EVE Search - [Proposal] Increase NPC belt bounties 0.0

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] Increase NPC belt bounties 0.0

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ephemeron North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2009.07.17 03:03:00 - [31] Originally by: BOOYA MOFO Edited by: BOOYA MOFO on 17/07/2009 02:36:22 Agree with Ephemeron. The faction spawns at this time are really worthless... The nerf to them was a total load of bull. And a slight correction to bounties as well wouldn't hurt. Ephemeron, come to N-54. want your Gotan's 425mm's/ While I see the selfish benefit of raising 0.0 bounties, I don't see a good logical backing for that idea. I really doubt CCP will be moved to take that step. So I propose a fix that makes more sense, that they are more likely to act upon. Also, why do you need Gotan's 425? I don't think any of you got the balls to fly with them fitted, sorry to say - being realistic
Tiger's Spirit	Posted - 2009.07.17 04:58:00 - [32] Not supported and pls dont write an another topic for i need more officer spawn in 0.0
Dave Meltdown Capital Construction Inc.	Posted - 2009.07.17 10:23:00 - [33] Originally by: Tiger's Spirit Not supported and pls dont write an another topic for i need more officer spawn in 0.0 If u would have spend some time reading the above posts serious, u would have seen that it isnt the issue here.
mazzilliu	Posted - 2009.07.17 11:07:00 - [34] Edited by: mazzilliu on 17/07/2009 11:08:38 i think any sort of 0.0 ratting boost will have to be in the form of improving materials drops, not ISK bounties. remember whatever is done, ISK farmers will abuse it to the furthest extent possible. if we increase bounties, that will increase inflation and undo what we are trying to do. how about this idea? the unnamed module drops should be removed, and high meta level named modules drops increased. and leave isk bounties, faction, officer, everything else as they are. adjust rates so the average income with a typical battleship appropriately fit to the local area will turn in about 20 mil per hour(if i recall the average is 12 right now?). anyways my goal is a 40-60% increase. after office spawns and such are accounted for, that's not really that big of a boost but for casual players who cant check belts after DT, it is probably significant. that would help casual players make a bit more money while also forcing ISK farmers to deal more with stations/poses while bringing in their haul and therefore potential dangers posed by players. it would also reduce costs for casual players when fitting their ships since they have to buy less T2(i know it wont reduce the real costs since those named mods cost time to get, but it makes things more convenient). for members who rat and are in large alliances at war, they basically cant participate unless there is a reimbursmenet program running funded by moongold. that's how it was when goon+bob+aaa+pl+etcetera were going at it, we just threw battleships at each other that were funded by infinite money anyways. i know its not like that anymore with the war over but my point is that ratting is not a good primary method of income, compared to everything else you can do in the game. and ratting is the primary method of income for many casual players. i want to put some more thought into this issue before i actually start writing a proposal, so i'd appreciate some feedback on this post as it is. keep in mind i haven't personally ratted seriously for a long time, and most of my information about ratting is a little old or secondhand. MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.17 12:27:00 - [35] Originally by: mazzilliu [ how about this idea? the unnamed module drops should be removed, and high meta level named modules drops increased. and leave isk bounties, faction, officer, everything else as they are. It will nerf ratting income, not increase it. Currently a player ratting in bad 0.0 can get more than 10 millions/hour in minerals from recycling loot. With your proposal he would have a lot of meta 1-4 items that will recycle for less minerals and be worthless as they are over-abundant. so you would exchange 10+ millions in minerals for modules that will refine for 3-4 millions and will not sell as everyone in that area will have tons of them.
ChinaWillGrowLarger Heretic Command	Posted - 2009.07.17 12:28:00 - [36]
Admiral IceBlock Northern Intelligence	Posted - 2009.07.17 12:36:00 - [37] Want to know more?
mazzilliu	Posted - 2009.07.17 13:52:00 - [38] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: mazzilliu [ how about this idea? the unnamed module drops should be removed, and high meta level named modules drops increased. and leave isk bounties, faction, officer, everything else as they are. It will nerf ratting income, not increase it. Currently a player ratting in bad 0.0 can get more than 10 millions/hour in minerals from recycling loot. With your proposal he would have a lot of meta 1-4 items that will recycle for less minerals and be worthless as they are over-abundant. so you would exchange 10+ millions in minerals for modules that will refine for 3-4 millions and will not sell as everyone in that area will have tons of them. i wasnt aware that named mods recycle for less minerals then unnamed. so leave unnamed drops in there, but increase frequency of high-metalevel mod drops. MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU.
Hrodgar Ortal	Posted - 2009.07.17 13:57:00 - [39] Not that sure ratting needs a boost to be honest. Everything needs to be looked at to fix the risk/reward between high sec lvl4 missions and anything in low or no sec. Add to this that it probably needs to be tied into the probable changes to 0.0, sov and all that for it to make sense I think it might be hard to balance without tweeking just about every source of income in the game.
mazzilliu	Posted - 2009.07.17 14:24:00 - [40] Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Not that sure ratting needs a boost to be honest. Everything needs to be looked at to fix the risk/reward between high sec lvl4 missions and anything in low or no sec. Add to this that it probably needs to be tied into the probable changes to 0.0, sov and all that for it to make sense I think it might be hard to balance without tweeking just about every source of income in the game. i have always been of the opinion that nerfing highsec missions would simply cause a cancelled subscription problem for CCP. i've always been under the impression that many people are not willing to take assets to lowsec or 0.0 for any reason, and that the solution for balancing is to increase the rewards of low/0sec while leaving highsec untouched. i do think that changing 0.0 ratting will have a big impact on the game but i think that it needs to be looked at for the sake of casual players who tend to use this resource more then anyone else. MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU.
Dave Meltdown Capital Construction Inc.	Posted - 2009.07.17 14:55:00 - [41] Edited by: Dave Meltdown on 17/07/2009 14:58:59 Originally by: mazzilliu i have always been of the opinion that nerfing highsec missions would simply cause a cancelled subscription problem for CCP. i've always been under the impression that many people are not willing to take assets to lowsec or 0.0 for any reason, and that the solution for balancing is to increase the rewards of low/0sec while leaving highsec untouched. i do think that changing 0.0 ratting will have a big impact on the game but i think that it needs to be looked at for the sake of casual players who tend to use this resource more then anyone else. Npc'ing has a very big impact and simply nerfing l4's isnt a option ether. Adjusting drop rates can a solution but i think this need to be studied by CCP. Different rats drop different loot that refines/sells for different amounts. So a general solution can be difficult. The perfect solution could be adding a "proof" of killing a NPC at a concord station vs fixed prices. Im talking about adding items similar to the blue sleeper scripts that are in every sleeper wreck. A bs should drop a more valued script than a cruiser. This would make it fair vs the ratter that chains for more BS spawns and the one that kills every NPC for the chance on a faction NPC. Or maybe bringing back the old 'Logs" that did drop a year ago random from each rat and let those be worth something at concord stations. Because this happens totaly random only the looters will profit and it wont profit the macro users. I have no idea how much they should be worth. I think my last solution is better than the first 1. Maybe to avoid inflation u get LP's vs the 'Logs" and a brand new Concord LP Store. This would make ratting vs missioning more in line and the macro's dont get any Lp's. Exact numbers are hard to come with, i think only CCP can figur that out with complicated loot drop formulas. For that reson i think CCP need to come with a solution were they can live with after they placed l4 mission next to NPC'ing
mazzilliu	Posted - 2009.07.17 15:06:00 - [42] Originally by: Dave Meltdown Originally by: mazzilliu i have always been of the opinion that nerfing highsec missions would simply cause a cancelled subscription problem for CCP. i've always been under the impression that many people are not willing to take assets to lowsec or 0.0 for any reason, and that the solution for balancing is to increase the rewards of low/0sec while leaving highsec untouched. i do think that changing 0.0 ratting will have a big impact on the game but i think that it needs to be looked at for the sake of casual players who tend to use this resource more then anyone else. Npc'ing has a very big inpact and simply nerfing l4's isnt a option ether. Adjusting drop rates can a solution but i think this need to be studied by CCP. Different rats drop different loot that refines/sells for different amounts. So a general solution can be difficult. The perfect solution could be adding a "proof" of killing a NPC at a concord station vs fixed prices. Im talking about adding items similar to the blue sleeper scripts that are in every sleeper wreck. A bs should drop more valued scrip than a cruiser. This would make it fair vs the ratter that chains for more BS spawns and the one that kills every NPC for the chance on a faction NPC. Or maybe bringing back the old 'Logs" that did drop a year ago random for each rat and let those be worth something at concord stations. Because this happens totaly random only the looters will profit and it wont profit the macro users. I have no idea how much they should be worth. I think my last solution is better than the first 1. Maybe to avoid inflation u get LP's vs the 'Logs" and a brand new Concord LP Store. This would make ratting vs missioning more in line and the macro's dont get any Lp's. Exact numbers are hard to come with, i think only CCP can figur that out with complicated loot drop formulas. For that reson i think CCP need to come with a solution were they can live with after they placed l4 mission next to NPC'ing the integrating belt ratting and LP store rewards idea is an interesting one. i think macros would still get LP's just like anyone else but increasing the income by allowing people to accumulate points for faction ships and other stuff like that would not negatively impact any pre-existing established markets(t2 mods, minerals, ISK inflation). if this came along with a faction ships buff to encourage pvpers to use them we could buff ratting income without causing any item price crashes in major markets - while at the some time invigorating the faction ships market. definitely needs more study though. MAZZILLIU 2009. CHANGE I CAN IMPOSE ON YOU.
Humwawa Marquie-X Corp Atropos.	Posted - 2009.07.17 17:05:00 - [43]
Hrodgar Ortal	Posted - 2009.07.17 17:08:00 - [44] Originally by: mazzilliu i have always been of the opinion that nerfing highsec missions would simply cause a cancelled subscription problem for CCP. i've always been under the impression that many people are not willing to take assets to lowsec or 0.0 for any reason, and that the solution for balancing is to increase the rewards of low/0sec while leaving highsec untouched. i do think that changing 0.0 ratting will have a big impact on the game but i think that it needs to be looked at for the sake of casual players who tend to use this resource more then anyone else. I agree that plainly nerfing mission running isn't the right way either. I just think that there are no quick and easy fixes and everything will have to be looked at since it all connects. For simplicities sake lets assume we add more module drops to ratting in 0.0, how does that in turn affect mining profitability? So just boosting ratting is in my opinion a bit to simple as it can have serious effects to either inflation (making the boost worthless) or other professions (increasing the mineral supply from module reprocessing). It is a hard balance which means it doesn't have simple sollutions.
Dave Meltdown Capital Construction Inc.	Posted - 2009.07.17 20:03:00 - [45] Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Originally by: mazzilliu i have always been of the opinion that nerfing highsec missions would simply cause a cancelled subscription problem for CCP. i've always been under the impression that many people are not willing to take assets to lowsec or 0.0 for any reason, and that the solution for balancing is to increase the rewards of low/0sec while leaving highsec untouched. i do think that changing 0.0 ratting will have a big impact on the game but i think that it needs to be looked at for the sake of casual players who tend to use this resource more then anyone else. I agree that plainly nerfing mission running isn't the right way either. I just think that there are no quick and easy fixes and everything will have to be looked at since it all connects. For simplicities sake lets assume we add more module drops to ratting in 0.0, how does that in turn affect mining profitability? So just boosting ratting is in my opinion a bit to simple as it can have serious effects to either inflation (making the boost worthless) or other professions (increasing the mineral supply from module reprocessing). It is a hard balance which means it doesn't have simple sollutions. Nothing is simple, even implementing this stuff is pretty difficult. Thats why i have created this propasal, to do some brain storming, comming to conclusions and realising there is a problem that effects alot of people playing this game on a daily basis. Its up to the CSM and CCP to really think this out. In the mean while, the best idea i have seen yet for this problem is the LP store idea in combination of collecting dropt items that can be handed over for LP's at concord stations, If anyone has more idea's pls keep posting
lucifers widow	Posted - 2009.07.18 09:45:00 - [46] Not supported
Terra Mikael Private Nuisance	Posted - 2009.07.18 10:02:00 - [47] I disagree. Most zero sec dwellers are bigger carebears then their high sec counterparts. Zero sec is just a big money making machine. Now if local was removed from zero sec, I could imagine up'ing profits, but as it stands, most people just log when hostiles enter local. ________________________________ Originally by: Lone Gunman Yes overpowered would be giving a ship with the Covert ops cloak the ability to fire say..Torpedos, now that would be overpowered. But CCP would
Hun Jakuza 24th Imperial Guard	Posted - 2009.07.18 10:36:00 - [48] Originally by: Terra Mikael I disagree. Most zero sec dwellers are bigger carebears then their high sec counterparts. Zero sec is just a big money making machine. Now if local was removed from zero sec, I could imagine up'ing profits, but as it stands, most people just log when hostiles enter local. Yup. Not supported too.
Dave Meltdown Capital Construction Inc.	Posted - 2009.07.18 12:55:00 - [49] Edited by: Dave Meltdown on 18/07/2009 12:55:52 Originally by: Terra Mikael I disagree. Most zero sec dwellers are bigger carebears then their high sec counterparts. Zero sec is just a big money making machine. Now if local was removed from zero sec, I could imagine up'ing profits, but as it stands, most people just log when hostiles enter local. lol u are deffinaly never been in 0.0, U make more isk PER HOUR by grinding l4's than ratting or plexing in 0.0. The plexes arent even worth the effort cause u always need to split the rewards becasue u cant solo them. That brings back the issue of security, less isk more risk in 0.0....
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.07.18 13:34:00 - [50] Originally by: Dave Meltdown ... U make more isk PER HOUR by grinding l4's than ratting or plexing in 0.0. The plexes arent even worth the effort cause u always need to split the rewards becasue u cant solo them. That brings back the issue of security, less isk more risk in 0.0.... That, at least partially, is a problem born at alliance/corp level. If you look ratting vs level 4 missions (even if ratting in good 0.0 is different from ratting in bad 0.0 and doing level 4 missions for Caldari corps is different from doing them for Gallente corps) 0.0 is not convenient against level 4 missions. But you are forgetting the corp/alliance level returns. Most of the 0.0 cost are on the shoulders of the corp members while the best return are used by the corp. The good corps share tat at all levels, the bad hoard them only for the top echelons. There is not a real "corp level" gain from running level 4 missions, while there is a decent to extremely large "corp level" gain from controlling 0.0 space. Only part of the "corp level" gains are used for the 0.0 security. If you pretend to get both way better player level and corp level returns from 0.0 you are asking for a very skewered balance.
Zastrow J	Posted - 2009.07.18 17:24:00 - [51] Just raising bounties is a pretty ham-handed fix, but yes 0.0 life is full of risk, yet the average pilot is not really rewarded for this risk. The only people really benefitting are large alliance directors (like me!) who swim in vaults filled with dysprosium like Scrooge McDuck and attempt to confer benefits on their alliance membership through dread reimbursements etc. I want to see 0.0 more worhtwhile for the average alliance member and thus hopefully convince more empire-dwellers to come play. As long as missions are worth as much as 0.0 isk-making this will never happen
Dave Meltdown Capital Construction Inc.	Posted - 2009.07.20 11:15:00 - [52] Edited by: Dave Meltdown on 20/07/2009 11:18:37 Make me happy, Zastrow J, and bring this into the next CSM meeting
Dave Meltdown Capital Construction Inc.	Posted - 2009.07.23 15:47:00 - [53] i have changed the name a bit
RRNL Caldari Capital Construction Inc.	Posted - 2009.07.24 15:37:00 - [54] I see the problem and i agree with it. It is a complicated issue. Eve has always been a game of effort vs reward. Hiding and watching local is deffinaly more effort than running l4's. The fact that l4's give more isk per hour than 0.0 npc'ing is strange, maybe its caused by outdating. L4's are getting improved all the time and 0.0 has always been the same... I think this deserves some time from CCP to look at and balance it more.
Mr LaboratoryRat Confederation of DuckTape Lovers	Posted - 2009.07.26 20:29:00 - [55] i found some nice Facts
Dave Meltdown Capital Construction Inc.	Posted - 2009.07.28 11:46:00 - [56] up
Molock Saronen	Posted - 2009.07.28 12:18:00 - [57]
Slave 2739FKZ	Posted - 2009.07.28 12:20:00 - [58] Good 0.0 is fine, is the problem of the corp/alliance if they fail at exploiting and aiding their members as they should: moons & plexes (and almost all of them can pretty much be run by two guys, or one and his alt, which is not uncommon for 0.0 players to have) can make a lot of money. Belt rats allready have an higher chance for higher meta drops, and in general more drop, again not our fault if ratters can't be bothered to loot it (yeah I know there are bigger inconveniences about hauling stuff etc. but still is part of the sandbox is players fail to create a local market about it, and anyway in the age of jumpbridges and JF, lol). In case of players residing in NPC regions that are nto as secure as territory with sov, they have higher chance for faction/officer, so it evens out. One thing though is true, changes proposed by Ephemeron should be implemented as is a no brainer that people that can log after DT has higher profit that anyone else. Bad 0.0 needs a boost though, is just not right you can earn more in empire than there, but as has been stated, only CCP knows all the details about the bounties & drops and how it all is even out. One change I would make though is to mvoe from a direct bounty to tags model for everything. This way you would accomplish two things: you force everyone to loot stuff (including hisec runners) so is easier to control ratios between minerals & isk, and on the other side you force players to haul stuff, so it can be intercepted by other players. In hisec mission runners would have to transport them to concord stations, which could be camped by gankers or hisec wardeccing corps or sell to players buy orders (probably losing money).
an internet GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.07.28 19:02:00 - [59] Originally by: Slave 2739FKZ Good 0.0 is fine, is the problem of the corp/alliance if they fail at exploiting and aiding their members as they should: moons & plexes (and almost all of them can pretty much be run by two guys, or one and his alt, which is not uncommon for 0.0 players to have) can make a lot of money. Belt rats allready have an higher chance for higher meta drops, and in general more drop, again not our fault if ratters can't be bothered to loot it (yeah I know there are bigger inconveniences about hauling stuff etc. but still is part of the sandbox is players fail to create a local market about it, and anyway in the age of jumpbridges and JF, lol). In case of players residing in NPC regions that are nto as secure as territory with sov, they have higher chance for faction/officer, so it evens out. One thing though is true, changes proposed by Ephemeron should be implemented as is a no brainer that people that can log after DT has higher profit that anyone else. Bad 0.0 needs a boost though, is just not right you can earn more in empire than there, but as has been stated, only CCP knows all the details about the bounties & drops and how it all is even out. One change I would make though is to mvoe from a direct bounty to tags model for everything. This way you would accomplish two things: you force everyone to loot stuff (including hisec runners) so is easier to control ratios between minerals & isk, and on the other side you force players to haul stuff, so it can be intercepted by other players. In hisec mission runners would have to transport them to concord stations, which could be camped by gankers or hisec wardeccing corps or sell to players buy orders (probably losing money). While I support this concept, this tends to become another nerf to 0.0 players. Highsec players can easily turn in their tags freely - 0.0 Players have plenty of risk transporting tags around.
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2009.07.28 19:33:00 - [60] Could you stop bumping your whine thread Dave its a violation of forum rules. A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.