These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Bring back L5 missions to high-sec, please!
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Corina Jarr
en Welle Shipping Inc.
#101 - 2012-07-09 14:58:19 UTC
Well, interesting turn of topicness.



I think level 4s could stand to be nerfed a little, either through less ISK payouts from bounties or being made slightly harder/variable (preferred).

I love the Dread Scarlet mission because I have to be prepared for anything (well, not anything... no TitansSmile).

More missions like that (also, less rats overall, with higher payout per rat because they would be more difficult) would make it less of a grind for isk and more of a fun time.
Baron Deathicon
Outerspace Vanguard
#102 - 2012-07-10 14:26:40 UTC
You people want high-sec to be more dangerous? Give us level 5 missions in high-sec so we can have an actual risk (level 4 are a joke).

Just for your interest, even thought I said I opt-ed out of PvP, I still like to play play in dangerous space even if I want level 5 missions in high-sec. In fact, I don't even make my money in high-sec, I spend most of my time in nullsec running plexes. This carebear versus wannabes debate has nothing to do with my post.

Its all about the concept of missions, and nothing about risk versus reward debate that a bunch of people keep crying about in this thread. The fact that I propose that we have all level mission range in all security bands of EVE has nothing to do with the economy of the game. If allowing that turns out to change the economy of the game in a bad way, I'm sure CCP is smart enough to be able to fix it. There's like a bizillion solutions for this, let's not focus on the issues?

For instance, they could offer level 1 to 5 in all security band, but make low-sec pay a bit more, and nullsec pay even more. There you have your "incentive" to leave empire. Making level 5 missions low-sec only is not an incentive.
Signal11th
#103 - 2012-07-10 14:43:22 UTC
Baron Deathicon wrote:
You people want high-sec to be more dangerous? Give us level 5 missions in high-sec so we can have an actual risk (level 4 are a joke).



Why not just do lvl 4's in low sec then, you get your danger then? Or are you after controllable danger that you don't have to plan for just fit against?

Go into low-sec/null sec and shead those carebear scales...

God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster!
Baron Deathicon
Outerspace Vanguard
#104 - 2012-07-24 00:11:20 UTC
Signal11th wrote:
Baron Deathicon wrote:
You people want high-sec to be more dangerous? Give us level 5 missions in high-sec so we can have an actual risk (level 4 are a joke).



Why not just do lvl 4's in low sec then, you get your danger then? Or are you after controllable danger that you don't have to plan for just fit against?

Go into low-sec/null sec and shead those carebear scales...


You don't get it.

I like missions conceptually, and doing them in low/null-sec is not what I am considering a more fun experience strategically speaking; it does not make them more difficult/challenging. I am not a carebear, I spend most of my time in nullsec.

However, when I feel like running a couple missions, I would very much like to be able to choose level 5 in high-sec so I can focus my play time on the mission rather than watching the local and probes.

I strongly believe the actual system has too many exceptions. There's just no reason to not offer level 1-5 missions that stays in the security band you pick them.
Simi Kusoni
HelloKittyFanclub
#105 - 2012-07-24 00:17:32 UTC
Waiting two weeks doesn't make your point any more valid when you necro it.

Just sayin'

[center]"I don't troll, I just give overly blunt responses that annoy people who are wrong but don't want to admit it. It's not my fault that people have sensitive feelings"  -MXZF[/center]
Astroniomix
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#106 - 2012-07-24 06:10:59 UTC
Baron Deathicon wrote:
Signal11th wrote:
Baron Deathicon wrote:
You people want high-sec to be more dangerous? Give us level 5 missions in high-sec so we can have an actual risk (level 4 are a joke).



Why not just do lvl 4's in low sec then, you get your danger then? Or are you after controllable danger that you don't have to plan for just fit against?

Go into low-sec/null sec and shead those carebear scales...


You don't get it.

I like missions conceptually, and doing them in low/null-sec is not what I am considering a more fun experience strategically speaking; it does not make them more difficult/challenging. I am not a carebear, I spend most of my time in nullsec.

However, when I feel like running a couple missions, I would very much like to be able to choose level 5 in high-sec so I can focus my play time on the mission rather than watching the local and probes.

I strongly believe the actual system has too many exceptions. There's just no reason to not offer level 1-5 missions that stays in the security band you pick them.

Having to fit a full passive setup doesn't really count as "more challenging". (or even more involved)
Baron Deathicon
Outerspace Vanguard
#107 - 2012-07-26 19:29:52 UTC
Simi Kusoni wrote:
Waiting two weeks doesn't make your point any more valid when you necro it.

Just sayin'


Useless comment. Get a life, kid.
Baron Deathicon
Outerspace Vanguard
#108 - 2012-07-26 19:32:25 UTC
I think all the arguments here are not technical problems (they can be solved in many ways) and the rest is just opinions.
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#109 - 2012-07-26 20:28:58 UTC
Baron Deathicon wrote:
I think all the arguments here are not technical problems (they can be solved in many ways) and the rest is just opinions.


This idea is bad.

Thats my opinion.

And its a fact.

Stop posting.
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#110 - 2012-07-26 20:30:01 UTC
Baron Deathicon wrote:
Get a life, kid.
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#111 - 2012-07-26 20:30:14 UTC
wololololololol
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#112 - 2012-07-26 21:05:28 UTC
I think missions need to be revisited in general. I have no problem with L5 in high-sec, but I think there should be low-sec only missions. Currently, L5s are a band-aid solution IMHO.

As for the comments, fact is low-sec lovers want the "high hanging fruit" (no pun intended) of loaded mission runner ships. They are only fitted that way because of where they are (never fly what you can't afford to lose). Furthermore, there is a huge change in risk from high-sec to low-sec which is a problem. I lived in 0.0 and low-sec... 0.0 was safer. A bigger problem is fitting ships for PvE and PvP.

IOW, it just doesn't work remove high-sec or send mission runners to low-sec. That doesn't stop people from wanting the high hanging fruit to be the low hanging fruit. Hence the predictable comments.

On a side note, "pure" PvP (while fun) also spawns nothing; EVE is built on industry and PvE.
Nikk Narrel
Moonlit Bonsai
#113 - 2012-07-26 21:34:11 UTC
Obsidiana wrote:
I think missions need to be revisited in general. I have no problem with L5 in high-sec, but I think there should be low-sec only missions. Currently, L5s are a band-aid solution IMHO.

As for the comments, fact is low-sec lovers want the "high hanging fruit" (no pun intended) of loaded mission runner ships. They are only fitted that way because of where they are (never fly what you can't afford to lose). Furthermore, there is a huge change in risk from high-sec to low-sec which is a problem. I lived in 0.0 and low-sec... 0.0 was safer. A bigger problem is fitting ships for PvE and PvP.

IOW, it just doesn't work remove high-sec or send mission runners to low-sec. That doesn't stop people from wanting the high hanging fruit to be the low hanging fruit. Hence the predictable comments.

On a side note, "pure" PvP (while fun) also spawns nothing; EVE is built on industry and PvE.

Your logic is sound.

The PvE ships you mention easily range from 500 million to well over a billion or more ISK in value. People joke about how foolish it is to rat in a carrier, which is often comparably priced.

The Marauder class of ships alone should never be seen outside of high sec, with it's often described weakness to being jammed in PvP. This deliberate aspect of design leaves no doubt that CCP knows and accepts that high sec mission runners are a meaningful part of the game.

So, it sounds like you cannot expect people to take expensive PvE fit ships into the places where they can be destroyed.
This means, (if you still want them in low sec doing missions), that they must be able to enjoy themselves flying risk acceptable ships in these missions.
Ships that are fit so they can endure PvP, as well as the PvE they intended.

And let us not forget risk vs reward. Being in low sec brings a definite level of risk to the table. This means the ships must either be far less expensive than the ones used in high sec, or the rewards must be that much higher.
I don't see the rewards getting raised being the practical solution. All that will cause is farming, if past examples hold true.

I suggest this:
PvE in low sec perhaps should require fits that match PvP better. Omni resists instead of specific, and something that can be done with a buffer tank.

Take a good PvP fit, and work backwards how the mission should be in order to be fun and challenging.

Then, it might just work.

That is my opinion.

Upgrading Local to Eliminate All AFK Influence What if Local Chat changed, Hunting the Cloaked...
Obsidiana
Atrament Inc.
#114 - 2012-07-26 23:32:51 UTC
Agreed. PvP-like missions are a long requested feature.

I even would like to have missions where you have to probe an NPC or structure down and just find it. In another mission, you have to lock it down and destroy it. Something like a fox hunt.

There is still another problem: the odds are stacked against the mission runner. They are facing the rats and anything else in the system. They are also more likely to be alone. I have some ideas on this (all PvPish PvE mission ideas):

  • An "honorable villain" NPC that would attack unwelcome guests and invite you to finish your "discussion" later.
  • An arena where you are invited by pirate NPCs to spar (one-on-one) with while onlooking NPCs watch. If anyone else interferes, room agro on a PvP fit ship and a chance of logistics on you.
  • A mission where you have NPC wing-men (as part of a plot) who will aid you if a player interferes.
  • You have to destroy a structure that attacks you, but it will primary interlopers

These would be great "get a high-sec mission runner out into low-sec" missions. There is still some NPC protection, but not OP iwin CONCORD protection.

Sadly, this creates a hub problem where known systems just become camped death traps. However, I wonder if one-way mission gates could be spawned (one-way gates used to exist in early EVE, IIRC). Going into a low-sec system at a random spot would bevel the edge of low-sec entry (not enough for high-sec lovers, too much for low-sec lovers). I could see missions in low-sec, with agents in high-sec, using a method like this.

Anyway, those are some of my ideas on addressing the steep low-sec risk increase.
Baron Deathicon
Outerspace Vanguard
#115 - 2012-07-27 16:24:01 UTC
I actually like these ideas of PvP fits for low-sec missions, that sounds awesome. Smile
Khoda Khan
Vatlaa Corporation
#116 - 2012-07-27 17:24:27 UTC
Baron Deathicon wrote:
Once upon a time, capsulers were able to run mission level 5 in high-sec, which was quite a lot of fun. Some day, this was removed from the PvE game-play to promote PvP-PvE. This new rule removed the option to opt-in for PvP in end-game PvE content by forcing people to run level 5 missions in low/null-sec. Now if we opt-out of PvP, we are left with level 4 missions, which you will agree with me, aren't a challenge for most sufficiently advanced players.


I see your request to return Level 5 missions to highsec and raise you my long held desire to see Level 4's moved to lowsec as well. Level 5's were never intended to be run in highsec. That they were for so long is a testament to CCP's interest in fixing their own mistakes in a timely manner.

Baron Deathicon wrote:
I would really like that it is considered again, that you, CCP, offer level 5 missions again in high-sec. I am not saying it should be brought back the way it was before. Maybe the rewards needs adjustments, or the difficulty needs to be tuned (greater or less). In any case, there's a gap that needs to be filled, at least for players that opt-out of PvP.


The only opt-out option you have for PVP is to not log in. More income opportunities need to be removed from highsec, not added to it. There is no real difficulty to PVE content whether it be a level 1 mission or a level 5 mission, so your request to make the missions more difficult in return for them becoming available in highsec makes no sense. No matter how "difficult" a PVE encounter is made, it's still a PVE encounter and therefore entirely predictable and easily manipulated to maximize profits.

Baron Deathicon wrote:
II am covinced it would be best to offer level 1-5 in all security bands of EVE. Also, it would be much welcome that missions accepted in a security band stays in the same security band. For instance that would allow the players to choose which security band they want their missions to happen, for all missions, level 1-5. I am confident this should be fairly easy to implement, since this is not like re-inventing the game, but simply allowing for a greater range of playability in this awesome sandbox universe.


The ability to choose what area of space you run a mission in already exists. For those agents that operate on fringes of lowsec, it's found under the "Decline" option of the mission briefing window. While you seem to believe that these kinds of things isn't asking for the game to be reinvented, your belief is incorrect. You wish to maximize your profits while minimizing any potential risk. That IS in fact re-inventing the risk-reward basis of the game.

Baron Deathicon wrote:
As a player, I should be able to run any mission level (1-5), in the security band (high/low/null-sec) of my choice.


You're delusional.
Draconus Lofwyr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2012-07-27 17:50:48 UTC
i agree, bring back the lvl 5 high sec overlap. CCP removed it because they were to high value for high sec, not enough risk, yet later the basically brought lvl 5 missions to high sec with high sec incursions. now does that not send a mixed message? either remove incursions from high sec, or bring back lvl 5 missions. cant have it both ways and expect us not to see the hippocracy.
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#118 - 2012-07-27 19:20:54 UTC
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
i agree, bring back the lvl 5 high sec overlap. CCP removed it because they were to high value for high sec, not enough risk, yet later the basically brought lvl 5 missions to high sec with high sec incursions. now does that not send a mixed message? either remove incursions from high sec, or bring back lvl 5 missions. cant have it both ways and expect us not to see the hippocracy.


Incursions require more than 1 person.

Level 5s don't. If you think they do, then you are just bad at shooting crosses.
Draconus Lofwyr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2012-07-27 19:47:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Draconus Lofwyr
Emperor Salazar wrote:
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
i agree, bring back the lvl 5 high sec overlap. CCP removed it because they were to high value for high sec, not enough risk, yet later the basically brought lvl 5 missions to high sec with high sec incursions. now does that not send a mixed message? either remove incursions from high sec, or bring back lvl 5 missions. cant have it both ways and expect us not to see the hippocracy.


Incursions require more than 1 person.

Level 5s don't. If you think they do, then you are just bad at shooting crosses.



no, they just require several accounts, if you think they don't then your bad at multiboxing. The point being, even as a group, incursions are more lucrative than lvl 5 missions, without the hassle of loot, or salvage so why have one and not the other?
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors
#120 - 2012-07-27 20:18:36 UTC
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
Emperor Salazar wrote:
Draconus Lofwyr wrote:
i agree, bring back the lvl 5 high sec overlap. CCP removed it because they were to high value for high sec, not enough risk, yet later the basically brought lvl 5 missions to high sec with high sec incursions. now does that not send a mixed message? either remove incursions from high sec, or bring back lvl 5 missions. cant have it both ways and expect us not to see the hippocracy.


Incursions require more than 1 person.

Level 5s don't. If you think they do, then you are just bad at shooting crosses.



no, they just require several accounts, if you think they don't then your bad at multiboxing. The point being, even as a group, incursions are more lucrative than lvl 5 missions, without the hassle of loot, or salvage so why have one and not the other?


Have you ever heard of a passive-tanked cap-free shield Ishtar? It can solo most level 5s.

And you're right... Incursions do pay much more than level 5s. Nerf them again or move them out to low-sec too.

How did you Veterans start?