These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Move Lucrative High-Sec PvE Content to High-Sec Islands
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#61 - 2014-10-08 04:40:14 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Your fundamental contention that high sec mission runners are not risk averse is incorrect. We are and shall remain so. We have made this point in arguments in discussions like this repeatedly and more importantly in our actual game play.


High-sec missions runners are risk averse while running high-sec mission content, yes. For reasons that actually have very little to do with risk and everything to do with what constitutes enjoyable gameplay dynamics for them. Every time they undock from Jita or fly a blingy boat to an incursion hub, however, it proves that they are no more risk averse than anyone else in EVE and most nullsec carrier ratters. Flying around space is a risky endeavor and high-sec mission runners are just as likely to take on the reasonable and necessary risks that entails.

My contention that high-sec mission runners are not risk averse is simply a statement that they are no more risk averse than anyone else playing EVE. Their desire to enjoy high-sec PvE content in unmolested peace has very little to do with risk at all, in fact. Like everyone else in EVE they are more than happy to accept risk in general as a basic part of overall gameplay. Just don't screw with the leisure and enjoyment they derive from the peaceful process of running high-sec PvE content specifically.


But you are entirely wrong is my point. Your contention that those in wh, low and null are equally risk averse as high sec mission runners is so absurd as to leave me at a total loss for words as to how even to respond.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Lena Lazair
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#62 - 2014-10-08 05:06:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Lena Lazair
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
But you are entirely wrong is my point. Your contention that those in wh, low and null are equally risk averse as high sec mission runners is so absurd as to leave me at a total loss for words as to how even to respond.


You act like "risk averseness" is a singular stat per player. People accept different risks during different activities in EVE.

No one here is arguing against the reality that high-sec mission runners do not derive enjoyment from taking the risk of being shot at randomly by strangers while consuming PvE content, and consequently take all reasonable precautions to mitigate this risk (most commonly, by staying in high-sec while running the PvE content). While engaged in the specific PvE content, yes, these players are very risk averse.

That in no way means these players never take risks or engage in other riskier behaviors while playing EVE. It just means they don't chose to do so while running the PvE content. Hell, we are often talking about the SAME people that, on a different alt, spend the rest of their time out in null in, as you contend, very high risk environments.

The entire point of this suggestion is that it's a false premise to conflate the risk-averseness of high-sec PvE players while they are flying PvE content with a general, overall risk-averseness inherent in their gameplay. And further, the repetition of this false equivalence has led to a failure to add reasonable and acceptable risk to balance out high-sec PvE rewards that the average high-sec PvE player would actually accept and deal with. The idea that you can't get a high-sec PvE player to do PvE content in low or null no matter the incentive is definitely true; that in no way means you can't ever get them to do anything risky at all as part of the overall balance of that PvE content.

The point of this distinction is that you can't simply dismiss the suggestion with "they won't go to islands because it's risky". The suggestion intentionally separates the risk they assume while traveling/dealing with logistics from the risk they assume while actually flying PvE content in a PvE boat. It recognizes the fact that these are two different scenarios in the eyes of a high-sec PvE player and their risk tolerance will be at very different levels during these separate activities.
Christopher Mabata
Northern Accounts and Systems
#63 - 2014-10-08 05:41:00 UTC
Veers Belvar wrote:
This seems totally pointless. Force everyone to pay JF pilots or carrier pilots to move their stuff to annoying islands. This helps Eve how exactly? I'm obviously not going to risk moving my battleship through lowsec, I'm just going to pay someone to do it for me. It's just a jobs plan for JF pilots - no thanks.

If anything we should just move L5 missions to regular highsec so that everyone has access to them, not just the folks in the nullsec mafias. Lowsec is too dangerous to do much missioning in. And in general PvE whether its L4s or incursions could use a nice Isk buff to make it more attractive and draw more people in.



i do level 5's in low sec in a carrier all the time, you have a horrible misunderstanding of how dangerous it really is. So long as you watch local and know who hunts and stay aligned your fine. Especially since in an L5 even a heavy dictor will die if it tackles you. The Disruption triggers the aggro shift, and the dictor now has to tank 2.3k DPS from my thanny as well as over 6000 DPS from the rats in the site while being nueted and hit by the racial ewar, in my case target painters and webs, and he cant light a cyno because all L5's are cyno jammed. this has resulted in the death of the ship tackling me 6 times out of 6 attempts to tackle me

Its much safer than the media makes it seem

Heres an example you would really understand, imagine doing a vanguard solo in a carrier ( i know its not possible, suspension of disbelief for 5 minutes here ) someone warps in a cruiser with 200,000 EHP and tackles you, the entire site engages him on a fresh spawn and your attacking him, how long will he last?

♣ Small Gang PVP, Large Fleet PVP, Black Ops, Incursions, Trade, and Industry ♣ 70% Lethal / 30% Super-Snuggly / 110% No idea what im doing ♣

This Message Brought to you by a sweet and sour bittervet
Donnachadh
United Allegiance of Undesirables
#64 - 2014-10-08 14:45:20 UTC
Lena Lazair wrote:
Osmon is a massive ganker hub. As are the incursion hubs. Concentrated PvE play ALREADY happens in massive quantities, so saying that islands would somehow increase this is, IMO, both untrue and inconsequential.


Instead of proving me wrong this post simply illustrates my point even more perfectly than I ever could.

Osmon is a choke/gank point, a single system that virtually everyone that missions in the area has to go through at some point. Exactly the same type of choke/gank point your idea would create.
So how does your idea increase the risks for ALL mission runners, well that is simplicity itself and that may be why you keep missing it evenn though it is in plain view and all.

Currently there are thousands of systems with level 4 mission agents in EVE spreading the mission runners out and minimizing their exposure to ganks. Your proposal forces all of those mission runners into a few "islands" which for all practical purposed become choke points like Osmon thus increasing every mission runners exposure to ganking.

So as I said in my first post -1, no , forget it, bad idea.

A question to the OP, if lvl 4 missions are so risk free and an "ISK Faucet" to boot as you say why not join the party?