|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 36 post(s) |
Sarah Norbulk
Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 06:42:00 -
[1]
YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.
I'd like to here the answer to this myself.
|
Sarah Norbulk
Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 07:43:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Ranger 1 Edited by: Ranger 1 on 09/11/2009 07:39:33
Originally by: Scouty McScoutersen
Originally by: Ranger 1
Complaining that Dominion will force people to care bear, and then complaining that said care bearing isn't profitable enough is a bit much.
how is it a 'bit much', it's like the central problem with these changes are you a ****ing idiot?
Relax my friend. The people that like to care bear in null sec will continue to do so and it will be more profitable than before. If not enough people are willing to do it because it interferes with their PVP habit, then smart alliances well bring in people that DO like to do it to keep things upgraded.
How can I put this to make more sense to you? How about this. You have people that say they are PVP only, and are upset because PVE will have more impact than it currently has. And yet those same people in their very next breath whine about how profitable their care bearing will be. There is more than a little irony in that, I'm sorry if you don't get it.
Then to increase the irony levels a bit more, those same people complain that they won't be making any more than level 4 mission runners (which these same people have bitterly condemned as making too much money in the past).
These people are going to have to make up their mind what is really important to them. Your income stream is now equal to the best empire has to offer (and more diverse) but... if you want unlimited pew pew, you have to accept the risk that it is going to occasionally interfere with your money making potential.
Why would anyone in their right mind pay for space that generates income to a mediocre mission runner in empire when there is so much more risk. It makes no sense.
YES OR NO: Due to the increased risk and logistics effort required, 0.0 should be more - not as - profitable (in raw isk/h) than highsec L4 mission running.
|
Sarah Norbulk
Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 08:13:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Ranger 1
Quote: Why would anyone in their right mind pay for space that generates income to a mediocre mission runner in empire when there is so much more risk. It makes no sense.
Why do they do it now for even less?
And you will be making at least as much as what has been purported to be one of the most lucrative occupations in the game. Lets not change the level 4 mission runners income for "outlandish" to "mediocre" just because this thread isn't about how overly profitable Empire is for a change.
I'm making a concession here by the way. The truth is that if you live in 0.0 even under the current conditions and only make as much as a level 4 mission runner you are doing something seriously wrong. For the purposes of this discussion however we should probably keep it simple and say its equal.
Find me any belt ratter in 0.0 that can make 45+ mil/hr from bounties and get LP while doing it. I'll keep my mission alt thank-you very much. You have confirmed you have no clue what you're talking about.
Most sov is held by mining towers with the check box ticked. It costs nothing extra from what it would cost anyway. High-ends may have a deathstar with a cynojammer in it, but most of 0.0 is held by the bare minimum of POSes that work double duty as industry platforms that basically pay for their running costs.
|
Sarah Norbulk
Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 09:08:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Kepakh
You make +45M/hour on single account mission running only if you run a Marauder. LP revenue is already included in +45M mark as well as loot and other mission income.
As for the rest of the post...I don't know a single alliance that would hold their space just because of moons. Sov holding is solely depending on your military/diplomatic effort.
Sorry, it is you being clueless here.
The thread where that information is listed is a decent benchmark, but is not the most effective way to run missions. With a torp golem you gank your way through the mission as fast as possible, cherry picking wrecks as you go. This leaves you with 35+ mil/hr in bounties, doubles your LP, and still gets you decent loot and salvage.
Where you can hold space is decided through diplomatic means, the act of holding space is run through towers, which can be used to perform in some industrial capacity to help mitigate the cost of running the towers in the first place. Come dominion most alliances will probably let sov slip and just keep the towers up if they still economically viable.
|
Sarah Norbulk
Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 10:10:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Kepakh
I didn't rename anything, it is the way it is.
Moon income has everything to do with it. Are you willing to fund Station deployment or your shiny super cap loss through your personal wallet? I guess not.
0.0 is not a solo content thus making it more rewarding than other solo content like empire is not very reasonable. There is no need for High sec mk2.
This is the main concern and worries about changes that will come after the Dominion and whines for higher personal rewards make it even worse. 0.0 needs more group rewards than anything else.
It seems you and CCP have different ideas as to what 0.0 is supposed to be like. In case you didn't know CCP is nerfing the value of moongoo, which coincidentally nerfs the income of most 0.0 alliances. Ofc this was all well and good as alliances would be able to upgrade their space to make it viable for the alliance members to make isk there. Then the corps and through proxy the alliance would make isk from taxes. Well, the dev blog comes out and it turns out that the upgrades barely make collecting isk from 0.0 as effective as collecting isk from empire. You see the main issue is that the ability of the alliance to provide for it's members will diminish while owning space doesn't offer the members enough incentives over empire or NPC space to justify holding space. The loss of isk to the alliance from the moongoo directly effects the ability of the alliance to fund programs like ship replacement for its members, leading to the average 0.0 player being worse off.
|
Sarah Norbulk
Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.11.09 10:52:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Kepakh
It is difficult to say what vision CCP got since they do thing on the fly with little time spent thinking about the whole concept. They follow the rule do now, think later.
There is a major flaw in our argumenting: Moon mining is not getting nerfed, if anything it is getting boosted - more moon ISK for more enitties. Current R64 owners will just focus on other moons to mine because those will rise in demand.
As said, it is difficult to say wheter it is intentional, flaw or bad concept.
I was basing my interpretation of the goal of Dominion off of what was said on the Alliance tournament. I believe it was Greyscale who said that they wanted to see people out in the belts again.
I guess so long as CCP aim to have t2 ships/equipment cost the same that the overall value will remain roughly the same. Of course then you run into the issue that there will always be a bottleneck in production and those mins will be the most valuable moons to own. I'm guessing the top 20 alliances will quickly beat out any small alliance that holds any moon of value so base income will remain stable, but you will run into an issue with the POS costs rising meaning less net profit. It also still leaves the little guys in a ****ty situation as holding decent moons will be just as difficult as it is today plus on top of that they'll have to pay for Sov and upgrades.
|
|
|
|