These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A Message Regarding "Hyperdunking"

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#1461 - 2015-02-20 18:37:03 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Market McSelling Alt wrote:



And? That is crap isk.


That crap is is less that what you would make with the SAME HULL (Machariel, which is what I primarily fly everywhere expect Blood/Sansha space because of TDing) in null sec chaining anomalies. Best you get from a mach in SOV null is 90 mil per hour (30 mil ticks) and that's pushing hard as hell.

Glad you can see the imbalance here.


Carriers, carriers, carriers and carriers, or perhaps even carriers, or maybe carriers or likely carriers, that are carriers you know carriers, can I get any more sarky about carriers, Goons use carriers, did you know that carriers Big smileShockedOops

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1462 - 2015-02-20 18:47:15 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:


Carriers, carriers, carriers and carriers, or perhaps even carriers, or maybe carriers or likely carriers, that are carriers you know carriers, can I get any more sarky about carriers, Goons use carriers, did you know that carriers Big smileShockedOops


Thats what earns the 90 mil payouts.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#1463 - 2015-02-20 18:47:42 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Market McSelling Alt wrote:



And? That is crap isk.


That crap is is less that what you would make with the SAME HULL (Machariel, which is what I primarily fly everywhere expect Blood/Sansha space because of TDing) in null sec chaining anomalies. Best you get from a mach in SOV null is 90 mil per hour (30 mil ticks) and that's pushing hard as hell.

Glad you can see the imbalance here.


Carriers, carriers, carriers and carriers, or perhaps even carriers, or maybe carriers or likely carriers, that are carriers you know carriers, can I get any more sarky about carriers, Goons use carriers, did you know that carriers Big smileShockedOops


Which again demonstrates the imbalance. You need CAPITAL SHIPS in null to make a better income than a SUB-CAP in high sec. Thanks for the back up man, couldn't win this argument without your support!
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#1464 - 2015-02-20 18:58:54 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Valterra Craven wrote:
The biggest changes CCP ever introduced to missions were the missile changes making torps not be the best choice ever. You know what has had almost no impact on missions? Every other ship change. Marauders are a perfect example. They are completely stupid to use in any lvl 4 mission. Why? They are expensive, and other ships do a better job for cheaper. (My choice is a Navy scorp.) Even the way I fly it is completely overkill for missions and the only reason I use it is because I have a perma active rep on my setup that can handle full room aggro in lvl 4 bonus angel room. You know what also hasn't change since 2006? Game of alts. The reason I specifically use that setup is to make it easier to manage things since I play with two accounts. AND given the fact that all the gankers in this thread are like "use a webber" which in a lot of contexts was also reffered to as an ALT, is a completely legit way to play. My argument stands.

The details really don't matter and only CCP has all the statistics anyways so we can argue about specifics until we are blue in the face. The fact is that mission running is faster than when they were first implemented as ships are significantly more powerful then they were upon the release of missions (T3s, marauders came after for example) and in addition to blitz-able L4 missions, we now have Incursions contributing to the problem.

Valterra Craven wrote:

Why? If the very reason they are leaving is because the risk of dying is too high and the risk of dying isn't changed, why would they go back? Seriously, if you can legit tell me why anyone would go back to those places when they left because the risk was too high, and the changes you propose do not in any way shape or form change the risk side of the equation ON EITHER side, WHY would they go back just because their income stream got nerfed?

The risk of dying is too high for the relative low amount of ISK on offer. If CCP went nuts tonight and nerfed L4 missions and incursions income to 10% of what it is now, do you think most people would still keep running them? Of course not, once people accepted that the nerf was here to stay many of the people motivated by ISK would look for the next most lucrative activity to make their income which would be faction warfare, high class wormholes, null anomalies or whatever. They would be forced to move, or, be out-competed by those brave enough to accept more risk and move out of highsec, if they wanted to maintain their income.

Many would quit too and I am not really advocating for that change, just using it as a thought experiment. Many players are doing highsec missions and Incursions not because it their favourite content in Eve, but rather it is just has the best risk vs. reward balance. Make it not, and they will move to more risky space and provide more player conflict.

The risk vs. reward balance in completely relative. If you increase or decrease risk or reward, you will change where the optimal place is to make ISK. For example, if you want to move people from highsec to nullsec you can:
1) increase the reward in nullsec
2) lower the reward in highsec
3) increase the risk in highsec
4) lower the risk in nullsec

Or you could make a combination of these changes. If the pay in highsec is becomes too low, many people will turn their eyes back to other spaces, and move back regardless of the increased risk as long as the pay is their best option.


Won't work.

As I keep trying to tell Karous, it's not all about ISK. It's about mechanics.

If you nerf highsec to death, and change nothing else, all you do is say through such actions "OK gate campers the game is all yours here are the targets you asked for".

So you won't be moving people from highsec to nullec. You will be giving them the option to leave the game or become a member of CFC IF and only IF they want to farm in nullsec like they did in highsec.

And given the present mechanics, it won't be "emergent" or "creating content" it'll be a big headache. Just like it is now. And few people will want to be out there. I know way more people who were out there once and left it and won't go back. You won't be forcing them.

Theoretical or not.

And the hunters of highsec and Church of HTFU trying to "go where the prey is" are going to have the same choices and die in the same fires. They won't be sticking around either.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#1465 - 2015-02-20 19:01:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Jenn aSide wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
Market McSelling Alt wrote:



And? That is crap isk.


That crap is is less that what you would make with the SAME HULL (Machariel, which is what I primarily fly everywhere expect Blood/Sansha space because of TDing) in null sec chaining anomalies. Best you get from a mach in SOV null is 90 mil per hour (30 mil ticks) and that's pushing hard as hell.

Glad you can see the imbalance here.


Carriers, carriers, carriers and carriers, or perhaps even carriers, or maybe carriers or likely carriers, that are carriers you know carriers, can I get any more sarky about carriers, Goons use carriers, did you know that carriers Big smileShockedOops


Which again demonstrates the imbalance. You need CAPITAL SHIPS in null to make a better income than a SUB-CAP in high sec. Thanks for the back up man, couldn't win this argument without your support!


But I cannot use carriers in hisec, SOB!

I want carriers in hisec, please can I use carriers in hisec, doh doh doh and carriers carriers and even carriers, hisec please now please!

EDIT: But seriously to start talking about doing anoms in null sec and not using carriers, your having a laugh aren't you as us Brits would say!

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1466 - 2015-02-20 19:05:31 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:


Won't work.

As I keep trying to tell Karous, it's not all about ISK. It's about mechanics.

If you nerf highsec to death, and change nothing else, all you do is say through such actions "OK gate campers the game is all yours here are the targets you asked for".

So you won't be moving people from highsec to nullec. You will be giving them the option to leave the game or become a member of CFC IF and only IF they want to farm in nullsec like they did in highsec.

And given the present mechanics, it won't be "emergent" or "creating content" it'll be a big headache. Just like it is now. And few people will want to be out there. I know way more people who were out there once and left it and won't go back. You won't be forcing them.

Theoretical or not.

And the hunters of highsec and Church of HTFU trying to "go where the prey is" are going to have the same choices and die in the same fires. They won't be sticking around either.


Its a hollow argument spouted before many nerfs but never carried out.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#1467 - 2015-02-20 19:18:48 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
Won't work.

As I keep trying to tell Karous, it's not all about ISK. It's about mechanics.

If you nerf highsec to death, and change nothing else, all you do is say through such actions "OK gate campers the game is all yours here are the targets you asked for".

So you won't be moving people from highsec to nullec. You will be giving them the option to leave the game or become a member of CFC IF and only IF they want to farm in nullsec like they did in highsec.

And given the present mechanics, it won't be "emergent" or "creating content" it'll be a big headache. Just like it is now. And few people will want to be out there. I know way more people who were out there once and left it and won't go back. You won't be forcing them.

Theoretical or not.

And the hunters of highsec and Church of HTFU trying to "go where the prey is" are going to have the same choices and die in the same fires. They won't be sticking around either.

It will. You will see. CCP has no choice but to do it in some form if CCP Seagull's vision of a player-driven New Eden has any chance of success.

Many players will follow if the new/revamped space is fun, engaging and pays more than highsec. CCP will not jeopardize the future of the game by leaving highsec as too lucrative a draw for players as compared to the new space.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Market McSelling Alt
Doomheim
#1468 - 2015-02-20 19:19:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Market McSelling Alt
Jenn aSide wrote:
Market McSelling Alt wrote:



And? That is crap isk.


That crap is is less that what you would make with the SAME HULL (Machariel, which is what I primarily fly everywhere expect Blood/Sansha space because of TDing) in null sec chaining anomalies. Best you get from a mach in SOV null is 90 mil per hour (30 mil ticks) and that's pushing hard as hell.

Glad you can see the imbalance here.



But at any point in time running those anoms you have the potential of getting a rare big payout. There is no random giant payout in high-sec missions.

Also we should point out that upgraded SOV systems always have the anoms that always pay out the same bounties. While unlikely, it is possible that you get a string of missions from an agent that are completely crap, or faction killing.

See there is actual in game risk to running missions, you get to watch your opposing faction drop making you essentially a KOS pirate in that space... But according to you being KOS is the end of the world, so Missions are deadly.

CCP Quant: Of all those who logon in Eve, 1.5% do Incursions, 13.8% PVP and 19.2% run Missions while 22.4% mine.

40.7% Join a fleet. The idea that Eve is a PVP game is false, the social fabric is in Missions and Mining.
Valterra Craven
#1469 - 2015-02-20 19:23:00 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

It has changed. There used to be a time when belt ratting was a viable activity but the income from it is now worth about the same as level 2 missions.


This literally makes no sense. None. The problem is that belt ratting was the SOLE stream of income I had in Delve. It was one of the few things that I knew very well. I made BILLIONS off of it. In fact, combined with the mins I got from reprocing lvl 1 mods, and the few hauler spawns I got, I built 4 freighters, 1 carrier and 1 dred off of it. That doesn't even account for the raw isk in bounties, which if you chain the spawns right (i.e. kill the frig and cruisers spawns till you get trip bs spawns and then don't completely kill those in a system with roughly 8-12 belts) would well exceed income from even lvl 3 missions. If you are belt ratting today and only making enough income to compare to level two missions you are either A. Getting killed a lot, or B. doing something very very wrong. Even with all the changes they've done to reproc, and loot drops, the salvage alone, not taking into account anything else, would kick a level 2 mission's butt.


baltec1 wrote:

See, we might be getting more LP but the demand for said LP has also gone up. See, LP rises in value with inflation which means its value will only ever go up. Anoms meanwhile deal mostily in bounty which does not rise with inflation.


This argument you going to have to spell out for me. Why has the demand for LP gone up, or more importantly do you have examples of this? As far as I'm aware there have been no significant changes to items in the LP stores to make them more or less valuable (which would obviously drive demand). In fact, in large pat what I'm seeing is that LP items have stayed either constant or gone down.

Since Jenna likes to point out she farms the mess out of SOE missions in Osmon, why don't we look at the price of those store items? Soe prob launchers consistent 40mil Soe Probes. pretty consistent between 400-500k The astero is all over the map, but even it wasn't from inflation reasons. Statios, same thing. Nestor, has come down pretty hard. (Granted a lot of things where changed to make that happen) But even so, what are you talking about when you mention LP inflation. Cuse I'm not seeing it.

But that aside, I don't think you can even prove that inflation is all that significant in Eve. Or do you have some reports from Dr. Eroj or whatever his name is that prove otherwise?

Further to the point, you'd think that with everybody running missions like Jenna does that item value would go down, not up.
Valterra Craven
#1470 - 2015-02-20 19:37:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Black Pedro wrote:

The details really don't matter and only CCP has all the statistics anyways so we can argue about specifics until we are blue in the face. The fact is that mission running is faster than when they were first implemented as ships are significantly more powerful then they were upon the release of missions (T3s, marauders came after for example) and in addition to blitz-able L4 missions, we now have Incursions contributing to the problem.


The details are ALL that really matter given your argument hinges on them. The fact is that mission running times have not changed significantly with maybe two exceptions. Otherwise you would see this reflected in dwindling isk and LP payouts since rewards are calculated on how people actually run missions. In fact, if you have some magic answer as to why rewards have stayed roughly consistent over the years while people are supposedly running them faster, I'd love to hear it.

Black Pedro wrote:

The risk of dying is too high for the relative low amount of ISK on offer. If CCP went nuts tonight and nerfed L4 missions and incursions income to 10% of what it is now, do you think most people would still keep running them? Of course not, once people accepted that the nerf was here to stay many of the people motivated by ISK would look for the next most lucrative activity to make their income which would be faction warfare, high class wormholes, null anomalies or whatever. They would be forced to move, or, be out-competed by those brave enough to accept more risk and move out of highsec, if they wanted to maintain their income.

Many would quit too and I am not really advocating for that change, just using it as a thought experiment. Many players are doing highsec missions and Incursions not because it their favourite content in Eve, but rather it is just has the best risk vs. reward balance. Make it not, and they will move to more risky space and provide more player conflict.


So what your saying is that to make your argument work, you have to come up with a scenario so catastrophic that it literally would break the game. Cuse as it stands, what most people would call reasonable nerfs are in the 10-20% range, not %90. And guess what, that is going to have little to no affect on people's actions.

Black Pedro wrote:

The risk vs. reward balance in completely relative. If you increase or decrease risk or reward, you will change where the optimal place is to make ISK. For example, if you want to move people from highsec to nullsec you can:
1) increase the reward in nullsec
2) lower the reward in highsec
3) increase the risk in highsec
4) lower the risk in nullsec

Or you could make a combination of these changes. If the pay in highsec is becomes too low, many people will turn their eyes back to other spaces, and move back regardless of the increased risk as long as the pay is their best option.


You could, but again that assumes that most players do things optimally. But given all the killmails you guys like to point out of people playing stupidly, the affects of nerfing hi-sec income would be neglible if your goal is to get people in null. Balancing the game based on the way you think people play vs the way people actually play the game is stupid.
Valterra Craven
#1471 - 2015-02-20 19:40:09 UTC
baltec1 wrote:

If that is true why are all LP items worth more than they used to be?


Please list examples and then compare them to the average prices of other LP items.

You guys (maybe not you specifically) are MASTERs at market manipulation. The fact that you guys do this (Hey rattlesnake price, I'm looking at you) and then pretending like inflation etc is the sole reason prices change on item is rather disingenuous
Valterra Craven
#1472 - 2015-02-20 19:44:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
Black Pedro wrote:

It will. You will see. CCP has no choice but to do it in some form if CCP Seagull's vision of a player-driven New Eden has any chance of success.

Many players will follow if the new/revamped space is fun, engaging and pays more than highsec. CCP will not jeopardize the future of the game by leaving highsec as too lucrative a draw for players as compared to the new space.


Its amazing that I'm the one that gets called out for "seeing things in black and white" when the very arguments you are making are the exact same thing. (ie. that the game can only be fixed by this one and only method)

The problem with your argument is that, hey, wormholes exist. They have great money earning potential without being literal isk printing machines. Your argument that the game can only be fixed by nerfing hi-sec is not only short sighted but proven false by the examples that exist contrary to this.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1473 - 2015-02-20 19:54:16 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:


This literally makes no sense. None. The problem is that belt ratting was the SOLE stream of income I had in Delve. It was one of the few things that I knew very well. I made BILLIONS off of it. In fact, combined with the mins I got from reprocing lvl 1 mods, and the few hauler spawns I got, I built 4 freighters, 1 carrier and 1 dred off of it. That doesn't even account for the raw isk in bounties, which if you chain the spawns right (i.e. kill the frig and cruisers spawns till you get trip bs spawns and then don't completely kill those in a system with roughly 8-12 belts) would well exceed income from even lvl 3 missions. If you are belt ratting today and only making enough income to compare to level two missions you are either A. Getting killed a lot, or B. doing something very very wrong. Even with all the changes they've done to reproc, and loot drops, the salvage alone, not taking into account anything else, would kick a level 2 mission's butt.



Wrong on all accounts. Belt ratting is among the worst activities in EVE today for making isk. It is all but abandoned as an activity as level 2 income and even mining earns you more isk.



Valterra Craven wrote:


Why has the demand for LP gone up, or more importantly do you have examples of this?


The population has gone up.


Valterra Craven wrote:


As far as I'm aware there have been no significant changes to items in the LP stores to make them more or less valuable (which would obviously drive demand). In fact, in large pat what I'm seeing is that LP items have stayed either constant or gone down.


More items to buy, more uses for the items and more need for replacing said items.

Valterra Craven wrote:

Since Jenna likes to point out she farms the mess out of SOE missions in Osmon, why don't we look at the price of those store items? Soe prob launchers consistent 40mil Soe Probes. pretty consistent between 400-500k The astero is all over the map, but even it wasn't from inflation reasons. Statios, same thing. Nestor, has come down pretty hard. (Granted a lot of things where changed to make that happen) But even so, what are you talking about when you mention LP inflation. Cuse I'm not seeing it.
But that aside, I don't think you can even prove that inflation is all that significant in Eve. Or do you have some reports from Dr. Eroj or whatever his name is that prove otherwise?


Thats because you were not around back when things like faction damage mods could be picked up for 30 mil rather than todays 80 mil. All LP items have risen in their worth while bounties have been nerfed in null.

Valterra Craven wrote:

Further to the point, you'd think that with everybody running missions like Jenna does that item value would go down, not up.


Demand is matching the supply.
Valterra Craven
#1474 - 2015-02-20 20:05:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
baltec1 wrote:

Wrong on all accounts. Belt ratting is among the worst activities in EVE today for making isk. It is all but abandoned as an activity as level 2 income and even mining earns you more isk.


Then please, by all means prove it. Otherwise this is nothing more than a pissing match.



baltec1 wrote:

The population has gone up.


Which, all things considered is irrelevant. If you have more people, then more people run missions, and LP values stay roughly the same. Which is exactly what is happening born out by all the market evidence I'm looking at.

So where are these examples?


baltec1 wrote:

More items to buy, more uses for the items and more need for replacing said items.


There have not been a significant number of items added to LP stores. Fits have not drastically changed over the years. Losses don't appear to have significantly changed either.

So where are your examples?

baltec1 wrote:

Thats because you were not around back when things like faction damage mods could be picked up for 30 mil rather than todays 80 mil. All LP items have risen in their worth while bounties have been nerfed in null.


See here's the problem with your argument. The one example you do have is not worth more because the LP suddenly got more valuable. They are worth more because they have a very limited supply and are very hard to acquire. Have you actually figured out what it takes to acquire damage mods vs things like sisters probes? (I have, so I know your argument makes no sense)

Let me give you a counter example. Faction Shield hardeners. Why on earth would you waste LP on them when rat hardners are cheaper, offer the same values, and are easier to acquire and more plentiful? You wouldn't.

So lets look at the Fed Navy Mag stab. Just how many items in the market exist that are comparable to it? Very few. Compare it to shield hardeners. How many competitive items exist for it? A whole bunch.

baltec1 wrote:

Demand is matching the supply.


You should really study the markets before you make statements about them.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1475 - 2015-02-20 20:23:50 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Valterra Craven wrote:


Then please, by all means prove it. Otherwise this is nothing more than a pissing match.


Income from level 2 missions in a navy osprey with rapid lights stands at a little over 30mil/hr, I can get better with a turret based ship, cynable should do the trick. Belt ratting earns less than mining veldspar in highsec.


Valterra Craven wrote:

Which, all things considered is irrelevant. If you have more people, then more people run missions, and LP values stay roughly the same. Which is exactly what is happening born out by all the market evidence I'm looking at.

So where are these examples?


Compare prices to 9-10 years ago when level 4 missions were added. After a decade of more isk entering the system than leaving it means that prices have gone up due to inflation.


Valterra Craven wrote:

There have not been a significant number of items added to LP stores. Fits have not drastically changed over the years. Losses don't appear to have significantly changed either.


Higher population means more losses which means more demand. To say anything else is stupidity.


Valterra Craven wrote:

See here's the problem with your argument. The one example you do have is not worth more because the LP suddenly got more valuable.


Yes, LP got more valuble because Isk today buys you less. Welcome to inflation.

baltec1 wrote:

Demand is matching the supply.


You should really study the markets before you make statements about them.[/quote]

If demand was not matching supply their cost would be rising, if demand was lower than supply it would be falling. Over the last year the price has risen from an average of 490k to 515k per unit.
Valterra Craven
#1476 - 2015-02-20 20:32:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
baltec1 wrote:

Income from level 2 missions in a navy osprey with rapid lights stands at a little over 30mil/hr, I can get better with a turret based ship, cynable should do the trick.


Ok, and? I know for a fact you can make more than that belt ratting.

baltec1 wrote:

Compare prices to 9-10 years ago when level 4 missions were added.


What? No seriously, What? Why would you do that? Of course LP item value would change with lvl 4 missions being added. What makes no sense is under what context your argument would be viable with this data.


Valterra Craven wrote:

Higher population means more losses which means more demand. To say anything else is stupidity.


And you know what more population also means? MORE PRODUCTION. You argument does not exist in a vacuum.


Valterra Craven wrote:

Welcome to inflation.


Which you still have yet to prove is actually a significant factor in Eve's economy.

baltec1 wrote:

If demand was not matching supply their cost would be rising, if demand was lower than supply it would be falling. Over the last year the price has risen from an average of 490k to 515k per unit.


Because again, markets do not exist in a vacuum. Manipulation, especially in Eve is rampant. You of all people should know that. In fact given the market graphs I'm looking at, the prices currently returning to 490k. Or did you miss the huge downward price trend in the past couple of months?
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1477 - 2015-02-20 20:48:24 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:


Because again, markets do not exist in a vacuum. Manipulation, especially in Eve is rampant. You of all people should know that. In fact given the market graphs I'm looking at, the prices currently returning to 490k. Or did you miss the huge downward price trend in the past couple of months?


Currently its at 528k.

Manipulation is only ever temporary, which is why we ignore that blip you pointed out. Prices have consistently risen for the last decade due to the glut of isk entering the system. LP has naturally risen with this inflation while bounties remained the same. End result is LP has overtaken bounties in their worth. Missions becoming worth more than anoms was inevitable, the nerfs only helped speed it up.
Valterra Craven
#1478 - 2015-02-20 20:54:11 UTC
baltec1 wrote:


Currently its at 528k.


Because nothing in Eve ever changes?


baltec1 wrote:

Manipulation is only ever temporary, which is why we ignore that blip you pointed out.


Right, but what you don't ignore are trends.

baltec1 wrote:

Prices have consistently risen for the last decade due to the glut of isk entering the system.


Oh, you mean thats why Zyd is roughly a quarter of what it used to be 6-7 years ago, or a couple thousand percent less from when the game first released?

You know what leaves the system in gluts? isk. That is why inflation is not significant in Eve.

baltec1 wrote:

LP has naturally risen with this inflation while bounties remained the same. End result is LP has overtaken bounties in their worth. Missions becoming worth more than anoms was inevitable, the nerfs only helped speed it up.


This make no sense. If your argument is that isk has inflated then by definition that means LP is also less valuable. LP is nothing more than a second income stream grounded in isk.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#1479 - 2015-02-20 21:20:32 UTC
Valterra Craven wrote:


This make no sense. If your argument is that isk has inflated then by definition that means LP is also less valuable. LP is nothing more than a second income stream grounded in isk.


LP is worth more because its the players that demand the price not the system. Its the exact same reason why a Mars bar costs more today than back in 2004. The freighter I bought in 2010 for 600 mil is now worth 1.3 billion. My archon that was worth 900 mil is now worth almost 1.3 bil. I had one of my ships featured in an article in EON magazine for a 50 mil isk challange. issue 21 of the EON magazine (pages 48-56) if you care to look it up. It cost if I recall 15 mil all together, that same ship cost has doubled from that time.

Bounties do not rise, they are fixed so as more and more isk enters the system the isk you get from said bounties will buy you less and less. This is why caldari navy ballistic control systems have more than doubled in price. The reason why missions are now worth more than anoms. LP is not fixed in place like bounties are, they can rise with inflation. This is why we need to scrap the anom system and move to something more like missions.
Valterra Craven
#1480 - 2015-02-20 21:34:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Valterra Craven
baltec1 wrote:

LP is worth more because its the players that demand the price not the system. Its the exact same reason why a Mars bar costs more today than back in 2004. The freighter I bought in 2010 for 600 mil is now worth 1.3 billion. My archon that was worth 900 mil is now worth almost 1.3 bil. I had one of my ships featured in an article in EON magazine for a 50 mil isk challange. issue 21 of the EON magazine (pages 48-56) if you care to look it up. It cost if I recall 15 mil all together, that same ship cost has doubled from that time.


No, the reason your items have doubled in price is because a host of changes have been made to the game. Again, nothing exists in a vaccuum. The build cost of ships have changed over the years and even the job install cost has changed alittle less than a year ago. The bottom line is that goods do not cost more solely due to inflation. Even a cursory understanding of the changes to the game over the years would show you that.

baltec1 wrote:
Bounties do not rise, they are fixed so as more and more isk enters the system the isk you get from said bounties will buy you less and less.


And given that LP is grounded in isk then it also means that LP is worth less and less.

baltec1 wrote:

This is why caldari navy ballistic control systems have more than doubled in price.


No, it isn't. You still haven't figured how the process for acquiring things like damage mods works or why their prices are not in any way reflective of inflation.

baltec1 wrote:

The reason why missions are now worth more than anoms. LP is not fixed in place like bounties are, they can rise with inflation. This is why we need to scrap the anom system and move to something more like missions.


Missions are not now worth more than anoms.