|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.05.14 12:06:00 -
[1]
Bad idea.
Low sec needs something unique and currently lev 5 to 7 missions seems to be that planned 'unique' content. Besides it would tip scales too heavily towards high sec empire profitablity so that it would surpass average 0.0 profitablity.
It is already possible to earn approx the same amount as average 0.0 in lower end high sec assuming you have very expencive setup and maxsed skills.
Only way I see it happening reasonably is if those deadspace areas where lev 5 to 7 happen (assuming in high sec) would also be 'PvP zones'.
And Yes, I do run missions as my main income to fund my toys in EVE.
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 07:47:00 -
[2]
It is easy to escape station camps in non 0.0 space as you have 30 second invunerability timer (where ships trying to bump you just pass thru you) so you can wait till your screen loads and use insta undock bookmark while your speed is still 80%. For some bizarre reason in 0.0 they CAN bump you during invunerability timer. At least it was so approx 1 year ago.
But yes. Low sec has it's problems and until those problems are there I will not run missions there. Main problem as mentioned is difference between pve and pvp setups and the issue of non target switching NPC's where incoming gangkers do not need to tank NPC's.
Second issue is risk vs reward, but thats where higher level missions are supposed to come in. Currently I will earn more running missions in lower end high sec in faction fitted CNR than I would in low sec running them in T2 fitted Raven. Running them in low sec in faction fitted CNR is not cost effective as rewards are not good enough to justify that high risk. After those missions get implemented then I will see if they are worth of 'pvp risk' and/or worth poking them in t2 fitted regular ravens (as that rule of thumb goes dont fly what you cant afford and I do not see myself capable of affording navy ravens too often).
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 08:33:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Gladiator Jonny Damn carebears.
if they get their was this time ill cry.
It is just matter of risk versus reward. It is not reasonable to risk 3 bil to gain 5..25 mil ( ~120+ missions) if there is high probability that during that timeframe you will get scanned out and there is pvp attempt on you (with good propability of sucsess under current game mecaniks).
It's also just matter of number crunching to figure out your rewards in 'affordable' setup, take into account proability of loss and compare it with other figure where setup is more expencive and proability of loss is smaller.
Only some missionrunners run them for fun (hell some people even find mining fun). Bulk of the missionrunner do them to fund their other activities in EVE.
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2007.05.15 12:57:00 -
[4]
I think current balance is ok. What I ment with 'approx same income' was approx 6 mil SP char in T2/T1 fitted battleship in true sec 0.0 to -0.6 vs over 15 mil SP character in faction/T2 fittings/ship in lower end high sec (sec +0.5 to +0.6). Only 10 mil SP and cruiser wont quite cut it, it would take a bit more SP to be THAT effective in cruiser.
Balance does not contain only isk investment as other side of the coin is risk of losing that investment. Granted 0.0 in strong alliance controlled territory on safer than low sec, but I would still consider it riskier than lower end high sec (one day they could say ... conquer that station you live in and lock you out from there or come blast the POS plus possibility of encountering bubbles and/or inefficency of either fighting hostiles or waiting them go away).
What I was lamenting about was, that IF you increase high sec mission income any more there is no real reason to be in 0.0 anymore (not to mention low sec). Like say income as good as true sec -1.0 all the while you can sport headful of +5 implants without having to consider possibility of ending in bubble with them and podded.
|
|
|
|