EVE Search - Burning hisec to build something better from the ashes

All Channels

Crime and Punishment

Burning hisec to build something better from the ashes

» 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)
Froggy Storm Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement 16	Posted - 2013.03.07 15:52:00 - [31] - Quote culo duro wrote: Froggy Storm wrote: True enough in that the risk reward would tip back down. Then we get into the debate of how much low/no risk isk should be coming out of missions. Not to traipse off into the weeds, but why in the world should a solo mach doing L4's against threats of inconvenience be making as much isk as the incursion fleet fighting a threat to empire as we know it. However, I do agree there should be some happy place for the majority of people between the two extreme ends of the spectrum. A level where isk/hr high enough to support playing for free is in places where you can be shot at and where folks who just want to shoot at big red crosses can do so in peace. The reality of course is there will always be some who yell, "But I want to shoot them at no risk!" (Meaning mission rats) And they will be cancled by those shouting, "But I want to shoot them at no risk!" (Meaning mission runners) I just hope that when all is said and done that CCP does not decide that those two voices are all there is and solve the problem by making Eve farmville and Eve counterstrike. As far as i'm aware you're lucky if you earn 40M/hour as an L4 Mission runner, While incursions yield about 100M/Hour not considering the LP. Having never been an incursion runner myself I don't know anything first hand. That being said, I was under the impression that the 100m/hr was optimal for blitz fleets before they were nerfed into the ground. Thus the rise again of mission bears being a factor in the isk/security debate.
Blackcamper The Condemned and Convicted 58	Posted - 2013.03.07 22:17:00 - [32] - Quote StoneCold wrote: It-¦s a different story, but: If more people would do their business in lowsec i could finaly stop to offer my services and return to my roots there. Like: remove level 4 missions from high- and place them in lowsec. 100 % Low sec need to contend There Was NO WARNING Of Their ARRIVAL! They Had No MERCY! They Gave NO QUARTER! http://screenshotuploader.com/s/01/4ko-a0zw5/
Taoist Dragon Bastion of Mad Behaviour 286	Posted - 2013.03.07 23:36:00 - [33] - Quote Blackcamper wrote: StoneCold wrote: It-¦s a different story, but: If more people would do their business in lowsec i could finaly stop to offer my services and return to my roots there. Like: remove level 4 missions from high- and place them in lowsec. 100 % Low sec need to contend Nah. Making lvl 4 LS only would just mean the bears start blitzing lvl 3's thats all. LS needs to have something but not just restricting stuff. After all that worked so well with lvl 5 missions. That is the Way, the Tao. Balance is everything.
Froggy Storm Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement 16	Posted - 2013.03.08 07:24:00 - [34] - Quote More than anything it appears to me we most need a common starting point for evaluation. The numbers exist to break down an activity to fractions of Isk/Hr. That alone coupled to the relative price for 30 days of play can give us an hours per day of said activity for an account to pay for its self. For the sake of discussion, let's set an arbitrary level of 5hr in hisec mining is the "correct" amount to pay for that day of play. So 500m/30days converts to about 16.6m/day. That is to say to pay for that accounts play for that day they must generate 16.6m. There for, assuming 5hr as a desired model for hisec, An account mining in hisec "should" be making between 3-4m an hour. Seems very low but its really just an example. If you then put that analysis in perspective however, at 40m an hour missioning that same char can pay for 11 accounts with spare. That seems far far to high. Thus back to my point. If we can agree on some mid ground where the hours spent per day should be for a given activity it becomes easy to agree where that activity belongs in terms of risk reward. Additionally, if we want to say the debate is about subscription numbers for CCP it seems that it would be much wiser to make the availability of isk lower to force more players to either play more or pay more. CCP and the developers have all the tools to make rational adjustments to set the levels. Its really easy to do in fact by manipulating minerals needed (say as part of the tierocide) and adjustment of the minerals available in the given spots. Next adjust rat bounties and mission payouts to reflect the new desired level. More than anything CCP can make sure that the changes have an obvious rationale and end all the demagogues ranting back and forth about safety this and reward that. Make them then yell at each other about the core issues of greed.
culo duro EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective 38	Posted - 2013.03.08 07:30:00 - [35] - Quote Froggy Storm wrote: More than anything it appears to me we most need a common starting point for evaluation. The numbers exist to break down an activity to fractions of Isk/Hr. That alone coupled to the relative price for 30 days of play can give us an hours per day of said activity for an account to pay for its self. For the sake of discussion, let's set an arbitrary level of 5hr in hisec mining is the "correct" amount to pay for that day of play. So 500m/30days converts to about 16.6m/day. That is to say to pay for that accounts play for that day they must generate 16.6m. There for, assuming 5hr as a desired model for hisec, An account mining in hisec "should" be making between 3-4m an hour. Seems very low but its really just an example. If you then put that analysis in perspective however, at 40m an hour missioning that same char can pay for 11 accounts with spare. That seems far far to high. Thus back to my point. If we can agree on some mid ground where the hours spent per day should be for a given activity it becomes easy to agree where that activity belongs in terms of risk reward. Additionally, if we want to say the debate is about subscription numbers for CCP it seems that it would be much wiser to make the availability of isk lower to force more players to either play more or pay more. CCP and the developers have all the tools to make rational adjustments to set the levels. Its really easy to do in fact by manipulating minerals needed (say as part of the tierocide) and adjustment of the minerals available in the given spots. Next adjust rat bounties and mission payouts to reflect the new desired level. More than anything CCP can make sure that the changes have an obvious rationale and end all the demagogues ranting back and forth about safety this and reward that. Make them then yell at each other about the core issues of greed. TL:DR In other words, if you earn 40M/Hour you'll be able to get a plex every 12,5 Hour.
Froggy Storm Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement 16	Posted - 2013.03.08 07:48:00 - [36] - Quote Need to correct a math error. @40m an hour your only able to support 2+ accounts. Still far too much for the safety factors contributed by hisec.
Fireflyb1 Walden 2.0 37	Posted - 2013.03.08 08:27:00 - [37] - Quote Sabriz Adoudel wrote: I'm working on trying to get James 315 (the Saviour of Hisec and founder of the New Order and www.minerbumping.com) to expand his scope and start dealing with the other carebear scourge - the 'EVE is a single-player game' mission carebear. Hoping to have more info to report on this in the future. Until then, if you want to mission safely in highsec in any hull too expensive for a very new player to fly (battlecruiser, battleship, HAC, strategic cruiser or similar), learn to D-scan. If you see eight Catalysts on D-scan, they are not there to say hello. Campaign launch to be announced. how many alts does this guy have, like seriously why do we even bother posting in these threads... I guess posting about nothing is better than what the OP provides this is just so bad so bad
culo duro EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective 39	Posted - 2013.03.08 09:02:00 - [38] - Quote Froggy Storm wrote: Need to correct a math error. @40m an hour you are only able to support 2+ accounts. Still far too much for the safety factors contributed by hisec. Well so what'd you say is it should be like? a BS cost roughly 100-200M if you buy a Mega navy issue you'll have to spend ~8 hours missioning or mining, to get the hull. 3,2 Hours of incursions. How would people ever get the capital to do anything if it should take longer?
Sabriz Adoudel Resurgent Threat 38	Posted - 2013.03.08 09:10:00 - [39] - Quote Fireflyb1 wrote: Sabriz Adoudel wrote: I'm working on trying to get James 315 (the Saviour of Hisec and founder of the New Order and www.minerbumping.com) to expand his scope and start dealing with the other carebear scourge - the 'EVE is a single-player game' mission carebear. Hoping to have more info to report on this in the future. Until then, if you want to mission safely in highsec in any hull too expensive for a very new player to fly (battlecruiser, battleship, HAC, strategic cruiser or similar), learn to D-scan. If you see eight Catalysts on D-scan, they are not there to say hello. Campaign launch to be announced. how many alts does this guy have, like seriously why do we even bother posting in these threads... I guess posting about nothing is better than what the OP provides this is just so bad so bad The OP happens to have precisely one alt, on the same account as this toon. On what I think the high/low/null balance should be with missions: High: Level 1/2/3 missions with present payouts. Level 4s with lower payouts. Level 5 with much lower payouts (as group content you can do to get a feel for fleet combat not as something you keep doing). Low: Level 1/2 missions as now. Level 3s with high payouts (150% of isk/hour of present highsec L4s). L4s with high payouts (200% of present 0.5 sec payouts). Some lowsec only missions with unique meta 6 to 13 drops. Null: Pretty balanced atm due to null not being all that dangerous. Wormholes: Not experienced enough to have much of an opinion.
Froggy Storm Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement 16	Posted - 2013.03.08 11:04:00 - [40] - Quote culo duro wrote: Froggy Storm wrote: Need to correct a math error. @40m an hour you are only able to support 2+ accounts. Still far too much for the safety factors contributed by hisec. Well so what'd you say is it should be like? a BS cost roughly 100-200M if you buy a Mega navy issue you'll have to spend ~8 hours missioning or mining, to get the hull. 3,2 Hours of incursions. How would people ever get the capital to do anything if it should take longer? For myself the question is not a function of how long but of where. Lets run for a moment with the 8hr to get a Nav-Mega. For easy math lets say another 2hr to T2 mission fit it. So 10hr of mission running over a week would buy a T2 mission fit Navy Mega. If that is to be the case then the expectation should be reasonable that the Navy Megathron should NEED to be replaced every week for the average case. Now granted a zero sum case like this is unrealistic but it high lights the systemic flaw. In Hisec that Mega is at (virtually) no risk now even without a safer hisec. So then each mission runner in this case is inflating the space money pool by that mega every week. This money then goes to supporting the 2 accounts as mentioned before. That second account which can then make enough isk to support 2 more. With competence thats 3 hulks and the orca to go with it. And so on to the extreme cases of the all automated belt clearing bot fleets o If that was then moved to lowsec or some means of making that mega explode on a weekly basis I dont find that to be unreasonable. Particularly if the player sitting watching his mega has good odds of identifying the threat and escaping destruction. D-scan, Intel, scouts and things like that greatly improve survival and encourage group play as well.
Mike Adoulin Trans-Aerospace Industries 189	Posted - 2013.03.08 14:22:00 - [41] - Quote Sabriz Adoudel wrote: Mike Adoulin wrote: Me and the corpies routinely farm..er..run..L4's as a team......much more money/loots to had when you have a buddy or 2 along. Safer, too..:) If by safer you mean 'the number of Catalyst pilots required for a successful carebear disruption operation is higher' then yes, it is safer. Tsk. You act if we all run the mission together...... Two words...... 'Bait ship'.
Bjron 501st Amarr 99	Posted - 2013.03.08 20:02:00 - [42] - Quote This is silly, instead of pissing on highsec, why not make low and null better? If you take the things I like to do away, or make them much more of a pain for me to do then I can take my two subs away. I paid RL money for my subs and I buy plex to sell. As it is, I only play maybe 1 month out of every 3 I pay for. I still enjoy the game though. I simply think making low and null better and leaving high sec alone is the way to go, upsetting the majority of your player base is not a wise idea. We all know moving level 5's to low did jack all for low sec. Faction warfare is bringing parts of low alive, because it worth doing and is fun. Add more of that is the answer, not taking away. Oh well.
Wescro Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 325	Posted - 2013.03.08 20:11:00 - [43] - Quote Bjron, incomes are relativistic. If you give null more income, their share of the wealth increases, and high sec residents become poorer in relation. I wouldn't mind keeping the level of income in high sec the same, if the underlying safety was reduced a notch. Conversely, if the excessive safety is maintained, then the income has to be lowered. When 80% or so of the population favors high-sec, it's in part because the risk-reward is not in balance. Ripard Teg on comparing gankers to *****/slave-owners/rapists: "If that's what it takes to get people to read a topic...It's not about traffic to my site...you're putting words in my mouth." 23:57 into the interview.
Sabriz Adoudel Resurgent Threat 38	Posted - 2013.03.08 22:56:00 - [44] - Quote Wescro wrote: Bjron, incomes are relativistic. If you give null more income, their share of the wealth increases, and high sec residents become poorer in relation. I wouldn't mind keeping the level of income in high sec the same, if the underlying safety was reduced a notch. Conversely, if the excessive safety is maintained, then the income has to be lowered. When 80% or so of the population favors high-sec, it's in part because the risk-reward is not in balance. This. The only activity that is higher absolute reward in lowsec than high is exploration. Mining - the highsec ores are worth more than lowsec ones. (Nullsec ones are a bit more than either). Missions - in lowsec you can't really use a blinged fit and your ship needs counttermeasures to various tacklers fit, reducing your compleetion speed. Plus in lowsec you get less for item drops other than a handful (meta 4 scrams, some plates, etc) Incursions - again, much faster in faction fit t2/t3 hulls than in expendable t2 fit t1 hulls Ratting - not lucrative in high or lowsec.
Zappity Kurved Space 7	Posted - 2013.03.09 00:24:00 - [45] - Quote Redesign missions so they are optimally run in PvP-fit ships with more PvP-like tactics. Then increase the value of lowsec missions relative to high. And if not, then redesign missions anyway. Seriously, they are really bad. Hooray, I'm l33t! -á(Kil2: "The higher their ship losses...the better they're going to be.")
Sabriz Adoudel Resurgent Threat 38	Posted - 2013.03.09 00:27:00 - [46] - Quote Zappity wrote: Redesign missions so they are optimally run in PvP-fit ships with more PvP-like tactics. Then increase the value of lowsec missions relative to high. And if not, then redesign missions anyway. Seriously, they are really bad. This would be interesting. Removing respawns, reducing numbers of NPC ships and buffing them and having it be a 'One player versus a small gang' feel would be worth a try, IMO.
Froggy Storm Paxton Industries Gentlemen's Agreement 16	Posted - 2013.03.09 05:37:00 - [47] - Quote Sabriz Adoudel wrote: Zappity wrote: Redesign missions so they are optimally run in PvP-fit ships with more PvP-like tactics. Then increase the value of lowsec missions relative to high. And if not, then redesign missions anyway. Seriously, they are really bad. This would be interesting. Removing respawns, reducing numbers of NPC ships and buffing them and having it be a 'One player versus a small gang' feel would be worth a try, IMO. I would like that as well. It might or might not address the safety issues, but missions are so terrible any imprisonment would be welcome.
Taoist Dragon Bastion of Mad Behaviour 289	Posted - 2013.03.09 06:18:00 - [48] - Quote Reward for work is backwards in High v Low sec. Lets think about it: High Sec space. I secured, Well populated and developed. So seeing as it is well developed then wouldn't it stand that the most usefull minerals have be mine out pretty much? After all you don't see many large mines being built in the center of a capital city do you? Mission agents wouldn't pay a premium for your services as there are plenty pilots out there who will work for less. Low Sec space. Less secure but still fairly safe to travel if you have a pit of experiance/practice (just like the outback). Here you find the nice big mines that you can extract all the good minerals that the industry types are wanting. Agents out here would pay a premium to get you to come and hunt that local band of pirate nps etc. Using this very simplified example you can see the backasswards way the risk v reward ratio is applied. Fixes.......??? IMO remove all but the basic minerals (Veld? - dunno I never mine) from high sec and move it to low. Reduce the rewards for missions based on the security level of the system they are in. The higher the sec of the system the lower the reward with a decent jump from 0.5 to 0.4 showing the difference from high to low. Even this doesn't have to happen as a lot of agents in 0.5 systems bordering LS send players into LS for the mission so could possibly balance itself out there. vOv my 2 isk. That is the Way, the Tao. Balance is everything.

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

Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,58s, ref 20250922/1058
EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP.

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.