These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Do Level 4 missions pay too much compared to 1 through 3?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#241 - 2013-08-28 15:55:16 UTC
Why don't we just find a way to nerf blitzing since it's obvioulsy the broken way to run mission? Would it put missionning at an OK level of income?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#242 - 2013-08-28 15:57:28 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Why don't we just find a way to nerf blitzing since it's obvioulsy the broken way to run mission? Would it put missionning at an OK level of income?

From an economical health perspective, blitzing is actually better since it faucets less ISK and sinks more…
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#243 - 2013-08-28 16:01:35 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Why don't we just find a way to nerf blitzing since it's obvioulsy the broken way to run mission? Would it put missionning at an OK level of income?

From an economical health perspective, blitzing is actually better since it faucets less ISK and sinks more…


No mission payout beside bounties and LP then?

But the the blitzer is still pretty high income by what seem to be the desired standard in this thread...
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#244 - 2013-08-28 16:09:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Frostys Virpio wrote:
No mission payout beside bounties and LP then?
Nah. With that particular aim in mind, the best would be almost the exact opposite: only agent rewards and LP, with a side-order of loot and salvage. Make everyone operate under the same dynamics as the blitzers, thus putting a price pressure on their goods and making everything subject to market forces. Basically, more tags for everyone.

Quote:
But the the blitzer is still pretty high income by what seem to be the desired standard in this thread.
Sure, but stopping blitzing without adjusting the missions overall will have a couple of pretty bad side-effects. And again, the best thing would be to also introduce other income streams to take over the high end so each income band can be balanced individually.

Mechanics-wise, it's reasonably easy: just force every mission and stage to have a “don't unlock until everything is dead” trigger. The tricky part is giving players who are pushing those boundaries a different outlet.
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#245 - 2013-08-28 16:13:35 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:


I am sure you economic majors will all agree that lvl 4 missions are better income than moon goo....right Roll.


IIRC a "good" moon these days makes on the order of 5M ISK/hr worth of moon goo. (You can work this out from the market price of the moon materials), which should be easily exceeded by a noob running level 2s.

Of course the moon keeps on making that wealth 24/7, which is a big advantage, and the wealth is easily concentratable which is the real point of them.

Given that a good level 4 mission runner in a nicely fitted faction BS should be able to make about 40M/hr, he'd have to mission about 3 hours a day to make as much as a "good" moon does these days. That sounds pretty achievable.

I'd say any of the large mission hubs in hi-sec probably produces as much or more wealth as the CFC moons. There are rarely less than 80 or 100 missioners at any time in the bigger hubs, and up to 200+ in weekend peak hours. If you want to call it an average of 125 missioners operating at any given time over the 24h period, then that's wealth generation equivalent to approximately 1000 R64 moons.

I feel pretty confident is saying that hi-sec missions in sum outproduce moon wealth generation by at least an order of magnitude. (If I had to guess, then I'd say by about 2000%).

How many moons are in null? And you still think lvl 4 missions are better? The only problem I have with any of this so called logic is should that be the case......then why are people even in null and why is everyone not all crammed into hi-sec running lvl 4 missions??
Commander Spurty
#246 - 2013-08-28 16:17:11 UTC
lol I can barely finish a Level 4 in one hour.

Level 3s are all I can bear to sit and grind through. Much longer and I'm reaching for the "log out and shoot stuff in the face" button

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#247 - 2013-08-28 16:17:44 UTC
Tippia wrote:
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
Prime example here. Let’s try and get everyone to argue over what the exact meaning of the definition of something is rather than discuss the core issue.
Yes, you provide a perfect example. Wouldn't it be much better if you didn't?

Why did you want to discuss the definition instead of answering questions about the core issue?
Do you even know what the core issue is any more?
Do you have anything to back up your spurious and baseless claims?

And here we have the troll attempting to turn the tables.... again typical tipia.

I wasn’t the one arguing over definitions you are.
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#248 - 2013-08-28 16:22:21 UTC
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:

How many moons are in null? And you still think lvl 4 missions are better? The only problem I have with any of this so called logic is should that be the case......then why are people even in null and why is everyone not all crammed into hi-sec running lvl 4 missions??
They're in null so that they can beat the crap out of each other without worrying about Concord or wardecs, getting Scrooge McDuck rich is a secondary consideration. Lvl 4s are a good way for an individual or small corp to make money, but it doesn't scale well for larger entities.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#249 - 2013-08-28 16:25:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Bagrat Skalski
Quote:
Given that a good level 4 mission runner in a nicely fitted faction BS should be able to make about 40M/hr, he'd have to mission about 3 hours a day to make as much as a "good" moon does these days. That sounds pretty achievable.


I encourage everyone to do it, and report here how they feel afterwards, doing it 7 days nonstop. Roll

Custom ship skins, character creator style "repaint". Bring it!
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#250 - 2013-08-28 16:29:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
How many moons are in null? And you still think lvl 4 missions are better?
828. How many L4 agents are there in high? How many people are there using them?
Yes, L4s are far better — especially for the individual — since a single person can trivially produce the same income as a single moon. In fact, on an individual level, AFK mining is a better source of income than an R64 moon is.

Quote:
The only problem I have with any of this so called logic is should that be the case......then why are people even in null and why is everyone not all crammed into hi-sec running lvl 4 missions??

Everyone is crammed into highsec running L4 missions. The problem you're having is that you keep confusing individual and alliance-level income, and that you seem to think that multiple income streams are mutually exclusive.

Quote:
And here we have the troll attempting to turn the tables.
How about instead of trying to turn the tables, you actually discuss the topic at hand? How about you start answering the questions?

Quote:
Well thank you Mal. Yes lets be persnickety.

[…]

I wasn’t the one arguing over definitions
Yes you were.
Now, how about you instead take the time to explain how moon goo income damages the game?
How about you argue how it manages to do so, but, say, missions or mining (ore or ice, doesn't matter) — both of which inject far more wealth into the game — are not?


For the record, using current Jita prices for R64 materials:
· Dysprosium → 3.2 M ISK/h
· Neodymium → 2.6 M ISK/h
· Promethium → 2.3 M ISK/h
· Thulium → 1.8 M ISK/h

If those (known) R64 were equally distributed and all mined, the total value of the goo would amount to ~49bn ISK/day. Compare this to the 150bn ISK/day in agent rewards alone (i.e. not counting bounties and the value of LP, loot and salvage) that missions created a year and a half ago, back when the number of players was much lower than they are today…
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#251 - 2013-08-28 16:52:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Bi-Mi Lansatha
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:

... The only problem I have with any of this so called logic is should that be the case......then why are people even in null and why is everyone not all crammed into hi-sec running lvl 4 missions??
I have a PvE toon in Highsec that can run L-4 decently. I do not make +60M IKS per hour, but I do ok. I also have four toons in null.

L-4 missions after the first few hundred times are boring. Null rarely is.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#252 - 2013-08-28 17:27:16 UTC
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
then why are people even in null and why is everyone not all crammed into hi-sec running lvl 4 missions??


High sec is crammed full of mission runners, a good number of them alts of null sec.
Trudeaux Margaret
University of Caille
#253 - 2013-08-28 18:02:57 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Why don't we just find a way to nerf blitzing since it's obvioulsy the broken way to run mission? Would it put missionning at an OK level of income?


If mission-running is nerfed, this should be it. Throw in plex blitzing while you're at it. (yes, that'll be an unpopular suggestion!)

> anyone willing to give me like a 5 min politics crash course?

> grr goons, lowsec is full of elitist sh*s, all roads lead to the bittervet pl
Rhes
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#254 - 2013-08-28 18:03:39 UTC
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
How many moons are in null? And you still think lvl 4 missions are better? The only problem I have with any of this so called logic is should that be the case......then why are people even in null and why is everyone not all crammed into hi-sec running lvl 4 missions??


Probably because running level 4 missions is boring. Also, hi-sec has too many pubbies.

EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#255 - 2013-08-28 21:37:16 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Is it just me, or did the guy who is always accusing people of derailing threads with "trolling" just derail a thread....with trolling about a the definition of words??

Nope jenn its just you...always just about you.
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#256 - 2013-08-28 21:42:20 UTC
Tippia wrote:
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
How many moons are in null? And you still think lvl 4 missions are better?
828. How many L4 agents are there in high? How many people are there using them?
Yes, L4s are far better — especially for the individual — since a single person can trivially produce the same income as a single moon. In fact, on an individual level, AFK mining is a better source of income than an R64 moon is.

Quote:
The only problem I have with any of this so called logic is should that be the case......then why are people even in null and why is everyone not all crammed into hi-sec running lvl 4 missions??

Everyone is crammed into highsec running L4 missions. The problem you're having is that you keep confusing individual and alliance-level income, and that you seem to think that multiple income streams are mutually exclusive.

Quote:
And here we have the troll attempting to turn the tables.
How about instead of trying to turn the tables, you actually discuss the topic at hand? How about you start answering the questions?

Quote:
Well thank you Mal. Yes lets be persnickety.

[…]

I wasn’t the one arguing over definitions
Yes you were.
Now, how about you instead take the time to explain how moon goo income damages the game?
How about you argue how it manages to do so, but, say, missions or mining (ore or ice, doesn't matter) — both of which inject far more wealth into the game — are not?


For the record, using current Jita prices for R64 materials:
· Dysprosium → 3.2 M ISK/h
· Neodymium → 2.6 M ISK/h
· Promethium → 2.3 M ISK/h
· Thulium → 1.8 M ISK/h

If those (known) R64 were equally distributed and all mined, the total value of the goo would amount to ~49bn ISK/day. Compare this to the 150bn ISK/day in agent rewards alone (i.e. not counting bounties and the value of LP, loot and salvage) that missions created a year and a half ago, back when the number of players was much lower than they are today…

When I get more time I will be glad to show how this creating a issue for the game. And yes the income for lvl 4 are on a solo lvl where moon is corp. or alliance lvl. These two things should be scaled differently and if anything moon goo needs nerfed.

And yes you are the one always arguing samantics.
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#257 - 2013-08-28 21:51:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Felicity Love
... came expecting a less than successful "nerf high sec" thread... left completely satisfied that the former "Tech Lords" are indeed singing The Blues over their newly impoverished status in the universe. Roll

"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#258 - 2013-08-28 21:54:41 UTC
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
When I get more time I will be glad to show how this creating a issue for the game.
Can't wait. Make sure you understand the difference between ISK and materials faucets by then…

Quote:
And yes the income for lvl 4 are on a solo lvl where moon is corp. or alliance lvl. These two things should be scaled differently and if anything moon goo needs nerfed.
They are scaled differently. Moon goo is utterly minute in comparison. Make sure you take this fact into account when you describe the issues this supposedly creates.

Quote:
And yes you are the one always arguing samantics.
Not really, no. I'm mainly just providing facts, and then people who got those facts wrong try to argue them using equally incorrect semantics.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#259 - 2013-08-29 06:59:48 UTC
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:


I am sure you economic majors will all agree that lvl 4 missions are better income than moon goo....right Roll.


IIRC a "good" moon these days makes on the order of 5M ISK/hr worth of moon goo. (You can work this out from the market price of the moon materials), which should be easily exceeded by a noob running level 2s.

Of course the moon keeps on making that wealth 24/7, which is a big advantage, and the wealth is easily concentratable which is the real point of them.

Given that a good level 4 mission runner in a nicely fitted faction BS should be able to make about 40M/hr, he'd have to mission about 3 hours a day to make as much as a "good" moon does these days. That sounds pretty achievable.

I'd say any of the large mission hubs in hi-sec probably produces as much or more wealth as the CFC moons. There are rarely less than 80 or 100 missioners at any time in the bigger hubs, and up to 200+ in weekend peak hours. If you want to call it an average of 125 missioners operating at any given time over the 24h period, then that's wealth generation equivalent to approximately 1000 R64 moons.

I feel pretty confident is saying that hi-sec missions in sum outproduce moon wealth generation by at least an order of magnitude. (If I had to guess, then I'd say by about 2000%).

How many moons are in null? And you still think lvl 4 missions are better? The only problem I have with any of this so called logic is should that be the case......then why are people even in null and why is everyone not all crammed into hi-sec running lvl 4 missions??


I didn't say anything about better. I was just refuting your contention that level 4 missions don't make as much wealth as moongoo and providing you some rough calculations which you can use to verify the numbers for yourself. Missions are on aggregate vastly more economically significant than moons. If you want to disagree, that's your perogative, but you'll need to produce some numbers if you want anyone to agree with you.

An approximation of moon numbers can be found on Dotlan. The information there is not wholly reliable, but it should give a reasonable indication to within +/- 25% or so, which is easily enough precision for this kind of discussion. If you have access to a spreadsheet, you should be able to compile the data pretty quickly. I encourage you to do so: hard facts are very persuasive.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#260 - 2013-08-29 07:17:34 UTC
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
How many moons are in null? And you still think lvl 4 missions are better? The only problem I have with any of this so called logic is should that be the case......then why are people even in null and why is everyone not all crammed into hi-sec running lvl 4 missions??


Because apart from suicide ganking people in highsec, it's a really boring place to be. Moons are used as an alliance level income supplement, whereas missions are income for the individual member. Now using your logic above, why are there even people in highsec & why is everyone not all crammed in to nullsec running Fhubs in AFK Ishtars?

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.