Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Why? Because it is undisputedly a fact that moving them to low was a mistake and that one of the only ways to make people work harder has been taken away.

What? The game is different to back when level 5's used to be around. Capitals aren't allowed in highsec for one, we have high dps/volley gank mobiles like ABCs these days and incursions have been introduced.

How? To agents who only assign missions to either 0.5 or lowsec systems. The aforementioned gank mobiles *should* have enough time to eat through any sub-cap tank, short of spider tanking battleships and as we see from ALODs all the time that's still not enough.

When? After Level 5's have been rebalanced to award most of their rewards in LP and only maybe 1.5x the raw ISK of a level 4. Also to make them of comparable difficulty to some sleeper sites, in other words PVE ships should face a credible risk of dying when going in solo.

And? Mission runners not prepared to run their level 5's in lowsec simply won't. They aren't now and they won't be after this change. Relying solely on getting level 5's issued to 0.5's will be a gamble thanks to that 4 hr cooldown timer.

I've played the game long enough to have heard all the arguments in favour of the current system but the evidence speaks for itself. This was a poor move and nothing changes the fact that PVE in a general way creates victims due to demanding tank and no need for EWAR. Until we get kill missions where you fight a single NPC that you need to scram/point and otherwise exercise EWAR mods on then we might as well take what we already have and retrofit it for a modern era. Much easier to modify existing code than it is to fully program in new stuff.

Although the kill mission does hold a great deal more promise.

I counter with the suggestion that L4s be moved to lowsec instead.

One could claim ganking is too. Are you saying increased ease of ganking mission runners is bad?

Is this your troll day ? Your afk cloaky thread will be imb4locked too, how extraordinarily unique. The L5 thread already exists too.

I never suggested removing level 5 missions from low. Just add them back to high sec.

People run level 5s? I know one guy that used to. I personally just use wormholes to move around and run exploration sites for a dizzying several hundred mil a day. I too can empty cite meaningless scenarios. Naturally is it better to run level 5s or level 4s in low seeing as you say level 5s are valuable and must therefore be hotly contested. Or are they incidentally run by pairs of multi boxed residents in their tz offpeak?

I said that missions should only spawnnin 0.5 or lower to represent some extra danger to the mission runner. They can choose to run it in 0.5 at the risk of being ganked and rather easily.

I would lower level 4s first. The payout on a level 4 is much much higher than level 3s iirc. Like between 2 and 3 times as high. Or even higjer. Seem to remember needing to do something like 100 level 3s just to earn enough to buy my first battleship at a time when the rokh was only 80 mil.

And change most of the payout to LP of course. If killing isk is the objective then more consumption is the answer. Your thoughts?

As long as the rewards of all levels of missions end up scaling appropriately based on where they are so as not negatively affect other areas of space (namely lowsec which has long suffered in the past), I don't see any reason for people to be opposed to the idea. It gives people something further to work towards & encourages the act of friend making, something I'm an advocate of. It also provides new opportunities for gankers & people of other unsavory tastes.

No. It was a bug that they were ever there in the first place.

Is it that difficult to understand?

Maybe they subscribe to the "that is just a cover story for nerfing highsec" mode of thought