Aside from the fact that the way EVE is put together, the whole Gǣdo your own thingGǥ doesn't really existGǪ nothing. The problem with missions is that their effort:reward is out of whack.

It's a single economy. Any given activity spewing out ISK at an unreasonable rate is problematic.

Close, but not quite. I'd say that the problem is that people treat L4s as if it's the end level, and that the missions themselves have such high income caps that it helps with this illusion. The entire system needs to be disabused of this incorrect notion.

Ideally, that cap should be set lower so that once you've gathered up that pimp mission ship, L4s no longer offer any improvement GÇö you're banging against ceiling and need to move on to something more lucrative that's better suited for the level of skill and equipment you've amassed. Yes, the casual player might never reach that ceiling, but that's fine too, and rather shows that it wouldn't really be a bad thing.

That progression needs more fixes than that. The lower-end could certainly use a bump in income; more difficulty needs to be introduced earlier; the jumps in both income and opposition need to be smoothed out; a natural Gǣit's time to move onGǪGǥ endpoint needs to be added to all of them.

HmmGǪ could work. The question is how. Also, with less LP being handed out, the LP store goods would go up in value and this would somewhat counteract such a change.

Maybe if there was some kind of ramp-up for both LP and ISK payouts? The missions are already scored by how long they take on average, but what if some immediate reward-for-time balancing as well, such as the LP and ISK rewards not being fixed, but rather what they max out at, and then they constantly increase at [magically determined rate] per minute while the mission is active. So if a mission gives 4k LP + 4M ISK, it takes 10 minutes of ramp-up before that maximum is reached; if it's 8k + 8M, it takes 20 minutes to max it out. Come home too soon, and you get proportionally lower (semi-)fixed rewards.

Which give us further evidence that high sec bears are not "just scraping by" but are infact, earning enough isk to splash out on some very expensive toys.

I have a screenshot somewhere... ah, here it is. made this in an hour of level 4s. even caught a suspect!

From an economical health perspective, blitzing is actually better since it faucets less ISK and sinks moreGǪ

Ganking is riskless

And your post is A way to miss the point. Who said anything about killing?

I'm talking about balance. In other pve areas (incursions, null sec anomalies and FW though it wasn't an isk faucet per se etc) there have been balance measures taken because too much isk was being injected into the economy. This dispite the fact that ships do frequently die while players are engaging that content.

Yet Missions are allowed to continue to collectively spew isk into the system with no counterbalancing consumption save ammo (and not even mocu of that if the mission runner runs missions in amarr space and uses laser boats)and the the early cost to noob mission runners of replacing condors and rifters (lol).

That's an imbalance (as seen here) and while some growth is good, a extra Trillion a day because EVE doesn't have enough isk sinks isn't all that great in the long run. Missions are a part of this imbalance.

Isk sinks (losing ships for example) balance out isk faucets. and promote a healthy circulation of currency, keeping the universe in balance. Levels 4's are pretty easy to grind at nearly 0 risk making them a dangerous faucet to leave as is.

I can pull 60m/hr on bounties with a good mission spread.

That is an outlier though.

I honestly CBA to sit in a thread about missions arguing about insurance. Sure, it's still a faucet of sorts, but at the end of the day though it balances out. Material goes out of the system and 70% of the hulls material cost comes back as insurance. rigs and destroyed mods are not covered. It's more like an NPC buy order where the NPC is buying your ships for a crappy price than an ISK printer like mission income and bounties.

Unless you go lengthy periods between losing ships and/or have many ships insured. Then it does become a sink.

But only a small one.

Sure, but for that to happen everyone will have to habitually insure their ships and then never lose them. Human nature ensures that if the latter happen, then neither does the first. As it is, insurance payouts have been firmly planted at a 2:1 ratio against the insurance costs for the last four years.

Of course you can't because any review of the things I linked will demonstrate that what I'm saying is true: EVe has too many faucets, not enough sinks and missions are a big huge slice of that because there are so many mission runners. The game would benefit from more risk in pve (namely missions but also other content like anomalies and complexes) because as it is now pve doesn't kill big ships very often and big ships (stuff with material produced in game as they are) blowing up if good for everyone.

Better yet Jenn don't bother disproving what I said. I realize now you are absolutely the most idiotic person to ever post in the EVE forums. Who in their right mind would make a claim with zero tangible evidence and then demand others to disprove the assertion as a base for it being true. OMG. The absolute idiocy of that statement is so mind numbing I've got to leave the thread.

LOL you notice everything I've stated in this thread hasn't been disputed right? It's because those that could seriously attempt to know my position is unassailable and those that would lack the skill to do so.

You do? How do you know that? Are you an internet telepath? If so, that's a pretty nifty trick.

Go on - read my mind! What color am I thinking of?

#1 Nullsec ratting generates more income than it destroys. That's a fact. Its a stupid fact but if you consider those types of statements worthwhile and relevant, have at it.

#2 Money being generated out of thin air does not destroy the economy. If that's the case EVE's economy would not be in existence for soon as the first isk was generated it would have collapsed into the void. It didn't. And alas it wont with the next trillion.

#3 Same as # 2.

#4 Talk of inflation and such is what the rich tell the poor when they want to stop the poor from procuring currency from anyone else but the rich. As an example. If im a billionaire and want you to work for peanuts would it be in my best interest to allow the government to print more money for you to earn doing some task that doesn't benefit me? Of course not. That ideology is from the 1% wanting the 99% to fight over the share they (the 1%) have. Its also strictly a fiat currency issue which EVE has and why this tripe of an argument and rationale hold up so well to anyone who doesn't really understand what fiat currency is and how it works.

#5 Many trillions of ISK are for all intents and purposes out of the economy. People save money. They do not spend down to their last, usually. Therefore only a fraction of the ISK collected is in use in the open market and the rest is locked away. Out of circulation.

Anoms are our variation of missions in sov null.

What is the point in owning and defending an empire in null if the best option is to make our isk outside of it in high sec? This is the problem, high sec offers too much for little effort or risk.

There was a time people did them in blap titans.

I think some russians still run them in supers, I know of one RA Nyx that got blown up in one when his bot went wrong last year.

With todays patch I would expect to see a lot of ishtars.

Glad to see we agree that highsec is completely safe. Continue to live in your echo chamber where you only want to hear opinions in-line with your own and stubbornly ignore facts eloquently provided to you while viciously spewing venom at dissenting opinions or non-supportive facts.

Wrong, most null alliances are dec'd 7 months out of the year.

And having blues does nothing to stop cyno range. For example, from Serpentis Prime I can blops portal to nearly all of Fountain, including all of the good true sec systems.

And that is NPC space there is nothing we can do about the locals there.

Can you please provide evidence an "imbalance" exists?

And while you're doing that define precisely what you mean by "imbalance".

I've yet to see a good argument why the reward from missions shouldn't be skewed towards newbees either by nerfing L4 rewards and increasing L1/2/3.

Yeah I pointed out a bunch of reasons why highsec was safe and provided proof. All the pro-highsec crowd has done is shout "my subscription fee!" The pro-highsec crowd hasn't even produced a single argument in favor of leaving EVE as a less good game in order to preserve their subscriptions.

So the question you are asking is, how, I leave how in CCP's hands. The answer is making L1/2/3 better and L4 worse. It requires a complex solution since adjusting LP/isk isn't going to do it. I didn't expect this thread to actually get to working on how so I'll have to hash something out.

The very same newbies that are mining in hulks and being kept safe by npc corps

~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~

And eve online as well.

many bad people in eve online

In this Utopia you describe do they have bar brawls?

Are they elite pvpers that use brawling fits

Nah. You're just someone who wouldn't really be affected by L4 missions having their high end adjusted to create a more sensible activity progression. Or maybe you're just sane enough not to spend 38 hours a month running missionsGǪ

To get back on topic, i.e. that level 3's don't pay enough compared to 4s.

Just ran a hour's worth of level 3s, and ...... oh my. At 700 isk/lp conversion, I averaged ~30 million isk in generated assets (42% LP, 16% bounties, 36% rewards, no salvage, no loot.) At 2,000 isk/lp, that's ~50 million isk in generated assets.

Travel time is a real killer. 1h08m total breaking down into 27m travel time and 41m of actual mission time. 12 missions.

This was a casual mix of blitzing and killing everything using a sentry Ishtar. Low-sec and faction missions were declined, i.e. multiple declines per 4 hour block by relying on faction standings.

So if you're a l33t carebear mission runner, i.e. you can convert LP and cherry pick missions, then level 3s are probably competitive with level 4s. Obviously, small sample size and all, but still, if you can find a couple of level 3 agents in the same station and cut down on the travel time...

[Ishtar, Level 3 runner]
Damage Control II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Drone Damage Amplifier II

Omnidirectional Tracking Link II
Omnidirectional Tracking Link II
Pithi B-Type Small Shield Booster
Adaptive Invulnerability Field II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I

200mm AutoCannon II, EMP S
200mm AutoCannon II, EMP S
200mm AutoCannon II, EMP S
200mm AutoCannon II, EMP S

Medium Drone Scope Chip I
Medium Drone Scope Chip I

Garde II x5
Hobgoblin II x10
Garde II x2
Ogre II x5
Ogre II x1

Just make a bunch of things from the LP store cost isk, which will make life painful

Not surprising that someone who has a problem with the truth also can't understand what you meant baltec. Funnily enough, I did, without you needing to clarify.

Concords deterrent factor is directly related to the value of the ship your flying. And in high sec where your alliance doesn't control space as many as 2000 non allied people can be in your system. 0-1999 could theoretically be planning your demise. You either stay docked up or play with the risk.

In nullsec avoiding the danger is as simple as checking local. If a target is there that isn't allied you can dock/safe up and avoid the risk. Awoxing doesn't need be considered as that can happen in highsec as well.

Liar, you want highsec to be buffed so we all have to move to highsec. You want to force us into highsec because you want to force us into highsec.


~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~

You can't see it coming like you can in nullsec. Im not going to write out a thesis.

Load up a 5 billion or so ship in jita and park it at a gate. Detect whos coming to kill you.

Load up a 5 billion isk ship in nullsec. Go park at a gate. Detect who coming to kill you.

I've already elaborated the difference, if you want to reduce to absurdity what i've stated do so. It's the interwebs.

Is sitting in a 20 million isk cruiser in null sec more risky than sitting in a 5 billion isk battleship through high sec? IDK, you tell me.

Risk is not an absolute.

The more expensive ship you fly the less likely Concord will act as a deterrent for you being killed. You understood what I said just fine.

Which proves what point exactly? That suicide ganking is pointless to do on newbie and slightly better than newbie ships? Wellokay. If that needed stating so be it. You could also say that it becomes cheaper to kill those ships at the same time right? Obvious point is obvious.

In my opnion, security of system doesn't determine level of risk, only the ruleset. The value of the ship you're flying in relation to the wealth you have determines the level of risk.

Could it be that they don't need to? Perhaps one can make the same level of ISK in null with a markedly less valuable ship? Perhaps the ruleset of null prevents it from producing many wealthy individuals as opposed to highsec that distributes the wealth more easily to all. Could it be that nullsec alliance leaders have mastered the gank but not the infrastructure aspect of running a sovereign section of space?

You don't really believe people are earning pimpmobile money doing level 4s do you? Most are utilizing high sec markets and plex sales. I'll concede I can't verify this but I think its fairly accurate.

Fun thought. If you nerf hisec missioners income what do you think will happen to the value of those wonderful mods that sell for so much in highsec to the pimps?

Oh so we're back to "if I don't get my way I will quit/if ccp nerfs highsec everyone will quit." I call your terrible argument and raise you a "a good product sells itself and the free advertising from the unique events that happen in said good product will more than make up for the minority of hysterical morons who leave."

GǪbut neither supply nor demand would change, so they'd intersect the same as before. As they've been so fond of pointing out, such a reduction wouldn't actually affect their buying power.