Mechnom
   |
Posted - 2010.06.02 22:38:00 -
[1]
sry Chronotis, but are u serious about what you are writing? it is ok to say: hey mining sucks, it should be rewarded better then missioning (which sucks as much, but that's another side of the coin). so you mission runners: live with it: you'll get less.
thats 100% fine with me. like this it would be clear and straight forward.
but to say: there are several sources for minerals. one is reprocessing of loot (wich is not intended that way). we will nerf the loot to make harvesting the primary source of minerals. (sound logic up to that point)
but now our poor dev gets a bit tired it seems:
as missioning is only the source of roughly about 30% of the minerals and that beeing harshly reduced by the nerf (lets assume to about 5-10%) how could that raise the money we get from the minerals on the market?
so it sounds like Chronotis is having a bit of a problem too...
or how can he write:
"Whilst this will reduce one of the secondary incomes from NPC combat initially, this is weighted against all the potential rewards of NPC combat activity. With less overall mineral supply, the lower quantity of minerals still possible from loot reprocessing will eventually be worth more."
1. its a MAIN source of income. considering you are familiar with sites like eve-survival, did u ever check the comments stating the income from a mission?! you should do.
2. as we are (stated in the first part of chrontis article) only part of the "minerals generating community" which had a share of roughly 30% (ccp statistics), I'd like to know how the lowering of that share to roughly(assumed) 8% could have a psoitive effect on the income of mission running?!
a) wouldn't that imply, that mineral prices should rise to aprox. 400% of there former value?! (that would be sound maths to me at least...)
b) (assuming eve is trying at some point to be somehow balanced)what effect would that (assumed) 400% raise in founds have on the other part of the "mineral generating community"? would these effects then be considered balanced?
--> final question: if you consider the raise of ore prices a possible solution to the nerf of the mission runner income - wouldn't that imply that the non-missioners would profit from that even more? as they are now generating 92% of the ores?
well either i'm just way to stupid to get your point (just to give the smackers a base to start from...) or you're of track logic wise. (sry) but as it seems to me, you just construct a "well you could profit from that too" nonsense!
rly a pitty!
just a few points to remember:
eve is a game - i even have to pay for it. so guess what: it's gotta be fun.
i'm a pvp noob - but thats 'bout the only thing about eve that actually is fun
earning 20M / h missioning gave me roughly 2 h of pvp - lowsec adrenaline
sounded like a good ratio... 1 : 2 h
but i'm not willing to "work" longer for that
so give me a way (not forcibly missions, as they suck like hell) to get iskies to finance that fun in an easy and relaxing way or i'm off to play something else
and no, i dont want to skill like 2 months to get my former income back.
with a declining player base and most of them beeing mission runners you should consider that. ---- maybe...
|