These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Do Level 4 missions pay too much compared to 1 through 3?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
GreenSeed
#681 - 2013-09-05 20:09:03 UTC
that's not the way it works when we are talking commodities... bleh.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#682 - 2013-09-05 20:12:44 UTC
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
I mounted a coherent counter argument to this by actually running missions and recording the result but you've ignored those posts as they do not fit your world view.
…except that you didn't actually address the points being made with your test. We already have far more comprehensive mission-running data than your 6-point sample, if that's what we were interested in.

I mean, yes, you are responding to the claims of the OP, but not the discussion we're having here, which is how much ISK is being injected by these activities and how little they do to balance out those effects.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#683 - 2013-09-05 20:14:03 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Tippia wrote:
The economy doesn't care what people enjoy. The economy cares that in- and outflow of money and goods. What we're saying is that there is an imbalance (or two…) in how bounty-based income sources affect those four parameters.



The 4 parameters being money in, money out, goods in and goods out?

You claim there is an imbalance of those 4 parameters based on bounty income.

Can you present and illustrate this because at this juncture I do not see you having communicated exactly what is occurring negatively, why it needs adjustment, or even that one has affected the other.

What I have seen you present is a dev linked statistic that shows X amount of money is brought in by bounties but absolutely nothing to suggest other than your own belief that every isk in must absolutely have a way out.

If i'm misunderstanding you it's not because of my inability to grasp an advanced or complex theory or hypothesis and everything to with you not conveying your points clearly.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#684 - 2013-09-05 20:16:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Little Dragon Khamez
Skill Training Online wrote:
Level 1 mission... 2 million per hour.

Level 2 mission... 4 million per hour.

Level 3 mission... 8 million per hour.

Level 4 Mission... 60 million per hour


I believe the next in the pattern should have been 16 million per hour... not 60 million. The error is not with the mission rewards themselves but with the inflated bounties available in these missions.

16/60
8/30
4/15

round it up to say 5/15...

1/3

Bounty rewards need to be reduced by appropximately 66% or consequently adopt a new compensation ladder for level 1 - 3 missions.

Level 1 Mission... 7 million per hour.

Level 2 Mission... 15 million per hour.

Level 3 Mission... 30 million per hour.

Level 4 Mission... 60 million per hour.


Either a 66% decrease in one tier of missions or 350% increase in the level 1 through 3 missions.

Consider that it costs 5m isk to fit up a proper condor for level 1 missions, if you happen to lose the one from the tutorial, it would take you 2.5 hours of mission grinding to replace that condor. With the new system you could have it replaced in the better part of an hour.


As things are right now I make 15 times a level 1 income just begging in local averaging about 30m/hour.

This is an area that could really use some focus from the development team, the new player experience is dreadful immediately following the tutorial missions and the first epic arc for Sisters of EVE.



yes Tippia but what I've proved from my own real experience of playing eve is that the whole premise of this thread is absurd. No one flying anything that is not T3 can possibly get anywhere near 60 million an hour, hence there is no problem and L4 missions do not need to be nerfed.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#685 - 2013-09-05 20:26:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
yes Tippia but what I've proved from my own real experience of playing eve is that the whole premise of this thread is absurd. No flying anything that is not T3 can possibly get anywhere near 60 million an hour, hence there is no problem and mission L4 missions do not need to be nerfed.

Sure there is, but not necessarily for that particular reason.

The reason I'd like to see them nerfed is because this would open up for a better activity ecology and, consequently, a far more granular approach to income balancing. I don't think L4s should offer the kind of high-end income it currently allows for, but rather be a natural stepping-stone towards something else. The numbers you're seeing should be the upper end of what they offer rather than some kind of half-mediocre medium. Even without your escape-hatch to Stain, you should be chomping at the bit and thinking that yeah, no, time to move on…

…and actually have the option of doing so. Of course, for many, this might not turn out to be any appreciable nerf at all — they simply aren't running L4s at the efficiency where they hit that ceiling, and that's perfectly fine.

All of this is something (almost) completely separate to the discussion of ISK and material flow, where the core argument isn't really about nerfing anything, but about skewing the income more towards items and trade-ins (e.g. loyalty points). Here, L4s present a problem by only trending towards that type of income once you get to the high end (the aforementioned 60M/h-and-up tier).

And finally, there's a third tangent (that hasn't shown up that much in this thread), which is the overall discussion of how much you're “supposed to” be able to earn in different parts of space…
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#686 - 2013-09-05 20:33:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
^LOL

Activity ecology. You're killing me.

The third tangent. How much income you think we should be making.
ashley Eoner
#687 - 2013-09-05 20:36:49 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Tippia wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
yes Tippia but what I've proved from my own real experience of playing eve is that the whole premise of this thread is absurd. No flying anything that is not T3 can possibly get anywhere near 60 million an hour, hence there is no problem and mission L4 missions do not need to be nerfed.

Sure there is, but not necessarily for that particular reason.

The reason I'd like to see them nerfed is because this would open up for a better activity ecology and, consequently, a far more granular approach to income balancing. I don't think L4s should offer the kind of high-end income it currently allows for, but rather be a natural stepping-stone towards something else. The numbers you're seeing should be the upper end of what they offer rather than some kind of half-mediocre medium. Even without your escape-hatch to Stain, you should be chomping at the bit and thinking that yeah, no, time to move on…

…and actually have the option of doing so. Of course, for many, this might not turn out to be any appreciable nerf at all — they simply aren't running L4s at the efficiency where they hit that ceiling, and that's perfectly fine.

All of this is something (almost) completely separate to the discussion of ISK and material flow, where the core argument isn't really about nerfing anything, but about skewing the income more towards items and trade-ins (e.g. loyalty points). Here, L4s present a problem by only trending towards that type of income once you get to the high end (the aforementioned 60M/h-and-up tier).

And finally, there's a third tangent (that hasn't shown up that much in this thread), which is the overall discussion of how much you're “supposed to” be able to earn in different parts of space…

They tried that when they moved level 5s to lowsec. Now almost no one runs level 5s.

The funny thing is if you have a well skilled tengu then you can make many times more isk doing other things then level 4s.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#688 - 2013-09-05 20:41:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Little Dragon Khamez
Tippia wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
yes Tippia but what I've proved from my own real experience of playing eve is that the whole premise of this thread is absurd. No flying anything that is not T3 can possibly get anywhere near 60 million an hour, hence there is no problem and mission L4 missions do not need to be nerfed.

Sure there is, but not necessarily for that particular reason.

The reason I'd like to see them nerfed is because this would open up for a better activity ecology and, consequently, a far more granular approach to income balancing. I don't think L4s should offer the kind of high-end income it currently allows for, but rather be a natural stepping-stone towards something else. The numbers you're seeing should be the upper end of what they offer rather than some kind of half-mediocre medium. Even without your escape-hatch to Stain, you should be chomping at the bit and thinking that yeah, no, time to move on…

…and actually have the option of doing so. Of course, for many, this might not turn out to be any appreciable nerf at all — they simply aren't running L4s at the efficiency where they hit that ceiling, and that's perfectly fine.

All of this is something (almost) completely separate to the discussion of ISK and material flow, where the core argument isn't really about nerfing anything, but about skewing the income more towards items and trade-ins (e.g. loyalty points). Here, L4s present a problem by only trending towards that type of income once you get to the high end (the aforementioned 60M/h-and-up tier).


I would support what you suggest only if it is implemented in a complete overhaul of PVE content, this is long overdue. If we all agree that the purpose of PVE is to prepare you in terms of wealth and experience for PVP them I'm all for a change. If mission sites were to contain fewer but more capable and thus more challenging rats that themselves have higher bounties and behave more like player characters then I would support that, because the game would become about challenge and not making isk. I'd love to see more people failing L3's or L4's and losing more ships or even NPC's that try to pod you.

To be fair though, most of the posts on this thread have been based on the premise that L4 mission runners earn too much money and that somehow it damages the economy. I've read every post and cant see any evidence for this premise. Also if you want a realistic economy you might get one, but it would be a dull economy.

I could take the arguments presented in this thread and completely reverse them stating that L4 mission runners are so important to the economy that they should be paid more and that a buff, not a nerf is needed as every other sector of eve online's rich and dynamic player driven economy depends on them. Like I say, I could reverse every argument and they would still be just as valid as the majority of posts published here. I see a lot of vitriol not a lot of facts. I see a lot of interpretation of data but no actual findings.

However I know from reading these forums there is sizeable segment of null sec care bears out there that want to punish people for living in high sec, these same null bears are usually under pressure from their corp/alliance leadership for kills and would love to see lots of soft targets suddenly emerge from null into their space. Thing is though once people get used to life in null, they stop being soft targets, which causes more problems for them in more ways than one. I'm not saying that your in this camp, but I suspect a few of your supporters are.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#689 - 2013-09-05 20:46:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Quote:
The third tangent.


tan·gent (tnjnt)
adj.
1. Making contact at a single point or along a line; touching but not intersecting.

2. Irrelevant.

n.
1. A line, curve, or surface meeting another line, curve, or surface at a common point and sharing a common tangent line or tangent plane at that point.

2. Abbr. tan Mathematics The trigonometric function of an acute angle in a right triangle that is the ratio of the length of the side opposite the angle to the length of the side adjacent to the angle.

3. A sudden digression or change of course: went off on a tangent during the courtroom argument.

4. Music An upright pin in a keyboard instrument, especially in a clavichord, that rises to sound a string when a key is depressed and stops the string at a preset length to set the pitch.



col·lo·qui·al (k-lkw-l)
adj.
1. Characteristic of or appropriate to the spoken language or to writing that seeks the effect of speech; informal.

2. Relating to conversation; conversational.



id·i·om (d-m)
n.
1. A speech form or an expression of a given language that is peculiar to itself grammatically or cannot be understood from the individual meanings of its elements, as in keep tabs on.

2. The specific grammatical, syntactic, and structural character of a given language.

3. Regional speech or dialect.

4.
a. A specialized vocabulary used by a group of people; jargon: legal idiom.

b. A style or manner of expression peculiar to a given people: "Also important is the uneasiness I've always felt at cutting myself off from my idiom, the American habits of speech and jest and reaction, all of them entirely different from the local variety" (S.J. Perelman).

5. A style of artistic expression characteristic of a particular individual, school, period, or medium: the idiom of the French impressionists; the punk rock idiom.




Still funny as hell. Watch out for those third tangents. They're a tricky bunch.
ashley Eoner
#690 - 2013-09-05 20:50:35 UTC  |  Edited by: ashley Eoner
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
yes Tippia but what I've proved from my own real experience of playing eve is that the whole premise of this thread is absurd. No flying anything that is not T3 can possibly get anywhere near 60 million an hour, hence there is no problem and mission L4 missions do not need to be nerfed.

Sure there is, but not necessarily for that particular reason.

The reason I'd like to see them nerfed is because this would open up for a better activity ecology and, consequently, a far more granular approach to income balancing. I don't think L4s should offer the kind of high-end income it currently allows for, but rather be a natural stepping-stone towards something else. The numbers you're seeing should be the upper end of what they offer rather than some kind of half-mediocre medium. Even without your escape-hatch to Stain, you should be chomping at the bit and thinking that yeah, no, time to move on…

…and actually have the option of doing so. Of course, for many, this might not turn out to be any appreciable nerf at all — they simply aren't running L4s at the efficiency where they hit that ceiling, and that's perfectly fine.

All of this is something (almost) completely separate to the discussion of ISK and material flow, where the core argument isn't really about nerfing anything, but about skewing the income more towards items and trade-ins (e.g. loyalty points). Here, L4s present a problem by only trending towards that type of income once you get to the high end (the aforementioned 60M/h-and-up tier).


I would support what you suggest only if it is implemented in a complete overhaul of PVE content, this is long overdue. If we all agree that the purpose of PVE is to prepare you in terms of wealth and experience for PVP them I'm all for a change. If mission sites were to contain fewer but more capable and thus more challenging rats that themselves have higher bounties and behave more like player characters then I would support that, because the game would become about challenge and not making isk. I'd love to see more people failing L3's or L4's and losing more ships or even NPC's that try to pod you.

To be fair though, most of the posts on this thread have been based on the premise that L4 mission runners earn too much money and that somehow it damages the economy. I've read every post and cant see any evidence for this premise. Also if you want a realistic economy you might get one, but it would be a dull economy.

I could take the arguments presented in this thread and completely reverse them stating that L4 mission runners are so important to the economy that they should be paid more and that a buff, not a nerf is needed as every other sector of eve online's rich and dynamic player driven economy depends on them. Like I say, I could reverse every argument and they would still be just as valid as the majority of posts published here. I see a lot of vitriol not a lot of facts. I see a lot of interpretation of data but no actual findings.

However I know from reading these forums there is sizeable segment of null sec care bears out there that want to punish people for living in high sec, these same null bears are usually under pressure from their corp/alliance leadership for kills and would love to see lots of soft targets suddenly emerge from null into their space. Thing is though once people get used to life in null, they stop being soft targets, which causes more problems for them in more ways than one. I'm not saying that your in this camp, but I suspect a few of your supporters are.

Never going to happen with how this game is setup. Even sleepers and incursions which are a challenge are done only for the isk grind. You don't PVE for the challenge for long or you'll get bored. Even pvp gets monotonous after a while if you don't switch it up.
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#691 - 2013-09-05 20:53:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Kitty Bear
Tippia wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
yes Tippia but what I've proved from my own real experience of playing eve is that the whole premise of this thread is absurd. No flying anything that is not T3 can possibly get anywhere near 60 million an hour, hence there is no problem and mission L4 missions do not need to be nerfed.

Sure there is, but not necessarily for that particular reason.

The reason I'd like to see them nerfed is because this would open up for a better activity ecology and, consequently, a far more granular approach to income balancing. I don't think L4s should offer the kind of high-end income it currently allows for, but rather be a natural stepping-stone towards something else. The numbers you're seeing should be the upper end of what they offer rather than some kind of half-mediocre medium. Even without your escape-hatch to Stain, you should be chomping at the bit and thinking that yeah, no, time to move on…

…and actually have the option of doing so. Of course, for many, this might not turn out to be any appreciable nerf at all — they simply aren't running L4s at the efficiency where they hit that ceiling, and that's perfectly fine.

All of this is something (almost) completely separate to the discussion of ISK and material flow, where the core argument isn't really about nerfing anything, but about skewing the income more towards items and trade-ins (e.g. loyalty points). Here, L4s present a problem by only trending towards that type of income once you get to the high end (the aforementioned 60M/h-and-up tier).

And finally, there's a third tangent (that hasn't shown up that much in this thread), which is the overall discussion of how much you're “supposed to” be able to earn in different parts of space…


but that's what LP, Salvage & loot drops are

trade ins

they have no intrinsic value in of themselves other than what people are prepared to pay for them
just the same as moon goo
just the same as ore & minerals

the isk faucet of missions is purely Bounties and Agent Payments
the isk faucet of nulsec is the endless supply of belt/anomaly rats


and the answer to your 3rd tangent
whatever CCP want it to be


[edit]
also your standpoint is flawed
it is based on an erroneous personal opinion
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#692 - 2013-09-05 20:58:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Ladies and gentlemen im out for the day but I would ask you to consider carefully the case the prosecutors have made when the argument has reached the point where in absence of evidence we are told our activity ecology is broken and that we have missed the bus on the third tangent. Cya 2morrow.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#693 - 2013-09-05 21:10:57 UTC
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
To be fair though, most of the posts on this thread have been based on the premise that L4 mission runners earn too much money and that somehow it damages the economy. I've read every post and cant see any evidence for this premise. Also if you want a realistic economy you might get one, but it would be a dull economy.
Weeeeell… sure. I'd say that's a muddying of topics. Whether they earn “too much” from perspective #1 or #3 will vary with the post (and poster) and #2 is often tagged on as an additional argument of why this is a problem.

Only rarely is each addressed on its own.

To make matters even more confusing, points #1 and #3 work the level of the individual, whereas #2 is a question of (macro (-level)) economics. If I were to guess, I'd say that this is why it creates such vitriol: because rather than looking at it from that over-arching perspective, people fall back into perspective #1 and see it as a threat to them, personally.

Quote:
I could take the arguments presented in this thread and completely reverse them stating that L4 mission runners are so important to the economy that they should be paid more and that a buff, not a nerf is needed as every other sector of eve online's rich and dynamic player driven economy depends on them. Like I say, I could reverse every argument and they would still be just as valid as the majority of posts published here.
If you can reverse the notion that bounty-based income creates too much ISK into saying that it should make even more, I'd like to see it. P

Quote:
However I know from reading these forums there is sizeable segment of null sec care bears out there that want to punish people for living in high sec, these same null bears are usually under pressure from their corp/alliance leadership for kills and would love to see lots of soft targets suddenly emerge from null into their space.
I don't know… I think this is more a case of self-victimisation than of any actual nullsec entities having anything even remotely resembling that kind of agenda. There might be a troll or two who adopts this line of reasoning, but anyone who's able to provide any kind of supporting evidence for their position tends to argue more for getting the nullseccers into null. They don't care one whit about people who live in highsec (beyond their occasional desires to introduce the most hilariously imbalanced mechanics) and simply want to not do it themselves, but they recognise that it's the best choice for one reason or another and wish it wasn't. Industry is probably the poster child of this particular problem.

Kitty Bear wrote:
but that's what LP, Salvage & loot drops are
trade ins

they have no intrinsic value in of themselves other than what people are prepared to pay for them
just the same as moon goo
just the same as ore & minerals

the isk faucet of missions is purely Bounties and Agent Payments
the isk faucet of nulsec is the endless supply of belt/anomaly rats
…and the point is that missions (and, indeed, other bounty-based income sources) could do with having more of those elements and less pure ISK. L4s becomes almost pure LP at the very high end, but also loses the salvage and loot part (because it's a waste of time at that point). More of that should happen along the entire gamut of mission-running.

Oh, and between missions and belt/anomaly rats, the former is far more endless than the latter, since mission rats are spawned at will rather than in limited numbers at limited times.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#694 - 2013-09-05 21:33:43 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
To be fair though, most of the posts on this thread have been based on the premise that L4 mission runners earn too much money and that somehow it damages the economy. I've read every post and cant see any evidence for this premise. Also if you want a realistic economy you might get one, but it would be a dull economy.
Weeeeell… sure. I'd say that's a muddying of topics. Whether they earn “too much” from perspective #1 or #3 will vary with the post (and poster) and #2 is often tagged on as an additional argument of why this is a problem.

Only rarely is each addressed on its own.

To make matters even more confusing, points #1 and #3 work the level of the individual, whereas #2 is a question of (macro (-level)) economics. If I were to guess, I'd say that this is why it creates such vitriol: because rather than looking at it from that over-arching perspective, people fall back into perspective #1 and see it as a threat to them, personally.

Quote:
I could take the arguments presented in this thread and completely reverse them stating that L4 mission runners are so important to the economy that they should be paid more and that a buff, not a nerf is needed as every other sector of eve online's rich and dynamic player driven economy depends on them. Like I say, I could reverse every argument and they would still be just as valid as the majority of posts published here.
If you can reverse the notion that bounty-based income creates too much ISK into saying that it should make even more, I'd like to see it. P




Couple of points, When I first joined eve back in 2007 mineral prices were a lot lower and battleships cost 75 million, a decent BC was 30 mill. Mission rewards and bounties have not changed since then. The drone regions were later nerfed and we've had lots of tinkering from CCP to get to the situation today when an average BC is around 50 million and an entry level Battleship is at least 150 million. That's inflation. Hence mission rewards need to double to restore player buying power.

As I've said I can reverse any argument thrown in this thread and still it's just as valid as anything printed before it.

Also there is no self victimisation going on in my alliance and I am certainly not under pressure to get cheap, lazy kills.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#695 - 2013-09-05 22:17:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:
Couple of points, When I first joined eve back in 2007 mineral prices were a lot lower and battleships cost 75 million, a decent BC was 30 mill. Mission rewards and bounties have not changed since then. The drone regions were later nerfed and we've had lots of tinkering from CCP to get to the situation today when an average BC is around 50 million and an entry level Battleship is at least 150 million. That's inflation. Hence mission rewards need to double to restore player buying power.
…except that mission income has not remained the same — they're easier in and of themselves, and we have better ships to deal with them now, for one — and that the inflation between those two points in time is actually rather small (2007 was still in the deflation era). So if it took 2 hours of work to buy that BC back then, it will take 2 hours to buy one now, and the buying power has remained the same. In fact, one might suspect that this is why, in terms of absolute ISK value, that BC costs however many times more now than they did back then…

For the record, my first Drake from early 2008 cost ~40M ISK. Right now, they cost 42M in Jita.

Quote:
As I've said I can reverse any argument thrown in this thread and still it's just as valid as anything printed before it.
That is not so much reversing the argument as it is ignoring the economic causes and effects and thinking that more of the same problem will solve the problem, so I would hardly call it valid.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#696 - 2013-09-05 22:22:24 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:

They tried that when they moved level 5s to lowsec. Now almost no one runs level 5s.

The funny thing is if you have a well skilled tengu then you can make many times more isk doing other things then level 4s.


How can anyone get the history of lvl 5s this wrong.

CCP didn't move level 5s to low sec to encourage people to do something. The fixed a bug that allowed lvl 5s in high sec in the 1st place. There NEVER should have been a single high sec lvl 5. The devblog from back then explaining the big fix is a google search away.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#697 - 2013-09-05 22:24:46 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
ashley Eoner wrote:

They tried that when they moved level 5s to lowsec. Now almost no one runs level 5s.

The funny thing is if you have a well skilled tengu then you can make many times more isk doing other things then level 4s.

How can anyone get the history of lvl 5s this wrong.

CCP didn't move level 5s to low sec to encourage people to do something. The fixed a bug that allowed lvl 5s in high sec in the 1st place. There NEVER should have been a single high sec lvl 5. The devblog from back then explaining the big fix is a google search away.

Why not revise history a little, this is General Discussion after all.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#698 - 2013-09-05 22:25:21 UTC
ashley Eoner wrote:

Never going to happen with how this game is setup. Even sleepers and incursions which are a challenge are done only for the isk grind. You don't PVE for the challenge for long or you'll get bored. Even pvp gets monotonous after a while if you don't switch it up.



You forgot to include the words "for me". I like EVE pve and run missions , incursions and complexes everyday without getting bored.

I don't care if pve has some pvp link or another, I'm here to slaughter npcs after work with the occasional jaunt into killing real in-game people.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#699 - 2013-09-05 22:32:40 UTC
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:


However I know from reading these forums there is sizeable segment of null sec care bears out there that want to punish people for living in high sec, these same null bears are usually under pressure from their corp/alliance leadership for kills and would love to see lots of soft targets suddenly emerge from null into their space. Thing is though once people get used to life in null, they stop being soft targets, which causes more problems for them in more ways than one. I'm not saying that your in this camp, but I suspect a few of your supporters are.


I just honeslty don't know where this nonsens comes from. So now it's a conspiracy of null players to get peolpe into null to get kills so they don't get kicked from corp? This is so far outside the bounds of reality I felt like reaching for a Valium just reading it.

Where has anyone (other than high sec carebears with no or little real null sec experiance) suggested that the 1.75 MILLION kills per year (generated by only 30-35,000 characters as most EVE characters never leave high sec) in null sec per average just wasn't enough?

That whole "they just want me to go to null sec/they don't like how I play" is a self serving lie weak-minded players tell themsves to escape (in their own minds) from the stigmate of being a non-contributing leech on the game's society. It's how they tell themselves they actually matter when none of us matter a bit beyond our subscription price. It' makes me sick to see people lie to themselves like that.

NO ONE wants anyone to go to null. On behalf of every null sec PVEr ever, we'd prefer you stay far away if you aren't blue.
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
#700 - 2013-09-05 22:38:35 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Little Dragon Khamez wrote:


However I know from reading these forums there is sizeable segment of null sec care bears out there that want to punish people for living in high sec, these same null bears are usually under pressure from their corp/alliance leadership for kills and would love to see lots of soft targets suddenly emerge from null into their space. Thing is though once people get used to life in null, they stop being soft targets, which causes more problems for them in more ways than one. I'm not saying that your in this camp, but I suspect a few of your supporters are.


I just honeslty don't know where this nonsens comes from. So now it's a conspiracy of null players to get peolpe into null to get kills so they don't get kicked from corp? This is so far outside the bounds of reality I felt like reaching for a Valium just reading it.

Where has anyone (other than high sec carebears with no or little real null sec experiance) suggested that the 1.75 MILLION kills per year (generated by only 30-35,000 characters as most EVE characters never leave high sec) in null sec per average just wasn't enough?

That whole "they just want me to go to null sec/they don't like how I play" is a self serving lie weak-minded players tell themsves to escape (in their own minds) from the stigmate of being a non-contributing leech on the game's society. It's how they tell themselves they actually matter when none of us matter a bit beyond our subscription price. It' makes me sick to see people lie to themselves like that.

NO ONE wants anyone to go to null. On behalf of every null sec PVEr ever, we'd prefer you stay far away if you aren't blue.


You need to read my other posts before jumping to conclusions, if you had you would be aware that I live in null. As for being blue I bet you like that as non blue makes you dock up.

Dumbing down of Eve Online will result in it's destruction...