These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

L4 mission running needs financial buff

Author
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#41 - 2014-07-29 21:12:38 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
Riot Girl wrote:
Now factor in all the buffs to ships used for running missions and how they have affected ISK generation from high-sec missions.


All of which existed before the nerf to ISK. I don't recall CCP saying that because of the buffs to ships used in running L4's we are going to nerf L4 ISK returns. If you have a link to such a post I would be open to discussing it further.

I don't think you get what I'm saying. A buff to combat ships is a buff to L4 ISK. Especially when they're Marauders and Pirate BSes, but not excluding all other types too.


I do believe I understand your point but the drop in my mission running income was about 20-30% or so. I would bring up two points:

1. CCP probably balanced mission running ships around the state of missions as they existed at the time (though i have no proof of this of course, meaning they were okay with whatever income boost these ships brought).

2. Even given that ships have been buffed I don't think it can be said that the buffs increased the effectiveness of running L4's by 20 - 30%.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#42 - 2014-07-29 21:23:31 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
1. A one time increase to LP payouts (as someone else suggested the inclusion of [more?] LP items only offered by mission agents)

First part benefits blitzers, no idea what you plan for the second part.

Quote:
2. Mission payouts indexed to the value of plex (this needs to be done so that skills related to payouts retrain their value).

3. Mission rat payouts indexed to plex (there might need to be some rat payout redistribution as it currently favors killing only BS's too heavily).
Would have been ideal, but CCP have already lost their grip on power creep and don't seem to have any intention of reining it back in.

Quote:
This is NOT a mission income buff and I take exception to those respondents characterizing it as such. It is simply a request to compensate L4 runners for income that was effectively transferred from L4 runners to miners.

They don't need to be compensated, they need to adapt.


1a. The blitzers need compensated, not because I believe that blitzing should inherently pay more than non-blitzing but because it is the historical precedent and I don't desire to change that (the adjustment would have to be weighed surely to prevent too wide a gap forming again between the full clear and blitzing groups).

1b. The unique LP items are to reduce competition with players getting LP other ways which could water down the income of both groups (this might not need to be done).

2. Sadly, yes you are probably right they wont do it.

3. I don't understand what you mean when you say: "they need to adapt". Adapt how and to what?

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#43 - 2014-07-29 21:35:20 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
1. CCP probably balanced mission running ships around the state of missions as they existed at the time (though i have no proof of this of course, meaning they were okay with whatever income boost these ships brought).

No idea.

Quote:
2. Even given that ships have been buffed I don't think it can be said that the buffs increased the effectiveness of running L4's by 20 - 30%.
Hard to say without data, I can only go on what I've heard people say. When I first started playing about 2 years ago, I remember reading that blitzers were making 40m/hr in their Machariels and that was pretty impressive at the time. A year later, they were saying it was 70m/hr. I have no idea what they can make now.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#44 - 2014-07-29 21:37:04 UTC
What if the reduction in income was actually a target CCP wanted to achieve? Could it mean they don't need to give anything abck because it was intended to reduce the income generated from mission by nerfing the value of loot?
Adunh Slavy
#45 - 2014-07-29 21:38:40 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:

Yes I'm aware of the reason for the L4 loot price drop, yes I'm aware that highsec is safer than other regions but killing off about 20-30% of our income is too much of a hit.



No, and why is it your income? For years missions have been taking value from other activities, and continue to do so.

If missions are not paying you enough, go do something else.

Going to want health care for your ship crews next.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#46 - 2014-07-29 21:38:52 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
1a. The blitzers need compensated, not because I believe that blitzing should inherently pay more than non-blitzing but because it is the historical precedent and I don't desire to change that (the adjustment would have to be weighed surely to prevent too wide a gap forming again between the full clear and blitzing groups).

They're compensated by inflation.

Quote:
1b. The unique LP items are to reduce competition with players getting LP other ways which could water down the income of both groups (this might not need to be done).
You mean like SoE ships?

Quote:
3. I don't understand what you mean when you say: "they need to adapt". Adapt how and to what?

They need to adapt to the economical environment by either learning to blitz or to earn their ISK through other means.


Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#47 - 2014-07-29 21:40:53 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:


Going to want health care for your ship crews next.


Well only if you are from a country where health care is provided of course.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#48 - 2014-07-29 21:51:32 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
What if the reduction in income was actually a target CCP wanted to achieve? Could it mean they don't need to give anything abck because it was intended to reduce the income generated from mission by nerfing the value of loot?


Possible, Im saying I disagree and want it changed back.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#49 - 2014-07-29 21:59:10 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:

Yes I'm aware of the reason for the L4 loot price drop, yes I'm aware that highsec is safer than other regions but killing off about 20-30% of our income is too much of a hit.



No, and why is it your income? For years missions have been taking value from other activities, and continue to do so.

If missions are not paying you enough, go do something else.

Going to want health care for your ship crews next.


1. because i worked for that income, just like everyone else works for theirs doing whatever they do in EVE.

2. In the past this argument could be said to be true, as it stands i see no justification behind the statement.

3. I prefer to do the activities im involved with now, I just want paid as i have been the last 1.5 years i have played.

4. My crew has full health care, 5 weeks of vacation, 1 week of sick leave and dental. I appreciate your concern for my crew, quite touching.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#50 - 2014-07-29 22:05:52 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:

They're compensated by inflation.

You mean like SoE ships?

They need to adapt to the economical environment by either learning to blitz or to earn their ISK through other means.


1. I see your point but how else to make up the lost income?

2. Possibly more of these.

3. While i respect your opinion, I also disagree that the solution is for me to start doing what i dont want to do to solve the problem. If we dropped everyone's ISK/hr and told them to go do something else in EVE if they didn't like it I have a feeling that wouldn't go over very well.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.

Adunh Slavy
#51 - 2014-07-29 22:08:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Adunh Slavy
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:

1. because i worked for that income, just like everyone else works for theirs doing whatever they do in EVE.

2. In the past this argument could be said to be true, as it stands i see no justification behind the statement.

3. I prefer to do the activities im involved with now, I just want paid as i have been the last 1.5 years i have played.

4. My crew has full health care, 5 weeks of vacation, 1 week of sick leave and dental. I appreciate your concern for my crew, quite touching.


1. You are not entitled.
2. Your lack of comprehension about economics, specifically opportunity cost, is not my problem, it is yours.
3. Boo Hoo. Adapt. Like everyone else in Eve has been doing far longer than you have been here. See my response number 1 for clarification.
4. It's easy to spend money on imaginary people. Your generosity is impressive.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
#52 - 2014-07-29 22:33:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Zan Shiro
Riot Girl wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
1a. The blitzers need compensated, not because I believe that blitzing should inherently pay more than non-blitzing but because it is the historical precedent and I don't desire to change that (the adjustment would have to be weighed surely to prevent too wide a gap forming again between the full clear and blitzing groups).

They're compensated by inflation.

Quote:
1b. The unique LP items are to reduce competition with players getting LP other ways which could water down the income of both groups (this might not need to be done).
You mean like SoE ships?

Quote:
3. I don't understand what you mean when you say: "they need to adapt". Adapt how and to what?

They need to adapt to the economical environment by either learning to blitz or to earn their ISK through other means.





this basically. Last point....even years ago there was an old saying: if looking to be rich off level 4 running you were doing it wrong. That was with better loot/salvage. For example what I did was turn level 4 money into starter funds for other projects. Market games like speculation or when I could be assed long ago watch market shifts like a hawk and pick sell orders not adjusted for market changes (or market variance). Basic example would be I see a buy order in BFE new eden for price greater than sell order in jita. I'd buy out of jita, drop that off in BFE and make my isk and then some.

edit: or watch buy orders not changed for market slumps. Ole boy had buy order up for an item that buy order > sell price....well I'd fill his order. Take your chance on margin scams but there are ways to detect them or avoid it.
GordonO
BURN EDEN
#53 - 2014-07-30 00:28:11 UTC
4-5 years ago a plex cost 350 mil and a drake cost around 20mil.. this is no longer the case.. its called inflation.. next time you want an increase at work and you boss suggests you change jobs to something more risky because you want a higher salary because the price of bread has doubled, will you go ? or will you follow the oh noooo inflation is high we desrve more to live route ??
Same thing here.. saying move to null to solve inflation is very short sighted..

... What next ??

Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#54 - 2014-07-30 01:09:43 UTC
GordonO wrote:
4-5 years ago a plex cost 350 mil and a drake cost around 20mil.. this is no longer the case.. its called inflation.. next time you want an increase at work and you boss suggests you change jobs to something more risky because you want a higher salary because the price of bread has doubled, will you go ? or will you follow the oh noooo inflation is high we desrve more to live route ??
Same thing here.. saying move to null to solve inflation is very short sighted..


EVE doesnt have a 'cost of living', so that doesnt really apply.

If you want competitive pay, you take on competitive amounts of risk, or put in competitive amounts of effort. Thats how eve's supposed to work. Missions have been a bit of an outlier in that respect for a long while.

Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
3. While i respect your opinion, I also disagree that the solution is for me to start doing what i dont want to do to solve the problem. If we dropped everyone's ISK/hr and told them to go do something else in EVE if they didn't like it I have a feeling that wouldn't go over very well.


Its not a solution cause there's not really a problem. Its just an option if you want to keep earning as much as you have been. Or you can accept your lower earnings and understand that the rest of EVE as a whole is better off for it.

Even after the nerf, level 4's still pay very well when you consider the lack of risk and effort required to run them. They could even be nerfed further.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

TomyLobo
U2EZ
#55 - 2014-07-30 01:42:13 UTC  |  Edited by: TomyLobo
I haven't run lvl4s in a while and the last time I did it was to improve my standings. I agree that the payout is really horrible and LP is the only saving grace. Increasing LP payout doesn't help either because too much LP will mess up the sell price of many LP store items. Ask the FW guys with tier 3 or 4.
The only alternative is to run incursions which makes sense since there is much greater risk and team effort is required.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#56 - 2014-07-30 01:47:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevyn Auscent
GordonO wrote:
4-5 years ago a plex cost 350 mil and a drake cost around 20mil.. this is no longer the case.. its called inflation.. next time you want an increase at work and you boss suggests you change jobs to something more risky because you want a higher salary because the price of bread has doubled, will you go ? or will you follow the oh noooo inflation is high we deserve more to live route ??
Same thing here.. saying move to null to solve inflation is very short sighted..

No, it's actually called supply & demand. Inflation is currently non existent in EVE, actually deflation earlier this year.
Plex prices rising independent of everything else has nothing to do with inflation, mainly has to do with rampant speculation since we know that plex change hands 2 or 3 times before they actually get to someone who uses them thanks to CCP releasing that information. So speculators are driving the pricing on the PLEX market by creating artificial & fake demand.
Also major mineral requirement changes and mining barge changes changed the mineral market pricing cost of building a drake, as will the latest industrial changes.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#57 - 2014-07-30 02:01:09 UTC
I support this. Mission runners and LOOT and by that I mean ONLY loot are exposed to ninja salvagers so there is a present risk/threat, I suggest you work on that mechanic since it creates content unlike incursions.

Open missions more for player interference and buff their loot payouts.

Problem is that with the introduction of noctis, salvaging drones and MTUs the looting became way easier so there should be some new loot like bpcs to make the payouts better.

Or better yet random faction rat spawns?

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#58 - 2014-07-30 03:10:55 UTC
sci0gon wrote:
in general any comment about a buff to PVE content in the game invokes a lot of people climbing up the walls because they want to see high sec as crap as possible with all the main focus being given towards null.


Or we want to see the most dangerous space giving the best rewards.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#59 - 2014-07-30 04:49:12 UTC
GordonO wrote:
4-5 years ago a plex cost 350 mil and a drake cost around 20mil.. this is no longer the case.. its called inflation.. next time you want an increase at work and you boss suggests you change jobs to something more risky because you want a higher salary because the price of bread has doubled, will you go ? or will you follow the oh noooo inflation is high we desrve more to live route ??
Same thing here.. saying move to null to solve inflation is very short sighted..


When did CCP say you needed to be able to PLEX an account from an arbitrary number of hours of running lvl 4 mission? The only time your boss really HAVE TO give you a raise is if the minimum legal salary goes higher than your current one. If you think EVE should follow stuff like that then you better be patient because there is a few things which are paid much less than lvl 4 so they would have top go first.
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#60 - 2014-07-30 05:30:05 UTC
Not CCP is the reason why the loot in Lv4´s aren´t worth as much as before. You are ! Everybody runs Lv4´s is one Part of this problem. So we could solve this Problem easy --> move the Lv 4´s into lowsec. Make the more difficult. But for god sake don´t buff the income thats pointless. Highsec should be with distance the worst part in the game to make money.

It´s to save and don´t say that ninja looters/ganking is a big problem. In lowsec you get shot in gate camps and the attacker loose nothing, in 0.0 the same but this time with your pod.


Please guy´s stop complaining change your playstile, Miner also don´t make as much ISK than in the "old days) so what. Be flexible try other parts.