|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1640
   |
Posted - 2015.11.13 04:57:14 -
[1] - Quote
The two carriers to do the job of one thing seems another move designed to push people into getting more alts. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1669
|
Posted - 2015.11.24 06:35:23 -
[2] - Quote
If we are talking about the reason why new players hang around hisec instead of running off to SOV null to mine for some renter corp - I very much doubt mission/incursion returns are a big issue.
If the discussion is about why nullsec people spend more time in highsec alts then they do actually in null - PvE income is definitely one of the factors. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1671
|
Posted - 2015.11.24 22:34:00 -
[3] - Quote
OK ... putting aside the whole 200 mill/hr in L4 missions versus xxx mill in lvl5 with a carrier etc discussions that go on ad nauseum.
How would making L4 missions impossible to run solo or blitz or eliminating Sansha incursions from highsec or for that matter any other reduction in highsec income increase the income of someone else ratting in null ? |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1675
|
Posted - 2015.11.25 22:58:19 -
[4] - Quote
I must admit, if burners offered double the LP in losec rather than just slightly more I would be tempted to go blitz them in the cheapest ship that gets the job done on the basis that the occasional PvP ship loss is acceptable if you are making 60 mill every few minutes. Aside from which some of the burners would be quite manageable in PvP capable ships. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1676
|
Posted - 2015.11.26 02:59:54 -
[5] - Quote
In an ideal sandbox game things like SOV null should have no ISK faucets at all just really good drops of loot that can be sold off to the SOV holder (who replaces the NPC corp as mission giver more or less) or even shipped back to hisec at a huge profit.
I am not 100% seeing the logic of "move to null and get out of the PvE grind" and "null needs more PvE ISK faucets" at the one and same time. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1692
|
Posted - 2015.11.30 22:35:12 -
[6] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:I have a question. If high-sec income is such an issue, why do so many low-sec and null-sec players run mission alts in high-sec? Is it possible that they in fact depend on high-sec mission income and ganking to some extent to fund their PvP activities?
it's a matter of faith. A bit like being a Apple fan versus a Windows fan or Ford versus Chevy or following a football team. Reason and logic, if relevant at all, is relevant only be coincidence.
The handful of people that can blitz incursions at 200 mill an hour, or the slightly larger but still small number that run incursions for similar money, actually need to be actively logged in to make that ISK so their overalll influence on the EVE economy compared to passive/multibox AFK income streams cannot be that significant however it is the principle of the matter - hisec EVE is evil. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1700
|
Posted - 2015.12.02 23:34:15 -
[7] - Quote
It would be interesting to know exactly how many people actually blitz missions for 100 mill per hour plus. It seems to me the bulk of mission runners get nothing like that and many newer players spend over an hour on one level 4 mission that may return 20 mill ISK if they are lucky.
It is highly unlikely that the handful of people making 100 mill plus per hour as an ACTIVE activity are online enough to be having that much effect on the EVE economy.
Nerfing mission running on the basis that some minuscule percentage of older high SPcharacters can make good ISK in level 4 missions (rather than running 5s in a Carrier in losec or whatever ) is likely to seriously effect newer players and probably be detrimental overall. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1702
|
Posted - 2015.12.03 01:24:49 -
[8] - Quote
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
I think it is worth noting the primary reward from blitzing is LP, and LP is an isk sink. personally I'd rather have more isk sinks than we do now (how many more is a good question that I have no idea how to even start to answer). Although the 700b XL citadel bpos should be interesting in that regard.
LP is an ISK sink.
However SOE level IVs are more or less ISK neutral. You pretty much invest all the LP plus any ISK from reward/bounty to get assets, generally some SOE Probe Launchers or a Stratios.
Selling those assets later to another player in return for ISK does not inject any ISK into the game .
|
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1702
|
Posted - 2015.12.03 01:36:20 -
[9] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Hasikan Miallok wrote:However SOE level IVs are more or less ISK neutral. You pretty much invest all the LP plus any ISK from reward/bounty to get assets, generally some SOE Probe Launchers or a Stratios. Selling those assets later to another player in return for ISK does not inject any ISK into the game. I'd love to see the price of Faction modules reduced by half or even three quarters. Then players might actually start utilizing them more than they do. It's ridiculous that a Faction BCU or gun costs 50x more than a comparable T2 version.
True, you tend to think twice when just one module costs more than the hull you are fitting it to :D |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1705
|
Posted - 2015.12.04 04:39:26 -
[10] - Quote
Daniela Doran wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote:Just to do a quick comparison, I ran Gone Beserk with a non-SoE 0.5 agent. The mission rewards were 143500 (12%) lower. It took me 00:05:48 start to finish, which was shooting everything. I had a faster mission warp speed but arguably my drone, gunnery and other applicable skills are not 100% (mostly IV with some V). I earned 1689 LP which is 143 (8%) less. I will be lucky to get a 1000 ISK/LP conversion with a non-SoE agent. I didn't blitz it - but this will yield higher bounties. No salvage.
Mission rewards: 1.08m ISK
LP rewards: 1.69m ISK (1000 ISK/LP)
Bounties: 1.68m ISK
Grand total: 4.45m ISK / 00:05:48, or 44.5m ISK/hour if I continue at this rate.
A few observations. First, unless you use a SoE agent in the perfect system, you're never going to break 50m ISK/hour blitzing or even just running L3s with the Machariel fit. Second, you cannot keep up a blitz pace indefinitely. At some point you're going to start burning out, making mistakes (or reading forums) which will impact your ISK/hour. There is a lot more micromanagement involved in blitzing or running missions as opposed to shooting battleship spawns in anomalies. Third, the ISK/LP conversion is the real wild card here. The 80m ISK/hour threshold should be considered an upper limit under ideal conditions with perfect skills and favorable mission conditions. You start with 80m ISK/hour potential and go down from there. How fast depends on you. Thanks Arthur for taking the time to gather REALISTIC isk per hour figures on mission blitzing. What the high inflated numbers don't explain is that those figures are only achievable under optimal conditions and with only running with SOE. Also not mentioned is that mission blitzing is very tedious and hard work. Not everyone is gonna have the temperament to maintain a steady mistake free blitz run over a long indefinite period of time. I tried to blitz missions just to see the isk per hour comparison and was totally exhausted within 2-3 hours, it's just not as sustainable as regular mission running. So the high inflated isk per hour mission blitzing is mostly only achievable in bursts, not continuously non-stop all day long.
I would have thought it was pretty obvious that high ISK blitz figures are only achieved running for high ISK/LP corps and are an active hands on activity that probably best suits players that are on for short periods and want to maximise their income for the limited time they are online.
Some one doing semi afk missioning all day long, day in day out, for a convenient corp in a safe higher security system whilst watching a movie in another screen or whatever is not going to increase income that much by suddenly starting blitzing.
|
|
|
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1708
|
Posted - 2015.12.06 23:29:25 -
[11] - Quote
This thread has got TL&DR .
However my superficial impression is the argument seems to be "because maybe 50 or 100 mission runners (out of 300,000 subscriptions) at Lanngisi blitz missions and deliberately trash their agent standings to just above -2.0 please nerf all highsec ISK making activity :D
It's just politics the overall motive is to reduce highsec income for all mission runners and the blitzers are just good propoganda. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1716
|
Posted - 2015.12.07 23:50:43 -
[12] - Quote
Overall this thread is totally illogical.
Claimed issue: People make too much out of SOE missioning
Rational Solution: Increase the ISK component of SOE specific LP store items
Commonly Suggested Solution: Nerf hisec LP for everyone everywhere
|
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1716
|
Posted - 2015.12.08 00:27:01 -
[13] - Quote
Jerry T Pepridge wrote:
3) Nerf the inc dmg on L4's everywhere else (Low/null) so they can be done in cheaper/PVP ships solo.
Whilst that would work, i am not 100% sure how it gels with the "higher risk higher reward" equation for which EVE is famous.
It also doesn't help people in renter space as there are no agents there.
|
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1718
|
Posted - 2015.12.08 02:50:00 -
[14] - Quote
Jerry T Pepridge wrote:Market McSelling Alt wrote:
So wait? You can't blitz burners forever?
That must mean Jenn and Baltec have absolutely no point as the massive gains they are QQing about are temporary. Just checking.
I imagine with 3 alts there sharing missions & standings it would be negated somewhat.
No that is not it.
The point in serious blitzing is you only need agent standings above negative 2 so you just decline everything but burners until you get down around negative 2 then start accepting the easily blitzed occasional non burner to keep yourself above negative 2. The way standings work means at close to negative 2 you can decline a lot more missions then you accept and still keep enough standings to keep missioning.
Seems to me that particular mechanic is the same everywhere null, losec or highsec.
|
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1719
|
Posted - 2015.12.08 23:03:24 -
[15] - Quote
I really have no opinion on whether ship prices went up in real terms or not - but if they did change mineral prices are only a small component of ship construction costs most of its blueprint.
Just saying. |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
1731
|
Posted - 2015.12.10 07:19:05 -
[16] - Quote
Jerry T Pepridge wrote:
not being able to blitz l4's isnt a bug, its an exploit fix. that was advertised here for peen / ego in the form of "200m/hour in highsec"
it will only increase the isk/LP across the board, as the ones blitzing will either ragequit or do it properly.
everyone is on even keel now, players that dont visit forums, players that brag here about isk/hour are now the same.
EXCEPT -
- the changes do not really effect people blitzing burners
- the changes simply make AFK missioning more viable
- the biggest effect is on new players
EXAMPLE:
The change to the Cargo Delivery mission has no effect on my mission alt blitzing it in a very tanky intercepter BUT does mean new players will get smashed
If it actually was a deliberate stealth attempt by CCP to nerf blizing its a major fail. |
|
|
| |
|