EVE Search - [Proposal] remove loot from missions

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Proposal] remove loot from missions

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dave Meltdown Capital Construction Inc.	Posted - 2009.08.03 12:53:00 - [1] Currenty missioning income is pretty high for a empire job. Highest fixed income u can get from carebearing. Its not that i want to see that nerfed its that i want to see other things boosted. Unlucky those things come togheter. Currently Atleast 40% of the high end ore comes from refined mission loot (there was a post up saying that a few months ago). I wonder why mining veldspar in emp is still more profitable than mining high ends in dangerous 0.0. Removing loot will boost high end ore prices and make 0.0 mining profitable. It would boost 0.0 ratting aswell, meta items would be more worth in price and there would be a clear line vs meta 1 and other meta level items, items could also be refined for mineral prices. Manufacturing would become more populair again. Industry would get a general boost and traders can profit from the meta price differation, There is only 1 downside, this would mess up eve as it is now, and will make alot of carebears agry Discuss
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.08.03 14:17:00 - [2] Remove meta 0 drops entirely, replace meta 1-4 drops with BPCs. Minerals should come from miners tbh.
Drake Draconis Minmatar Shadow Cadre	Posted - 2009.08.03 14:57:00 - [3] Oh for crying out loud. Can't you people give it a rest? No for the 1000th time. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com =========================
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.08.03 15:35:00 - [4] Originally by: Malcanis Remove meta 0 drops entirely, replace meta 1-4 drops with BPCs. Minerals should come from miners tbh. Expanding on this: I agree with the idea that minerals should come from miners. (Waitaminnit, I'm agreeing with Malcanis.) I would support a well thought out change that removed meta 0 drops (seriously? What am I going to do with 50 Mining Laser I's?), dropped BPC's for Meta 1-4, and still dropped (where applicable) anything with a higher meta level and the faction implants that drop. If anything, this would see the demand for minerals rise (though probably not by much) and the supply dwindle some as well, which would help rebalance the mineral prices. If someone wanted to write that up as a proposal, I'd give it my thumb. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.08.03 15:39:00 - [5] Edited by: De''Veldrin on 03/08/2009 15:40:51 Edited by: De''Veldrin on 03/08/2009 15:40:27 Originally by: Dave Meltdown Currently Atleast 40% of the high end ore comes from refined mission loot (there was a post up saying that a few months ago). I wonder why mining veldspar in emp is still more profitable than mining high ends in dangerous 0.0. Removing loot will boost high end ore prices and make 0.0 mining profitable. Actually, at least last week, mining plagioclaise was more profitable than Veldspar from a strictly refine and sell standpoint. The reason you see so many people still mining Veldspar is because: They're like me, and they'll mine anything that sits in one place long enough. They need the Tritanium for something (also like me - I burn through it to the tune of 10 - 15 million units a week, and I'm small time). They're stockpiling in the hope that Tritanium prices go back up. They're too stupid to realize the market in EVE is as fluid as a real economy because it is a real economy. Edit to add some space in the wall of text. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Dr BattleSmith PAX Interstellar Services	Posted - 2009.08.03 16:03:00 - [6] Originally by: De'Veldrin They're too stupid to realize the market in EVE is as fluid as a real economy because it is a real economy. That's an illusion. The economy is setup as game. Take reprocessing for example... Any alt can reprocess stuff near perfectly in empire.
Drake Draconis Minmatar Shadow Cadre	Posted - 2009.08.03 16:11:00 - [7] Edited by: Drake Draconis on 03/08/2009 16:13:08 Edited by: Drake Draconis on 03/08/2009 16:11:55 Originally by: Dr BattleSmith Originally by: De'Veldrin They're too stupid to realize the market in EVE is as fluid as a real economy because it is a real economy. That's an illusion. The economy is setup as game. Take reprocessing for example... Any alt can reprocess stuff near perfectly in empire. You forgot to mention that any Alt "WITH SKILLS" can reprocess stuff near perfectly "PROVIDED THEY HAVE SKILLS AND NO TAXES" in empire. With no skills they don't get perfect reprocessing... they get a percentage of the whole wasted due to waste and a chunk of it taken out for taxes. EVERYONE knows this. That is not a bloody illusion... the market is fluid because its player controlled. ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com =========================
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2009.08.03 17:01:00 - [8] Originally by: Dr BattleSmith Originally by: De'Veldrin They're too stupid to realize the market in EVE is as fluid as a real economy because it is a real economy. That's an illusion. The economy is setup as game. Take reprocessing for example... Any alt can reprocess stuff near perfectly in empire. It follows the same rules, supply and demand. This is a long oustanding issue, evidence by the fact that when loot stopped coming into the game in the same volume here in the last few months we saw a massive spike in mex prices. Loot is a big part of the eve mineral economy.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.08.03 18:15:00 - [9] Originally by: Dr BattleSmith Originally by: De'Veldrin They're too stupid to realize the market in EVE is as fluid as a real economy because it is a real economy. That's an illusion. The economy is setup as game. Take reprocessing for example... Any alt can reprocess stuff near perfectly in empire. Let me clarify: The EVE economy is a close approximation of a real economy given that it actually does run on real life market principles like supply and demand, with very little tweaking by CCP. Yes, it is a game economy, which is why we have asteroids that respawn, and things like skill books seeded into the market because there ARE limits imposed by the game world. But by and large, it behaves in much the same manner as a real world economy. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Drek Grapper Minmatar	Posted - 2009.08.03 18:58:00 - [10] CCP emloy thier own market analyst because EVE's economy/market is that realistic. Actually not sure if they actually employ the guy...he might have been from a College, but he was analysing the data and wat not. -- "If itÆs true that our species is alone in the universe, then IÆd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little" George Carlin
Fille Balle Dissolution Of Eternity	Posted - 2009.08.03 19:00:00 - [11] Originally by: Dave Meltdown Currenty drone ratting/drone component reprocessing yields way to many rare minerals. Highest mineral income u can get from carebearing. Its not that i want to see that nerfed its that i want to see other things boosted. Unlucky those things come togheter. Currently Atleast 40% of the high end ore on the market comes from refined drone regions ratting loot (there was a post up saying that a few months ago). I wonder why mining veldspar in emp is still more profitable than mining high ends in dangerous 0.0. Removing loot will boost high end ore prices and make 0.0 mining profitable. It would nothing to 0.0 ratting either, meta items would be worth the same, and meta 1 items would rise in price, and invention would cost more, thus creating a price surge for the entire market. t1 manufacturing would become more pprofitable again. Industry would become overpowered (t2 bpo's in particular) and traders would no longer profit from the meta price differation. There is only 1 downside, this would mess up eve as it is now, and will make alot of inventors/industrialists angry Discuss There, fixed it for you and bolded the parts that needed fixing. Btw, most mission runners that reprocess their loot usually use the materials to manufacture ships for pvp.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2009.08.03 20:37:00 - [12] Originally by: Drek Grapper CCP emloy thier own market analyst because EVE's economy/market is that realistic. Actually not sure if they actually employ the guy...he might have been from a College, but he was analysing the data and wat not. He hasn't produced hardly anything that someone in the Market Discussion forum hasn't already known for quite some time. And this is from someone who has access to information beyond the player's grasp
Red Raider Caldari Airbourne Demons DeMoN's N AnGeL's	Posted - 2009.08.03 22:20:00 - [13] Originally by: Drake Draconis Oh for crying out loud. Can't you people give it a rest? No for the 1000th time. Nail on the head Drake. A happy gamer isnt on the forums, they are playing the game unless they have an idea that they honestly think is helping out.
Terra Mikael Private Nuisance	Posted - 2009.08.05 12:46:00 - [14] No, I need something to steal. ________________________________ 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
Ekeim	Posted - 2009.08.14 12:29:00 - [15] Unfortunately without statistics on how many mission runners feed minerals into the market vs the number of miners, the 40% number is meaningless. Ex. If you have 100 mission runners to 1 miner, then I would hardly find it shocking that a significant number of resources are coming from the mission runners.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2009.08.14 12:50:00 - [16] Originally by: Ekeim Unfortunately without statistics on how many mission runners feed minerals into the market vs the number of miners, the 40% number is meaningless. Ex. If you have 100 mission runners to 1 miner, then I would hardly find it shocking that a significant number of resources are coming from the mission runners. Its not that hard to extrapolate from the numbers given by looking at the daily traded volume for a single item, knowing which NPC drops it and then doing a rough estimation. People can only shoot so many ships at any given time.
Ekeim	Posted - 2009.08.14 13:40:00 - [17] Edited by: Ekeim on 14/08/2009 13:42:47 Originally by: Kazzac Elentria Originally by: Ekeim Unfortunately without statistics on how many mission runners feed minerals into the market vs the number of miners, the 40% number is meaningless. Ex. If you have 100 mission runners to 1 miner, then I would hardly find it shocking that a significant number of resources are coming from the mission runners. Its not that hard to extrapolate from the numbers given by looking at the daily traded volume for a single item, knowing which NPC drops it and then doing a rough estimation. People can only shoot so many ships at any given time. I'd say that would still involve too many unverifiable assumptions to be considered valid. What if a significant portion reprocessed it themselves? CCP would know where the minerals came from, but the playerbase never could. They also stated those statistics came from one month worth of reprocessing. Depending on their methodology loot saved up from the previous year and then reprocessed during that month might count toward the number. The same could also be asked about where/when the ore attributed to miners originated. Relying on assumptions that are as likely to be false as they are true doesn't really prove anything. Originally by: CCP Chronotis To give more precise data as the 40% was a figure I used as an overall average was 'of the top of my head' during the meeting taken from the data below. This was the one month split for all items reprocessed measured mid-august to mid-september 2008. \|\| Mineral \|\| Ore% \|\| Loot% \|\| Drone Compounds% \|\| \|\|-----------\|\|------\|\|-------\|\|------------------\|\| \|\| Tritanium \|\| 46% \|\| 43% \|\| 11% \|\| \|\| Pyerite \|\| 29% \|\| 60% \|\| 10% \|\| \|\| Mexallon \|\| 30% \|\| 59% \|\| 11% \|\| \|\| Isogen \|\| 21% \|\| 56% \|\| 23% \|\| \|\| Nocxium \|\| 18% \|\| 32% \|\| 51% \|\| \|\| Zydrine \|\| 43% \|\| 18% \|\| 40% \|\| \|\| Megacyte \|\| 44% \|\| 39% \|\| 16% \|\| \|\| Morphite \|\| 77% \|\| 1% \|\| 22% \|\| * Ore is minerals from the asteroid ores * loot is modules, ships, charges, drones for example. * drone compounds are loot items from rogue drones However, whatever conclusion you draw from those stats, be careful as it does not tell you much really such as how many people were mining or running missions. The number of people running missions is massive compared to number of miners and the source per person much lower overall however it is a large diffuse source. It is a similar story for anytime a player encounters the rogue drones. The ongoing discussion we are having internally is really around the point of to what degree a specialist profession like mining should be adversely affected by another career path where this forms only one part of their total reward/income pool. Nothing is happening on this front for Apocrypha but feel free to discuss this and I'll keep tabs on discussion as it is an interesting topic. Edit - bolded item for emphasis.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2009.08.14 14:07:00 - [18] Originally by: Ekeim Relying on assumptions that are as likely to be false as they are true doesn't really prove anything. I never claimed it to be the bold truth, but you can get a decent enough estimation to see a trend. When less people running missions you know in advance which minerals are going to be hit hardest and the more or less line up exactly with the chart posted. Knowing where the modules come from where and in what volumes you can then match that up against events like the recent macro mass ban and more or less get a rough... and I will stress very rough... idea of how many compare vs mining. Also note I didn't say who outnumbers who and by how much. I'm not even going to try and lay claim that what I have in my mind is even close to being accurate. But I will say that only a scant handful of mission runners can actually outpace a single miner by leaps and bounds in specific mineral categories.
JitaPriceChecker2	Posted - 2009.08.14 14:24:00 - [19]
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.08.14 15:29:00 - [20] not supported ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Traidor Disloyal Private Nuisance	Posted - 2009.08.14 16:45:00 - [21] Originally by: Dave Meltdown There is only 1 downside, this would mess up eve as it is now, and will make alot of carebears agry Wow, messing up Eve has it is now. That's a big downside. I got to go with a NO on this one. ************************************************* I have three characters. One has Cov Ops V along with all the bells and whistles that goes with it.
Jaina Proudmoar	Posted - 2009.08.14 18:13:00 - [22] Originally by: Red Raider Originally by: Drake Draconis Oh for crying out loud. Can't you people give it a rest? No for the 1000th time. Nail on the head Drake. I too would like to drive a nail through Drake's head.
De'Veldrin Minmatar Special Projects Executive	Posted - 2009.08.14 18:25:00 - [23] Originally by: Jaina Proudmoar Nail on the head Drake. I too would like to drive a nail through Drake's head. Why? Because he's right? That's no reason ot hate him. Sheesh. --Vel Experience is what you get right after you need it.
Drake Draconis Minmatar Shadow Cadre	Posted - 2009.08.14 18:44:00 - [24] Originally by: Jaina Proudmoar Originally by: Red Raider Originally by: Drake Draconis Oh for crying out loud. Can't you people give it a rest? No for the 1000th time. Nail on the head Drake. I too would like to drive a nail through Drake's head. Get in line. <thumbs the rear> ========================= CEO of Shadow Cadre http://www.shadowcadre.com =========================
Imertu Solientai	Posted - 2009.08.14 20:31:00 - [25] Supported. There have been enough threads asking for a mission rebalance. Just do it already...
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.14 20:55:00 - [26] Originally by: Imertu Solientai Supported. There have been enough threads asking for a mission rebalance. Just do it already... If that is your only meter of evaluation if something must be changed don't ever dare to protest for the "nano nerf" and the speed changes. Or fro 90% of the changes in EVE, as there are always lot of threads pro and against something. By that logic suicide ganking should, at the same time, be a bannable offense and have no sec status hit, CONCORD should be removed and extended to 0.1 systems and so on. Some rebalance done gradually (as CCP is doing), good. Removing all meta 0 loot as a abrupt change as the OP suggest, almost certainly very bad.
Oarta	Posted - 2009.08.14 21:17:00 - [27] Edited by: Oarta on 14/08/2009 21:19:00 I would be in favor of seeing a change in the raw item drops from NPC ships. The concept of a BPC or design is a good one as it would bring more people into the processing loop. It would be nice once again to see mining as the main focus for mineral production. Though I would rather see it focused in Low-sec or 0.0. High security mining can be automated so actual players would have a tough time competing with programs.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2009.08.14 22:09:00 - [28] Originally by: Ekeim Unfortunately without statistics on how many mission runners feed minerals into the market vs the number of miners, the 40% number is meaningless. Ex. If you have 100 mission runners to 1 miner, then I would hardly find it shocking that a significant number of resources are coming from the mission runners. If there are 100 mission runners to 1 miner then that right there might just be an indication that something needs rebalancing...
K'Taulis Caldari School of Applied Knowledge	Posted - 2009.08.15 02:53:00 - [29] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Ekeim Unfortunately without statistics on how many mission runners feed minerals into the market vs the number of miners, the 40% number is meaningless. Ex. If you have 100 mission runners to 1 miner, then I would hardly find it shocking that a significant number of resources are coming from the mission runners. If there are 100 mission runners to 1 miner then that right there might just be an indication that something needs rebalancing... Yes, it would. But, do you improve mining, or nerf mission running. Do you work with real numbers or speculation. Somebody further up cautioned against making decisions based on unverifiable assumption.
chatgris Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2009.08.15 18:29:00 - [30] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Ekeim Unfortunately without statistics on how many mission runners feed minerals into the market vs the number of miners, the 40% number is meaningless. Ex. If you have 100 mission runners to 1 miner, then I would hardly find it shocking that a significant number of resources are coming from the mission runners. If there are 100 mission runners to 1 miner then that right there might just be an indication that something needs rebalancing... Maybe cause the skills needed for mission running also translate to pvp? and that mission running has more variety than mining?

Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.