| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ran Khanon
Amarr
Vengeance Innovations
   |
Posted - 2010.02.21 12:20:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Ran Khanon on 21/02/2010 12:22:27
Now, before jumping to conclusions that lvl 4 mission income needs a nerf I think we should consider the prerequisites of making such massive earnings and how many of all regular lvl 4 mission runners are able to reach these figures themseves.
- Near perfect skills
- Perfect ship
- A good agent in a quiet system
- Blitzing what can be blitzed for a higher average income
If I look at myself, I've been running level 4's for only 3 months or so, I qualify as a reasonably new player;
- 8 mill SP; nowhere near perfect
- not a perfect ship (Abaddon but learning for a Paladin (which is no Golem either as far as I've heard).
- quality 3 agent (but I really prefer missioning in a quiet system which doesn't leave me much choice with the corporation I currently work for)
- no blitzing (apart for that mission to steal 10 units of Quafe Ultra) and pretty much looting / salvaging everything with a second ship
I think I can make 30ish mil an hour with a lucky mission and I represent a very different kind of lvl 4 missioner; those that like to take things a little more easy, and who still have considerable training to do and standings to gain with other corporations to reach anywhere near your numbers.
I think that the conclusion that lvl 4 income needs to be nerfed should be based on the average income of a large group of lvl 4 mission runners fairly representing EVE's lvl 4 mission running population; and not on the average income of the top echelon of players who make a sport out of it to squeeze the last drop of isk out of their lvl 4's.
Still; compared to other pve sources of income, I do agree that lvl 4 gains are on the high side and that it needs more balance with high sec exploration and possibly mining revenues.
Support Lana's new bounty system. |
Ran Khanon
Amarr
Vengeance Innovations
|
Posted - 2010.02.21 15:28:00 -
[2]
Kerfira, I wasn't attacking you and you seem to miss my point to a certain extent.
Not every lvl 4 mission runner is doing lvl 4's as efficient as you did here, NOR do most lvl 4 mission runners do them as inefficient as I am obviously doing them (looting and salvaging everything and swapping ships for it). Both extremities should not be used to base conclusions on for a potential nerf, but rather the average income of ALL lvl 4 mission runners.
Support Lana's new bounty system. |
Ran Khanon
Amarr
Vengeance Innovations
|
Posted - 2010.02.22 10:16:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Quote:
bad minerals management
The current (im)balance between different high sec 'professions' could also point to a general, conscious CCP strategy to make mining a less appealing walk of life for a large group of 'inbetweens'. At the highest level of tuning general gameplay experience, CCP could have reasoned that there was too much of an appeal to 'sitting afk in belts' in their game which also happens to stimulate macro mining isk farmers. To stimulate an overall, more involved gameplay experience, having a higher average income from missioning isn't such a bad idea.
Is (high sec) mining in itself such a waste of time, income wise? Or only in comparison with missioning and is there a certain envy aspect to it? Doesn't the freedom of not having to be constantly 'at the helm' (the more active missioning gameplay) offset the lesser average income?
Support Lana's new bounty system.
|
Ran Khanon
Amarr
Vengeance Innovations
|
Posted - 2010.02.22 13:40:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Tolis Irithel
Has anyone at CCP considered "escalating" missions; set them up in a similar way to exploration escalations, but have them run as mission series.
A number of these "series" missions exist currently, but they're pretty poor - I'd re-purpose them (and give them way higher rewards, to go with a slight reward drop for other missions)
1) First mission(s) run in high-sec (but make clear that the arc can send you anywhere)
2) Second mission sends you to a low-sec "staging" point.
3) Third mission is a low-sec combat encounter. Since we're still aiming at mission runners, have it set up to provide minimal "protection" (some missions do this already, where a second warp-in from a hunter will kick some groups into aggroing them) - this would give the mission runner some option to stand and fight if he chooses (even in suboptimal). Not a big boost, just something to make it not "insta-loss" etc.
Skew the rewards for the series heavily towards the final, low-sec bit; people still have the right to decline if they choose.
Great idea. I think that CCP attempted to implement this with exploration escalations, pirate factions and ofcourse lvl 5 agents. So risk versus reward in missioning is already on CCP's agenda.
The way those lvl 5's are in a different league as lvl 4's and not intended for (most) casual solo missioners prevent a lot of missioners from stepping up to level 5's and actually considering doing missions in low sec. Also the already very nice income from lvl 4's is more than enough for most casuals.
Scaling down rewards for single, high sec missions and upping rewards for more dangerous, new lvl 4 arches that involve more traveling and might end up in low sec sounds like a very good idea.
General consequences:
- A more exciting gameplay experience for general lvl 4 mission runners
- Boost for piracy and a more lively lowsec
- More ships and fits lost: more ships and fits needed; good for industrial players
Support Lana's new bounty system. |
| |
|