These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Missions & Complexes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Lv4s 100-150mil/h+: Breakdown

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Market McSelling Alt
Doomheim
#341 - 2015-12-02 14:34:43 UTC
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:


Market McSelling Alt wrote:
Except over the past year HS population has dropped severely and NS had a small increase...

So what is the problem other than whinny Null babies? They want people out of High Sec and it is happening. Just not fast enough for them?

any source on that?


CCP Fozzie podcast circa May/June 2015. I am not in the business of looking up the link but his statements about Null/High population are well known.

found a graph. thanks google http://evenews24.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/demo-players-hisec.jpg

a bit old, but I don't think I can see anything that says severe. 75% +/- a few percentage points over the roughly 2 years seems pretty constant. although may/june would be newer than that graph.



No that isn't it. It was here http://evenews24.com/2015/07/15/en24-podcast-ccp-fozzie-on-sovereignty-part-i/

However the host of the actual audio is gone now. Try and find an archived recording.

July 2015 is a little more recent, but to sum it up he said that the player population that left from from High Sec so don't blame his Sov changes on number drops.

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.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#342 - 2015-12-02 14:48:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Daniela Doran wrote:
Do only the 1st Recon (skip the rest) and skip Cargo, Attack of Drones, Extrava. Worlds Collide.....skip all except the following

Yes, this is the optimized mission list for blitzing. But I'm going for bounties (and not running Burners), so blitzing missions actually brings my per ISK/hour down.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#343 - 2015-12-02 14:56:27 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Estella Osoka wrote:


And yet, you continue to whine.


You keep on using that word yet you don't understand its meaning.

Were we whining when we called for tech moons to be nerfed? Or when tracking titans were not only blapping frigates in pvp but also printing so much isk they were driving inflation?

Pointing out game imbalances is not whining.


Missed this. I understand it completely. It's not a game mechanic imbalance. It's an imbalance created by the players.

Your problem is that you live in a sea of blues in nullsec, and basically suffer from overpopulation. Sure it gives you some security, but it also causes resource competition. Reduce your blues/population and you will have more resources to share with those who remains. Of course, your level of security will go down a bit; but that is the trade off.

Now instead of fixing the real problems which were created by your own alliance, you look to either buff your null income or nerf the hisec income so your turf looks better. So yeah, until your alliance gets its house in order, you are basically whining.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#344 - 2015-12-02 15:06:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
PLEX prices and changes to multi-boxing are also two factors influencing high-sec numbers. I'm not saying that either were necessarily severe, just that they've had some degree of impact on gameplay.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#345 - 2015-12-02 16:35:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Estella Osoka wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Estella Osoka wrote:


And yet, you continue to whine.


You keep on using that word yet you don't understand its meaning.

Were we whining when we called for tech moons to be nerfed? Or when tracking titans were not only blapping frigates in pvp but also printing so much isk they were driving inflation?

Pointing out game imbalances is not whining.


Missed this. I understand it completely. It's not a game mechanic imbalance. It's an imbalance created by the players.

Your problem is that you live in a sea of blues in nullsec, and basically suffer from overpopulation. Sure it gives you some security, but it also causes resource competition. Reduce your blues/population and you will have more resources to share with those who remains. Of course, your level of security will go down a bit; but that is the trade off.

Now instead of fixing the real problems which were created by your own alliance, you look to either buff your null income or nerf the hisec income so your turf looks better. So yeah, until your alliance gets its house in order, you are basically whining.


This is another example of that prejudice I as talking about. It glosses over the actual game mechanics limitations (ie it's no amount of space will make anomalies pay someone as much as that individual character can make doing the PVE activityes being talked about here) while imagining that it's some kind of issue with "blues".

It's not. My Alliance doesn't have near as many blues as Imperium does, we physically control a portion of one null sec region and are constantly at war with out neighbors. A trip to zkill to look at my killboard will should you those local wars. And yet the problems Baltec outlines (while being a member of a huge bloc) affects me the exact same way, because while null sec pve is more than adequate. ot's foolish to do too much of it because of all the interuptions from none blues coming in trying to kill us as well as the actual mechanical limitations of the content.

In other words, it is not physically possible to use one character in one sub-capital ship to make the kinds of wealth that one can do as (in ascending order) a member of a high sec incursion fleet, a high sec burner mission blitzer or FW mission runner in a Caracal, Drake or Stealth Bomber. Those are the main things that are broken here, despite all the dodging done by people in this thread.

That's why I have an FW alt and an incursion alt, and why I'm taking the character that I was training to carrier blitz lvl 5 missions in low sec (btw that character also has nice Blood Raider and Guristas Standings, I've used it to run missions in Delve and Venal) and training it for burner blitzing. The imbalances are so strong that they lure folks like me away from more dangerous endeavors and into the easy isk making.

The is exactly backwards of what the game should be doing. While the game should not force people to do things they do not want (like, for instance, leaving high sec), it also shouldn't be putting the brakes on those of us who would do these things on their own if only they were (relatively) more worth it.

Last Week I took this thing into a c3 wormhole (using my incursion running alt):

[Dominix, C3 Solo]
Domination Large Armor Repairer
Domination Large Armor Repairer
Domination Large Armor Repairer
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Drone Damage Amplifier II
Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane
Imperial Navy Energized Adaptive Nano Membrane

Cap Recharger II
Cap Recharger II
Cap Recharger II
Cap Recharger II
Cap Recharger II

Large Remote Hull Repairer II
Heavy Diminishing Power System Drain I
Heavy Diminishing Power System Drain I
Heavy Unstable Power Fluctuator I
Drone Link Augmentor II
Large Remote Armor Repairer II

Large Auxiliary Nano Pump II
Large Capacitor Control Circuit I
Large Capacitor Control Circuit II

Hornet EC-300 x10
Salvage Drone I x5
Hobgoblin II x10
Garde II x5
Curator II x5



It was fun. I had a buddy in the same fit (we didn't even have to remote rep each other once or give cap, btw the fit we used had cap teransfer, hull repairer was in cargo.

It was fun, and we did get jumped by a small gang of 3 tech 3 destroyers and chased them off. Each of us risked half a bill isk worth of ship on our little day trip. When we went back to normal space and cashed out after 3 hours we had a nice little chunk of change...

...Less change than we would have gotten being in an incursion fleet, spamming fw missions or SOLO blitzing lvl 4 missions together (without doing any burner style missions) in good old Lanngisi.

How does it make sense that we went into the most dangerous space EVE Online has and PVE'd successfully and ended up with less wealth than had we just stayed in the safest part of EVE Online (or just went into low sec with cheap as hell bombers and did FW missions and made way more)?

If you can explain to me how that makes any damn sense, I'll swear i'll drop it. Good luck on that though lol.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#346 - 2015-12-02 18:35:21 UTC
Daniela Doran wrote:
Yea you don't miss the opportunity to brag when you can. You've been playing Eve for 10 years compared to me only playing the game 2.5 years so I can't compete with you in regards to Eve experience. But just because you have the experience doesn't mean that players with less experience should just accept your way of viewing how things should be in Eve without even considering their opinions. You alone don't make up the player base. Regardless if you're right or wrong, if the player base doesn't accept your propose way of thinking then it shouldn't be accepted.

if eve were balanced like that then we would never need the phrase "adapt or die" Thank bob eve isn't balanced like that.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#347 - 2015-12-02 18:37:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Jenn aSide wrote:
How does it make sense that we went into the most dangerous space EVE Online has and PVE'd successfully and ended up with less wealth than had we just stayed in the safest part of EVE Online (or just went into low sec with cheap as hell bombers and did FW missions and made way more)?

If you can explain to me how that makes any damn sense, I'll swear i'll drop it. Good luck on that though lol.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't C3s on the 'lighter' side of wormhole income? They're kind of the equivalent wormhole equivalent of high-sec L3 missions, are they not? I have a limited amount of game time in wormholes (mostly C4s), so I can't really comment beyond that I know you can make obscene ISK in wormhole space - but it takes a lot logistically, and it's not without risk.

I will concede the point on high-sec Incursions because I really don't know very much about them other than they seem to be an ISK faucet for predominantly null-sec players (not necessarily exclusively, but a sizeable segment). I'm not entirely convinced that restricting Incursions to low-sec would warrant continued player investment in terms of risk vs. reward. The high-sec community as a whole has never really viewed Incursions as anything more than an 'elite' or exclusive activity, anyway.

I think everyone agrees Faction Warfare is broken to some extent. I made 250k LP in just under an hour using nothing more than a cheap T2 fit stealth bomber (and this was only at Caldari T2). If it wasn't so incredibly boring optimizing the 80 or so odd jumps required to string a half dozen missions together I'd probably find it more interesting (or if my Faction was at level T4 or T5).

From everything everyone is saying it really sounds like null-sec just, well... sucks. Everyone's trying to kill you all of the time, it's obscenely expensive to live there and a person can't really eek out anydecent kind of living. Or it's the complete opposite and it's boring as hell and there's just not a lot to do. The only thing I'm certain of is that I don't have a very favorable opinion of null-sec, and nothing in this discussion has really given me pause to think otherwise.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#348 - 2015-12-02 19:04:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenn aSide
Arthur Aihaken wrote:


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't C3s on the 'lighter' side of wormhole income? They're kind of the equivalent wormhole equivalent of high-sec L3 missions, are they not? I have a limited amount of game time in wormholes (mostly C4s), so I can't really comment beyond that I know you can make obscene ISK in wormhole space - but it takes a lot logistically, and it's not without risk.


One can make a good solid 60-80 mil an hour in a c3. This is about right for the amount of threat the NPCs can provide. and it's dangerous space, someone could log in there in a recon and you'd not know it till they were on you. Or you put alts on the exits and listen for people coming in, but that takes alts.

Or you could just do this in high sec with a ship that cost about as much, with next to zero risk and much less effort (no scanning down sigs, bookmarking entrances and exist etc) while making the same isk. 500 mil Domi in WH space solo or a 600 mil mach in high sec solo. Which one makes more financial sense?

The answer is ALWAYS high sec. That's the problem (in this case it's yet again the problem of blitzing). The fix is to either eliminate blitzing OR make more stuff (like WH anomalies) some how 'bltizable' so that people who put in more effort/creativity can wring more wealth out of dangerous space like they can in safer space.

Quote:

From everything everyone is saying it really sounds like null-sec just, well... sucks. Everyone's trying to kill you all of the time, it's obscenely expensive to live there and a person can't really eek out any decent kind of living. Or it's the complete opposite and it's boring as hell and there's just not a lot to do. The only thing I'm certain of is that I don't have a very favorable opinion of null-sec, and nothing in this discussion has really given me pause to think otherwise.


Null sec, like WH space, is imo mostly fine. The income is good enough, the PVE is no less interesting than any other, there are chances for epic drops, and having to fight to maintain the abilty to PVE makes the PVE more worthwhile.

What's broken is some aspects of PVE in safer space that ends up devaluing the efforts of people who don't mind playing in more dangerous space. While all PVE should be worthwhile, in a game that says "more danger equals higher potential rewards", you shouldn't have to choose between "less isk and ok rewards but also more fun vs better isk and more safety".



Of course, as it's been suggested in this thread, people in dangerous space could "just use more alts" to counter these inherent balance deficiencies, and then pretend like having to use more alts in dangerous space to equal what can be done with ONE CHARACTER in SAFE SPACE is totally the way it should work Twisted
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#349 - 2015-12-02 19:28:28 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:


Missed this. I understand it completely. It's not a game mechanic imbalance. It's an imbalance created by the players.

Your problem is that you live in a sea of blues in nullsec, and basically suffer from overpopulation. Sure it gives you some security, but it also causes resource competition. Reduce your blues/population and you will have more resources to share with those who remains. Of course, your level of security will go down a bit; but that is the trade off.

Now instead of fixing the real problems which were created by your own alliance, you look to either buff your null income or nerf the hisec income so your turf looks better. So yeah, until your alliance gets its house in order, you are basically whining.


So your answer to fixing the hardcap on how many people can PVE in null is to depopulate null...
FarosWarrior
NED-Clan
Goonswarm Federation
#350 - 2015-12-02 20:27:40 UTC  |  Edited by: FarosWarrior
The point that a lot of people here are making concerning null-sec vs high-sec income is the following:

High-sec:

1 PLAYER (not char) can take on infite amounts of missions in the same system.
100 players can take the same number of infinite (see what I did there?) missions, run them all and complete them in the SAME system on the SAME day.
1000 players can do the same etc. etc.

1 PLAYER with 2-3 alts doesn't make 2-3 times as much isk, more like 80-90% more per char because you have to switch to shoot/move/not die.

Null-sec (anomalies!)

1 player in 1 system can run all the sites he wants all day long. Depending on the system you can have several hubs, havens or sanctums at once, and you can cycle between them.
Add a player to that system, and if your system isn't true 0.0 you will already start to have fights over the best anomalies. Add even more players ( like a dozen) and a lot of people will start fighting over which site belongs to them. Null-sec anomaly income doesn't scale so well with more people in system.

Blitzing high-sec missions always yields more isk/hour than nullsec anomalies (annotation needed), and it scales incredibly well. You can have 1 player making 150m/hour, and if you add 100 more, those 100 players can all make 150m an hour. In null-sec, 1 player can make 60-80m an hour in an afktar. Add 100 players and about 95 of those will be twiddling thumbs in station doing nothing at all. The point is not only that high-sec income is higher than nullsec income, the point is that high-sec income is infinite, and null-sec isn't.

I have run anoms in nullsec and am running missions in high-sec, I know the struggle and the ease of both.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#351 - 2015-12-02 20:43:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Jenn aSide wrote:
Or you could just do this in high sec with a ship that cost about as much, with next to zero risk and much less effort (no scanning down sigs, bookmarking entrances and exist etc) while making the same isk. 500 mil Domi in WH space solo or a 600 mil mach in high sec solo. Which one makes more financial sense?

The answer is ALWAYS high sec. That's the problem (in this case it's yet again the problem of blitzing). The fix is to either eliminate blitzing OR make more stuff (like WH anomalies) some how 'bltizable' so that people who put in more effort/creativity can wring more wealth out of dangerous space like they can in safer space.

You're citing an outdated and extreme example of L3 blitzing. 2000 ISK/LP is probably unrealistic to use on a consistent basis, and I think the reality is more in the 1400-1600 ISK/LP range. If memory serves, there was also some recent discussion on how the 80m ISK ceiling was (for whatever reasons) no longer achievable and that 40-50m ISK/hour was a more accurate L3 blitz number.

Running standard L4s (shooting and looting) in 0.5-0.6 systems with typical (non-SoE) Empire agents will yield anywhere from 30-40m ISK/hour on average (± skills and the specific Faction). This can be greatly enhanced by accepting missions that damage opposing Faction standings. The odd lucky implant drop or storyline mission will further augment this. I've been able to hit over 200m ISK/hour running three characters, but this was influenced heavily by favorable mission draws.

I have consistently broken the 100m ISK/hour mark blitzing L4s/Burners solo with standard Empire agents, although this required a fairly substantial initial investment (one I'm still paying off).

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#352 - 2015-12-02 21:55:41 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Estella Osoka wrote:


Missed this. I understand it completely. It's not a game mechanic imbalance. It's an imbalance created by the players.

Your problem is that you live in a sea of blues in nullsec, and basically suffer from overpopulation. Sure it gives you some security, but it also causes resource competition. Reduce your blues/population and you will have more resources to share with those who remains. Of course, your level of security will go down a bit; but that is the trade off.

Now instead of fixing the real problems which were created by your own alliance, you look to either buff your null income or nerf the hisec income so your turf looks better. So yeah, until your alliance gets its house in order, you are basically whining.


So your answer to fixing the hardcap on how many people can PVE in null is to depopulate null...


Or maybe you spread out some. After all, ya'll pretty much focused in one area of nullsec. Vast swaths are pretty much barren, and I know it's mostly because they are so damn far out there. Players want to stay within jump distance so they can get their goods from/to hisec, and that is also a problem; but more of logistics and bad structure design by CCP.

A somewhat good suggestion I heard in another thread, merge all the missions. Have mission agents give out security, distribution, and mining missions. No specialized agents for mining missions, no specialized agents for distribution mission, etc. Put all the missions in the same pool. This could possibly kill blitzing as you will prolly have a lot more missions to decline to stick to the good ones.

The real problems with mission running is that they are predictable; and since they are, can easily be farmed by blitzing. Payouts/rewards are fine. Just need to switch up the missions and make them unpredictable and different. I'm not saying completely new mission, but maybe jazz up the ones we have. Change triggers, add more neut and webbing towers, add more scrams, add a little more dps.

Now, someone answer me why there are not any L5 mission agents in NPC null, and why can't there be some way to install mission agents in SOV null?
FarosWarrior
NED-Clan
Goonswarm Federation
#353 - 2015-12-02 22:06:14 UTC
Estella Osoka wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Estella Osoka wrote:


Missed this. I understand it completely. It's not a game mechanic imbalance. It's an imbalance created by the players.

Your problem is that you live in a sea of blues in nullsec, and basically suffer from overpopulation. Sure it gives you some security, but it also causes resource competition. Reduce your blues/population and you will have more resources to share with those who remains. Of course, your level of security will go down a bit; but that is the trade off.

Now instead of fixing the real problems which were created by your own alliance, you look to either buff your null income or nerf the hisec income so your turf looks better. So yeah, until your alliance gets its house in order, you are basically whining.


So your answer to fixing the hardcap on how many people can PVE in null is to depopulate null...


Or maybe you spread out some. After all, ya'll pretty much focused in one area of nullsec. Vast swaths are pretty much barren, and I know it's mostly because they are so damn far out there. Players want to stay within jump distance so they can get their goods from/to hisec, and that is also a problem; but more of logistics and bad structure design by CCP.

A somewhat good suggestion I heard in another thread, merge all the missions. Have mission agents give out security, distribution, and mining missions. No specialized agents for mining missions, no specialized agents for distribution mission, etc. Put all the missions in the same pool. This could possibly kill blitzing as you will prolly have a lot more missions to decline to stick to the good ones.

The real problems with mission running is that they are predictable; and since they are, can easily be farmed by blitzing. Payouts/rewards are fine. Just need to switch up the missions and make them unpredictable and different. I'm not saying completely new mission, but maybe jazz up the ones we have. Change triggers, add more neut and webbing towers, add more scrams, add a little more dps.

Now, someone answer me why there are not any L5 mission agents in NPC null, and why can't there be some way to install mission agents in SOV null?


Or: make it so that blitzing is completely impossible...
Estella Osoka
Cranky Bitches Who PMS
#354 - 2015-12-02 22:17:38 UTC
FarosWarrior wrote:
Estella Osoka wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Estella Osoka wrote:


Missed this. I understand it completely. It's not a game mechanic imbalance. It's an imbalance created by the players.

Your problem is that you live in a sea of blues in nullsec, and basically suffer from overpopulation. Sure it gives you some security, but it also causes resource competition. Reduce your blues/population and you will have more resources to share with those who remains. Of course, your level of security will go down a bit; but that is the trade off.

Now instead of fixing the real problems which were created by your own alliance, you look to either buff your null income or nerf the hisec income so your turf looks better. So yeah, until your alliance gets its house in order, you are basically whining.


So your answer to fixing the hardcap on how many people can PVE in null is to depopulate null...


Or maybe you spread out some. After all, ya'll pretty much focused in one area of nullsec. Vast swaths are pretty much barren, and I know it's mostly because they are so damn far out there. Players want to stay within jump distance so they can get their goods from/to hisec, and that is also a problem; but more of logistics and bad structure design by CCP.

A somewhat good suggestion I heard in another thread, merge all the missions. Have mission agents give out security, distribution, and mining missions. No specialized agents for mining missions, no specialized agents for distribution mission, etc. Put all the missions in the same pool. This could possibly kill blitzing as you will prolly have a lot more missions to decline to stick to the good ones.

The real problems with mission running is that they are predictable; and since they are, can easily be farmed by blitzing. Payouts/rewards are fine. Just need to switch up the missions and make them unpredictable and different. I'm not saying completely new mission, but maybe jazz up the ones we have. Change triggers, add more neut and webbing towers, add more scrams, add a little more dps.

Now, someone answer me why there are not any L5 mission agents in NPC null, and why can't there be some way to install mission agents in SOV null?


Or: make it so that blitzing is completely impossible...


Who asked you?
FarosWarrior
NED-Clan
Goonswarm Federation
#355 - 2015-12-02 22:45:27 UTC
Nobody asked me anything, but since it is a public forum I have all the right to respond...

And if the problem is blitzing = more isk that healthy then you simply remove the blitzing part. Make it so that certain missions which are currently easy to blitz and that make a lot of isk/lp aren't blitzable anymore. If you remove mission types and make 1 big mission pool you will probably cause more annoyance if anything.

Problem solved. Null-seccers are happy that highsec doesn't make ungodly amounts of isk anymore, and the carebears can do what they like which is solo lvl4's.
Daniela Doran
Doomheim
#356 - 2015-12-02 22:49:10 UTC
FarosWarrior wrote:
The point that a lot of people here are making concerning null-sec vs high-sec income is the following:

High-sec:

1 PLAYER (not char) can take on infite amounts of missions in the same system.
100 players can take the same number of infinite (see what I did there?) missions, run them all and complete them in the SAME system on the SAME day.
1000 players can do the same etc. etc.

1 PLAYER with 2-3 alts doesn't make 2-3 times as much isk, more like 80-90% more per char because you have to switch to shoot/move/not die.

Null-sec (anomalies!)

1 player in 1 system can run all the sites he wants all day long. Depending on the system you can have several hubs, havens or sanctums at once, and you can cycle between them.
Add a player to that system, and if your system isn't true 0.0 you will already start to have fights over the best anomalies. Add even more players ( like a dozen) and a lot of people will start fighting over which site belongs to them. Null-sec anomaly income doesn't scale so well with more people in system.

Blitzing high-sec missions always yields more isk/hour than nullsec anomalies (annotation needed), and it scales incredibly well. You can have 1 player making 150m/hour, and if you add 100 more, those 100 players can all make 150m an hour. In null-sec, 1 player can make 60-80m an hour in an afktar. Add 100 players and about 95 of those will be twiddling thumbs in station doing nothing at all. The point is not only that high-sec income is higher than nullsec income, the point is that high-sec income is infinite, and null-sec isn't.

I have run anoms in nullsec and am running missions in high-sec, I know the struggle and the ease of both.


Then this is a problem in null sec and should be looked at. Perhaps by buffing and adding lots more missions that are available there. As for anoms, I hear that there is a lot of empty space in null so the players just need to spread themselves out a bit more.

By all means this does not warrant a nerf to hi-sec income. The income in hi-sec is infinite but very limited in quality. The only way for a normal missions runner to make above 80 mill an hour in hi-sec is to have multiple accounts and the missions that pay anything decent are only SOE & Thurker Tribe.
FarosWarrior
NED-Clan
Goonswarm Federation
#357 - 2015-12-02 23:03:54 UTC  |  Edited by: FarosWarrior
Quote:
Then this is a problem in null sec and should be looked at. Perhaps by buffing and adding lots more missions that are available there. As for anoms, I hear that there is a lot of empty space in null so the players just need to spread themselves out a bit more.


While it is very much true that part of the problem is also in nullsec because many of the systems are unused, we would also need a significant buff to nullsec PvE mechanics. I ran anomalies in Providence (yeah I know, not the best blablabla), but as soon as you have 5-6 people in system that are running said anoms, the system is getting full and overtaxed. What I'm meaning is that highsec doesn't have such a limit. As it is now a system can more comfortably support a whole army of miners than a hand full of anomaly runners.

EDIT: You also NEED an army of miners to keep the industry index up while a few anomaly runners can keep the other index up.

Quote:
By all means this does not warrant a nerf to hi-sec income. The income in hi-sec is infinite but very limited in quality. The only way for a normal missions runner to make above 80 mill an hour in hi-sec is to have multiple accounts and the missions that pay anything decent are only SOE & Thurker Tribe.


I wasn't suggesting a nerf to high-sec income, perhaps only to the ability to blitz many of them. And SoE/Thukker aren't the only corps 'worth' running for, for others you just have to be a bit more creative.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#358 - 2015-12-02 23:20:05 UTC
get rid of blitzing and I just go to afk mjd fof barghests (maybe golems, the MJD cd reduction is pretty awesome), and run a few at the same time. At least with blitzing I have to be at the keyboard and pay attention.

Agents used to give out missions at random. The distribution was based on what division the agent worked for. And no one liked it then, I doubt anyone would want that system coming back, or worse, every mission being completely random.

as far as "randomized missions" who cares if it is predictable or not if it is still easy. And if it is too hard, that is almost equally as uninteresting. Look at drifters, they are kinda easy to kill, except for the 700k damage doomsday. The switch from too easy to too hard swaps way too fast. although now it looks like people have learned to sig tank them and imo that pushes it into uninteresting territory. Obfuscating the triggers a bit already happens, In many missions the spawns are typically slightly random. however it is still pretty easy to tell, that could get a little more random.

lv5 null agents would probably give out so much lp they are imbalanced, or drop normal mission runner's lp value (or both). although would probably be content worth fighting over. Standard agents, sounds like it was hinted at with citadels. My main concern is how much farming would occur. I can only imagine an LP value curbstomp. Maybe that would be a good thing overall? Or perhaps it would draw enough player hunters that it never happens? At the same time I can hear groans of "I did enough missions in high, I want something different in null" Personally I'd rather see something more group oriented, and potentially contestable, and certainly yoinkable.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#359 - 2015-12-02 23:34:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Hasikan Miallok
It would be interesting to know exactly how many people actually blitz missions for 100 mill per hour plus. It seems to me the bulk of mission runners get nothing like that and many newer players spend over an hour on one level 4 mission that may return 20 mill ISK if they are lucky.

It is highly unlikely that the handful of people making 100 mill plus per hour as an ACTIVE activity are online enough to be having that much effect on the EVE economy.

Nerfing mission running on the basis that some minuscule percentage of older high SPcharacters can make good ISK in level 4 missions (rather than running 5s in a Carrier in losec or whatever ) is likely to seriously effect newer players and probably be detrimental overall.
Chainsaw Plankton
FaDoyToy
#360 - 2015-12-02 23:39:57 UTC
FarosWarrior wrote:
Nobody asked me anything, but since it is a public forum I have all the right to respond...

And if the problem is blitzing = more isk that healthy then you simply remove the blitzing part. Make it so that certain missions which are currently easy to blitz and that make a lot of isk/lp aren't blitzable anymore. If you remove mission types and make 1 big mission pool you will probably cause more annoyance if anything.

Problem solved. Null-seccers are happy that highsec doesn't make ungodly amounts of isk anymore, and the carebears can do what they like which is solo lvl4's.

I think it is worth noting the primary reward from blitzing is LP, and LP is an isk sink. personally I'd rather have more isk sinks than we do now (how many more is a good question that I have no idea how to even start to answer). Although the 700b XL citadel bpos should be interesting in that regard.

@ChainsawPlankto on twitter