Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 14:33:00 -
[1]
Every time we introduce new missions a few people notice that the payouts are not what they expect and ask about it. This thread should hopefully answer the majority of such questions in future!
Mission payouts are calculated dynamically, and rely on past completion data to calculate the underlying difficulty modifier by which payouts are scaled.
The calculations are based on the number of times the mission has been completed and the average completion time. There are dynamic floors and ceilings in place to prevent payouts deviating outside prescribed boundaries.
Due to the way this is implemented, the first few times each mission is run these numbers will be very low due to the way the ceilings are calculated.
However, by the time each mission is run around a dozen times it should settle down and result in target ISK/hour payouts.
These calculations affect the ISK payout, LP payout, Bonus payout and Bonus time. Scaling by time completion means that if you complete in the average time you will be rewarded the average ISK/hour in payouts, regardless of distance travelled, NPCs fought and so on.
This of course obviously means on its own that all missions given by the same quality agent would pay out the same regardless of level, which is not the case. Once the difficulty is calculated additional values are factored in including level and quality scaling and so on.
In summary, all new missions can be expected to pay out below the odds for the first dozen or so times theyÆre run on Tranquility. After that threshold has passed they will settle down and pay out normally. This is a normal and expected part of the mission-introduction process.
We are investigating the possibility of adding into the production schedule a change to alter the default value to be more in line with "expected" payout rather than starting at a minimum value, but this has not been assigned to a specific release slot.
|
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 14:48:00 -
[2]
With some missions offering 20-30m/hr and others 5-10m/hr peoples faith in the reward system is somewhat low.
The dynamic system should lead to missions evening out somewhat instead of having people cherrypick the more profitable ones.
This is of course all tied into bounties, salvage, and loot. Three things the system doesn't take into account and yet these three often come to many, many, times the value of the ISK and LP reward. It also ignores travel time and doesn't take particularly good account of system sec status... if your going to tempt people into the possibility of being under fire they'll want more than a couple of thousand ISK for the trouble. |
EadTaes
Veni Vidi Vici. XIII Legio
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 16:49:00 -
[3]
I said it the other tread and ill say it again here.
The level of the mission or is irrelevant. The time it take the complete the mission is important since you might end up having to wait a long time before being able to go in and do it. But the most important part off all is how freaking far you have to travel to go do it. That is the real danger factors in these missions because the further you go the more likely your gonna have people waiting for you. Hence more risk a **** load more. But clearly from you post the auto-balancer take ship regards for distance the main danger factor hence you mission will have a simmiller payout to regular missions since their using the exact same calculations.
HENCE FAIL
HENCE QUOTE
I TOLD YOU SO! :P |
Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 17:43:00 -
[4]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale These calculations affect the ISK payout, LP payout, Bonus payout and Bonus time. Scaling by time completion means that if you complete in the average time you will be rewarded the average ISK/hour in payouts, regardless of distance travelled, NPCs fought and so on.
There is a vital factor missing here: bounties and loot.
Obviously bounties and loot are hard coded into the mission design. Such is the way the game works.
From my experience, the missions that have the most/best wrecks always have the highest ISK/hour return.
That would seem to indicate that dynamic balancing of ISK payout, LP payout, Bonus payout is near to insignificant in comparison to the hard coded reward provided by the bounties/loot.
Please set the record strait, what sort of counter measure is there in the balancing of mission rewards to account for the base reward from bounties and loot? |
Marlenus
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 18:00:00 -
[5]
Does the balancing formula take into account the number of times the mission has been attempted, but not completed?
I think you have answered this by omission, and that the answer is "no". But it would be very useful if you could answer directly, especially since this is one of "the majority of questions" you are aiming at. ------------------ Ironfleet.com |
Tarminic
Black Flame Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 20:29:00 -
[6]
How is Completion Time calculated? Does it begin when you enter the mission complex or does it begin when you accept the mission?
If it begins when you accept the mission than the rewards should even themselves out relatively quickly, because the increased risk and the increased distance equate to increased travel time.
However, if the mission completion timer does not begin counting until you warp to the mission complex then you have a problem, because the majority of the risk associated with these missions is expressed in getting to the mission site successfully.
If the mission reward balancer does the latter instead of the former, you guys should strongly consider creating a special case for all FW missions so they consider either the number of jumps between the agent location and the mission location (static but reliable), or the length of time between when the mission is accepted and when the mission is completed (more dynamic but possibly more exploitable). |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.06.12 21:59:00 -
[7]
And if auto-balance fails you can always flat-out boost them like you did with Level 5s, eh CCP Greyscale. It's just a shame it takes you 6+ months to finally adjust rewards when auto-balance doesn't work. |
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 10:31:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Marlenus Does the balancing formula take into account the number of times the mission has been attempted, but not completed?
I think you have answered this by omission, and that the answer is "no". But it would be very useful if you could answer directly, especially since this is one of "the majority of questions" you are aiming at.
Yup, it's just a factor of number of completions and average completion time - uncompleted missions don't factor in.
Originally by: Tarminic How is Completion Time calculated? Does it begin when you enter the mission complex or does it begin when you accept the mission?
To the best of my knowledge it's a "mission acceptance to mission completion" timer, so yes, it's including travel time in the calculations. I believe it's the same code as used for courier missions in that regard.
Originally by: Vaal Erit And if auto-balance fails you can always flat-out boost them like you did with Level 5s, eh CCP Greyscale. It's just a shame it takes you 6+ months to finally adjust rewards when auto-balance doesn't work.
The problem in the case of the L5s was that payouts weren't correctly scaling by level, as the code wasn't fully forwards-compatible. Rectifying this issue resulted in the revised payouts you're seeing today
|
|
Frecator Dementa
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 11:17:00 -
[9]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale uncompleted missions don't factor in.
this is a huge mistake, failing a mission should be equivalent to needing 3-5-7 days to complete it otherwise, "hard" missions will have deceptively low LP/isk gains, the reward system should reflect the difficulty of a mission, not stay at some arbitrary lowermost level until somebody actually finishes the mission
also, why isn't the "starting point" higher for LP/isk gains? the best move would be having a new mission start with the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE lp/isk gains, so that more people will be inclined to test it and bring it down to it's "real" value
starting missions at the lowest reward level encourages "stagnation" ----------------------- forum ate my post again |
Daan Sai
HAZCON Inc
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 11:36:00 -
[10]
Simply put: I suggest that you could start the payouts too high and let them settle down, not the other way around.
This should: 1) encourage and reward early adopters 2) work out fine in the long run w.r.t economy etc
|
|
Man'corr
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 11:49:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Daan Sai Simply put: I suggest that you could start the payouts too high and let them settle down, not the other way around.
This should: 1) encourage and reward early adopters 2) work out fine in the long run w.r.t economy etc
This should really work out.
Because how often do you check some ingame page about what rats you will encounter in a mission, and then decide if you actually accept it or not.
When a new mission hits Tranq, people just dont know what is inside, and might be risking their ships during the mission. One could reward them for that.
I mean practically every mission has an exact walktrhough of how to do it correctly. Its nearly like mining. All of above post was formulated wth 100% honesty and 100% sarcasm. Now i only need to get drunk
Back after a 4 Year Hiatus. Damn whats Capital ships? |
Elaron
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 14:39:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Elaron on 13/06/2008 14:40:06
Originally by: Frecator Dementa this is a huge mistake, failing a mission should be equivalent to needing 3-5-7 days to complete it
I suspect because the devs feel this would be more susceptible to deliberate manipulation. Just pick a mission, especially new ones where the data set is more "fragile", and deliberately fail it a few dozen times to bump up the rewards.
Originally by: Frecator Dementa the best move would be having a new mission start with the MAXIMUM POSSIBLE lp/isk gains, so that more people will be inclined to test it and bring it down to it's "real" value
The only problem there, of course, is that if a few dozen people agreed to take a mission and sit on it for a few days to artificially promote the inflated mission reward during the early days it's on TQ. While the skewed effect wouldn't be permanent, it would likely be significant for longer than it should be.
The best solution, to my mind, would be: for the first run of a new mission per character, at least until the balancer has enough data to work with, the bonus reward for completing the mission quickly is significantly boosted. It could be hand-waved by calling it an extra bounty for "pioneering reconnaissance work". Whether or not the current mission framework can support that is a different matter, though.
|
Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 15:28:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Ki Tarra on 13/06/2008 15:30:14
Originally by: Elaron The only problem there, of course, is that if a few dozen people agreed to take a mission and sit on it for a few days to artificially promote the inflated mission reward during the early days it's on TQ. While the skewed effect wouldn't be permanent, it would likely be significant for longer than it should be.
That would not be effective. The first dozen people to complete the mission would allow the balancer to adjust correctly. Sitting on the mission would only serve to hinder you from getting the mission a second time within the most profitable time window. Originally by: Elaron The best solution, to my mind, would be: for the first run of a new mission per character, at least until the balancer has enough data to work with, the bonus reward for completing the mission quickly is significantly boosted. It could be hand-waved by calling it an extra bounty for "pioneering reconnaissance work". Whether or not the current mission framework can support that is a different matter, though.
Adding a per character counter for every mission would be an obsurd amount of work both in code and DB load.
I agree that adjusting the balancer to start at or near the max is the most effective way to ensure that the balancer reaches the correct value as quickly as possible.
The simple reason being that anytime the auto-balancer is reset there will be a rush of players running the missions to get the increases rewards.
Currently the general strategy is to stay away from the content until the balancer has a chance to rebalance. IE, there is no point running missions the day after a major patch: let the noobs run the missions while the auto-balancer works the reward back up to where they should be, then go back to it after the rewards have adjusted. The problem is the more people who follow this strategy, the longer it takes for the auto-balancer to get the data it needs.
If the auto-balancer started on the high side of expectations and worked down, it would encourage people to be early adopters. Players would rush to complete the missions while the payouts were higher than usual, and in the process ensure that the auto-balancer gets the data it needs to correctly balance the rewards.
The only way to abuse the auto-balancer is to ensure that the majority of mission runners intentionally delay mission completion. That remains constant regardless of the starting point of the auto-balancer. |
Daelin Blackleaf
Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 16:05:00 -
[14]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale Yup, it's just a factor of number of completions and average completion time - uncompleted missions don't factor in.
The number of times a mission is failed is probably second only to the number of times it is rejected as an indicator of the reward it should offer. If people are losing ships, quitting in frustration, or refusing to take the mission at all then the reward needs adjustment.
Originally by: CCP Greyscale To the best of my knowledge it's a "mission acceptance to mission completion" timer, so yes, it's including travel time in the calculations.
Not only does the reward system ignore other reward factors such as bounty, loot, and salvage but it also ignores anything really relating to the missions difficulty. Floating across deadspace to a beacon 60km contributes more to the LP and ISK payout than killing the NPC's that spawn once you get there.
Further the reward has nothing to do with the actual travel time, it rewards for the average, so it will pay you the same whether it has offered you the mission to do in the agents system or several jumps away.
Under the current system an easy but drawn-out mission will always be rewarded more than a short but intensely difficult one.
Worse, this system is being applied to a new form of mission (FW) where the variables are immense, the enemies don't have mission NPC bounties, and the returns on loot and salvage are far less. A form of mission where people are going to fail repeatedly due to factors beyond their control, where ships are lost, and where there are no guarantees of a perfect mission set-up.
While the primary reward for FW should always be PvP it wouldn't hurt to ensure people earn enough doing it that for every ship lost they don't have to go and run standard missions for several hours. |
Elaron
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 18:14:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Ki Tarra ...Reasonable points...
Good arguments, and generally I'm agreeable to having the default on the high side. I still stand by the assertion, though, that the balancer is set to start low to reduce the chance of players gaming the system. The history of EVE has proven, time after time, that if there is a loophole in a game mechanic then players will drive Titans through it.
|
Ki Tarra
Ki Tech Industries
|
Posted - 2008.06.13 18:42:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Ki Tarra on 13/06/2008 18:44:23
Originally by: Elaron if there is a loophole in a game mechanic then players will drive Titans through it.
For sure.
For example, now that I know this, I am going to accept my next mission before going back to salvage my previous mission.
When running two characters, I will get a mission for each and wait until both are complete before handing them in. This will have the double bonus of increasing the average mission time, and decreasing the number of times that I need to dock to get a mission.
Might as well do what I can to help increase the average time it takes to complete a mission.
|
Venkul Mul
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 10:05:00 -
[17]
Greyscale, thanks for the explanations on how the autobalancer work. What you say is mostly what we had gathered from pieces and snippets of information, but never got a complete and official description in one post.
Similarly to what most people is saying here, I think that not considering the failed missions, especially for the FW missions, is an error.
I can see why that was done, as before the introduction of the Faction Warfare patch all the missions had a week completion's timer, so people was failing them mostly to recover the wreck of a lost ship or because they left the game/didn't used the character/forgot the mission.
Now the change in the completion timer for some missions (the militia missions that I tried on Sisi had a 13 hours 30 minuter timer) this will change.
A player losing a ship doing a militia mission hasn't the option to say "I will retry tomorrow, after DT has reset the mission". If the target system currently is hosting a fleet battle he has not the possibility to join the battle or to avoid the system while the fight boils down. Waiting some hours could spell failure for him.
So, at least for the FW missions, considering the number of failed missions is important.
|
Yps Iradlac
|
Posted - 2008.06.14 23:14:00 -
[18]
I'd like to know what mastermind came up with the idea to make mission completion times so short
|
I SoStoned
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 00:40:00 -
[19]
The load balancer should initially be based on:
Average number of jumps to the mission location Raw DPS of all rats in each wave/stage, and total mission. Raw Bounties of all rats in each wave/stage, and total mission. Averaged median market valuation of loot tables for rats in mission Averaged median market valuation of salvage tables for rats in mission.
Find an existing mission with similar stats, set the sliding scale to start there and adjust accordingly.
|
Forge Lag
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 12:06:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Forge Lag on 15/06/2008 12:09:13 This whole "ballancer" is... unbalancing.
It makes good farmable missions even more rewarding. It makes poor missions that get blitzed even less rewarding. It makes legitimate courier missioners suffer because of macro farmers. It does nothing to make missions that get declined more favored. It makes NPC mechanics interfere with the sandbox.
And all that because CCP is lazy to do what has been mentioned in previous post. Actually they do it, just lazily and roughly. If they really intended to ballance ISK income rats would have variable bounties for starters.
The "ballancer" is just crap and utterly fails to achive anything. But I guess it is pet project of some lead dev. Like the UI windows that never get fixed even though fix is as simple as axing buggy unnecessary code.
|
|
Carniflex
Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 16:00:00 -
[21]
Thanx for interesing information.
As pointed out above however would it not make sense also to take into account fails and/or declines for the mission as this is significant indicator for mission difficulty.
If taking those indicators into account would be too complex then perhaps keeping track (even if it's just for internal statisticks) how many and what class of ships are lost within mission deadspace would be most definately interesting information. If nothing else then for that quarterly ecenomic newsletter as line in statistics table as people have been a while been argouing about 'risk in missions'. Say 'in last quarter 5 marauder class battleships were lost in level 4 mission deadspaces vs 300 tech 1 battleships and 250 battlecruisers' for example.
|
Jakke Logan
F Off And Die
|
Posted - 2008.06.15 23:43:00 -
[22]
This is bull**** still...
NO ONE should even mess with FW missions until CCP makes them worth your while, without expecting YOU to grind them so as to make it worth OTHERS while.
FAIL, CCP, FAIL... EA is a complete waste of an expansion, worth nothing, a waste of time and effort. It will not profit the game at all.
|
JesterWiLD
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 06:15:00 -
[23]
I know that basically none of what I suggest is going to be listened to greyscale but ill put it out there none the less..
Problem: 1: Faction warfare missions are unlike any other missions CCP has introduced in the game before 2: FW missions dont have a set dynamic for standing increase 3: Faction Lp stores offer the same equipment as regular high sec navy missions 4: FW missions can be warped to by anyone, and seen by everyone 5: As you stated, Mission payout dynamics are based off of completed missions only
Result: The result of these seemingly and individually small problems comes out to one factor. Faction warfare missions will maintain a low dynamic payout and not entice players to attempt them. The reason for this is simple. After Several attempts at missions on the live server I have completed only 2. One level 4 and one level 2. The reason for this was that moving a ship through enemy space is far to dangerous for the payout of the mission. Therefore prompting me to end the mission rather than complete it. And as you stated because I did not complete the mission that trip does not factor into the dynamic to adjust the pay scale. And I'm positive this has happened to other players as well.
Scenario 1: While attempting to reach the level 2 mission I was poped. I grabbed a new ship, and was popped again, finally I purchased a ship 1 jump from my mission and completed it. Sadly None of this will factor into the dynamic.
Scenario 2: Running a level 2 I make it the whole way to my destination and sit around and cap a few other cps then complete the mission. According to the way you described the dynamic, to eve those missions were the same, if completed in the same time frame.
As you can see this will throw off the factoring of mission payouts substantially... Especially for lvl 4 missions where a ship that could run the plex cost would be quite substantial.
In addition to these problems with the dynamic you have 3 last factors. One being the fact that the standing increase is pathetic compared to the ease in defending a contested system. When I completed my level 4 it gave me a standing increase equal to half of securing ONE minor compound. Thats almost a quarter of what defending a compound would be. Add to this the lack of anything worth while in the Lp store for the militias. ( yes I know this will change one day). But for right now it just adds to the problem of not many people taking missions and even fewer completing them. And lastly but by no means least. The randomness of systems you run missions in needs to be addressed. You can use the same agent multiple times and get sent to a different region every time. This makes for random victory points in random systems, which for those running missions to help their militia capture an enemy system sucks.
FIX: I would suggest several things as a temporary fix to these problems( not that you'll listen but )
A) Cut the cost of items In the lp store by 10% or 20% for the time being. After all it is the militia they would be trying to give pilots fighting for their side the best equipment. At least until new items are added.
B) Have designated zones that each agent gives missions in. Do not restrict it to systems of course but at least restrict it to a specific constellation. Ie. if i go to agent "X" that has -18 quality I know I'm going to be doing missions in this star cluster. However If I do missions for agent "A" with 20 quality I'll be doing missions in this other constellation. (Quality should effect the range of systems the agent sends you)
C) This is the easiest. Increase the standing gain to a realistic level, seeing as how missions are viewable just like cps.
D) (also very easy) Increase the pay manually for now. Increase the pay to what all the other level 4 missions are, why is that so hard? Theeeeeen let the dynamics take over. Why must the dynamic start of with missions paying the same for all 5 tiers its silly
|
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 06:59:00 -
[24]
Thanks for the information Greyscale.
I'd add a couple of points of my own in here:
1. New missions should start at the average payout/completion/bonus time. This way mission will still look ok and not hand out the maximum payout.
2. Counters should be per agent and time dynamic. This would allow the most farmed agents to scale down on rewards and unused agents increase their rewards. Helps to spread the mission runners. F.e. an unused highsec Q-15 agent should scale up to the level of a same sec status Q+20 agent after some time and quickly drop down after a couple of missions.
3. Include mission composition into the balancer calculations. Missions with roids and good salvage rats should have lower rewards than crap salvage rats. Or drone missions that don't have bounties.
4. Mission rejection is usualy based on a couple of factors where reward is only one of them. F.e. I always reject or let a mission expire where I would get any kind of faction standing hit (I am leaving out storylines always). There would have to be a nice juice reward to make me take that standing hit.
5. Per mission counters could identify "farmed" missions. Offered vs completed counter should say a lot here. Also related to point 4. above. --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed ! |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 07:48:00 -
[25]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
This of course obviously means on its own that all missions given by the same quality agent would pay out the same regardless of level, which is not the case. Once the difficulty is calculated additional values are factored in including level and quality scaling and so on.
the quality scaling is just so
once you use a q18 in a .5 you just cant go back to other agents. unless you are just using 5 agents at a time going for the high isk bounty missions.
did a blockade level 4 in a .8 system for a -13 agent, okay so I wasn't expecting any great reward, but under 2000 lp just left the taste of sick in my mouth. 9.x corp standing, no agent standing, but damn, I'd rather use my other agent and run the risk of getting some courier missions.
|
Corin Nebulon
Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 09:26:00 -
[26]
Hmm personally I see 2 problems with the balancer as it is :
a) Some missions have total bounties that are a few times higher than the mission reward, and there are other missions, where the mission reward is almost all you get. So the balancer doesn't balance the ISK/hour earned but only the ISK/hour reward. This leads to some missions being totally crap in terms of total ISK/hour while others pay very decent.
b) Factional warfare missions where introduced to introduce people to pvp in an enviroment where risks are limited. Rewards should just help you to compensate your looses. However it was never intended that you make much money with this missions. Another difference between npc-missions and fw-missions is that fw-missions are meant to be done in groups.
So a balancer, like the one used in the normal NPC-missions, fails here in general. Its a solution for a different problem.
Imho the whole reward system of fw-missions is useless. From the devblogs I personally expected a system that would encourage people to do factional warfare. Just making a mission where people can shoot each other really doesn't do this. IF you would give them access to very special items in the lp-stores or would give them more lp/hour than they can possible earn in any npc mission, THEN you have created a real reason for carebears to do pvp.
The reward system as it is, with all its imbalances, is a solution to balance npc-missions. Because of the differences between npc-missions and fw-missions it cannot be a solution for the problem of balancing fw-mission rewards.
|
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 10:56:00 -
[27]
There is of course room for improvement in the way these systems work - this thread was intended simply to explain the current workings
|
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.06.16 11:40:00 -
[28]
and is greatly appreciated. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Muff Alt
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 11:49:00 -
[29]
I have logged more hours in level 5's probably than anyone
All i can say is that 25,000k - 45,000k LP is around the right figure and if CCP has nerfed them again then all i can say is fail...
Level 5 missions was the only thing i was really intrested in in EVE and after ranting for little under a year now about them being crp and bugged and having submitted more BR's for what my fingers and KB could handle i have given up.
All i can say is all those rumors of EA and Microsh1t buying CCP out could have been good in one respect as it seems CCP needs more employees...
Well this is my last post for EVE-O after 4 years so all i can say is
CCP you = Fail
/me off to play WOW
|
Caldreis
|
Posted - 2008.06.21 17:30:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Caldreis on 21/06/2008 17:30:14
Originally by: CCP Greyscale There is of course room for improvement in the way these systems work - this thread was intended simply to explain the current workings
Yes especially mining mission since you can earn 20.5 time[1] non-mission mining vs what an average level 4 mining mission give out which obviously mean it is EXTREME unlikely a solo miner, I don't add corporate miners since they will likely gang and complete mission way way faster, will actually seriously consider doing them. While this may seem like a minor problem however is not in anyway better off than kill mission [2] since kill mission get bounty/loots that is much more valuable vs mining mission ore where you can't do anything other than turn in.[3] Most level 4 are at averagely from 1 million m3 *not sure on mininum* to 4.5 million m3 which only service to force solo miner to either have gang members or corporate mate come and help which can severely throw off the mission complete vs time completion. So to even remote fix the aboves problem you would need to at least consider how to make them more attractive for the solo miner, would be something along the line of payment higher for solo miner vs lower payment 5 people mining/courier.
Example(The number may not be balance but you get the idea):
Solo miner get full payment as long he got no alt/gang/etc... help. 2 miner/courier get split 2 way payment time 85 percent 3 miner/courier get split 3 way payment time 75 percent etc.... *the percent is to purely discourage macro miner*
(1: 50 million ISK mercoxit non-mission mining vs 2.5 million ISK mission mining level 4 over 45 min average, this may be outdated so fyi)
(2: In most level 4 mining agents system are relatively barren at least compare to crowd systems however for the purpose of this post I will ignore that)
(3: There are still some mission only loot that have problem however they are mostly .1 m3 in case of kill mission drop or large m3 which are normal for courier anyway so they will be ignore for this post.)
So in closing, you, the eve online dev team, have a lot of work to do.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |