These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dave stark
#1001 - 2014-04-24 10:13:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
March rabbit wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
So they correct when they say that travelling in 0.0 is 100% safe?

sure, wildly out of context comment is wildly out of context but i'll say yes anyway because why not.

but jumping gate to gate has 0 reward, unlike missions.

ok. let's talk about anomalies and escalations.

I'm i right that 'done properly 0.0 sec anomalies and escalations present no risk'? Does it mean that they should not be rewarded better than high-sec lvl1 missions?


let's just get it out the way before you spew more idiotic posts.

solo pve activities in eve present 0 risk. the risk comes from them being in eve and exactly 0% of any risk in eve comes from a pve activity.
in eve, pve activities have been that heavily documented that there are 0 unknown variables and therefore 0 risk will be present if you have at least one brain cell.

there's a difference between "the activity has 0 risk" and "doing the activity has 0 risk". learn that difference before you post again.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1002 - 2014-04-24 10:33:21 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
So they correct when they say that travelling in 0.0 is 100% safe?

sure, wildly out of context comment is wildly out of context but i'll say yes anyway because why not.

but jumping gate to gate has 0 reward, unlike missions.

ok. let's talk about anomalies and escalations.

I'm i right that 'done properly 0.0 sec anomalies and escalations present no risk'? Does it mean that they should not be rewarded better than high-sec lvl1 missions?


let's just get it out the way before you spew more idiotic posts.

solo pve activities in eve present 0 risk. the risk comes from them being in eve and exactly 0% of any risk in eve comes from a pve activity.
in eve, pve activities have been that heavily documented that there are 0 unknown variables and therefore 0 risk will be present if you have at least one brain cell.

there's a difference between "the activity has 0 risk" and "doing the activity has 0 risk". learn that difference before you post again.

you are too angry, little child. Keep calm - soon your mother will feed you with some milk

And now we got to the point where we see: activity itself provides no risk. Ok. Nice.
So when we speak about rewards vs risk we actually speak about risk provided by... players!

And now the next question: how would you balance ISK reward (completely computable) with player driven risk (unpredictable)?

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
Salvos Rhoska
#1003 - 2014-04-24 10:40:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Salvos Rhoska
March has a point.
PvE, no matter whether in high, or low, carries only so much systemic risk as the AI and design involved in it.
It is a finite and negatable risk, in so far as the encounter does not change. There is, in EVE, no dynamic AI response.
PvE encounters, throughout the history of gaming, can be made riskless, by knowledge of how to beat them.

Even in the worst of WoW raids, it is not the Boss that creates the real risk, it is your other raid members who infariably end up fking it up.

This is an unfortunate, but for now, real fact of PvE encounters, until such a point where PvE has AI which is properly dynamic in every engagement, and responds with different behavior to each input, rather thanthe same, over and over.

So ironic as it sounds, and as much as I hate to use WoW as an example, it is nonethrless illustrative of the limitations currently of PvE systems. Arguably, even the hardest boss, is actually, in a very real sense, a PvP engagement, because the Boss itself is a predictable system, whereas it is your own co-players who end up defeating you by standing in the fire etc.

Rabbits point was a good one however, if abstract.
PvE in Null carries no more risk, in and of itself, than PvE in high.

The actual risk is provided by other players, and that is the quintessential quality of EVE, and as such, also what labels the Doughnut as such an abomination.

It boils down to two arguments:
-The diughnut was earned by CFC.
-The doughnut is made possible by flawed game mechanics.

The overlap, and distinction from each other, of these two arguments, highlights the obvious, and doesnt contradict either one.

That is that Null mechanics are not fulfilling their function.
The doughnut, though always a goal, should not be achievable

Yes, CFC earned and made the doughnut, but it did so, only because the broken and incomplete mechanics themselves made that possible.

Null, is broken. There is no way around that.

PvE v PvP <> Old School Exploration <> CODE Licenses <> CODE Special Agent
Dave stark
#1004 - 2014-04-24 10:42:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
March rabbit wrote:
And now the next question: how would you balance ISK reward (completely computable) with player driven risk (unpredictable)?


easily.

let's go for missions as the obvious starting point.

take a base payout for your missions, adjust it depending on what level missions (so obviously, level 4s pay more than 3s which pay more than 2s etc). for other activities instead of the nice neat "this is a level x mission" simply scale the rewards based on barriers to entry, in the same way incursion hq sites pay out more than assaults or vanguards because you've got to organise more players or whatever the specifics are irrelevant.

then adjust the payouts based on the level of security [which is a perfectly adequate variable to use as a judge of how 'risky' somewhere should be]
this way we end up with a nice system where level 4s in low or null pay more than the same level 4s in high sec.

generally the level of difficulty of pve activities in eve is uniform, and that uniform is "hit f1 every so often" it's a terrible way to award payouts. the payouts should be based on the barriers to entry and the part of space you're sent to.

you're never going to have good risk/reward when you reward different amounts because a mission says "level 4" rather than "level 2" when they both involve mindlessly pressing f1 for a few mins until it says "mission complete".
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1005 - 2014-04-24 10:54:58 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
"Done correctly" missions are 100% safe. If you get ganked, you didn't do them correctly.

Anyway, we're talking about a 3.7% decrease in income, which is nowt compared to the increase in income given by the introduction of MTUs, and less than the null bounty nerf. Considering the upside is fixing and incredibly broken system that holds back development of changes and lead to the introduction of "extra"" minerals on ships, I'd say it's a pretty worthwhile change.

But as with literally any change they make, people will still complain right up until it gets put in, then their complaints will die down when the realise the world didn't end.


You are a liar.
Plain and simple, you are a liar.

Losing mission loot is way way way more than 3.7% of total mission payouts.
I have run enough missions to know that statement of yours is a complete lie.

CCP knows it to, but won't put out the data because they know what the backlash will be.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#1006 - 2014-04-24 12:17:05 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
"Done correctly" missions are 100% safe. If you get ganked, you didn't do them correctly.

Anyway, we're talking about a 3.7% decrease in income, which is nowt compared to the increase in income given by the introduction of MTUs, and less than the null bounty nerf. Considering the upside is fixing and incredibly broken system that holds back development of changes and lead to the introduction of "extra"" minerals on ships, I'd say it's a pretty worthwhile change.

But as with literally any change they make, people will still complain right up until it gets put in, then their complaints will die down when the realise the world didn't end.


You are a liar.
Plain and simple, you are a liar.

Losing mission loot is way way way more than 3.7% of total mission payouts.
I have run enough missions to know that statement of yours is a complete lie.

CCP knows it to, but won't put out the data because they know what the backlash will be.


Have you run enough missions yet to understand that NOS is an engineering mod and not EWAR like you thought it was a week ago? Given your demonstrate lack of PVE knowledge I don't see why you think you are an authority on any of it.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1007 - 2014-04-24 12:19:50 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
"Done correctly" missions are 100% safe. If you get ganked, you didn't do them correctly.

Anyway, we're talking about a 3.7% decrease in income, which is nowt compared to the increase in income given by the introduction of MTUs, and less than the null bounty nerf. Considering the upside is fixing and incredibly broken system that holds back development of changes and lead to the introduction of "extra"" minerals on ships, I'd say it's a pretty worthwhile change.

But as with literally any change they make, people will still complain right up until it gets put in, then their complaints will die down when the realise the world didn't end.


You are a liar.
Plain and simple, you are a liar.

Losing mission loot is way way way more than 3.7% of total mission payouts.
I have run enough missions to know that statement of yours is a complete lie.

CCP knows it to, but won't put out the data because they know what the backlash will be.


Have you run enough missions yet to understand that NOS is an engineering mod and not EWAR like you thought it was a week ago? Given your demonstrate lack of PVE knowledge I don't see why you think you are an authority on any of it.


Clearly, you are in la la land, grasping whatever straws you can.
Dave stark
#1008 - 2014-04-24 12:20:30 UTC
wrote:
Jenn aSide I don't see why you think you are an authority on any of it.


probably because if you spend a weekend doing missions the chance you'll have seen every possible mission (multiple times) is practically 1.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#1009 - 2014-04-24 12:29:34 UTC
Missions have risk like hauling has risk.

Only if you're doing it wrong.

"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.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1010 - 2014-04-24 12:33:00 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
wrote:
Jenn aSide I don't see why you think you are an authority on any of it.


probably because if you spend a weekend doing missions the chance you'll have seen every possible mission (multiple times) is practically 1.


Pretty much this.
I guess I have only run, oh I dunno, likely 10,000 missions in almost 6 years.
Let's see, I have the following corp standings:

10.00 with one corp
9.99 with 2 corps
better than 9.0 with 10 other corps

But yeah, I know nothing about missions.
I ran a bunch with one last week to get above 6.67
Pulled out over 50M in meta 3 or lower loot in 2 days.
If that was this 3.7% of my total payout, that means i picked up 1.35 billion in mission payout.
Given I ran less than 16 missions (I only had one storyline), that means the average mission was worth in excess of 80 milllion ISK, which of course, it was not.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1011 - 2014-04-24 12:47:47 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
"Done correctly" missions are 100% safe. If you get ganked, you didn't do them correctly.

Anyway, we're talking about a 3.7% decrease in income, which is nowt compared to the increase in income given by the introduction of MTUs, and less than the null bounty nerf. Considering the upside is fixing and incredibly broken system that holds back development of changes and lead to the introduction of "extra"" minerals on ships, I'd say it's a pretty worthwhile change.

But as with literally any change they make, people will still complain right up until it gets put in, then their complaints will die down when the realise the world didn't end.


You are a liar.
Plain and simple, you are a liar.

Losing mission loot is way way way more than 3.7% of total mission payouts.
I have run enough missions to know that statement of yours is a complete lie.

CCP knows it to, but won't put out the data because they know what the backlash will be.
Oh so you've run a mission, wow. That doesn't mean you inability to do basic math is any less flawed.

OK, so lets say that the average mission is made up from the following components:
1. Bounties
2. Mission Reward ISK
3. Bonus Reward ISK
4. LP
5. Valuable loot (loot that doesn't or can't get reprocessed and is sold whole, meta 3 + 4)
6. Junk loot (reprocessable modules and ammo)
7. Salvage

Now the part that is being reduced is number 6, everything else will be remaining the same. Please indicate to me what percentage of income from a mission comes from each one of those categories.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
The Initiative.
#1012 - 2014-04-24 12:51:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
wrote:
Jenn aSide I don't see why you think you are an authority on any of it.


probably because if you spend a weekend doing missions the chance you'll have seen every possible mission (multiple times) is practically 1.


Pretty much this.
I guess I have only run, oh I dunno, likely 10,000 missions in almost 6 years.
Let's see, I have the following corp standings:

10.00 with one corp
9.99 with 2 corps
better than 9.0 with 10 other corps

But yeah, I know nothing about missions.
I ran a bunch with one last week to get above 6.67
Pulled out over 50M in meta 3 or lower loot in 2 days.
If that was this 3.7% of my total payout, that means i picked up 1.35 billion in mission payout.
Given I ran less than 16 missions (I only had one storyline), that means the average mission was worth in excess of 80 milllion ISK, which of course, it was not.


OMFG lol, so you're bad a math too? I thought Canada had a good school system.....

This is the point I make about what you do: you are so focused on the idea that people are screwing you that you never reflect on the fact that it's your lack of knowledge that messes you up. It's why , when you displayed a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of NOS, i pointed that out to you.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1013 - 2014-04-24 12:55:55 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
But yeah, I know nothing about missions.
I ran a bunch with one last week to get above 6.67
Pulled out over 50M in meta 3 or lower loot in 2 days.
If that was this 3.7% of my total payout, that means i picked up 1.35 billion in mission payout.
Given I ran less than 16 missions (I only had one storyline), that means the average mission was worth in excess of 80 milllion ISK, which of course, it was not.
See. You ability to perform basic math is flawed.
Firstly if you only had 1 storyline mission, that means you could have run up to 31 missions, since if you ran 31 missions starting from 0 on your storyline counter, you'd only encounter 1 storyline mission.

Now the second part I leave to you. think about a 3.7% reduction in overall income and why that wouldn't mean that your 50m of loot means 1.35b in payout. It's pretty simple, but I think it speaks volumes as to why you are so confused.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1014 - 2014-04-24 13:05:57 UTC
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Lucas doesnt get that Null Sov and risk mechanics are broken, which is what results in a blue doughnut.

The very existance of the doughnut, is proof positive of that fact.

The inherent false attitude of entitlement in his posts, is no different, whatsoever, from those of the worst high-sec carebear whiners.
No, that is not proof of anything except that an organised group can function in a more efficient way than the unorganised masses. You want to destroy the sandbox by forcing mechanics in to break up the "blue doughnut", which even if CCP would go against the core values of EVE to do, would make no difference, since we'd still work together to maintain efficiency.

I get it though, rather than actually look at the game you'd rather go along with the tinfoil hattery, screaming about cartels and blue doughnuts without a clue. There's a reason most null players have high sec alts you know. It's because the majority of income sources in null are either completely shite or non-scalable.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1015 - 2014-04-24 13:13:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Dinsdale Pirannha
Lucas Kell wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
But yeah, I know nothing about missions.
I ran a bunch with one last week to get above 6.67
Pulled out over 50M in meta 3 or lower loot in 2 days.
If that was this 3.7% of my total payout, that means i picked up 1.35 billion in mission payout.
Given I ran less than 16 missions (I only had one storyline), that means the average mission was worth in excess of 80 milllion ISK, which of course, it was not.
See. You ability to perform basic math is flawed.
Firstly if you only had 1 storyline mission, that means you could have run up to 31 missions, since if you ran 31 missions starting from 0 on your storyline counter, you'd only encounter 1 storyline mission.

Now the second part I leave to you. think about a 3.7% reduction in overall income and why that wouldn't mean that your 50m of loot means 1.35b in payout. It's pretty simple, but I think it speaks volumes as to why you are so confused.


Yah, here is the thing.
I had never run standard missions for that group. I had picked up a lot of standings for them based on the fact that in the past other corps had directed me to run storylines for this corp, so my standings were damn high to start with. I only needed a few missions to put me over the top. I know how many missions I ran.

So yes, your 3.7% reduction is a lie.
A 50% reduction in loot is hugely more than 3.7% overall reduction, and every mission runner knows that.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#1016 - 2014-04-24 13:18:08 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
But yeah, I know nothing about missions.
I ran a bunch with one last week to get above 6.67
Pulled out over 50M in meta 3 or lower loot in 2 days.
If that was this 3.7% of my total payout, that means i picked up 1.35 billion in mission payout.
Given I ran less than 16 missions (I only had one storyline), that means the average mission was worth in excess of 80 milllion ISK, which of course, it was not.
See. You ability to perform basic math is flawed.
Firstly if you only had 1 storyline mission, that means you could have run up to 31 missions, since if you ran 31 missions starting from 0 on your storyline counter, you'd only encounter 1 storyline mission.

Now the second part I leave to you. think about a 3.7% reduction in overall income and why that wouldn't mean that your 50m of loot means 1.35b in payout. It's pretty simple, but I think it speaks volumes as to why you are so confused.


Yah, here is the thing.
I had never run standard missions for that group. I had picked up a lot of standings for them based on the fact that in the past other corps had directed me to run storylines for this corp, so my standings were damn high to start with. I only needed a few missions to put me over the top. I know how many missions I ran.

So yes, your 3.7% reduction is a lie.
A 50% reduction in loot is hugely more than 3.7% overall reduction, and every mission runner knows that.
lol, if you "know" then you wouldn't need to state that you only had one storyline mission, you would simply state how many missions it was.

As for the income, look up at my other post, and give me what you think is the breakdown of mission income across each section. Give me what you think is a realistic breakdown of how much income each part of a mission is worth. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide serious responses.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Luca Lure
Obertura
#1017 - 2014-04-24 13:46:11 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Bunnie Hop wrote:
I am a mission running carebear queen, my husband and daughter like to mine together (god only knows why, I find it tedious P ). At the most this will give me incentive to blitz most missions for LP and just loot dog tags. It won't drive me into null though, been there, done that, not going back. But really, stop painting the devil on the wall, it is not so bad.


It is indeed terrible.
You say you will just blitz for LP.
Well, guess what, everyone will be.
And that drives down the value of your LP, and your ISK per hour.

Welcome to the Eve designed by the null sec cartels.


I am doing hisec missions myself since 2011. Till about 3 months ago I would not even reprocess loot. I was selling the high value stuff and storing the low value stuff. I did it for years and didn't give a rats bud. I think many people don't give a poop. So, just because you will loose 1% of your income, it's all hell loose. Please. Move to low sec if you need the ISK, because the more risk, the more profit. Logical.

――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――――

The essence of the independent mind lies not in what it thinks, but in how it thinks.
Yim Sei
Ontogenic Achronycal PLC
#1018 - 2014-04-24 13:49:37 UTC
what the hell is wrong with you people?

I mean can't you have any king of civilised discussion without constantly insulting each other?

Most of the replies are not even relevant to the post they are directed at.
Words are constantly twisted to support your own arguments.

Please remember that any constructive discussion takes as least as much listening (in this case reading) as talking (...or in most cases in this thread, spouting nonsense).

I bet most of you cant even remember what the original post was about.


I would suggest most of you take a breath step back and at least read a post you intend to reply to TWICE before replying.

Consider yourselves thoroughly chastised.

Post with my main? This is my main - I just overtrain and overplay my alts.
Relettov
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#1019 - 2014-04-24 14:19:07 UTC
Yim Sei wrote:
what the hell is wrong with you people?

...

Consider yourselves thoroughly chastised.



Here's your honorary badge.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#1020 - 2014-04-24 14:26:41 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
But yeah, I know nothing about missions.
I ran a bunch with one last week to get above 6.67
Pulled out over 50M in meta 3 or lower loot in 2 days.
If that was this 3.7% of my total payout, that means i picked up 1.35 billion in mission payout.
Given I ran less than 16 missions (I only had one storyline), that means the average mission was worth in excess of 80 milllion ISK, which of course, it was not.
See. You ability to perform basic math is flawed.
Firstly if you only had 1 storyline mission, that means you could have run up to 31 missions, since if you ran 31 missions starting from 0 on your storyline counter, you'd only encounter 1 storyline mission.

Now the second part I leave to you. think about a 3.7% reduction in overall income and why that wouldn't mean that your 50m of loot means 1.35b in payout. It's pretty simple, but I think it speaks volumes as to why you are so confused.


Yah, here is the thing.
I had never run standard missions for that group. I had picked up a lot of standings for them based on the fact that in the past other corps had directed me to run storylines for this corp, so my standings were damn high to start with. I only needed a few missions to put me over the top. I know how many missions I ran.

So yes, your 3.7% reduction is a lie.
A 50% reduction in loot is hugely more than 3.7% overall reduction, and every mission runner knows that.
lol, if you "know" then you wouldn't need to state that you only had one storyline mission, you would simply state how many missions it was.

As for the income, look up at my other post, and give me what you think is the breakdown of mission income across each section. Give me what you think is a realistic breakdown of how much income each part of a mission is worth. If you want to be taken seriously, you need to provide serious responses.


I am not wasting any more time with a liar.