) then you increase the negative system security payout modifier and/or decrease loot/salvage as security increases. Allows for casual's to keep doing their thing (albeit with lower income) and encourages use of low-sec agents .. mind you it won't be enough due to aforementioned safety concerns, without ability to improve conditions the agents will for the most part still be quite lonely.




Null is not considered "safer".

However people who live there feel at home thus feel safer.

As a null sec dweller, I feel out of my comfort zone in empire, thus "unsafe".


EDIT: Morons in this game have got to stop crying for nerfs to other regions/security status/etc. Stop looking at what other people have and trying to compare how it's better than what you have. Instead, look at what you don't have and help CCP improve on it. As it stands the forums as a whole are full of a bunch of self entitled bitches who do nothing but whine and moan about what they do or do not have. Instead of complaining, come up with constructive ways to improve EVE. Moving lvl 4's will not improve EVE.

These forums are seriously worse than WoW's right now with people bitching about how OP Paladins in arenas are.

"WHY ARE THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE ABLE TO HAVE MORE THAN ME!?!"

shut up already, provide feedback to what can make your part of the sandbox more fun. stop trying to poop in others' cereal.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement

Previous page12