These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

High sec Mission runners just got completely screwed by CCP

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#801 - 2014-03-30 06:26:04 UTC
Kyperion wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Kyperion wrote:

yeah, well missioning has needed new gameplay mechanics since THE BEGINNING OF EVE, we have never gotten anything substantially interesting....

And no one complains about it enough.


Incursions and DED sites.

While not strictly missioning, I believe the point stands nonetheless.

Neither of which have anything to do with the actual profession of missioning, which is as you said previously the 'living wage' of EVE....

As in the CORE of missioning, needs a complete overhaul, not just tertiary distractions.


I only used the term "living wage" because, while I meant Social Security and all the negative connotations that go with it, the "living wage" term is far more common in other areas of the world.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kyperion
#802 - 2014-03-30 06:27:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Kyperion
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:


We will have to see. Or CCP could simply release the numbers on how much minerals are put into the server through loot mining. Based on old numbers and simply using the % changes to drops since the last CCP numbers and is likely around 25-30% of all mineral consumption in EVE, down from the roughly 45-50% it once was.

You don't seriously think that mining produces the most minerals do you? It might make up the most Trit and Pyrite, but it certainly doesn't hold a candle to the demands of Zydrine, Mexallon, Megacyte and Noxium.


This nerf would essentially remove 12-15% of all minerals from the game specifically the mid - high end minerals required for all production.

Or do you believe that suddenly miners will see that LS and NS mining are worth the isk, despite them always being more profitable places to mine, but much much riskier to do so. I doubt that any miners are going to be jumping onto the LS/NS mining market anytime soon.


No, but those among the community who already live there might see some value in getting into industry. Especially if the higher end minerals get choked out as badly as you seem to believe may be the case.

Increased diversity of economic incentives across different areas of space is awesome, is all I'm saying. Lowsec is probably still borked, but at least there are some steps being made.

Meanwhile; in space... the damsel is in inexplicable distress for the ******* **** damn ******* time again... ******* ***** won't learn....
Gogela
Epic Ganking Time
CODE.
#803 - 2014-03-30 06:33:58 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Folks, read the newest dev blog. The goons in the post are gloating in their posts, so you know it is terrible for high sec.
In a few months, mission runners will now have to invest weeks and weeks of training, plus buy a hideously expensive implant, to get the privilege of a 45-50% nerf (correction from the original post, the null sec lackeys were even more vicious than I first thought) to all mission loot refines.

Um... good. Lol

Signatures should be used responsibly...
Kyperion
#804 - 2014-03-30 06:35:27 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Kyperion wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Kyperion wrote:

yeah, well missioning has needed new gameplay mechanics since THE BEGINNING OF EVE, we have never gotten anything substantially interesting....

And no one complains about it enough.


Incursions and DED sites.

While not strictly missioning, I believe the point stands nonetheless.

Neither of which have anything to do with the actual profession of missioning, which is as you said previously the 'living wage' of EVE....

As in the CORE of missioning, needs a complete overhaul, not just tertiary distractions.


I only used the term "living wage" because, while I meant Social Security and all the negative connotations that go with it, the "living wage" term is far more common in other areas of the world.


It is also one of the more convienent ways to provide steady income to fun PVP adventures.... and one of the primary target generators for pirates... making it interesting is in everyone's interests. <----- is that a pun?
Kyperion
#805 - 2014-03-30 06:36:21 UTC
Kyperion wrote:
Meanwhile; in space... the damsel is in inexplicable distress for the ******* **** damn ******* time again... ******* ***** won't learn....

This can be seen as my response to this entire thread....
Benny Ohu
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#806 - 2014-03-30 06:54:19 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

We could easily see mineral prices fall. Null gains nearly 20% extra reprocessing for the same Ore. So it's actually profitable for them to buy ore in highsec, compress, ship to null, refine, then ship back to high sec.

doubt anyone wants to ship uncompressed minerals back to highsec
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#807 - 2014-03-30 07:12:45 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


First, if they were blitzing, they weren't looting.

Secondly, no, missioners will not have a large cut on their income from this. The important part of mission rewards is raw isk and LP, neither of which are touched.

Thirdly, nullsec has drastically needed industrial incentives for years. They're finally getting it, and all you can think of is "but highsec!". Roll

Seriously, learn to read.

Firstly, even a blitzing mission runner can use the services of the emergent game play loot & salvage corps that operate. Meaning even blitzing mission runners can/will be affected by this change because they will get far lower income.

Secondly as has been posted a number of times with figures, a lot of people who do mission get a reasonable percentage of their actual income from mission loot. Exactly how big a nerf on average this is, only CCP can say, and they are refusing to, which suggests the figures aren't insignificant.

Thirdly, yes, Null sec has needed industrial incentives, but guess what, you just got massive ones in the last year already.
You do not need BETTER refining with perfect skills than highsec has, not when you already have better ores, moon goo, better PI, better POS costs due to POS fuel discounts with Sov, etc. Especially not when you have complained that the 2% difference assuming perfect skills has left Null Sec unable to compete, yet now that it is nearly 20% discount, TEN TIMES THE DIFFERENCE, somehow it's fair, just because it is in Null Sec's favour. I'm on board with the general change to refining making it so perfect skills are needed in high sec, I am on board with POS refining getting a benefit since POS's require upkeep. However an Outpost does in and of itself not require any upkeep. Sov bills are for the whole system not just the outpost, and you gain massive benefits for those sov bills already. You did not need additional benefits beyond equality to high sec for refining.


When high sec needs to pay 64 billion to put up a station and billions a month to keep it running as well as having to defend it against other powers with trillions in ship costs you can talk about high sec being on par with null outposts.

As for missions. If you kill and loot everything in missions you stand to lose 3.7% in your income.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#808 - 2014-03-30 07:42:48 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
While I think Dinsdale if over estimating the amount of ISK generated for mission runners, the fact that reprocessed loot does provide a significant amount of minerals for the market (be it direct to the market or minerals not being bought off existing market) is of serious concern.
It's only of serious concern if it's true, and the least time they provided any numbers on it, repro:d minerals included compression — i.e. it wasn't actually any new minerals added to the economy. But yes, if reprocessed loot indeed still provides even remotely near a significant amount, it is a serious concern — mainly because it shouldn't. They should be looking into reducing that amount significantly.

Quote:
To somewhat quantify Dinsdales numbers though, around a third of all my mission income comes from loot (about 80m/hr total atm), and this is from me doing nonstop missions and cleaning up on my alt.
How much of that is from loot that is sellable and how much is from minerals?
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#809 - 2014-03-30 08:06:39 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


When high sec needs to pay 64 billion to put up a station and billions a month to keep it running as well as having to defend it against other powers with trillions in ship costs you can talk about high sec being on par with null outposts.

As for missions. If you kill and loot everything in missions you stand to lose 3.7% in your income.

In the main thread on the reprocessing a single industrialist proved the maths that he could recover that initial capital investment in less than three months SOLO thanks to the advantages it gives. Across an alliance that capital investment is trivial. It also has zero costs per month. Sov bills are for the system, not for the outpost, and it costs you nothing more to have an outpost in the system. Additionally you already get massive benefits for having Sov. And those trillions in ship costs are also all about Sov, not outposts.

Stop trying to pretend like the costs matter. It's either recovered in weeks for an alliance, or covered by the general sov costs that already give you massive benefits.

As for your 3.7% figure, what basis do you derive that on? And even if it is a 'mere' 3.7% loss, that is still a significant loss on the scale we are talking about. If the benefits of the reprocessing scrap metal change out weigh the down sides, that's a different question. But trying to pretend like a significant number people are not taking a nerf is just silly.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#810 - 2014-03-30 08:11:39 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


When high sec needs to pay 64 billion to put up a station and billions a month to keep it running as well as having to defend it against other powers with trillions in ship costs you can talk about high sec being on par with null outposts.

As for missions. If you kill and loot everything in missions you stand to lose 3.7% in your income.

In the main thread on the reprocessing a single industrialist proved the maths that he could recover that initial capital investment in less than three months SOLO thanks to the advantages it gives. Across an alliance that capital investment is trivial. It also has zero costs per month. Sov bills are for the system, not for the outpost, and it costs you nothing more to have an outpost in the system. Additionally you already get massive benefits for having Sov. And those trillions in ship costs are also all about Sov, not outposts.

Stop trying to pretend like the costs matter.


Compared to... free? Yes they matter.

Especially when until recently, there was absolutely zero incentive to actually do it.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#811 - 2014-03-30 08:14:29 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Compared to... free? Yes they matter.

Especially when until recently, there was absolutely zero incentive to actually do it.

Massive long term advantage for relatively minuscule initial capital investment.
I'm sorry but it doesn't balance out. The costs do not justify the proposed advantage.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#812 - 2014-03-30 08:16:10 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:


Compared to... free? Yes they matter.

Especially when until recently, there was absolutely zero incentive to actually do it.

Massive long term advantage for relatively minuscule initial capital investment.
I'm sorry but it doesn't balance out. The costs do not justify the proposed advantage.


CCP disagrees.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#813 - 2014-03-30 08:16:26 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
baltec1 wrote:


When high sec needs to pay 64 billion to put up a station and billions a month to keep it running as well as having to defend it against other powers with trillions in ship costs you can talk about high sec being on par with null outposts.

As for missions. If you kill and loot everything in missions you stand to lose 3.7% in your income.

In the main thread on the reprocessing a single industrialist proved the maths that he could recover that initial capital investment in less than three months SOLO thanks to the advantages it gives. Across an alliance that capital investment is trivial. It also has zero costs per month. Sov bills are for the system, not for the outpost, and it costs you nothing more to have an outpost in the system. Additionally you already get massive benefits for having Sov. And those trillions in ship costs are also all about Sov, not outposts.

Stop trying to pretend like the costs matter. It's either recovered in weeks for an alliance, or covered by the general sov costs that already give you massive benefits.

As for your 3.7% figure, what basis do you derive that on? And even if it is a 'mere' 3.7% loss, that is still a significant loss on the scale we are talking about. If the benefits of the reprocessing scrap metal change out weigh the down sides, that's a different question. But trying to pretend like a significant number people are not taking a nerf is just silly.



If high sec offers exactly the same as null then everything will happen in high sec. This is the exact problem CCP is trying to fix. There is no logic in the safest area of EVE offering the same reward as the most dangerous/

As for the missions, 3.7% drop in income isnt going to be noticed and you wont even see that drop if you blitz. Minerals should be coming from the miners, not mission runner. Plus this change will also be fixing other issues such as compressing mats into mods for transport.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#814 - 2014-03-30 08:18:45 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Massive long term advantage for relatively minuscule initial capital investment.
I'm sorry but it doesn't balance out. The costs do not justify the proposed advantage.

True. They justify far bigger ones… but then we haven't really gotten to a proper industry revamp yet so more is probably to come.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#815 - 2014-03-30 08:20:05 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
So srs now, who here believes that this will seriously affect hi-sec mission runners as an aggregate demographic?


I do. A significant proportion of hi sec mission runners gain income from loot & salvage in some way. Some do it themselves, some only loot the more valuable wrecks, some contract out to corporations like Pro Synergy.

Whether the reduction in income is "good" or "evil" is a value judgement. For me the fact that NPCs still drop meltable loot after the drone alloys were removed and a significant rebalance of NPC loot was already done, is the problem. Mission runners wouldn't be getting upset if CCP had done the job properly the first time around ;)

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#816 - 2014-03-30 08:22:24 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Massive long term advantage for relatively minuscule initial capital investment.
I'm sorry but it doesn't balance out. The costs do not justify the proposed advantage.

True. They justify far bigger ones… but then we haven't really gotten to a proper industry revamp yet so more is probably to come.


Bingo. His entire problem is his assumption that highsec in any way merits being above, or equal to, far more dangerous areas that have more overhead.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#817 - 2014-03-30 08:23:25 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
So srs now, who here believes that this will seriously affect hi-sec mission runners as an aggregate demographic?


I do. A significant proportion of hi sec mission runners gain income from loot & salvage in some way. Some do it themselves, some only loot the more valuable wrecks, some contract out to corporations like Pro Synergy.



So, you actually have those numbers, right? You're not just assuming that to try and put weight of numbers behind your opinion?

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#818 - 2014-03-30 08:27:24 UTC
baltec1 wrote:



If high sec offers exactly the same as null then everything will happen in high sec. This is the exact problem CCP is trying to fix. There is no logic in the safest area of EVE offering the same reward as the most dangerous/

As for the missions, 3.7% drop in income isnt going to be noticed and you wont even see that drop if you blitz. Minerals should be coming from the miners, not mission runner. Plus this change will also be fixing other issues such as compressing mats into mods for transport.

Except High Sec does not offer the same as null even if the refine rates are equal.
Null Sec has better ores, better PI, Moon Goo, faster production lines in the stations. Just to list a few of the basic industry advantages they have. If every single aspect of Null Sec is better, Null Sec gets a massive cumulative advantage, which is of course what you are busy lobbying for, but it will break the game in straws on the camels back till it all goes in one sudden break.
Then you will of course blame it all on the high sec scrubs & pubbies for being whiny, rather than admitting to yourselves that you kept demanding & demanding till it was well & truly broken.

Currently Null Sec has a disadvantage refining. Agreed that this is a problem, but swapping the disadvantage is not the solution. Equality in the basic standards of 'living' with advantages for flying in space in the wilds is the answer. Not higher basics and advantages for flying in space.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#819 - 2014-03-30 08:32:53 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Nevyn Auscent wrote:

Except High Sec does not offer the same as null even if the refine rates are equal.
Null Sec has better ores, better PI, Moon Goo, faster production lines in the stations. Just to list a few of the basic industry advantages they have. If every single aspect of Null Sec is better, Null Sec gets a massive cumulative advantage, which is of course what you are busy lobbying for, but it will break the game in straws on the camels back till it all goes in one sudden break.
Then you will of course blame it all on the high sec scrubs & pubbies for being whiny, rather than admitting to yourselves that you kept demanding & demanding till it was well & truly broken.

Currently Null Sec has a disadvantage refining. Agreed that this is a problem, but swapping the disadvantage is not the solution. Equality in the basic standards of 'living' with advantages for flying in space in the wilds is the answer. Not higher basics and advantages for flying in space.


PI has nothing to do with refining
Moon goo has nothing to do with refining
Faster production lines means nothing if it is still cheaper to buy in jita and import than to build in null.

The safest area of space has no right to also get the same or better reward as the most dangerous. People will not take on the higher risks if there is no reward.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#820 - 2014-03-30 08:35:12 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Mara Rinn wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
So srs now, who here believes that this will seriously affect hi-sec mission runners as an aggregate demographic?


I do. A significant proportion of hi sec mission runners gain income from loot & salvage in some way. Some do it themselves, some only loot the more valuable wrecks, some contract out to corporations like Pro Synergy.



So, you actually have those numbers, right? You're not just assuming that to try and put weight of numbers behind your opinion?


Go and sit out the front of a mission hub. Watch how many of the mission runners come back from a mission then head out in a noctis. Then join Pro Synergy and see how many mission runners contract their salvage to the contract salvagers. Observe how many mission runners deploy MTUs in missions (they might not salvage anything, which means that the loot being worth less is going to reduce their income more).

Sure, I don't have hard numbers, but I figure somewhere around a third of the mission runners in hubs like Lanngisi, Apanake or the hi sec part of Black Rise are at least looting their missions, if not salvaging them. I'll point out there that about 90% of the value of a mission comes from the battleship wrecks, so if someone in a marauder is only looting & salvaging the battleship wrecks, they're part of this corpus of missioners whose income will be reduced.

I'm not trying to put "weight of numbers behind my opinion". I'm just trying to communicate that there will be a lot of angry mission runners who don't follow the forums who will be getting a nasty surprise when the change hits. CSM will have a better idea than me, since they're privy to details that CCP is willing to share thanks to the NDA. CCP should also have some idea of what portion of the player base click through the announcements on the launcher or at least read the dev blogs.

Day 0 Advice for New Players