These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High sec Mission runners just got completely screwed by CCP

First post First post
Author
Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#981 - 2014-04-23 23:58:16 UTC
Judas Isu wrote:
I don't think it should come as a shock to anyone. When the nerf bat swings it generally hits the mission runners first.

That's fine. Level 4 missions provide way too much income for how little risk there is in running them.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise

Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#982 - 2014-04-24 05:37:01 UTC
Rhes wrote:
Judas Isu wrote:
I don't think it should come as a shock to anyone. When the nerf bat swings it generally hits the mission runners first.

That's fine. Level 4 missions provide way too much income for how little risk there is in running them.



There is zero risk in any PvE activity that is done correctly.
I Accidentally YourShip
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#983 - 2014-04-24 05:43:42 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Rhes wrote:
Judas Isu wrote:
I don't think it should come as a shock to anyone. When the nerf bat swings it generally hits the mission runners first.

That's fine. Level 4 missions provide way too much income for how little risk there is in running them.



There is zero risk in any PvE activity that is done correctly.



There is no such thing as a 100% PvE activity involving a ship in space in eve. The heroes we know as suicide gankers, awoxers and others of noble pursuits provide that small, non-zero risk.

Riskier than a PL hotdrop in low.
Dave Stark
#984 - 2014-04-24 06:03:58 UTC
I Accidentally YourShip wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Rhes wrote:
Judas Isu wrote:
I don't think it should come as a shock to anyone. When the nerf bat swings it generally hits the mission runners first.

That's fine. Level 4 missions provide way too much income for how little risk there is in running them.



There is zero risk in any PvE activity that is done correctly.



There is no such thing as a 100% PvE activity involving a ship in space in eve. The heroes we know as suicide gankers, awoxers and others of noble pursuits provide that small, non-zero risk.

Riskier than a PL hotdrop in low.


yeah but the activity itself provides 0 risk, it's the bits of the game that aren't the mission you're running that provide any risk.

so they're correct when they say that missions involve no risk.
arabella blood
Keyboard Jihad
#985 - 2014-04-24 06:35:38 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
I Accidentally YourShip wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Rhes wrote:
Judas Isu wrote:
I don't think it should come as a shock to anyone. When the nerf bat swings it generally hits the mission runners first.

That's fine. Level 4 missions provide way too much income for how little risk there is in running them.



There is zero risk in any PvE activity that is done correctly.



There is no such thing as a 100% PvE activity involving a ship in space in eve. The heroes we know as suicide gankers, awoxers and others of noble pursuits provide that small, non-zero risk.

Riskier than a PL hotdrop in low.


yeah but the activity itself provides 0 risk, it's the bits of the game that aren't the mission you're running that provide any risk.

so they're correct when they say that missions involve no risk.


So what are those bits? By that logic pvp is also 0 risk...its the bits of the game that aren't pvp that provide any risk.

You can not seperate the activity from its surroundings.

And you forgot the chance to die from the rats.

Troll for hire. Cheap prices.

March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#986 - 2014-04-24 06:52:36 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
I Accidentally YourShip wrote:
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
Rhes wrote:
Judas Isu wrote:
I don't think it should come as a shock to anyone. When the nerf bat swings it generally hits the mission runners first.

That's fine. Level 4 missions provide way too much income for how little risk there is in running them.



There is zero risk in any PvE activity that is done correctly.



There is no such thing as a 100% PvE activity involving a ship in space in eve. The heroes we know as suicide gankers, awoxers and others of noble pursuits provide that small, non-zero risk.

Riskier than a PL hotdrop in low.


yeah but the activity itself provides 0 risk, it's the bits of the game that aren't the mission you're running that provide any risk.

so they're correct when they say that missions involve no risk.

travelling in 0.0 in T1 industrial full of PLEXes won't kill you by itself

So they correct when they say that travelling in 0.0 is 100% safe?

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#987 - 2014-04-24 07:29:30 UTC
"Done correctly" missions are 100% safe. If you get ganked, you didn't do them correctly.

Anyway, we're talking about a 3.7% decrease in income, which is nowt compared to the increase in income given by the introduction of MTUs, and less than the null bounty nerf. Considering the upside is fixing and incredibly broken system that holds back development of changes and lead to the introduction of "extra"" minerals on ships, I'd say it's a pretty worthwhile change.

But as with literally any change they make, people will still complain right up until it gets put in, then their complaints will die down when the realise the world didn't end.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sgt Smeagol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#988 - 2014-04-24 07:42:35 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Batelle wrote:
holy hell give it a rest.

Why? He's right for the most part… Name one change in the last year that has been aimed at improving gameplay in high-sec? It certainly wasn't any of the mobile units, because these have actually become gank magnets for mission-runners… It definitely wasn't high-sec POCOs, because these basically nerfed PI income while lining the pockets of null alliances… I'm still waiting for an expansion that actually focus on and improves gameplay in high-sec.


the reason for the loot changes was to force a change away from 425 rail guns being used to refine back into mins.
thank all who used that exsploit for these loot refine changes.
I'm still waiting for gameplay improvements to highsec also.
the last few have been **** storms and there's more coming.
Salvos Rhoska
#989 - 2014-04-24 07:46:56 UTC
Sgt Smeagol wrote:
the reason for the loot changes was to force a change away from 425 rail guns being used to refine back into mins.
thank all who used that exsploit for these loot refine changes.


This, pretty much, from the player side of things.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#990 - 2014-04-24 07:58:02 UTC
Sgt Smeagol wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Why? He's right for the most part… Name one change in the last year that has been aimed at improving gameplay in high-sec? It certainly wasn't any of the mobile units, because these have actually become gank magnets for mission-runners… It definitely wasn't high-sec POCOs, because these basically nerfed PI income while lining the pockets of null alliances… I'm still waiting for an expansion that actually focus on and improves gameplay in high-sec.

the reason for the loot changes was to force a change away from 425 rail guns being used to refine back into mins.
thank all who used that exsploit for these loot refine changes.
I'm still waiting for gameplay improvements to highsec also.
the last few have been **** storms and there's more coming.

There will never be any patch that really focuses on highsec gameplay because there is pretty much no gameplay that is specific to highsec. Crimewatch 2.0 is as close as it get since it's really the only unique part.

Everything else will be general gameplay improvements that affect highsec as well as other parts of space. Things like improved exploration, ship balancing, POCOs, deployables, and the upcoming industry improvements.
Dave Stark
#991 - 2014-04-24 08:04:22 UTC
arabella blood wrote:
So what are those bits? By that logic pvp is also 0 risk...its the bits of the game that aren't pvp that provide any risk.

You can not seperate the activity from its surroundings.

And you forgot the chance to die from the rats.


everything that isn't a level 4 mission, as i said. is reading hard?

no, calling pvp and l4 missions the same thing is the most ******** thing i've heard all day.

also there is no chance to die from rats with a properly fit ship, that's the point.
Dave Stark
#992 - 2014-04-24 08:05:46 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
So they correct when they say that travelling in 0.0 is 100% safe?

sure, wildly out of context comment is wildly out of context but i'll say yes anyway because why not.

but jumping gate to gate has 0 reward, unlike missions.
Dave Stark
#993 - 2014-04-24 08:13:30 UTC
oh by the way guys, when making comparisons can we make sure they're valid before we start hitting post? it's appreciated.
Salvos Rhoska
#994 - 2014-04-24 08:24:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
It would seem that the expansion will achieve the end of making Null, nominally, more profitable in just about all aspects of the game.

Im ok with that.

People can still profit in high-sec just fine. You can still play the game just fine in ones chosen sector.
Profits may not be nominally as high, but that is inline with the reduced risk insured by NPC control.
Its a fair trade, in that regard.

Nonetheless, hopefully, thereafter, once that is out of the way, proper attention can be applied to fixing Null risks to match those rewards.

Null is too stable atm. Yes, in part, due to the efforts of players to have made it so.
But that does not contravene or trump that Null Sov and security mechanics need revising.
Everyone has to be prepared to accept some sacrifices, if it is for the good of the game, overall.
Dave Stark
#995 - 2014-04-24 08:26:07 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Hopefully, thereafter, once that is out of the way, proper attention can be applied to fixing Null risks to match those rewards.


the risk is already there, that's why the reward is being adjusted.
Salvos Rhoska
#996 - 2014-04-24 08:36:46 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Hopefully, thereafter, once that is out of the way, proper attention can be applied to fixing Null risks to match those rewards.


the risk is already there, that's why the reward is being adjusted.


I agree it i was and is necessary to increase all nominal profit in Null above that of high.
This expansion largely does that, in those elements that remained.

But that does not contravene the Sov and security problems in Null which have resulted, time and time again, in a blue doughnut.
Risk can only be said to be at the right standard, once conflict and risk is properly present in Null, to the result that there is never again a blue doughnut.

This is about game mechanics, not personal preference or privilege.

Now that Null has its nominal profits increased above those of High, it will be time to finally bite the bullet and ensure with subsequent changes that Null is never, ever, again secured by a blue doughnut.

Its existance is a constant indicator and proof, that the mechanics of Null, are not enforcing the risk they should be.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#997 - 2014-04-24 09:27:34 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
So they correct when they say that travelling in 0.0 is 100% safe?

sure, wildly out of context comment is wildly out of context but i'll say yes anyway because why not.

but jumping gate to gate has 0 reward, unlike missions.

ok. let's talk about anomalies and escalations.

I'm i right that 'done properly 0.0 sec anomalies and escalations present no risk'? Does it mean that they should not be rewarded better than high-sec lvl1 missions?

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#998 - 2014-04-24 09:46:00 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
But that does not contravene the Sov and security problems in Null which have resulted, time and time again, in a blue doughnut.
Risk can only be said to be at the right standard, once conflict and risk is properly present in Null, to the result that there is never again a blue doughnut.
No matter what you change, unless you force inherent risk through sandbox breaking mechanics, people will always find ways of working together to overcome risk, and so the "blue doughnut" will continue to form. Then when you look at it the other way, high sec players not only can work alone, but can actually gain rewards while alt tabbed. There's a reason most null sec players have high sec alts, it's because the risk and effort free isk is better than risk/reward ratio in null.

Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Now that Null has its nominal profits increased above those of High, it will be time to finally bite the bullet and ensure with subsequent changes that Null is never, ever, again secured by a blue doughnut.

Its existance is a constant indicator and proof, that the mechanics of Null, are not enforcing the risk they should be.
Completely impossible. There's no way to "enforce risk" without mechanically constraining the game, which turns EVE from a sandbox game into every other MMO. What you are talking about is forcing people to not work together to mitigate risk.

And even if they did decide to put a sledgehammer to the whole idea behind EVE and force people into splitting up, people would still work outside of the game to find ways to work together. If null gained so much inherent mechanical risk that it was impossible to mitigate, we'd just move into low and boot everyone out. Null would pretty much be dead at that point, since if it is too risky for a well organised group to survive, small groups and solo players would have no chance.

As usual, the whole idea breaks down to small groups of players saying "I don't like it that a large group or organised players outperforms me, force them to change".

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#999 - 2014-04-24 09:50:34 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
So they correct when they say that travelling in 0.0 is 100% safe?

sure, wildly out of context comment is wildly out of context but i'll say yes anyway because why not.

but jumping gate to gate has 0 reward, unlike missions.

ok. let's talk about anomalies and escalations.

I'm i right that 'done properly 0.0 sec anomalies and escalations present no risk'? Does it mean that they should not be rewarded better than high-sec lvl1 missions?
They aren;t risk free though. Even done perfectly, theres always he off chance that a rat will scram you at just the wrong moment, or an interceptor will get in and get a lock before you can get out.

In high sec, nobody is going to come kill you unless you paint a massive bullseye on yourself by fling in a 60b blinged mission ship, which would be an error in fitting. In both cases, done right there's no mechanical risk, but in null there's inherent player driven risk. In high sec, concord mitigates that risk.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Salvos Rhoska
#1000 - 2014-04-24 10:13:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
Lucas doesnt get that Null Sov and risk mechanics are broken, which is what results in a blue doughnut.

The very existance of the doughnut, is proof positive of that fact.

The inherent false attitude of entitlement in his posts, is no different, whatsoever, from those of the worst high-sec carebear whiners.