EVE Search - Introduce FULL auto-balancing rewards for mission-running, not just LP

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Introduce FULL auto-balancing rewards for mission-running, not just LP

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Carniflex Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.08.22 19:03:00 - [61] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Originally by: Carniflex Ofc creating good automatic mission generator is also damn complex thing to do. Very true, and probably not worth doing until the AI (currently Actual Idiocy as opposed to Artificial Intelligence) is rewritten. Which may sadly mean never. I imagine CCP would be able to pull it off if they wanted to. Well, not the full AI, but reasonably good automatic mission generator. Ofc it would not be something truly random but more like joining up some number of predefined building blocs following some reasonably rigid rules about how they can be combined. As an example it might mean that 5 minutes after engaging the first target in mission area there is incoming reinforcment wave. Or that after killing something specific it triggers explosion destroying any remaining wreks in the area and putting some damage to anything within range. All those 'flags' might be enabled for mission or disabled. Not to mention actual 'stuff' that needs to be in mission like NPC's to shoot or items to haul. Bottom line is it could be better tailored for specific location, be it then limiting the number of 'building blocks' allowed per mission by system security rating or taking into account number of pirate NPC's destoyed in the area during last 24h while maintaining high number of possible permutations (assuming number of initial building bloks is high enough).
Sandra Tyrell	Posted - 2008.08.22 20:46:00 - [62] Would slight randomness really enhance your missioning experience? Random reinforcement waves would screw over drone users. Randomness of the type you describe would diminish my missioning experience, rather then enhance it.
Space Wanderer	Posted - 2008.08.22 21:35:00 - [63] I like it. As many people like to point out, risk/reward is currently borked. Let the player actions define what "risk" is (there can be a better definition of "risk" than judging how many people will do a certain action?), and tie that risk to rewards. Sounds fair to me.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2008.08.23 11:18:00 - [64] It is too difficult to implement. Would be quite elegant, true enough, but too difficult if you want to do it properly I think. And of course there needs to be limits so that you don't get modifiers like 1000x or 0.0001x. But otherwise? Sounds good.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.08.24 10:20:00 - [65] Originally by: Gnulpie It is too difficult to implement. Would be quite elegant, true enough, but too difficult if you want to do it properly I think. And of course there needs to be limits so that you don't get modifiers like 1000x or 0.0001x. But otherwise? Sounds good. Well, what exactly would be too difficult to implement ? The counters are trivial, the formulae are right here in the thread, they're easily modifiable, etc. _ SHOPS \|\| Mission rewards revamp \|\| better nanofix
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2008.08.25 03:21:00 - [66] It would be time consuming to implement, but nothing compared to tweaking individual missions, some or all, once or repetitively, over the entire course of EVE's lifetime.
Carniflex Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.08.25 06:28:00 - [67] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf It would be time consuming to implement, but nothing compared to tweaking individual missions, some or all, once or repetitively, over the entire course of EVE's lifetime. I have to agree, that if any new system would be introduced it should be fully automatic and robust enough to not need constant babysitting by some dev.
Taco Raptorian Burning Steel Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.25 11:56:00 - [68] This is one of the more possible solutions to the imbalance currently existing between the different security areas I've read so far. I don't support the current wave of "move L4s to low sec" threads because it's a one sided solution and won't work in the long run anyway. This on the other hand could actually work. What the mission running masses seem to forget is that even though you can't force people to move out from high sec. Shouldn't the same apply for the opposite. If missions in high sec remain the cash cow it is now then how can people that want to stay in low sec even compete? They will be forced to have an alt mission runner (like many already do) or even move back to high sec themselves because it's just that good. People who only enjoy PvE don't want to be forced into low sec to be able to afford their losses. They also don't want to be forced to PvP. This is the same as people in low sec don't want to be forced to move back to high sec to do missions (PvE) or else be doomed to fly rookie ships all day because lack of income. You might say that you can rat in low sec but even if that is a form of income you can't be hundreds of people in the same system like in high sec making millions per hour. Your income when ratting is affected by the population in a system. If doing missions solo is hardcore than why are L4 missions so easy? Fine it's hardcore to play alone in a MMO world where you're up against big corporations with lots of members and still get by. Although many hide under the protection of the npc corps which makes it alot easier. You might argue that if you join a big corp you can make more money in 0.0 ratting. That's not solo hardcore play anymore though is it? Even if you do rat solo in 0.0 you still can't be hundreds of players in the same system. It just doesn't work or your income will be gimped. This don't apply to missions. The only reasonable place to play this game solo is in high sec especially if you include the other professions like trading etc. That is probably one of the bigger reasons why it's so crowded. Why should it also be among the best places regarding solo income? ---
Evanade Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.08.25 15:31:00 - [69] Akita, disregard the whiners, this is an awesome idea. sok alt - main got banzored
Carniflex Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.08.25 15:59:00 - [70] Originally by: Evanade Akita, disregard the whiners, this is an awesome idea. Surprisingly most of the comments in this thread seem not to be whines altho some of the other ideas presented might be not entirely in same direction as main post
Krollbots	Posted - 2008.08.25 17:43:00 - [71] I like the drift idea. CCP could also stir things up with fluctuating security ratings of systems. Security would go down in systems with more fighting and security would go up in systems with less fighting. This would keep perfect balance while introducing change over time. This would have to include a factor of how secure neighboring systems are. Balance would automatically be established over time based on player interest in each system. Additionally CCP could change how secure you actually are based on the system rating. Make it a % chance of Concord intervention based on the security of the system you are in. The % chance can be adjusted to reasonable levels to balance risk vs. reward.
Krollbots	Posted - 2008.08.25 18:25:00 - [72] If you combine Akita's idea with my two ideas the game would balance itself with security, income, and risk. Some of the mechanics are already in place.
Carniflex Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.08.25 19:53:00 - [73] Originally by: Krollbots I like the drift idea. CCP could also stir things up with fluctuating security ratings of systems. Security would go down in systems with more fighting and security would go up in systems with less fighting. If you mean PvP combat tied to system security it would be too easily abused by wardeccing altcorp and killing alts over and over again. If You mean killing NPC's it would make sense to actually increase security in areas with a lot of pirate deaths as there would be less pirates to do bad things. In no case should type of security (hi sec, low sec, no sec) actually change, as that would most likley create some serious issues, like breaking up empire topology (hi sec pocets in low sec sea or possible eradiction of all low sec systems), Moon mining POS'es in hi sec space, stranded capital ships(should all low/no sec system in range change to hi sec), unconcquerable player owned stations (dreads can't go hi sec and no way will someone be willing to remove some 10+ large battletowers with battleships only with some 300..400+ defenders in system) and so on. I would not hold my breath on that drift idea tho. While it's interesting in theory as far as I understand CCP is very very reluctant to do anything with database at starsystems level. Thats the impression I got from reading what they went thru to add that 'black rise' region into game in latest patch. Altho if they would bring in some other number that is not that rigid then something in those lines might not be out of question. Say 'criminal density' or 'system wealth' or whatever it would be called.
goober nuts	Posted - 2008.08.25 21:28:00 - [74] Edited by: goober nuts on 25/08/2008 21:31:42 the real issue with running lvl 4s in high sec is the amount of them you can run in the time you play make it where the agent says after a certain amount of bounties you have earned that he has no more work for ya today. try again tomorrow. as it stands right now you can sit there and run till you hearts contents not even bother stopping to loot and salvage i know people who run 10 to 14 missions a play session. put more lvl 4 agents in low sec so after they run there high sec ones they would have to move to low sec to mission more. edit : i cant type
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2008.08.26 00:01:00 - [75] Originally by: Carniflex If you mean PvP combat tied to system security it would be too easily abused by wardeccing altcorp and killing alts over and over again. If You mean killing NPC's it would make sense to actually increase security in areas with a lot of pirate deaths as there would be less pirates to do bad things. I've thought about this in the past. A system where the more rats killed (or more precisely the bounties collected) the higher the security-status goes. It would draw from a limited pool of sec-status points meaning if security goes up in one place it goes down in another. It would not only break up the mission hubs and stir up the market but if there is enough imbalance it will lead to much higher LP returns in the areas and even empires where fewer people are running missions. Of course as mentioned no areas should ever cross the border from one security type to another ie. hi, lo, and 0.0. There are a lot of places where an auto-balancing system could be put in place to make things that much more varied. We just need CCP to try the idea out and see how manageable it is in reality. Of course one major issue is that while an auto-balancing system is easier to manage than balancing on a case by case basis very little balancing gets done at all in these areas. Setting up an auto-balancing system is a lot more effort than doing sweet FA.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.26 06:09:00 - [76] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Besides if you can't trust CCP to sort out an automatic system that largely balances itself (afterall it's a shift of rewards between areas, nothing is being added or taken away) how can you trust them to correctly alter the bounties and drops on every NPC type in the game based on area, where a single typo amongst hundreds of entries could switch a frigate from 100k to 1m and a BS from 1.5m to 15m? Further this is a far "bigger" non-gradual change with a huge impact and little chance for balancing other than going back through the entries and redoing them all over again. Seeing as CCP till recently lacked what to me seem a basic tool in balancing missions and belt rat drop, a random drop generator to see what a mission/rat spawn would drop on average (reading the blog about the new debugging instrument it was added only in the last months), yes, sometime I doubt CCP competence or interest in balancing NPC (more the latter than the former). On the other hand a automatic system risk to be as as prone to be "horribly unbalanced" and "completely inflexible" as humans at least until it has had a lot of time of testing to correct the almost guaranteed bugs in it (it is not a matter of incompetence, it is a matter of extreme complication if it need to balance all the aspects of the rewards). All included it probably would be better that any other solution. Problem is that if ti autobalance on the average results (as it should) it will not resolve the "nerf level 4 mission whines" as there will be still people capable of blitzing them and get a lot of isk. Those whines are primarily based on the results of the better skilled, better equipped and most expert mission runners, not on the reward of the average runner. Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Originally by: Carniflex As far as RP side goes I fail to see how would CONCORD be paying smaller bounties for same ships in hi sec than in low or no sec. The system doesn't inherently do that. CONCORD simply pay less for law enforcement in areas that are saturated with enforcers and more for places where few are supporting the law. Currently CONCOR pay less for NPC in mission or encounter/exploration sites than for a NPC in a almost identical ship and skills in belts (it one of the problem for the low reward in most encounters/explorations). A simpler idea than the OP to balance better than today the low sec reward would be to split the NPC in 3 categories: high sec deadspace (i.e. mission) NPC, low sec/0.0 mission NPC and belt NPC, with progressively higher rewards. Probably in the long run the OP idea would be better, but this solution would require less work on CCP part.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.26 06:42:00 - [77] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Originally by: Sandra Tyrell Venkul has a very good point, that you seem to be missing. Entirely possible, but I'm not seeing how his point relates exclusively to this change. His point seems to apply to all changes including his own suggestion. If I'm misunderstanding it you and he are most welcome to explain his point more clearly. Sure it apply to any change. My doubts are born by the fact (at least in my eyes) that this kind of change will have larger aftereffects than other kind of changes. They can be even positive aftereffects, simply I thing that they should be analyzed as much as possible before implementing a large change like this. One of the problems is that while ship/combat changes can be tested reasonably well on the test servers, economy changes will show all the secondary effects only on the main server.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2008.08.26 06:50:00 - [78] Originally by: Venkul Mul On the other hand a automatic system risk to be as as prone to be "horribly unbalanced" and "completely inflexible" as humans at least until it has had a lot of time of testing to correct the almost guaranteed bugs in it (it is not a matter of incompetence, it is a matter of extreme complication if it need to balance all the aspects of the rewards). Quite right, it would need extensive testing, but if anything is missed and something should go horribly wrong at least the entire system can be paused or reversed with little impact which is a benefit few other balance changes have changes. Compare that to tweaking missions and hitting an extra zero somewhere. Originally by: Venkul Mul All included it probably would be better that any other solution. Problem is that if ti autobalance on the average results (as it should) it will not resolve the "nerf level 4 mission whines" as there will be still people capable of blitzing them and get a lot of isk. The system isn't based on completion times. While I think Akiuta's tally for each category is a little resource heavy it could be done or alternative methods such as number of missions run for that mission level. The important part is that it inexorably pushes towards balance. There will still be "safe" ISK to be earned in hi-sec, but lo-sec and 0.0 would have mission rewards that more accurately reflected the risks (read: costs) involved in operating in those areas. Originally by: Venkul Mul Currently CONCOR pay less for NPC in mission or encounter/exploration sites than for a NPC in a almost identical ship and skills in belts (it one of the problem for the low reward in most encounters/explorations). Makes sense to me. In the one case you've hunted down a rogue element the authorities may have been completely aware of on your own initiative, in the other they have handed you the location of a large group of bountied targets but since they've already done you such a large favor they won't be paying you extra for hunting them down. I'll admit the exploration rats don't fit in with that, but from a gameplay perspective it makes little sense to to award players the same bounties on large groups as they do on small ones. The time taken hunting the NPC's down must be taken into account somehow. Anyway, I won't be losing any sleep over CONCORD's inaccuracies. Originally by: Venkul Mul A simpler idea than the OP to balance better than today the low sec reward would be to split the NPC in 3 categories: high sec deadspace (i.e. mission) NPC, low sec/0.0 mission NPC and belt NPC, with progressively higher rewards. Probably in the long run the OP idea would be better, but this solution would require less work on CCP part. I'm not sure that it would be. There are hundreds of missions and probably around a thousand individual NPC types, going through them all three times over and altering their salvage, bounty, and loot tables would be a task of epic proportions. It would also leave a lot of room for error and all that work may well need to be done all over again should there be reason to adjust the values again in the future. Perhaps it would be quicker, but it would only ever be a temporary fix and in the long run they would save a lot of time implementing an automated system even if they alter the modifiers manually. That's ignoring the benefit of gaining the experience to help them know when and where to apply similar systems in existing and future aspects of EVE.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2008.08.26 06:53:00 - [79] Originally by: Venkul Mul One of the problems is that while ship/combat changes can be tested reasonably well on the test servers, economy changes will show all the secondary effects only on the main server. All the more reason for incremental changes such as this as opposed to sweeping ones much like the afore mentioned drone region debacle. Either they implement large changes via patches, they implement incremental changes via new systems, or they don't touch anything related to the economy at all (meaning they don't touch pretty much anything). All of these options have the potential for large scale disastrous impact but they don't all carry the same potential for it and in my eyes small, steady, easily halted, reversed, or adjusted changes are the safer choice.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.26 07:00:00 - [80] Originally by: Akita T while on top of it all you sometimes don't even get ISK at all, but only tags (which for some is a good thing, for others it's a bad thing, overall it shouldn't really matter)... Off topic with what you were saying in the post cited, but how will your system work with tags? Tags can be sold at NPC at fixed prices or in the market at prices dictated by the supply/demand on the market, independently from where you have got them. So your system would change the kind or numbers of tags dropped to balance rewards?
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.26 07:15:00 - [81] Originally by: Taco Raptorian This is the same as people in low sec don't want to be forced to move back to high sec to do missions (PvE) or else be doomed to fly rookie ships all day because lack of income. You might say that you can rat in low sec but even if that is a form of income you can't be hundreds of people in the same system like in high sec making millions per hour. Your income when ratting is affected by the population in a system. a) you can run missions in low sec, especially if you are in the pirate cop stalking an area. In the past several pirate corps had the control of sections of low sec. b) combat PvP don't generate riches. It destroy them and shuffle some of them from a player to another. At the end of a combat PvP encounter the sum of iskies/items in the two players control is lower than previously. Even if no ship is lost there is at least the ammunition expenditure. If one of the ships is lost even if the other player get some juicy stuff, the total worth of the two players added up is less. There is no way around that (or combat losses will lose every meaning) but it mean you can't really make new isk trough combat PvP. They are always taken from other players that have made them though other systems.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.08.26 07:24:00 - [82] Originally by: Venkul Mul Off topic with what you were saying in the post cited, but how will your system work with tags? Tags can be sold at NPC at fixed prices or in the market at prices dictated by the supply/demand on the market, independently from where you have got them. So your system would change the kind or numbers of tags dropped to balance rewards? The easiest way would be to vary the number of tags. Say, if a certain ship usually drops 3 of "tag type A". If you get a 0.4 multiplier, that ship will always drop just one tag, with a 20% chance of dropping a second tag. If you get a 2.1 multiplier, that ship will always drop 6 tags, with a 30% chance of dropping a 7th tag. _ SHOPS \|\| Mission rewards revamp \|\| better nanofix
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2008.08.26 14:43:00 - [83] That I don't like. They're the faction Captain equivalent of dog-tags, they shouldn't be carrying more than one. I'd prefer for the tag type to scale with the modifier. Even us capsuleer vets like to nip around in a t1 frigate or cruiser now and then and it's perhaps more likely they'll be inclined to do in areas they perceive as safer. It's not perfect, but the idea of multiple tags dropping from a single kill annoys me. Similar to Akita's example the tag type wouldn't just jump up between multiplier levels, there would be a percentage chance of it being a better tag until it reaches the level where it is always that better tag and starts building the chance of it being the next one up.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.26 18:16:00 - [84] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf That I don't like. They're the faction Captain equivalent of dog-tags, they shouldn't be carrying more than one. I'd prefer for the tag type to scale with the modifier. Even us capsuleer vets like to nip around in a t1 frigate or cruiser now and then and it's perhaps more likely they'll be inclined to do in areas they perceive as safer. It's not perfect, but the idea of multiple tags dropping from a single kill annoys me. Similar to Akita's example the tag type wouldn't just jump up between multiplier levels, there would be a percentage chance of it being a better tag until it reaches the level where it is always that better tag and starts building the chance of it being the next one up. My Delve mission running alt just got 2, same level, Concord tags killing a ship, so it is already possible. A alternate system would be to add more lower level tags. It would be even more useful seeing how the LP store require tons of low level tags that are currently pretty rare.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2008.08.26 20:45:00 - [85] Originally by: Venkul Mul it is already possible. Yup, and it bugs the shit out of me. Maybe they had a spare Captain on board in case the first one needed to... oh no wait all CONCORD ships are top of the line riddled with the best tech from all five empires. I think we can safely assume they're fitted with capsules. I'm sure an excuse could be thought up but I still think it makes little to no sense. On a mildly related point I think FW pilots should drop tags related to their rank. I doubt it would be world of unbalanced and would make a nice FW only resource. Are there any other items with NPC buy orders on the loot and salvage tables? I don't mission much these days and when I do I enter a sort of vegetative state for the sake of preserving my sanity. (I'm actually a big fan of PvE, just not mind numbingly repetitive, boringly easy, turn my tank on aggro everything walk away and make dinner while my drones clear up the entire pocket PvE.)
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.27 05:37:00 - [86] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf (I'm actually a big fan of PvE, just not mind numbingly repetitive, boringly easy, turn my tank on aggro everything walk away and make dinner while my drones clear up the entire pocket PvE.) Then stop choosing only the missions where you can do that. I find pretty fastidious that people use that meme when it is not true unless you accept only a very small range of missions.
Sandra Tyrell	Posted - 2008.08.27 06:17:00 - [87] Edited by: Sandra Tyrell on 27/08/2008 06:22:42 Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf (I'm actually a big fan of PvE, just not mind numbingly repetitive, boringly easy, turn my tank on aggro everything walk away and make dinner while my drones clear up the entire pocket PvE.) When you do that, isk/h is low. The current whine is about isk/h being too high from L4's. The described missioning style has little to do with the 'too profitable' complaint, which is what this thread is. It's funny that the afk mission style inevitably comes up in these threads, whether they are ideas with some merit in Features forum, or rabble trolls in GeneralDiscussion.
Daelin Blackleaf Aliastra	Posted - 2008.08.27 08:22:00 - [88] Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf (I'm actually a big fan of PvE, just not mind numbingly repetitive, boringly easy, turn my tank on aggro everything walk away and make dinner while my drones clear up the entire pocket PvE.) Then stop choosing only the missions where you can do that. I find pretty fastidious that people use that meme when it is not true unless you accept only a very small range of missions. Originally by: Sandra Tyrell Edited by: Sandra Tyrell on 27/08/2008 06:22:42 Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf (I'm actually a big fan of PvE, just not mind numbingly repetitive, boringly easy, turn my tank on aggro everything walk away and make dinner while my drones clear up the entire pocket PvE.) When you do that, isk/h is low. The current whine is about isk/h being too high from L4's. The described missioning style has little to do with the 'too profitable' complaint, which is what this thread is. It's funny that the afk mission style inevitably comes up in these threads, whether they are ideas with some merit in Features forum, or rabble trolls in GeneralDiscussion. Oh now come on, you don't actually think that's how I ran all my missions? Those four statements are all true, but the middle two and the last one are obviously mutually exclusive. I can't be bored or effected by a missions repetitiveness if I'm not sat in front of the screen to experience it. Besides, I was merely pointing out why I don't pay attention. I certainly wasn't making out that this "fastidious meme" (which I've never before encountered, I thought CNR's were still all the rage) was a constant state of affairs. And if we're being finicky ISK/hr is great when it's ISK for time you otherwise wouldn't be earning anything. Now, do either of you have an answer to the question that was posed or anything else to add to the topic? Or are you just going to make snide comments about my personal reasons for not knowing which, if any, other items on the loot and salvage tables can be sold to NPC's? [It's 9am and I haven't slept so apologies if this all seems a little harsh but I really am tired of this kind of "forum PvP" and to see two people jump on such a small unrelated comment in an effort to... well I have no idea what either of you were trying to achieve there... really irks me.]
Sandra Tyrell	Posted - 2008.08.27 09:19:00 - [89] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf ... see two people jump on such a small unrelated comment in an effort to... well I have no idea what either of you were trying to achieve there... really irks me.] I was trying to keep that "meme" from infecting the minds of those who read this thread, infect with delusions of magnificent rewards without effort or risk from highsec L4's. Every time I see someone saying that in this type of thread, it confirm..., it indicates that the author has this warped view of highsec missioning. It also makes me suspect that this delusion is what really irks them and that is the driving force behind their writing. Even if they claim different motivations. Also to point out to you how badly it fits in this thread. After all, you must be unaware of that since you posted it here.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.08.27 11:12:00 - [90] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf Oh now come on, you don't actually think that's how I ran all my missions? Those four statements are all true, but the middle two and the last one are obviously mutually exclusive. I can't be bored or effected by a missions repetitiveness if I'm not sat in front of the screen to experience it. Besides, I was merely pointing out why I don't pay attention. I certainly wasn't making out that this "fastidious meme" (which I've never before encountered, I thought CNR's were still all the rage) was a constant state of affairs. And if we're being finicky ISK/hr is great when it's ISK for time you otherwise wouldn't be earning anything. Now, do either of you have an answer to the question that was posed or anything else to add to the topic? Or are you just going to make snide comments about my personal reasons for not knowing which, if any, other items on the loot and salvage tables can be sold to NPC's? [It's 9am and I haven't slept so apologies if this all seems a little harsh but I really am tired of this kind of "forum PvP" and to see two people jump on such a small unrelated comment in an effort to... well I have no idea what either of you were trying to achieve there... really irks me.] Sandra Tyrell covered the reason we reacted badly to your statement pretty well. It is a common meme used against the reward from mission in its different variations, from the Domi you cited to the f.o.f. spewing Drake or Raven. Sadly as soon as you put it in it became not a "small unrelated comment" but a topic of the discussion. You can hope not to see several vultures coming and pointing to it saying "See, see, he admit it, they are free isk for nothing, mission must be removed/moved to low sec where he should stay at the PC". BTW: Repetitive, boringly easily, aggro all and walk away are not mutually exclusive. About the question, there is still a little loot that can be sold to the NPC, but usually it come from destroying buildings. Generally it comprise uranium, vitoc and other NPC products. Even destroying the buildings I think it is less than 0,1% of the total loot value (they are low value items generally, in the 1K range for unit).

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.