These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Lucrative High-Sec PvE Content to High-Sec Islands

Author
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2014-10-07 15:25:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Donnachadh wrote:
Move level 4 missions into one of these "islands" and I for one will just quit playing. Wondering how many others would do that same and wondering how that adds content to the game?

This thread initially started out (see OP edit) to establish L5s in high-sec "islands" and has now progressed to nerfing Incursions and relocating high-sec L4 missions to high-sec "islands" as well. While I appreciate that the discussion is evolving, at this point I'm going to give it a flat-out "no". -1 for me.


The thread is now and always was about putting the most lucrative PvE content exclusively into high-sec islands. I initially used L5's as a basic example of how this might be easily accomplished, but that was far too volatile a suggestion for people to see past the surface terminology. I have since corrected that error in my communication.

This thread is certainly not about nerfing incursion or L4 rewards (any such suggestion to do so would have been in conjunction with the L5 suggestion, which again is too specifically volatile and I should have never brought it up that way). If you take incursions and L4's and put them exclusively in high-sec islands, the current rewards would be just fine IMO and wouldn't need to be touched at all. The increase in risk would be sufficient to bring the risk/reward into balance.

I DO believe that if L4/incursion content is left untouched in high-sec as it is today, that yes, more reward nerfs are inevitable if CCP wants to keep the game balanced. I'm not even remotely alone in this belief. So this thread is, fundamentally, about finding a way to NOT nerf L4/incursion content.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#42 - 2014-10-07 15:36:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
CA Ambraelle wrote:
That is why I like your idea, Lena Lazair, as it would preserve my ability to do relaxed mission-running when I am in mission-running mood while at the same time giving me more potential targets when I am in pvp mood and that in direct vicinity to my mission-running pocket :)


It is this precisely; my firm belief that the majority of high-sec PvE players are similar to this. I know this is certainly how I feel when I am in the mood to run some PvE content.

Quote:
I do see one weak point in your proposal though.
Most such pockets are within 5 ly to continuous high sec so even with the upcoming changes it will be possible to do logistics with jf completely avoiding the risky low-sec-passage.


This is intentional. JF's are going to get hit hard with the upcoming range changes. This would give them a new niche to fulfill for the high-sec PvE crowd, and basically make the entire thing somewhat more dependent on player interaction as a whole without forcing it onto individuals all the time. Imagine a mission running corp that actually had a reason to exist now; providing these logistics to its members. And incursion communities doing the same. All while being able to avoid it entirely if you choose because there will always be public, anonymous courier services to make this happen. Nevermind the potential boon to haulers doing work in BR/low-sec service. More content for everyone! :)

More importantly, JF transport is not risk free. Kickouts, bad cyno bounces, inexperienced pilots, people being lazy and taking shortcuts... all these things are a reality that make it a not-100% safe and perfect endeavor. Not even BR use is risk free; smart-bombing BS gate camps still pop people in runners and inties all the time. Further, not everyone is going to use a JF or a courier to do this work. Sure, a lot will, but just as many are likely to think "man.. I don't want to pay 80m to a courier to move my stack of LP implants to Jita... I'll just load this up in a shuttle after downtime and I'm sure no one will catch me". It's exactly these sort of imperfections that provide most of the real PvP content already; mistakes, not perfect play, lead to fun content. The best we can do is provide a scenario where these mistakes are more likely to occur.
Notorious Fellon
#43 - 2014-10-07 15:46:56 UTC
There are not enough hisec islands to make this work at all well.

-1

no.

Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.

Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#44 - 2014-10-07 15:53:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
Notorious Fellon wrote:
There are not enough hisec islands to make this work at all well.

-1

no.


While I suspect you might be correct, the nice thing is that CCP could easily rectify this problem if necessary. So it's not really a valid counter-argument; at most, a possible implementation detail. CCP has changed empire geography before for lesser balance reasons than this. Further, from a lore perspective, this would fit in perfectly with their current trend to more fractured Empire space.

For that matter, from a lore perspective, it's about time Sansha tried something new with this incursion thing. Trying to annex high-sec island exclaves sounds like exactly the sort of new strategy they should be considering, seeing as how well their "send capitals to contiguous high-sec for ritual slaughter" campaign has been going so far...

EDIT: Also, between Osmon being the mission capital of the world and simply not that many high-sec incursions going on at any one time, I really think there probably ARE enough islands to manage. The REAL important change here would be the need to update mission objective code for high-sec island agents to not send people to the bordering low-sec systems from time to time, as that is simply annoying and already a reason people avoid agents in border systems.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#45 - 2014-10-07 16:09:08 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
The thread is now and always was about putting the most lucrative PvE content exclusively into high-sec islands.

Missioning is probably the second-lowest form of income in high-sec, right above mining. Salvaging just took a 50% reprocessing hit and most Faction LP has a 1:2 ISK-conversion ratio. I could also point out that a good chunk of mission salvage also feeds the resale item market and if that were to disappear you'd see corresponding prices on items jump considerably.

Still no (-1).

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#46 - 2014-10-07 16:15:55 UTC
Your fundamental contention that high sec mission runners are not risk averse is incorrect. We are and shall remain so. We have made this point in arguments in discussions like this repeatedly and more importantly in our actual game play.

Also L4 income is fine where it is it doesn't need to be nerfed. Additionally the old if we nerf their income they will become less risk averse is a tired argument that, as all before, it neglects to realize that should our incomes become much lower we will take the option your type never seems to understand we can and that is to find another game to play.

In short go back to whatever you were doing before you came up with this horrid idea and leave us alone.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Austrene Kanenald
Doomheim
#47 - 2014-10-07 16:29:20 UTC
Donnachadh wrote:
You may consider this adding content, I call it just a plain old bad idea for the game as a whole. We do not need more ways to pour ungodly amounts of ISK into the wallets of the largest alliances in the game and I fear that would be the ultiamte outcome of this idea. More ISK for ferry servies, more ISK for the ship replacements, more ISK from the ammo.

I would like to buy your +14 tinfoil hat please.
Vyl Vit
#48 - 2014-10-07 16:29:46 UTC
"lifeless" ? Where do people get off making this assertion?
Your bias becomes obvious when you say this. What's the point?
Bad mouthing HS and acting like it's not there won't make it go away.
In fact, HS isn't going away. If you want an uncluttered discussion...
get real.

Paradise is like where you are right now, only much, much better.

Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2014-10-07 16:30:06 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Missioning is probably the second-lowest form of income in high-sec, right above mining. Salvaging just took a 50% reprocessing hit and most Faction LP has a 1:2 ISK-conversion ratio. I could also point out that a good chunk of mission salvage also feeds the resale item market and if that were to disappear you'd see corresponding prices on items jump considerably.


Uh... if your L4 mission income was drastically affected by the salvage nerf, you're not doing it effectively in the first place. High-sec L4 mission income is dictated almost entirely by LP blitzing rates. Most people min/maxing these things don't bother with loot or salvage at all. I've also seen absolutely no indication that the LP conversion rates have changed fundamentally. Sure there have been the usual market fluctuations as meta changes and ship/item balance passes ripple through the markets, but that's not even remotely new.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying people who like to loot/salvage are "doing it wrong"; whatever floats your boat. Just that it's not a valid argument when talking about the current state of L4 income risk/reward balance because it's nowhere near optimal or representative of how people use L4's to generate ISK.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#50 - 2014-10-07 16:35:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Your fundamental contention that high sec mission runners are not risk averse is incorrect. We are and shall remain so. We have made this point in arguments in discussions like this repeatedly and more importantly in our actual game play.


High-sec missions runners are risk averse while running high-sec mission content, yes. For reasons that actually have very little to do with risk and everything to do with what constitutes enjoyable gameplay dynamics for them. Every time they undock from Jita or fly a blingy boat to an incursion hub, however, it proves that they are no more risk averse than anyone else in EVE and most nullsec carrier ratters. Flying around space is a risky endeavor and high-sec mission runners are just as likely to take on the reasonable and necessary risks that entails.

My contention that high-sec mission runners are not risk averse is simply a statement that they are no more risk averse than anyone else playing EVE. Their desire to enjoy high-sec PvE content in unmolested peace has very little to do with risk at all, in fact. Like everyone else in EVE they are more than happy to accept risk in general as a basic part of overall gameplay. Just don't screw with the leisure and enjoyment they derive from the peaceful process of running high-sec PvE content specifically.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#51 - 2014-10-07 16:37:22 UTC
Vyl Vit wrote:
"lifeless" ? Where do people get off making this assertion?
Your bias becomes obvious when you say this. What's the point?
Bad mouthing HS and acting like it's not there won't make it go away.
In fact, HS isn't going away. If you want an uncluttered discussion...
get real.


The only high-sec island I've ever seen that wasn't lifeless was the one in which Caldari COSMOS missions are run. Well that and a few mid-points between major FW battlefronts.
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#52 - 2014-10-07 17:50:05 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:


Osmon is a massive ganker hub. As are the incursion hubs. Concentrated PvE play ALREADY happens in massive quantities, so saying that islands would somehow increase this is, IMO, both untrue and inconsequential.



In the past 3 days is Osmon there have been....wait for it....0 suicide ganks of mission runners. Gankers barely ever bother with mission runners.

Can't speak for others but I travel fit the heck out of my ship in highsec when going to incursions, and there is an extremely small risk of gankers bothering me. So yes, I think mission runners are (properly) risk averse.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#53 - 2014-10-07 18:11:26 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
In the past 3 days is Osmon there have been....wait for it....0 suicide ganks of mission runners. Gankers barely ever bother with mission runners.


Right, because the relevance of ganking to mission runners is vastly overstated. Meaning that the argument my quote countered -- that concentrating mission runners in high-sec islands would somehow make them more vulnerable to high-sec ganking than currently -- was completely invalid.

Veers Belvar wrote:
Can't speak for others but I travel fit the heck out of my ship in highsec when going to incursions, and there is an extremely small risk of gankers bothering me. So yes, I think mission runners are (properly) risk averse.


Yep, and someone moving their ratting carriers in null travel fits too. Basically we are all risk averse to the same degree; nobody goes out of their way to get their PvE ships blown up and most people take reasonable precautions to avoid this where possible.

The point is simply that in no way does this suggest that high-sec PvE players would be unwilling to take on the acceptable and controllable risks of moving supplies/LP loot to/from high-sec islands. At worst, they'll simply outsource it so that it becomes fixed cost to them if they don't want to deal with the risk at all. Either way, provided the risk and style of the actual PvE content itself remains unchanged (which it will, since PvE in a high-sec hub is the same whether it's an island or not), it will be acceptable to high-sec PvE players.
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
The Revenant Order
#54 - 2014-10-07 18:30:11 UTC
Ways to circumvent the risks are plentiful. So no.

I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Devil your parents warned you about.

||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Bowhead||

Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#55 - 2014-10-07 19:03:01 UTC
Jack Carrigan wrote:
Ways to circumvent the risks are plentiful. So no.


Forcing logistics through low-sec for the best high-sec PvE content is inherently more risky than the current scenario. Of course there are still plenty of methods to mitigate the risks in this proposal, mainly because there are methods to mitigate risk in ALL of EVE. That doesn't mean it's zero risk or not riskier than the current contiguous high-sec environment.

The process of forcing people to have a risk to mitigate in the first place is kind of where most "content' comes from. It adds the potential for mistakes, poor judgement, lack of attention, and all the other factors that actually cause explosions.
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
The Revenant Order
#56 - 2014-10-07 19:22:48 UTC
JF to out gate, jump to HS.

Risk = Gone.

I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Devil your parents warned you about.

||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Bowhead||

Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#57 - 2014-10-07 19:30:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
Jack Carrigan wrote:
JF to out gate, jump to HS.

Risk = Gone.


Yeah, I've never seen a single JF bounce off the station and/or gate, get bumped by a cloaked mach, or make any other mistake. It's, like... no JF has ever been destroyed in the entire history of low and null because it's a perfect system and we are all perfect players.

Further, we all know that JF's, their pilots' time, and the fuel they use are totally free. So adding JF logistics onto the existing high-sec L4/incursion PvE supply chain will do absolutely nothing to affect the reward/risk balance at all. It's not like you'll have to pay extra (reduce your reward) if you don't want to deal with the risk yourself.

Lastly, every single L4/incursion runner obviously has access to JF alts and the capital necessary to run one. And tons of experience flying JF's into low-sec.

Oh wait, is it opposite day again?
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#58 - 2014-10-07 21:26:15 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
Uh... if your L4 mission income was drastically affected by the salvage nerf, you're not doing it effectively in the first place. High-sec L4 mission income is dictated almost entirely by LP blitzing rates. Most people min/maxing these things don't bother with loot or salvage at all. I've also seen absolutely no indication that the LP conversion rates have changed fundamentally. Sure there have been the usual market fluctuations as meta changes and ship/item balance passes ripple through the markets, but that's not even remotely new.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not implying people who like to loot/salvage are "doing it wrong"; whatever floats your boat. Just that it's not a valid argument when talking about the current state of L4 income risk/reward balance because it's nowhere near optimal or representative of how people use L4's to generate ISK.

I said reprocessing took a 50% hit; I didn't say salvaging was 'drastically' affected. There are a variety of ways to run L4s - including but not limited to blitzing and full-on salvaging. I could probably add standings gain to the list… I'll echo the sentiments posted by others: L4 missioning is fine where it is.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
The Revenant Order
#59 - 2014-10-08 03:35:07 UTC
D'aww, I struck a nerve. Look how quickly OP got defensive and downright condescending. That's really cute. Go ****post somewhere else.

I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Devil your parents warned you about.

||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Bowhead||

Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#60 - 2014-10-08 03:43:32 UTC
Jack Carrigan wrote:
D'aww, I struck a nerve. Look how quickly OP got defensive and downright condescending. That's really cute. Go ****post somewhere else.


Pfft. That was basic sarcasm. If I'd wanted to be condescending I would have used much smaller words.

Your contribution to the discussion was an absolutist and flawed argument. I dissected it in kind. I'm sorry if you thought it was personal. I gave you a Like so you can feel better about it.