| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
   |
Posted - 2008.08.30 16:11:00 -
[121]
Edited by: Venkul Mul on 30/08/2008 16:31:15
Edited by: Venkul Mul on 30/08/2008 16:28:47
 Originally by: Sandra Tyrell
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Sandra
At least if you're like either of us in that not even 1 wreck can be left behind.
A Golem, when used in a mission where you want to kill most or all of the targets, is faster than returning later to salvage as you get to recover most of the wrecks while killing the other targets...
As I see it, the most profitable way is to only salvage/loot BS wrecks within range while missioning. BUT I don't like that, it's too great a workload when multiaccounting, and call it ocd if you wish, but I prefer to "clean house" with the wrecks, profitable or not. That, or leave them alltogether.
2nd best option I think is collecting 7-10 bookmarks, then getting the Salvaging Kronos/Pally. Which moves at some 800m/s with just a Quad Lif + one nano + istab and crappy navigation skills. A bit sluggish, but it's not a big deal. Once my Kronos guy gets basic navigation skills and a T2 mwd it's over 1k m/s.
I see you have received the wrong message here. I am not leaving wrecks behind, with a Golem I have already recovered and salvaged most of the wrecks when I get to the next gate. I the time needed to reload the launchers and maybe go over 80% cap I will have looted them all (if the cargo capacity is sufficient, just done A case of kidnapping, something like 4K m3 of loot and salvage) and salvaged them or I have packed the leftover wrecks+loot can in a tight cluster, ready for returning with a cargo expanded ship with more salvagers it several wrecks are left.
I must admit I have left some spider drone wreck unsalvaged recently  , but they generally don't drop salvage.
Originally by: Sandra Tyrell
Thank you for the numbers. I'll keep them in mind for when I have more data of my own to compare with. I still say that even if I could theoretically get a high isk/h income from missions, I almost never make it happen, outside of determined tests. I wonder if others are so different?
I rarely run more than 1 "real" (non R&D, not low level to recover standing for some alt) mission in a day and the last time I did a complete sum up of the return was some month ago. Most of the time is used in industry/invention or reading the forum and arguing . But using the Golem (and not the Kronos) I really noticed the difference and decided to start a little campaign of testing.
The Golem, for me, mean removing a big span of time after the mission, spent for looting/salvaging. One of the reason for the lesser impact of the Kronos is that I tend to get stupid quantities of Angel missions, probably the worst enemy for a hybrid only ship.
Originally by: Sandra Tyrell
About variable mission spawns, that you and Daelin want. All it would do is neccesitate more tank, taking the finetuning of setups for missionspeed out the window and replacing it with one size tank (big) fits all instead. How is that improvement? Right now you can compromise safety for speed, if you want. If you don't know whether it's a small or large spawn waiting for you, you're forced to play it safe all the time. Doesn't seem much a diversification of missioning to me.
More than variable spawns (and I think they will not make much difference as they will be always in the same general category, i.e. Angels spawns in a Angel mission, Blood Raider in a Blood mission and so on, so predictable kind of damage and resists) I think we need more missions with at least some of them geared to advantage gun ships and not missile ships. Maybe implementing some ship that use tactical warps to avoid missile fire from long range (only an idea, not necessarily "the solution" to all the problems).
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:38:00 -
[122]
I think this idea merit some further comment and to stay on first page. So: bump.
|
Trellish
Ten Ton Hammer
The Red Skull
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 18:54:00 -
[123]
The problem with this idea is that it will make it too easy to isk farm missions in low sec. Making the bonuses good enough that you could replace a t2 fitted raven from a single mission would mean that they'd be earning hundreds of millions of isk an hour...
That's a break game sorta thing right there.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 19:09:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Trellish
The problem with this idea is that it will make it too easy to isk farm missions in low sec. Making the bonuses good enough that you could replace a t2 fitted raven from a single mission would mean that they'd be earning hundreds of millions of isk an hour...
That's a break game sorta thing right there.
IF it ever gets to that point, you can bet that lowsec would be downright crawling with people, and rewards will come down sooner rather than later.
The beauty of it is that (in the long run) it autobalances to whatever level of risk/reward people (on average) feel like accepting.
|
TheGhostofJusNyce
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 19:13:00 -
[125]
I like this idea, higher risk should produce higher reward.
my thoughts:
1 - In low sec you would need to increase the damage done by gate guns, BS pirate gangs would be on every gate into low sec.
2 - In 0.0 this would make alliances that control large chunks of space even more wealthy. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 22:33:00 -
[126]
Well, they'd have to camp both sides of the gate, and the locals could just, you know, fight them (especially after the recent boosts in sec status penalties making it much more likely that you go below -5.0 sec).
And in 0.0, well, how many alliances REALLY control NPC 0.0 areas ? It's like herding cats. You don't get missions in "true" 0.0 anyway.
|
Isidore Tailleur
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 03:46:00 -
[127]
Now suddenly I make less flying a new LVL 3 then i did from a LVL 1 before.
This is ridicules and i sure hope someone just messed up the new missions unintentionally and forgot a 0 or something.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 09:41:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Isidore Tailleur
Now suddenly I make less flying a new LVL 3 then i did from a LVL 1 before.
This is ridicules and i sure hope someone just messed up the new missions unintentionally and forgot a 0 or something.
Linkage
That's just how they prime the auto-balancer... at the minimum.
_
SHOPS || Mission rewards revamp || better nanofix
|
Aargh
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 16:21:00 -
[129]
A lot of people fail to realise that low-sec is currently so dangerous because pretty much only pirates hang out there. A CNR in low sec is like a Ferrari in Compton or Moss Side, i.e. it either belongs to someone you DO NOT want to run into or it's going to get jacked any moment.
In the old days, when you had more people in low sec running missions, because there were more targets and indeed more people to protect, you tended to get more anti-pirate organisations providing cover (local police) and a vastly higher ratio of pirates to carebears/police. That alone reduced your chances of being attacked.
Frankly, at this point I don't care what CCP do as long as they do something about the fact that the best place to make money in EVE is also the safest for the majority of players. So I heartily endorse this proposal or anything similar.
FYI, I'm CEO of a high sec mission running corporation.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 17:13:00 -
[130]
It's been a week ? Up, up you go, thread 
_
SHOPS || Mission rewards revamp || better nanofix
|
|
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 20:29:00 -
[131]
Some more data about mission return with a golem and almost top skills:
Average return from kill mission, the time is from acceptance to dropping all the loot in station:
Average isk per hour 39 millions (too high in my eyes, with the level of skill and equipment it should be about 30 millions)
Composition is:
- 13,95% LP
- 32,56% reprocessed minerals
- 26,55% isk from reward, bonus and bounties
- 16,73% salvage
- 10,21 loot worth selling
Top return:
- Attack of the drones, with a potential return of 50 millions/hour
Worse return:
- Unautorized military presence with a potential return of 26 millions/hour
Interesting the difference between 2 pirate invasion missions , both agaisnt Sansha:
the first was worth 37,5 millions the second 24,2, with the same time to completion.
The difference was almost totally in the minerals+loot part. The first was run before the September 9 patch, the second after it.
If you think is is interesting I will keep updating this.
Returning to the auto balancing system, I feel there is a mayor drawback: auto balancing is heavily influenced by the top results and that can be unjust for people that as recently started level 4 missions and can get a return as low as 10 millions hour.
My opinion is that it is better to reduce the top reward, keeping the base reward were they are today.
The easiest system seem to give a timer to the agent before he will give you a new mission.
It would require to remove the 4 hours delay to avoid a standing hit and instead introducing a delay before the agent has another mission available variable with the agent level. The lower the level of the agent (and maybe the quality) the lower the delay. This delay should start at mission refusal, failure or completion. (or be way longer and start at mission acceptance)
This will require to break the mission hubs with several high level high quality agents in the same station, but that can be only good as it will reduce a little the lag in some system.
A system like this will penalize less people new to mission as they will lose a small percentage of the time waiting against the mission running time, while high skilled runners will have more dead time between the missions (but as they have more different skills they can do several other things in that time).
|
Merdaneth
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 22:40:00 -
[132]
While I would encourage a dynamic mission system, introducing an artifical distinction between three regions (hig-sec, low-sec, 0.0) and balance these against each other is unneccessary and could even turn out bad.
I'm more for balancing within a certain region, so that often used agents (and often ratted belts) would empty out like overmined belts. High-sec, low-sec and 0.0 have such different rules that balancing them against each other would not achieve the desired results. Most people do not choose between high-sec, low-sec or 0.0 for their missioning and ratting needs because of the isk income.
____
The Illusion of Freedom | The Truth about Slavery |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.10.03 02:33:00 -
[133]
The main issue here was always the difference between "highsec L4s" and "lowsec L4s", or better said the underwhelming situation of lowsec right now.
With that idea in mind, separating it like that for bonus/penalty purposes makes the most sense.
_
Alternate resist display || Mission reward revamp || better nanofix
|
Antoine SaintJust
The Society for Creative Euthanasia
|
Posted - 2008.10.14 17:41:00 -
[134]
Seems a quite nice idea to me, actually.
|
Tykkis
|
Posted - 2008.10.15 20:38:00 -
[135]
If you boost low sec and 0.0 mission rewards, you will boost the corporations holding the space. Some alliances allready make lowsec safe for it to be profitable to mission. Risk vs reward is kinda hard in EVE cause we got huge population and big portion of players are pirates -> It's all risk for solo players in low sec. Nerfing high sec missions is like a boost to mining, industrial, science and trade, and not everyone like to make isk like that sitting afk at stations.
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |