These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

PvE C1 to C4

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
BayneNothos
United Electro-Magnetic Federation
Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners
#81 - 2014-09-23 07:51:49 UTC
Looks good Corbexx, good work.

So now you've seen this, what are your thoughts on improving things?.

Personally I feel the biggest issue is that the %age of total isk from nano's is the wrong way around. The higher the WH class, the more of the total loot payout should be from nano's and other loot, rather than blues. Theoretically that'd make things a bit more stable for lower groups and be a disincentive to farmer groups.

Pushing CCP to do the T3 balance sooner rather than later would also help a lot to get nanoribbon prices back up more. Assuming of course they don't break all T3's to uselessness in the process :P
calaretu
Honestly We didnt know
#82 - 2014-09-23 07:57:30 UTC
nicely done corbexx. very good work!

~Bringer of happiness

http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/
Faye Fantastic
Overload This
#83 - 2014-09-23 09:08:26 UTC
Great job Corbexx, I know you how many hours you've put in to collect these data's. Much respect!
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#84 - 2014-09-23 09:23:39 UTC
BayneNothos wrote:
Looks good Corbexx, good work.

So now you've seen this, what are your thoughts on improving things?.

Personally I feel the biggest issue is that the %age of total isk from nano's is the wrong way around. The higher the WH class, the more of the total loot payout should be from nano's and other loot, rather than blues. Theoretically that'd make things a bit more stable for lower groups and be a disincentive to farmer groups.

Pushing CCP to do the T3 balance sooner rather than later would also help a lot to get nanoribbon prices back up more. Assuming of course they don't break all T3's to uselessness in the process :P


I'd agree that moving some of the income down from cap escalations is probably the best/only way forward. Boosting the wh ISK faucet by simply increasing C1-2 blue loot drops could imbalance the economy.

However I'd also like to note that rebalancing WH income might not really solve the population issues, good ISK/hr is weak incentive compared to FUN/hr. Anomaly running is extremely repetitive action and increasing the variety of sites only goes so far- I feel that wormhole space could use a new feature or two (not necessarily conventional PVE -related) to really spark a new influx of inhabitants. What these could be, no idea.

No matter how controversial the Hyperion changes were, I honestly think that any changes to ancient mechanics play an important part in wh resident retention. Adapting and learning to exploit new mechanics is core gameplay of EVE Online, and a vital part of a living virtual world.



Winthorp
#85 - 2014-09-23 09:25:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Winthorp
BayneNothos wrote:

Pushing CCP to do the T3 balance sooner rather than later would also help a lot to get nanoribbon prices back up more. Assuming of course they don't break all T3's to uselessness in the process :P


This guy gets it, i don't believe we should have PVE changes untill they look at what they are doing with T3 changes as they are so intrinsically linked.

It scares me that they are making Reverse Engineering changes and as they realise that it will affect profit margins of the RE builders (like me) they have said they would look at changing the drop rate of MNR's. It shocks me that that alone hasn't scared more people that they would make such a major change based on the income stream of a HS industrial player and not think of the consequences to a WH resident that relies on that for their daily income.
Bjurn Akely
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#86 - 2014-09-23 09:39:58 UTC
Thanks for supplying this research and data.

To those that talks about how this is sort of invalid due to risks of getting ganked etc: this is raw data. It's nothing else. This is how much the sites produce. Anything else on top of that is *other* data. There will never be a comprehensive analysis. This is because there is a chance/risk of ganking that can not easily be measured. It's soft data and pretty much based on feelings and conjecture.
Jerin Crank
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#87 - 2014-09-23 10:52:48 UTC
corbexx wrote:

This is basically spot on. If we wanted max isk it woudlbe station trading then incursions. as you said we live in wormholes cos we like it. The issue is we really need to intice more more people in, and that means incentives.


If we wanted to make ISK we would be station traders. We live in wormholes because we like it.
vs
We need to entice more people into wormholes, so we need better incentives.
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#88 - 2014-09-23 12:47:11 UTC
Jerin Crank wrote:
corbexx wrote:

This is basically spot on. If we wanted max isk it woudlbe station trading then incursions. as you said we live in wormholes cos we like it. The issue is we really need to intice more more people in, and that means incentives.


If we wanted to make ISK we would be station traders. We live in wormholes because we like it.
vs
We need to entice more people into wormholes, so we need better incentives.



I would think the recent changes in low-sec and the influx of people there as a result are a great example of how to do this kind of thing. New/unique drops/content is what brings people to areas of EVE for PvE. The PvP follows. It feels like it has been too much the other way around where "conflict drivers" are being added to incentivize PvP. I don't believe this has the same long lasting effect to attract players into an area of space.
Incindir Mauser
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#89 - 2014-09-23 13:11:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Incindir Mauser
BayneNothos wrote:
Looks good Corbexx, good work.

So now you've seen this, what are your thoughts on improving things?.

Personally I feel the biggest issue is that the %age of total isk from nano's is the wrong way around. The higher the WH class, the more of the total loot payout should be from nano's and other loot, rather than blues. Theoretically that'd make things a bit more stable for lower groups and be a disincentive to farmer groups.

Pushing CCP to do the T3 balance sooner rather than later would also help a lot to get nanoribbon prices back up more. Assuming of course they don't break all T3's to uselessness in the process :P


Be careful what you wish for.

CCP has a habit of lousing things up in the name of change and the ever nebulous concept of "progress". T3's could end up as nothing but expensive hangar decorations just as easily as they could give bad subsystems new usefulness.

WH income should not be totally derived from Sleeper Poop and Nanoribbons. It's just getting them to impliment on something that has an ever decreasing population. W-space doesn't really generate headlines on mainstream newpapers when we have an eviction. CCP doesn't really have a motivation to prioritize our wants and desires over the wants and desires of Sov Null.
calaretu
Honestly We didnt know
#90 - 2014-09-23 14:21:59 UTC
Winthorp wrote:

It scares me that they are making Reverse Engineering changes and as they realise that it will affect profit margins of the RE builders (like me) they have said they would look at changing the drop rate of MNR's. It shocks me that that alone hasn't scared more people that they would make such a major change based on the income stream of a HS industrial player and not think of the consequences to a WH resident that relies on that for their daily income.


This is a huge issue if altered without taking into account all of the aspects it affect. Our CSM's on this ball?

~Bringer of happiness

http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#91 - 2014-09-23 14:22:00 UTC
There are so many different methods and configurations to run sites that this small test really cannot be used to prove anything to anyone or be the basis of CCP's development plans. It could be very harmful if they actually based anything on that.

Shouldn't CCP be able to get much more meaningful data? They surely can easily collect actual stats from TQ how long characters/fleets take to complete certain sites, how many sites are run in a row, exactly how many ribbons drop on average etc. and that on a sample of a million of sites completed instead of just 10.

That would also give a realistic average instead of a single user's experience using his own personal method and skill. For example, I ran c3 anoms with two characters for several years and consistently made >250m/hour. Later I did c4 anoms for quite a while (albeit a Magnetar) also using two chars and consistently made ~500m/hour. But only until the sites ran out of course, so basically only for 1-2 hours per week.

So to see how real income is, one has to look both at how the average player does it (hint: most people suck) and also one has to take the supply of sites into consideration. Yes, c1 space is better than c2 as long as you have a ton of sites, but you usually don't, and you cannot easily generate new ones because c1 statics are un-closeable.

.
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#92 - 2014-09-23 14:47:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Obil Que
Terrorfrodo wrote:
There are so many different methods and configurations to run sites that this small test really cannot be used to prove anything to anyone or be the basis of CCP's development plans. It could be very harmful if they actually based anything on that.

Shouldn't CCP be able to get much more meaningful data? They surely can easily collect actual stats from TQ how long characters/fleets take to complete certain sites, how many sites are run in a row, exactly how many ribbons drop on average etc. and that on a sample of a million of sites completed instead of just 10.

That would also give a realistic average instead of a single user's experience using his own personal method and skill. For example, I ran c3 anoms with two characters for several years and consistently made >250m/hour. Later I did c4 anoms for quite a while (albeit a Magnetar) also using two chars and consistently made ~500m/hour. But only until the sites ran out of course, so basically only for 1-2 hours per week.

So to see how real income is, one has to look both at how the average player does it (hint: most people suck) and also one has to take the supply of sites into consideration. Yes, c1 space is better than c2 as long as you have a ton of sites, but you usually don't, and you cannot easily generate new ones because c1 statics are un-closeable.


Corbexx didn't measure income per se, or certainly not all possible levels of income. Income is a calculation of site value, time to complete, and parties involved. His data is site value, his time to complete, and one person. Yours is different. The base data on the site values remains the same which is the important data here.

Yes, there are other data points such as anom spawns, availability of sites in a static, etc. etc. It seems rather shortsighted to think that CCP can't engage in a conversation about this and understand the interconnected parts. Corbexx has done a good job of putting real world numbers (with constraints) to wormhole PvE which will be valuable to any discussion.
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#93 - 2014-09-23 14:59:59 UTC
Terrorfrodo wrote:

That would also give a realistic average instead of a single user's experience using his own personal method and skill. For example, I ran c3 anoms with two characters for several years and consistently made >250m/hour. Later I did c4 anoms for quite a while (albeit a Magnetar) also using two chars and consistently made ~500m/hour. But only until the sites ran out of course, so basically only for 1-2 hours per week.


250/2 = 125mil/hr
500/2 = 250mil with magnetar bonus

Your figures fall nicely inside the error margin of the OP's figures. They really are a good and realistic baseline and inline with anectodal "data" from various threads on this forum. Which seems to be C1-2 suck like a wall of dicks, C3-4 are ok and cap escalation when done by normal corp are somewhat better ISK and fine, but allow for dedicated multibox farming ops for insane isk/hr.





Aryex
Bastard Children of Poinen
#94 - 2014-09-23 15:25:28 UTC
We really should be discussing isk/site separately than isk/hour or isk/character/hour. We shouldn't care how many alts are brought. (And we should recognize that every additional alt is one additional count in the denominator of profitability)
corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#95 - 2014-09-23 15:48:19 UTC
calaretu wrote:
Winthorp wrote:

It scares me that they are making Reverse Engineering changes and as they realise that it will affect profit margins of the RE builders (like me) they have said they would look at changing the drop rate of MNR's. It shocks me that that alone hasn't scared more people that they would make such a major change based on the income stream of a HS industrial player and not think of the consequences to a WH resident that relies on that for their daily income.


This is a huge issue if altered without taking into account all of the aspects it affect. Our CSM's on this ball?



yes on it already been raised several times as well.

Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#96 - 2014-09-23 17:33:37 UTC
So I wrote a blog post on some options for how I think some changes could be made. Thoughts?

Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
Odin Skydiver
Alexylva Paradox
#97 - 2014-09-23 18:16:53 UTC
It's also little funny that risk comes from other players not from sleepers. Btw how about the idea that scouts could detect wormhole activations so site runner fleet won't need more than one scout even in cheese system.
calaretu
Honestly We didnt know
#98 - 2014-09-23 18:38:40 UTC
Saede Riordan wrote:
So I wrote a blog post on some options for how I think some changes could be made. Thoughts?


Really dont like the idea of acceleration gates. You cant probe and warp to anyone inside it. Bad imo. I liked better the idea of escalating burner fleets that someone mentioned in a different thread

~Bringer of happiness

http://collapsedbehind.blogspot.no/
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#99 - 2014-09-23 18:55:57 UTC
calaretu wrote:
Saede Riordan wrote:
So I wrote a blog post on some options for how I think some changes could be made. Thoughts?


Really dont like the idea of acceleration gates. You cant probe and warp to anyone inside it. Bad imo. I liked better the idea of escalating burner fleets that someone mentioned in a different thread


Yeah that's true. Link the thing on burner fleets, I'm curious?

Also, what are people's thoughts on getting the sleepers removed from data and relic sites, and having data, relic, and gas site spawning decoupled from system class?

Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
Obil Que
Star Explorers
Solis Tenebris
#100 - 2014-09-23 19:08:39 UTC
Saede Riordan wrote:
calaretu wrote:
Saede Riordan wrote:
So I wrote a blog post on some options for how I think some changes could be made. Thoughts?


Really dont like the idea of acceleration gates. You cant probe and warp to anyone inside it. Bad imo. I liked better the idea of escalating burner fleets that someone mentioned in a different thread


Yeah that's true. Link the thing on burner fleets, I'm curious?

Also, what are people's thoughts on getting the sleepers removed from data and relic sites, and having data, relic, and gas site spawning decoupled from system class?


I could see gas being interesting but decoupling sleepers from data/relic would open up considerable loot from C5/C6 relic sites to basically anyone to grab. That being said, C1-C4 data/relic loot needs a buff as it is basically worthless. Removing those sleepers removes another source of blue loot and salvage from WHs and that isn't desirable. All in all, I don't see the benefit from removing them.