Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lord Frost
Minmatar The Crystal Method
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 12:32:00 -
[181]
I think its about time pirates made a little more effort to seek out kills... this is a good thing. You can actually use the term piewat and mean it.
|
Matrix Aran
Legio Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 12:51:00 -
[182]
Even if the new system was nerfed people will still be probed out in thier missions. A fact of life. If you want to be safe in eve there is no better solution to anything than bring friends. If you want to mission in peace in a certain low sec area, get together your corp mates, go down there, do some PVP declare some wars, show them who is better and kick them out. What is so hard about that? ----
Originally by: Wrangler It's a neuralizer.
|
Agrias Hellion
Diligentia Sodalitas
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 13:00:00 -
[183]
No offense, it is a multiplayer game and all but people might not want to **** about getting a group together to do missions. Eve still needs to have some single player content.
For the risk vs reward crowd, the risk in low sec mission running is very high. Moving from system to system has always been a huge risk for me. I largely discounted the chance of being found mid-mission despite the fact the system I am in has pirates who were pretty **** hot at scanning before this patch.
The money isn't that good for the mission, most of the time money making comes from loyalty points.
So now that it is generally easy to find mission runners it is really not worth it. A lone or even a partnership stands no chance against pirates while being pounded on by rats as well. Not too mention fitment issues, which are usually different for PVP.
Games such as these are always about balance. They have tipped it the wrong way this time.
I think it comes from the devs being very biased to their own methods of game play.
So i've stopped low sec mission running, the wreck issue combined with this scanning *******s is not worth it.
|
Matrix Aran
Legio Immortalis
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 13:32:00 -
[184]
Originally by: Agrias Hellion No offense, it is a multiplayer game and all but people might not want to **** about getting a group together to do missions. Eve still needs to have some single player content.
For the risk vs reward crowd, the risk in low sec mission running is very high. Moving from system to system has always been a huge risk for me. I largely discounted the chance of being found mid-mission despite the fact the system I am in has pirates who were pretty **** hot at scanning before this patch.
The money isn't that good for the mission, most of the time money making comes from loyalty points.
So now that it is generally easy to find mission runners it is really not worth it. A lone or even a partnership stands no chance against pirates while being pounded on by rats as well. Not too mention fitment issues, which are usually different for PVP.
Games such as these are always about balance. They have tipped it the wrong way this time.
I think it comes from the devs being very biased to their own methods of game play.
So i've stopped low sec mission running, the wreck issue combined with this scanning *******s is not worth it.
If you want single player content you have empire space which is relativly risk free so far as losing your ship. Empire has its own host of problems but they are focused on griefers and people exploiting metagaming in my opinion. If you want to survive in low sec you just have to take the time to find friends. They don't have to run every mission with you. If you take the time and make a name for your corp in a certain system as people that can't be killed and are not worth the effort, people will leave your system alone. And if a biger badder group of players kick you out of that system, then you didn't earn the right to reap its rewards. ----
Originally by: Wrangler It's a neuralizer.
|
thundachronic
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 14:18:00 -
[185]
I managed to get up to about page 4 before my vision started to blur, so apologies if I repeat what someone has said on the last 3 pages.
Please have a quick look at:
http://support.eve-online.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=153
Level 4 missions were never designed to be done solo. The fact you can, and that many are, means most of these mission runners are utilising exisiting game mechanics to their advantage to turn a nice profit. Guess what, so are pirates.
If you don't want to lose your ship to pirates, why not try doing missions as they were intended - in groups ! Oh, and the golden rule of any risk - never fly what you can't afford to lose.
|
Yllse
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 14:50:00 -
[186]
Originally by: thundachronic I managed to get up to about page 4 before my vision started to blur, so apologies if I repeat what someone has said on the last 3 pages.
Please have a quick look at:
http://support.eve-online.com/Pages/KB/Article.aspx?id=153
Level 4 missions were never designed to be done solo. The fact you can, and that many are, means most of these mission runners are utilising exisiting game mechanics to their advantage to turn a nice profit. Guess what, so are pirates.
If you don't want to lose your ship to pirates, why not try doing missions as they were intended - in groups ! Oh, and the golden rule of any risk - never fly what you can't afford to lose.
From that page (emphasis mine):
Quote: Their missions usually require a group of pilots to solve within the given timeframe, but reward accordingly to all participants.
Since the last part of that sentence was never implemented, the first part is meaningless. Level 4s were implemented with LP, standing, cash and item rewards and storyline rewards for one person.
|
space bear
Gallente
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 14:58:00 -
[187]
"risk vs reward", again ? The actual risk taken by a pirate jumping in a mission-runner in low-sec is near to 0 nowadays...
As we are talking of low security sectors, it wouldn't be that much out of bounds that we see Concord interfere in such conflicts, something like :
0.4 : a 50% base chance every 30 seconds 0.3 : a 40% base chance every 60 seconds 0.2 : a 30% base chance every 90 seconds 0.1 : a 20% base chance every 120 seconds 0.0 : not at all
And as Concord is so effective, some kind of alert could be given to the assaulting guys if it is about to come, leaving sufficient time to quickly leave the field if needed.
NOTE: Those numbers are surely unbalanced, and they oviously need some tweaking as they're only given for the idea... But something like that could balance the risks taken by the two parts, not only be one sided as they are at the moment. And then maybe, and only maybe, we could see more activity in low-sec sectors (And those who really have "balls").
(GankBears? I'd rather say "care-rats")
|
thundachronic
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 17:16:00 -
[188]
Edited by: thundachronic on 02/12/2006 17:17:58
Originally by: Yllse
Since the last part of that sentence was never implemented, the first part is meaningless. Level 4s were implemented with LP, standing, cash and item rewards and storyline rewards for one person.
I have no idea how much isk mission runners make from L4 missions as I've never done one solo myself. Helped a few ppl out with them just after they were introduced but missioning isn't my thing, and that was many moons ago. As far as I'm aware though, the bounties are still shared, the sec status gained is still shared (if it's a mission that has sec status gains - dunno, not a mission runner)and loot could possibly be shared if you choose to do so.
Still, L4's weren't designed to be done solo, same as the carrier wasn't designed to be a wtf solo pwnmobile - but it still is. So if you do them on your own wanting ALL those little iskies for yourself then there are obviously risks involved with going into low-sec alone. On your own head be it if you want to be a greedy git and get ganked because you aren't prepared. |
Redpants
Gallente Federal Navy Academy
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 18:44:00 -
[189]
Edited by: Redpants on 02/12/2006 18:50:32
Originally by: Nightwings First off let me say I have nothing against piracy. Love it being a part of the game. I understand when you go into low-sec space be prepared to lose your ship.
BUT, I don't like the pvp part of this game, so I don't do much of it. I Do like the mission running. I do lots of it. I run them out of a 0.5 sec area, with some missions taking me into a 0.4 area 1 jump away. I always went prepared with stabs. Since the patch, my 3 stabs raise my targeting time to 2 and 3 minutes for lock-on. So, I took them off knowing that I would only have to worry about gatecamping. But now with the new scanning equipment, pirates can find you while you are on a mission. And yes, I got jumped in the middle of Tech Secret3, killed and podded.
This is the end of just about Anyone running missions solo in low-sec space. Me included. Unless I can a bunch of sensor upgrades on top of everything else in my ship I don't see how it can be done solo.
So you want a place in EVE that would be safe from PvP for running missions by yourself? What you have just described isn't EVE.
Also the way you mention the sec status of the systems your operating out of gives me the impression you assume that high security systems somehow mean your safe. You're not.
All you people who keep thinking you should be safe somewhere and how the pirates aren't fair because they can do A, B and C to get to me are wearing thin on me. Stop thinking about things as a game. "I should be safe somewhere in this game because I"m on a mission..." and start thinking about your ships, as ships. Your modules are equipment on your ship that perform a function irregardless of the fact that you're out on a mission. Start thinking about what's happening in EVE as if it were real and it will click inside your minds. Why would modules have selelctive functionality. (Scan probes that don't find people on missions, NOS that leaves you just enough cap to warp away etc. etc. etc.) I'm sick of hearing it. ________________________________________________________________________________ "My once immaculate white pants are now stained from the weak and innocent. I don't wear red." |
Merin Ryskin
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 19:10:00 -
[190]
Originally by: Nanobotter Mk2 Okay mr smarty nonconsentual pvp. Put your money where your mouth is name your empire based system I'll meet you there both of us in battleships minimum and we can see how the old eve is about non consetual pvp works out for you okay?
Remember the part about NON-consentual PvP? That doesn't mean I meet you in a fair pre-arranged duel. It means I catch you when you're vulnerable with a few of my friends and we take your loot.
Quote: Please have some backbone and don't back out of this basic challenge, also note I will be in an NPc corp in a very well tanked battleship ( good luck killing me before concord kills you MR eve is about nonconsentual pvp...)
Right... so you think you win the argument if I don't concord myself on you? You really must be smoking the good stuff...
Good job hiding in an npc corp by the way. It makes it really easy to attack people on the forum when you're safe from war decs, doesn't it?
Quote: PS asstard if you play on a wow PVP server it also has non consentual pvp, and for that matter so does almost every MMO out there.
Are you honestly this stupid? "Playing on a PvP server" is BY DEFINITION giving consent to Pvp.
Quote: What msot other quality pcp games do have is rule sets to prevent lamers from kiliong noob and camping spawn poitns something EVe does not have hence hte high number of weaksauce pvpers who play eve, essentially the people who cant hack real pvp flock to eve to be bullies :(
No, what most other MMORPGS have is the developers holding your hand and making sure you never have to lose anything.
|
|
Daon Khan
Minmatar Handsome Boy Modeling School
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 23:36:00 -
[191]
Edited by: Daon Khan on 02/12/2006 23:51:20 Edited by: Daon Khan on 02/12/2006 23:47:40 Edited by: Daon Khan on 02/12/2006 23:40:55
Originally by: Xaildaine a short term solution is to bring back mines.
Those things that you can lay in space for people to fly into and explode.
This would redress the balance and offer a tool to pirate and missionrunner alike.
Great idea.. satisfies everyones need for defense and bloodshed, only problem I see is warping through a gate into a minefield... in low sec you could have it so the sentry turrets blast em clear, but in 0.0 they could raise major lameness problems (I'm sure a way can be found around that, for example giving destroyers some type of mine sweeper function). I think that's the thing that everyone wants; more boom and less lameness. Just my two cents. Oh and maybe I'm crazy, but I did read somewhere or maybe heard it on EVE-TV that CCP does plan on re-implementing mines they're just working out the mechanics....something about wanting them to home on targets etc.
|
Flaming Lemming
|
Posted - 2006.12.02 23:54:00 -
[192]
Originally by: Daon Khan Edited by: Daon Khan on 02/12/2006 23:51:20 Edited by: Daon Khan on 02/12/2006 23:47:40 Edited by: Daon Khan on 02/12/2006 23:40:55
Originally by: Xaildaine a short term solution is to bring back mines.
Those things that you can lay in space for people to fly into and explode.
This would redress the balance and offer a tool to pirate and missionrunner alike.
Great idea.. satisfies everyones need for defense and bloodshed, only problem I see is warping through a gate into a minefield... in low sec you could have it so the sentry turrets blast em clear, but in 0.0 they could raise major lameness problems (I'm sure a way can be found around that, for example giving destroyers some type of mine sweeper function). I think that's the thing that everyone wants; more boom and less lameness. Just my two cents. Oh and maybe I'm crazy, but I did read somewhere or maybe heard it on EVE-TV that CCP does plan on re-implementing mines they're just working out the mechanics....something about wanting them to home on targets etc.
Maybe make it so mines can only be deployed in deadspace...or not within x-kilometers of any station or gate so as to avoid jump in/undock lameness.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |