These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

0.0 anom difficulty curve and isk/tick

Author
Guillaume Conquerant
#1 - 2014-02-14 00:52:06 UTC
Once upon a time, forsaken hubs ruled. With the added frigates, now not so much. I think this was really masking another issue and that's the fact that, when measured in isk/tick, the harder anoms didn't net as much. I'm not sure the idea of nerfing forsaken hubs was as beneficial as perhaps buffing harder anoms would have been.

In general what I think we need is anoms where, as the difficulty increases so do the general skill requirements,capital investment (better ships/mods), and more importantly the rewards (as measured in isk/tick).

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'd like to know what everyone else in 0.0 thinks on this issue.
Mirdir Dogs
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#2 - 2014-02-14 02:20:50 UTC
No! You can't improve my ratting income! Nuh uh!

Seriously, what do you think everyone else in null is going to think? Do we want free money? Sure, why not?

What is more likely to happen though is that the easier anoms get nerfed to fit your idea of 'progression'.
Guillaume Conquerant
#3 - 2014-02-14 02:28:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Guillaume Conquerant
Mirdir Dogs wrote:

What is more likely to happen though is that the easier anoms get nerfed to fit your idea of 'progression'.


Well that would screw up the whole risk vs reward for L4 vs 0.0 - which I would suggest is a little bit out of whack as it is.

The only sensible thing is to increase the reward for harder anoms.
Tauranon
Weeesearch
CAStabouts
#4 - 2014-02-14 04:24:16 UTC
Guillaume Conquerant wrote:
Once upon a time, forsaken hubs ruled. With the added frigates, now not so much. I think this was really masking another issue and that's the fact that, when measured in isk/tick, the harder anoms didn't net as much. I'm not sure the idea of nerfing forsaken hubs was as beneficial as perhaps buffing harder anoms would have been.

In general what I think we need is anoms where, as the difficulty increases so do the general skill requirements,capital investment (better ships/mods), and more importantly the rewards (as measured in isk/tick).

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I'd like to know what everyone else in 0.0 thinks on this issue.


I'm fine with the way anomolies work, in that different hull sizes will lead to different optimal anomolies, as does your ability to go do the actual escalation, but the -actual- effort in getting the escalation rates as they are not published is immense.

I have documented most of the "missing" from public documentation escalations at least for gurista, but at > 700 anomolies run, I have not started on getting a fair escalation estimate for anything above hub, and above hub are longer encounters that give you less rolls at the escalation chance (even if the chance is reasonable), which means even if I rented or otherwise got access to the appropriate system to test them, it could still be 6 months before I was finished. In truth I haven't even finished the ones I get from 3rd level of pirate array.

TL:DR nullsec anoms are painfully hard to document and actually get estimates for when including the escalation.
Gh0stBust3rs
Destruction and Pacification Services
#5 - 2014-02-14 04:31:05 UTC
once upon a time sanctums and havens were hard and the kings of null sec isk making.

CCP realized in the great wisdom, that no other sites were worth running. To fix this they made it to where all the sites had the same payout at the end(30-40m) and the only true difference was what they escalated to and what ships spawned.

After running some numbers blaster ratting in Forsaken hubs was the most efficient isk/tick. Some uber fit vindicators were reaching 60m ticks (180m/hr)

CCP in that great think tank decided this was too much and tossed in frigates and other **** to make sites harder to run.


Guillaume Conquerant
#6 - 2014-02-14 18:39:31 UTC
Gh0stBust3rs wrote:

CCP realized in the great wisdom, that no other sites were worth running. To fix this they made it to where all the sites had the same payout at the end(30-40m) and the only true difference was what they escalated to and what ships spawned.


That 's as smart as buffing L3 missions because L4's payout are higher.

The whole idea as that the reward as measured in isk/hour should go up with the difficulty. There are multiple ways to affect this including better ship spawns, better loot, better chance of an escalation, etc.

All I'm saying is that the whole thing needs a re-look to insure the proper ROI escalation.

Gh0stBust3rs
Destruction and Pacification Services
#7 - 2014-02-14 18:50:40 UTC
Guillaume Conquerant wrote:
Gh0stBust3rs wrote:

CCP realized in the great wisdom, that no other sites were worth running. To fix this they made it to where all the sites had the same payout at the end(30-40m) and the only true difference was what they escalated to and what ships spawned.


That 's as smart as buffing L3 missions because L4's payout are higher.

The whole idea as that the reward as measured in isk/hour should go up with the difficulty. There are multiple ways to affect this including better ship spawns, better loot, better chance of an escalation, etc.

All I'm saying is that the whole thing needs a re-look to insure the proper ROI escalation.




I didnt say it was bright. Just was what happened.