EVE General Discussion

If you are going to whine about losing income you cannot say my point does not count.

You dont want to lose this isk yet you refuse to do missions in a way that would produce even greater isk. Its your logic that is wonky here. You either do not care about isk income in which case there is no issue or you do do them for isk in which case you should be blitzing them in which case there is no issue.

I would ask PL how much assets they had locked in B-R that was enough to throw 59 Titans at and then ask N3 how much stuff is locked into 0-W. Risk in a WH is what you are flying in, risk in 0.0 is an entire coalitions assets.

Not even close to true. If you think WH dwellers have nothing to risk other than their current ship then you don't understand what living in a hole is like. Your notion is only true for daytrippers.

You are also conveniently ignoring the fact that many of those assets you mentioned are mobile platforms capable of defending your claim with near instant travel for huge fleets.

When was the last time you had a deadzoned WH, trapping trillions of assets in it?

When was the last time you saw a WH fight involving a trillion isk in ship losses?

This change is going to hurt low SP players badly. Since they lack the SP to blitz missions, their main source of income will be from mission loot, and CCP just kicked them in the balls. This is basically a nerf against newbies.

Little PSA for everyone advocating blitizing over full loot/salvage. I used to be a 100% blitzer, but I've discovered that the marauder rebalance in combination with MTUs changes this dynamic quite a bit. I take a hybrid approach now.

How, in the name of all that is holy, did you come to that conclusion? Please explain your perfect math behind a 45% nerf to their income from a 27% reduction in the value of a single type of their loot.

Dude
mission income is comprised of:
1. Mission Reward
2. Mission Bonus
3. Bounties
4. LP reward
5. Salvaged materials
6. Loot to list for sale
7. Loot to process

The only one being changed is number 7, and that is by 27%.

Now we all know that rewards and LP make up the majority of a missions value, but lets for arguments sake equally split those, so each is worth 100% / 7 of the reward. That means each component is worth 14.3% of the total mission income. Now if the last part of that is being nerfed to 73% of it's old value (100-27) that means it will now be worth (relative to the old 100%) 10.4%. That means the total mission loot is nerfed by 14.3-10.4 = 3.9%.

Except that "you should be blitzing them" is based on the ability to blitz missions, and the current state of affairs wherein not everyone blitzes them.

A) Not everyone has enough time in a block to effectively blitz missions. When I used to run highsec missions, it was becuase I could sneak in a mission and a salvage run of that mission before work. I couldn't effectively do 2 missions back-to-back blitz-style unless I happened to be very lucky with the missions, getting easily-blitzed ones, or ones that were short and easily completed. Thankfully I've been able to change my play habits and avoid highsec missions altogether since then, but "just blitz missions" was never practical for me. If I DID have time to blitz them, I went and did Incursions instead.

B) If no one (or even just very, very few people) looted missions, those components from the mission loot and salvage would... become much more rare. That would (via supply and demand) cause their value to rise; especially those modules that are already in demand such as meta 3 and 4 damage controls, most forms of meta 4 EWAR modules, and some other ones.

C) Simultaneously, if everyone blitzed missions all the time, there would be a lot more loyalty point stuff on the market and thus its price would fall.

Now, the upshot of this is that Dinsdle hasn't bothered to consider this effect either - if looting has suddenly become worth a lot less, fewer people will do it, supply will drop, prices will rise, and income from looting missions will trend back towards where it originally was.

Still, you and the rest of this "we did all this research, and blitzing highsec missions produces all this income!" crowd are either not thinking all the way through the ramifications of claiming people are "doing it wrong" by looting missions and what the potential effects would be of everyone starting to do it "right". You're also not considering different play habits.

I by no means think this change is a bad thing; I can certainly see the benefits of it to the overall game, but really, it's one of two things- you guys are deliberately letting the second-and-third-order effects remain unstated hoping no one will notice, or you just can't be assed to think them all the way through because you're looking for a way to confirm what you believe about relative income rather than doing research with a "find the facts first" mentality.

Yes, BPO/BPC levels would affect it. You would have to get a completely perfect BPO to do it with 0 loss, which with the railgun I would be at ML 491, way past the point of being worth it. To see the prefect amounts look up the BPO here. Realistically, you are always going to have tiny losses due to it being pointless to research a blueprint for years to save on a few hundred tritanium.

At the absolute perfect ML and ME skill, you'd get back exactly 100% of what you put in under the current system. You could never refine more mineral than you put in.

But to see your yield, if in a reprocess window it says 0 wasted and 0 taken as tax, that's a perfect refine.

Oh gotcha

Yeah I see where I was going wrong, my data set for comparisons was the entirely wrong stats.

My friend will be very pleased to know he has been doing it at the best possible level all along.

He will be very unpleased to find he's going to take a small hit in that, but meh thats cool.