|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Carniflex
Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.09.11 10:46:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Andrue, that is why I normally put the TOP definition in capitals or bold. The 39,8 millions hour is my current average with mission (I have started checking them for this kind of thread), but that require several factors:
- the character doing the mission has above 40 million sp, almost maximized skills for the ships he is using, negotiation 5 and level 4 in both relevant special connection; - I am using a level 4 q +18, true quality 49 agent; - the system is a 0.6 system; - I am using a Golem with T2 fittings; - the character has 100% refining (99,5% on display after the last patch, but still no wastage) and 0% refining tax; - I include looting and salvaging, with my skill it is worth more than running another mission (looting and salvage is more than 50% of the rewards and with the golem looting require less time than the mission); - time is from mission request to delivery of loot in the station were I am based.
What is not comprised, as I am not doing it only for the test and so I am using a Administration agent ina station with only 1 good agent, is the time used for not kill missions and the wait when I refuse missions.
My idea of how the reward should be balanced is to reduce that top value without touching the base value.
Probably the better system is to introduce a timer before the same agent can offer a new mission to the same player, shorter for low level agents (and maybe low quality agents), longer for high level high quality agents. Let's say that the average time to complete a level 4 mission is 80 minutes (average include the new players), the level 4 agent will have a delay before offering a new mission of 80 minutes, so the player that struggle with level 4 missions will have no problem, his timer will be long expired before he complete the mission, the player that can do the mission in 25 minutes must go to another agent (in another system, this change require to break the mission hub) to get a new mission.
That should reduce TOP reward with little effect on base rewards.
My isk/h is in the same ballpark, altho I do not loot usually. Using 2 faction fitted Golems atm with well skilled pilots.
Don't like the idea tho, as my local area I use on regular basis has only 1 reasonable combat agent. I currently do 2 to 5 missions per hour (30 min for long ones, as low as 3 minutes for 'blitz' missions like recon 2 and 3), on average approx 3 missions hour. This change would force me into area where I can get decent supply of missions to maintain my activity. It's not fun to just sit there waiting on the timer. Not to mention I'm in the area I'm in bcos I have reason to be there other than missions and forcing me to move somewhere else would also disrupt my roles in my corporation.
|
Carniflex
Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.09.11 11:42:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
The idea is exactly that, to get you do something different while waiting for the timer (like salvaging the mission) or to move some system to another agent.
My goal is to reduce top rewards without touching bottom rewards.
If you have a better idea to reach that goal I will be happy to hear it.
It might be so in theory. In everyday practice it means I'm forced to move into location where I can cover most 'reasonable' quality agents with least travel involved and I will have to use logistically easy solution - ie Golem, as I'm forced to move around. Even if you try to distribute all agents evenly thru EVE there shall be some 'best' systems bcos of topology. EVE players can quite often do their homework and soon enough you would have new 'motsu' in there.
Or what would be that 'other' activity be in hi sec ? Mining or doing non combat missions ? We both know how 'good' hi sec exploration is so that one is kinda out of question. R&D and Industry take just few cliks and then it's waiting on timer so that also is unsuitable activity to fill some 30 - 40 minutes between mission offers. And while spinning in station is nice it will get kinda old fast. Trading .. well .. not out of question, as those 0.01 isk wars do take some time.
As far as 'better idea' goes I'm opposed to the idea of making my effort to find most effective ways to milk isk null by just yanking the carpet out under me. I do not run those missions for fun you know. I use that isk to have fun.
|
Carniflex
Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.09.11 11:51:00 -
[3]
To add a bit. Hard timers are also easily sneaked by with alts. To remain in one location one would need just enough alts to keep asking a mission until 'first one' is off the timer. Altho well .. most of EVE mechanic can ofc sneaked past by alts.
And giving out only LP and salvage. That kinda devalues LP rather fast as it's not as liquid as isk. I can't just go out to buy new HAC with LP. In theory possible, but it would be significant mission nerf. Besides. That would leave only 0.0 as isk fauchet in game so in that case also all bounties from 0.0 rats should be removed and some new way of inserting isk into economy should be devised.
|
Carniflex
Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.09.11 11:52:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Gamesguy
Then you are part of the problem. Your argument is basically "this would reduce my income so I oppose it even if it means it screws up the game".
Ofc I'm part of the problem! I'm using afterall level 4 missions as my main income in EVE. Was not always so. Was a miner long time ago ... before drone regions.
|
Carniflex
Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.09.11 12:12:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Carniflex on 11/09/2008 12:14:18 You are ofc correct that missions is practically only unlimited resource in EVE (and more importanly - it scales very well with increasing sub numbers). However approx 70% of all people in EVE are hi sec residents according to one of the economic devblogs. They need something to maintain themselves or they starve, in EVE that ofc means quitting when they can't have any more fun anymore.
In my perspective it's kinda medieval economoy model with 'farmland' (ie hi sec) and 'tundra' (ie no sec/low sec) with valuable minerals buried in there (moons). Salt the farmland so it's as infertile as tundra and someone is bound to starve unless there magically appears new source for nutrition.
|
Carniflex
Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 06:25:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Veldya
You will probably find the vast majority of people in Empire who have been around for a while have been 0.0 residents at some point in time but have been evicted or are specifically in empire for other reasons such as industry, trading, etc. I don't know of any 0.0 alliance that is not dependent on the Empire markets, even ones that can make everything themselves still rely on the empire market.
I think dependancy between regions is by design. NPC goods in empire and high end minerals in 0.0. Would work just fine if there would be no drone regions, as high end yield from recykling is not sufficent to maintain more than very casual production (like making your own ammo).
As far as general mood against level 4 missions goes I'm unconvinced. By the currently available data I do not see them as a problem. However that last data is from last QEN report and since then I don't think there has been any new ones for almost 6 months by now. While I do not see them as problem I'm not opposed to the idea of 'tweaking the system' a bit. Tweaking in my opinion would be best done however in the isk sinks side instead of nerfing or boosting the fauchets side. Reason for that is that due to the nature of patches changes in them are overnight and create shockwaves in economy while in the isk sinks side changes made there can be a bit more smooth spanned out over days or weeks thus resulting more 'natural' solution. It's also easier to 'tune the system' should anything break due the changes. We will just need some nice isk sinks that scale well with population.
On the subject of isk fauchets in general I would claim that individual missionrunner will enter less isk into ecenomy per hour than individual 0.0 plex runner/ratter. Reason for that would be LP shop, where most reasonable offers there have fair 'isk sink' assosiated with them what will 'dampen' that isk fauchet somewhat while 0.0 dweller has direct isk sink assosiated with his isk generating activity. All the sentiment against missions runners 'breaking the economy' seem to come from the fact that there is just so many of them. Should that be a case (breaking the economy) solution would be rather easy - just increase isk sinks directly assosiated with missionrunning to 'dampen' the effect even more.
I also agree that 0.0 space should have better ability to support high(er) population densities. It is currently unique enough to be 'worth' being in for those whose playstyle is suitable for that. Low sec has it's FW and level 5 missions as it's 'unique' content so that is also a lot better than it used to be. Overall it's not all doom and gloom. As always things could be better, but I'm sure CCP is keeping a keen eye on EVE economy and if they think something is broken there will be something done about it. Like removal of NPC cheap tritanium was.
|
Carniflex
Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 08:51:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Carniflex on 12/09/2008 08:59:31 As there has been some numbers provided for 0.0 space let me try to add some numbers also for missions. I'm still collecting data ofc after the last patch so do not take those numbers as something accurate, however they should be already in the right ballpark. Please note also that I am very specialized missionrunner. So 'average' missionrunner will not see those numbers I'm posting here (ofc I do not have data to back that claim, it's just a subjective 'gut feeling' resulting from few yesrs of reading forums).
In the timeframe from 1 st sept to 12 sept I have done 70 missions resulting in 365 mil in bounties and 120 mil in mission completion rewards, killing 1545 NPC ships between 2 accounts. I do not loot nor salvage (yes worst kind of behaviour from EVE economy health standpoint).
To do those 70 missions I have used 14.22 hours of combat time and 3.55 hours of travel time to the total of 17.7 hours. I have used approx 15 000 CN cruise missiles during that time (it's in the logs, but I have not extracted the exact number so this one can be with wide margin for error). To accept LP offers (cashing in approx 300 000 LP) I have used 129 mil isk (to agent, not to buy tags).
As a result of my activities during that time 'base' isk injected into economy from me (as a person) is approx 28 mil / h. After taking into account isk sink in the form of LP shop it is reduced to 20 mil / h injected into economy for me as a person. I dual account so at the end of day it's 10 mil/h per account. Note that second ship does not halve the mission time, so for single account it would be approx 12 mil / h.
Those numbers are for 2x 50+ mil SP pilots flying faction fitted Golems (mostly), some missions have been blitzed in smaller ships or in case of 'timesink' missions like the score and massive attack faction fitted CNR's rigged to kill small ships fast (and with domination afterburners).
In my opinion 10 ... 12 mil / h injection into economy is not catastophic. And as mentioned above take this number with grain of salt. This is NOT my isk/h number - this is isk/h injected into economy per account.
Edit: To answer in advance to the inevitable isk/h question my isk/h dual accounting that way is 50 mil / h where with current isk/LP relation 46% of my reward is in the form of LP. Dual accounting ofc, so per account it's approx 25 mil / h.
|
Carniflex
Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 09:46:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Carniflex
Edit: To answer in advance to the inevitable isk/h question my isk/h dual accounting that way is 50 mil / h where with current isk/LP relation 46% of my reward is in the form of LP. Dual accounting ofc, so per account it's approx 25 mil / h.
Very interesting TY. I have shortened it for the character limit.
Your post prove that dual accounting is way inefficient (or the missions I am getting in Amarr space are very good), as looting and salvaging, I am averaging 39 millions/hour with a golem.
I don't run missions with your frequency and my main source of income is manufacturing and inventing, but mission running is a good additional source.
I live in the forge. Guristas have rather crap loot and salvage on average but caldary LP shop is relatively decent meaning that in most missions LP is worth more for me than loot. 'Arbalest' launchers do not drop often enough to justify the effort for me. Main reason tho is that I have refitted (and rerigged) my looting Golem for the alt and have not replaced it yet. There is 5 missions in my area that would be worth looting for me (Gone berzek, worlds collide, damsel in distress, right hand of zazz and attack of the drones).
As far as dual accounting in general goes I run missions for enough hours per week for second missionrunning account to be 'worth it' for me. Ofc my 'solo' isk/h would be also certainly lower in this region than yours. Somewhere around 30 .. 35 m / h or so (as some missions go with same speed regardless of number of participants as bulk of the completion time is flying between gates).
|
Carniflex
Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 10:25:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Kelli Flay
Define "unlimited resource."
When I ran missions, I considered TIME a resource and it was hardly unlimited to me.
In EVE 'limited resource' is something capped by maximum number of people who can do that activity at the same time. 'Unlimited resource' is something what unlimited amount of people can do at the same time. In my opinion if EVE should have all resources limited or not is fundamental game design issue and I'm happy with current implementation. People why say it should not be so on the other hand find that current implementation is not good and want it changed.
Ofc every activity in EVE involves time spent doing it and in principle all resources in EVE are unlimited (complexses and rats respawn, asteroids reappear, etc) just capped by maximum number of people who are able to do them by the number of those 'entities' available in EVE universe while agents create that stuff out of thin air as soon as someone asks for it.
|
Carniflex
Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 10:33:00 -
[10]
Now drone regions vs mining.
Drone regions themselves are not the root of all evil I think. Problem with those regions is just, that one activity (shooting stuff) yields stuff (minerals) that are supposed to be generated by some other activity (mining). If they would have been implemented the 'regular' way, so that to get minerals one would need to mine I doubt that situation with mineral basked prices would be as it is currently.
Same problem is with loot drops in missions btw, altho to somewhat smaller extent. I'm not really opposed to the plan of revisiting loot drops as long as missions remain worth looting and 'useful stuff' coming from there remains in the same ballpark. There has been several pretty decent ideas bumped around for that in Features & Ideas and Market forums.
|
|
Carniflex
Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 15:38:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Qui Shon
Originally by: Venkul Mul
As already stated previously, it is the time from mission request to the time when the last loot is dropped in station.
Time to convert the loot/LP in isk is not included, but in reality it will be pretty short as player time go:
Yes. What I'm trying to get at is that you are talking theoretical values only, that you do not reach in practice. Carniflex numbers look more like real numbers, this is probably the biggest reason for the difference.
If you include 'theoretical' or 'extrapolated' when giving your average isk/h, I won't bug you about it anymore.
Regarding inflation, I have to agree, what inflation? I pay less or equal isk for almost everything I buy, compared to a year ago.
Actually, my numbers are also 'theoretical' in that sense that they are constructed from combat logs and information extracted thru advanced API. Combat logs are analyzed with EVE combat log analyzer to get actual combat time in missions and then added to each mission 3 minutes 'travel time' to warp into mission and back out. Thats the average value for me including session change timers.
I have done other activities also inbetween missions, so that 17.7 h is not the toal playtime for me during those 12 days. I play somewhat more hours per day than just doing missions.
|
Carniflex
Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 18:36:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
I can admit that the "sellable loot" part will require much more time to convert, so if you want that, there is a 8,52% of my rewards that will require time to be sold. If we remove that we sill have almost 36 millions/hour.
That seems in line with my 'top' income I would be capable solo from missions using faction/officer fitted torpedo CNR for just bounties/LP. Unfortunately this setup is too attention intencive to be viable for dual accounting, as it requires manual fire distribution and one eye on shieldbooster.
I do have considered using similar method as you for more accurate isk/h calculation, but due to the large amount of missions I avreage over it would be rather time consuming as I would need to go over combat logs manually to measure time from initating warp to missions until dock order is issued. EVE combat log analyzer on the other hand is providing time interval between first and last hit between session changes in it's summary and that has been easier for me to use. Especially as most of my 'old' data is in same format.
I have yet to measure if it would be better isk/h for me to actually indeed loot and salvage selective few missions that by my previous estimate would be 'worth it'. Altho in the context of this thread it would make my 'activity' less harmful for EVE so what I have been doing is kinda 'worst case scenario' (doing missions for just bounty/LP) so in that light isk injection / h into economy per missionrunner is not THAT bad. And even should there be a 'problem' in there all it would take to solve it would be increasing missionrunning assosiated isksinks that would be scaling quite well with number of missionrunners. Currently that is then isk costs in LP store only, as missionrunners do not overheat usually. |
Carniflex
Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 07:17:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Clair Bear
It's *theoretically* possible to pull down 50M/hour mining A/B/C in 0.0 if you use empire sell order pricing for high ends. Factor in hauling, 0.0 equipment not being 100% efficient at refining, corp/alliance taxes to maintain that equipment, jump fuel, losses and time to deliver the goods to empire and that theoretical number comes crashing down to reality real fast.
Nowdays most 'serious' miners in 0.0 already have or have acsess to roq for mineral compression. Ofc there is also logisticks costs reduced from that initial isk/h, be it then ore compression in roq or in case local outpost has sensible taxses refining there and exporting just high ends. It is already quite possible to get 100% yield from 0.0 outpost by upgrading it and using hardwire. Or 2x upgrading it. I have heard that refining yield one is one of the most common upgrades for minmatar outposts.
Just commenting. I'm also on opinion that at this moment mining err .. sucks .. somewhat in 0.0. One can do a bit more isk/h from it than belt ratting but it's also more risky thing to do in 0.0 (as you might be losing some of your yield if you have to abandom your cans in belt if hostiles come).
|
|
|
|