These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1241 - 2013-09-09 15:11:02 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Which proves what point exactly? That suicide ganking is pointless to do on newbie and slightly better than newbie ships? Wellokay. If that needed stating so be it. You could also say that it becomes cheaper to kill those ships at the same time right? Obvious point is obvious.


Wich means even newbie are at risk in null sec while they are not in high. There are more risk in null.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1242 - 2013-09-09 15:13:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
No that's not true. Because in both cases they can be blown to smithereens and in both cases they can watch local and use it to determine if they are alone or not.

But they can more easily detect the threat in nullsec in the simplistic sense.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1243 - 2013-09-09 15:21:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
In my opnion, security of system doesn't determine level of risk, only the ruleset. The value of the ship you're flying in relation to the wealth you have determines the level of risk.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1244 - 2013-09-09 15:26:15 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
In my opnion, security of system doesn't determine level of risk, only the ruleset. The value of the ship you're flying in relation to the wealth you have determines the level of risk.


WHy are people in null not flying pimpmobile worth 5 bill while people in high do so? Hell they even push to 60 bill. Could it be because the lower risk in high sec make it so some people think it's worth a shot?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1245 - 2013-09-09 15:26:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Sorry no that's not true. Because in both cases they can be blown to smithereens
…but the chances of that happening are vastly different. Specifically, it's higher outside of highsec, which means that that the risk is also higher. Whether they can detect those threats doesn't affect the risk — only the available mitigation strategies and the need to adopt them.

So as usual, saying that it's not true is just one more case of you lying through your teeth.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1246 - 2013-09-09 15:30:30 UTC
embrel wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


That has nothing to do with buying a good product versus a bad product, try again.


If CCP had to depend upon EVE being a "good product", they would run in trouble quite soon. Being "the right" product is worth x100 of being "a good product". Blink


You're kidding me right? There are plenty of average products that do okay. Please though in the spirit of this thread show me your peer reviewed scientific double-blind quantramillion-controlled study showing that entitled highsec pubbies cannot possibly be replaced by new players. Also cite another study showing that they are integral to game design and that all games without them will die.


As a nerf to mission income will within a few weeks/months have an impact on general prices, any nerf could be less efficient than expected.

I am wondering whether the whole risk/reward discussion is not ignoring that people - as it's not their real life - are not incentivised that much by risk/reward like they should be IRL (assuming rational behaviour).

A casual gamer just might, after a days work, not fancy the thought of having to be on high alert, so he goes on a mission in Empire no matter whether the reward is 30 or 60 million per hour.

And who says that all the alliance alts missioning in Empire are doing that purely because there's the better reward and not because they're just fed up with corporatism for the moment?

I started again with Eve few months back and have been ratting in NPC 0 and have done L4 missions. After I have now found the knack on L4's, to me it seems they pay better. Especially if I take my losses (a Domi and a Myrm so far) in 0 into account. I plan to go back to ratting as I just like the openness of the setting more (I can stop when I want to and don't have to "finish").

But, I have to PLAN to go there again. Meaning I need to stuff up again and have to take an alt as scout (didn't have that and this will have been one of the reasons for the losses). The whole planning thing is currently not very enticing, so I'm back to L4 for now.

Long story short: at least to me, risk/reward is not the single decision factor. It's a game after all and there at least I should be allowed to do something that's irrational just because I like doing it.

ah, regarding the quotes: I don't see a contradiction in the two. The right product can be just an ok product when it's the right one.


We aren't tired of Dear Leader, we have been forced into highsec. Rational actors and space libertarianism has been tried and failed see the: Free Trade Economic Zone.

~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1247 - 2013-09-09 15:32:20 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
In my opnion, security of system doesn't determine level of risk, only the ruleset. The value of the ship you're flying in relation to the wealth you have determines the level of risk.


WHy are people in null not flying pimpmobile worth 5 bill while people in high do so? Hell they even push to 60 bill. Could it be because the lower risk in high sec make it so some people think it's worth a shot?


Could it be that they don't need to? Perhaps one can make the same level of ISK in null with a markedly less valuable ship? Perhaps the ruleset of null prevents it from producing many wealthy individuals as opposed to highsec that distributes the wealth more easily to all. Could it be that nullsec alliance leaders have mastered the gank but not the infrastructure aspect of running a sovereign section of space?

You don't really believe people are earning pimpmobile money doing level 4s do you? Most are utilizing high sec markets and plex sales. I'll concede I can't verify this but I think its fairly accurate.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1248 - 2013-09-09 15:36:42 UTC
Fun thought. If you nerf hisec missioners income what do you think will happen to the value of those wonderful mods that sell for so much in highsec to the pimps?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1249 - 2013-09-09 15:44:04 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
In my opnion, security of system doesn't determine level of risk, only the ruleset. The value of the ship you're flying in relation to the wealth you have determines the level of risk.


WHy are people in null not flying pimpmobile worth 5 bill while people in high do so? Hell they even push to 60 bill. Could it be because the lower risk in high sec make it so some people think it's worth a shot?


Could it be that they don't need to? Perhaps one can make the same level of ISK in null with a markedly less valuable ship? Perhaps the ruleset of null prevents it from producing many wealthy individuals as opposed to highsec that distributes the wealth more easily to all. Could it be that nullsec alliance leaders have mastered the gank but not the infrastructure aspect of running a sovereign section of space?

You don't really believe people are earning pimpmobile money doing level 4s do you? Most are utilizing high sec markets and plex sales. I'll concede I can't verify this but I think its fairly accurate.


I can confirm that you can buy battleship after battleship by running missions in high sec. Buying a pimp mobile is just like buying a few battleships. Hell replacing my 1st battleship loss was as simple as flying my pod to Jita 4-4 and buying a new hull+ mods. I then proceded to return to my mission where I had done something really stupid and finished the mission and looted my wn wreck giving me a few extra modules.

Yes I was able to re-buy a navy BS up front and I am not even running that many mission. I am averaging less than 1 a day and probably under 0.5 in fact. Amassing ISK to buy pimmp stuff in High don't require market awarness as long as you are patient. Thats why I am not necessarly against a nerf to LVL4 mission as long as I can see the real reason for it. On the other hand, I really like Malcanis' idea of making them more risky instead.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1250 - 2013-09-09 15:45:14 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Fun thought. If you nerf hisec missioners income what do you think will happen to the value of those wonderful mods that sell for so much in highsec to the pimps?


If they are only provided by high sec, they will rise in price due to rarity. If they are provided by otehr sources, they will most likely stay around the same price because the speed at wich they are destroyed would not change much.
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#1251 - 2013-09-09 15:48:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Or they might stay at the same price until the seller tires of it not selling and starts to drop the price daily trying to get something for their find. People are not going to spend more when they have less.

If you nerf highsec income by 50% you are not going to see a 50% price increase for things sold in highsec. Selling and sold have a subtle difference. You can sell t1 damage controls for 50 million each. But how many at that price are actually sold?
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#1252 - 2013-09-09 15:58:40 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Which proves what point exactly? That suicide ganking is pointless to do on newbie and slightly better than newbie ships? Wellokay. If that needed stating so be it. You could also say that it becomes cheaper to kill those ships at the same time right? Obvious point is obvious.

Semantics arguments are fun.

I wouldnt worry with them. just more typical troll thread derailing. I understood your point as did others.
embrel
BamBam Inc.
#1253 - 2013-09-09 16:00:24 UTC
La Nariz wrote:


We aren't tired of Dear Leader, we have been forced into highsec. Rational actors and space libertarianism has been tried and failed see the: Free Trade Economic Zone.

~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~


So, the scam behind grrr goons renting plan is to rent out worthless space you don't need because goon alts are missioning in HS?

The renting plan exists indeed, its a scam on another level?
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1254 - 2013-09-09 16:12:23 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
embrel wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


We aren't tired of Dear Leader, we have been forced into highsec. Rational actors and space libertarianism has been tried and failed see the: Free Trade Economic Zone.

~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~


So, the scam behind grrr goons renting plan is to rent out worthless space you don't need because goon alts are missioning in HS?

The renting plan exists indeed, its a scam on another level?


I have no idea I was pointing out the idiocy of the idea of rational actors and the moronicity of space libertarianism.


~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1255 - 2013-09-09 16:14:57 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Or they might stay at the same price until the seller tires of it not selling and starts to drop the price daily trying to get something for their find. People are not going to spend more when they have less.

If you nerf highsec income by 50% you are not going to see a 50% price increase for things sold in highsec. Selling and sold have a subtle difference. You can sell t1 damage controls for 50 million each. But how many at that price are actually sold?


So now we've shifted from "if highsec gets any nerf players will unsub" to "if highsec gets any nerf the markets will die." Highsec certainly to change its story when it starts losing.

~
~
~
~
H
i
g
h
s
e
c

i
s

S
a
f
e
~
~
~
~

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1256 - 2013-09-09 16:15:56 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Concord doesn't prevent you from dying. It merely retaliates on your behalf. And it does so because highsec is designed to be a general playground where unallied pilots can have fun in the sandbox. Because you aren't going to go solo roaming through nullsec. Or rather many aspects of nullsec deter that style of play. Local chat. Bubbles. Limited places to procure ammunition. Gate camps. etc.

I went solo roaming the other day started from a wormhole into catch, jumped all the way up to top of drone region, got a WH across to Venal, went right around the map from Venal almost to VFK then got a WH to Delve and now Im in Period Basis.

Was in a Mega for a while but swapped for Proteus, no kills, why? Everyone docks up except when they can form a fleet to kill the solo intruder :) Null sov not on a war zone is the safest and most profitable area in EvE - the risk for them is literally zero discounting Awoxing.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1257 - 2013-09-09 16:17:46 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Concord doesn't prevent you from dying. It merely retaliates on your behalf. And it does so because highsec is designed to be a general playground where unallied pilots can have fun in the sandbox. Because you aren't going to go solo roaming through nullsec. Or rather many aspects of nullsec deter that style of play. Local chat. Bubbles. Limited places to procure ammunition. Gate camps. etc.

I went solo roaming the other day started from a wormhole into catch, jumped all the way up to top of drone region, got a WH across to Venal, went right around the map from Venal almost to VFK then got a WH to Delve and now Im in Period Basis.

Was in a Mega for a while but swapped for Proteus, no kills, why? Everyone docks up except when they can form a fleet to kill the solo intruder :) Null sov not on a war zone is the safest and most profitable area in EvE - the risk for them is literally zero discounting Awoxing.


The big difference is, this isn't a thing being given by super magic goku npcs. Players have to build and maintain it, what a player builds can be destroyed. This is literally a whine that "their sandcastle they built is better than the npc sandcastle handed to me in highsec."

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1258 - 2013-09-09 16:21:23 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Concord doesn't prevent you from dying. It merely retaliates on your behalf. And it does so because highsec is designed to be a general playground where unallied pilots can have fun in the sandbox. Because you aren't going to go solo roaming through nullsec. Or rather many aspects of nullsec deter that style of play. Local chat. Bubbles. Limited places to procure ammunition. Gate camps. etc.

I went solo roaming the other day started from a wormhole into catch, jumped all the way up to top of drone region, got a WH across to Venal, went right around the map from Venal almost to VFK then got a WH to Delve and now Im in Period Basis.

Was in a Mega for a while but swapped for Proteus, no kills, why? Everyone docks up except when they can form a fleet to kill the solo intruder :) Null sov not on a war zone is the safest and most profitable area in EvE - the risk for them is literally zero discounting Awoxing.



Not like that protues can carry a cover cyno or anything, that would never happen
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#1259 - 2013-09-09 16:21:30 UTC
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
If you nerf highsec income by 50% you are not going to see a 50% price increase for things sold in highsec.
If you nerf highsec income by 50% you are not likely to see any price increase at all since demand and supply won't change.
Ishtanchuk Fazmarai
#1260 - 2013-09-09 16:31:15 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
If you nerf highsec income by 50% you are not going to see a 50% price increase for things sold in highsec.
If you nerf highsec income by 50% you are not likely to see any price increase at all since demand and supply won't change.


It's hard to keep up the demand if players decide that the ISK they get it's not worth paying 15 euros a month. Twisted

(Albeit some may come back for 9.15 euros a month...P)

Roses are red / Violets are blue / I am an Alpha / And so it's you