EVE Search - Why do you think level 4 missions should be nerfed?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Missions & Complexes

Why do you think level 4 missions should be nerfed?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.12 20:06:00 - [1] no one but butthurt null sec ppl and lazy pirates think lvl 4's should be nerfed. Everyone else thinks the system works fine as it stands.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.13 00:54:00 - [2] Originally by: Emperor Cheney Originally by: Patri Andari At what point did you come to this conclusion? What coloured your position that level 4 missions were ruining Eve? Was it before or after you did your grind to 9.74 with Corporate Police Force? Or was it while you were on the road to 9.52 standings with Federal Navy when you had this epiphany? Are you saying that because someone ran level 4's, they shouldn't criticize level 4s? Almost everyone runs level 4's, because you would be crazy not to. It's free money with near zero risk. That is the problem. Highsec mining is both more dangerous and less profitable. Think about that. If lvl 4 missions can be ran with "near zero" risk its because so called pirates have gotten lazy. Instead of going around ganking mission ships- they go on the forum and whine about lvl 4 mission profitability.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.13 02:30:00 - [3] Originally by: Burnharder Edited by: Burnharder on 13/12/2009 02:22:45 Quote: However, no matter how much I looked, I couldnt find the reasons for people to demand this On every thread on this issue, I've posted a question, "what exactly is the problem here that we're trying to solve?" and every time I've been ignored! I take it that either my forum charisma is at a record low, or that there is no rational answer to the question. The problem we are trying to solve is- How do we get butthurt wannabe pirates to stop whining on the forums.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.13 17:09:00 - [4] Edited by: Empire Dweller on 13/12/2009 17:12:41 I like how these ppl have a problem with lvl 4's and not a problem with moon mining passive isk. Lvl 4's- at best 50 mill an hour- limited by how many hours you mission, your skills, ship, fit all play a part- you can be ganked/other problems may arise moon mining- sometimes tens of billion per month (PER MOON), nap fest everyone and the risk is near zero
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.13 17:27:00 - [5] Originally by: Takseen Originally by: Empire Dweller Edited by: Empire Dweller on 13/12/2009 17:12:41 I like how these ppl have a problem with lvl 4's and not a problem with moon mining passive isk. Lvl 4's- at best 50 mill an hour- limited by how many hours you mission, your skills, ship, fit all play a part- you can be ganked/other problems may arise moon mining- sometimes tens of billion per month (PER MOON), nap fest everyone and the risk is near zero 1) Didn't CCP nerf moon mining income in Dominion? Precisely because of the complaints about them. A common misconception- moon mining income was not "nerfed"- it was simply spread out more among the moon minerals. Instead of having a few making huge amounts- you have more making near huge amounts. The overall income would be the same- assuming you own more then one moon anyway. Originally by: Takseen 2) There's still a limited number of moons, and those alliances have to invest resources to keep them secure from other alliances. There's no such scarcity or competition in level 4 missions. Limited number my ass- there are huge amounts of moons in systems- and now that moon minerals prices are spread more "evenly" (see explaination for 1.) competition has been decreased because availability of decent moons have increased. As for "investing resources"- yes they can be taken away- you have to fight to hold your territory. So what? my lvl 4 can be invaded- my loot, my salvage stolen. My bounties can be stolen- my ship can even be ganked. Theres risk in both- dont see what the problem is in that regard. My point was simply that missioning is an active task- and moon mining is a passive task. How can you think ones a problem and not think the other is as well?
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.13 17:37:00 - [6] Edited by: Empire Dweller on 13/12/2009 17:40:11 Its already been proved that missioning removes more isk then it injects into the game (because of the lp store) As for the argument- "lvl 4 missions are boring" so should be changed. I like missioning- others like missioning. Just because some dont like missioning doesnt mean it should be nerfed so less ppl mission. The whole argument is moot anyway tbh Every activity in hisec with a nullsec counterpart- is more profitable in nullsec/lowsec. If you dont like the idea of ppl enjoying themselves missioning in hi sec- gank them. Its an option- just throwing it out there. Originally by: Takseen Originally by: Empire Dweller My point was simply that missioning is an active task- and moon mining is a passive task. How can you think ones a problem and not think the other is as well? Because the two aren't in direct competition with each other? One is an incentive for 0.0 empires to take and hold space, and allows them to finance their expensive toys that get used for making cool Youtube videos. The other is a personal source of income for many many players of all kinds, that impacts lots of other areas as described elsewhere in the thread. You may as well say that we shouldn't argue against level 4 missions without discussing how overpowered ECM is in Pvp. you basically said- moon mining is to finance things you enjoy and missioning is to finance things i enjoy. Stop being so hypocritical- ppl should play how they want to play.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.13 17:52:00 - [7] Edited by: Empire Dweller on 13/12/2009 17:52:21 Originally by: Takseen Originally by: Empire Dweller you basically said- moon mining is to finance things you enjoy and missioning is to finance things i enjoy. Stop being so hypocritical- ppl should play how they want to play. I'm less than 3 months in the game, have never been to lowsec, don't like PvP and have never scored a successful kill on another player. In short, assume much? I assumed you knew something about what you were talking about. Thanks for pointing out that your a clueless 3 month old- ill disregard your uneducated ramblings from now on.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.13 18:26:00 - [8] Edited by: Empire Dweller on 13/12/2009 18:28:22 Originally by: Takseen Originally by: Empire Dweller [ I assumed you knew something about what you were talking about. Thanks for pointing out that your a clueless 3 month old- ill disregard your uneducated ramblings from now on. Your entire thesis in this thread is that only 0.0 dwellers and pirates want level 4 empire missions nerfed. Its only logical that you'd resort to insults when I pointed out that you are incorrect in your assumption(again). I assumed you were in a player corp yes. An assumption because its usually the case. It wasnt an insult- you yourself said your a three month old toon. There is no way you could possible have any firsthand knowledge of lvl 4 missions, their effects on the economy, and how they compare with other forms of income. At three months old- you barely have the skills to even survive a lvl 4 mission. Much less understand the complexities of the economic forces behind them. As for who wants lvl 4's nerfed- i have yet to see a serious mission runner who thinks this is a good idea. At most we get ppl who have ran a few, think theyre boring, and could care less if theyre nerfed. Show me someone who enjoys missioning who thinks they should be nerfed- prove its not just lowsec/nullsec ppl who want this.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.13 18:49:00 - [9] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Empire Dweller Show me someone who enjoys missioning who thinks they should be nerfed- prove its not just lowsec/nullsec ppl who want this. That would be me then. You enjoy missions now? because a quick look through your post history suggests otherwise. Just out of curiosity- how many missions do you do per week? Whats your lifetime total income from missions (roughly) To be fair i can tell by your standings that you have some experience with missions. Though you probably spend a lot of time doing other activities. so maybe my comment should have read... Show me someone who enjoys missioning more then any other aspect of the game who thinks they should be nerfed. Not to say missions are perfect as is- id love to see some fairly drastic changes. AI personality of a sleeper for instance. The adjustable reward based on how many ppl use the agent has merit. A blanket across the board cut into isk per hour is not the solution. Moving all lvl 4 agents into lowsec is not the solution. Unfortunately these are the two most common "fixes" i hear proposed. Im willing to hear proposals for actual changes- but when someone presents it as "nerf lvl 4's" and they consider that a post. How am i not supposed to laugh at their absurdity?
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.13 19:00:00 - [10] Originally by: Tippia Originally by: Empire Dweller You enjoy missions now? because a quick look through your post history suggests otherwise. A slightly longer look would have shown you that I've never said that I didn't, and it would have clued you in to the fact that I've been saying the same thing ever since my SAK days. Quote: so maybe my comment should have read... Show me someone who enjoys missioning more then any other aspect of the game who thinks they should be nerfed. Still me, then. But still nothing specific about how you would like to see lvl 4's changed? (not even going to ask about the nap train your alliance represents and how someone who enjoys missioning so much would be enticed by that)

Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.13 19:14:00 - [11] Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 13/12/2009 19:06:58 Originally by: Empire Dweller But still nothing specific about how you would like to see lvl 4's changed? Plenty of that, but it gets downed every time by the "onoz, you're an ebil piewat alt/lowsec ganker/alliance sycophant" babble from people who cannot look past their own preconceptions and comforts, who think that there's only two sides to the story, and who will cling for dear life to the illusion that disagreeing with them is a psychological illnessà Nice- a whole paragraph to say yes without actually answering the question with specific ideas.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.16 18:27:00 - [12] Mission mechanics in a nutshell- Alternate title- "why none of the above crap would be good" WARNING- WALL O TEXT AHEAD- Travel at your own risk Missions generate isk through bounties, mission rewards. Missions recycle isk through loot, salvage. Missions drain isk through the lp store. The isk generated relative to isk drained- its variable, depends on the lp items you choose. No personal studies have been done that im aware of but overall id say its either a net loss of isk or very close to it. In other words- missions are not the isk generating inflation machines you think they are. Bounties and rewards could be drastically reduced and not have a huge effect on overall profitability. Lp is generally the biggest source of mission income. The question then becomes is the isk/hour of missions out of line with other isk making "grind" activities. Missions basic limitation on income per hour is literally the "per hour" part. The very best ships, with near perfect skills and a knowledgeable pilot- can make an income approaching 50 mill per hour. Odds are most make less due to efficiency and because of uncounted time sinks. Moving/selling/reprocessing the mission loot/ lp items is largely ignored in isk/hour estimates. The average lv 4 missioner makes way less- on the scale of 25 mill per hour. Missioning is not "risk free" as some like to parrot. Your ship in not safe anywhere- my hat goes off to goons for their regular mission ship killing ops. Their km's make me laugh. Isk recycled is mostly irrelevant in the sense that any change hurts others more then it hurts the missioner. Loot/minerals that drop are traded for isk. If this feature is changed you basically kill off the profession of ninja salvaging. Yes miners may see a buff- but not much of one. Realistically you would need to change drone mineral drops to see any sort of market price effects on minerals. Which would nerf null sec drone regions more then missions. Builders may see a rise if loot tables are nerfed- but do they need one? Incidental it would be the builders of t1 mods used in invention that would see their profits rise. Your t2 mods would rise in price to compensate. Wrote this quickly- prolly missed a few things, but this is a nice starting point. The gist is changing an aspect of missions would hurt other professions more then missioners. Things i could support- Re-balancing of certain aspects. Loot drops, rewards, bounties, lp, the lp store prices. Re-balancing should not buff one profession at the expense of another. Rather it should be done to keep salvaging "roughly" as profitable as not salvaging. Interesting side note- my golem that loots and salvages makes roughly the same income as my tengu that only blitzes missions and does no looting and salvaging. An indication that it is balanced but yes the balance should be looked at occasionally and modified if needed. Variable agent quality- lower quality for frequently used agents and higher quality for lesser used agents. Would have to be balanced so that all hi sec agents dont become -20 quality while all lowsecs become +20 quality. But otherwise an interesting idea. Sleeper ai in missions (especially lvl 4's and up). More and harder missions are needed. More that act like escalations- perhaps some that require probing out the site before you can begin. Obviously a lot of room for improvement on missions in the variety and quality area. Moving lvl 5's to hi sec. Would be necessary to make them harder first. Maybe with a sleeper ai this would be possible.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.16 18:28:00 - [13] Things i do not support Moving lvl 4's to lowsec. Wouldnt work. Not a chance. Not even a small chance. Ppl that think it would work need to get over their fascist impulses- others are not playing the game wrong. Spending all your time only engaged in pve is as acceptable as spending all your time pvp'ing. I do not support making lvl 3's (or less) pay less per hour- lvl 1's- 3's are about as balanced as theyre going to get. New players need an income too. So any "decrease" in lvl 4 profitability is going to quickly hit the lvl 3 income/hour ceiling.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.16 21:24:00 - [14] Originally by: Emperor Cheney Originally by: Empire Dweller Ppl that think it would work need to get over their fascist impulses- others are not playing the game wrong. You are saying people who disagree with you about a spaceship game have "fascist impulses." A bit of harshness on my part. Let me clarify. It is possible to disagree with me and not be a fascist. On the other hand- if you believe that drastic measures (such as nerfing lvl 4's into the ground) are needed because some people are not playing the game how you believe they should, and your intentions of these changes are to force a change in playstyle, then yes that is fascist line of thought. Eve is a PvP game. That does not mean there are no Pve aspects. If i wish to do nothing but pve- then i may. It is a valid playstyle- just as valid as those who wish to pvp all day. What makes my pve sublimely pvp is that you have the ability to destroy my ship. It does not mean i should be forced to go to you so that you may destroy my ship. For a good example of those who would banish all carebears- look above your post. Ill go on record here and say- yes saying that "carebears" should be banished is a fascist line of thought. It also shows a complete lack of understanding in certain areas such as the ship market, ammo market, and deadspace/officer items. What would happen to those prices if suddenly 80% of the eve playerbase were to disappear? If carebears have no other use at all- they are great at paying huge sums for lucky finds.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.16 21:39:00 - [15] Edited by: Empire Dweller on 16/12/2009 21:41:58 Originally by: Emperor Cheney Originally by: Empire Dweller For a good example of those who would banish all carebears- look above your post. Ill go on record here and say- yes saying that "carebears" should be banished is a fascist line of thought. First, I've never said anything like carebears should be "banished," second you have no idea what fascism even means. Might be a good idea to avoid calling people terms associated with starting the most brutal war in human history and the cold blooded murder of millions just in general. Especially in regards to your feelings about a spaceship video game. I hope for your sake you are literally a child, so that you may someday outgrow whatever horrible little phase you're in. You seem to have a center of the universe complex. Where did you get the idea i was referring to anything you said? If you actually went to the trouble of looking at the original post i quoted- then looked up one post above yours you would find this comment. TL;DR : Carebears do nothing but take up space. Made by another toon. And while i admit saying that line of thought may be facist is an over reaction on my part. Your butthurt tantrum makes it look reasonable by comparison.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.16 22:27:00 - [16] Originally by: Angst IronShard I don't see a nerf to move lvl 4 missions in low, I see it as an adjustment. In fact, I'm for a move of the level 4 missions to low sec for only one reason: - To have the right to shoot at the er who steal my final loot. In High sec, a 15 days noob, with a probe ship, can grab your loot too much easily. You did the job, and the bastard loots. This is not fair at all as it works atm. If at least we can have a kill right on the thief ! Not even ! I'm bored to run mission for the wallet of others. So I'm up for lvl4 in low sec/null sec. o7 I assume you mean salvage and not loot because if someone steals loot you do get agro rights. And when he salvages your wrecks its not "stealing" because he created the salvage- with his salvage module. You created the wreck- he created the salvage. Looked at this way it is not stealing- it is competing. If you worked faster you would have gotten that salvage.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.17 18:12:00 - [17] Originally by: Pantload I havent seen any good righteous indignation in this thread today. It's no longer my favorite thread. It has been trumped by another. Somebody say something tacky or rile up someone volatile, if you would please. The entertainment level of this has dropped quite a bit. That is all. As you were. Sorry pantload id love to help but im busy endless farming my lucrative, easy mode lvl 4 missions in the complete safty of hi sec.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.17 19:18:00 - [18] Originally by: Gevic I believe Wet Ferret (sorry skimming) mentioned players being able to recover, while there should be methods for players to safely recover, L4s atm simply just allow people to more or less chuck HACs (2-4 hours of L4s depending, using Keifra's stats) wantonly. This means stuff like BS (which are fully insurable, unlike HACs) are even more disposable. It's getting to, or more or less has gotten to the point where Cap Ships are starting to become disposable as well. For a game that prides itself as having a "strong economic side" (even though that seems like *****s to me) thats nothing short of a tragedy. more of an insurance issue then a mission issue but i agree insurance needs looked at Originally by:** Gevic Here's a question, why should the income level of l4s be where they are now? Aside from allowing players to recover, which is purely a PvP aspect more or less, which according to some of the posters here barely exist at all (I mean after all mission runners make up 90% of EvE amirite?), why should mission running make as much as it does? If you read my rather long post earlier you would know mission running isnt exactly the isk generating machine youve been told it is. Top notch ship, nearly perfect skills- makes close to 50 mill an hour. And even then id argue its lower because the person didnt count all their time sinks. The average mission runner makes less- probably a lot less. More on the 25-30 mill per hour range. Which is less then pretty much every other activity that can be done in null/lowsec. Originally by: Gevic There is basically no risk at all to mission running, so income is more or less going towards ammunition (arguably negligible, unless I guess you are throwing faction ammo around in missions), and new ships and mods. And if the name of the game is simply, grinding so you can "level" and go from that Raven to that CNR, Saying there is no risk in a lvl 4 is misleading at best. Plenty of ppl lose ships to npc's. Plenty of ppl lose ships to suicide gankers. I always hear the "risk vs reward" argument- how much risk is there in null if you have a nap with everyone within 40 jumps? Theres still some risk- both in null and for the mission runner. Both groups will always try to find ways to minimize the risk. Originally by: Gevic would changing the system so that the mission reward is purely LP (increased to offset the loss of bounty and monetary rewards) be objectionable? It would finally subject the missionrunner to the market (insurance provides a floor for minerals) and provide quicker access towards the MRs goals. Of course adjustments would have to be made to the LP store (to prevent a market flood), but all in all, this would seem optimal. I would object unless the lp store is seriously overhauled. More then a few stores offer literally nothing exclusively that anyone wants to buy. Faction junk is still junk.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.17 20:02:00 - [19] Edited by: Empire Dweller on 17/12/2009 20:03:54 Originally by: Gevic Of course this is merely a stab in the dark. I think we both know that CCP won't ever change L4s. on the contrary ccp changes things about lvl 4's all the time. The two most recent changes are the rigs being 3 sizes- a direct effect of that is salvage is worth less then it was before. Before that happened "adjustments" were made to mission drops. Nothing that was advertised but the heavy mission runners noticed. Several threads were made on the forums at the time of this "stealth nerf". Basically more crap less hi end loot. Adjustments- yes, ccp makes them all the times. Nerf lvl 4's into oblivion- no thats never going to happen. edit- removing all bounties, salvage, loot from missions would hurt others more then it would hurt mission runners. Those 3 things are already the smallest part of the overall isk/hour of a mission- some mission runners dont even bother to loot/salvage.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.17 20:10:00 - [20] Originally by: Dragonmede Originally by: MatrixSkye Mk2 What I'd really love to see changed is being able to complete level 4 missions in class ships other than the plain vanilla battleships. I'd love to do a level 4 that only allows assault ships or less in them. And get rid of the mindless numbers. Quality over quantity. Imagine a level 4 which involves only 3 enemy assault ship NPCs so fast and smart that it could simply not be completed in a BS. And when you finally kill one it drops enough salvage and loot to replace one third of the current loot and salvage, all in one wreck . Suh-weet! And smart enough so that if someone invades your mission (friend or foe) they target, scramble, and try taking them down as well. Oh man, I wish . I hear you, I want the same things..... Theres an open ended proposal in the assembly hall now- thread called "lvl 4 missions" Post your support that missions need some loving- post your ideas such as this. It would be awesome if some of it happened. Sleeper ai in lvl 4's= win. Ship specific missions sounds good. A little variety never hurt.

Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.17 22:35:00 - [21] Originally by: Durnin Stormbrow Eve used to be defined by the theory that risk, research, teamwork and investment of time & isk = the big profit. Hi-sec Lv4s break that mold. I could argue that most pvp breaks that mold too. How much risk is there if you gatecamp? How much risk if your based 30 jumps into null and surrounded by blues? Mission runners dont get any special favors- we play by the same game mechanics you do. Originally by: Durnin Stormbrow The only risk a skilled mission runner faces is a hi-sec gank or one of those rare oops moments. Oops moments are a fact of life no matter what you choose to do in eve, and if you fly non-faction ships with T2 fit & leave the ninjas alone, the hi-sec gankers will look elsewhere. True but then again you dont get faction drops in hi sec either. Just to name one thing we dont get/cant use in hi sec. Originally by: Durnin Stormbrow The only research a mission runner really needs is to find a cluster of agents in a prime spot & look up any missions that haven't been memorized on the Survival Guide. theres literally no way to change that. That statement prolly holds true for any pve activity in any game. Originally by: Durnin Stormbrow The only needed investment of isk is a T1 battleship with T2 modules and you're golden. Faction ships and complex modules make things go faster, but it's not necessary. The time investment is just the faction grind that can be picked up and put down at will, and the time to actually run the mission. Still not arguing- still not seeing the actual problem either. Originally by: Durnin Stormbrow The reward for all this is 20-40 Misk/hour. Some say 50 Misk/hr, but that's up for debate. Aside from rare moon mining (usually an alliance activity), no other profession has this kind of consistent, immediate return for so little risk & effort. For a miner to beat it, he needs to be on ABC ores and have a foreman/hauler to split profit with. For a ratter to beat it, he needs to have farmed up a good 0.0 system or have gotten lucky with a faction spawn. With the drop in value of exploration loot, I doubt an explorer can keep up on isk/hr over time at all. A trader can quite easily break 20-40m/hr, but not without a serious investment of isk, not knowing when the payoff will come, and a bad break can easily wipe out a week of profits. C4-6 WH space will beat Lv4s in isk/hr if well managed, but not without teamwork, investment and risk. Simply not true. Every activity in hi sec that has a null sec counterpart- the null sec counterpart pays more per hour. Mining pays more, exploration sites pay more, Missions pay more (lowsec anyway). Hi sec pays less. In most cases hi sec pays a lot less. And for a reason really- the whole risk vs reward. But lets at least acknowledge that hi sec pays less. Originally by: Durnin Stormbrow When I need fast cash, I run missions. Nothing else makes the cash right now, and can be picked up & put down like mission running. I don't care whether Lv4s get nerfed or the rest of the game gets buffed, money making in EvE needs to be brought back in line with the old theory. Nothing makes the isk afk style is what you mean. and yes not arguing there. its a better afk isk per hour then mining. I wouldnt mind if they were made harder. But missions are not the "end all" of making isk. Never have been- never will be.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.19 04:44:00 - [22] Most of this thread revolves around a few things. 1. that missions are more profitable then higher risk activities. Which isnt true in the least but meh, if you dont believe the numbers by now id be wasting my time going over it again. 2. Lvl 4's should be in low sec because- of some reason ive never really understood. Goes back to the belief that missions are more profitable then higher risk activities (see point 1) 3. No one would do lvl 4's if they were exclusively lowsec. For the most part true- just look at lvl 5's. Most ppl that run those run the ones that spawn in hi sec. The basic problem is missions take too long to finish before someone notices your there and tries to probe you out. When you hit that point- end of mission unless the pvp'er gets bored. 4. Ppl would still have lvl 3's. Yea great, lvl 3's. So not only do i get to do a more boring version of missions but it pays so little i might as well afk mine. Im sure no one would cancel their account over that. 5. Lvl 4's hurt some portion of eves economy. Somewhat true in a roundabout way. If loot was removed or nerfed mineral price may rise slightly (until more ppl realized the price increased and started afk mining more anyway) But by removing loot you kill secondary professions. Mission ninjas- what exactly would they ninja after such a change? And i know a lot of industrials who use loot buy orders for cheap(er) minerals. 6. What it basically boils down to is the mistaken belief that eve is only a pvp game. Let ppl do what they want. Dont expect them to be forced by game mechanics to line up so you can shoot them. Lvl 4's could use a tweak here and there- but the income doesnt even come close to being the excessive isk machines ppl make it out to be. And hey ppl need an income- not everyone wants to spend hours pouring over market data to decide what to manufacture next. Not everyone likes to market trade. But most ppl in eve do love to fly big expensive ships. They have to have a way to make the isk to buy what they dream of owning- or they wont stay.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.21 19:36:00 - [23] What exactly would change if all lvl 4 income was replaced by lp? And why do you believe isk is not tied to the market? when it is literally the foundation of the market. And thats without bringing up the best argument, one every serious mission runner knows. LP is the best source of income. You would be doing me a favor tbh. Complete missions? why i only get lp anyway, ill blitz them. Some do now. The balance between blitzing and completing the entire thing while salvaging and looting is....... DRUMROLL PLEASE THE INCOME OF SALVAGING AND LOOTING Take this away and no one will ever "finish" an entire mission- they will do whatever it takes to bring the mission to completion and leave 90% of the npc ships alive. As for ninja salvagers- so you would scrap that idea completely too? Any change to missions should "expand" on them- not neuter them into less then what they are now.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.22 01:16:00 - [24] Originally by: Space Wanderer Originally by: Wet Ferret Loot = deflation (goods created) Salvage = deflation (goods created) Mission rewards = usually inflation, but with the occasional item Bounties = inflation (ISK enters) LP store = deflation (ISK leaves, goods are created) Ok, now I see what you guys are talking about. Thanks for the focused intervention. I have to admit that I did not consider the effect of t1 loot as a deflating factor of missions. My apologies for the long-winded, non-conclusive posts. However in what is described above, the only thing that can cause relevant deflation is loot, and it does its job by directly harming miners and t1 producers (i.e. those who should create the goods). Even t1 loot does not cover part of the market (moon minerals, t2 and t3 production), and if it ever gets removed there will be only limited market segments that can benefit from deflation, while the isk influx stays unchanged. I guess that this is the reason why CCP still did not nerf t1 loot. The worrying part, however, is that this information still makes my first statement true. Mission runners have been ripping off for years other player categories (just not the ones I thought ). And if you remove t1 loot, you most likely remove the only balancing factor against inflation. not exactly. For missions the inflationary balance factor is lp. The isk you get from missions is spent acquiring the lp items. Mission loot is considered a deflationary influence because if it was removed prices would go up. The terminology isnt exactly accurate but meh whatever. Yes ill admit that mission loot devalues alloys. And if it was removed miners and industrialists (the ones who make t1 mods for invention anyway) would see their profits rise. Ninja salvaging would be killed though. So slightly buff two professions to kill one profession. In the end minerals would stabilize. Why? cause nothings easier then afk mining. T1 mods used for invention- might see their price rise a bit. T2 mods may rise a bit to compensate. Is it really worth killing off a profession (no matter how hated it is) just to slightly buff these professions?
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.22 09:15:00 - [25] Damn. Vaerah Vahrokha your conclusions are so wrong i dont even know where to begin to refute them. You make general sweeping statements without any logic or reason whatsoever. If the market is stagnate- how can i, or any other person with a reasonable iq, make a crapload of isk playing the market? If eve is "dying"- did anyone tell the other 300k subscribers? Mineral prices are on a low swing- theres multiple reasons for this. An increase in roid spawns in hi-sec, mission loot, and the null sec nap train all contribute.
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.23 10:09:00 - [26] I would say time limits income. You know- the per hour part of isk/hour. Were just recycling arguments now- some feel some missions "break the game". Theres various reasons they give. Some are even remotely true. Manufacturers would make more if no meta 1's dropped for instance. Does this mean mission runners are "ripping off" manufacturers? I would say no more then manufacturers rip off mission runners. Hey everyone likes to make a profit. The end result is if missions make so much isk that its breaking eve- then we have to end every other activity that makes more isk. Which is literally everything done in null, everything done in wh's, manufacturing, datacore farming,trading, and most exploration. This would then boil down eve to whoever can buy the most gtcs wins. Yea sounds like a game id play sarcasm
Empire Dweller Pator Tech School	Posted - 2009.12.27 04:41:00 - [27] Originally by: Ava Starfire The T1 modules need to come out of the drop tables; would simultaneously help miners and industrialists, and reduce mission income a bit, but nothing gamebreaking. Ill agree that they require further nerfs, as soon as CCP removes insurance. I am one of the toons you mention. A bit over a year old. almost 90% of my skills geared towards missioning. I fly a 10+ billion mission ship (tengu or golem depending on my mood) I have hated mission ninjas- and have been the mission ninja. The profession deserves to live. Maybe remove t1 drops- at most. Even this may be a bit much- do manufacturers "need" a buff? Ive done a few other odd professions as well. And i can honestly say that if anyone thinks missioning is "the best isk per hour"- they need to look around.

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.