These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Snagletooth Johnson
Snagle Material Services
CAStabouts
#281 - 2013-08-30 12:01:34 UTC
Kitty Bear wrote:
Webzy Phoenix wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
The pay is fine; the risks are far too low.


Malcanis wrote:
Then we change the nature of missions


The thing that is most disturbing, is that we have CSM's with a clear bias and agenda, and who's opinions 100% benefit themselves and their low-sec/null-sec buddies... but not what is in the best, long-term, interests of the game.

All of the "risk v reward" arguments are one-sided, self-serving, and deeply flawed.
Unfortunately, it is obvious what the "thoughts and opinions" of the player community this CSM is communicating to CCP. Roll

The true agenda of this CSM, and the players he is supporting, isn't really about making easy ISK in level IV missions; it is another very poorly disguised attack supporting the agenda to force PvE players, in PvE fit ships, into Low-Sec so they can be easy targets for the "pirates".

If you are successful in getting your agenda implemented, and you begin funneling all the PvE players into Low-Sec so they can be target practice for those who are getting bored gate-camping for noobs, it might be great for you and your buddies (for a while), but it will be ultimately bad for the game and will result in losing a lot of players.



I think you'll find ccp are aware of this possibility

they can datamine a massive amount of info from the game logs, and you can bet real-money that they log stuff you might not think they were logging

ccp will know who missions
for how long
how many missions were accepted
how much ISK is injected into the economy
how many LP's are earned
what those LP were spent on

ccp IS the NWO when it comes to ingame data collection


Does that mean they also are aware of what, um, short documentaries on human biology, watch while mining
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#282 - 2013-08-30 12:07:48 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Alright highsec people why should something you can do in complete safety be more lucrative than something you cannot do in complete safety?

Pray tell what is it you can do in "complete safety"?

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#283 - 2013-08-30 12:12:35 UTC
Ganking is riskless

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 ?
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#284 - 2013-08-30 12:22:23 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Ganking is riskless


Just as riskless as mining and missioning...
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#285 - 2013-08-30 13:04:01 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Alright highsec people why should something you can do in complete safety be more lucrative than something you cannot do in complete safety?

Alright 0.0 person why do you think high-sec == "complete safety"? Other 0.0 people would like to have word with you Cool

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#286 - 2013-08-30 16:12:36 UTC
Snagletooth Johnson wrote:

Does that mean they also are aware of what, um, short documentaries on human biology, watch while mining


do you use the IGB ........
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#287 - 2013-08-30 16:41:25 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Alright highsec people why should something you can do in complete safety be more lucrative than something you cannot do in complete safety?


I'm sorry, but the only thing you can do in complete safety is ship spin.

And the level of safety increases as your SP increases, as with all other sectors of space. At low SP its terribly risky. For less reward. Again, just like everywhere else.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
E-2C Hawkeye
HOW to PEG SAFETY
#288 - 2013-08-30 22:41:13 UTC
Tippia wrote:
For the record, going by dotlan's moon count just to get some ballpark numbers…

• There are just over 8,000 R8 moons listed. On average, such a moon generates 0.12 M ISK/h worth of goo.
• A small Gallente tower (with its handy silo bonus that reduces the logistics need to manage the tower) costs 0.15 M ISK/h to run.

• There are just over 3,500 R16 moons listed. On average, such a moon generates 0.37 M ISK/h worth of goo.
• There are just under 1,500 R32 moons listed. On average, such a moon generates 1.02 M ISK/h worth of goo.
• There are just over 650 R64 moons listed. On average, such a moon generates 2.58 M ISK/h worth of goo.

• If all moons listed on dotlan were mined (including the ones where this loses you money, maybe to offset the cost of a research POS), the goo harvested would be worth ~131bn a day. The R64s would account for roughly ⅓ of this.

• As a point of comparison, last we saw any numbers on it, the value of mission rewards alone (not counting bounties, LP, loot, or salvage) amounted to ~146bn ISK per day.
• As another point of comparison, incursions injected 300bn ISK/day and NPC buy orders injected 340bn ISK/day during the same period.

• A 10% tax on all bounties and agent payouts would at that point in time have provided a total corp income of 134bn ISK/day.

You are comparing income from a solo player vs. that of an alliance or corp. generally speaking. Each is used differently. The income from moons is used to keep the ship replacement programs and propaganda and RMT and forums etc...going. While that of the solo players income goes to generate more personal income or more shiny modules. The average player does not grind 24/7 nor do most grind for exstended periods of time.

So you can only speculate what the possible income from lvl 4 missions could be because you don’t have the solid numbers only averages.


So the moon goo income is more steady more stable and is used by alliances like the goonies to keep the big blue sea calm and steady and stalemated so that you can not win the war of attrition.

Since this income is so poor it shouldnt be no great loss if they just removed it then right? Yea thats what I thought.
Skill Training Online
Doomheim
#289 - 2013-08-31 01:25:53 UTC
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
Tippia wrote:
For the record, going by dotlan's moon count just to get some ballpark numbers…

• There are just over 8,000 R8 moons listed. On average, such a moon generates 0.12 M ISK/h worth of goo.
• A small Gallente tower (with its handy silo bonus that reduces the logistics need to manage the tower) costs 0.15 M ISK/h to run.

• There are just over 3,500 R16 moons listed. On average, such a moon generates 0.37 M ISK/h worth of goo.
• There are just under 1,500 R32 moons listed. On average, such a moon generates 1.02 M ISK/h worth of goo.
• There are just over 650 R64 moons listed. On average, such a moon generates 2.58 M ISK/h worth of goo.

• If all moons listed on dotlan were mined (including the ones where this loses you money, maybe to offset the cost of a research POS), the goo harvested would be worth ~131bn a day. The R64s would account for roughly ⅓ of this.

• As a point of comparison, last we saw any numbers on it, the value of mission rewards alone (not counting bounties, LP, loot, or salvage) amounted to ~146bn ISK per day.
• As another point of comparison, incursions injected 300bn ISK/day and NPC buy orders injected 340bn ISK/day during the same period.

• A 10% tax on all bounties and agent payouts would at that point in time have provided a total corp income of 134bn ISK/day.

You are comparing income from a solo player vs. that of an alliance or corp. generally speaking. Each is used differently. The income from moons is used to keep the ship replacement programs and propaganda and RMT and forums etc...going. While that of the solo players income goes to generate more personal income or more shiny modules. The average player does not grind 24/7 nor do most grind for exstended periods of time.

So you can only speculate what the possible income from lvl 4 missions could be because you don’t have the solid numbers only averages.


So the moon goo income is more steady more stable and is used by alliances like the goonies to keep the big blue sea calm and steady and stalemated so that you can not win the war of attrition.

Since this income is so poor it shouldnt be no great loss if they just removed it then right? Yea thats what I thought.


Love the fiction of the RMT.

CCP is nearly 100 percent on banning RMT.

The issue being ignored is buffing L1 thru L3 income to allow new players to build assets.

Thank You Obama!
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#290 - 2013-08-31 03:06:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Lets take the extreme of this. Why not just remove missioning in hisec altogether? Under this logic everyone will be scrambling to nullsec to fight under the various banners.

It's a false premise being used as evidence for a case. Not a soul here can prove people do missions in hisec for easier income as opposed to just not wanting to be under direct control of another subscriber. If the real reason is the latter not a change you can conceive will have them alter their playstyle. If this is about risk then let's all quit playing "EVE Candyass 2.0", get rid of local in all secs and see where the real warlords are.

Forgive my bluntness, it's a medical condition.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#291 - 2013-08-31 03:11:13 UTC
Yeah local in highsec is so useful

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 ?
Nexus Day
Lustrevik Trade and Travel Bureau
#292 - 2013-08-31 04:52:10 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
The pay is fine; the risks are far too low.

Do you have some math to back up this opinion? Or did you get voted CSM for your looks?

How about we increase the risk of PvP first? Make it that only the first ship engaging is allowed to engage. Everything becomes a 1v1 at that point. And maybe eliminate ganks in high sec unless you use a ship that costs the same as the target. Risk vs reward, right?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#293 - 2013-08-31 05:35:09 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Infinity Ziona wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Looks like you can earn around 40k in 5 missions. Thats doable in an hour.

Doing 5 missions in an hour is possible, IF you were to reject a lot of the longer ones, you could do that for a couple of hours since you lose a shite load of standing for rejecting missions.... not only with that agent but also with the agents faction and corp....

Not sustainable in any way...

And you'd need to be pinata fitted which is never a good idea, T2 only fits in the long run make you more isk.


A t2 fitted cruise raven will do just fine.

The longest missions take about 25 min and there are just a hanfull of them. Most missions take about 10 minutes and the quickest will only take 2 minutes. Over the long term you will be getting at least 5 missions done per hour on average easily using a t2 fitted ship. And come this winter people will be earning even more if plans stay as they are.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#294 - 2013-08-31 05:40:21 UTC
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
Tippia wrote:
For the record, going by dotlan's moon count just to get some ballpark numbers…

• There are just over 8,000 R8 moons listed. On average, such a moon generates 0.12 M ISK/h worth of goo.
• A small Gallente tower (with its handy silo bonus that reduces the logistics need to manage the tower) costs 0.15 M ISK/h to run.

• There are just over 3,500 R16 moons listed. On average, such a moon generates 0.37 M ISK/h worth of goo.
• There are just under 1,500 R32 moons listed. On average, such a moon generates 1.02 M ISK/h worth of goo.
• There are just over 650 R64 moons listed. On average, such a moon generates 2.58 M ISK/h worth of goo.

• If all moons listed on dotlan were mined (including the ones where this loses you money, maybe to offset the cost of a research POS), the goo harvested would be worth ~131bn a day. The R64s would account for roughly ⅓ of this.

• As a point of comparison, last we saw any numbers on it, the value of mission rewards alone (not counting bounties, LP, loot, or salvage) amounted to ~146bn ISK per day.
• As another point of comparison, incursions injected 300bn ISK/day and NPC buy orders injected 340bn ISK/day during the same period.

• A 10% tax on all bounties and agent payouts would at that point in time have provided a total corp income of 134bn ISK/day.

You are comparing income from a solo player vs. that of an alliance or corp. generally speaking. Each is used differently. The income from moons is used to keep the ship replacement programs and propaganda and RMT and forums etc...going. While that of the solo players income goes to generate more personal income or more shiny modules. The average player does not grind 24/7 nor do most grind for exstended periods of time.

So you can only speculate what the possible income from lvl 4 missions could be because you don’t have the solid numbers only averages.


So the moon goo income is more steady more stable and is used by alliances like the goonies to keep the big blue sea calm and steady and stalemated so that you can not win the war of attrition.

Since this income is so poor it shouldnt be no great loss if they just removed it then right? Yea thats what I thought.


We get more isk from npc bounty taxes than moons. Even more so now that we got tech nerfed.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#295 - 2013-08-31 05:53:13 UTC
It's an age of renting

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 ?
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#296 - 2013-08-31 08:15:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Yeah local in highsec is so useful


It affects all parts of EVE. Detrimentally. And if you aren't personally in favor of increasing the risk in EVE as such I make the argument any mention of risk/reward being adjusted is a cover for a self serving agenda.

Here's a question for you. If I fly a deadspace fitted mission ship, which elevates my risk levels upon levels higher than flying a battlecruiser shif-fit through nullsec should I be making more money for doing so?

Should I make many times more isk than said missioner if I fly a 50 million isk cruiser through uncommonly secured alliance space?

You want more players in nullsec? The solution is to remove forced presence in local chat. It will allow players to have a reasonable chance at penetrating defended space without support. Even if that chance is actually perception and nothing more. Until then no amount of vindictive rhetoric will change the situation.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#297 - 2013-08-31 10:09:12 UTC
E-2C Hawkeye wrote:
You are comparing income from a solo player vs. that of an alliance or corp.
No. I'm comparing the injection of wealth of something that supposedly does it in such massive amounts that it imbalances the economy (moons) and something that supposedly does not (missions, mining, or anything that is measured in ISK/h). I'm helping you formulate your case that moons are creating an issue for the game by providing you with the data you are unwilling to dig out for yourself.

With these numbers in hand, how about you explain how moon goo income damages the game?

By the way, I'm also showing that missions and ratting trivially creates the same kind of corp-level income for corps that care about it; that moon goo production is actually in many cases a losing proposition; that moon goo as an income source is trivially outpaced by even something as low-effort/low-income as ice mining. Hell, if a corp wanted to compete with the income of the best moons in the game, they could run corp ops using level 2 missions.

Quote:
So you can only speculate what the possible income from lvl 4 missions could be because you don’t have the solid numbers only averages.
We have plenty of solid numbers on how much you can earn from L4s — no speculation needed.

Quote:
So the moon goo income is more steady more stable and is used by alliances like the goonies to keep the big blue sea calm and steady and stalemated so that you can not win the war of attrition.
…except that it's neither steady nor stable since it's so easy to disrupt in a war of attrition, and that there are other income sources that can't be disrupted that way (and which pay better as well).

Quote:
Since this income is so poor
…your argument that it damages the game is completely nonsensical and without any basis in reality.
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#298 - 2013-08-31 12:28:18 UTC  |  Edited by: MatrixSkye Mk2
Tippia wrote:
except that it's neither steady nor stable since it's so easy to disrupt in a war of attrition, and that there are other income sources that can't be disrupted that way (and which pay better as well).

And what are these sources of income that "can't be disrupted"?

I currently own non-RXX moons (have no moon mineral value) and I make more with these moons than I do mission running. These moons have been disrupted exactly ZERO times since I started dabbling in moons (over two years ago). They make me billions with only having to log in a few times per month. Missions don't come close to what I make with these. In fact, I only now do missions in my spare time, while I continue to maintain my true golden eggs (mineral-less moons). Yet you downplay the value of RXX moons. As usual, you're being very dishonest and biased.

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#299 - 2013-08-31 12:31:22 UTC
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
And what are these sources of income that "can't be disrupted [that way]"?

Shooting a station does not offline the agents inside it for a day, for one…
MatrixSkye Mk2
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#300 - 2013-08-31 12:44:30 UTC
Tippia wrote:
MatrixSkye Mk2 wrote:
And what are these sources of income that "can't be disrupted [that way]"?

Shooting a station does not offline the agents inside it for a day, for one…

But, you agree that there are ways to disrupt these sources of income. Your issue is with they not being disrupted in "that way".

Successfully doinitwrong™ since 2006.