|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |

Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.08.07 18:55:00 -
[1]
Vote against the nano nerf! |

Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.11 15:03:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah
That would not necessarily be a concern for this type of player, but the OP's proposal to effectively remove level 3 and 4 agents from high-sec alltogether would be problematic for them.
Why? Vote against the nano nerf! |

Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.15 16:04:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Roshan longshot
Maybe I dont want to see the numbers drop...you may not have been here 5 years ago when eve first started...3000 players that is 3k not 30k.
This idea was shot down before by ccp, for that reason. Force paying customers into somthing they dont want to do...and they will leave.
Its unlikely that the numbers wouold drop. Its not like characters that only do missions need much isk. Vote against the nano nerf! |

Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.21 18:17:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Esmenet on 21/08/2008 18:20:45
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Malcanis
So 0.0 missions are roughly balanced with 0.0 ratting, but only 10% as good as hi-sec missions.
I seriously doubt your "only 10% more profitable" as people claim that 0.1 missions (so no pirate implants from Lp) give out 60 millions hours (top runners probably, the same people that will get mroe than 30 milions hour in high sec).
Even disregarding that, the simple fact that in 0.1 you get roughly x2 the LP of the same mission in high sec mean about 6 extra millions for each mission, so 9-12 extra millions each hour and then there is the chance for better spawns in the variable spawns missions, with the possibility of a true faction spawn.
I will test 0.0 missions rewards as I am moving a 4 months character in NPC pirate land to do missions. He is up to level 3 missions, I am very curious to see what will be his per hour return. I highly doubt it will be only a 10% more than high sec missions of the same level.
You forget to calculate interruptions, shiplosses during missions(due to pvp), time spent defending the area (with additional shiplosses), time spent hauling your stuff to better markets etc. There might be bigger spikes in income in 0.0, but in general over time its not impressive.
|

Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 18:34:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Karii Ildarian
Originally by: Kwedaras
Originally by: Karii Ildarian All kidding aside, I would like to ask one serious question.
Exactly how much ISK/hr should a mission runner be able to make in hi-sec?
10 mil/h if VERY lucky, normally i think 6-9 would be right
I usually make about 5 or 6 tops, if I get good missions. This sounds like a raise. :)
You must be the worst mission runner in EVE then, and probably end up on 2-3 mill/hr. Vote against the nano nerf! |

Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 14:13:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Karii Ildarian
Well, let me check my log...
No Alts... check Limited play time (rl 9 to 5, etc,etc,etc...) ... check Run an average of one L4/evening (unless I get courier missions, than more, but less...)...check Average time played/evening...3.5 to 4 hours... check
Yup, I average about 5 to 6 million isk/hour, so maybe I am the worst mission runner in EvE.
Do you believe that one should have various alts on multiple accounts, to run missions in this game? If so, what seperates you from a macro miner?
I also wanted to comment on the "sliding scale agent" idea. Must be the first time I ever heard players ask for, what is essentially, a geographical nerf...
Lastly, someone else pointed out the most obvious flaw:
Nerfing L4 missions would, in the end, result in a significant increase in the power of 0.0 alliances. Low sec will still suck...
Complete BS and i stay on my original statement. I play in general less hrs/evening than you. I got a normal t1 raven thats mostly t2 fitted. I only have a single account. And i can easily make 20+ mill/hr. I'd make more if i bothered to max my ravenskills and/or get cnr/factionmods.
The only way you can justify your numbers is if you make up some silly statistic and count your complete playtime and not just the time spent on generating isk through missions. Then i can make an equally silly statement and claim i made something like -5 mill/hr ratting in 0.0 last month. Vote against the nano nerf! |

Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 14:39:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Karii Ildarian
A kill mission like Damsel takes at least 2 hours from the time I accept the mission until the time I have completed salvaging.
A kill mission like WC takes me 3 to 4 hours, in total, to complete.
You take a little nap in the middle then or? Vote against the nano nerf! |

Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 14:31:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Jarvis Hellstrom
Originally by: Esmenet You take a little nap in the middle then or?
Nope. Not everyone has the same level of skill or the expenditure in the really optimized rigged mission ships.
Worlds Collide takes me closer to 5 hours to complete and usually I pretty much need to have a second player for the hard bit. (That's including loot and salvage).
The first L4 I soloed was a Blockade and it took 6 hours and about 2 minutes. I know because I just barely missed getting the time bonus for it. And that doesn't include the final looting and salvaging.
Not everyone can run missions as fast as some can. They just aren't as good.
I find it hard to believe that its even possible to be that slow. I remember doing WC in my very first t1 fitted raven with really shit skillpoints where i had to warp out a couple of times and i never got close to those times you state here. Missionrunning does not take any skill its mostly just optimising your dps after you have got your tank to a reasonable level. At most you need to be aware of triggerships. Vote against the nano nerf! |

Esmenet
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.09.01 09:20:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Karii Ildarian With the increased difficulty related to hi-sec suicide ganking which is about to come to fruition, I suppose that the ISK farmers and RMT type people are extremely worried about their bottom-lines due to the reduced requirement for their service that this change may bring.
I grieve for you.
Are you stab wounds in disguise or something? |

Esmenet
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 08:26:00 -
[10]
|
|
|
|
|