| Author |
Topic |
Lord WarATron
Amarr
Shadow Warri0rs
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 12:21:00 - [ 1]
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 30/04/2008 12:37:41
Excluding moons, manufacturing and trading, most players I notice tend to make their isk from mining, ratting or running missions.
Players either make their isk in high sec or 0.0. Making isk in low sec is mostly avoided because 0.0 ratting is safer from hostile players than lvl4/5 missions in lowsec for example. This is because its easy to warp out/log/whatever the second someone enters local.
Making lvl4's in lowsec safer is a nerf to the pirates. Pirates have a hard enough time finding targets already, so this cannot happen. This leaves one option. Making 0.0 ratting more dangerous than lowsec. I know CSM's are not in charge of game design issues, but if you want to represent people, then they need to have a view on the above when you sit in front of some dev who asks you what you would think are good ideas.
What is your views on improving the low sec/0.0 risk vs reward balance? Do you beleive that it is correct that 0.0 NPCing should be safer for isk making than lowsec lvl4/5's?
|
zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan |
Posted - 2008.04.30 12:58:00 - [ 2]
Edited by: zoolkhan on 30/04/2008 13:00:33
You cannot safe the universe in one go. One has to prioritize.
It occurs to me this topic is not the worst pain in the players arse
However it think low sec l4 missions are not as unpopular as you seem to think.
I personally do it all the time, and i do enjoy the cat'n mouse with the pirates.
But then again, just like yourself, i am only one individual and other see it differently.
So, should we ever come to the conclusion that it is desireable to make 0.0 ratting more
difficult then i would propose to make the rats harder to kill, or include more of the webbing and scramming kind to a group.
However, i do not think that we should nerf something just because it is aparrantly an relatively easy way to earn cash.
If we make 0.0 unattractive, if we nerf ratting in 0.0 it has consequencies:
- exodus stalling, less raeson to go to 0.0
(great for the pure pvpers so they stay amongs themselfes? wrong, even them need a infrastructure, support, supply.. and rats)
- POS and outposts built as hubs for ratters become obsolete, refining outposts especially.
- one reason to contest otherwise worthless space (like providence) falls away
- your own alliance financial concept seem to rely to a large deal on renting out space
what would happen to that concept if all those renters dont find it attractive anymore
because the risk has increased , and it is not as porfitable anymore as it has been?
- i do agree, we should not make missions in low sec easier, pirates also need to have a chance, but mission runners who run those missions are simply different people, or same people in a different mood that yesterday when they wanted to rat.
consider, taht people who rat and people who run a low sec mission do it because it is what generates teh most fun, or as in my case - what real life dictates.
if i had as much time as i wanted, i would do the missions all day _BECAUSE_ theyre more challengin than killing a sansha in a belt off from the travel routes.
However, if i am same time on "daddy"-shift then i have to be able to just interrup
whatever i do on a moments notice, thats very bad for missions with a bonus deadline
or spawns coming back after dt and so on..... so i go and rat.
I dont feel its a balancing issue, its just different people, or people who want to change
teh routine.
Frankly i dont see a urgent need to change anything here, well unless of course a representative average of the playerbase prioritize this matter higher.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.04.30 13:33:00 - [ 3]
You have to identify the actual problems first.
Highsec is more or less fine the way it is, maybe L4s in highsec are a tad bit too lucrative.
As such, I would simply propose skewing the ISK/LP rewards way down for (L4) highsec "kill" missions, down to the magnitude of courier missions, and skewing them way up for lowsec (even one order of magnitude higher, if it must be).
This way L4s in highsec are still marginally profitable (bounties, salvage, loot), yet those in lowsec are very profitable even if you completely forego looting/salvaging (or, heck, better said, you'd be a lot better off skipping that altogether and just speed-running missions in lowsec instead).
Another issue with lowsec is that, although you theoretically can engage in "defence" measures against player pirates, unless those pirates are already under -5.0 (and a lot aren't) you risk slowly becoming an outlaw yourself.
As such, the next proposal would be to DISABLE security status loss (and NPC gun-turret aggro too) when you attack a negative (even -0.01) security status target in lowsec.
This way, you encourage a more proactive defence against most would-be pirates, in case you actually want to police the area at all.
The LP gains scaling should also affect 0.0 mission-runner revenue (for those located in NPC-controlled 0.0), and since those areas are usually less secure (everybody has rights to dock and use the facilities), it's not a big problem.
As for "true", deep 0.0, given the buffs to lowsec, I'd say all comes slowly to some small kind of equilibrium... wouldn't know how to make "deep 0.0 ratting" more dangerous for the life of me anyway.
Ok, so we have missions and ratting somewhat covered, that leaves mining.
Simply put, the mining system needs a thorough and COMPLETE overhaul.
For starters, the ore distribution and the mineral composition of ores, everything needs to be seriously revamped.
You can either make it so that all ores contain SOME traces of all "cheaper" minerals in them alongside the "better" minerals (so, for instance, if you mine Arkonor, you don't get just some Mega/Zyd and traces of other minerals, but you actually get copious amounts of lowends too)... or you can make it so that each asteroid has a different "yield multiplier" (lower in 1.0, highest in deep 0.0), and mining a high-yield-multiplier asteroid gets you a lot more m^3/cycle compared to mining a low-yield-multiplier asteroid.
Either way, the overall mineral distribution needs to be a lot more balanced than it is right now... but not quite balanced according to needs (hisec should still have an overabundance of lowends, deep 0.0 should still have an overabundance of highends... but nowhere near the current discrepancy).
As for the drone regions, they should start getting their version of "hauler spawns", and the drone alloys need to be re-balanced yet again a little bit.
With these changes, most of the risk-vs-reward ratios start resembling what they should look like.
|
Max Torps
Nomadic Conglomerate |
Posted - 2008.04.30 17:09:00 - [ 4]
Edited by: Max Torps on 30/04/2008 17:11:05As you all know, a huge number of criteria affect low sec and 0.0. Let's list just some of them. 1: Security rating. 2: Aggro permissions and gang aggro permissions - piracy and anti-piracy. 3: Ore value and distribution. 4: Sovereignty and POS warfare. Don't you think it crazy that to shoot a pirate or someone with negative sec rating that you affect your own? Or that you can get concorded? It's total madness and needs to be resolved. Perhaps a total revamp of security status is the key here? Maybe link it to faction warfare that is coming up? Do bad things in Amarr space and your sec rating (faction rating) is only affected there with the Amarr cops on your tail and an All Points Bulletin issued for your head? Or pod. With Amarr aligned pilots being allowed to shoot first, ask questions later. In 0.0 maybe the sec rating is not affected at all so you can be ebil or leave as is? An interesting discussion point. And what about the crazy ore distribution? I like what Akita T says:  Quote:
For starters, the ore distribution and the mineral composition of ores, everything needs to be seriously revamped.
You can either make it so that all ores contain SOME traces of all "cheaper" minerals in them alongside the "better" minerals (so, for instance, if you mine Arkonor, you don't get just some Mega/Zyd and traces of other minerals, but you actually get copious amounts of lowends too)... or you can make it so that each asteroid has a different "yield multiplier" (lower in 1.0, highest in deep 0.0), and mining a high-yield-multiplier asteroid gets you a lot more m^3/cycle compared to mining a low-yield-multiplier asteroid.
Either way, the overall mineral distribution needs to be a lot more balanced than it is right now... but not quite balanced according to needs (hisec should still have an overabundance of lowends, deep 0.0 should still have an overabundance of highends... but nowhere near the current discrepancy).
Sovereignty and POS warfare seriously needs work. But we are all missing a vital element here that could skew some suggestions made and may require a change of view. CCP have stated that the POS warfare situation has "several iterations" to go through at FanFest 2007 (Oveur), that means there are plans to revise this and to be able to discuss fully we do need to know what ideas are already on the table. However I do think that some of Jades ideas are good. I would like to allow smaller alliances and corps a slice of the action. So mini POS sovereignty as mentioned by some bright soul (forgive me I can't find your post right now - I will edit it in later) could be a way forward for that. If indeed there is demand that this is an issue serious enough to warrant action. |
Venkul Mul
Gallente |
Posted - 2008.04.30 17:35:00 - [ 5]
Originally by: Akita T
Highsec is more or less fine the way it is, maybe L4s in highsec are a tad bit too lucrative.
As such, I would simply propose skewing the ISK/LP rewards way down for (L4) highsec "kill" missions, down to the magnitude of courier missions, and skewing them way up for lowsec (even one order of magnitude higher, if it must be).
This way L4s in highsec are still marginally profitable (bounties, salvage, loot), yet those in lowsec are very profitable even if you completely forego looting/salvaging (or, heck, better said, you'd be a lot better off skipping that altogether and just speed-running missions in lowsec instead).
Would you (intended as the whole category of people that campaign this kind of change, not you in particular) stop trying to balance this around the players that can and will run missions 12 hour day, using 2 or 3 high quality agents and probably multiple accounts to do the mission in premium time? For every 1 player that do that there are 100 more normal persons that do 2-3 in a day between other things (or because of RL constraints). If you nerf the income they get you simply will push them in a more marginal position and convince them that is time to stop the subscription. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.05.01 09:42:00 - [ 6]
Edited by: Akita T on 01/05/2008 09:46:43 Originally by: Venkul Mul
Would you (intended as the whole category of people that campaign this kind of change, not you in particular) stop trying to balance this around the players that can and will run missions 12 hour day, using 2 or 3 high quality agents and probably multiple accounts to do the mission in premium time?
For every 1 player that do that there are 100 more normal persons that do 2-3 in a day between other things (or because of RL constraints). If you nerf the income they get you simply will push them in a more marginal position and convince them that is time to stop the subscription.
As much as this might come as a shock to you, I run L4s in a Drake, solo... and if I average 12 hours a week doing missions, that's a pretty hectic week for me. On the flipside, I do have corp members that do run L4s 2-3 hours a day on average, and even on two accounts, with CNR/Golem/Nighthawk and such. Obviously, they have a much larger wallet. But I can count those people on my fingers. The issue is not so much the raw income level of L4 missions in the "best case scenario". It's the relative income given a certain system security level, SP total and time spent... and last but not least, amount of risk involved. Right now, a maxed-out solo mining career would at best yield around xxx mil ISK... regardless of where in 1.0 to 0.1 you do it in, since the damned Veldspar is the best ore there is outside of 0.0 A maxed-out solo L4 mission runner could easily earn up to yyy mil ISK per hour on average... unlike the miner, the mission-runner in 0.1 does get ever so slightly better results than the one in 1.0 or 0.5, but with significantly increased risk. Still, overall, running L4s in 1.0 is marginally less profitable than running them in 0.1, and the only difference is in mission completion ISK/LP rewards... because everything else (ISK bounties for kills, loot, salvage) is identical regardless of system sec rating. So, no matter how you put it, anywhere from 0.1 to 1.0, there's a HUGE variation in risk, yet the variation in reward is minimal (for mission-runners) or non-existant (for miners). THAT is something I can not take lightly... no matter that xxx is 10, 15 or 20 mil/hour, or yyy would be 10, 20, 40 or whatnot mil/hour. I don't care what the base reward for some activity is, I want the risk involved in doing that activity to be balanced with the reward one could potentially obtain if all goes well. Doesn't mater if you run one mission a week or you run missions 8 hours a day and 14 weekends, if you mine 1 hour a month or 200 hours a month... if you do it in 1.0 I expect you to earn some level of money, maybe a bit more in 0.5, but if you do it in 0.4 I certainly expect you to be earning a crapload more than the one doing it in 0.5, and if you're doing in in 0.1 I obviously expect you to be earning more than that in the 0.4 system, but not a lot more, not compared to 0.4 vs 0.5 that is. And that was my only point. P.S. In other words, keep the "current" income levels in 0.5 if you insist, I don't really care... just buff 0.4-0.1 income levels by a fair margin. And what I described was one of the ways to do it. |
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente |
Posted - 2008.05.01 15:49:00 - [ 7]
I do not think 0.0 should be nerfed.
I think lowsec needs a boost instead: Better ore, multiplier to mission rewards, better rats (some battleships). Faction warfare can also benefit lowsec. |
Slickdrac
Minmatar
M Takumi Research and Production
East Empire Trade Federation |
Posted - 2008.05.01 17:40:00 - [ 8]
Speaking from my personal experience, having done about a similar amount of time in 0.0, low sec, and hi sec as a care bear. I don't find there to be that much of a risk difference, except in the form of travel and ease of production and sale (for industry) and I find the profit ability to be pretty much the same wherever for industry, and only weak in low sec for combat (although I have never run any lvl 4 agents or lvl 5 in low sec ever)
I find it to be pretty balanced if you do it right, i.e. not solo or just wandering around in space that others have claimed as theirs. I have no risk when mining in hi sec, it makes alright moneys, from using the mins to build stuff, even having to buy other minerals, it still is quite profitable. Mining in 0.0, doing it in alliance space, you just go to a good system near an outpost and mine, the only difference is that you watch your intel and local channels, and that you're mining better stuff, and you charge more for ship building in 0.0, so it's actually more profitable, no buying of other mins neccessary either.
As for ratting/missions, it's only broke in low sec, since you're right next to empire anyway, you may as well run lvl 4 missions, granted, I've never done missions in low sec, so maybe someone who's done them can compare it for me. But I seem to make just as much doing missions as I do from ratting 0.0 chains, maybe a little more, again, the only difference is that you have to pay attention to local and intel, and rat in an area where you can dock up/cloak up it's still just as risk free as long as you do it right.
That's all just IMO, maybe I'm just a little smarter about my play form, or been lucky, idk |
missmagicician |
Posted - 2008.05.01 17:43:00 - [ 9]
As a long serving pirate, i belive this problem stems from the removal of static plexs both in low sec (ded 4/5 were profitable) and in 0.0. The higher ded plexs 6+ were only found in 0.0 and created the risk- reward factor. And a reason to hold defend these systems. They also provide a good reward to risk value. It was worthwhile to run these in low sec and 0.0.
The exploration plexs once scanned down are a lot safer, maybe returning static unknown (exploration equilvant) plexs into low sec/0.0 would bring back the targets (sorry population).
just my thoughts. |
Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp |
Posted - 2008.05.01 19:30:00 - [ 10]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
I do not think 0.0 should be nerfed.
I think lowsec needs a boost instead: Better ore, multiplier to mission rewards, better rats (some battleships). Faction warfare can also benefit lowsec.
I also agree with this. The most dangerous area in Eve is more often low sec than 0.0. While 0.0 has bubble camps and large capital battles, it also consists of large parts of mostly quiet, empty space 'safely' inside alliance territory. Meanwhile, low sec has only slightly better profit compared to high sec, with a massive increase in danger for those missioning/mining there. Many mission runners will choose to stay in high sec because while the mission might pay slightly less, they dont run as big a risk of losing their faction fit CNR. This leads to low sec being quite under used in Eve. |
Lord WarATron
Amarr
Shadow Warri0rs
|
Posted - 2008.05.01 21:29:00 - [ 11]
One of the key questions I would like canditates to answer is if they beleive that it is correct that 0.0 NPCing should be safer for isk making than lowsec lvl4/5's?
|
Goumindong
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.05.01 21:36:00 - [ 12]
Originally by: Lord WarATron
One of the key questions I would like canditates to answer is if they beleive that it is correct that 0.0 NPCing should be safer for isk making than lowsec lvl4/5's?
Yes and No. NPC space NPCing should not, and probably would not be with reasonable controls on cloaking and ratting.[which I may or may not have linked earlier in the thread, but if not, can be found in my campaign thread] Alliance held space it should be since low-sec lvl 4/5 is going to produce much higher rewards than the 0.0 NPCing[or at least should by my estimates]. If you are putting a POS up in NPC 0.0 then its of course a clear target and you are taking even more risk with having it destroyed. |
Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance |
Posted - 2008.05.01 21:46:00 - [ 13]
I think that the 'safety' of NPCing in 0.0 is somewhat artificial, for the following reasons:
Alliances fought for control of a section of 0.0 space, and actively 'police' the borders, especially main routes into such areas. Hence, it may be true that inner areas are relatively safe (if you can reach them safely), but this is due to PvPers other than the alliance being kept out.
It takes large resources (esp. pilots) to police borders etc. Hence, once within a section of space deep inside 0.0, the chances of NPCers getting discovered are much smaller, due to the Alliance not expecting them to be there.
In low sec, Corps and gangs of PvPers actively look for targets, Gatecamp and generally make the life of low sec mission runners a little more dangerous. Because they know and expect pilots to come to low sec systems, they can sit and wait.
Just my thoughts...
Take care,
Bruce Hansen |
zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan |
Posted - 2008.05.02 07:33:00 - [ 14]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
I do not think 0.0 should be nerfed.
I think lowsec needs a boost instead: Better ore, multiplier to mission rewards, better rats (some battleships). Faction warfare can also benefit lowsec.
Yes, thats a better approach. The ore in lowsec is almost as lousy as teh ore in 1.0 Boost that, get more miners into the belts - makes pirates happy, makes miner happy and brings more sense into low-sec other than the usual security rating fixing. *highfives ankh* |
Kimbalta |
Posted - 2008.05.03 15:04:00 - [ 15]
Originally by: Lord WarATron
Edited by: Lord WarATron on 30/04/2008 12:37:41
Excluding moons, manufacturing and trading, most players I notice tend to make their isk from mining, ratting or running missions.
Players either make their isk in high sec or 0.0. Making isk in low sec is mostly avoided because 0.0 ratting is safer from hostile players than lvl4/5 missions in lowsec for example. This is because its easy to warp out/log/whatever the second someone enters local.
Making lvl4's in lowsec safer is a nerf to the pirates. Pirates have a hard enough time finding targets already, so this cannot happen. This leaves one option. Making 0.0 ratting more dangerous than lowsec. I know CSM's are not in charge of game design issues, but if you want to represent people, then they need to have a view on the above when you sit in front of some dev who asks you what you would think are good ideas.
What is your views on improving the low sec/0.0 risk vs reward balance? Do you beleive that it is correct that 0.0 NPCing should be safer for isk making than lowsec lvl4/5's?
Well my friend, rats in 0.0 are in fact harder to kill and there are a lot of smaller ships that point web. This makes it a feast for pirates to destroy you because the rats have already done the hard part. I rat in 0.0 all the time and there isn't more than 10 seconds that go by that I'm not looking over at my Local window to make sure there isn't a red in system to make an easy gank of me. I've also ratted in Low-Sec, way easier, no interdictors, and if you know how to allign your ship you are almost guaranteed to make the slip each and every time. As far as deadspace encounters such as plexes and missions are concerned, I think more ppl hug Low-Sec too much for them easy ganks but I'll tell you this, 0.0 isn't safe by any means and there is almost always a hostile to hunt you down while in a mission.
|
|
All Channels
Jita Park Speakers Corner
