Player Features and Ideas Discussion

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.



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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

Ways to circumvent the risks are plentiful. So no.

JF to out gate, jump to HS.

Risk = Gone.

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.

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.