Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
703
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 11:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
As promised some numbers for C1 to C4 wormholes. I'm semi limiting info as I don't want it to turn in to a slap fight of "ooh you can earn more if you do this or its optimal to do it this way" you want to do that fine run your own tests send me the numbers.
For C1 to C3 I used a tengu with 3 faction damage mods and max skills. C4 was done with a paladin with 3 faction damage mods and max skills.
I did this on my own to get the times, potentially running in a group is better and I have done that for C1 to C4 although I've not got the go ahead to release that.
Each site was run 10 times to give a average of nano ribbons and there is 2 numbers per site. the first is teh average off all 10 sites the second I ignored the lowest and highest 2 nano ribbon drops then took a average of the middle 6 numbers (to try and remove some of the spikeiness of randon drops.
sites were ran and travel time included along with time taken to salvage (max salvager skills used).
This was a pure run sites as fast as possible done on sisi in a no effects system.
Things not taken in to account.
scanning the wormhole. Scouting. Checking static. Time taken to haul stuff out to sell.
These factors will potentially add up to lower the income alot espeically if you take in to acount alt scouts, running sites in the statics etc. So numbers need to be taken with a pinch of salt.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1hvNEjGFjPPGEXeOqSS4O_Zm9BokSu0bz6DnhD5KDisk/edit?usp=sharing
Several things of note.
C1 site perimeter camp I got a crazy amount of nanos which is why the isk from that site is so high (double the other sites) I really need to rerun this site 10 times when I get time. That one site pulls C1 space up above C2 space. without that site C1 and C2 is basically same income.
I only did each site 10 times, chatting to our maths god in NoHo he thinks i should do them 100 times atleast to get a significant sample size which aint going to happen. So keep in mind my sample size is low which may affect things.
The percentage income from nano ribbons is also listed so you get a idea of how much that will affect sites.
Yes you can potentially make more but this was on my own.
I'd like to give a huge thanks to people who helped me collect this info as it really help speed things up. This combined with the testing in small groups (up to 3 people) took close to 300 hours. I was up at 4 in the morning doing the last bit of maths for C4 sites the day I left for Iceland. So it would be ready for the summit.
As said if people want to argue I'll happily listen as long as they have the proof to back it up.
Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Jezza McWaffle
Pandora Sphere Disavowed.
149
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 11:42:00 -
[2] - Quote
Interesting results, im surprised C4 income isn't that much higher than C3, the current state of C2 space looks depressing given the massive difference between it and C3 space and C1 income being higher. Did you experiment what the lowest form of ship could run each site? C6 Wormhole blog http://holelotofwaffle.wordpress.com/ |
Moloney
Faceless Men
164
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 11:46:00 -
[3] - Quote
Thanks corbexx for the effort.
The only problem is that the data is useless.
1. You have been paid nothing in the time interval you tested. I.e. you can still be ganked on the way to market. 2. You did this in a vacuum. (Sisi, no chance of being ganked) 3. Most corporations in a c4 do not run a single character so any payment will be split 2 or more ways |
Ruffio Sepico
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
32
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 11:46:00 -
[4] - Quote
corbexx wrote:As promised some numbers for C1 to C4 wormholes. I'm semi limiting info as I don't want it to turn in to a slap fight of "ooh you can earn more if you do this or its optimal to do it this way" you want to do that fine run your own tests send me the numbers.
For C1 to C3 I used a tengu with 3 faction damage mods and max skills. C4 was done with a paladin with 3 faction damage mods and max skills.
The quality of ship and level of skills differ a lot and will have a great inpact on how fast things are run as well though.
|
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
703
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 11:54:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jezza McWaffle wrote:Interesting results, im surprised C4 income isn't that much higher than C3, the current state of C2 space looks depressing given the massive difference between it and C3 space and C1 income being higher. Did you experiment what the lowest form of ship could run each site?
The c4 to c3 isk comparison is greater if you cheery pick which sites you do. which people will almost certainly do if they are running sites in there static.
I didn't experiment with lowest ship. for a couple reasons mainly the fact that i had to have devs move me and ships around on sisi which can take awhile. So didn't want to bother them as much. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
703
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 11:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
Moloney wrote:Thanks corbexx for the effort.
The only problem is that the data is useless.
1. You have been paid nothing in the time interval you tested. I.e. you can still be ganked on the way to market. 2. You did this in a vacuum. (Sisi, no chance of being ganked) 3. Most corporations in a c4 do not run a single character so any payment will be split 2 or more ways 4. Applies mostly after Hyperion... 10 sites would have to spawn in the first place....
Its hardly useless its just a theoretical amount a single person can make. is only so many factors i can take in to account and getting ganked is sure as hell one I can't factor in reliably.
however if you want to make a more useful one please run your stuff and let me know what figures you get i'll happily pass it all on for you. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Alice Johansen
Atztech Inc. Ixtab.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 11:58:00 -
[7] - Quote
Considering that the number of sites in a system is limited I think it would be nice if you would add the ISK per site to that table.
Regarding accuracy: Shouldn't CCP be able to give you exact numbers for the chance of loot drops for each ship? That way you could calculate exactly how much ISK a site will return on average. |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
703
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 12:01:00 -
[8] - Quote
Ruffio Sepico wrote:corbexx wrote:As promised some numbers for C1 to C4 wormholes. I'm semi limiting info as I don't want it to turn in to a slap fight of "ooh you can earn more if you do this or its optimal to do it this way" you want to do that fine run your own tests send me the numbers.
For C1 to C3 I used a tengu with 3 faction damage mods and max skills. C4 was done with a paladin with 3 faction damage mods and max skills. The quality of ship and level of skills differ a lot and will have a great inpact on how fast things are run as well though.
Aye most definetly. these numbers are probably on the high side a newbie in a drake with skills at 4 will probably take twice as long as a max skilled tengu with 3 facton bcu's, maybe if i get time I'll run some of these in a drake or something with no faction mods to give a comparison. But that will have to wait till after I've done the pos research and summit minutes, so wont be soon if i even get around to it. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Moloney
Faceless Men
164
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 12:05:00 -
[9] - Quote
corbexx wrote:Moloney wrote:Thanks corbexx for the effort.
The only problem is that the data is useless.
1. You have been paid nothing in the time interval you tested. I.e. you can still be ganked on the way to market. 2. You did this in a vacuum. (Sisi, no chance of being ganked) 3. Most corporations in a c4 do not run a single character so any payment will be split 2 or more ways 4. Applies mostly after Hyperion... 10 sites would have to spawn in the first place.... Its hardly useless its just a theoretical amount a single person can make. is only so many factors i can take in to account and getting ganked is sure as hell one I can't factor in reliably. however if you want to make a more useful one please run your stuff and let me know what figures you get i'll happily pass it all on for you.
No insult intended, as stated, thank you for the time and effort. The problem is that miss information is worse than no information.
The sample and test case does not come close to realty. Sorry.
|
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
703
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 12:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
Alice Johansen wrote:Considering that the number of sites in a system is limited I think it would be nice if you would add the ISK per site to that table.
Regarding accuracy: Shouldn't CCP be able to give you exact numbers for the chance of loot drops for each ship? That way you could calculate exactly how much ISK a site will return on average.
I have isk per site on the other spread sheet but its dependant alot on average nano drop. One of the reasons I did a simplified sheet for general, is that if I incude isk per site you can work out how long it took and then you get more "ooh you are running sites to fast" or "I can run sites much faster"
Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1227
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 12:26:00 -
[11] - Quote
Thank you for all of your efforts, sure the other variables will reduce income greatly, but they are consistent across the whole range of lower class wormholes, so your findings are the Best case scenario, and CCP will need to take into account that they are probably 3 to 4 times higher than will actually be earned by players. (Security, scouting,shipping, selling etc all take time)
This clearly shows that income in low class wormholes for sleeper killing PVE is inferior to many activities in "safe" known space.
Finally some hard baselines for CCP to boost from.
Once again, thank you. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE |
Alice Johansen
Atztech Inc. Ixtab.
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 12:41:00 -
[12] - Quote
Moloney wrote:The only problem is that the data is useless. It's not useless. Obviously those numbers aren't super accurate, but it's something that you can show to CCP and tell them "look, that's what I could earn in a best case scenario and still those numbers appear to be way too low".
For doing the actual rebalancing I'm sure CCP will be able to come up with more accurate numbers based on their own data. |
Jez Amatin
Enso Corp
25
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 12:46:00 -
[13] - Quote
Thanks for your hard work Corbexx, much appreciated.
I would like future PVE changes to consider the impact of running solo vs in groups (in lower classes). I assume most people end up running solo as it is more profitable, but this runs against the idea of promoting group play in wormholes which IMO is a key driver in encouraging corporation growth & number of ppl out in wspace (aka content). Personally, i'd like C4 (and poss C3) to have some sites that are viable to run as a group without heavily penalising your income. Obviously there needs to be a balance between solo and group play, but it currently feels like a big divide between C1-C4 (solo) and C5-C6 (group).
|
Aiyshimin
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
72
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 12:47:00 -
[14] - Quote
Confirming C3 average income is exactly as in the spreadsheet based on literally hundreds and hundreds of C3s ran.
In C4s I've reached considerably higher figures, and heard others refer to the same approx. 200mil/hr.
Tengu is probably not ideal for C1-C2s due to sleeper ship size, but In any case, these figures are definitely in the right ballpark and the most important thing to get from them is the issue with C1 and C2 space. It's not any safer to run C2s than it is to run higher class sites, PVE surely is easier but risks remain the same.
These holes should be lucrative to newcomers to w-space, but in current EVE it's difficult to even fart and not make more isk/hr.
|
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
705
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 12:56:00 -
[15] - Quote
Jez Amatin wrote:Thanks for your hard work Corbexx, much appreciated.
I would like future PVE changes to consider the impact of running solo vs in groups (in lower classes). I assume most people end up running solo as it is more profitable, but this runs against the idea of promoting group play in wormholes which IMO is a key driver in encouraging corporation growth & number of ppl out in wspace (aka content). Personally, i'd like C4 (and poss C3) to have some sites that are viable to run as a group without heavily penalising your income. Obviously there needs to be a balance between solo and group play, but it currently feels like a big divide between C1-C4 (solo) and C5-C6 (group).
I totally agree here. More group activety would help alot. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
705
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:00:00 -
[16] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Confirming C3 average income is exactly as in the spreadsheet based on literally hundreds and hundreds of C3s ran.
In C4s I've reached considerably higher figures, and heard others refer to the same approx. 200mil/hr.
Tengu is probably not ideal for C1-C2s due to sleeper ship size, but In any case, these figures are definitely in the right ballpark and the most important thing to get from them is the issue with C1 and C2 space. It's not any safer to run C2s than it is to run higher class sites, PVE surely is easier but risks remain the same.
These holes should be lucrative to newcomers to w-space, but in current EVE it's difficult to even fart and not make more isk/hr.
the average income for C4 is higher with frontier barracks (which is by far the best site to do) I got 170mill/hour and with a couple people working together i've hit over 200mill/hour. But i can see experinced people getting more than me.
Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Nox52
Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking
31
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:09:00 -
[17] - Quote
I don't suppose you have or are willing to put up the c5 and c6 site income just to put the disparity in perspective?
The numbers feel about right from my experience. The short summary is that c1 and c2 space income via sites is useless looking at just your numbers. Factor in the scanning, securing, hauling and so on and it becomes damn right worthless. Bob forbid you try to share with someone else (light a newbie might do) or get ganked, it just becomes a stupid proposition comparing alternative Hs means of income.
You're starting to look better at the C3 and C4 stage but really if you consider the work you have to do for them and the real risk of getting ganked it doesn't look too flash hot now does it?
And you wonder why there aren't more people in low class whs... |
Andrew Jester
Origin. Black Legion.
699
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:32:00 -
[18] - Quote
Moloney wrote:corbexx wrote:Moloney wrote:Thanks corbexx for the effort.
The only problem is that the data is useless.
1. You have been paid nothing in the time interval you tested. I.e. you can still be ganked on the way to market. 2. You did this in a vacuum. (Sisi, no chance of being ganked) 3. Most corporations in a c4 do not run a single character so any payment will be split 2 or more ways 4. Applies mostly after Hyperion... 10 sites would have to spawn in the first place.... Its hardly useless its just a theoretical amount a single person can make. is only so many factors i can take in to account and getting ganked is sure as hell one I can't factor in reliably. however if you want to make a more useful one please run your stuff and let me know what figures you get i'll happily pass it all on for you. No insult intended, as stated, thank you for the time and effort. The problem is that miss information is worse than no information. The sample and test case does not come close to realty. Sorry.
Holy **** just how many extra chromosomes do you have? If you think it's misinformation, then go fix it. Run your own tests and tell us the numbers that you think are correct. If you aren't going to do that then accept Corbexx's numbers. Tbh you're probably too busy whining to do anything though... If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy |
Ruffio Sepico
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
32
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:38:00 -
[19] - Quote
corbexx wrote:Jez Amatin wrote:Thanks for your hard work Corbexx, much appreciated.
I would like future PVE changes to consider the impact of running solo vs in groups (in lower classes). I assume most people end up running solo as it is more profitable, but this runs against the idea of promoting group play in wormholes which IMO is a key driver in encouraging corporation growth & number of ppl out in wspace (aka content). Personally, i'd like C4 (and poss C3) to have some sites that are viable to run as a group without heavily penalising your income. Obviously there needs to be a balance between solo and group play, but it currently feels like a big divide between C1-C4 (solo) and C5-C6 (group).
I totally agree here. More group activety would help alot.
Remember though, wh space is nice for a group of players to explore together, but not so much to include new people into the group once there. Due to the klunky POS's and access rights and so on. More/new better group content is all nice, but be able to facilitate more/bigger groups just as much I think.
Maybe a bit off topic, but from talking to several I came across over the years in lower end of wspace. People start out with a group of players, some go inactive and leave the game, and they have a hard time replace them due to fear risk thefts and so on.
|
Andrew Jester
Origin. Black Legion.
699
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:40:00 -
[20] - Quote
Ruffio Sepico wrote:corbexx wrote:Jez Amatin wrote:Thanks for your hard work Corbexx, much appreciated.
I would like future PVE changes to consider the impact of running solo vs in groups (in lower classes). I assume most people end up running solo as it is more profitable, but this runs against the idea of promoting group play in wormholes which IMO is a key driver in encouraging corporation growth & number of ppl out in wspace (aka content). Personally, i'd like C4 (and poss C3) to have some sites that are viable to run as a group without heavily penalising your income. Obviously there needs to be a balance between solo and group play, but it currently feels like a big divide between C1-C4 (solo) and C5-C6 (group).
I totally agree here. More group activety would help alot. Remember though, wh space is nice for a group of players to explore together, but not so much to include new people into the group once there. Due to the klunky POS's and access rights and so on. More/new better group content is all nice, but be able to facilitate more/bigger groups just as much I think. Maybe a bit off topic, but from talking to several I came across over the years in lower end of wspace. People start out with a group of players, some go inactive and leave the game, and they have a hard time replace them due to fear risk thefts and so on.
Just put the new people in their own POS. Pretty easy if you're not dumb tbh. If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy |
|
Nancy Wayke
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:45:00 -
[21] - Quote
Thanks for all the hard work Corbexx. The numbers are interesting, especially the C1/C2 comparison and the C3/C4 delta.
I am a C4 resident and am concerned that the C4 numbers in isolation paint a very different picture to what is seen "on the ground" as it were. C1-C3 sites can be run effectively in a Drake solo - though clearly not at the speed you were doing in your testing. Class 4 sites [i]req |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
709
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:45:00 -
[22] - Quote
Nox52 wrote:I don't suppose you have or are willing to put up the c5 and c6 site income just to put the disparity in perspective?
The numbers feel about right from my experience. The short summary is that c1 and c2 space income via sites is useless looking at just your numbers. Factor in the scanning, securing, hauling and so on and it becomes damn right worthless. Bob forbid you try to share with someone else (like a newbie might do) or get ganked, it just becomes a stupid proposition comparing alternative Hs means of income.
You're starting to look better at the C3 and C4 stage but really if you consider the work you have to do for them and the real risk of getting ganked it doesn't look too flash hot now does it? What's l4 income? 100 mil an hour or so?
And you wonder why there aren't more people in low class whs...
I'd like to include C5 and C6 sites with cap escaltions its pretty easy for me to get info very easily. but again it varies depending on how you do stuff (or if you share) 5 characters multi boxing will be insane isk. while 10 people in a site will be good isk but not insane isk. without the cap escalation it drops off alot. will see if i can get numbers.
I have some NoHo numbers but need to get permission to publish them.
and I have no idea on lvl 4 income but its way way lower than highsec incursions thats for sure. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
101
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:47:00 -
[23] - Quote
Nox52 wrote:I don't suppose you have or are willing to put up the c5 and c6 site income just to put the disparity in perspective
The non-escalationnumbers were in corbexx-¦s blog iirc and were rather unimpressive. Another benfit of small farmercorps that can run their homeescalations every day for a bit, while more active groups have to rely on mehish staticfarming. Ofc the new marauders changed that a bit but they also are rather highrisk.
Do not forget that this list is just a small representive part of wh-ratting. You will get better results with more optimal shipchoices (legion for c1s, carriers or fightersupport in homesites), you will get better results in synergizing group of 2+ ships, you will squeeze a bit more out by small tricks like better warpins and stuff. Even wormholeeffects will make a big difference in many holes. As corbexx said, run a dozen plus, write everything down and give it to him.
From my experience a skills at 4 pilot in a drake will need almost two times as long for c3 sites and even has to warp out to recharge shields or cap in some sites. And that was the old fotm HM-drake.
From what I have seen the main difference between c3 and c4 ratting is not the isk/h but also how long you can sustain it. You have to look hard to find a c3 that you can-¦t clear out in one evening of playing, 2-3 hours easily do it. However when ratting for the same time in a c4, esp if it is your homesystem, you need way less sites ergo can do it not only when you are really lucky but once or twice a week for sure. While if you stack sites in your c3 to fit for 2+ hours of ratting someone else will probably clear it out in your off hours.
And noone in his right mind should compare those numbers to other kinds of income 1to1. Risk, no additional benefits like standings or secstatus, having to haul and sell it like LP are not factored in. Not to forget the single bomber that can take out your noctis/MTU/whatever or even just kill your wrecks and you walk away with nothing, while elsewhere you get your money in way shorter timeframe-"ticks". |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
709
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:48:00 -
[24] - Quote
Ruffio Sepico wrote:corbexx wrote:Jez Amatin wrote:Thanks for your hard work Corbexx, much appreciated.
I would like future PVE changes to consider the impact of running solo vs in groups (in lower classes). I assume most people end up running solo as it is more profitable, but this runs against the idea of promoting group play in wormholes which IMO is a key driver in encouraging corporation growth & number of ppl out in wspace (aka content). Personally, i'd like C4 (and poss C3) to have some sites that are viable to run as a group without heavily penalising your income. Obviously there needs to be a balance between solo and group play, but it currently feels like a big divide between C1-C4 (solo) and C5-C6 (group).
I totally agree here. More group activety would help alot. Remember though, wh space is nice for a group of players to explore together, but not so much to include new people into the group once there. Due to the klunky POS's and access rights and so on. More/new better group content is all nice, but be able to facilitate more/bigger groups just as much I think. Maybe a bit off topic, but from talking to several I came across over the years in lower end of wspace. People start out with a group of players, some go inactive and leave the game, and they have a hard time replace them due to fear risk thefts and so on.
yeah its semi off topic but its relevent, and an issue. Maybe more a general issue for whole of wh space than pve isk. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Ruffio Sepico
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
32
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:48:00 -
[25] - Quote
Andrew Jester wrote:Ruffio Sepico wrote:corbexx wrote:Jez Amatin wrote:Thanks for your hard work Corbexx, much appreciated.
I would like future PVE changes to consider the impact of running solo vs in groups (in lower classes). I assume most people end up running solo as it is more profitable, but this runs against the idea of promoting group play in wormholes which IMO is a key driver in encouraging corporation growth & number of ppl out in wspace (aka content). Personally, i'd like C4 (and poss C3) to have some sites that are viable to run as a group without heavily penalising your income. Obviously there needs to be a balance between solo and group play, but it currently feels like a big divide between C1-C4 (solo) and C5-C6 (group).
I totally agree here. More group activety would help alot. Remember though, wh space is nice for a group of players to explore together, but not so much to include new people into the group once there. Due to the klunky POS's and access rights and so on. More/new better group content is all nice, but be able to facilitate more/bigger groups just as much I think. Maybe a bit off topic, but from talking to several I came across over the years in lower end of wspace. People start out with a group of players, some go inactive and leave the game, and they have a hard time replace them due to fear risk thefts and so on. Just put the new people in their own POS. Pretty easy if you're not dumb tbh.
If you like a 20 toon corp in a c2, then set up multiple pos's maybe not the best economical choice.
|
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
709
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:51:00 -
[26] - Quote
Nancy Wayke wrote:Thanks for all the hard work Corbexx. The numbers are interesting, especially the C1/C2 comparison and the C3/C4 delta.
I am a C4 resident and am concerned that the C4 numbers in isolation paint a very different picture to what is seen "on the ground" as it were. C1-C3 sites can be run effectively in a Drake solo - though clearly not at the speed you were doing in your testing. Class 4 sites [i]req
yeah totally agree as said i used sisi so i could literally test stuff safely to get a base line in reality you woudl need to scan your chain, potentially put bubbles up scouts on wh's. etc etc. Is alot more that needs to be considered than just isk/hour. But that has been noted and ccp are aware of it. combined with the fact you don't even get paid till you get your stuff to hisec and sell it. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
101
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:53:00 -
[27] - Quote
Ruffio Sepico wrote:If you like a 20 toon corp in a c2, then set up multiple pos's maybe not the best economical choice.
Well, if you take in new/unknown players giving them access to your POS is a way worse economical choice because you will wake up without stuff at some point. Hell, we even had two-men-posses in our c2 because we like POSdefenses that make invasionplaners go "NOPENOPENOPE". |
Andrew Jester
Origin. Black Legion.
699
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:53:00 -
[28] - Quote
Ruffio Sepico wrote:Andrew Jester wrote:Ruffio Sepico wrote:corbexx wrote:Jez Amatin wrote:Thanks for your hard work Corbexx, much appreciated.
I would like future PVE changes to consider the impact of running solo vs in groups (in lower classes). I assume most people end up running solo as it is more profitable, but this runs against the idea of promoting group play in wormholes which IMO is a key driver in encouraging corporation growth & number of ppl out in wspace (aka content). Personally, i'd like C4 (and poss C3) to have some sites that are viable to run as a group without heavily penalising your income. Obviously there needs to be a balance between solo and group play, but it currently feels like a big divide between C1-C4 (solo) and C5-C6 (group).
I totally agree here. More group activety would help alot. Remember though, wh space is nice for a group of players to explore together, but not so much to include new people into the group once there. Due to the klunky POS's and access rights and so on. More/new better group content is all nice, but be able to facilitate more/bigger groups just as much I think. Maybe a bit off topic, but from talking to several I came across over the years in lower end of wspace. People start out with a group of players, some go inactive and leave the game, and they have a hard time replace them due to fear risk thefts and so on. Just put the new people in their own POS. Pretty easy if you're not dumb tbh. If you like a 20 toon corp in a c2, then set up multiple pos's maybe not the best economical choice.
If you want to non-Gentile up all the money you can then probably not. If you're running a 20 unique person corp in a C2, it's probably time to move up a hole, I'd suggest looking into a C4 since they have dual statics similar to C2s.
If it's a 20 character corp, then your amount of uniques is likely much lower. You're still probably some poor scrub though because you live in a C2. Have members POS with their friends and have the corp pay for a new recruit POS or make new recruits bring their own POSes with.
ezpz If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy |
Incindir Mauser
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
452
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:55:00 -
[29] - Quote
corbexx wrote: Stuff stuff stuff...
I'd like to give a huge thanks to people who helped me collect this info as it really help speed things up. This combined with the testing in small groups (up to 3 people) took close to 300 hours. I was up at 4 in the morning doing the last bit of maths for C4 sites the day I left for Iceland. So it would be ready for the summit.
As said if people want to argue I'll happily listen as long as they have the proof to back it up.
Thanks for the feedback, I know you guys have been busting tail to get us this stuff.
I know you had some factors not taken into consideration, such as time to export goods and sell to NPC/Market.
There are two or three other upkeep factors that I can think of that would impact ISK per hour metric.
One is the cost of upkeep for a POS tower in terms of fuel. This would roughly estimate to be around 10 million a day for the average tower. Ammo costs for ships that use consumable ammo, this may be negligable for T1 ammo which most people should be farming with. But I feel it should be factored in. (Paladins are beardy as hell and just plain cheating. 8D ) Also, anoms and sites can be somewhat limited in your home system and the time that it takes to roll the hole and find a new static with anoms in it is another factor once you run out of sites to run.
Also, is this income comparison solely based on Wormhole to Wormhole class? Or is it being taken into consideration what income levels are like in Hisec / Lowsec / NPC null / Sov Null as compares to Wormholes?
|
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
709
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:56:00 -
[30] - Quote
Shilalasar wrote:Nox52 wrote:I don't suppose you have or are willing to put up the c5 and c6 site income just to put the disparity in perspective The non-escalationnumbers were in corbexx-¦s blog iirc and were rather unimpressive. Another benfit of small farmercorps that can run their homeescalations every day for a bit, while more active groups have to rely on mehish staticfarming. Ofc the new marauders changed that a bit but they also are rather highrisk. Do not forget that this list is just a small representive part of wh-ratting. You will get better results with more optimal shipchoices (legion for c1s, carriers or fightersupport in homesites), you will get better results in synergizing group of 2+ ships, you will squeeze a bit more out by small tricks like better warpins and stuff. Even wormholeeffects will make a big difference in many holes. As corbexx said, run a dozen plus, write everything down and give it to him. From my experience a skills at 4 pilot in a drake will need almost two times as long for c3 sites and even has to warp out to recharge shields or cap in some sites. And that was the old fotm HM-drake. From what I have seen the main difference between c3 and c4 ratting is not the isk/h but also how long you can sustain it. You have to look hard to find a c3 that you can-¦t clear out in one evening of playing, 2-3 hours easily do it. However when ratting for the same time in a c4, esp if it is your homesystem, you need way less sites ergo can do it not only when you are really lucky but once or twice a week for sure. While if you stack sites in your c3 to fit for 2+ hours of ratting someone else will probably clear it out in your off hours. And noone in his right mind should compare those numbers to other kinds of income 1to1. Risk, no additional benefits like standings or secstatus, having to haul and sell it like LP are not factored in. Not to forget the single bomber that can take out your noctis/MTU/whatever or even just kill your wrecks and you walk away with nothing, while elsewhere you get your money in way shorter timeframe-"ticks".
Rough numbers and these are VERY rough for no cap escalation 120mill/hour in a c5 with rr tengus 140mill/hour in a c6 thats with 5 tengus and boosts (booster not being paid as a alt) you can make more heard of people doing 300mill/hour solo marauder in c5, but I also know loads who have lost them trying.
Cap escalation is roughly 700 million a site so all depends how many you run or have to run, and how many people.
in my C4 we use 2 ham tengus with fighter support in a mag you can do sites in no time at all and make great isk/hour but that only works for your home system, and takes advantageof the system effect. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
|
Moloney
Faceless Men
164
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 13:57:00 -
[31] - Quote
Andrew Jester wrote:Moloney wrote:corbexx wrote:Moloney wrote:Thanks corbexx for the effort.
The only problem is that the data is useless.
1. You have been paid nothing in the time interval you tested. I.e. you can still be ganked on the way to market. 2. You did this in a vacuum. (Sisi, no chance of being ganked) 3. Most corporations in a c4 do not run a single character so any payment will be split 2 or more ways 4. Applies mostly after Hyperion... 10 sites would have to spawn in the first place.... Its hardly useless its just a theoretical amount a single person can make. is only so many factors i can take in to account and getting ganked is sure as hell one I can't factor in reliably. however if you want to make a more useful one please run your stuff and let me know what figures you get i'll happily pass it all on for you. No insult intended, as stated, thank you for the time and effort. The problem is that miss information is worse than no information. The sample and test case does not come close to realty. Sorry. Holy **** just how many extra chromosomes do you have? If you think it's misinformation, then go fix it. Run your own tests and tell us the numbers that you think are correct. If you aren't going to do that then accept Corbexx's numbers. Tbh you're probably too busy whining to do anything though... > 1. You have been paid nothing in the time interval you tested. I.e. you can still be ganked on the way to market. How dumb are you if you get ganked on the way to the market? I bet you're one of those 80b shuttle loses that pop up. Just use Red Frog or don't be dumb and do it in a T3. > 2. You did this in a vacuum. (Sisi, no chance of being ganked) Your only point with a real semblance of intelligence. Use scouts to greatly minimize the risk. > 3. Most corporations in a c4 do not run a single character so any payment will be split 2 or more ways If the isk is less when split with two people, then maybe you should run them solo instead as obiously having the second person isn't offering any benefit. > 4. Applies mostly after Hyperion... 10 sites would have to spawn in the first place. >Applies mostly after Hyperion mfw that's the patch we're on and the data is actually applicable...
Not even reading it. Other than the first sentence.
Can you confirm Tldr: sooo I had a bad day.. lala lala, la (can't remember the song)
|
Andrew Jester
Origin. Black Legion.
699
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 14:03:00 -
[32] - Quote
Moloney wrote:Andrew Jester wrote:Moloney wrote:corbexx wrote:Moloney wrote:Thanks corbexx for the effort.
The only problem is that the data is useless.
1. You have been paid nothing in the time interval you tested. I.e. you can still be ganked on the way to market. 2. You did this in a vacuum. (Sisi, no chance of being ganked) 3. Most corporations in a c4 do not run a single character so any payment will be split 2 or more ways 4. Applies mostly after Hyperion... 10 sites would have to spawn in the first place.... Its hardly useless its just a theoretical amount a single person can make. is only so many factors i can take in to account and getting ganked is sure as hell one I can't factor in reliably. however if you want to make a more useful one please run your stuff and let me know what figures you get i'll happily pass it all on for you. No insult intended, as stated, thank you for the time and effort. The problem is that miss information is worse than no information. The sample and test case does not come close to realty. Sorry. Holy **** just how many extra chromosomes do you have? If you think it's misinformation, then go fix it. Run your own tests and tell us the numbers that you think are correct. If you aren't going to do that then accept Corbexx's numbers. Tbh you're probably too busy whining to do anything though... > 1. You have been paid nothing in the time interval you tested. I.e. you can still be ganked on the way to market. How dumb are you if you get ganked on the way to the market? I bet you're one of those 80b shuttle loses that pop up. Just use Red Frog or don't be dumb and do it in a T3. > 2. You did this in a vacuum. (Sisi, no chance of being ganked) Your only point with a real semblance of intelligence. Use scouts to greatly minimize the risk. > 3. Most corporations in a c4 do not run a single character so any payment will be split 2 or more ways If the isk is less when split with two people, then maybe you should run them solo instead as obiously having the second person isn't offering any benefit. > 4. Applies mostly after Hyperion... 10 sites would have to spawn in the first place. >Applies mostly after Hyperion mfw that's the patch we're on and the data is actually applicable... Not even reading it. Other than the first sentence. Can you confirm Tldr: sooo I had a bad day.. lala lala, la (can't remember the song)
Can you c/d that first sentence for me bud)))? I know the answer already, but I need to hear it from you for my ~*#journalisticintegrity*~ and all that.
Thanks in advance!
<3 Jester If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy |
Borsek
Incertae Sedis
263
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 14:07:00 -
[33] - Quote
C5 and C6 escalation numbers are roughly the same. I've experienced a huge range of personal income from them - in Ragnarok. we used to feed people, so we each made about 150M/h, running each site in 6 minutes (warp+ siege) with about 15 people in fleet. Of course, it's possible to run them as 3 multiboxing maniacs and getting 900 per hour, but again, there's a lot of variables, and it's not really viable doing this if you have 1 or 2 sites.
Reported income from doing C5 sites in a marauder with a salvaging alt ranges from 400 and 500 million ISK per hour, depending on how well you do your warpins and how well you dualbox the salvager. C6 sites are about the same, but require more bling and skill on the marauder pilot. Doing C5 sites in a shield domi or similar rr fleet nets about 200M/h. Doing them with a carrier and T3s is abysmally slow, and offers little extra income from the escalation spawn.
In my experience, C3 sites, the good ones, that is, netted about 100M/h, on average, however that was with HMLs not HAMs. I once did some C2 sites, but they're not really worth doing in the current state, income was about 50M/h, but that was with the same tengu setup. C2 sites suffer mostly from ranged spawns, in my experience, bringing the sleepers closer together would help a lot with that.
All in all, your numbers seems correct, but they're also the maximum achievable income, so in reality, you can expect about 20% less, not including the hauling time and rolling time, purely scanning a system out, setting up scouts and especially clicking d-scan or watching alts takes away from your concentration, and makes running sites slower. |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
710
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 14:08:00 -
[34] - Quote
Incindir Mauser wrote:corbexx wrote: Stuff stuff stuff...
I'd like to give a huge thanks to people who helped me collect this info as it really help speed things up. This combined with the testing in small groups (up to 3 people) took close to 300 hours. I was up at 4 in the morning doing the last bit of maths for C4 sites the day I left for Iceland. So it would be ready for the summit.
As said if people want to argue I'll happily listen as long as they have the proof to back it up.
Thanks for the feedback, I know you guys have been busting tail to get us this stuff. I know you had some factors not taken into consideration, such as time to export goods and sell to NPC/Market. There are two or three other upkeep factors that I can think of that would impact ISK per hour metric. One is the cost of upkeep for a POS tower in terms of fuel. This would roughly estimate to be around 10 million a day for the average tower. Ammo costs for ships that use consumable ammo, this may be negligable for T1 ammo which most people should be farming with. But I feel it should be factored in. (Paladins are beardy as hell and just plain cheating. 8D ) Also, anoms and sites can be somewhat limited in your home system and the time that it takes to roll the hole and find a new static with anoms in it is another factor once you run out of sites to run. Also, is this income comparison solely based on Wormhole to Wormhole class? Or is it being taken into consideration what income levels are like in Hisec / Lowsec / NPC null / Sov Null as compares to Wormholes?
ooh definetly its just very hard to factor most that in and get a accurate number.
balance between spaces is really hard to do tbh and is so many factors to take in to account. I certainly don't have the info to do it accurately although maybe i'll move a alt out run incursions for a weekend and post numbers that could be good for a giggle, I could even do that on tranquility as its safe. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
125
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 14:16:00 -
[35] - Quote
Andrew Jester wrote:Ruffio Sepico wrote:corbexx wrote:Jez Amatin wrote:Thanks for your hard work Corbexx, much appreciated.
I would like future PVE changes to consider the impact of running solo vs in groups (in lower classes). I assume most people end up running solo as it is more profitable, but this runs against the idea of promoting group play in wormholes which IMO is a key driver in encouraging corporation growth & number of ppl out in wspace (aka content). Personally, i'd like C4 (and poss C3) to have some sites that are viable to run as a group without heavily penalising your income. Obviously there needs to be a balance between solo and group play, but it currently feels like a big divide between C1-C4 (solo) and C5-C6 (group).
I totally agree here. More group activety would help alot. Remember though, wh space is nice for a group of players to explore together, but not so much to include new people into the group once there. Due to the klunky POS's and access rights and so on. More/new better group content is all nice, but be able to facilitate more/bigger groups just as much I think. Maybe a bit off topic, but from talking to several I came across over the years in lower end of wspace. People start out with a group of players, some go inactive and leave the game, and they have a hard time replace them due to fear risk thefts and so on. Just put the new people in their own POS. Pretty easy if you're not dumb tbh.
And your income plummets again as now you're burning 200, 300, 400M ISK/mo per tower. Talk about a "double whammy" for corps in lower class wormholes trying to bring in new members to bolster WH space occupation already dealing with the low ISK/hr sites and splitting loot between players.
|
Andrew Jester
Origin. Black Legion.
699
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 14:21:00 -
[36] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Andrew Jester wrote:Ruffio Sepico wrote:corbexx wrote:Jez Amatin wrote:Thanks for your hard work Corbexx, much appreciated.
I would like future PVE changes to consider the impact of running solo vs in groups (in lower classes). I assume most people end up running solo as it is more profitable, but this runs against the idea of promoting group play in wormholes which IMO is a key driver in encouraging corporation growth & number of ppl out in wspace (aka content). Personally, i'd like C4 (and poss C3) to have some sites that are viable to run as a group without heavily penalising your income. Obviously there needs to be a balance between solo and group play, but it currently feels like a big divide between C1-C4 (solo) and C5-C6 (group).
I totally agree here. More group activety would help alot. Remember though, wh space is nice for a group of players to explore together, but not so much to include new people into the group once there. Due to the klunky POS's and access rights and so on. More/new better group content is all nice, but be able to facilitate more/bigger groups just as much I think. Maybe a bit off topic, but from talking to several I came across over the years in lower end of wspace. People start out with a group of players, some go inactive and leave the game, and they have a hard time replace them due to fear risk thefts and so on. Just put the new people in their own POS. Pretty easy if you're not dumb tbh. And your income plummets again as now you're burning 200, 300, 400M ISK/mo per tower. Talk about a "double whammy" for corps in lower class wormholes trying to bring in new members to bolster WH space occupation already dealing with the low ISK/hr sites and splitting loot between players.
If you're trying to recruit that many people into a 2->2/LS then you're just dumb. If money is a problem, move to a hole with a better static, how hard is that..? If your 2->3/HS isn't paying the bills, move to a 2->4/HS or a 4->3/4. Also see my other reply to the guy who said pretty much the same **** you did for other ways to make it work. Like critical thinking is hard
If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy |
Nancy Wayke
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 14:34:00 -
[37] - Quote
Andrew Jester wrote:If you're trying to recruit that many people into a 2->2/LS then you're just dumb. If money is a problem, move to a hole with a better static, how hard is that..? If your 2->3/HS isn't paying the bills, move to a 2->4/HS or a 4->3/4. Also see my other reply to the guy who said pretty much the same **** you did for other ways to make it work. Like critical thinking is hard
Wormhole space caters to many different players and playstyles. A w-space static isn't only used for farming, as I'm sure you're aware, and so saying "get a different one if you need more money" falls down when the reason those players are in wormhole space is because of the gameplay that their current link enables.
|
Andrew Jester
Origin. Black Legion.
701
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 14:40:00 -
[38] - Quote
Nancy Wayke wrote:Andrew Jester wrote:If you're trying to recruit that many people into a 2->2/LS then you're just dumb. If money is a problem, move to a hole with a better static, how hard is that..? If your 2->3/HS isn't paying the bills, move to a 2->4/HS or a 4->3/4. Also see my other reply to the guy who said pretty much the same **** you did for other ways to make it work. Like critical thinking is hard
Wormhole space caters to many different players and playstyles. A w-space static isn't only used for farming, as I'm sure you're aware, and so saying "get a different one if you need more money" falls down when the reason those players are in wormhole space is because of the gameplay that their current link enables.
A 3 static would probably support the needs of 2/3 POSes. However a 3 static can also be pretty dead. One of the better PvP holes is a 2->2/LS because it allows for massive 2 chains as well as LS access. That can be replicated quite well in a 4->2/3 (I know these exist). The 3 will offer the same k-space exit as the LS would before, and the 2 static will offer the same access to 2 chains as before. They can also run home sites as a corp and say it goes towards the fuel fund or something like that.
The point is, it's p easy to move and find the same playstyle as before while remedying money problems. If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy |
Nancy Wayke
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 14:41:00 -
[39] - Quote
Andrew Jester wrote:A 3 static would probably support the needs of 2/3 POSes. However a 3 static can also be pretty dead. One of the better PvP holes is a 2->2/LS because it allows for massive 2 chains as well as LS access. That can be replicated quite well in a 4->2/3 (I know these exist). The 3 will offer the same k-space exit as the LS would before, and the 2 static will offer the same access to 2 chains as before. They can also run home sites as a corp and say it goes towards the fuel fund or something like that.
The point is, it's p easy to move and find the same playstyle as before while remedying money problems.
But that's not the same playstyle; living in a C4 is very different to living in a C2, regardless of the static links. |
Marox Calendale
Human League
28
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 14:43:00 -
[40] - Quote
Wow, thanks a lot to you corbexx for doing all this work! I think rolling your static and preparing the system behind is taking so much time, that you will never get that amount of money, but it-¦s nice to see what maximum may be possible. |
|
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
711
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 14:44:00 -
[41] - Quote
Marox Calendale wrote:Wow, thanks a lot to you corbexx for doing all this work! I think rolling your static and preparing the system behind is taking so much time, that you will never get that amount of money, but it-¦s nice to see what maximum may be possible.
Totally correct rolling scanning sorting warp ins scouting will drop my figure by a huge amount. Its just really hard to factor that in isk wise. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Marox Calendale
Human League
28
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 14:48:00 -
[42] - Quote
corbexx wrote:Marox Calendale wrote:Wow, thanks a lot to you corbexx for doing all this work! I think rolling your static and preparing the system behind is taking so much time, that you will never get that amount of money, but it-¦s nice to see what maximum may be possible. Totally correct rolling scanning sorting warp ins scouting will drop my figure by a huge amount. Its just really hard to factor that in isk wise. From my experience of rolling lots of C4 statics and farming sites, I would think I takes additional 1 - 2 hours. The exact time depends on your luck how fast you will find a profitable whole. We also had days we didn-¦t find any good whole. |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
125
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 14:50:00 -
[43] - Quote
Andrew Jester wrote: If you're trying to recruit that many people into a 2->2/LS then you're just dumb. If money is a problem, move to a hole with a better static, how hard is that..? If your 2->3/HS isn't paying the bills, move to a 2->4/HS or a 4->3/4. Also see my other reply to the guy who said pretty much the same **** you did for other ways to make it work. Like critical thinking is hard
Still doesn't change the fundamentals. Equipment is at risk from other players the moment you 1) Give more than one person access to the same SMA 2) Give more than one person access to the same hanger/POS. You can't just "put new players in a POS by themselves" as they are just as likely to steal from each other as the corp thus making your recruitment just as difficult.
Moving up a hole isn't always feasible either depending on the skill level of the pilots. We run two holes, a C2/C1+HS for newer pilots or those looking for easy PI/PvP/HS access and a C4/C3+C5 for the more experienced pilots. It does take a relatively significant amount of training for a new EVE player to live in C2 effectively. To farm C1 sites, etc. requires a base set of skills. Take into account that you probably start running sites with corpmates, your income is abysmal but still in many cases a step up from whatever L1/2/3 missions they could be doing in K-space. It takes another significant training period to then work up to being able to run C3/C4 sites, or mine gas in the C5, or whatever else is more profitable for them in the higher level wormhole. Try recruiting "newer" players into a C4 hole when they can't do anything solo. It doesn't work. The only way to change that is to get the numbers high enough so there is always someone to run with but now we're right back at the POS security issue and how do you recruit to get to those numbers...
|
Aiyshimin
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
73
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 15:02:00 -
[44] - Quote
You can have 6 players per pos where they all have their private corp hangar divisions (to store for example shiny T3s), one shared corp hangar div and the new personal hangars. You can also limit access per SMA-basis, just make sure you adjust the tower management role requirements as well. Then limit access to other POSes with passwords, since the corp hangar div roles are universal across the corp's towers.
While not perfect, this greatly reduces the amount of stuff that can actually be stolen by a normal member.
This could be imo trivially improved by CCP by simply adding more hangar divisions and more role options in tower settings without redoing the whole POS code. |
Moth Eisig
Soliloquy Against Death
57
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 15:02:00 -
[45] - Quote
So assuming you use the fits Corbexx used, how many hours would you have to spend in sites for each wormhole class in order to make enough isk to break even when the inevitable gank gets you? |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
712
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 16:07:00 -
[46] - Quote
Moth Eisig wrote:So assuming you use the fits Corbexx used, how many hours would you have to spend in sites for each wormhole class in order to make enough isk to break even when the inevitable gank gets you?
well C1 to C3 was a basic tengu with faction bcus not sure how much they are at the moment, but guessing 600m, paladin 1.5b to 1.8b it had 3 faction damage mods 2 faction smartbombs (needed to kill the frigs as they orbit outside regular smartbomb range)
so C1 would be 9 to 12 hours C2, 13 to 15 hours C3, 5 hours. C4 10 to 12 hours
its super rough all these figures though. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
6540
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 16:20:00 -
[47] - Quote
This is all very depressing to see. The numbers are hard to argue with, and despite agreeing that more data should be gathered, at a glance, its clear that most sites aren't worth the risk of running them. Adding in logistics overhead, scanning, scouting, and hauling, and there's really no point to running sites anywhere besides maybe C3 space.
The big issue I'm seeing is that low class space doesn't actually have anything unique to offer wormhole space. There's no gimmicks or interesting traits unique to low class space to make up for the fact that the isk is ****.
In my opinion, sleeper sites should not just linearly scale with system class. That fails to take into account the realities of the space, and does nothing but discourage most people from living places like a C1. Every wormhole system should have something that makes it special or desirable. If not sleepers, then something else. More gas maybe? Better hacking/data sites? Something new and sparkly? The systems themselves should prevent a largely uniform playing field, with things like position and type of celestials, wormhole connections, and things of that nature dictating why a system would be chosen to be occupied. The first question that goes through someone's head when considering where to live should not be 'how much money can I make' and 'how much money can my static(s) make me, but should be based on a more complicated set of factors. As it stands, my C2 system is less profitable then level 4s, for infinitely more risk. What is the ******* point?
|
Aryex
Bastard Children of Poinen
0
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 16:25:00 -
[48] - Quote
#1: Thanks a ton corbexx for putting together some data. For those complaining that the error bars are too large, to me there are no statisically insignificant sample sets as long as you're aware of the limitations.
#2: I think CCP should think about wormhole space in terms of how many players the content can support. Especially with the smaller wormholes, a single player can clear out all the home sites in a few hours at most. With 873 C1/C2 systems, this means that the PVE money-making possibilities are limited to maybe ~1000 players if you discount PI alts, and each of those players is only making about 100M isk/day at most. Staying logged on once you have no more sites is nearly pointless in low end w-space if your corp mates aren't around. Yes, people should be farming their statics and only clearing the home as a last resort, but the math works out the same. |
Aiyshimin
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
74
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 16:42:00 -
[49] - Quote
Aryex wrote: Staying logged on once you have no more sites is nearly pointless in low end w-space if your corp mates aren't around.
This seems like a horribly PVE-focused view to me. Hunting solo in wormhole space provides quality entertainment for hours, and if that fails, find a lowsec exit?
|
Chicken Exroofer
Regional Assault and Recon
80
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 16:52:00 -
[50] - Quote
Thanks for all that hard work Corbexx. At least you have some kind of baseline to work with.
It would be almost impossible for you to get data that reflects living in a wormhole on the live server, too many variables. Especially if you are trying to get data on a solo pilot's experience, since there would be many many days where you could not do anything at all. I mean, you are not likely to be collapsing extra crossholes solo, or running any sites with multiple entrances active. Since that is the case for something like 90% or more of the week, isk per month would be pretty depressing.
At least you put serious effort to get hard data personally, and can take that experience with you to the CSM summit. Something I would bet all my accounts and assets on that the bright folks who made the last set of wormhole changes never did, or even thought of doing.
For our small corp, the vast majority of our income comes from L4 missions. It has to, because the wormhole is just too inconsistent to depend on. It is a rare week when we can do any kind of op more than twice a week. Once a week or less is probably average. So if we don't do anything at all in there for 95% plus of the week, how many "content" opportunities are we providing for others?
The other potential income source, for us in a C3, asteroid mining, should be considered zero. The gas value is so inconsequential it might as well be zero. So if CCP tries to use that potential income in any maths, do me a favour and laugh real hard. |
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
125
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 17:12:00 -
[51] - Quote
Aryex wrote:#1: Thanks a ton corbexx for putting together some data. For those complaining that the error bars are too large, to me there are no statisically insignificant sample sets as long as you're aware of the limitations.
#2: I think CCP should think about wormhole space in terms of how many players the content can support. Especially with the smaller wormholes, a single player can clear out all the home sites in a few hours at most. With 873 C1/C2 systems, this means that the PVE money-making possibilities are limited to maybe ~1000 players if you discount PI alts, and each of those players is only making about 100M isk/day at most. Staying logged on once you have no more sites is nearly pointless in low end w-space if your corp mates aren't around. Yes, people should be farming their statics and only clearing the home as a last resort, but the math works out the same.
Except that presumably, every anom cleared is reappearing elsewhere thus creating sites/content for others. The issue with wormhole space to a degree with this model is that anoms get "stuck" in what we call "goldmine" systems where there is little to no activity and no one running sites in them where they build up until there are dozens. Great when you find one but others it diminishes the pool of anoms. Whether that is a true problem only CCP and their stats could tell us
|
Odin Skydiver
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 17:22:00 -
[52] - Quote
There is not much difference spamming barracks with scout in static or spamming soe lv4 in hs, except I can hire a scout. And sometimes smile when I get ganked. |
Andrew Jester
Origin. Black Legion.
702
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 17:32:00 -
[53] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Andrew Jester wrote: If you're trying to recruit that many people into a 2->2/LS then you're just dumb. If money is a problem, move to a hole with a better static, how hard is that..? If your 2->3/HS isn't paying the bills, move to a 2->4/HS or a 4->3/4. Also see my other reply to the guy who said pretty much the same **** you did for other ways to make it work. Like critical thinking is hard
Still doesn't change the fundamentals. Equipment is at risk from other players the moment you 1) Give more than one person access to the same SMA 2) Give more than one person access to the same hanger/POS. You can't just "put new players in a POS by themselves" as they are just as likely to steal from each other as the corp thus making your recruitment just as difficult. Moving up a hole isn't always feasible either depending on the skill level of the pilots. We run two holes, a C2/C1+HS for newer pilots or those looking for easy PI/PvP/HS access and a C4/C3+C5 for the more experienced pilots. It does take a relatively significant amount of training for a new EVE player to live in C2 effectively. To farm C1 sites, etc. requires a base set of skills. Take into account that you probably start running sites with corpmates, your income is abysmal but still in many cases a step up from whatever L1/2/3 missions they could be doing in K-space. It takes another significant training period to then work up to being able to run C3/C4 sites, or mine gas in the C5, or whatever else is more profitable for them in the higher level wormhole. Try recruiting "newer" players into a C4 hole when they can't do anything solo. It doesn't work. The only way to change that is to get the numbers high enough so there is always someone to run with but now we're right back at the POS security issue and how do you recruit to get to those numbers...
Don't remember if it still works, but corp/personal hangar bay + SMA + LSAA/XLSAA allows for 6 people to live in a POS and pretty much prevents everything from being stolen. If you have 20 uniques, that's 3 POS and change.
I don't know why in the world you would have a C1 static because that's literally cancer and new members could easily run C2s in ~14d or less. If you really want them to make money then have them run C3s in Drakes with a Scythe/2 Ospreys there to rep them. Even with more people in fleet it's probably better income than a C1.
Mining gas effectively in a C5 takes ~1 week, and the majority of that training time is the get T2 gas harvesters. You can do it in less time and still make good money. Unless you're saying a week is a significant training period...
You can recruit them into a C4 when they can go solo C2 sites or take a few corpies and solo C3s. If you're poaching newbies from starter systems, then I could see it being a problem, but if you're lifting people from mission hubs then they'll probably have some base skills that will allow them to easily run C2s with slightly modified fits.
There're solutions available that don't require changes to POSes, but I guess complaining is always easier than taking action. If thuggin' was a category I'd win a Grammy |
Ktersida Nyn'Amanyn
Querschlaeger
8
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 17:32:00 -
[54] - Quote
Thx for the effort corbexx. Maybe for c1s i can provide additional numbers. On Tranq the best ship for flying c1s was the hurricane (T2 fit). We flew only perimeter camps in a group of 1-3 pilots. The average ribbon drop in a camp after several 100 sites is 2.8 to 2.9 per site. The last time we ran c1s with two chars with one scout at the hole and got 90m ISK/h. So i can confirm your numbers.
But you have always to take your alts into the calculation if you don't want to suicide. While you're doing incursions, LvL 4s or ratting in renter space you can fly with every char to make ISK which improves your income instead of lowering it because you need (a) scout(s). And since Hyperion PvEers need more scouts...
|
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
712
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 17:43:00 -
[55] - Quote
Ktersida Nyn'Amanyn wrote:Thx for the effort corbexx. Maybe for c1s i can provide additional numbers. On Tranq the best ship for flying c1s was the hurricane (T2 fit). We flew only perimeter camps in a group of 1-3 pilots. The average ribbon drop in a camp after several 100 sites is 2.8 to 2.9 per site. The last time we ran c1s with two chars with one scout at the hole and got 90m ISK/h. So i can confirm your numbers.
But you have always to take your alts into the calculation if you don't want to suicide. While you're doing incursions, LvL 4s or ratting in renter space you can fly with every char to make ISK which improves your income instead of lowering it because you need (a) scout(s). And since Hyperion PvEers need more scouts...
I have just checked my main spread sheet and for perimeter camps i get higher than 2.8 to 2.9 even using them number they are still by far the best, so that makes me happy.
yeah having tohave more scouts etc will lower it. hyperion also makes it potentially worse with more wh's added
Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
125
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 17:44:00 -
[56] - Quote
Andrew Jester wrote:Obil Que wrote:Andrew Jester wrote: If you're trying to recruit that many people into a 2->2/LS then you're just dumb. If money is a problem, move to a hole with a better static, how hard is that..? If your 2->3/HS isn't paying the bills, move to a 2->4/HS or a 4->3/4. Also see my other reply to the guy who said pretty much the same **** you did for other ways to make it work. Like critical thinking is hard
Still doesn't change the fundamentals. Equipment is at risk from other players the moment you 1) Give more than one person access to the same SMA 2) Give more than one person access to the same hanger/POS. You can't just "put new players in a POS by themselves" as they are just as likely to steal from each other as the corp thus making your recruitment just as difficult. Moving up a hole isn't always feasible either depending on the skill level of the pilots. We run two holes, a C2/C1+HS for newer pilots or those looking for easy PI/PvP/HS access and a C4/C3+C5 for the more experienced pilots. It does take a relatively significant amount of training for a new EVE player to live in C2 effectively. To farm C1 sites, etc. requires a base set of skills. Take into account that you probably start running sites with corpmates, your income is abysmal but still in many cases a step up from whatever L1/2/3 missions they could be doing in K-space. It takes another significant training period to then work up to being able to run C3/C4 sites, or mine gas in the C5, or whatever else is more profitable for them in the higher level wormhole. Try recruiting "newer" players into a C4 hole when they can't do anything solo. It doesn't work. The only way to change that is to get the numbers high enough so there is always someone to run with but now we're right back at the POS security issue and how do you recruit to get to those numbers... Don't remember if it still works, but corp/personal hangar bay + SMA + LSAA/XLSAA allows for 6 people to live in a POS and pretty much prevents everything from being stolen. If you have 20 uniques, that's 3 POS and change. I don't know why in the world you would have a C1 static because that's literally cancer and new members could easily run C2s in ~14d or less. If you really want them to make money then have them run C3s in Drakes with a Scythe/2 Ospreys there to rep them. Even with more people in fleet it's probably better income than a C1. Mining gas effectively in a C5 takes ~1 week, and the majority of that training time is the get T2 gas harvesters. You can do it in less time and still make good money. Unless you're saying a week is a significant training period... You can recruit them into a C4 when they can go solo C2 sites or take a few corpies and solo C3s. If you're poaching newbies from starter systems, then I could see it being a problem, but if you're lifting people from mission hubs then they'll probably have some base skills that will allow them to easily run C2s with slightly modified fits. There're solutions available that don't require changes to POSes, but I guess complaining is always easier than taking action.
See, that's the thing. It's not better. Solo clearing C1 sites (as seen in Corbexx's data) is close to 50M/hr and consistently better than running C2 sites. You get more sleepers per site, more chances for ribbons which is where the money is. Trio clearing C3 sites is around 40 per person once you divide up the loot even if you're doing them optimally. Three newbros in a Drake/Scythe are not optimal. And yes, we do take on some very new people. There are plenty of people out there interested in wormholes but put off by the months of training many corps require to even look at them. I've taken a different approach. My complaint is no different than anyone else here commenting on the state of corp roles, POS mechanics, and PvE rewards in wormhole space. Recruitment is hard because of the lack of security and the rewards do not scale well and favor solo play. I'd like to see those two state of affairs improved.
|
Aryex
Bastard Children of Poinen
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 17:45:00 -
[57] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:Aryex wrote:#1: Thanks a ton corbexx for putting together some data. For those complaining that the error bars are too large, to me there are no statisically insignificant sample sets as long as you're aware of the limitations.
#2: I think CCP should think about wormhole space in terms of how many players the content can support. Especially with the smaller wormholes, a single player can clear out all the home sites in a few hours at most. With 873 C1/C2 systems, this means that the PVE money-making possibilities are limited to maybe ~1000 players if you discount PI alts, and each of those players is only making about 100M isk/day at most. Staying logged on once you have no more sites is nearly pointless in low end w-space if your corp mates aren't around. Yes, people should be farming their statics and only clearing the home as a last resort, but the math works out the same. Except that presumably, every anom cleared is reappearing elsewhere thus creating sites/content for others. The issue with wormhole space to a degree with this model is that anoms get "stuck" in what we call "goldmine" systems where there is little to no activity and no one running sites in them where they build up until there are dozens. Great when you find one but others it diminishes the pool of anoms. Whether that is a true problem only CCP and their stats could tell us
Sure. And when I find a goldmine, I warp to every sig and anomaly in the system to start their countdowns, since I know I can't possibly clear them all.
However, what matters isn't the rate at which you flush sites, it's the rate at which others flush sites that then land in your chain. Nobody is going to stay logged in, on the off chance that a site will appear 3 hours from now because another corp in another hole in your constellation happened to clear a site.
As such, I think the math is pretty close to the "every site gets run once per 24 hours" as an approximation, which still leaves us with lower class holes that cannot reliably support enough players to be worth the costs. We essentially have 11% of the game's systems with enough income to support less than 4% of the game's population. (Average of 25k logged-in players) And by support, I mean "takes 12+ hours of solo play to replace the ship used to run the content" which is itself a terrible metric.
L4 highsec missions are easily run in T2-fit battleships worth 400M or so, and as such, the replacement time is ~10 hours with near zero risk. This completely ignores blitzing strategies which make these even more lucrative.
Even undisturbed, C2 sites should return a better reward than that.
|
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
712
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 17:50:00 -
[58] - Quote
Obil Que wrote:
Solo clearing C1 sites (as seen in Corbexx's data) is close to 50M/hr and consistently better than running C2 sites. You get more sleepers per site, more chances for ribbons which is where the money is. Trio clearing C3 sites is around 40 per person once you divide up the loot even if you're doing them optimally. Three newbros in a Drake/Scythe are not optimal. And yes, we do take on some very new people. There are plenty of people out there interested in wormholes but put off by the months of training many corps require to even look at them. I've taken a different approach. My complaint is no different than anyone else here commenting on the state of corp roles, POS mechanics, and PvE rewards in wormhole space. Recruitment is hard because of the lack of security and the rewards do not scale well and favor solo play. I'd like to see those two state of affairs improved.
its worth noting that one site in c1 was crazy high and using Ktersida Nyn'Amanyn number of melted nanos brings it much more inline with C2 pay. c1 and c2 are still bad though (imho)
Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
125
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 17:54:00 -
[59] - Quote
corbexx wrote:Obil Que wrote:
Solo clearing C1 sites (as seen in Corbexx's data) is close to 50M/hr and consistently better than running C2 sites. You get more sleepers per site, more chances for ribbons which is where the money is. Trio clearing C3 sites is around 40 per person once you divide up the loot even if you're doing them optimally. Three newbros in a Drake/Scythe are not optimal. And yes, we do take on some very new people. There are plenty of people out there interested in wormholes but put off by the months of training many corps require to even look at them. I've taken a different approach. My complaint is no different than anyone else here commenting on the state of corp roles, POS mechanics, and PvE rewards in wormhole space. Recruitment is hard because of the lack of security and the rewards do not scale well and favor solo play. I'd like to see those two state of affairs improved.
its worth noting that one site in c1 was crazy high and using Ktersida Nyn'Amanyn number of melted nanos brings it much more inline with C2 pay. c1 and c2 are still bad though (imho)
Agreed. We did, I think, 12 C1 sites this weekend in one system with a trio (though it really only needed to be a duo) and pulled 180M total in 90 minutes. Say it was two people, 90M for 90 minutes is about 60M/hr so we're seeing numbers on par with what I described. |
Aiyshimin
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
74
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 18:16:00 -
[60] - Quote
Aryex wrote: We essentially have 11% of the game's systems with enough income to support less than 4% of the game's population. (Average of 25k logged-in players) And by support, I mean "takes 12+ hours of solo play to replace the ship used to run the content" which is itself a terrible metric.
Last time CCP released actual stats, blue loot only accounted for 18% of all PVE income in New Eden. |
|
Aryex
Bastard Children of Poinen
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 18:22:00 -
[61] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Aryex wrote: We essentially have 11% of the game's systems with enough income to support less than 4% of the game's population. (Average of 25k logged-in players) And by support, I mean "takes 12+ hours of solo play to replace the ship used to run the content" which is itself a terrible metric.
Last time CCP released actual stats, blue loot only accounted for 18% of all PVE income in New Eden.
I imagine that 95% of that comes from capital escalations.
Depending on nano-ribbons is an awful way to live. |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Ixtab.
1876
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 18:25:00 -
[62] - Quote
You would have to run these sites every day for around a month to get a truly accurate picture. Can't you just ask CCP for the data, corbexx? +1 |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
713
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 18:29:00 -
[63] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:You would have to run these sites every day for around a month to get a truly accurate picture. Can't you just ask CCP for the data, corbexx?
I did its the only thing they have said no to. and yeah need it run more i could probably do it now but would be nda. this atleast lets people see it. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
546
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 19:16:00 -
[64] - Quote
corbexx wrote:I could even [test incursion income] on tranquility as its safe. And right here is a HUGE draw for leaving W-space. Can't test sites on TQ because it's too dangerous, but incursions are perfectly safe to test.
Thanks for taking the time to collect this data. I'm trying to be optimistic that it will be addressed while also taking into account the (lack of) safety in W-space compared to Hisec, but it's not easy.
|
Incindir Mauser
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
453
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 19:29:00 -
[65] - Quote
Meytal wrote:corbexx wrote:I could even [test incursion income] on tranquility as its safe. And right here is a HUGE draw for leaving W-space. Can't test sites on TQ because it's too dangerous, but incursions are perfectly safe to test. Thanks for taking the time to collect this data. I'm trying to be optimistic that it will be addressed while also taking into account the (lack of) safety in W-space compared to Hisec, but it's not easy.
Granted, but the point here is to look at low-end wormholes and compare them to higher end holes in terms of earned ISK per hour.
CCP already knows what is going on with the state of W-space. We live out here because we WANT to at this point, not because it's particularly profitable.
If you really wanted to get down to the nitty gritty, station trading is the highest isk per hour activity with literally ZERO risk. But we aren't making those kinds of comparisons. That would address why W-space is slowly bleeding playerbase. |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
725
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 20:00:00 -
[66] - Quote
Meytal wrote:
They have the drop tables with chances for all types of loot, as well as exact NPC compositions and chances for extras or other modifications. They could easily pick prices for one market day, and generate average values for each site, given the percentage chances for all drops, comparing it against number of NPCs and total EHP, DPS, and utility effects of each wave, to rate each site.
Given the numbers you've posted, is your impression that they are interested in getting more exact numbers of the kind only CCP can obtain? Or do they still only want to look at and talk about cap escalations and blanket apply that to all of W-space?
And speaking of cap escalations, given your experience and numbers for C5/C6, how would the income change if you could only cap escalate once?
Most of this is sadly nda, i'm working on some ideas but need to bounce it about between alot of people. sadly i'm super busy what with pos info and some other things so thi is sort of a side project at the moment. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
725
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 20:02:00 -
[67] - Quote
Incindir Mauser wrote: CCP already knows what is going on with the state of W-space. We live out here because we WANT to at this point, not because it's particularly profitable.
If you really wanted to get down to the nitty gritty, station trading is the highest isk per hour activity with literally ZERO risk. But we aren't making those kinds of comparisons. That would address why W-space is slowly bleeding playerbase.
This is basically spot on. If we wanted max isk it woudlbe station trading then incursions. as you said we live in wormholes cos we like it. The issue is we really need to intice more more people in, and that means incentives. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
726
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 20:09:00 -
[68] - Quote
Nox52 wrote:I don't suppose you have or are willing to put up the c5 and c6 site income just to put the disparity in perspective?
Right got some info (and permission to post it).
This is for C6 fully escalated sites 171 sites run (so HUGE sample size compared to the c1 to c4 stuff as its cap escalations doesnt matter what site since we dont do them just the escalation.)
Average of 690million per site. Average of 7 minutes 42 seconds per site. Average of 270 mill/hour per person.
Better than C4 to C1 but thats fully escalated and with a fair sized group, if you had just 5 people you would make alot more. without cap escalation its going to drop a **** load maybe half that, potentially less.
Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Bronya Boga
Isogen 5
480
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 20:21:00 -
[69] - Quote
Moloney wrote:Thanks corbexx for the effort.
The only problem is that the data is useless.
1. You have been paid nothing in the time interval you tested. I.e. you can still be ganked on the way to market. 2. You did this in a vacuum. (Sisi, no chance of being ganked) 3. Most corporations in a c4 do not run a single character so any payment will be split 2 or more ways 4. Applies mostly after Hyperion... 10 sites would have to spawn in the first place....
I think you missed the point. And he litterally addressed alk yourpoints in the OP.
Read before posting kids
Host of Down The Pipe-áIngame Channel DTP Podcast www.downthepipe-wh.com GÇïIsogen 5 is recruiting. Check us out
|
Ruffio Sepico
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
32
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 20:32:00 -
[70] - Quote
corbexx wrote:Nox52 wrote:I don't suppose you have or are willing to put up the c5 and c6 site income just to put the disparity in perspective?
Right got some info (and permission to post it). This is for C6 fully escalated sites 171 sites run (so HUGE sample size compared to the c1 to c4 stuff as its cap escalations doesnt matter what site since we dont do them just the escalation.) Average of 690million per site. Average of 7 minutes 42 seconds per site. Average of 270 mill/hour per person. Better than C4 to C1 but thats fully escalated and with a fair sized group, if you had just 5 people you would make alot more. without cap escalation its going to drop a **** load maybe half that, potentially less.
As a siege cycle is 5 mins, and with warping times etc. That would more put you at a site every 15 mins or so.
Assume your site running fleet around 20b+ worth, you would need something like 30 sites to replace it if ilost, so around 7-8 hours grind of sites to recover potentinal loss. But of course if you have like 30 guys to feed, and you haven't had more than 2 sites spawn for a week. The whole isk per hour is very fickle. |
|
Alundil
Isogen 5
667
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 20:44:00 -
[71] - Quote
Bronya Boga wrote:Moloney wrote:Thanks corbexx for the effort.
The only problem is that the data is useless.
1. You have been paid nothing in the time interval you tested. I.e. you can still be ganked on the way to market. 2. You did this in a vacuum. (Sisi, no chance of being ganked) 3. Most corporations in a c4 do not run a single character so any payment will be split 2 or more ways 4. Applies mostly after Hyperion... 10 sites would have to spawn in the first place.... I think you missed the point. And he litterally addressed alk yourpoints in the OP. Read before posting kids He did. But it's not the first one he's missed.
I'm right behind you |
Nox52
Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking
31
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 21:39:00 -
[72] - Quote
corbexx wrote:Nox52 wrote:I don't suppose you have or are willing to put up the c5 and c6 site income just to put the disparity in perspective?
Right got some info (and permission to post it). This is for C6 fully escalated sites 171 sites run (so HUGE sample size compared to the c1 to c4 stuff as its cap escalations doesnt matter what site since we dont do them just the escalation.) Average of 690million per site. Average of 7 minutes 42 seconds per site. Average of 270 mill/hour per person. Better than C4 to C1 but thats fully escalated and with a fair sized group, if you had just 5 people you would make alot more. without cap escalation its going to drop a **** load maybe half that, potentially less.
Thank you, those numbers are similar what my experience has been. (Much more impactful when you post up the numbers :) ).
So we can see just how big the jump is between the lower class and high class wormholes with not much middle ground in between. Really puts it in perspective no?
So really the question is what is CCP gonna do about it? I know Corbexx has said there is stuff he is working on and NDA and so on but it serves to reinforce the discussion point. Why would a newer player join wh space when they have l4/incursion income streams and kspace content streams. It really isn't a good idea.
And I think we can all agree that current POS mechanincs and role security is crap, cumbersome and could vastly be improved. |
Jack Miton
Isogen 5
3798
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 22:55:00 -
[73] - Quote
Excellent work corbexx.
numbers match my expectations pretty reasonably except I expected the C4s to be closer to the 200 mark. As for all the people complaining that the data isnt accurate, sure, it's not 100% accurate but who cares? Even assuming it has a margin of error of, say 20%, it gives a pretty damn good ballpark to start with.
As for comparing it to C5-6 space, some rough numbers including travel and salvage:
C5 solo marauder: ~350m/h Minimum numbers C5 or 6 escalations, 6 pilots: ~450-500m/h each (This scales up very fast if you drop real pilots and add alts)
I have no data on solo C6 sites, pretty sure people don't run them solo. Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ Down the Pipe:-á http://downthepipe-wh.com/ |
Jack Miton
Isogen 5
3798
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 23:03:00 -
[74] - Quote
corbexx wrote:This is for C6 fully escalated sites 171 sites run (so HUGE sample size compared to the c1 to c4 stuff as its cap escalations doesnt matter what site since we dont do them just the escalation.)
Average of 690million per site. Average of 7 minutes 42 seconds per site. Average of 270 mill/hour per person. I like that youre posting these numbers but this is highly inefficient for escalations so I'm assuming you run sites with a ton of people that aren't needed.
if you look at minimum numbers, you have 4 cap pilots, loki, booster, salvager. I'm calling this 6 pilots as at the very least the booster or salvager is an alt.
A crew like this can very comfortably run 4 sites an hour including all travel and salvage (5 if theyre any good). (This is just warping to the site at zero, no making BMs or whatever)
At 700m/site this works out to (700 x 4)/6 = 466mil/hour/toon Obviously this scales very fast if you start using alts.
That said, you numbers do post a more accurate value for a large corp that involves many people in their site running so also good to know. Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ Down the Pipe:-á http://downthepipe-wh.com/ |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
731
|
Posted - 2014.09.22 23:17:00 -
[75] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:corbexx wrote:This is for C6 fully escalated sites 171 sites run (so HUGE sample size compared to the c1 to c4 stuff as its cap escalations doesnt matter what site since we dont do them just the escalation.)
Average of 690million per site. Average of 7 minutes 42 seconds per site. Average of 270 mill/hour per person. I like that youre posting these numbers but this is highly inefficient for escalations so I'm assuming you run sites with a ton of people that aren't needed. if you look at minimum numbers, you have 4 cap pilots, loki, booster, salvager. I'm calling this 6 pilots as at the very least the booster or salvager is an alt. A crew like this can very comfortably run 4 sites an hour including all travel and salvage (5 if theyre any good). (This is just warping to the site at zero, no making BMs or whatever) At 700m/site this works out to (700 x 4)/6 = 466mil/hour/toon Obviously this scales very fast if you start using alts. That said, you numbers do post a more accurate value for a large corp that involves many people in their site running so also good to know.
ooh it is this is data straight from noho and we do it with alot of people so yes low if you compare it to farmers with min numbers, but for larger corps/allainces probably accurate. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Winthorp
2737
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 00:48:00 -
[76] - Quote
Thanks for the hard work on this on Corbexx and the other people that helped him gathering data.
I hope this gets results with CCP in terms of some dev time put into PVE activities and how they are run and not a straight up arbitrary boost to numbers for the sake of a needed buff. |
Blake Nosferatu
Phoenix of the Black Sun
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 01:56:00 -
[77] - Quote
Thanks for the effort you put into into corbexx. Maybe ccp will take note and increase the incentive for people coming into wormhole space. From my experience of living in almost all class' s of wh's i thought c1 and c2s needed help and this data reinforces that opinion.C4's also as I stated before should get a little love considering someone farming in a much quieter c3 flying a ship half the value as a cheap fit marauder in a now very traffic filled c4 make about the same amount of isk per hour. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1229
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 04:30:00 -
[78] - Quote
Corbexx, I hope the Devs have understood that in wormhole space, Isk per hour is a value well seperated from reality, both due to the time "Needed" to allow PVE at all, and that the sites cannot be continually run as they are gone when they are gone. Isk per week at x hours a day is far more realistic.
I know you will have told them repeatedly, but do they truly understand?
Either way, your work and efforts are invaluable, thank you. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE |
Andiedeath
Sefem Velox Swift Angels Alliance
277
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 06:30:00 -
[79] - Quote
Jezza McWaffle wrote:Interesting results, im surprised C4 income isn't that much higher than C3, the current state of C2 space looks depressing given the massive difference between it and C3 space and C1 income being higher. Did you experiment what the lowest form of ship could run each site?
Nice to know the data follows our feelings which is one reason we moved to a c4 with some good options for statics.
A side note to Jezza's comments, we have tested running the sites as noobs and can confirm c1-c2 sites can comfortably in t1 friagtes with 2 navitas (t1 logi frigates) in support as efficiently as a solo drake. Also we have run run c3 sites in assault friagtes with 2 exequors in support which worked out as good in most cases as running multiple remote rep tengus. C4 wolf rayet sites can be run with the same doctrine as well. Director Swift Angels Alliance https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3247397#post3247397 INGAME CHANNEL: Sefem Public |
BayneNothos
United Electro-Magnetic Federation Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners
109
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 07:51:00 -
[80] - Quote
Looks good Corbexx, good work.
So now you've seen this, what are your thoughts on improving things?.
Personally I feel the biggest issue is that the %age of total isk from nano's is the wrong way around. The higher the WH class, the more of the total loot payout should be from nano's and other loot, rather than blues. Theoretically that'd make things a bit more stable for lower groups and be a disincentive to farmer groups.
Pushing CCP to do the T3 balance sooner rather than later would also help a lot to get nanoribbon prices back up more. Assuming of course they don't break all T3's to uselessness in the process :P |
|
calaretu
Honestly We didnt know Unsettled.
209
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 07:57:00 -
[81] - Quote
nicely done corbexx. very good work! ~Bringer of happiness
http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/ |
Faye Fantastic
NorCorp Enterprise No Holes Barred
25
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 09:08:00 -
[82] - Quote
Great job Corbexx, I know you how many hours you've put in to collect these data's. Much respect! |
Aiyshimin
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
74
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 09:23:00 -
[83] - Quote
BayneNothos wrote:Looks good Corbexx, good work.
So now you've seen this, what are your thoughts on improving things?.
Personally I feel the biggest issue is that the %age of total isk from nano's is the wrong way around. The higher the WH class, the more of the total loot payout should be from nano's and other loot, rather than blues. Theoretically that'd make things a bit more stable for lower groups and be a disincentive to farmer groups.
Pushing CCP to do the T3 balance sooner rather than later would also help a lot to get nanoribbon prices back up more. Assuming of course they don't break all T3's to uselessness in the process :P
I'd agree that moving some of the income down from cap escalations is probably the best/only way forward. Boosting the wh ISK faucet by simply increasing C1-2 blue loot drops could imbalance the economy.
However I'd also like to note that rebalancing WH income might not really solve the population issues, good ISK/hr is weak incentive compared to FUN/hr. Anomaly running is extremely repetitive action and increasing the variety of sites only goes so far- I feel that wormhole space could use a new feature or two (not necessarily conventional PVE -related) to really spark a new influx of inhabitants. What these could be, no idea.
No matter how controversial the Hyperion changes were, I honestly think that any changes to ancient mechanics play an important part in wh resident retention. Adapting and learning to exploit new mechanics is core gameplay of EVE Online, and a vital part of a living virtual world.
|
Winthorp
2739
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 09:25:00 -
[84] - Quote
BayneNothos wrote:Looks good Corbexx, good work.
So now you've seen this, what are your thoughts on improving things?.
Personally I feel the biggest issue is that the %age of total isk from nano's is the wrong way around. The higher the WH class, the more of the total loot payout should be from nano's and other loot, rather than blues. Theoretically that'd make things a bit more stable for lower groups and be a disincentive to farmer groups.
Pushing CCP to do the T3 balance sooner rather than later would also help a lot to get nanoribbon prices back up more. Assuming of course they don't break all T3's to uselessness in the process :P
This guy gets it, i don't believe we should have PVE changes untill they look at what they are doing with T3 changes as they are so intrinsically linked.
It scares me that they are making Reverse Engineering changes and as they realise that it will affect profit margins of the RE builders (like me) they have said they would look at changing the drop rate of MNR's. It shocks me that that alone hasn't scared more people that they would make such a major change based on the income stream of a HS industrial player and not think of the consequences to a WH resident that relies on that for their daily income. |
Bjurn Akely
Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters
68
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 09:39:00 -
[85] - Quote
Thanks for supplying this research and data.
To those that talks about how this is sort of invalid due to risks of getting ganked etc: this is raw data. It's nothing else. This is how much the sites produce. Anything else on top of that is *other* data. There will never be a comprehensive analysis. This is because there is a chance/risk of ganking that can not easily be measured. It's soft data and pretty much based on feelings and conjecture.
|
Jerin Crank
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 10:52:00 -
[86] - Quote
corbexx wrote: This is basically spot on. If we wanted max isk it woudlbe station trading then incursions. as you said we live in wormholes cos we like it. The issue is we really need to intice more more people in, and that means incentives.
If we wanted to make ISK we would be station traders. We live in wormholes because we like it. vs We need to entice more people into wormholes, so we need better incentives.
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
125
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 12:47:00 -
[87] - Quote
Jerin Crank wrote:corbexx wrote: This is basically spot on. If we wanted max isk it woudlbe station trading then incursions. as you said we live in wormholes cos we like it. The issue is we really need to intice more more people in, and that means incentives.
If we wanted to make ISK we would be station traders. We live in wormholes because we like it. vs We need to entice more people into wormholes, so we need better incentives.
I would think the recent changes in low-sec and the influx of people there as a result are a great example of how to do this kind of thing. New/unique drops/content is what brings people to areas of EVE for PvE. The PvP follows. It feels like it has been too much the other way around where "conflict drivers" are being added to incentivize PvP. I don't believe this has the same long lasting effect to attract players into an area of space. |
Incindir Mauser
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
454
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 13:11:00 -
[88] - Quote
BayneNothos wrote:Looks good Corbexx, good work.
So now you've seen this, what are your thoughts on improving things?.
Personally I feel the biggest issue is that the %age of total isk from nano's is the wrong way around. The higher the WH class, the more of the total loot payout should be from nano's and other loot, rather than blues. Theoretically that'd make things a bit more stable for lower groups and be a disincentive to farmer groups.
Pushing CCP to do the T3 balance sooner rather than later would also help a lot to get nanoribbon prices back up more. Assuming of course they don't break all T3's to uselessness in the process :P
Be careful what you wish for.
CCP has a habit of lousing things up in the name of change and the ever nebulous concept of "progress". T3's could end up as nothing but expensive hangar decorations just as easily as they could give bad subsystems new usefulness.
WH income should not be totally derived from Sleeper Poop and Nanoribbons. It's just getting them to impliment on something that has an ever decreasing population. W-space doesn't really generate headlines on mainstream newpapers when we have an eviction. CCP doesn't really have a motivation to prioritize our wants and desires over the wants and desires of Sov Null. |
calaretu
Honestly We didnt know Unsettled.
209
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 14:21:00 -
[89] - Quote
Winthorp wrote: It scares me that they are making Reverse Engineering changes and as they realise that it will affect profit margins of the RE builders (like me) they have said they would look at changing the drop rate of MNR's. It shocks me that that alone hasn't scared more people that they would make such a major change based on the income stream of a HS industrial player and not think of the consequences to a WH resident that relies on that for their daily income.
This is a huge issue if altered without taking into account all of the aspects it affect. Our CSM's on this ball?
~Bringer of happiness
http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/ |
Terrorfrodo
Renegade Hobbits for Mordor
659
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 14:22:00 -
[90] - Quote
There are so many different methods and configurations to run sites that this small test really cannot be used to prove anything to anyone or be the basis of CCP's development plans. It could be very harmful if they actually based anything on that.
Shouldn't CCP be able to get much more meaningful data? They surely can easily collect actual stats from TQ how long characters/fleets take to complete certain sites, how many sites are run in a row, exactly how many ribbons drop on average etc. and that on a sample of a million of sites completed instead of just 10.
That would also give a realistic average instead of a single user's experience using his own personal method and skill. For example, I ran c3 anoms with two characters for several years and consistently made >250m/hour. Later I did c4 anoms for quite a while (albeit a Magnetar) also using two chars and consistently made ~500m/hour. But only until the sites ran out of course, so basically only for 1-2 hours per week.
So to see how real income is, one has to look both at how the average player does it (hint: most people suck) and also one has to take the supply of sites into consideration. Yes, c1 space is better than c2 as long as you have a ton of sites, but you usually don't, and you cannot easily generate new ones because c1 statics are un-closeable. . |
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
126
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 14:47:00 -
[91] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote:There are so many different methods and configurations to run sites that this small test really cannot be used to prove anything to anyone or be the basis of CCP's development plans. It could be very harmful if they actually based anything on that.
Shouldn't CCP be able to get much more meaningful data? They surely can easily collect actual stats from TQ how long characters/fleets take to complete certain sites, how many sites are run in a row, exactly how many ribbons drop on average etc. and that on a sample of a million of sites completed instead of just 10.
That would also give a realistic average instead of a single user's experience using his own personal method and skill. For example, I ran c3 anoms with two characters for several years and consistently made >250m/hour. Later I did c4 anoms for quite a while (albeit a Magnetar) also using two chars and consistently made ~500m/hour. But only until the sites ran out of course, so basically only for 1-2 hours per week.
So to see how real income is, one has to look both at how the average player does it (hint: most people suck) and also one has to take the supply of sites into consideration. Yes, c1 space is better than c2 as long as you have a ton of sites, but you usually don't, and you cannot easily generate new ones because c1 statics are un-closeable.
Corbexx didn't measure income per se, or certainly not all possible levels of income. Income is a calculation of site value, time to complete, and parties involved. His data is site value, his time to complete, and one person. Yours is different. The base data on the site values remains the same which is the important data here.
Yes, there are other data points such as anom spawns, availability of sites in a static, etc. etc. It seems rather shortsighted to think that CCP can't engage in a conversation about this and understand the interconnected parts. Corbexx has done a good job of putting real world numbers (with constraints) to wormhole PvE which will be valuable to any discussion. |
Aiyshimin
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
74
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 14:59:00 -
[92] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote: That would also give a realistic average instead of a single user's experience using his own personal method and skill. For example, I ran c3 anoms with two characters for several years and consistently made >250m/hour. Later I did c4 anoms for quite a while (albeit a Magnetar) also using two chars and consistently made ~500m/hour. But only until the sites ran out of course, so basically only for 1-2 hours per week.
250/2 = 125mil/hr 500/2 = 250mil with magnetar bonus
Your figures fall nicely inside the error margin of the OP's figures. They really are a good and realistic baseline and inline with anectodal "data" from various threads on this forum. Which seems to be C1-2 suck like a wall of dicks, C3-4 are ok and cap escalation when done by normal corp are somewhat better ISK and fine, but allow for dedicated multibox farming ops for insane isk/hr.
|
Aryex
Bastard Children of Poinen
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 15:25:00 -
[93] - Quote
We really should be discussing isk/site separately than isk/hour or isk/character/hour. We shouldn't care how many alts are brought. (And we should recognize that every additional alt is one additional count in the denominator of profitability) |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
732
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 15:48:00 -
[94] - Quote
calaretu wrote:Winthorp wrote: It scares me that they are making Reverse Engineering changes and as they realise that it will affect profit margins of the RE builders (like me) they have said they would look at changing the drop rate of MNR's. It shocks me that that alone hasn't scared more people that they would make such a major change based on the income stream of a HS industrial player and not think of the consequences to a WH resident that relies on that for their daily income.
This is a huge issue if altered without taking into account all of the aspects it affect. Our CSM's on this ball?
yes on it already been raised several times as well. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
6543
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 17:33:00 -
[95] - Quote
So I wrote a blog post on some options for how I think some changes could be made. Thoughts?
|
Odin Skydiver
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
2
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 18:16:00 -
[96] - Quote
It's also little funny that risk comes from other players not from sleepers. Btw how about the idea that scouts could detect wormhole activations so site runner fleet won't need more than one scout even in cheese system. |
calaretu
Honestly We didnt know Unsettled.
210
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 18:38:00 -
[97] - Quote
Saede Riordan wrote:So I wrote a blog post on some options for how I think some changes could be made. Thoughts?
Really dont like the idea of acceleration gates. You cant probe and warp to anyone inside it. Bad imo. I liked better the idea of escalating burner fleets that someone mentioned in a different thread ~Bringer of happiness
http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/ |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
6543
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 18:55:00 -
[98] - Quote
calaretu wrote:Saede Riordan wrote:So I wrote a blog post on some options for how I think some changes could be made. Thoughts? Really dont like the idea of acceleration gates. You cant probe and warp to anyone inside it. Bad imo. I liked better the idea of escalating burner fleets that someone mentioned in a different thread
Yeah that's true. Link the thing on burner fleets, I'm curious?
Also, what are people's thoughts on getting the sleepers removed from data and relic sites, and having data, relic, and gas site spawning decoupled from system class?
|
Obil Que
Star Explorers Reckoning Star Alliance
126
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 19:08:00 -
[99] - Quote
Saede Riordan wrote:calaretu wrote:Saede Riordan wrote:So I wrote a blog post on some options for how I think some changes could be made. Thoughts? Really dont like the idea of acceleration gates. You cant probe and warp to anyone inside it. Bad imo. I liked better the idea of escalating burner fleets that someone mentioned in a different thread Yeah that's true. Link the thing on burner fleets, I'm curious? Also, what are people's thoughts on getting the sleepers removed from data and relic sites, and having data, relic, and gas site spawning decoupled from system class?
I could see gas being interesting but decoupling sleepers from data/relic would open up considerable loot from C5/C6 relic sites to basically anyone to grab. That being said, C1-C4 data/relic loot needs a buff as it is basically worthless. Removing those sleepers removes another source of blue loot and salvage from WHs and that isn't desirable. All in all, I don't see the benefit from removing them. |
RudinV
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
402
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 19:25:00 -
[100] - Quote
might miss smth but. what is this topic about? corbexx wanna know isk/h in wspace? or how to improve it to bring in more peeps? if so, why u talk only about isks? In eve a lot of people doing things less profitable that they could do instead, such a high sec mining, exploration, gate gamping in nulls, non afk carebearin etc etc, i mean its rly hard to say, that after some lvl of income people still care about this income, i think u shouldnt focus at isk/hr that much. U want to bring more people to wh? Bring us some unique content, some sort of relic/data but unique for wh, not about blue loot, but...may be decoration (i would like to have nice sleepers T-shirt or smth, what will indicate that i spent a whole bunch of hours in wh and not somewhere else) or wh expeditions, what send u from c2 to specific c6, and u most probably will spent few months before u finish it, but after u will have smth like- OMFG HE DID IT medal) i mean check at other games, what they do to make people do stuff? motivation about wealth almost never work, buff income-RMT multiboxers will b happy, but gamers-no. PS. there is only one thing CCP should do about wh income- reduce the difference between c1-c6. buff a bit low class and nerf high. cap escalations are not that hard in fact |
|
Incindir Mauser
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
454
|
Posted - 2014.09.23 21:24:00 -
[101] - Quote
RudinV wrote:might miss smth but. what is this topic about? corbexx wanna know isk/h in wspace? or how to improve it to bring in more peeps? if so, why u talk only about isks? In eve a lot of people doing things less profitable that they could do instead, such a high sec mining, exploration, gate gamping in nulls, non afk carebearin etc etc, i mean its rly hard to say, that after some lvl of income people still care about this income, i think u shouldnt focus at isk/hr that much. U want to bring more people to wh? Bring us some unique content, some sort of relic/data but unique for wh, not about blue loot, but...may be decoration (i would like to have nice sleepers T-shirt or smth, what will indicate that i spent a whole bunch of hours in wh and not somewhere else) or wh expeditions, what send u from c2 to specific c6, and u most probably will spent few months before u finish it, but after u will have smth like- OMFG HE DID IT medal) i mean check at other games, what they do to make people do stuff? motivation about wealth almost never work, buff income-RMT multiboxers will b happy, but gamers-no. PS. there is only one thing CCP should do about wh income- reduce the difference between c1-c6. buff a bit low class and nerf high. cap escalations are not that hard in fact
Ugh. Paragraphs friend... paragraphs.
Almost all the activities you listed, save two, pay more than living in a C1.
The reason ISK per Hour is such an important metric is because WH's are really not a playstyle of convenience. Upkeep cost of living out of a POS runs 400 mil a month in fuel per tower. So if you can't make your 400 mil a month off of the playtime you are able to invest, you won't stick around long.
It's the whole reason why corbexxx created the thread is to get an accurate measure of what the average player, or small group of players (the usual residents of C1-C4's) can reasonably expect to make from each class of WH.
First you have to know what the quality of life is like between wormholes and adjust that relative to the costs of maintaining a lifestyle outside of known space. Then you can start comparing it to safer and more lucrative activities in Hisec and come to the inevitable conclusion that everyone that lives out here in W-space is a few drones short of an Ishtar.
|
RudinV
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
402
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 06:45:00 -
[102] - Quote
oh plz stop about POS fuel, if u move to wh that shouldnt b the question. simple. why not to mention PI, gas/mining? the question of farmin your home system goes out after u have more than 4-5 mates who wanna farm too, doesnt matte if its c1 or c4. u move to statics and bear them all. |
God Arthie
Steel and Strong Wormhole Holders
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 07:14:00 -
[103] - Quote
RudinV wrote:oh plz stop about POS fuel, if u move to wh that shouldnt b the question. simple. why not to mention PI, gas/mining? the question of farmin your home system goes out after u have more than 4-5 mates who wanna farm too, doesnt matte if its c1 or c4. u move to statics and bear them all.
So, you haven't been in WH's since hyperion(or most likely, ever), for almost a week we don't have gas, mining or combat sites. Our statics are that bad that we have to close them multiple times till we see at least 4 combat anomalies.
Edit: we have a lot more risk in living here then in any other part of New Eden, and still we can't get as much income as null (ratting, as they have infinite site spawn), low (missions), high (missions/incursions). If you want a tshirt go to some store and buy it, it's EVE, not a cloth shop. |
Pro TIps
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
47
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 07:49:00 -
[104] - Quote
corbexx wrote:Rek Seven wrote:You would have to run these sites every day for around a month to get a truly accurate picture. Can't you just ask CCP for the data, corbexx? I did its the only thing they have said no to. and yeah need it run more i could probably do it now but would be nda. this atleast lets people see it. It may be difficult for them to generate this data. Without logging encounters, they won't have information on the typical time it takes players to complete the sites. Plus you have to salvage them, find anoms in the first place, etc.
Direct comparison of ISK/hr between wormhole sites and highsec incursions, or other limitless farming activities w/ extremely low risk, is not as straightforward as X ISK/hr in wormhole and Y ISK/hr in incursion fleet. We don't have an unlimited supply of anoms and if you spend all day farming sites, someone is likely to say hello with a scram sooner or later.
What really needs to be examined is not ISK/hr but ISK opportunity over the longer-term, including the time it takes to roll statics or ship spin in your system while you wait a week for anoms to spawn.
The ISK opportunity in W-space is ****. If I do all the combat sites in my C4 I will get around 1 billion ISK/week. I can go make a billion ISK in about 6 hours of highsec incursions and that opportunity is almost always there and it's with low risk. Can I go to my statics and make ISK? Yes, but it takes more time and more risk to do it. |
Jack Hayson
Atztech Inc. Ixtab.
8
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 08:46:00 -
[105] - Quote
Pro TIps wrote:corbexx wrote:Rek Seven wrote:You would have to run these sites every day for around a month to get a truly accurate picture. Can't you just ask CCP for the data, corbexx? I did its the only thing they have said no to. and yeah need it run more i could probably do it now but would be nda. this atleast lets people see it. It may be difficult for them to generate this data. Without logging encounters, they won't have information on the typical time it takes players to complete the sites. Plus you have to salvage them, find anoms in the first place, etc. Well, they should know the chances for each possible loot drop, as well as the EHP of the sleeper drones. That way your only variable would be applied dps. (Which you could guesstimate for each ship)
It's a bit weird that CCP lets corbexx do tons of work to collect data that they should already have available. |
Pro TIps
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
48
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 09:40:00 -
[106] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote:It's a bit weird that CCP lets corbexx do tons of work to collect data that they should already have available. But you said it, applied DPS vs paper DPS, etc. make this non-trivial. Besides, if you are out of anoms and you have to spend half-hour rolling your static to find one with anoms (in my case, hoping you dont find PVP in the process), you just spent half-hour risking ships while making zero.
If CCP really want more players, and more diverse groups of players, to take advantage of W-space then they will have to dramatically boost risk/reward and content/ISK opportunities. The specific means for doing that is up for debate, but the need to do these things is abundantly clear. |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
735
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 09:59:00 -
[107] - Quote
Jack Hayson wrote: It's a bit weird that CCP lets corbexx do tons of work to collect data that they should already have available.
yeah lets not go there. But the info is still of use even if just for comparison.
Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
Marox Calendale
Human League
28
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 10:48:00 -
[108] - Quote
Saede Riordan wrote:So I wrote a blog post on some options for how I think some changes could be made. Thoughts? I don-¦t like the idea of having acceleration gates in wh either. But you-¦re absolutely right that the only difference in wh class risk is in the probability of an eviction. In consequence I like the idea of decoupling all gas, ore, relic and data sites from wh class. C320 in C1 or C2? Why not? It would probably force more k-space people to look in the system behind the great whole for the possibility of a "big fish" of gas or mining mercoxit next to a highsec system. An interesting conflict driver don-¦t you think? Remain sleepers in relics and datas, but fix the bugs with them. I know all possibilities you described and its mostly more annoying waiting 10 minutes in a sites until the last can is hacked and no sleeper comes. But I don-¦t want them to be as they-¦re in k-space. WH should be different than k-space.
|
Terrorfrodo
Renegade Hobbits for Mordor
659
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 11:39:00 -
[109] - Quote
Site values are basically constant, with ribbons the only meaningful variable. Average ribbon drops should be known to CCP at the click of a button because after all it's THEIR ALGORITHM. If for whatever weird reason they are unable to read their own code, then the community should be able to provide long-term averages. In fact, I'm sure this data already exists. I myself logged all c3 anoms I ran for a while to calculate long-term ribbon yields. I stopped logging after 200 sites or so because the average didn't move any more. I might still have the spreadsheet somewhere...
Regarding a possible rebalancing or redesign of wspace pve... obviously there needs to be a way to make site income scale with class, but in a way that ensures that higher-class systems support bigger player groups instead of just making multiboxing soloists or small groups richer faster.
I think one way to achieve that could be to change sleeper spawns so that they have much lower ehp but much higher remote repair. Currently, sleeper rr exists but is not a significant factor in most sites. The result is that any player fleet that can tank the sleepers' damage output is able to complete the site.
Now it is a fact that the more characters you bring into a site, the less efficient you become. Wasted salvos, imperfect damage distribution and coordination will always make a bigger fleet less efficient than a smaller fleet on a per-character basis. That means that one ship dealing 1000 dps will need less than 200% of the time to complete a site than two ships dealing 1000 dps each. The result is that cooperating with other people for pve is always a disadvantage if you could instead do the site alone. (Not to mention the inevitable loss of efficiency due to form-up time etc.)
But if for example the sleepers in a c4 site would regenerate 3000 dps indefinitely, then the typical solo-pimpmobile player simply couldn't do these sites anymore. Of course he could just bring more alts, but for almost all people this would not be worth it and in any case it would at least expose them to much higher risk. Instead, these sites would really encourage players to team up to reach that threshold of dps that enables them to complete the site at all. Because the sleepers have low ehp, they would die quickly once their regen rate is matched by the players' dps, making it worthwile to fleet up in the first place.
People would still have the choice to bring fewer but more pimped-out ships or numerous inexpensive ships. What about players bringing dreadnoughts? Sleepers could react by calling in strong reinforcements that ramp up their hitpoint regeneration dramatically but drop only modest additional loot.
Btw this shouldn't apply to lower class which of course should still be accessible to solo players, even very inexperenced ones who cannot do a lot of damage. The newbie in his 200 dps Drake should still be able to do the c1 anom, albeit of course he will need more time for it than the experienced player in a better ship. . |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1232
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 12:11:00 -
[110] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote:Site values are basically constant, with ribbons the only meaningful variable. Average ribbon drops should be known to CCP at the click of a button because after all it's THEIR ALGORITHM. If for whatever weird reason they are unable to read their own code, then the community should be able to provide long-term averages. In fact, I'm sure this data already exists. I myself logged all c3 anoms I ran for a while to calculate long-term ribbon yields. I stopped logging after 200 sites or so because the average didn't move any more. I might still have the spreadsheet somewhere...
Regarding a possible rebalancing or redesign of wspace pve... obviously there needs to be a way to make site income scale with class, but in a way that ensures that higher-class systems support bigger player groups instead of just making multiboxing soloists or small groups richer faster.
I think one way to achieve that could be to change sleeper spawns so that they have much lower ehp but much higher remote repair. Currently, sleeper rr exists but is not a significant factor in most sites. The result is that any player fleet that can tank the sleepers' damage output is able to complete the site.
Now it is a fact that the more characters you bring into a site, the less efficient you become. Wasted salvos, imperfect damage distribution and coordination will always make a bigger fleet less efficient than a smaller fleet on a per-character basis. That means that one ship dealing 1000 dps will need less than 200% of the time to complete a site than two ships dealing 1000 dps each. The result is that cooperating with other people for pve is always a disadvantage if you could instead do the site alone. (Not to mention the inevitable loss of efficiency due to form-up time etc.)
But if for example the sleepers in a c4 site would regenerate 3000 dps indefinitely, then the typical solo-pimpmobile player simply couldn't do these sites anymore. Of course he could just bring more alts, but for almost all people this would not be worth it and in any case it would at least expose them to much higher risk. Instead, these sites would really encourage players to team up to reach that threshold of dps that enables them to complete the site at all. Because the sleepers have low ehp, they would die quickly once their regen rate is matched by the players' dps, making it worthwile to fleet up in the first place.
People would still have the choice to bring fewer but more pimped-out ships or numerous inexpensive ships. What about players bringing dreadnoughts? Sleepers could react by calling in strong reinforcements that ramp up their hitpoint regeneration dramatically but drop only modest additional loot.
Btw this shouldn't apply to lower class which of course should still be accessible to solo players, even very inexperenced ones who cannot do a lot of damage. The newbie in his 200 dps Drake should still be able to do the c1 anom, albeit of course he will need more time for it than the experienced player in a better ship.
I'm puzzled by this, the more I look at it, the MORE it seems that multiboxing alts would be the only beneficary. I also cannot follow the logic, where you believe that only large groups should be able to do higher class sites, even large groups do not have everyone on out of peak time/days, and need something to do outside of those times.
Is this one of those (stealth) farmers should die at all costs threads, disregarding how it effects others, just collateral damage, but actually boosting them, or is it a boost large groups thread, as it seems to contain elements of both?
Or possibly I have completely misunderstood, but the proposal seems to contradict your stated goals? In which case, my apologies. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE |
|
Marox Calendale
Human League
28
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 12:46:00 -
[111] - Quote
Terrorfrodo wrote:Regarding a possible rebalancing or redesign of wspace pve... obviously there needs to be a way to make site income scale with class, but in a way that ensures that higher-class systems support bigger player groups instead of just making multiboxing soloists or small groups richer faster. Sorry but I can-¦t follow your reflections. Why should solo players be able to do low class sites? Why should solo players be able to do any sites in J-Space? There are enough possibilities for solo exploration in K-Space. J-Space should be the next step and enforce group exploration. For what reason should site income scale with wh class, except dreads are a little bit more expensive than the average T3 cruiser. But how much real cap to cap fights are in high class systems? The majority of cap kills I have seen in high class are also just pve caps escalating any site, and they were all killed by subcap fleets. What I mean is, why do you need capitals high class, if you don-¦t want to do pvp with them? |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
6543
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 13:17:00 -
[112] - Quote
Marox Calendale wrote:Saede Riordan wrote:So I wrote a blog post on some options for how I think some changes could be made. Thoughts? I don-¦t like the idea of having acceleration gates in wh either. But you-¦re absolutely right that the only difference in wh class risk is in the probability of an eviction. In consequence I like the idea of decoupling all gas, ore, relic and data sites from wh class. C320 in C1 or C2? Why not? It would probably force more k-space people to look in the system behind the great whole for the possibility of a "big fish" of gas or mining mercoxit next to a highsec system. An interesting conflict driver don-¦t you think? Remain sleepers in relics and datas, but fix the bugs with them. I know all possibilities you described and its mostly more annoying waiting 10 minutes in a sites until the last can is hacked and no sleeper comes. But I don-¦t want them to be as they-¦re in k-space. WH should be different than k-space.
Yeah, that's fair enough, the bugs definitely need to get fixed though.
As for the acceleration gates thing, I can agree that it would make things way too safe to farm. The basic idea though isn't to gate sleeper complexes, there's probably a method of achieving the goals without acceleration gates.
The basic concept is for there to be some low level resource site, that you need some macguffin from in order to do the high level sites, while at the same time, requiring that low level site to be left un-ran in order to spawn the high level sites, thus creating a conflict driver between people after macguffins, and those after sleeper loot.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1232
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 13:20:00 -
[113] - Quote
Marox Calendale wrote:Terrorfrodo wrote:Regarding a possible rebalancing or redesign of wspace pve... obviously there needs to be a way to make site income scale with class, but in a way that ensures that higher-class systems support bigger player groups instead of just making multiboxing soloists or small groups richer faster. Sorry but I can-¦t follow your reflections. Why should solo players be able to do low class sites? Why should solo players be able to do any sites in J-Space? There are enough possibilities for solo exploration in K-Space. J-Space should be the next step and enforce group exploration. For what reason should site income scale with wh class, except dreads are a little bit more expensive than the average T3 cruiser. But how much real cap to cap fights are in high class systems? The majority of cap kills I have seen in high class are also just pve caps escalating any site, and they were all killed by subcap fleets. What I mean is, why do you need capitals high class, if you don-¦t want to do pvp with them?
I'll bite, but probably ...
Of course people should be allowed to do solo exploration in wormholes, do you think that wormholes are somehow instantly populated with fully formed corps with no experience?
And even in the largest corporation there are times when there are single or low numbers of players, is the answer to spin in the pos hoping someone would come on so you can play?
The lack of meaningful solo play of value, is one of the greatest issues facing wormhole space currently.
Wormhole Space is NOT Null lite. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE |
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
1343
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 13:51:00 -
[114] - Quote
I always find that visualising the data helps to spot the meaningful bits so I have made what I think of as a GÇÿWormholes ISK/Risk ChartGÇÖ from the information in this thread:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1upBapVRDG255R8DNZLOZXZthFnfurOr_mSHjSKBFjJU/edit?usp=sharing
Explanatory points: 1. ISK/hour/character is y-axis, everything else is secondary y-axis (the one on the right). 2. ISK/hour/character is from corbexxGÇÖs and JackGÇÖs (C5) data. Top marks for effort btw. 3. Cost of fleet is Jack's Tengu or similar for C1-3, Marauder for C4 (although IGÇÖd very much like to see triple RR fleet comp data for C4) and C5 is a guess because I've never lived in one. 4. Cost of gank (hours) is a simple calculation based on number in fleet (one for C1-4 vs six for C5). 5. There is no C6 data so I havenGÇÖt included it.
The GÇÿcost of gankGÇÖ seems like an easy way to visualise risk but doesnGÇÖt account for the reward if you manage NOT to get ganked. If I had to put a metric on risk I would use ISK/hour/character divided by cost of gank (hours) - think of this as a 'Risk Indicator' where higher is better (I should have thought that through really - let's call it the 'Reward Indicator' instead):
C1 = 5 C2 = 3 C3 = 24 C4 = 15 C5 = 81
As you can see C3 and C5 stand out from the others, although C5 leads by a long margin. C1 and C2 are just rubbish by whatever metric you look at and C4 is also out of balance. This is not just because I live in one but rather because the risk of getting ganked does not increase as you go from C1 to C5. This also does not account for the ratio of MNR to Blue Loot which is an additional risk (by market exposure) for C1 and C2 holes in particular.
Suggested actions:
1.Buff C1-C4 loot tables. 2.Nerf C5 ISK/hour/character. 3.Buff C1, C2 Blue Loot to reduce market exposure.
You can see an example of what (I think) would make wormholes healthier overall if you scroll down in the chart. The GÇÿcost of gank (hours)GÇÖ indicator is much smoother in this scenario and actually has a sweet spot around C1-C3 while C4 and C5 payouts are elevated but at greater cost if you get ganked.
The Reward Indicator is also much more even:
C1 = 33 C2 = 51 C3 = 67 C4 = 60 C5 = 64
In summary, where the current wormhole design falls over is that it assumes risk increases greatly with wormhole designation. I don't see any reason to assume that now that wormholes are thoroughly understood and a typical chain will contain all types of holes. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
6543
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 14:14:00 -
[115] - Quote
I may very well get shouted down for this.
But I feel that wormhole space, as a rule, should be more profitable then highsec incursions.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1232
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 14:16:00 -
[116] - Quote
Zappity wrote:I always find that visualising the data helps to spot the meaningful bits so I have made what I think of as a GÇÿWormholes ISK/Risk ChartGÇÖ from the information in this thread: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1upBapVRDG255R8DNZLOZXZthFnfurOr_mSHjSKBFjJU/edit?usp=sharingExplanatory points: 1. ISK/hour/character is y-axis, everything else is secondary y-axis (the one on the right). 2. ISK/hour/character is from corbexxGÇÖs and JackGÇÖs (C5) data. Top marks for effort btw. 3. Cost of fleet is corbexx's Tengu or similar for C1-3, Marauder for C4 (although IGÇÖd very much like to see triple RR fleet comp data for C4) and C5 is a guess because I've never lived in one. 4. Cost of gank (hours) is a simple calculation based on number in fleet (one for C1-4 vs six for C5). 5. There is no C6 data so I havenGÇÖt included it. The GÇÿcost of gankGÇÖ seems like an easy way to visualise risk but doesnGÇÖt account for the reward if you manage NOT to get ganked. If I had to put a metric on risk I would use ISK/hour/character divided by cost of gank (hours) - think of this as a 'Risk Indicator' where higher is better (I should have thought that through really - let's call it the 'Reward Indicator' instead): C1 = 5 C2 = 3 C3 = 24 C4 = 15 C5 = 81 As you can see C3 and C5 stand out from the others, although C5 leads by a long margin. C1 and C2 are just rubbish by whatever metric you look at and C4 is also out of balance. This is not just because I live in one but rather because the risk of getting ganked does not increase as you go from C1 to C5. This also does not account for the ratio of MNR to Blue Loot which is an additional risk (by market exposure) for C1 and C2 holes in particular. Suggested actions: 1.Buff C1-C4 loot tables. 2.Nerf C5 ISK/hour/character. 3.Buff C1, C2 Blue Loot to reduce market exposure. You can see an example of what (I think) would make wormholes healthier overall if you scroll down in the chart. The GÇÿcost of gank (hours)GÇÖ indicator is much smoother in this scenario and actually has a sweet spot around C1-C3 while C4 and C5 payouts are elevated but at greater cost if you get ganked. The Reward Indicator is also much more even: C1 = 33 C2 = 51 C3 = 67 C4 = 60 C5 = 64 In summary, where the current wormhole design falls over is that it assumes risk of getting ganked increases greatly with wormhole class. I don't see any reason to assume that now that wormholes are thoroughly understood and a typical chain will contain all types of holes.
This is interesting, but connectivity is a major, if not the Major risk factor, the class of wormhole in itself does not increase risk. C2 and now C4 space since Hyperion, for example can be particuarly dangerous because of this. Ship class availability also changes the risk factor.(C5/C6) C5 and C6 income seems artificially high, but accordingly needs larger corporations to function well, the income available needs to scale accordingly for them not to become areas where players individually starve, unable to replace losses.
Whilst I agree with your conclusions that income availability needs to rise in lower class wormholes, the loot drop is only one component, time overall spent to attain that income is the critical factor, and remember once the sites are exhausted, one needs to farm the connecting holes, which is NOT like just Jumping the gate to the next system, as many outside of wormhole space assume, it is a whole new ball game...... There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE |
Zappity
SUPREME MATHEMATICS A Band Apart.
1344
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 14:21:00 -
[117] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Zappity wrote:I always find that visualising the data helps to spot the meaningful bits so I have made what I think of as a GÇÿWormholes ISK/Risk ChartGÇÖ from the information in this thread: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1upBapVRDG255R8DNZLOZXZthFnfurOr_mSHjSKBFjJU/edit?usp=sharingExplanatory points: 1. ISK/hour/character is y-axis, everything else is secondary y-axis (the one on the right). 2. ISK/hour/character is from corbexxGÇÖs and JackGÇÖs (C5) data. Top marks for effort btw. 3. Cost of fleet is corbexx's Tengu or similar for C1-3, Marauder for C4 (although IGÇÖd very much like to see triple RR fleet comp data for C4) and C5 is a guess because I've never lived in one. 4. Cost of gank (hours) is a simple calculation based on number in fleet (one for C1-4 vs six for C5). 5. There is no C6 data so I havenGÇÖt included it. The GÇÿcost of gankGÇÖ seems like an easy way to visualise risk but doesnGÇÖt account for the reward if you manage NOT to get ganked. If I had to put a metric on risk I would use ISK/hour/character divided by cost of gank (hours) - think of this as a 'Risk Indicator' where higher is better (I should have thought that through really - let's call it the 'Reward Indicator' instead): C1 = 5 C2 = 3 C3 = 24 C4 = 15 C5 = 81 As you can see C3 and C5 stand out from the others, although C5 leads by a long margin. C1 and C2 are just rubbish by whatever metric you look at and C4 is also out of balance. This is not just because I live in one but rather because the risk of getting ganked does not increase as you go from C1 to C5. This also does not account for the ratio of MNR to Blue Loot which is an additional risk (by market exposure) for C1 and C2 holes in particular. Suggested actions: 1.Buff C1-C4 loot tables. 2.Nerf C5 ISK/hour/character. 3.Buff C1, C2 Blue Loot to reduce market exposure. You can see an example of what (I think) would make wormholes healthier overall if you scroll down in the chart. The GÇÿcost of gank (hours)GÇÖ indicator is much smoother in this scenario and actually has a sweet spot around C1-C3 while C4 and C5 payouts are elevated but at greater cost if you get ganked. The Reward Indicator is also much more even: C1 = 33 C2 = 51 C3 = 67 C4 = 60 C5 = 64 In summary, where the current wormhole design falls over is that it assumes risk of getting ganked increases greatly with wormhole class. I don't see any reason to assume that now that wormholes are thoroughly understood and a typical chain will contain all types of holes. This is interesting, but connectivity is a major, if not the Major risk factor, the class of wormhole in itself does not increase risk. C2 and now C4 space since Hyperion, for example can be particuarly dangerous because of this. Ship class availability also changes the risk factor.(C5/C6) C5 and C6 income seems artificially high, but accordingly needs larger corporations to function well, the income available needs to scale accordingly for them not to become areas where players individually starve, unable to replace losses. Whilst I agree with your conclusions that income availability needs to rise in lower class wormholes, the loot drop is only one component, time overall spent to attain that income is the critical factor, and remember once the sites are exhausted, one needs to farm the connecting holes, which is NOT like just Jumping the gate to the next system, as many outside of wormhole space assume, it is a whole new ball game...... I agree that it is not simple. But proposing a broad set of mechanical changes about how the risk actually works is less likely to be acted upon than just changing the loot tables. So that's why I went in that direction.
I also entirely agree about connectivity being the key risk. I'm not sure that C4 and C2 are more risky because of that, though, since you can still shut them off just as effectively as a single static hole.
If you really want to link risk and reward you need to reward people for running sites with open connections. Maybe in the loot drop or perhaps spawn rate. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec. |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox Low-Class
6543
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 14:25:00 -
[118] - Quote
maybe sleepers spawn on wormholes?
|
Marox Calendale
Human League
28
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 14:30:00 -
[119] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:Of course people should be allowed to do solo exploration in wormholes, do you think that wormholes are somehow instantly populated with fully formed corps with no experience? That-¦s a good point and I-¦ll think about it. But where is the problem to start getting experience as a daytripping exploration group? I know much corps who first tested wormholes in groups before they decided to settle in it. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1233
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 15:00:00 -
[120] - Quote
Zappity wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Zappity wrote:I always find that visualising the data helps to spot the meaningful bits so I have made what I think of as a GÇÿWormholes ISK/Risk ChartGÇÖ from the information in this thread: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1upBapVRDG255R8DNZLOZXZthFnfurOr_mSHjSKBFjJU/edit?usp=sharingExplanatory points: 1. ISK/hour/character is y-axis, everything else is secondary y-axis (the one on the right). 2. ISK/hour/character is from corbexxGÇÖs and JackGÇÖs (C5) data. Top marks for effort btw. 3. Cost of fleet is corbexx's Tengu or similar for C1-3, Marauder for C4 (although IGÇÖd very much like to see triple RR fleet comp data for C4) and C5 is a guess because I've never lived in one. 4. Cost of gank (hours) is a simple calculation based on number in fleet (one for C1-4 vs six for C5). 5. There is no C6 data so I havenGÇÖt included it. The GÇÿcost of gankGÇÖ seems like an easy way to visualise risk but doesnGÇÖt account for the reward if you manage NOT to get ganked. If I had to put a metric on risk I would use ISK/hour/character divided by cost of gank (hours) - think of this as a 'Risk Indicator' where higher is better (I should have thought that through really - let's call it the 'Reward Indicator' instead): C1 = 5 C2 = 3 C3 = 24 C4 = 15 C5 = 81 As you can see C3 and C5 stand out from the others, although C5 leads by a long margin. C1 and C2 are just rubbish by whatever metric you look at and C4 is also out of balance. This is not just because I live in one but rather because the risk of getting ganked does not increase as you go from C1 to C5. This also does not account for the ratio of MNR to Blue Loot which is an additional risk (by market exposure) for C1 and C2 holes in particular. Suggested actions: 1.Buff C1-C4 loot tables. 2.Nerf C5 ISK/hour/character. 3.Buff C1, C2 Blue Loot to reduce market exposure. You can see an example of what (I think) would make wormholes healthier overall if you scroll down in the chart. The GÇÿcost of gank (hours)GÇÖ indicator is much smoother in this scenario and actually has a sweet spot around C1-C3 while C4 and C5 payouts are elevated but at greater cost if you get ganked. The Reward Indicator is also much more even: C1 = 33 C2 = 51 C3 = 67 C4 = 60 C5 = 64 In summary, where the current wormhole design falls over is that it assumes risk of getting ganked increases greatly with wormhole class. I don't see any reason to assume that now that wormholes are thoroughly understood and a typical chain will contain all types of holes. This is interesting, but connectivity is a major, if not the Major risk factor, the class of wormhole in itself does not increase risk. C2 and now C4 space since Hyperion, for example can be particuarly dangerous because of this. Ship class availability also changes the risk factor.(C5/C6) C5 and C6 income seems artificially high, but accordingly needs larger corporations to function well, the income available needs to scale accordingly for them not to become areas where players individually starve, unable to replace losses. Whilst I agree with your conclusions that income availability needs to rise in lower class wormholes, the loot drop is only one component, time overall spent to attain that income is the critical factor, and remember once the sites are exhausted, one needs to farm the connecting holes, which is NOT like just Jumping the gate to the next system, as many outside of wormhole space assume, it is a whole new ball game...... I agree that it is not simple. But proposing a broad set of mechanical changes about how the risk actually works is less likely to be acted upon than just changing the loot tables. So that's why I went in that direction. I also entirely agree about connectivity being the key risk. I'm not sure that C4 and C2 are more risky because of that, though, since you can still shut them off just as effectively as a single static hole. If you really want to link risk and reward you need to reward people for running sites with open connections. Maybe in the loot drop or perhaps spawn rate.
Yes, the whole issue is really quite complex, and since the frigate holes were introduced, one really cannot seal oneself off from the outside world.
In some ways that is an overall good, but the rewards do need to reflect this.
In short, post Hyperion, rewards and sites should assume that they will be run with the hole open, and the time needed in the running of the site and the extraction of the loot and appropriate rewards should be all considered in the design.
The site designs, of C1-C4 now, post hyperion, leave one exposed to assault for far too long for the rewards given. Do not nerf C5 they are probably a better balance point to reach for the rest of wormhole space. They allow the replacement of losses, within the wormhole environment.
Once wormholers need to go to KS to replace losses by earning there, then wormhole space is disfunctional. We have arrived at that point in lower class wormholes. Adaptation in this manner is not a matter of pride, it is a sign of failiure. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE |
|
Marox Calendale
Human League
28
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 15:05:00 -
[121] - Quote
epicurus ataraxia wrote:This is interesting, but connectivity is a major, if not the Major risk factor, the class of wormhole in itself does not increase risk. C2 and now C4 space since Hyperion, for example can be particuarly dangerous because of this. Ship class availability also changes the risk factor.(C5/C6) C5 and C6 income seems artificially high, but accordingly needs larger corporations to function well, the income available needs to scale accordingly for them not to become areas where players individually starve, unable to replace losses. Sorry, but the whole discussion seems to me that most people are thinking like this:
C1/C2 = HS C3/C4 = LS C5/C6 = 0.0
It isn-¦t!
With the whole connectivity which comes with hyperion and like everything from the unknown is known today, it is just one big J-Space, with connections to every part of K-Space. We don-¦t have chains anymore. It-¦s a great network. We live in a C2, but we don-¦t have 1 day when LS or 0.0 aren-¦t able to be reached within 4 or 5 WH jumps. Closing all connections doesn-¦t work well anymore, because of the increased amount of wandering wormholes. |
Agrippa Arkaral
Vertical Rebirth
13
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 15:25:00 -
[122] - Quote
p-p-p-p-pplease don't nerf my capital escalations
how can i survive in eve without my 2b/hour backbone |
Aiyshimin
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
76
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 15:29:00 -
[123] - Quote
Marox Calendale wrote:
With the whole connectivity which comes with hyperion and like everything from the unknown is known today, it is just one big J-Space, with connections to every part of K-Space. We don-¦t have chains anymore. It-¦s a great network. We live in a C2, but we don-¦t have 1 day when LS or 0.0 aren-¦t able to be reached within 4 or 5 WH jumps. Closing all connections doesn-¦t work well anymore, because of the increased amount of wandering wormholes.
This is an important point and has added a lot of interest in everyday wh life, there's more to explore and more opportunities. It does increase the time spent scanning, but it's a reasonable price to pay for better chains.
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1233
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 15:45:00 -
[124] - Quote
Marox Calendale wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:This is interesting, but connectivity is a major, if not the Major risk factor, the class of wormhole in itself does not increase risk. C2 and now C4 space since Hyperion, for example can be particuarly dangerous because of this. Ship class availability also changes the risk factor.(C5/C6) C5 and C6 income seems artificially high, but accordingly needs larger corporations to function well, the income available needs to scale accordingly for them not to become areas where players individually starve, unable to replace losses. Sorry, but the whole discussion seems to me that most people are thinking like this: C1/C2 = HS C3/C4 = LS C5/C6 = 0.0 It isn-¦t! With the whole connectivity which comes with hyperion and like everything from the unknown is known today, it is just one big J-Space, with connections to every part of K-Space. We don-¦t have chains anymore. It-¦s a great network. We live in a C2, but we don-¦t have 1 day when LS or 0.0 aren-¦t able to be reached within 4 or 5 WH jumps. Closing all connections doesn-¦t work well anymore, because of the increased amount of wandering wormholes.
This is true, the seperation between lower class wormholes and higher is now really down to the sites they contain, the strength of the effects, and the mass limits of the holes.
Closing holes, is now a very different concept post hyperion, isolation is more of an illusion than it ever was before, and less achievable.
All areas need to be able to support it's residents, if Hyperion had occured with an overall redesign of sites and rewards, then it would have made sense, in isolation, it was just disruptive and made things less enjoyable for no good end. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
738
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:01:00 -
[125] - Quote
Saede Riordan wrote:I may very well get shouted down for this.
But I feel that wormhole space, as a rule, should be more profitable then highsec incursions.
I don't think you will get shouted down on that, in this forum thats for sure. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1236
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 16:52:00 -
[126] - Quote
Quote:Saede Riordan wrote: I may very well get shouted down for this.
But I feel that wormhole space, as a rule, should be more profitable then highsec incursions.
I have Absolutely no problems with incursion runners earning good money.
However.
With the risks, real risks involved, Wormhole rewards, per player, should match them, and as there is no opportunity to chain them, the site rewards should be higher to match.
When new players come into run them then the PVP risk will rise to match. If anyone thinks of them as an isk fountain, then they should see how it draws the predators to the prey.
The ONE certainty of wormholes is that if there is something to hunt, then there are hunters to hunt them................ There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE |
Moth Eisig
Soliloquy Against Death
58
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 17:49:00 -
[127] - Quote
Marox Calendale wrote:epicurus ataraxia wrote:Of course people should be allowed to do solo exploration in wormholes, do you think that wormholes are somehow instantly populated with fully formed corps with no experience? That-¦s a good point and I-¦ll think about it. But where is the problem to start getting experience as a daytripping exploration group? I know much corps who first tested wormholes in groups before they decided to settle in it.
You need a really really good reason to completely shut a valid playing style out of an entire area of space, and I don't see one in this case. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1239
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 18:12:00 -
[128] - Quote
Whilst what wormhole space originated as, is not such an important thing normally, but in this case it never began as something for groups, and not the individual, sure C5 and C6 sites claimed a lot of victims where solo players undertook them, and people learned to run them with additional damage and support, but there is really no basis for removing single players from the game.
We want MORE players in wormhole space, whether solos or groups, all are welcome. It is not our private club. Run for our benefit alone.
if individuals enjoy it they will bring their friends, and their friends too, and wormhole space comes back to life, we cannot wait for fully formed groups to suddenly "discover" wormholes and move in en masse. There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
548
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 20:01:00 -
[129] - Quote
If people can make, in W-space, the income levels they expect to see given the precedents of missions, Hisec incursions, and Nullsec ratting above and beyond any costs required for replacing ships lost due to ganking and day-to-day living costs, they will show an interest in W-space again.
If this doesn't happen, you can kiss W-space goodbye. Agree or disagree all you want and cry on the forums with your own anecdotal evidence; you're seeing the effects of it every day whether you want to admit it or not. Sure, an equilibrium will be reached with a few stubborn people still clinging to W-space and market prices, but not at the numbers that would indicate a healthy environment. Most of that will be (Nullsec?) alt farming corps who only exist to churn out ISK and who behave just like they do in Nullsec: log off at the slightest indication that a non-friendly could be thinking about visiting.
If those changes DO happen, people will start coming back to W-space. The risk then becomes one of alpha-predators feeding upon and driving out the prey before a proper food chain can be re-established; there is a risk of repeating the Lowsec population problems of days past. The randomness of W-space will help counter this to some extent.
Rebuilding will be slow, and has its own risks, but it's possible if CCP is willing to come off their disdain for W-space and the fact that it has become something they didn't want it to become and instead embrace and encourage life there.
Edit: It's up to CCP whether W-space thrives or not. |
Thomas Hurt
Future Methods
320
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:45:00 -
[130] - Quote
Ratting in W-Space is actually safer than Highsec, in most ways, so W-Space ratting income should be less than that of Highsec. |
|
Fix Lag
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
803
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:52:00 -
[131] - Quote
Thomas Hurt wrote:Ratting in W-Space is actually safer than Highsec, in most ways, so W-Space ratting income should be less than that of Highsec.
Don't forget that w-space doesn't take much effort to live in either. Do you have any idea how much highsec station repair costs are these days? It's an outrage. CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude. |
Jack Miton
Isogen 5
3798
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 21:53:00 -
[132] - Quote
Thomas Hurt wrote:Ratting in W-Space is actually safer than Highsec, in most ways, so W-Space ratting income should be less than that of Highsec. are you out of your fkn mind? please, let me know where your entry is next time youre 'ratting' in a WH and i'll come help you out.
PS: when the goons are making fun of your ignorance, you know it's pretty high... Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ Down the Pipe:-á http://downthepipe-wh.com/ |
Thomas Hurt
Future Methods
320
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 22:00:00 -
[133] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Thomas Hurt wrote:Ratting in W-Space is actually safer than Highsec, in most ways, so W-Space ratting income should be less than that of Highsec. are you out of your fkn mind? please, let me know where your entry is next time youre 'ratting' in a WH and i'll come help you out. PS: when the goons are making fun of your ignorance, you know it's pretty high...
Yeah, right. Good luck finding us. |
Jack Miton
Isogen 5
3798
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 23:38:00 -
[134] - Quote
The chance of me finding you is very small. the chance of someone finding you? that's a different story. Stuck In Here With Me:-á http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/ Down the Pipe:-á http://downthepipe-wh.com/ |
Incindir Mauser
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
461
|
Posted - 2014.09.24 23:50:00 -
[135] - Quote
Fix Lag wrote:Thomas Hurt wrote:Ratting in W-Space is actually safer than Highsec, in most ways, so W-Space ratting income should be less than that of Highsec. Don't forget that w-space doesn't take much effort to live in either. Do you have any idea how much highsec station repair costs are these days? It's an outrage.
I agree.
Nerf nano paste. |
BayneNothos
United Electro-Magnetic Federation Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners
110
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 08:30:00 -
[136] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Thomas Hurt wrote:Ratting in W-Space is actually safer than Highsec, in most ways, so W-Space ratting income should be less than that of Highsec. are you out of your fkn mind? please, let me know where your entry is next time youre 'ratting' in a WH and i'll come help you out. PS: when the goons are making fun of your ignorance regarding WHs, you know it's pretty high...
To be fair to him, you're both right. A fully locked down system is way safer than a HS system. You can't ever discount in HS the chance that the other randoms there aren't going to suicide gank you and you can't run back to station everytime someone new enters local or you'd never get anything done. HS has a low (very low) threat at all times that WS doesn't have.
WS on the other hand, new sig = probably loosing your PvE boat if you don't leave the site.
or shorthand, HS=high potential, extremely low realisation. WS= lower potential, extremely high realisation. |
umnikar
Fishbone Industries
45
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 10:17:00 -
[137] - Quote
corbexx wrote:
I'd like to include C5 and C6 sites with cap escaltions its pretty easy for me to get info very easily. but again it varies depending on how you do stuff (or if you share) 5 characters multi boxing will be insane isk. while 10 people in a site will be good isk but not insane isk. without the cap escalation it drops off alot. will see if i can get numbers.
I have some NoHo numbers but need to get permission to publish them.
and I have no idea on lvl 4 income but its way way lower than highsec incursions thats for sure.
Well, you choosed to run sites on a minimalistic(min nr. of toons). It also varies alot how people are running lower class sites. Why should that be different in c5/6 only? How do you come to the point it's tengu and paladin??? I for example never used one of those ships. Pretty sure you have the experience yourself already for c5/6 and could include the data - no need to ask NoHo. We all apreciate your work on this one, but it's again numbers which will lead to wrong changes made... *sigh*
Just google some **** and you have a good overview:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1270848#post1270848 http://syncaine.com/2012/06/22/eve-c5-isk/ ...
Not to say running c1-4 sites solo in a shiny ship is totaly meh - specially after hyperion. |
Jessica Duranin
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
154
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 10:18:00 -
[138] - Quote
BayneNothos wrote: A fully locked down system is way safer than a HS system. You can't ever discount in HS the chance that the other randoms there aren't going to suicide gank you WAT? Unless you fly one of those super bling fit "I have too much ISK" boats the biggest threat in a HS mission is the "socket closed" message. Even a locked down system is never safe. You can't know who might be locked in there with you. |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
739
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 12:04:00 -
[139] - Quote
umnikar wrote:corbexx wrote:
I'd like to include C5 and C6 sites with cap escaltions its pretty easy for me to get info very easily. but again it varies depending on how you do stuff (or if you share) 5 characters multi boxing will be insane isk. while 10 people in a site will be good isk but not insane isk. without the cap escalation it drops off alot. will see if i can get numbers.
I have some NoHo numbers but need to get permission to publish them.
and I have no idea on lvl 4 income but its way way lower than highsec incursions thats for sure.
Well, you choosed to run sites on a minimalistic(min nr. of toons). It also varies alot how people are running lower class sites. Why should that be different in c5/6 only? How do you come to the point it's tengu and paladin??? I for example never used one of those ships. Pretty sure you have the experience yourself already for c5/6 and could include the data - no need to ask NoHo. We all apreciate your work on this one, but it's again numbers which will lead to wrong changes made... *sigh* Just google some **** and you have a good overview: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1270848#post1270848http://syncaine.com/2012/06/22/eve-c5-isk/... Not to say running c1-4 sites solo in a shiny ship is totaly meh - specially after hyperion.
If you dont use a tengu or paladin feel free to run all them sites in what ever you use and post up the results for people to see. As for the running minimalistic I've also do c1 to c4 in groups of 1 to 3 people but thats on the csm forum which is nda so that has been taken in to account. the c5 or c6 sites is pretty easy to work out just assume 700m a site and split taht between how ever many people you have. yes if your running with 5 people its going to be alot more than if you run with 10 plus people.
as for the results you have linked there over 2 years old and price of nanos has crashed since then.
As for the no need to ask noho, its commen curtacy to ask before publishing stuff. They might not want some stuff publishedon how much we do or do not earn. Corbexx for CSM 9 - Wormholes deserve better |
umnikar
Fishbone Industries
45
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 12:47:00 -
[140] - Quote
corbexx wrote:umnikar wrote:corbexx wrote:
I'd like to include C5 and C6 sites with cap escaltions its pretty easy for me to get info very easily. but again it varies depending on how you do stuff (or if you share) 5 characters multi boxing will be insane isk. while 10 people in a site will be good isk but not insane isk. without the cap escalation it drops off alot. will see if i can get numbers.
I have some NoHo numbers but need to get permission to publish them.
and I have no idea on lvl 4 income but its way way lower than highsec incursions thats for sure.
Well, you choosed to run sites on a minimalistic(min nr. of toons). It also varies alot how people are running lower class sites. Why should that be different in c5/6 only? How do you come to the point it's tengu and paladin??? I for example never used one of those ships. Pretty sure you have the experience yourself already for c5/6 and could include the data - no need to ask NoHo. We all apreciate your work on this one, but it's again numbers which will lead to wrong changes made... *sigh* Just google some **** and you have a good overview: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1270848#post1270848http://syncaine.com/2012/06/22/eve-c5-isk/... Not to say running c1-4 sites solo in a shiny ship is totaly meh - specially after hyperion. If you dont use a tengu or paladin feel free to run all them sites in what ever you use and post up the results for people to see. As for the running minimalistic I've also do c1 to c4 in groups of 1 to 3 people but thats on the csm forum which is nda so that has been taken in to account. the c5 or c6 sites is pretty easy to work out just assume 700m a site and split taht between how ever many people you have. yes if your running with 5 people its going to be alot more than if you run with 10 plus people. as for the results you have linked there over 2 years old and price of nanos has crashed since then. As for the no need to ask noho, its common curtacy to ask before publishing stuff. They might not want some stuff publishedon how much we do or do not earn.
mh, I just say your data is redundant no matter what ship you use. You are the one bringing up numbers based on ship type, not me. Blue loot price did not change in the past 2 years - thats were the isk is. Ribbon prices got down because of ... numbers c6 groups likes to keep under the carpet.
|
|
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1242
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 13:20:00 -
[141] - Quote
Thank you corbexx for all of your efforts, one person trying to replicate all of the data that CCP has is never going to be possible, It will prove however just how accurate or inaccurate their assumptions are and bring everything into the light of day to be looked at. and invaluable as a starting point comparing our own experiences and showing that our results, much more casually attained, are not just one offs,
C1-C2 rewards are just ridiculous and C3 and pre hyperion C4 are better, but pale in comparison to KS alternatives with Much higher risks. Post Hyperion C4 are frankly so out of balance in risk (time in space, distance of spawns, extra static) vs reward people are really wary of running them. C3 are the new C4, with lower income.
You have done more for us than all those who have represented wormhole space did altogether in the past.
We are very lucky to have you.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE |
Bhane Celesto
Hole Violence
1
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 17:24:00 -
[142] - Quote
Read the whole thread, some interesting points. I'd like to re-iterate two of them.
Borsek wrote: All in all, your numbers seems correct, but they're also the maximum achievable income, so in reality, you can expect about 20% less, not including the hauling time and rolling time, purely scanning a system out, setting up scouts and especially clicking d-scan or watching alts takes away from your concentration, and makes running sites slower.
This is 100% true, in logical situations and in my personal experience. If I rock 100m/hr in a solo tengu running C3 anoms I'm fine with that, Tengu is paid in 4 hours, rest is profit. If I include scanning, warp in + scout? 90m in the hour is about right.
Furthermore, a bad static = no isk at all. You can't farm an active hole, it's impossible and/or suicidal. This happens, more than you might think. I can run highsec incursions all day once i've got into the fleet, no issues at all.
Secondly -
umnikar wrote: Blue loot price did not change in the past 2 years - thats were the isk is. Ribbon prices got down because of ... numbers c6 groups likes to keep under the carpet.
Both true. MNR price is down from 2 years ago Here's the past year of MNR price history, clear drop and blue loot buy orders haven't changed a single cent. You could 'fix' (and I use that word lightly, income isn't broken, just needs an iteration or two) WH income by updating the prices of bloot buy orders.
Oh, and one of my own points - salvage all your wrecks, keep MNRs, trash the rest. So much salvage and it's all worthless. Giving a solid, new, use for the salvage that is not MNRs would go a long way to smoothing out the kinks right now. |
Moth Eisig
Soliloquy Against Death
58
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 18:41:00 -
[143] - Quote
Bhane Celesto wrote: You could 'fix' (and I use that word lightly, income isn't broken, just needs an iteration or two) WH income by updating the prices of bloot buy orders.
That would just exacerbate the reward gap between low and high wormholes since blue loot accounts for a lower percentage of the profits the lower the wormhole class according to Corbexx's numbers. |
Aryex
Bastard Children of Poinen
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.25 19:14:00 -
[144] - Quote
Moth Eisig wrote:Bhane Celesto wrote: You could 'fix' (and I use that word lightly, income isn't broken, just needs an iteration or two) WH income by updating the prices of bloot buy orders.
That would just exacerbate the reward gap between low and high wormholes since blue loot accounts for a lower percentage of the profits the lower the wormhole class according to Corbexx's numbers.
Note that he didn't say to increase them. He said to update them. |
BayneNothos
United Electro-Magnetic Federation Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners
110
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 05:33:00 -
[145] - Quote
People need to focus less on the numbers and more on what's being shown.
Questions you should be asking yourself are: Are the class to class ratio's for overall isk right ie. should a C3 be worth ~2 C2's and a C4 ~3 C2's Is the split between Blue (Guaranteed isk) and loot (Market Based isk) right for each Class Are the ratio's between classes for blue and loot scaling right.
If you can do sites faster, slower, with more or less people than Corbexx it doesn't really matter. The numbers when moving your style to a different class should stay roughly the same relative to one another. |
BayneNothos
United Electro-Magnetic Federation Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners
110
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 05:50:00 -
[146] - Quote
Jessica Duranin wrote:BayneNothos wrote: A fully locked down system is way safer than a HS system. You can't ever discount in HS the chance that the other randoms there aren't going to suicide gank you WAT? Unless you fly one of those super bling fit "I have too much ISK" boats the biggest threat in a HS mission is the "socket closed" message. Even a locked down system is never safe. You can't know who might be locked in there with you.
Sure, back when I used to do HS missions you'd get a random drop in every week or two. Granted this was back when Suddenly Ninja's were in full swing and there's been changes since then that have kinda hurt that playstyle but the potential is still there. |
Rei Moon
Murderous Inc
70
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 13:37:00 -
[147] - Quote
Thomas Hurt wrote:Jack Miton wrote:Thomas Hurt wrote:Ratting in W-Space is actually safer than Highsec, in most ways, so W-Space ratting income should be less than that of Highsec. are you out of your fkn mind? please, let me know where your entry is next time youre 'ratting' in a WH and i'll come help you out. PS: when the goons are making fun of your ignorance, you know it's pretty high... Yeah, right. Good luck finding us.
We have a winner |
Rei Moon
Murderous Inc
70
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 16:58:00 -
[148] - Quote
I see guys here talking indirectly about nerfing cap escalations. So I'd like to openly talk about it 1. We as a corp can cap escalate. Our reality is: four to six guys, average 200-250m isk/h. No we don't particularly suck, but we try and include newbros in wspace. 2. I'm aware that it's possible to make almost 1b per hour if you're multiboxing 7 toons between 2 players. What about it? It means you're multitasking between loki's webs and painters, archon's reps, moros' locks, warping second archon, salvaging in a top noctis, while risking a 15b+ fleet, prone to DC once in a while (yeah some of us live in Brazil), prone to sweet ganks (often; ask lzhx or ssc), being occasionally interrupted by new sig.... 3. From our experience, average site spawn is one per day. That means we can pass a whole week without bearing, during which we ofc whelp ships in pvp attempts ( because we are entitled to suck, what's the problem). Generally we won't be doing sites everyday, we won't be doing more than 2 or 3 in a day, so we won't really be making more than 100m/day/month each. 4. One thing people always forget to mention is: in factional warfare, at tier 4, unless you really really suck, it's very easy to make 300m/h lazily, in a 300m fit stealth bomber, safely because you sig tank the mission sites 100+ km away from the entry beacon. In tier 5 we're talking about 800m/h. I've been there. I've done that. Many militias know how to keep high tier for several weeks till they get bored of raking in isk. Ask the Chesterfield Fancypantz guy. And most have alts in all 4 factions lol meaning they can make it almost everyday, almost all the year. They'll prolly suicide long before that because, lv4 militia missions.
so, if you're risking 15+ billion fleets in order to make much isk in cap escalations, what of it. I'd like to know why it should be nerfed. Specially considering many people don't, most actually use 4-6 or even more players in fleet, averaging Corbexx' numbers in novo. Thx and sorry for long text. |
Eessi
Murderous Inc
17
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 17:36:00 -
[149] - Quote
Instead of nerfing income peeps should focus on more ways to spend isk. Be an enabler of players Thomas not a disabler.
Wormholes are awesome isk. If thay gets nerfed we'll find a place to replace the isk source so we can comtinue spending isk. After all somethibg has to pay for billions of isk in subcap loses in a week. |
forsot
Resurrection Ventures Un.Bound
28
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 18:16:00 -
[150] - Quote
Other then low class (1-2) income doesn't need much of a buff. What it needs is a scaleing mechanism that allows group running to be as or more profitable then solo. |
|
Rei Moon
Murderous Inc
71
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 18:19:00 -
[151] - Quote
forsot wrote:Other then low class (1-2) income doesn't need much of a buff. What it needs is a scaleing mechanism that allows group running to be as or more profitable then solo. agreed. The problem is, how to separate players from alts
|
forsot
Resurrection Ventures Un.Bound
28
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 18:35:00 -
[152] - Quote
Rei Moon wrote:forsot wrote:Other then low class (1-2) income doesn't need much of a buff. What it needs is a scaleing mechanism that allows group running to be as or more profitable then solo. agreed. The problem is, how to separate players from alts
You don't all you can do is make it more difficult to multibox on a large scale. Just look at incursions and mining, isboxer and other large scale multiboxing create the same problem everywere. Also flat buffing sites would have the same effect on the multiboxing crowed, and solo will remain the better profit option for the rest of us. |
Rei Moon
Murderous Inc
71
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 18:45:00 -
[153] - Quote
Pretty neutral about isboxing here. While I don't fancy it, it's valid and higher risk for the guy. I mean, DCing will likely generate a huge loss. Also, not so easy to adapt to fast changes during pvp. They still lose ships in wspace. 2 or 3boxing OTOH, I'm totally for it. As far as incursions go, the recent buff may make isboxer a bit lesser annoyance. Competent fleets will always be able to contest their sites anyway. |
Bjurn Akely
Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters
69
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 19:00:00 -
[154] - Quote
Rei Moon wrote:forsot wrote:Other then low class (1-2) income doesn't need much of a buff. What it needs is a scaleing mechanism that allows group running to be as or more profitable then solo. agreed. The problem is, how to separate players from alts
Is it a problem with multiboxing? Depends on how you think about it, I think. A ship is a ship regardless of who is piloting it. I'm perfectly fine with someone managing to multi-box sites on their own and reap the reward themselves. Of PvP occurs it's my personal experience that a multi-boxer is at a bot of a disadvantage since there suddenly gets to be a lot to analyze and do.
The scaling thing exists in the C5-6, no? The escalation I mean. Perhaps something like that could be implemented? I dunno.
|
forsot
Resurrection Ventures Un.Bound
29
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 19:17:00 -
[155] - Quote
Bjurn Akely wrote:Rei Moon wrote:forsot wrote:Other then low class (1-2) income doesn't need much of a buff. What it needs is a scaleing mechanism that allows group running to be as or more profitable then solo. agreed. The problem is, how to separate players from alts Is it a problem with multiboxing? Depends on how you think about it, I think. A ship is a ship regardless of who is piloting it. I'm perfectly fine with someone managing to multi-box sites on their own and reap the reward themselves. Of PvP occurs it's my personal experience that a multi-boxer is at a bot of a disadvantage since there suddenly gets to be a lot to analyze and do. The scaling thing exists in the C5-6, no? The escalation I mean. Perhaps something like that could be implemented? I dunno.
Yes that was my point a ship is a ship, is boxing and such is am is a completely different issue. Since other areas are not ballanced on it why would wh space be?
As for escals scalding it does in a way but there are ways around it. Also its a vary sharp curve your max income potential drops off at a hand full of ppl. Something more gradual but will scale to a higher number of ppl. |
Rei Moon
Murderous Inc
71
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 19:20:00 -
[156] - Quote
Bjurn Akely wrote:Rei Moon wrote:forsot wrote:Other then low class (1-2) income doesn't need much of a buff. What it needs is a scaleing mechanism that allows group running to be as or more profitable then solo. agreed. The problem is, how to separate players from alts Is it a problem with multiboxing? Depends on how you think about it, I think. A ship is a ship regardless of who is piloting it. I'm perfectly fine with someone managing to multi-box sites on their own and reap the reward themselves. Of PvP occurs it's my personal experience that a multi-boxer is at a bot of a disadvantage since there suddenly gets to be a lot to analyze and do. The scaling thing exists in the C5-6, no? The escalation I mean. Perhaps something like that could be implemented? I dunno.
Mr. Akely! I like your blog! ! Yes, I agree. The context tho, is that, currently, it's more profitable to solo a C5 frontier barracks with a paladin than doing full cap escalations with 6 guys. This has the awkward potential of benefitting solo over group content, while actually killing home sites (you need to keep last trigger in the first wave alive in order to fully cap escalate for the next 3 days, tho it's still possible to solo non-escalate in the static (not possible to cap escalate the static, unless you solo dread) The problem is that, in order to escalate rewards with number of players, as Mr. forsot suggested, we would have to be able to pick player numbers against alts. You see, with seven or eight alts it's possible to be stupidly spacerich in wspace in a month or so. Murderous Inc. wants woobs (does that work as "wormhole newbies"?) |
Bjurn Akely
Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters
70
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 19:58:00 -
[157] - Quote
Rei Moon wrote:Bjurn Akely wrote:Rei Moon wrote:forsot wrote:Other then low class (1-2) income doesn't need much of a buff. What it needs is a scaleing mechanism that allows group running to be as or more profitable then solo. agreed. The problem is, how to separate players from alts Is it a problem with multiboxing? Depends on how you think about it, I think. A ship is a ship regardless of who is piloting it. I'm perfectly fine with someone managing to multi-box sites on their own and reap the reward themselves. Of PvP occurs it's my personal experience that a multi-boxer is at a bot of a disadvantage since there suddenly gets to be a lot to analyze and do. The scaling thing exists in the C5-6, no? The escalation I mean. Perhaps something like that could be implemented? I dunno. Mr. Akely! I like your blog! ! Yes, I agree. The context tho, is that, currently, it's more profitable to solo a C5 frontier barracks with a paladin than doing full cap escalations with 6 guys. This has the awkward potential of benefitting solo over group content, while actually killing home sites (you need to keep last trigger in the first wave alive in order to fully cap escalate for the next 3 days, tho it's still possible to solo non-escalate in the static (not possible to cap escalate the static, unless you solo dread - a very cool alternative - or do archon and subcaps - this one sucks) The problem is that, in order to escalate rewards with number of players, as Mr. forsot suggested, we would have to be able to pick player numbers against alts. You see, with seven or eight alts it's possible to be stupidly spacerich in wspace in a month or so. It would be nice if we had a mechanics separating players from alts in this specific case, therefore benefitting group content.
Thanks for the (blog) praise. Have you tried the Spaceballs yet?
Also thanks for explaining a bit about the C5/6 mechanics. I've done C5 stuff, bit not with capital ships, just the standard Battleship/Logi fleet. This escalation thing seems to be the thing that really drives the ISK up in C5/6. And perhaps escalations in the lower holes is no solution, more Sleeper loot means lower prices after all. Perhaps something new needs to be implemented. |
Rei Moon
Murderous Inc
72
|
Posted - 2014.09.26 21:25:00 -
[158] - Quote
Oh nonono, the bulk of escalation income is from blue loot, which as you know is NPC price pinned. So yes, maybe mini escalations in low classes would be good? I'm not entirely sure. ... These things could be vastly discussed, as I've grown weary of CCP'S instalocking instapopping ninja features for wspace. Murderous Inc. wants woobs (does that work as "wormhole newbies"?) |
Aladar Dangerface
Transcendent Sedition Protean Concept
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:34:00 -
[159] - Quote
An idea I heard thrown around my corp a while back that I thought was good: T3 frigs and sleeper loot from low class whs being used to build them. |
Pro TIps
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
53
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 15:50:00 -
[160] - Quote
Aladar Dangerface wrote:An idea I heard thrown around my corp a while back that I thought was good: T3 frigs and sleeper loot from low class whs being used to build them. I've seen this mentioned before. I think the problem is those new T3 frigs would have to be balanced among the existing ships in the game, while still providing advantages to make players want them. That is time-consuming for devs and they will probably make another Ishtar by accident.
It would be better if they simply raised the value of the blue loot. |
|
Bhane Celesto
Hole Violence
3
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 17:44:00 -
[161] - Quote
Pro TIps wrote:[quote=Aladar Dangerface]
It would be better if they simply raised the value of the blue loot.
This is the simple fix, but it's not the best one. This only addresses the "I can run incursions in highsec in a ship worth the same amount, for more isk with no risk" issue with WH income right now. |
Bjurn Akely
Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters
71
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 18:08:00 -
[162] - Quote
Bhane Celesto wrote:Pro TIps wrote:[quote=Aladar Dangerface]
It would be better if they simply raised the value of the blue loot. This is the simple fix, but it's not the best one. This only addresses the "I can run incursions in highsec in a ship worth the same amount, for more isk with no risk" issue with WH income right now.
Although I agree in point I'd like to point out that there will (most probably) always be a 'more lucrative thing to do'. The point, for me, is not to balance W-space against all tho other things. I'd be fine with just balancing it within W-space. As it is now there is a order of magnitude difference between say C2 and C5 when it comes to income. C2's are also where the most kills happen in W-space if I remember eve-sensus.com right. Don't quote me on the destroyed VALUE though. Eve-sensus is number of kills.
Anywho and all that said... If people are of the opinion that w-space should be worth more than X... Why not go do X? I like W-space, so I'll stick around, probably until I quit Eve. Because it's w-space I like, not the ISK. |
Aladar Dangerface
Transcendent Sedition Protean Concept
4
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 19:26:00 -
[163] - Quote
Pro TIps wrote:Aladar Dangerface wrote:An idea I heard thrown around my corp a while back that I thought was good: T3 frigs and sleeper loot from low class whs being used to build them. I've seen this mentioned before. I think the problem is those new T3 frigs would have to be balanced among the existing ships in the game, while still providing advantages to make players want them. That is time-consuming for devs and they will probably make another Ishtar by accident. It would be better if they simply raised the value of the blue loot.
I agree that bumping up loot is the easier way to go but the whole T3 frig idea (if done right i.e balanced properly) would benefit more people as it would probably entice more people into whs. i mean look what happend with the amount of people running SOE missions when the new ships came out, this would mean more activity in whs, it would also give us more toys to play with and give more things for industrialists to build so this doesn't just benefit wh residents but all eve players.
Hell this could be done along with a buff in loot from sleepers. It just needs to be balanced. |
MooMooDachshundCow
Incertae Sedis
67
|
Posted - 2014.09.29 21:37:00 -
[164] - Quote
The only thing that makes me want a T3 frig is the new frig holes. They would go good together, but I can't imagine how to make a T3 frig that doesn't break the game.
Conversely, if the existing T3's were properly rebalanced (maybe remove SP loss?) enough to encourage greater use, perhaps we could get sleeper loot prices back up through normal supply/demand free market operations.
Of course, that would require a good rebalance of T3's to the point where they became used extensively again.
Otherwise, the easy answer would be to just rebalance site blue loot so that risk/reward scale with C-value and are always more rewarding than hisec. This is actually probably a necessary first step for any WH revamps that seek to populate it more heavily.
Fix Idea for Mining: When you rebalance the anoms, add deposits of +10% high-end ores to the sites, based again on difficulty etc. Many of the sites already have veldspar or other minerals in the site. By putting things that people actually want in the sites, you can encourage them to mine, while requiring them to have some minimal PVP abilities. This mining would take place after the final wave has been cleared making them unprobable without combats.
This would mean that miners would again be encouraged to mine in a WH, and that they would have some guns. Maybe they'd even shoot back. Oh, and make the WH ghost sites contain ice, lol. |
Pro TIps
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
56
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 04:27:00 -
[165] - Quote
Bhane Celesto wrote:This is the simple fix, but it's not the best one. This only addresses the "I can run incursions in highsec in a ship worth the same amount, for more isk with no risk" issue with WH income right now. No, it could also address the, you can't make enough ISK in W-space to replace your losses, problem.
Even if you could make 200M/hr in a C1, you will quickly run out of anoms. Highsec incursions are almost always there for endless farming. Need two billion? Spend a day farming incursions.
Need two billion in low-class W-space? Scan/roll/etc until you find a couple systems full of anoms, without so many WHs you can't watch them, then spend all day running the sites, looting, salvaging, hope you don't get killed by other wormholers, THEN go to K-space to sell your loot. Do all that while spamming D-scan and having alts online to watch your back, anchor your wormhole, and so on.
See the difference? |
Aiyshimin
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
100
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 06:02:00 -
[166] - Quote
Pro TIps wrote:Bhane Celesto wrote:This is the simple fix, but it's not the best one. This only addresses the "I can run incursions in highsec in a ship worth the same amount, for more isk with no risk" issue with WH income right now. No, it could also address the, you can't make enough ISK in W-space to replace your losses, problem. Even if you could make 200M/hr in a C1, you will quickly run out of anoms. Highsec incursions are almost always there for endless farming. Need two billion? Spend a day farming incursions. Need two billion in low-class W-space? Scan/roll/etc until you find a couple systems full of anoms, without so many WHs you can't watch them, then spend all day running the sites, looting, salvaging, hope you don't get killed by other wormholers, THEN go to K-space to sell your loot. Do all that while spamming D-scan and having alts online to watch your back, anchor your wormhole, and so on. See the difference?
yeah, you had fun in the wormhole while the incursion nerds just pressed f1 |
Bjurn Akely
Knights of Nii The 20 Minuters
71
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 07:09:00 -
[167] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Pro TIps wrote:Bhane Celesto wrote:This is the simple fix, but it's not the best one. This only addresses the "I can run incursions in highsec in a ship worth the same amount, for more isk with no risk" issue with WH income right now. No, it could also address the, you can't make enough ISK in W-space to replace your losses, problem. Even if you could make 200M/hr in a C1, you will quickly run out of anoms. Highsec incursions are almost always there for endless farming. Need two billion? Spend a day farming incursions. Need two billion in low-class W-space? Scan/roll/etc until you find a couple systems full of anoms, without so many WHs you can't watch them, then spend all day running the sites, looting, salvaging, hope you don't get killed by other wormholers, THEN go to K-space to sell your loot. Do all that while spamming D-scan and having alts online to watch your back, anchor your wormhole, and so on. See the difference? yeah, you had fun in the wormhole while the incursion nerds just pressed f1
This. Nice to see there is someone who seems to figure that virtual ISK is less worth than real life enjoyment.. |
epicurus ataraxia
Z3R0 Return Mining Inc. Illusion of Solitude
1272
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 07:17:00 -
[168] - Quote
Pro TIps wrote:Aladar Dangerface wrote:An idea I heard thrown around my corp a while back that I thought was good: T3 frigs and sleeper loot from low class whs being used to build them. I've seen this mentioned before. I think the problem is those new T3 frigs would have to be balanced among the existing ships in the game, while still providing advantages to make players want them. That is time-consuming for devs and they will probably make another Ishtar by accident. It would be better if they simply raised the value of the blue loot.
The idea of T3 frigates is interesting, but the balance issue really is significant.
As an idea both to bring people into wormhole space and to provide a solution to the balance problem, there should be an entire new class of ship, this can either be the redeveloped T3 line that could include all sizes of ship or provide it with a T4 fitting slot for example.
This ship is balanced against other ships in KS to ensure it is not overpowered, but when operating in wormhole space a wormhole specific module can be activated and it gains enhanced functionality or power.
For example the Nestor could have been designed as a T4 and gained the ability to warp cloaked in wormhole space that it so desperately needed to thrive here, without it becoming unbalanced against other battleships in known space, this could really create a flood of interest in wormhole space too and help bring activity when coupled with other improvements, and suck up extra income as well.
There is one EvE. Many people. Many lifestyles. WE are EvE |
Aiyshimin
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
101
|
Posted - 2014.09.30 10:52:00 -
[169] - Quote
Instead of a whole new shipline, it should be much easier to develop a new Sleeper faction module line. Power level somewhere between Cosmos and C-types, but unique overheating potential (either time or higher bonus percentage).
Blueprint (copies) would drop from mag/radar sites, and would be built out of normal minerals and ancient salvage. Then tune the BPC and salvage component drop amounts to be inverse to wormhole class. Current junk salvage would become valuable without increasing ISK input to the economy, and those who would like to build these would focus on C1-3 holes.
I'd leave reverse engineering out of this to keep the new income source accessible to newer players, but if it's important to keep it in line with T3 ship production, why not.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 :: [one page] |