These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123Next page
 

Level 4 missioning

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Embrace My Hate
Bitmap Brothers
#21 - 2011-10-28 01:55:47 UTC
The Apostle wrote:

You're absolutely right and it comes back the same ol'. Did the significant shift to highsec occur after the Sanctums nerfs?

The high population in the "good" systems (as you said) took away the isk potential so much so that moving to highsec gave you similar income without the risk - particularly Incursions.

Although, granted, Incursions require solid fleet discipline and multiplayer ethos but the coinage is superb for relatively low risk.

I'm pretty sure CCP have the numbers and the Sanctum nerf may well be reversed if what we're saying has any truth in it.

For mine, L4 missions ain't the problem, they're the result.


I think the point I'm trying to make is that in order to do anything in 0.0 lot's of things have to happen. There needs to be sov/upgrades. Some stuff needs to be scanned, most are to difficult to do without multiple players. You need to be aware of hostile players etc, etc.

As for level 4 missions there is very little to no interaction. Even disregarding how much ISK you actually make doing it it is just a very poor mechanic that fosters a very un-eve like mentality. Missions are sort of the theme park in a sandbox world they just don't really fit. Am I making any sense lol?
The Apostle
Doomheim
#22 - 2011-10-28 02:03:05 UTC
Embrace My Hate wrote:
The Apostle wrote:

You're absolutely right and it comes back the same ol'. Did the significant shift to highsec occur after the Sanctums nerfs?

The high population in the "good" systems (as you said) took away the isk potential so much so that moving to highsec gave you similar income without the risk - particularly Incursions.

Although, granted, Incursions require solid fleet discipline and multiplayer ethos but the coinage is superb for relatively low risk.

I'm pretty sure CCP have the numbers and the Sanctum nerf may well be reversed if what we're saying has any truth in it.

For mine, L4 missions ain't the problem, they're the result.


I think the point I'm trying to make is that in order to do anything in 0.0 lot's of things have to happen. There needs to be sov/upgrades. Some stuff needs to be scanned, most are to difficult to do without multiple players. You need to be aware of hostile players etc, etc.

As for level 4 missions there is very little to no interaction. Even disregarding how much ISK you actually make doing it it is just a very poor mechanic that fosters a very un-eve like mentality. Missions are sort of the theme park in a sandbox world they just don't really fit. Am I making any sense lol?

Yes, yes you do. I did L4's for quite a time using 3 of my own chars in my own corp. 1 tengu, a claymore and a noctis. made millions. No effort, no need to put any social aspect into what I did.

It does fly in the face of a "multiplayer" environment but having said that, solo ratters in 0.0 do that all day also. The "co-operative bit" only applies in case on home defense/CTA's....

Someone did suggest making L4's "sleeper" style making co-operation more neccessary but then the rewards need to escalate to be commensurate - otherwise may as just go shoot WH rats all day.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#23 - 2011-10-28 02:06:19 UTC
LVL 4s would be profitable for me if i wasnt losing a ship every two weeks in one.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
The Apostle
Doomheim
#24 - 2011-10-28 02:21:24 UTC
Nova Fox wrote:
LVL 4s would be profitable for me if i wasnt losing a ship every two weeks in one.

Do you use eve-agents.com?

L4's only kill ships if you pull triggers before cleaning up.

Also, primary is scrambling frigs - always.

[i]Take an aspirin. If pain persists consult your local priest. WTB: An Austrian kangaroo![/i]
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#25 - 2011-10-28 02:24:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Nova Fox
naw its just I disconnect from eve and come back to a pod mid mission. One of the primary reason why I left 0.0

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.
Embrace My Hate
Bitmap Brothers
#26 - 2011-10-28 02:28:08 UTC
The Apostle wrote:

Yes, yes you do. I did L4's for quite a time using 3 of my own chars in my own corp. 1 tengu, a claymore and a noctis. made millions. No effort, no need to put any social aspect into what I did.

It does fly in the face of a "multiplayer" environment but having said that, solo ratters in 0.0 do that all day also. The "co-operative bit" only applies in case on home defense/CTA's....

Someone did suggest making L4's "sleeper" style making co-operation more neccessary but then the rewards need to escalate to be commensurate - otherwise may as just go shoot WH rats all day.



At least in Nullsec you have to join a corp, in an alliance and either show up to CTA's/Home defense or avoid getting ganked. If level 4 missions even had this extent of social interaction we would probably be having a different discussion.

I would be in favor of removing missions completely rather than try to fix such a messed up mechanic. From the new player experience onward we should be providing training into actual professions rather than robots. It would be more productive and sandboxish to enable players and provide them with the tools to start mining/building/researching/hauling/trading/pvping from the get go rather than clicking red crosses all day.



Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2011-10-28 02:31:45 UTC
Baphommet wrote:
The Apostle > You must keep in mind that 0.0 and L5's in lowsec are much more profitable than L4's

Level 5s maybe, but 0.0?

I'm still feeling that 4s are way overpowered. Overpowered enough to make dangerous ventures not worth it. Fives may reward more, I don't really have much to say on that.


Well at the time long passed i used to make 600+mil per day doing sanctums just on bounties. + occassional faction loot , personally i really liked guristas invuls ...

at empire missioning i need two accounts to make somewhat similar income.

Its not like lvl IVs are bring of all isk, they simply are not .. thats what incursions are for or so i heard.

And for someone who mentined make all missions / deadspace 0.0 no CONCORD whatever.
Why are you in empire ??? Seems like wrong place for you.
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2011-10-28 02:36:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaroslav Unwanted
Embrace My Hate wrote:
The Apostle wrote:

Yes, yes you do. I did L4's for quite a time using 3 of my own chars in my own corp. 1 tengu, a claymore and a noctis. made millions. No effort, no need to put any social aspect into what I did.

It does fly in the face of a "multiplayer" environment but having said that, solo ratters in 0.0 do that all day also. The "co-operative bit" only applies in case on home defense/CTA's....

Someone did suggest making L4's "sleeper" style making co-operation more neccessary but then the rewards need to escalate to be commensurate - otherwise may as just go shoot WH rats all day.



At least in Nullsec you have to join a corp, in an alliance and either show up to CTA's/Home defense or avoid getting ganked. If level 4 missions even had this extent of social interaction we would probably be having a different discussion.

I would be in favor of removing missions completely rather than try to fix such a messed up mechanic. From the new player experience onward we should be providing training into actual professions rather than robots. It would be more productive and sandboxish to enable players and provide them with the tools to start mining/building/researching/hauling/trading/pvping from the get go rather than clicking red crosses all day.





Hmm interesting.

just few differencies

blue null / local consisted of few people in system / intel chanell you know about possible aggresor even before he reach same constelation you are in. When he comes all skill you really need is to warp under FF

empire
you are there with dozens somewhere even houndreds of people in local/ every one of them is possible danger and can mobilize and shot you/destroy your ship / you dont know jack about when it will come / you cant defend against it once they decide to destroy you.

Seems like blue null is actually far more secure than an empire

well everything in EVE /in space/ is actually clicking in overview and pressing F1-F4 or whatever ..thats not really an argument.. Even PvP is killing red crosses / for some it just provide some thrill they enjoy and looking for.

last edit : i am all for dynamic missions in empire .. you do something which trigger something else somewhere and you progress on it or you dont .. something when your action provide some other action ., not necessarily started with an agent/mission provider
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#29 - 2011-10-28 02:37:25 UTC
Baphommet wrote:
I made a reply on another thread, and I though the subject required more attention. So instead of coming up with ideas on highsec careers like in the other thread, I'd like to have your opinion on weather my points are valid and reasonable.

Here was my post:
(The idea is that lvl 4s are way OP)


I despise level 4 missioning.

-It's easy.
-It's very low risk.
-It's boring and repetitive.
-It's extremely lucrative.
-It has a variety of benefits in addition to ISK gain, such as sec status gain, faction standing gain, corp standing gain, access to free implants, etc.
-It makes mining in any space much less profitable (recycling is silly).
-It requires only combat related skills, most of which are useful in many other fields of work.

In fact, I hate highsec missioning so much that I'm almost genuinely upset about it.

Level 4s are big part of why highsec is overpopulated and low/nullsec is not worth the trouble, income-wise.

Missions should be a side job, a way to earn income for pure combat pilots. NOT a huge source of resources.

AMEN - RAWR - RANT - OTHER THINGS!

Baphommet (quote me)

--------------------------

Level 4's need tweaked a little. I suggest lowering bounties and taking away mod drops, but greatly increasing the loyalty point reward as a result. That should help with the ISK (inflation) and mineral problems.

-"access to free implants." Please explain this.

- It's only "extremely lucrative" if you know what you're doing. That usually comes as a result of a significant investment of a player's time and energy.
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#30 - 2011-10-28 02:40:22 UTC
The Apostle wrote:
Embrace My Hate wrote:
I think we got off topic. The argument isn't trying to move people to 0.0 or lowsec. The biggest problem with level 4 missions is that they don't encourage multiplayer interaction in a game driven by multiplayer interaction. I have no problem with there being very lucrative things in highsec and I do not expect people to be forced to move into less safe space. I happen to agree with the OP when he states that the most lucrative things in high sec should take at the very least a minimal amount of teamwork and coordination beyond what currently exists.

As for 0.0 ratting/plexing whatever. I works just like EFT, on paper it sounds wonderful and there's shiny pots of gold everywhere. Realistically for the average null-sec player it is far more difficult. Most systems are **** and the ones that aren't **** are already in heavy use by other players. You can still make a lot of ISK in null no doubt but its not always the ISK printing machine some people make it out to be.

You're absolutely right and it comes back the same ol'. Did the significant shift to highsec occur after the Sanctums nerfs?

The high population in the "good" systems (as you said) took away the isk potential so much so that moving to highsec gave you similar income without the risk - particularly Incursions.

Although, granted, Incursions require solid fleet discipline and multiplayer ethos but the coinage is superb for relatively low risk.

I'm pretty sure CCP have the numbers and the Sanctum nerf may well be reversed if what we're saying has any truth in it.

For mine, L4 missions ain't the problem, they're the result.


What I aleays hear about the sanctum nerf is that the sanctums were putting out more isk than lvl IV so they had to get the nerf bat

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Embrace My Hate
Bitmap Brothers
#31 - 2011-10-28 02:41:13 UTC
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:


Hmm interesting.

just few differencies

blue null / local consisted of few people in system / intel chanell you know about possible aggresor even before he reach same constelation you are in. When he comes all skill you really need is to warp under FF

empire
you are there with dozens somewhere even houndreds of people in local/ every one of them is possible danger and can mobilize and shot you/destroy your ship / you dont know jack about when it will come / you cant defend against it once they decide to destroy you.

Seems like blue null is actually far more secure than an empire


I never claimed any one was more secure than the other. I was only preaching that null-sec even at its most individual level requires SOME amount of social interaction as opposed to running missions.

If the most social interaction you get out of missioning is the lottery chance of a loss mail then you only prove my point in that missions in general are just very un-eve like.
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2011-10-28 02:42:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Jaroslav Unwanted
Embrace My Hate wrote:
Jaroslav Unwanted wrote:


Hmm interesting.

just few differencies

blue null / local consisted of few people in system / intel chanell you know about possible aggresor even before he reach same constelation you are in. When he comes all skill you really need is to warp under FF

empire
you are there with dozens somewhere even houndreds of people in local/ every one of them is possible danger and can mobilize and shot you/destroy your ship / you dont know jack about when it will come / you cant defend against it once they decide to destroy you.

Seems like blue null is actually far more secure than an empire


I never claimed any one was more secure than the other. I was only preaching that null-sec even at its most individual level requires SOME amount of social interaction as opposed to running missions.

If the most social interaction you get out of missioning is the lottery chance of a loss mail then you only prove my point in that missions in general are just very un-eve like.


true however with "recent" changes to anomalies i dont really see huge chunk of us carebears moving there any time soon.
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#33 - 2011-10-28 02:42:57 UTC
Kengutsi Akira wrote:
The Apostle wrote:
Baphommet wrote:
I made a reply on another thread, and I though the subject required more attention. So instead of coming up with ideas on highsec careers like in the other thread, I'd like to have your opinion on weather my points are valid and reasonable.

Here was my post:
(The idea is that lvl 4s are way OP)
------------

Has it ever occurred to anybody that some people only play BECAUSE of level 4's?

And anyway, why is it neccessary to move carebears to get PvP? Is it because they will make low/0.0 target rich?

PvP'ers are the ones complaining about lowsec etc. so why don't YOU move out there?

I've already said - and this is why I post on it, if highsec targets are taken away (either by assured safety OR by complete reversal of highsec safety), then people will move out by default.

PvP'ers DON'T want to leave highsec because they are SAFE there. It's not a "carebear" created problem.


why do YOU play? Other than to QQ out of curiosity...

Know what I say? make deadspace areas akin to 0.0

No CONCORD, no sec etc


I'm going with 2/10 on this one.

The good:
-Proposal of a bad idea is always a good laugh.

The bad:
-Very little effort.
-Unoriginal.
-Boring.
-Grammar, spelling, etc.

I suggest baiting the person into a ridiculous conversation. That is usually much more effective.
Rocky Deadshot
In The Goo
EVE Trade Alliance
#34 - 2011-10-28 02:43:07 UTC
low/null is having issues because of ITS problems.

And anyone still running lvl 4s for anything over than sec status is behind the times on money making.
Igualmentedos
Perkone
Caldari State
#35 - 2011-10-28 02:45:03 UTC
Baphommet wrote:
Overpowered enough to make dangerous ventures not worth it. Fives may reward more, I don't really have much to say on that.


-No
-I also ignore the fact that level 5's are more rewarding.
Kengutsi Akira
Doomheim
#36 - 2011-10-28 02:45:28 UTC
Make lvl IVs PVP friendly. No CONCORD, no Sec, free for all.

I think I said that once but I could be wrong Im kinda tired lol

"Is it fair that CCP can get away with..." :: checks ownership on the box ::

Yes
Barbelo Valentinian
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2011-10-28 02:50:31 UTC
Embrace My Hate wrote:
The Apostle wrote:

You're absolutely right and it comes back the same ol'. Did the significant shift to highsec occur after the Sanctums nerfs?

The high population in the "good" systems (as you said) took away the isk potential so much so that moving to highsec gave you similar income without the risk - particularly Incursions.

Although, granted, Incursions require solid fleet discipline and multiplayer ethos but the coinage is superb for relatively low risk.

I'm pretty sure CCP have the numbers and the Sanctum nerf may well be reversed if what we're saying has any truth in it.

For mine, L4 missions ain't the problem, they're the result.


I think the point I'm trying to make is that in order to do anything in 0.0 lot's of things have to happen. There needs to be sov/upgrades. Some stuff needs to be scanned, most are to difficult to do without multiple players. You need to be aware of hostile players etc, etc.

As for level 4 missions there is very little to no interaction. Even disregarding how much ISK you actually make doing it it is just a very poor mechanic that fosters a very un-eve like mentality. Missions are sort of the theme park in a sandbox world they just don't really fit. Am I making any sense lol?


Yeah you're making sense, but it seems that CCP have decided they have to have a bit of themepark in their sandbox to capture some of the casual and/or solo players who make up the bulk of the population of most MMOs. Evidently there aren't enough hardcore sandboxers around, or many of them have played EVE and left already.

And to forestall the "but MMO means multiplayer" argument, some people (like me) like to play solo in MMOs just because the background to one's virtual adventures feels more real when there are other people around. Plus there's a chatbox too.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2011-10-28 02:53:53 UTC
Kengutsi Akira wrote:
Make lvl IVs PVP friendly. No CONCORD, no Sec, free for all.

I think I said that once but I could be wrong Im kinda tired lol

The last thing needed is a 1 sided gank-based solution. While this is an MMO, it is nice to have solo things to do when you can't reliably be a part of a group dynamic. I mission when I have to take frequent breaks from the keyboard. Otherwise I do incursions for PvE. If I may ask, why suck hate for the solo players?
Embrace My Hate
Bitmap Brothers
#39 - 2011-10-28 03:01:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Embrace My Hate
Tyberius Franklin wrote:

The last thing needed is a 1 sided gank-based solution. While this is an MMO, it is nice to have solo things to do when you can't reliably be a part of a group dynamic. I mission when I have to take frequent breaks from the keyboard. Otherwise I do incursions for PvE.


Having a soloable option when you cannot at the time play as a part of a group, especially for those smaller groups out there is absolutely necessary. What we have with missions though is not just something soloable to do when no one is on but an entire way of life in EVE. Some players never do anything except missions in game.

Some people create alts just to do misisons to make ISK. When you have to make an alt to mission run because your main in his or her corp can't generate an income there is something seriously wrong with situation.
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#40 - 2011-10-28 03:04:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Vimsy Vortis
I get the feeling that significantly nerfing L4s might actually have a very negative effect on the game in general, alot of general highsec folks seem to pay for their subs entierly off the backs of L4 missions and without them may not actually be able to play the game at all, and nobody wants that.

I actually have to aggree with the apostle on this, trying to shoehorn PVP into mission running is going to be problematic and will just make people not run L4s. In particular the idea of making deadspace have no concord is really dumb, with every many and his dog having a maxed out scanning alt and highsec being as heavily populated as it is running missions would be even more dangerous than doing L5s.

If people are legitimately concerned about how much money people can make running L4s in an NPC corp then it might be better to focus on the NPC corps rather than missions. Raising the tax rate on the non-school NPC corps significantly and putting a maximum time limit on being in a starting corp might address that a little. Changes to rewards so that it dosen't punish you so heavily for having multiple persons involved may also help but I don't know who to approach that without making it exploitable.
Previous page123Next page