These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Do Level 4 missions pay too much compared to 1 through 3?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#761 - 2013-09-06 20:29:16 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Only if one hasn't read how to chain spawn the belt rats.


There is a 10 to 20 minute respawn time on chaining. Most systems also have too few belts to do this effectively as you need a lot of belts to do this.

Even under perfect conditions you will make much more isk running anoms or high sec missions and a lot more in incursions. Infact you can be earning more mining ice in null at times.
Captain Tardbar
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#762 - 2013-09-06 20:29:43 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Captain Tardbar wrote:
Oh good lord. Didn't you take basic high school science?

When you are trying to prove a hypothesis, you do not ask people to go gather data on their own. You do the research and provide the data in some format to prove your argument for them.

If you can't provide the data, then you aren't even bothering tyring to prove your argument. I'm not trying to prove any point didn't you read. Its not the job of the person questioning your argument to come up with the data. That falls soley on you.

And if you cannot do that then we have to assume that there is no data to begin with because none was provided directly.

So sorry, telling people to look up the data on their own is not an acceptable way to prove an argument.

There isn't anything else to argue at this point.

I'm going to play some War Thunder and go to bed so I'll keep telling you the same truths sometime tomorrow.


Even better I teach high school science and I can tell, from my class pretty much all of them could make better posts than these highsec pubbies do. I proved the data to you, you just failed the intelligence test and are throwing a ~~o7o7o7o7m8m8m8m8~~highsec tantrum~~o7o7o7o7m8m8m8m8~~.

You made the claim that highsec is not completely safe, follow your own rules and prove it, until then my proof prevails.

~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~


Using google is not an intelligence test. How can I use google to prove you right when I suspect the data doesn't exist. I could type in "high sec and null sec income comparisons"

Ok so I did:

https://www.google.com/search?q=high+sec+and+null+sec+income+comparisons&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Yet I see no evidence to prove you right. Just a bunch of threads that have no CCP data. There is one thread that actually says high sec mission runners make 20 million per hour which is quite less than the stated 130 million. If I am doing it wrong please tell me what I should type in google to find your obscure data.

The burden of proof lies on you at this to google it for me and come up with the links because an initial google search comes up with no CCP data. This isn't an intelligence test at all other than you are looking like the fool for saying there is data, but yet none seems to exist.

If you can't do that, then I am going to assume the data doesn't exist and your making stuff up. Sorry to rain on your parade.

Looking to talk on VOIP with other EVE players? Are you new and need help with EVE (welfare) or looking for advice? Looking for adversarial debate with angry people?

Captain Tardbar's Voice Discord Server
Caliph Muhammed
Perkone
Caldari State
#763 - 2013-09-06 20:42:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Caliph Muhammed
baltec1 wrote:
Caliph Muhammed wrote:
Only if one hasn't read how to chain spawn the belt rats.


There is a 10 to 20 minute respawn time on chaining. Most systems also have too few belts to do this effectively as you need a lot of belts to do this.

Even under perfect conditions you will make much more isk running anoms or high sec missions and a lot more in incursions. Infact you can be earning more mining ice in null at times.



You can't make a fair comparison by saying you can make x more doing this activity compared to that one though Baltec.

Case in point I can make billions of ISK per day trading in Jita. Does that mean that trading in Jita is OP? (I don't make billions per day, but its theoretically possible)
Onictus
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#764 - 2013-09-06 22:33:14 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Caliph Muhammed wrote:


Case in point I can make billions of ISK per day trading in Jita. Does that mean that trading in Jita is OP? (I don't make billions per day, but its theoretically possible)


*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal trade hubs are completely player generated. I can make billions screwing with my allaince's trade hubs.....I'd get kicked for it, but its certainly possible.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#765 - 2013-09-06 22:36:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Jenn aSide wrote:


The proof of this is EVE online's "murder rate" so to speak. EVERY part of EVE space outside of high sec has much higher rates of ships being killed than high sec.


... I did not know Jita (and other trade hubs) were outside of high sec.



Jenn aSide wrote:

Saying CONCORD doesn't give protection is the exact same thing as saying "murder being illegal doesn't stop murder therefore the law has failed." I'm most cases, the law did prevent murder, only the most determined murders actually commit the act.

It would be nice is ccp turned off concord for 20 minute sin high sec to demonstrate this point lol.


Like I would care. I have been in FW for a year and have been in hostile high sec and have driven haulers through their camps.
It's not that hard, really.

As for your comparison between Concord and RL police / law does not apply. In RL you won't just dock your -10 alt in an Orca, you won't just biomass and restart. In RL you get put in jail and stay there, *that* is the security factor. Not because police finds you but because of the ~consequences~ of being found.

In EvE there's no consequence therefore the police only deters completely free shooting or "pure FFA".

In EvE you will greatly risk your expensive ship in any PvP encounter outside high sec. Let's say you risk 30% to lose a 200M ship to kill another 200M ship to make an example.

In hi sec if you decide to gank you risk 100% to lose a 10M ship to kill a 200M ship (i.e. a bad tanked miner).

Your efficiency at killing in hi sec is utterly better than doing it outside of hi sec, so I would not call it exactly "hi sec = safe" as it's very convenient to kill in hi sec.

What you DO get in hi sec, is the granted loss of the 10M ship (unless you exploit) and a big incentive at picking the low hanging fruits. But that's a retribution, not safety.

It's the operating cost for "overriding the system and go FFA anyway".

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#766 - 2013-09-07 00:29:38 UTC
Captain Tardbar wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
I proved the data to you, you just failed the intelligence test and are throwing a ~~o7o7o7o7m8m8m8m8~~highsec tantrum~~o7o7o7o7m8m8m8m8~~.

You made the claim that highsec is not completely safe, follow your own rules and prove it, until then my proof prevails.

~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~


Using google is not an intelligence test. How can I use google to prove you right when I suspect the data doesn't exist. I could type in "high sec and null sec income comparisons"

Ok so I did:

https://www.google.com/search?q=high+sec+and+null+sec+income+comparisons&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Yet I see no evidence to prove you right. Just a bunch of threads that have no CCP data. There is one thread that actually says high sec mission runners make 20 million per hour which is quite less than the stated 130 million. If I am doing it wrong please tell me what I should type in google to find your obscure data.

The burden of proof lies on you at this to google it for me and come up with the links because an initial google search comes up with no CCP data. This isn't an intelligence test at all other than you are looking like the fool for saying there is data, but yet none seems to exist.

If you can't do that, then I am going to assume the data doesn't exist and your making stuff up. Sorry to rain on your parade.


Captain "Tard" bar failed the intelligence test, you can take the test as many times as you like and following your logic you made the claim now prove it. I already proved my claim, and I am not going to enable your entitlement complex by passing the intelligence test for you.

You still have to prove how this is not true:

~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#767 - 2013-09-07 00:55:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
La Nariz wrote:

You still have to prove how this is not true:

~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~

Define "safe" please. Of the 3 definitions I've found which may be applicable, highsec occupancy objectively doesn't meet 2 of them.
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#768 - 2013-09-07 00:57:52 UTC
La Nariz wrote:

You still have to prove how this is not true:

~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~



1. burn jita
2. hulkagedden
3. ice intradiction.

Did Concord prevent any of these, no.

your witness.

As proven, in player driven content, it up to the player base to make it unsafe. working as intended.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#769 - 2013-09-07 01:04:07 UTC  |  Edited by: La Nariz
GetSirrus wrote:
La Nariz wrote:

You still have to prove how this is not true:

~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~



1. burn jita
2. hulkagedden
3. ice intradiction.

Did Concord prevent any of these, no.

your witness.

As proven, in player driven content, it up to the player base to make it unsafe. working as intended.


I too can :hannity: it:

1. concord,
2. gate guns,
3. faction police,
4. non-capturable stations,
5. wardec immune npc corps,
6. bubbles not allowed,
7. bombs not allowed,
8. cynos not allowed,
9. doomsday not allowed,
10. security status,
11. non-saleable killrights,
12. 1 man corps.

Therefore:
~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~

Tyberius Franklin wrote:
La Nariz wrote:

You still have to prove how this is not true:

~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~

Define "safe" please. Of the 3 definitions I've found, highsec occupancy objectively doesn't meet 2 of them.


I can't spoil it just yet that'd be enabling captain "tard" bar's entitlement complex. Wait for his attempts at passing the intelligence test before I give you the definition. Until then:

~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~

I've yet to see a good argument why the reward from missions shouldn't be skewed towards newbees either by nerfing L4 rewards and increasing L1/2/3.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#770 - 2013-09-07 02:25:32 UTC
La Nariz wrote:


I've yet to see a good argument why the reward from missions shouldn't be skewed towards newbees either by nerfing L4 rewards and increasing L1/2/3.


So let's find out what vet/older/more skilled player do in mission enabling much more income and nerf that right? We need to kill the demand for LP items so blitzing for LP (what newbee can't/won't really make until they learn about it because thats where the money is.

You can't reduce the LP payout because all this will do is create more rarity.

Nerfing bounties is effectively killing a good part of the isk/hours of the newbie because he is most likely to kill all rats before leaving a mission.

I guess you could nerf the mission direct ISK payout but that apply to some reverse Malcanis' law. A nerf to balance something toward the newbie will actually hinder the newbie more because the payout os a bigger part of thier isk/hours than LP as opposed to the vet/older player.
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#771 - 2013-09-07 02:34:56 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


I've yet to see a good argument why the reward from missions shouldn't be skewed towards newbees either by nerfing L4 rewards and increasing L1/2/3.


So let's find out what vet/older/more skilled player do in mission enabling much more income and nerf that right? We need to kill the demand for LP items so blitzing for LP (what newbee can't/won't really make until they learn about it because thats where the money is.

You can't reduce the LP payout because all this will do is create more rarity.

Nerfing bounties is effectively killing a good part of the isk/hours of the newbie because he is most likely to kill all rats before leaving a mission.

I guess you could nerf the mission direct ISK payout but that apply to some reverse Malcanis' law. A nerf to balance something toward the newbie will actually hinder the newbie more because the payout os a bigger part of thier isk/hours than LP as opposed to the vet/older player.


So the question you are asking is, how, I leave how in CCP's hands. The answer is making L1/2/3 better and L4 worse. It requires a complex solution since adjusting LP/isk isn't going to do it. I didn't expect this thread to actually get to working on how so I'll have to hash something out.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#772 - 2013-09-07 02:38:56 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


I've yet to see a good argument why the reward from missions shouldn't be skewed towards newbees either by nerfing L4 rewards and increasing L1/2/3.


So let's find out what vet/older/more skilled player do in mission enabling much more income and nerf that right? We need to kill the demand for LP items so blitzing for LP (what newbee can't/won't really make until they learn about it because thats where the money is.

You can't reduce the LP payout because all this will do is create more rarity.

Nerfing bounties is effectively killing a good part of the isk/hours of the newbie because he is most likely to kill all rats before leaving a mission.

I guess you could nerf the mission direct ISK payout but that apply to some reverse Malcanis' law. A nerf to balance something toward the newbie will actually hinder the newbie more because the payout os a bigger part of thier isk/hours than LP as opposed to the vet/older player.


So the question you are asking is, how, I leave how in CCP's hands. The answer is making L1/2/3 better and L4 worse. It requires a complex solution since adjusting LP/isk isn't going to do it. I didn't expect this thread to actually get to working on how so I'll have to hash something out.

The l4 running newbies?

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#773 - 2013-09-07 02:41:09 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


I've yet to see a good argument why the reward from missions shouldn't be skewed towards newbees either by nerfing L4 rewards and increasing L1/2/3.


So let's find out what vet/older/more skilled player do in mission enabling much more income and nerf that right? We need to kill the demand for LP items so blitzing for LP (what newbee can't/won't really make until they learn about it because thats where the money is.

You can't reduce the LP payout because all this will do is create more rarity.

Nerfing bounties is effectively killing a good part of the isk/hours of the newbie because he is most likely to kill all rats before leaving a mission.

I guess you could nerf the mission direct ISK payout but that apply to some reverse Malcanis' law. A nerf to balance something toward the newbie will actually hinder the newbie more because the payout os a bigger part of thier isk/hours than LP as opposed to the vet/older player.


So the question you are asking is, how, I leave how in CCP's hands. The answer is making L1/2/3 better and L4 worse. It requires a complex solution since adjusting LP/isk isn't going to do it. I didn't expect this thread to actually get to working on how so I'll have to hash something out.

The l4 running newbies?


The very same newbies that are mining in hulks and being kept safe by npc corps

~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#774 - 2013-09-07 02:41:32 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


I've yet to see a good argument why the reward from missions shouldn't be skewed towards newbees either by nerfing L4 rewards and increasing L1/2/3.


So let's find out what vet/older/more skilled player do in mission enabling much more income and nerf that right? We need to kill the demand for LP items so blitzing for LP (what newbee can't/won't really make until they learn about it because thats where the money is.

You can't reduce the LP payout because all this will do is create more rarity.

Nerfing bounties is effectively killing a good part of the isk/hours of the newbie because he is most likely to kill all rats before leaving a mission.

I guess you could nerf the mission direct ISK payout but that apply to some reverse Malcanis' law. A nerf to balance something toward the newbie will actually hinder the newbie more because the payout os a bigger part of thier isk/hours than LP as opposed to the vet/older player.


So the question you are asking is, how, I leave how in CCP's hands. The answer is making L1/2/3 better and L4 worse. It requires a complex solution since adjusting LP/isk isn't going to do it. I didn't expect this thread to actually get to working on how so I'll have to hash something out.


The messages will never pass unless there is explanation/details about what the re-balancing should include. As long as it's not provided, you will, to a **** load of people, always read like "the a-hole who hates my game play". The whole points die because they see a message with no backing.

We need to increase the taxes. -----> "**** the GOVT!!!!"

We need to increase the taxes because of X, Y and Z. ------> *discussion*
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#775 - 2013-09-07 02:43:13 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
long irrelevant list to muddy a response


not one thing on your list is immune to a suicide gank. not one.

but since you want to be irrelevant. you're the same one who tried to argue that earning isk and not being at the keyboard is against the EULA. therefore afk mining is an exploit?! you realise that auto piloting a freighter is earning isk while not being at keyboard. how many ganks by minilove of afk freighter piloting and how much isk did they earn? then cite the previous case decision againt Eve Uni for receiving then losing isk from a exploit by a 2nd party. and you're poor argument just cost your alliance billions. another post crafted with love?! I can feel it.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#776 - 2013-09-07 02:44:21 UTC
La Nariz wrote:
Alavaria Fera wrote:
La Nariz wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
La Nariz wrote:


I've yet to see a good argument why the reward from missions shouldn't be skewed towards newbees either by nerfing L4 rewards and increasing L1/2/3.


So let's find out what vet/older/more skilled player do in mission enabling much more income and nerf that right? We need to kill the demand for LP items so blitzing for LP (what newbee can't/won't really make until they learn about it because thats where the money is.

You can't reduce the LP payout because all this will do is create more rarity.

Nerfing bounties is effectively killing a good part of the isk/hours of the newbie because he is most likely to kill all rats before leaving a mission.

I guess you could nerf the mission direct ISK payout but that apply to some reverse Malcanis' law. A nerf to balance something toward the newbie will actually hinder the newbie more because the payout os a bigger part of thier isk/hours than LP as opposed to the vet/older player.


So the question you are asking is, how, I leave how in CCP's hands. The answer is making L1/2/3 better and L4 worse. It requires a complex solution since adjusting LP/isk isn't going to do it. I didn't expect this thread to actually get to working on how so I'll have to hash something out.

The l4 running newbies?


The very same newbies that are mining in hulks and being kept safe by npc corps

~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~


When exactly do you stop being a newbie? That definition can change the way people see that statement too. Someone could of skilled into a **** fit capable of grinding a L4 in 5 hours while knowing not much about the game so he would still be a newbie or not?
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#777 - 2013-09-07 02:47:50 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

When exactly do you stop being a newbie? That definition can change the way people see that statement too. Someone could of skilled into a **** fit capable of grinding a L4 in 5 hours while knowing not much about the game so he would still be a newbie or not?


I would say a six months to a year, subbed time. You have to differentiate stupid from newbee though.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#778 - 2013-09-07 03:22:46 UTC
GetSirrus wrote:
La Nariz wrote:

You still have to prove how this is not true:

~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~



1. burn jita
2. hulkagedden
3. ice intradiction.

Did Concord prevent any of these, no.

your witness.

As proven, in player driven content, it up to the player base to make it unsafe. working as intended.


If you look at the link I provided, it shows that high sec (with somehting like 70% of EVE's population) has less than 1/7th the ship deaths of Null sec (11% of EVE's population).

Real life police forces and laws didn't prevent Columbine, 9/11, the London Bombins, the bombings in spain and elsewhere. But those places STILL have fewer deaths than places like Syria and Somalia.

If this was a court case, the judge, jury, bailif and gallery would have laughed you out of the court room and back to law school.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#779 - 2013-09-07 03:24:51 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
GetSirrus wrote:
La Nariz wrote:

You still have to prove how this is not true:

~~~~Highsec is Safe~~~~



1. burn jita
2. hulkagedden
3. ice intradiction.

Did Concord prevent any of these, no.

your witness.

As proven, in player driven content, it up to the player base to make it unsafe. working as intended.


If you look at the link I provided, it shows that high sec (with somehting like 70% of EVE's population) has less than 1/7th the ship deaths of Null sec (11% of EVE's population).

Real life police forces and laws didn't prevent Columbine, 9/11, the London Bombins, the bombings in spain and elsewhere. But those places STILL have fewer deaths than places like Syria and Somalia.

If this was a court case, the judge, jury, bailif and gallery would have laughed you out of the court room and back to law school.

Good thing this is general discussion, where he will be taken seriously

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#780 - 2013-09-07 04:18:06 UTC
highsec is risky, buff highsec

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?