These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Move Lvl 5 Missions out of Low sec.

First post
Author
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#21 - 2014-06-23 15:21:34 UTC
Leoric Firesword wrote:
I say we move L5's to highsec and create an L6 for lowsec and make the rewards actually match the risk for the L6's.

We need some group PvE content between L4's (which discourage group play) and Incursions which take around a year to skill into decently.


That's not true at all, it took me less than 8 weeks to make an acceptable Vindicator pilot from scrath, and only 3 more weeks to make that same pilot acceptable (for TVP and DIN fleets) in a Machariel.
Black Canary Jnr
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#22 - 2014-06-23 15:40:09 UTC
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
Anomalies and combat signatures that're more difficult than L4's are plentiful.

Not sure what the obsession with staying in high sec is. It's like refusing to do anything beyond level 20 content in any other MMO, or buying a racing game and only using 1 car for the first 3 tracks.


Amen.

Go out, explore and do some of the incentives to go to lower security systems instead of making posts on F & I about how you are scared to go to low sec so should have the content go to you. Mohammad must go to the mountain!
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#23 - 2014-06-23 16:08:31 UTC
Zan Shiro wrote:

think dual boxed rattlesnakes.....We have to define solo here. Solo in terms of eve covers 1 player, 2 chars ....

You are forgetting one factor, effort vs payout, flying 2 accounts simultan meas you have to earn for both. Nothing wrong with that.

And if you have to balance one whole gameplay aspect towards one ship or a certain type, then there might be somethign wrong with the ship, not the game aspect. Its like saying we first built a ship and later loked for the ocean°°.

And payout needs to eb refined, that its more then L4s solo in the same a mount of time, but doesn't really multiply with many participants, I am thinking more in terms of spawns activated by number of warp ins, which will be random from a fixed set of circumstances (frigate warps in, extra frig spawn). This way you will give every fleetmember saomethign specific to deal with, but that would be annoying for every other type then the ones entering also. Payout would rather be in bounties then agent rewards. I can refine it further if you like, but I'd rather pðostpone till its all complete.

Tabyll Altol wrote:
Pls explain why we should make highsec more attractive ?

At the Moment most player live in the Highsecsystems, to make Low/0.0 more attractive its a worse idea to create lv 5 missions in highsec.

Better idea would be bann the incursions from highsec.

Yes, to kill Incurison in general and have more players leave the game for lack of content, if you want to inform yourself about that, please join any of the Incursion related topics.
I ll expalin it again, not every high sec player is a low or 0.0 player in the closet, stop assuming that.
And nobody should be forced to adjust to your playstyle.

TheMercenaryKing wrote:
searched up OP on eve-kill expecting a loss in lowsec, did not find one (nor a kill).


Leave Level 5s in lowsec, that's where they need to be for their massive reward. You want more LP? Lose the police backup.

A quality post if I have seen one, thx. Creating player profiles from killmails (especially forum alts) seems to be a hobby of e-peen retards, I hoipe you are not counting yourself amongst them.
Not to mention, that we are not discussing simply copy/pasting or drag and dropping L5s to high sec, we actually discuss how it could be acchieved to satisfy everyone.



Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#24 - 2014-06-23 16:15:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldensaver
Tennej wrote:


Not totally sure this is valid enough reason to hold LVL 5 mission content to low sec especially when there are lvl 4's readily available. LvL 5 mission content should be opened up for more player consumption either back in hi-sec where they once were or in Null. If lvl 4 mission content can exist in both hi and lo sec perhaps lvl5 mission content can as well.

Not totally sure this is a valid enough reason to move LVL 5 mission content to high sec especially when there are lvl 4's readily available.

See what I did there?

Level 5's were moved to lowsec because they were giving too much money for high sec. They don't need them back in highsec again to break this. Sure, Incursions give too damn much money too but just because one thing is broken doesn't mean you should break another. Besides, Incursions at least need large fleets of coordinated pilots working together with Logi and links in order to succeed. Unless they changed level 5's to require at least that much effort, they'd be too damn easy and the risk vs reward would be ******.

And as far as nullsec, level 5's already exist there. I don't see why anything needs changing really. Besides, there are tons of anoms and sigs out there to do anyways. Don't need them to be any more widespread in null since there's enough to do, and don't need them in high. Might as well leave things be.


Edit: actually, not sure about the L5's in null. I can't remember if they completely removed them from null at the same time as high. If they aren't there anymore, they can put them back. I don't see why not.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#25 - 2014-06-23 16:16:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
Anomalies and combat signatures that're more difficult than L4's are plentiful....

Usually they are very competitive and run for speed, they do not incite group PvE. Some complexes will take a small gang appropriately shiped and fitted about 20-30 minutes to compelte properly, while it takes a solo plex hunter 2-3 minutes going for jsut the officer.

And again, not every high sec player is a repressed low sec/0.0 dweller. Most players won't engage in 95% of the available gameplay anyway, EVE is way to comlpex for that, stop refering to High Sec as an invalid option, a handicap or the 'wrong' play.

Surely, nobody ever bought a super expensive, bling muscle car and used it for low-riding in the hood. Never, ever. Not to emntion, that a lot of countries have a speed limit of 60mph so why would anyone buy or sell cars there that drive faster... Oh yeah, right, the cars were made first and also independently of regional speed limit laws - got enough of metaphors ?


Goldensaver wrote:

Not totally sure this is a valid enough reason to move LVL 5 mission content to high sec especially when there are lvl 4's readily available. ...

.... Unless they changed level 5's to require at least that much effort, they'd be too damn easy and the risk vs reward would be ******.


Because L4s do not promote teamplay, In most cases, a solo pilot will be faster without help (due to spread aggression, resulting transversal, etc.), then with a partner and after that he has to cut his reward in half (if he isn't an ass).

And you answered the question at hand by yourself, gratz.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#26 - 2014-06-23 16:27:01 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
Anomalies and combat signatures that're more difficult than L4's are plentiful....

Usually they are very competitive and run for speed, they do not incite group PvE.


The game already has group PVE in lvl 5 missions (in low sec) incursions (in high), wormholes and low/null Complexes (sure, most complexes can be solo'd but any of the 8/10s on up are more effectively done with partners.

Asking for high sec lvl 5s is trying to have your cake and eat it too. That is a terrible way of thinking.

Quote:

And again, not every high sec player is a repressed low sec/0.0 dweller. And most players won't engage in 95% of the available gameplay anyway, EVE is way to comlpex for that, stop refering to High Sec as an invalid option, a handicap or the 'wrong' play.


If you want certain kinds of content (that already exists elsewhere), then high sec (the area of EVE protected by magical space police) IS invalid. Sorry, but no you can't have top end soloable/small group content in high sec, that would be game breaking. If you want the isk, take the risk and leave the space cops behind. That's what the rest of us (who want better rewards without having to do incursions) are doing.


Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#27 - 2014-06-23 16:34:44 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Bohneik Itohn wrote:
Anomalies and combat signatures that're more difficult than L4's are plentiful....

Usually they are very competitive and run for speed, they do not incite group PvE. Some complexes will take a small gang appropriately shiped and fitted about 20-30 minutes to compelte properly, while it takes a solo plex hunter 2-3 minutes going for jsut the officer.

And again, not every high sec player is a repressed low sec/0.0 dweller. Most players won't engage in 95% of the available gameplay anyway, EVE is way to comlpex for that, stop refering to High Sec as an invalid option, a handicap or the 'wrong' play.

Surely, nobody ever bought a super expensive, bling muscle car and used it for low-riding in the hood. Never, ever. Not to emntion, that a lot of countries have a speed limit of 60mph so why would anyone buy or sell cars there that drive faster... Oh yeah, right, the cars were made first and also independently of regional speed limit laws - got enough of metaphors ?


Highsec isn't an invalid option, nor is it the wrong way to play. It is, however, supposed to be handicapped in comparison to the rest of space in terms of ISK generation. If you can make as much ISK in highsec as you can in null, why would you ever leave? Why would you ever move yourself and assets to an outpost that can be bubbled, flipped away from your control, a system that can be camped by people who can destroy you without fear of CONCORD intervention and where they can do it immediately and without giving you 24 hours advance notice of their intent?

You aren't supposed to be able to make as much money in highsec as you can in other areas. Hence why they removed level 5's. Plain and simple. Incursions are generating too much money for highsec, but at least they require fleets (not saying I wouldn't be for a bit of a nerf for highsec Incursion payout). Level 5's are not at all like this.

Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:

Goldensaver wrote:

Not totally sure this is a valid enough reason to move LVL 5 mission content to high sec especially when there are lvl 4's readily available. ...

.... Unless they changed level 5's to require at least that much effort, they'd be too damn easy and the risk vs reward would be ******.


Because L4s do not promote teamplay, In most cases, a solo pilot will be faster without help (due to spread aggression, resulting transversal, etc.), then with a partner and after that he has to cut his reward in half (if he isn't an ass).

And you answered the question at hand by yourself, gratz.


L5's don't promote teamplay either. It helps, but it doesn't make you want to go and grab your fleet. Incursions ******* force teamplay, L5's can be run solo in passive tanked battleships. No reason to bother moving them back to high besides ******* up risk vs reward.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#28 - 2014-06-23 16:41:22 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

The game already has group PVE in lvl 5 missions (in low sec) incursions (in high), wormholes and low/null Complexes (sure, most complexes can be solo'd but any of the 8/10s on up are more effectively done with partners.

Asking for high sec lvl 5s is trying to have your cake and eat it too. That is a terrible way of thinking.

Well, I do that all the time, I bake my own cakes and finish them all by myslef, never had a problem nor regret, nothign wrong with that.
Incursions require more then 1 or 2 buddies to fleet up for an hour or two and just jump into the next system, I don't think I have to explain the difference do I ? So - No, not the same or even close as a substitude, no equivalent in hgih sec.

Quote:
If you want certain kinds of content (that already exists elsewhere), then high sec (the area of EVE protected by magical space police) IS invalid. Sorry, but no you can't have top end soloable/small group content in high sec, that would be game breaking. If you want the isk, take the risk and leave the space cops behind. That's what the rest of us (who want better rewards without having to do incursions) are doing.

Again I disagree, you misunderstand risk vs reward as risk defined as being interupted by a player (killed is probably even more what you mean). Risk is not defined as such, each investment is a risk, time invested, goods bought or harvested, competition on the market, on the field, neutral or hostile, many things are risk, again you are cherrypicking what suits your cause.
If you would exchange your version of risk with 'undisturbed' (potentially), then I would agree with you more, but there is nothign wrong in engaging 'risky' play 'undisturbed'.

See what I did there ?
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#29 - 2014-06-23 16:41:54 UTC
Goldensaver wrote:


L5's don't promote teamplay either. It helps, but it doesn't make you want to go and grab your fleet. Incursions ******* force teamplay, L5's can be run solo in passive tanked battleships. No reason to bother moving them back to high besides ******* up risk vs reward.



This.

Right now I run lvl 5s solo in a MJD Raven or Dominix (i don't decline the ones that have gates, I like the gated ones safer, i still do the ungated ones in my Thanatos, 3000 dps from fighters makes em go quick).

The whole 'group content' thing is a lie unless you consider a guy and has 4 isboxer fleet a 'group' lol.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#30 - 2014-06-23 16:46:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
Goldensaver wrote:

Highsec isn't an invalid option, nor is it the wrong way to play. It is, however, supposed to be handicapped in comparison to the rest of space in terms of ISK generation. If you can make as much ISK in highsec as you can in null, why would you ever leave? Why would you ever move yourself and assets to an outpost that can be bubbled, flipped away from your control, a system that can be camped by people who can destroy you without fear of CONCORD intervention and where they can do it immediately and without giving you 24 hours advance notice of their intent?

You aren't supposed to be able to make as much money in highsec as you can in other areas. Hence why they removed level 5's. Plain and simple. Incursions are generating too much money for highsec, but at least they require fleets (not saying I wouldn't be for a bit of a nerf for highsec Incursion payout). Level 5's are not at all like this.

L5's don't promote teamplay either. It helps, but it doesn't make you want to go and grab your fleet. Incursions ******* force teamplay, L5's can be run solo in passive tanked battleships. No reason to bother moving them back to high besides ******* up risk vs reward.


Yes, why would anyone ever do something else if not forced to, weird. Certainly you haven't understood human kind one bit.

And we are discussing changing L5s while relocating, not sure you are actually reading what has been written and said, everyone can just quote and continue with with letters or sounds.

Jenn aSide wrote:
This.

Right now I run lvl 5s solo in a MJD Raven or Dominix (i don't decline the ones that have gates, I like the gated ones safer, i still do the ungated ones in my Thanatos, 3000 dps from fighters makes em go quick).

The whole 'group content' thing is a lie unless you consider a guy and has 4 isboxer fleet a 'group' lol.


Makes me wonder if you are listening either ... Thanatos sure, bring him to high sec so I can have a good look at it.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#31 - 2014-06-23 16:49:31 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


Well, I do that all the time, I bake my own cakes and finish them all by myslef, never had a problem nor regret, nothign wrong with that.
Incursions require more then 1 or 2 buddies to fleet up for an hour or two and just jump into the next system, I don't think I have to explain the difference do I ? So - No, not the same or even close as a substitude, no equivalent in hgih sec.


Right, nor should there be. if you have a couple buddies, exactly what is stopping you from doing low sec missions and exploration.

That's exactly what i was talking about, you want the safety of high sec AND the rewards of 'not high sec'. This is 'having your cake and eating it too" and it makes what you want invalid.

There is nothing stopping you and a 'couple buddies' from doing lvl 4 missions together, each of you pulling missions (so you'd have 3 missions to do at a time.

You're just being greedy.

Quote:
If you want certain kinds of content (that already exists elsewhere), then high sec (the area of EVE protected by magical space police) IS invalid. Sorry, but no you can't have top end soloable/small group content in high sec, that would be game breaking. If you want the isk, take the risk and leave the space cops behind. That's what the rest of us (who want better rewards without having to do incursions) are doing.

Again I disagree, you misunderstand risk vs reward as risk defined as being interupted by a player (killed is probably even more what you mean). Risk is not defined as such, each investment is a risk, time invested, goods bought or harvested, competition on the market, on the field, neutral or hostile, many things are risk, again you are cherrypicking what suits your cause.
If you would exchange your version of risk with 'undisturbed' (potentially), then I would agree with you more, but there is nothign wrong in engaging 'risky' play 'undisturbed'.

See what I did there ?


What you should be seeing is how you have to change the definition of words in order to make what you want to do 'fit'. This is what Risk means in English. .

Quote:
: the possibility that something bad or unpleasant (such as an injury or a loss) will happen

: someone or something that may cause something bad or unpleasant to happen


The primary RISK in EVE's Risk/Reward system is ship destruction. If you want the content you say you want, you need to RISK your ship for it. High Sec has the lowest lvl of risk in the game.
Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#32 - 2014-06-23 16:56:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Fer'isam K'ahn
Jenn aSide wrote:


What you should be seeing is how you have to change the definition of words in order to make what you want to do 'fit'. This is what Risk means in English. .

Quote:
: the possibility that something bad or unpleasant (such as an injury or a loss) will happen

: someone or something that may cause something bad or unpleasant to happen


The primary RISK in EVE's Risk/Reward system is ship destruction. If you want the content you say you want, you need to RISK your ship for it. High Sec has the lowest lvl of risk in the game.

Again you quote what you need, did you read further? I read the whole page...

Did you buy that toon with 7000 likes ? And if not, you know, it doesn't hurt to be wrong, and if you are, nobody can take the likes away from you ... well yes, in a way, but nobody is doing it°°.
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#33 - 2014-06-23 17:01:22 UTC
Move level 4 missions to lowsec.

The Tears Must Flow

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#34 - 2014-06-23 17:06:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


What you should be seeing is how you have to change the definition of words in order to make what you want to do 'fit'. This is what Risk means in English. .

Quote:
: the possibility that something bad or unpleasant (such as an injury or a loss) will happen

: someone or something that may cause something bad or unpleasant to happen


The primary RISK in EVE's Risk/Reward system is ship destruction. If you want the content you say you want, you need to RISK your ship for it. High Sec has the lowest lvl of risk in the game.

Again you quote what you need, did you read further? I read the whole page...

Did you buy that toon with 7000 likes ? And if not, you know, it doesn't hurt to be wrong, and if you are, nobody can take the likes away from you ... well yes, in a way, but nobody is doing it°°.


Do you always babble incoherently like that when you lose an argument on a forum lol?

The truth he is that you're advocating somethign that might be 'good' for you, but that the rest of us understand would be bad for the game in general.

You actually think it's a good idea to take something that works fine, re-worked it (with CCP spending time and money on the endeavor) just so 'you and a couple of buddies' don't have to leave the safety of high sec to get the kind of pve content you want?

I am a PVE player andi like isk, but even I am not that selfish.
Bohneik Itohn
10.K
#35 - 2014-06-23 17:08:14 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:
Move level 4 missions to lowsec.


Equally valid proposal, with an even better argument. No one can say that the points you have presented in favor of the proposal are wrong.

Wait, CCP kills kittens now too?!  - Freyya

Are you a forum alt? Have you ever wondered why your experience on the forums is always so frustrating and unrewarding? This may help.

Goldensaver
Maraque Enterprises
Just let it happen
#36 - 2014-06-23 17:11:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Goldensaver
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Goldensaver wrote:

Highsec isn't an invalid option, nor is it the wrong way to play. It is, however, supposed to be handicapped in comparison to the rest of space in terms of ISK generation. If you can make as much ISK in highsec as you can in null, why would you ever leave? Why would you ever move yourself and assets to an outpost that can be bubbled, flipped away from your control, a system that can be camped by people who can destroy you without fear of CONCORD intervention and where they can do it immediately and without giving you 24 hours advance notice of their intent?

You aren't supposed to be able to make as much money in highsec as you can in other areas. Hence why they removed level 5's. Plain and simple. Incursions are generating too much money for highsec, but at least they require fleets (not saying I wouldn't be for a bit of a nerf for highsec Incursion payout). Level 5's are not at all like this.

L5's don't promote teamplay either. It helps, but it doesn't make you want to go and grab your fleet. Incursions ******* force teamplay, L5's can be run solo in passive tanked battleships. No reason to bother moving them back to high besides ******* up risk vs reward.


Yes, why would anyone ever do something else if not forced to, weird. Certainly you haven't understood human kind one bit.

And we are discussing changing L5s while relocating, not sure you are actually reading what has been written and said, everyone can just quote and continue with with letters or sounds.

Yes, why would anyone ever do something else if not forced to when you can do it more safely and just as effectively where you already are?

You're the one who doesn't seem to understand the discussion. The OP has said absolutely nothing that indicates they want L5's changed, merely that they want them removed from lowsec (I don't know why they couldn't stay at current reward value and coexist with nerfed as **** highsec L5's) and moved to highsec or nullsec.

The results of this is more content is pointlessly added to nullsec and lowsec just gets the shaft, or L5's get moved to highsec, suffer nerfed rewards and the rewards aren't high enough to be worth running over L4's or the rewards are too high and become even more of an ISK faucet.

Now, I don't see why you're supporting this idea. What you seem to be supporting isn't at all like missions in their current form.

I don't see why you don't move your discussion to somewhere else, where you support the addition of more/improved group content in highsec that conveniently doesn't even have to be called L5 missions and doesn't rely on removing content from other areas of space and instead of moving it elsewhere just completely removes it from the game and adds completely different content in a different area.
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:

Jenn aSide wrote:
This.

Right now I run lvl 5s solo in a MJD Raven or Dominix (i don't decline the ones that have gates, I like the gated ones safer, i still do the ungated ones in my Thanatos, 3000 dps from fighters makes em go quick).

The whole 'group content' thing is a lie unless you consider a guy and has 4 isboxer fleet a 'group' lol.


Makes me wonder if you are listening either ... Thanatos sure, bring him to high sec so I can have a good look at it.


In case you couldn't read, Jenn in essence said "I run the gated ones easily in my MJD battleships and I prefer them because they're safer, but when I see an ungated one and feel safe enough I bring out my Carrier just because the clears speeds are faster".
Alundil
Rolled Out
#37 - 2014-06-23 17:20:47 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


What you should be seeing is how you have to change the definition of words in order to make what you want to do 'fit'. This is what Risk means in English. .

Quote:
: the possibility that something bad or unpleasant (such as an injury or a loss) will happen

: someone or something that may cause something bad or unpleasant to happen


The primary RISK in EVE's Risk/Reward system is ship destruction. If you want the content you say you want, you need to RISK your ship for it. High Sec has the lowest lvl of risk in the game.

Again you quote what you need, did you read further? I read the whole page...

Did you buy that toon with 7000 likes ? And if not, you know, it doesn't hurt to be wrong, and if you are, nobody can take the likes away from you ... well yes, in a way, but nobody is doing it°°.

I have no idea what you're trying to say there. What does the rest of the page have to do with anything at all applicable to EVE? Nothing.

Risk (n.) possibility of loss or injury - someone or something that creates or suggests a hazard - the chance of loss or the perils to the subject matter of an insurance contract - the chance that an investment will lose value
All of these, other than perhaps the last, applies to losing a ship either to PvP or PvE content (read: increased difficulty - PvE - or increased risk - PvP). Moving L5s to HS removes/reduces all aspects of the above.

Risk (v.) to expose to hazard or danger - to incur the risk or danger of
Both of these apply to losing a ship. Moving L5s to HS removes/reduces all aspects of the above.

Risk (n. medical) possibility of loss, injury, .... or death - person considered in terms of the possible bad effecs of a particular course of treatment
The first definition loosely applies, again, to losing a ship/pod. The second doesn't. Moving L5s to HS removes/reduces all aspects of the above

So which parts of Risk don't apply? Oh what's that? Just the ones that speak to investment or medical treatments? All of the others are applicable to this terrible game we play? The heck you say.



As for the tangent about likes.....lolwut?

I'm right behind you

Fer'isam K'ahn
SAS Veterinarians
#38 - 2014-06-23 17:27:41 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

Do you always babble incoherently like that when you lose an argument on a forum lol?

The truth he is that you're advocating somethign that might be 'good' for you, but that the rest of us understand would be bad for the game in general.

You actually think it's a good idea to take something that works fine, re-worked it (with CCP spending time and money on the endeavor) just so 'you and a couple of buddies' don't have to leave the safety of high sec to get the kind of pve content you want?


HAHAHA, sure, I lost an arguemnt.Shocked. Fact is, we didn't even have one, at least not for a long time.

And I am not advocatiing something that is only good for me, I am trying to argue, if it could not be changed to be better in general and better for most.

And your understanding that it would be bad is something that you have yet to demonstrate.
All you are saying is, its good, don't touch, no questions asked. And regarding to 'how about changing and spreading it out in multiple instances' your answer is 'stay', and every argument that comes up is countered with 'no, stay'. Which really shows your understanding and superior insight. And as an afterthought you always add ... something afraid, something, something high sec.

And if it works as intendet is somethign I am willing to ask and find out, so far I got no feedback on it. 'Yes' saying is not feedback to a complex question. There are things that drive me nuts, like my gfs answer to the question, 'do you want tee or coffee': 'yes'. You are answering the same way, just with: 'no'.

And this is no discussion or argument, this is a fight, and I am gonna be mature now (and a bit condescending) and retract myself from this. Yes, you are entitled to your opinion, but every opinion should be subject to reason and be able to change. All I am getting from you today is finger in your ears and 'NO'

But I am the one incoherent, sure, have it your way - you winRoll

Antillie Sa'Kan
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#39 - 2014-06-23 17:33:23 UTC
Fer'isam K'ahn wrote:
Again I disagree, you misunderstand risk vs reward as risk defined as being interupted by a player (killed is probably even more what you mean). Risk is not defined as such...

What game are you playing?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#40 - 2014-06-23 17:35:21 UTC
My counter proposal to the OP:

L5s stay in lowsec, and we move L4s there too.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.