WeaponsHot
|
Posted - 2009.08.03 13:55:00 -
[1]
Edited by: WeaponsHot on 03/08/2009 13:58:37 Edited by: WeaponsHot on 03/08/2009 13:56:53
Originally by: Kerfira Edited by: Kerfira on 03/07/2009 22:43:55
Originally by: heiway Too long to quote post...
No need to expect flaming, but I'll just make a few comments
Remember that for any low-sec/0.0 activities, there is a huge overhead in time spent (getting loot to market, fetching skills, safespotting when hostiles are in system etc.), not to mention that you almost certainly need to have a 2nd account active for scouting (especially in a BS)... That immediately cuts your profit per character in half...
Ratting in particular require you to get the proper chains going. That can take a while whereas with missions you can just start one and earn full money from the first minute. Faction and Officer spawns, while nice, doesn't occur frequently enough to seriously affect your average income...
I haven't got a lot of experience with WH's, so I'll not comment on that...
Secondly, and most importantly, you're comparing risky methods of money making with a riskless method. L4's wouldn't be unbalanced if there was any risk (no there isn't!), but compared to all other highsec activities, they're just too good.
As for buffing the other methods... Buffing is generally not a good idea in a multiplayer game as it leads to feature creep. What is game mechanically better is to 'nerf' features that are too good compared to the others.
I think the logical level for risk-free L4's should be about the same as you can earn with a close to perfect Hulk in high-sec, or high-sec exploration. That would leave things balanced, and people could do the activity they liked, not decide what to do by how much they could earn by it.
I see your argument but a counter argument can be easily put into equation as well.
Trading dys making nearly 4b a month, using your terms risk-rewarding... an high risk money making in comparison to someone constantly running L4 missions which you consider riskfree.
I can obviously see a considerable difference. Ok! I don't have all LPs/named stuff but got the ISK to buy them if I need.
Therefore your argument is a bit faulted that low sec isn't highly rewarded activity now. Of course not everybody in lowSec will be able to achieve such amount while others living in LowSec will do far more that I reckon. But the same happens to highSec players... some will do more than others. However the risk-reward point you made is still here, well and kicking.
The all point of CCP pushing people to 0.0 is pointless not only because EVE does not provide stability to players but also Aliances do not live/hold territory for long run, quite too often simply go down because of infiltrated thiefs.
If one day EVE becomes more stable to sustain more players activity and better player interactions in 0.0 (a bit of land to everyone rather than everything to me even if I make use it or not) then we would see more people going down to "empty" space... at this respect CCP failed completly.
In some L4 missions you get low bounty, by comparion in LowSectors killing a small bunch of NCPs while flying between Asteroid Belts goes easly over some of the numbers you shown by simply going through asteroid belts. (I'm ignoring the loot/salvage)
The risk of L4s are the same as rat hunding on Asteroids Belts in 0.0... wrong setup and you are done the only difference is some of the L4 are more challenging than ast rat hunting.
Now your argument does a good comparison between L4 and mining. There is no point chosing mining as role. I'd add, there is no point on mining at all... just do a bit of L3/L4 missions and transform the loot in minerals thats all.
Cheers
|