|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Dave Stark
4536
   |
Posted - 2014.03.22 08:50:00 -
[1] - Quote
is there basically 28 pages of "it's unfair that meta module refining is getting nerfed yet again after being handed the glory that is MTUs"? |
Dave Stark
4536
|
Posted - 2014.03.22 09:26:00 -
[2] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave Stark wrote:is there basically 28 pages of "it's unfair that meta module refining is getting nerfed yet again after being handed the glory that is MTUs"? More or less.
i might have to go back and read it all, i bet the tears are pure and delicious. |
Dave Stark
4538
|
Posted - 2014.03.22 11:55:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tear Jar wrote:Seraph Essael wrote:To be fair, there's a mission runner in my corp who loots and refines his mission loot... He actually gets more from that per hour that a dedicated miner friend of his...
So yeah, this is a buff to mining and refining not a foot up the mission runners arses.
Link to devblog please... Stupid search function gone kaput on me damn phone... Mission runners should get more per hour than miners, as mission running is a lot more work than mining.
hahahahahahah. no.
they're exactly the same. ctrl+click, f1. repeat until you realise you're wasting your life. |
Dave stark
4538
|
Posted - 2014.03.22 12:42:00 -
[4] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Tippia, repeating your fallacies and stonewalling may work on your bf and idiots, but not on me.
you say that, but you were the guy a few days ago telling me it took big fleets of mining ships hours to empty an ice anom in high sec, then got rather upset when i proved you wrong with some basic mathematics that most school children can do.
not that i'm trying to suggest that you may be wrong again. |
Dave Stark
4538
|
Posted - 2014.03.22 12:53:00 -
[5] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
you say that, but you were the guy a few days ago telling me it took big fleets of mining ships hours to empty an ice anom in high sec, then got rather upset when i proved you wrong with some basic mathematics that most school children can do.
not that i'm trying to suggest that you may be wrong again.
You are dissembling. I said the belts I frequent in high sec take hours to deplete. Which is true, owing to a lower amount of multiboxers than in more populated areas. Nor did I "get upset". Rather it was you yelling "LIAR" and expressing your emotional discontent, as being upset. Only thing I was wrong about that you corrected me on, was the rate of mining on Mackinaws, and I reciprocally admitted and accepted that, as well as correcting my subsequent calculations on them.
you must be mistaking me for some one else; we weren't discussing belts. we were discussing ice anomalies. |
Dave Stark
4547
|
Posted - 2014.03.23 06:36:00 -
[6] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:
Never said you were a goon, and you don't need to live in nullsec to be a nullsec apologist. There is no reason for passive income to exist on the level it does (and mining is not passive sorry). Supporting making income while off line and not playing is quite comical.
So you are against PI then.
Please tell me you've tried setting up PI.
for how much of an absolute pain in the arse it is to set up a planet, it better damn well be as passive as it is. |
Dave Stark
4547
|
Posted - 2014.03.23 06:47:00 -
[7] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave Stark wrote:
Please tell me you've tried setting up PI.
for how much of an absolute pain in the arse it is to set up a planet, it better damn well be as passive as it is.
Never fancied it. I like passively building ships and researching my BPOs. My spreadsheets are getting rather big and complicated now.
can't say i blame you. setting up planets is easily one of the most tedious and frustrating things to do in eve. although once you've endured it the upkeep of a planet is very minimal.
although if you're doing extraction, you don't really need any spreadsheets. |
Dave Stark
4548
|
Posted - 2014.03.23 09:50:00 -
[8] - Quote
Kyperion wrote:baltec1 wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:
Never said you were a goon, and you don't need to live in nullsec to be a nullsec apologist. There is no reason for passive income to exist on the level it does (and mining is not passive sorry). Supporting making income while off line and not playing is quite comical.
So are you against PI then ? The people to whom you should propose that questions are James 315 and his New Order folks.
the difference is, mining isn't an activity designed to be done while walking the dog or doing your grocery shopping. PI is. |
Dave Stark
4549
|
Posted - 2014.03.23 17:29:00 -
[9] - Quote
fun fact; extra minerals mean nothing when all of the production slots are full. |
Dave Stark
5015
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 06:03:00 -
[10] - Quote
I Accidentally YourShip wrote:Hasikan Miallok wrote:Rhes wrote:Judas Isu wrote:I don't think it should come as a shock to anyone. When the nerf bat swings it generally hits the mission runners first. That's fine. Level 4 missions provide way too much income for how little risk there is in running them. There is zero risk in any PvE activity that is done correctly. There is no such thing as a 100% PvE activity involving a ship in space in eve. The heroes we know as suicide gankers, awoxers and others of noble pursuits provide that small, non-zero risk. Riskier than a PL hotdrop in low.
yeah but the activity itself provides 0 risk, it's the bits of the game that aren't the mission you're running that provide any risk.
so they're correct when they say that missions involve no risk. |
|
|
Dave Stark
5021
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 08:04:00 -
[11] - Quote
arabella blood wrote:So what are those bits? By that logic pvp is also 0 risk...its the bits of the game that aren't pvp that provide any risk.
You can not seperate the activity from its surroundings.
And you forgot the chance to die from the rats.
everything that isn't a level 4 mission, as i said. is reading hard?
no, calling pvp and l4 missions the same thing is the most ******** thing i've heard all day.
also there is no chance to die from rats with a properly fit ship, that's the point. |
Dave Stark
5021
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 08:05:00 -
[12] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:So they correct when they say that travelling in 0.0 is 100% safe?
sure
but jumping gate to gate has 0 reward, unlike missions. |
Dave Stark
5021
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 08:13:00 -
[13] - Quote
oh by the way guys, when making comparisons can we make sure they're valid before we start hitting post? it's appreciated. |
Dave Stark
5021
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 08:26:00 -
[14] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Hopefully, thereafter, once that is out of the way, proper attention can be applied to fixing Null risks to match those rewards.
the risk is already there, that's why the reward is being adjusted. |
Dave Stark
5026
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 10:13:00 -
[15] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Dave Stark wrote:March rabbit wrote:So they correct when they say that travelling in 0.0 is 100% safe? sure, wildly out of context comment is wildly out of context but i'll say yes anyway because why not. but jumping gate to gate has 0 reward, unlike missions. ok. let's talk about anomalies and escalations. I'm i right that 'done properly 0.0 sec anomalies and escalations present no risk'? Does it mean that they should not be rewarded better than high-sec lvl1 missions?
let's just get it out the way before you spew more idiotic posts.
solo pve activities in eve present 0 risk. the risk comes from them being in eve and exactly 0% of any risk in eve comes from a pve activity.
in eve, pve activities have been that heavily documented that there are 0 unknown variables and therefore 0 risk will be present if you have at least one brain cell.
there's a difference between "the activity has 0 risk" and "doing the activity has 0 risk". learn that difference before you post again. |
Dave Stark
5026
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 10:42:00 -
[16] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:And now the next question: how would you balance ISK reward (completely computable) with player driven risk (unpredictable)?
easily.
let's go for missions as the obvious starting point.
take a base payout for your missions, adjust it depending on what level missions (so obviously, level 4s pay more than 3s which pay more than 2s etc). for other activities instead of the nice neat "this is a level x mission" simply scale the rewards based on barriers to entry, in the same way incursion hq sites pay out more than assaults or vanguards because you've got to organise more players or whatever the specifics are irrelevant.
then adjust the payouts based on the level of security [which is a perfectly adequate variable to use as a judge of how 'risky' something should be]
this way we end up with a nice system where level 4s in low or null pay more than the same level 4s in high sec.
generally the level of difficulty of pve activities in eve is uniform, and that uniform is "hit f1 every so often" it's a terrible way to award payouts. the payouts should be based on the barriers to entry and the part of space you're sent to.
you're never going to have good risk/reward when you reward different amounts because a mission says "level 4" rather than "level 2" when they both involve mindlessly pressing f1 for a few mins until it says "mission complete".
|
Dave Stark
5026
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 12:20:00 -
[17] - Quote
wrote:Jenn aSide I don't see why you think you are an authority on any of it.
probably because if you spend a weekend doing missions the chance you'll have seen every possible mission (multiple times) is practically 1. |
Dave Stark
5039
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 15:02:00 -
[18] - Quote
the average mission runner is probably doing his weekly shopping while his bot program finishes rescuing the damsel.
or am i just being cynical? |
Dave Stark
5248
|
Posted - 2014.05.04 19:37:00 -
[19] - Quote
Ramona McCandless wrote:Pestilen Ratte wrote:The attraction of any game lies in discovering the complex methods of solving problems.
And picking on the weak, for the mentally disturbed. First point +10 Second point -100 Confirmed, wolves lions and sharks are "mentally disturbed" As are military strategists
TIL, only the mentally disturbed take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves. |
Dave Stark
5469
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 06:18:00 -
[20] - Quote
Cipher Jones wrote:In the 5 years I've played, inflation well is over 100%.
source? |
|
|
Dave Stark
5469
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 06:30:00 -
[21] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Cipher Jones wrote:In the 5 years I've played, inflation well is over 100%. source? When I started flying megathrons they cost 80 mil for the hull... The extra mineral costs dont make up the bulk of the extra cost. I can belive that inflation is resposible for 70-80% of the added cost.
and when you started flying megathrons the game was probably also flooded with drone alloys.
edit: look at robotics, between the start of 2011 and now, it has had peaks and troughs but generally hasn't exhibited an upwards trend that you could associate with inflation.
it's easy to scream "oh noes inflation" when you cite things that have had their supply/demand constantly ****** with the past few years. |
Dave Stark
5472
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 06:51:00 -
[22] - Quote
Cipher Jones wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Cipher Jones wrote:In the 5 years I've played, inflation well is over 100%. source? Market, PLEX as gold standard.
supply and demand =/= inflation. |
Dave Stark
5472
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 07:31:00 -
[23] - Quote
Cipher Jones wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Cipher Jones wrote:Dave Stark wrote:Cipher Jones wrote:In the 5 years I've played, inflation well is over 100%. source? Market, PLEX as gold standard. supply and demand =/= inflation. also, i just cited the market as proof that there is no inflation. so unless you've got more evidence than "market" i'm going to have to conclude that you agree with me, there is no inflation. also this graph shows that the only time an index goes up or down is when there's a change to the game, otherwise the price indexes are pretty stationary. You can candy coat it anyway you want, inflation is up and subs are down. Your chart is nice but fails to illustrate the trillions of ISK tied up in things that don't come from production or minerals.
i haven't candy coated anything, i just flat out proved you wrong.
you've yet to provide a source for inflation.
also, source for subs being down?
if you're going to make absurd claims, you're going to have to back them up with something. |
Dave Stark
5473
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 08:25:00 -
[24] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Oh, here we go....because a 48% percent drop in players voting is ridiculous to pawn off on CSM disillusionment exclusively.
If I am wrong, CCP can make me look like a fool, and publish the sub numbers from today and 12 months ago.
no it isn't, especially when the csm notes were both late, and intentionally useless. couple that with ccp's recent addiction to posting every change in an F&I sticky, effectively bypassing the CSM... easy to see why nobody gives a **** about them. |
Dave Stark
5483
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 15:30:00 -
[25] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:CCP could prove me wrong in an instant, simply by releasing the numbers....
wouldn't be surprised if they intentionally didn't release it just to watch you spit more feathers on the forums. |
Dave Stark
5487
|
Posted - 2014.05.10 15:57:00 -
[26] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:I have not bothered to check CCP's fiscal cycles,
can't let good ol' fashion facts get in the way of your doomsaying now can we? |
Dave Stark
5506
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 10:11:00 -
[27] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Malcanis wrote:So I don't know if anyone noticed but hi-sec mission runners just got a nice boost announced at fanfest.
i actually missed it what was it
the ability to save 700m+ per month as you don't need to keep your noctis alt's account active. |
|
|
| |
|