These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dear CCP Soundwave: RE: income adjustment

Author
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#181 - 2012-04-02 22:36:54 UTC
Farang Lo wrote:
so a few titans can make 300m/hr make null for profitable than incursion???

Welp, I guess highsec could use some titans to help fight the Sansha motherships.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

Gevlin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#182 - 2012-04-02 22:50:06 UTC
There is multiple steps which are going to be taken most increasing Sinks for optional services.
if that does not work the most drastic step will be cutting the faucit


I think a big variable will be Dust.
As this will be filled with isk sinks initially and will depend on that variable what really needs to happen

Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships

DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#183 - 2012-04-02 23:49:14 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Rico Minali wrote:
Hisec - low risk - low income, it isnt hard to understand.

Yes the isk faucet (more like a gushing torrent really) should be slowed, knocking 10% off all npcs is a start however, how about this, since risk should equal reward.

Nullsec and wormholes: rewards at 90% of current amount.
Lowsec: rewards at 75% current amount.
Hisec: rewards at 50% current amount.

I know its gonna make teh isk kings of hisec cross, but thats how I see it shoudl be - low risk, low reward..


Where do you get the idea that low sec has less risk than null sec or wormholes?




He pulled it out of his arse llike the rest of his whiney arguement
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#184 - 2012-04-02 23:54:58 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Just to add some numbers to the discussion:

Incursion Payout divided by participants by security type (single day data for Feb. 1)

Highsec: 171,948,377
Lowsec: 141,711,651
Null: 162,743,409

For the sake of argument let us assume that everyone ran VG's only and distribution of rewards were homogenous:

Each Highsec participant ran 16.38 sites.
Each Lowsec participant ran 9.45 sites.
Each Nullsec participant ran 10.85 sites.

If each site took 5min to run:

Highsec incursion runners made 126m/hr
Low and Null incursion runners both made 180m/hr


These are about the numbers I figured soo the ISK/hour is much better in NULL ( where they are most often in the depths of SOV & almost completely safe thank to cyno jammers ) lo sec deserves a greater ISK buff because theyare not as safe as HI or safer NULL SOV IMHO
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#185 - 2012-04-02 23:55:01 UTC
Wait, so incursions **** up the market and we're going to nerf nullsec ratting?


Makes perfect sense.

Sanity is fun leaving the body.

Zircon Dasher
#186 - 2012-04-02 23:59:46 UTC
Aiwha wrote:
Wait, so incursions **** up the market and we're going to nerf nullsec ratting?


Makes perfect sense.


Actually it does.

CCP has been steadily marching to the "group activity >>>>>>>>> solo activity" drum.

Since incursions are group activity any increase in economic input must be offset by a decrease somewhere else... ie ratting/missions/anoms

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

GondriA
A Totally Anal Conceited Organization
#187 - 2012-04-03 00:17:03 UTC
Daniel Plain wrote:
i am a mission runner and i think bounties are too damn high. with 10-15mil bounty ticks (plus the other rewards) there is little to no incentive to do anything else than lvl4s if your goal is making easy money. not sure about the other carebears, but personally, i wouldn't even mind if incursions and lvl4 combat missions were completely banned from hisec.


alt detectedP
Gideon Tyler
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#188 - 2012-04-03 03:36:25 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Markus Reese wrote:
[quote=DarthNefarius]

Time reward should be a continual decrease and the majority of earning. The balancing out should result in a solo player able to earn about 20mil/hr highsec of at keyboard involvement. Using alts would earn a bit more isk, but not a whole lot in the mission unless you run the small fleet missions. At mission select, allow agent to offer different fleet sizes up to a certain point or a selection of missions.


You think like people don't adapt. Make missions net 20M/h and they'll just switch to Jita trading or something.
But that'd be a fair equalizer as you'd finally see as empty space in hi sec as you see in 0.0.

Also, you can't just take away.

This is not RL, where suckers HAVE to pay taxes, HAVE to spend a miserable life, HAVE to perform duties, HAVE to work, HAVE to be a meaningless cog in an huge, soul-crushing mechanism in the hands of few.

This is a subscriptions based game, you won't move people to somewhere else if they hate it (aka forcing everybody to become a 0.0 puppet), past a certain thresold they will just find something else more rewarding to do than hitting red crosses or staring at a rough features space Excel.


I could not agree more, let us not confuse ISK making with Null Sec Corps wanting more people in their Corps. If Null Sec politics did not all too often look like two school girls pulling each others hair, we might find more people there. As I said before, if you build Corps with a broader appeal more people will come.

As for ISK, I think good game design is where risk corresponds with reward, but at the same time we need to allow for different play-styles and therefore Hi-Sec, Lo-Sec, and Null Sec should each have sufficient rewards to allow players to interact in-game with whatever space they choose and be competitive from their chosen space.

I think it very important that people in Null Space abandon the popular presupposition that they are the only players that matter. Null space is not and never will be for every player, and the game and game rewards need to support that. That is just good design and good business on the part of CCP.
Farang Lo
Doomheim
#189 - 2012-04-03 03:41:25 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Rico Minali wrote:
Hisec - low risk - low income, it isnt hard to understand.

Yes the isk faucet (more like a gushing torrent really) should be slowed, knocking 10% off all npcs is a start however, how about this, since risk should equal reward.

Nullsec and wormholes: rewards at 90% of current amount.
Lowsec: rewards at 75% current amount.
Hisec: rewards at 50% current amount.

I know its gonna make teh isk kings of hisec cross, but thats how I see it shoudl be - low risk, low reward..


Where do you get the idea that low sec has less risk than null sec or wormholes?



I'm sure wh is way more risky than lowsec

Farang Lo
Doomheim
#190 - 2012-04-03 03:44:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Farang Lo
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Aiwha wrote:
Wait, so incursions **** up the market and we're going to nerf nullsec ratting?


Makes perfect sense.


Actually it does.

CCP has been steadily marching to the "group activity >>>>>>>>> solo activity" drum.

Since incursions are group activity any increase in economic input must be offset by a decrease somewhere else... ie ratting/missions/anoms

so if 10 dudes ratting sanctum in null, they should have more income than hisec incursion??

though I seriously dont see it works that way in null at all
Zircon Dasher
#191 - 2012-04-03 03:45:32 UTC
Farang Lo wrote:

I'm sure wh is way more risky than lowsec



Its really not.
As non-blue population decreases so does probability of being popped.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Farang Lo
Doomheim
#192 - 2012-04-03 03:46:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Farang Lo
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Farang Lo wrote:

I'm sure wh is way more risky than lowsec



Its really not.
As non-blue population decreases so does probability of being popped.

have you ever been to wh, seriously???

I bet you think wh has local and intel channel
Zircon Dasher
#193 - 2012-04-03 03:49:25 UTC
Farang Lo wrote:
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Aiwha wrote:
Wait, so incursions **** up the market and we're going to nerf nullsec ratting?


Makes perfect sense.


Actually it does.

CCP has been steadily marching to the "group activity >>>>>>>>> solo activity" drum.

Since incursions are group activity any increase in economic input must be offset by a decrease somewhere else... ie ratting/missions/anoms

so if 10 dudes ratting sanctum in null, they should have more income than hisec incursion??

though I seriously dont see it works that way in null at all


It doesnt work that way because old infrastructure is old.

I would be A-OK with changing all anoms/plexes/missions to a scaled (population wise) payout system in which each site could be contested. If that happened it iwould actually let CCP make upward revisions to payouts in general.

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Zircon Dasher
#194 - 2012-04-03 03:51:48 UTC
Farang Lo wrote:
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Farang Lo wrote:

I'm sure wh is way more risky than lowsec



Its really not.
As non-blue population decreases so does probability of being popped.

have you ever been to wh, seriously???

I bet you think wh has local and intel channel


Farmed one like a boss for quite some time thanks.
Its not like there are no tools to let you know when someone entered or left your system Roll

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.

Farang Lo
Doomheim
#195 - 2012-04-03 03:56:04 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Farang Lo wrote:
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Farang Lo wrote:

I'm sure wh is way more risky than lowsec



Its really not.
As non-blue population decreases so does probability of being popped.

have you ever been to wh, seriously???

I bet you think wh has local and intel channel


Farmed one like a boss for quite some time thanks.
Its not like there are no tools to let you know when someone entered or left your system Roll

is it Lol?????

how ill-informed you are!!!!!!!!!!

and btw, station hugging is real dangerous
Victor Twenty
The Scorpion Brothers
#196 - 2012-04-03 04:19:43 UTC
Gideon Tyler wrote:

I could not agree more, let us not confuse ISK making with Null Sec Corps wanting more people in their Corps. If Null Sec politics did not all too often look like two school girls pulling each others hair, we might find more people there. As I said before, if you build Corps with a broader appeal more people will come.

As for ISK, I think good game design is where risk corresponds with reward, but at the same time we need to allow for different play-styles and therefore Hi-Sec, Lo-Sec, and Null Sec should each have sufficient rewards to allow players to interact in-game with whatever space they choose and be competitive from their chosen space.

I think it very important that people in Null Space abandon the popular presupposition that they are the only players that matter. Null space is not and never will be for every player, and the game and game rewards need to support that. That is just good design and good business on the part of CCP.


I also agree, it has nothing to do with the wealth in 0.0 or Lowsec. Some of us have better things to do with our time then be slaves to someone elses empire.

The simple facts have been, larger alliances purchase their isk, legally using Plexes or RMT. Therefore they dont have a need for highsec carebears and do not want to support them unless they are apart of a pet alliance playing a monthly bill. What CCP needs to do is encourage more players to want to work together and do big things, the only thing these players lack is funds to challange big alliances holding all the wealth.

Hopefully the 15 trillion isk RMT withdraw by CCP will help balance the isk equation!

Vic20
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
#197 - 2012-04-03 05:00:05 UTC
Victor Twenty wrote:
Gideon Tyler wrote:

I could not agree more, let us not confuse ISK making with Null Sec Corps wanting more people in their Corps. If Null Sec politics did not all too often look like two school girls pulling each others hair, we might find more people there.


I also agree, it has nothing to do with the wealth in 0.0 or Lowsec. Some of us have better things to do with our time then be slaves to someone elses empire.

The simple facts have been, larger alliances purchase their isk, legally using Plexes or RMT. Vic20



Yep the general consensus Is that alliances are politely looking away while bots play so they get more Isk to say... hey Hi SEC go away.


Trouble repeatedly told why Hi SEC peeps don't go to NULL sec is that its filled with too many Null sec arse hats
An' then Chicken@little.com, he come scramblin outta the    Terminal room screaming "The system's crashing! The system's    crashing!" -Uncle RAMus, 'Tales for Cyberpsychotic Children'
ReptilesBlade
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#198 - 2012-04-03 06:40:41 UTC
Rico Minali wrote:
Hisec - low risk - low income, it isnt hard to understand.

Yes the isk faucet (more like a gushing torrent really) should be slowed, knocking 10% off all npcs is a start however, how about this, since risk should equal reward.

Nullsec and wormholes: rewards at 90% of current amount.
Lowsec: rewards at 75% current amount.
Hisec: rewards at 50% current amount.

ALL rewards, not just rat bounties, so LP, incursions, bounties, everything.



If the payout went down more than 15-20% I would consider quitting Eve. If CCP did this I would be definitely quitting Eve and never coming back.

Incursions and the new friends I have made running them are the only things keeping me playing this game right now.
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#199 - 2012-04-03 12:55:57 UTC
Zircon Dasher wrote:
Aiwha wrote:
Wait, so incursions **** up the market and we're going to nerf nullsec ratting?


Makes perfect sense.


Actually it does.

CCP has been steadily marching to the "group activity >>>>>>>>> solo activity" drum.

Since incursions are group activity any increase in economic input must be offset by a decrease somewhere else... ie ratting/missions/anoms



That-



Well. That makes some sense.



****.


Am I on the wrong side here?

Sanity is fun leaving the body.

Markus Reese
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#200 - 2012-04-03 16:07:52 UTC
Cearain wrote:
Rico Minali wrote:
Hisec - low risk - low income, it isnt hard to understand.

Yes the isk faucet (more like a gushing torrent really) should be slowed, knocking 10% off all npcs is a start however, how about this, since risk should equal reward.

Nullsec and wormholes: rewards at 90% of current amount.
Lowsec: rewards at 75% current amount.
Hisec: rewards at 50% current amount.

I know its gonna make teh isk kings of hisec cross, but thats how I see it shoudl be - low risk, low reward..


Where do you get the idea that low sec has less risk than null sec or wormholes?



The only really big issue comes down to access. And hopefully changes to security staindings. Harder to get supplies into nullsec. Lowsec, if you aren't too negative can still stage highsec plus no bubbles or bombs. With sec hits and changings hopefully to that, less chance of a podding maybe. Null can run higher expenditures with necessity for pods, more expensive and difficult to get gear, etc.

To quote Lfod Shi

The ratting itself is PvE. Getting away with it is PvP.