I’m a returning player. I think the last time I logged in was around 2008 lol.
I used to do the null sec alliance thing and burned out on it due to the need to play a lot to keep people happy about the effort you are puttng in.
This time around I think I’ll stick to PvE in .5+ systems for a while.
The question I have is about t4 misisons in empire space. Right now I’m doing agent level 3 missions and have no trouble doing them in an Ishkur (pretty easily) or Ishtar(could do them afk and blind) . Are t4 missions fairly easy in a HAC with t2 drones. I’m pretty highly trained with no related skill under level 4 with few exceptions and just use drones with appropriate damage types.
I have as much training in rail guns / blasters as I do drones with specializations etc.
I just don’t want to warp in and get my HAC popped on my first T4 mission.
T4 and L4 are two different things. T4 refers to abyssals
So L4 is what you are referring to. They are designed for battlecruisers and battleships/marauders. Unless your HAC can melt a lot of cruisers and smaller and contend with possibly several battleships, i would upgrade to a larger ship.
Until i could fly a raven competently, a friend and i used to fleet in drakes before the changes to the drake.
No, it can refers to tier, or tech, like T2 is tech 2 or tier3 was old BC oracle.
Just because there are abyssal tiers does not mean that all tiers are abyssal.
But yes, we usually use Level for missions - because it would be pretty stupid to use an ambiguous term like “TX”
Then you are doing them wrong.
The goal of those missions is to reach your objective the fastest way possible, as the most important cost is your own time.
kill the pointers first (frigates) and remain aligned
Most missions have low DPS if you manage the triggers, but can easily overwhelm a BS tank if you don’t mind your placement.
I knew a NS corporation CEO who was looking down on mission runners and got his bosom kicked by mission rats.
If you can, use a marauder. Hits harder, tracks better, replaces faster, tanks stronger.
I think you’ll find things a whole lot different in people’s attitudes towards play time. Only the big groups, the ones that people try to join to be in the famous groups, have stringent fleet attendance requirements, and most of those can easily be met by attending one fleet a week. If, for some reason, they’re dicks about it, then give them the finger and go fly with their opponents.
No, we don’t. We use specific terminology for specific things.
Absolutely no one calls a Level 4 mission a Tier 4, because the reference we pull the number from is the LEVEL of the agent offering the mission.
We don’t call Tier 4 Abysses Level 4 Abysses, because the wording CCP uses to rank them is by tier.
We don’t call Level 4 Relic sites Tier 4 Relic sites because Relic and Data sites are ranked by difficulty Level.
The only place Tech is used is in T2 and T3 ships and modules, and that is rarely interchanged with Tier depending on who you’re talking to. That is a left over relic of the tier 3 battlecruiser days, which is why CCP stopped that nonsense.
This has been the standard in game since CCP redid the way things are labeled to stop that idiotic confusion.
That’s your goal.
I though we weren’t supposed to be telling other people they’re playing the game wrong. Isn’t that what you told me?
Any battlecruiser can do almost all L4 missions, most of the HACs can as well.
The only reason to up to battleship is speed, you will run them faster.
A marauder is wholly unnecessary unless you’re looking to min/max your time running missions. At which point, there are more profitable endeavors to be run in ships that don’t cost over a Billion isk for the hull and make you a giant gank target.
I’m fully convinced a Marauder in highsec is the EvE equivalent of a Dodge Ram 1500 with a 12" lift. You’re telling us something best left unadvertised.
Yes, there are a variety of ships you can use with L4s - but this isn’t necessarily the most efficient or rewarding (hence the “more success” with Marauders suggestion).
Those serious about L4s run Marauders. But hey, don’t take my word for it (even though I’ve been running them for over a decade) - I only pull in $250m+ ISK/hour with mine…
They weren’t nerfed into uselessness, and it’s still child’s play to fit one to run missions. The expanded Navy lineup makes that even easier to do, because those are basically the pre-nerf versions returned.
Does not change that taking more time (anything else remaining the same) is always considered bad.
The same for fit cost, risk of losing your ship, input requirement, boringness, etc.
On, the other hand, increasing income value is always considered good.
So there are objective criterion to rank gameplay.
Now what changes from a person to another is the tradeoff between those criterions.
more isk, but less loot.
regarding L3s in an ishtar, loot is so low you should not care, there is no value outside LP and grinding standing. So there is no value in anything but blitzing. (except of course those missions with tags, like the one where you kill a sole minmatar BS)
Taking more time is not necessarily bad. The “Enemies” series takes over an hour but pays oh so nice… And if you’re multiboxing you’re not necessarily as efficient as when running solo, but you have multiple characters in-play at the same time. Sometimes having variety is nice just to change up the pace a bit.
If it pays nice, it means the pay does not remain the same.
Does not change a thing.
Taking only more time is still a bad thing.
If you want to change a bit, and you can choose between two exact same missions, except the second one requires more time because 5 system further, you wil pick the first one.
The great thing about EVE is that I can play it any way I want. There’s no set of guidelines that I have to follow, and no right or wrong way to do things.
You play the way you want to play, and I’ll do the same.
This and that are not related.
There are objective criterions to your gameplay, making it possible to compare different gameplays based on those (it’s not a complete order though), therefore we CAN say that a gameplay is bad.
Just because nobody can force you to play in a specific way, does not mean that your way of playing is not bad.
So yes, there are ways to do things that are objectively worse than other, and therefore bad.
Whatever. I’ll let you have the last word because it’s entirely pointless trying to persuade you that someone else might have a different viewpoint that isn’t somehow “wrong” from your perspective.
But again that’s not on point.
I think you misread my message.
Do you agree yes or no, that if everything else remains the same, taking more time for the exact same mission is objectively worse ?
So far you’ve not even considered my arguments. What’s the point of answering to a post you don’t even try to understand ?
