open All Channels
seplocked Missions & Complexes
blankseplocked Mission loot reduction int the next patch.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

HanibalLector
Posted - 2010.04.23 09:00:00 - [1]
 

I heard that the loot was to be reduced .. as if its not hard enough allready fighting ninja salvagers and thieves/gank squads. I understand that its due to loot crunching and the price of the minerls ect. I also agree that mining should be a lucrative path to choose in eve to make isk. I dont understand why you would take it away from thepeople who have spent just as much time , or more , training skills so that we can pve/pvp. If you going to reduce the ammount low meta loot drops ... cant you increase the frequency of the higher meta drops in the missions to make up for the difference? Why are we punishing the mission runners. I am a seasoned player .. but new to missions recently. It just doesnn't seem fair to the mission runner. Isn't there a solution that suits both?

silentalleycat
Posted - 2010.04.23 09:23:00 - [2]
 

IIRC only the amount of minerals you get after refining roguedrone droppings is being changed, one of the devblogs explained this.

On the other hand why you still salvaging and collecting loot my mission running alt gave up looting each mission a long time ago, for every 2 msiions the time spend looting and salvaging you can do a third mission and make more money, but than again for me it is not about making max isk/hour it is about having fun

Teinyhr
Minmatar
A Club for Reputable Gentlemen
Posted - 2010.04.23 09:47:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: silentalleycat
On the other hand why you still salvaging and collecting loot my mission running alt gave up looting each mission a long time ago, for every 2 msiions the time spend looting and salvaging you can do a third mission and make more money, but than again for me it is not about making max isk/hour it is about having fun



Why loot? Because if you don't you might miss out on a juicy meta 4 drop, granted it is very rare to find such. Those things tend to sell for way more than T2 mods for inferior performance, I think the DCU Meta 4 mods still cost something like 20+mill when you can get a T2 DCU for ~900k ISK with a neglicible CPU need difference. One must be really starving for CPU if they're willing to pay that much for 13 less CPU use.
Arbalest heavy launchers are about 9 million ISK a pop last I checked, they were always pricey but only became pricier since loldrake. On some rare occasion you might get a BPO or an Implant. I still remember when I was a new-ish player and downed a stray arch-angel frigate on a 0.7 system, it dropped an implant worth of about 8 million ISK which was for someone just out of the academy a lot of ISK. Aaand someone has to salvage for PvP enthusiasts to get their shiny rigs. I generally discard anything that is not named when I salvage, the amount of minerals from refining useless mods is not that significant IMO, altough I suppose enough small streams form up to rivers.

Nika Dekaia
Posted - 2010.04.23 12:25:00 - [4]
 

You might want to read the blog about this: Dev Blog

The meta 0 mods will be compensated by tags or somesuch, and in the end, the mission runner income should (but hopefully will not) be as before.

Lvl 4 high sec misions pay too much for no risk, so at least a little reduction would be in order.

RasaelWolf
Caldari
APEX ARDENT COALITION
C0NVICTED
Posted - 2010.04.23 13:10:00 - [5]
 

This just isn't fair, first they nerf mining, they nerf loot drops.

Everyone loves a meta 4 drop so looting is really worth it.
Miners are just as dedicated to what they're doing as pvp'ers, so is it fair to nerf they're profession.
Sure this makes eve a hell lot more interesting cause everyone chooses to mission or pvp, since mining doesn't have any profit in it.

Imo, CCP shouldn't do it like this, if they want EVE to be more pvp orientated, they should just fix all the ships to be almost as equal, for first buff gallente, and nerf angel. If those changes would be made now, the amount of pvp'ers would surely grow, since everyone would have even a small chance against someone else.

Since atm, not too many gallente pilots wanna go out to pvp since blasters suck. And for the rest is that when they first encounter dramiel while flying in a cruiser, and get killed, they will stop pvp'ing so much.

But yeah, nerfing the loot drops is just ridicilous, sure mission runners get a ****load of isk atm, but i dont think that nerfing the loot drops isn't going to make much of a difference, it just drops the new player interest rate cause they wont get so much cash out of missions (assuming that every new player does some missions in the first place)

So, by these talks, pvp is going to be increased, there will be more noobs to kill, and all the big alliances can get nice laughs out of killing noobs.

KTHXBAI

Punctator
Posted - 2010.04.23 15:43:00 - [6]
 

eve needs many bufs - not nerfs.
the game where all fun was nerfed, becasue all players flying in crap, is boring.
nerfing is saying - we dont have idea how to balance this game in my opinion.
it should be a game about adventures, ships and fighting - not a game about ISK
If ccp will nerf more and more methods of earning isks - then more eve will be game about isk,
and less about pvp, more about hisec ganking - less about fleet 0.0 fighting.
this is my personal opinion about eve, as a player who played 3 or 4 years.

Boltorano
Fourth Circle
Total Comfort
Posted - 2010.04.23 16:44:00 - [7]
 

Although I haven't run missions in over a year, I have been hoping for the removal of Meta 0 drops from missions for a long time now.

CCP is trying to continue their years long transition from a primarily NPC sourced market to an almost exclusively player-sourced market (everything except minerals and named/faction/officer equipment coming from players directly).

This is only a good thing.

Shirei Fenikkusu
Knights of the Eternal Flame
Posted - 2010.04.23 20:00:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Shirei Fenikkusu on 23/04/2010 20:01:31
heh, Missions don't need to be nerfed.

It is not an entirely no risk activity. Griefers steal/salvage mission wrecks. Pirates energy neutralize tanks to get easy kills. On top of that, some missions have a high risk of drawing full aggro, which can break even the hardest tank.

Yes, lvl 4 mission runners make more than high-sec miners.

No, they do not make more than null-sec ratters/complex runners.

*Don't know about null-sec mining, because frankly I haven't run the numbers.*

What they are going to do with this changes is cut out meta 0 loot and replace them with tags, metal scraps, and other goods. Unless they balance it right, we will most likely lose income due to this change. The changes also include more rogue drone loot, but they will have a lower volume. This can be good or bad, depending on the balance. But, I rarely get rogue drone missions as it is.

I personally think they should be nerfing null-sec ratting and complexes. It is too easy to make billions out there at very little risk, especially with the permanent anomallies instituted with Dominion. Upgrade a system to Military Index 5, and run the "Guristas Sanctum" anomaly for 50mil an hour in bounties, more with loot and salvage. Finish that? Warp off and scan again for another anomaly. I'm lucky if I even scratch that with 2 hours of missioning. Null-sec does come with more risk, but easily minimized with proper alliance organization. (intel channels and such)

Anyway....(^_^) Don't nerf me missions!



Von Kapiche
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.04.24 00:04:00 - [9]
 

Stop playing the victim, it's part of an attempt to balance the rate minerals get into the system. They mentioned replacing the drops with tags already. L4s are my sole income source as I have the attention span of a gnat atm and lose the ability to track trading and this is going to make so little difference to my overall income that I haven't given it a few seconds of worry. Storm in a teacup.

Larinioides cornutus
Posted - 2010.04.24 00:59:00 - [10]
 

nerfing Meta 0 items also affect plexers and ratters as well, not just mission runners. If this also reduce the chance of meta0 items dropping off player wrecks (which include many items not normally dropped from missions rats) it's be a huge drop in mineral supply, and thus give the mineral faucet more into miners's control, it's all for the greater good.

Next would be to replace all meta 1-4 mod drop with BPC of them as suggested many times before...

sentinel22uk
Super Batungwaa Ninja Warriors
Posted - 2010.04.24 01:07:00 - [11]
 

sup hanibal :)

Lani Sun
Posted - 2010.04.24 01:42:00 - [12]
 

Yep, Missions need to be nerfed.

It is pretty much an entirely riskfree activity. With the guides posted for all missions they are quite simple to do and many are even afk'able.

Indeed, lvl 4 mission runners make much more than high-sec miners and prettty much most other professions.

And yes, they also make more than most null-sec ratters/complex runners.

I personally think they should be nerfing lvl 4 missions which are comparatively easy as compared to how dangerous it is to go to null-sec and do ratting and plexes. It is too easy to make billions in lvl 4 missions compared to the very rare high isk drops in plexes (which most people never see).

Anyway.... they should nerf missions!

Boltorano
Fourth Circle
Total Comfort
Posted - 2010.04.24 01:52:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Larinioides cornutus
*snip* If this also reduce the chance of meta0 items dropping off player wrecks *snip*


Whoever said that would happen?

Party Scout
Posted - 2010.04.24 13:43:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Lani Sun
Yep, Missions need to be nerfed.

It is pretty much an entirely riskfree activity. With the guides posted for all missions they are quite simple to do and many are even afk'able.

Indeed, lvl 4 mission runners make much more than high-sec miners and prettty much most other professions.

And yes, they also make more than most null-sec ratters/complex runners.

I personally think they should be nerfing lvl 4 missions which are comparatively easy as compared to how dangerous it is to go to null-sec and do ratting and plexes. It is too easy to make billions in lvl 4 missions compared to the very rare high isk drops in plexes (which most people never see).

Anyway.... they should nerf missions!



No thanks. All paths should be viable in the game, not just PVP. This is a sandbox after all.

Instead of nerfing missions, boost mining. Make it an ACTIVE profession, not an AFK/boring one. Implement some skill and decision into it, and make it nice and profitable. There, more fun, and no useless mining.

I do agree with the change in the module drops. I have no problem with getting some tags/ISK instead of modules. Less minerals going into the economy will help miners and lvl 1 module builders in the end boosting economy, increasing mineral demand a bit.

Kazexinca
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.04.24 13:50:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Lani Sun
Yep, Missions need to be nerfed.



And yes, they also make more than most null-sec ratters/complex runners.




Honestly if you dont know what you are talking about dont comment.Rolling Eyes, thats the biggest peice of comedy writing/trolling I've seen in a while.

Seslana
Posted - 2010.04.29 06:33:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Seslana on 29/04/2010 06:35:27
Originally by: Kazexinca
Originally by: Lani Sun
Yep, Missions need to be nerfed.



And yes, they also make more than most null-sec ratters/complex runners.




Honestly if you dont know what you are talking about dont comment.Rolling Eyes, thats the biggest peice of comedy writing/trolling I've seen in a while.
I actually agree with Lani Sun, who posted a very eloquent argument. Missions indeed need to be nerfed and ratting / plexing improved. Kazexinca must be one of these missioning billionaires who flies without any risk at all in game, simply making afk isk, definitely nerf missions in hisec.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.04.29 06:54:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Nika Dekaia
You might want to read the blog about this: Dev Blog

The meta 0 mods will be compensated by tags or somesuch, and in the end, the mission runner income should (but hopefully will not) be as before.

Lvl 4 high sec misions pay too much for no risk, so at least a little reduction would be in order.



Not compensated, substituted by tags and scrapmental.

CCP will not leave the loot entry empty as that would change the loot distribution increasing the number of high meta items.
Substituting the removed meta 0 loot with almost worthless items (scrapmetal, low level NPC tags) will reduce the value of the loot but keep the number of looted items the same.

The net result will be to discourage looting as people will get a lot of scrapmetal.

Kiko Goatmaker
Posted - 2010.04.29 07:09:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Teinyhr
Why loot? Because if you don't you might miss out on a juicy meta 4 drop, granted it is very rare to find such. Those things tend to sell for way more than T2 mods for inferior performance, I think the DCU Meta 4 mods still cost something like 20+mill when you can get a T2 DCU for ~900k ISK with a neglicible CPU need difference. One must be really starving for CPU if they're willing to pay that much for 13 less CPU use.


You'd be surprised the number of Fleet BSs that run into CPU issues.

Blank Protection
State War Academy
Posted - 2010.04.29 07:35:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Blank Protection on 29/04/2010 07:36:05
Originally by: RasaelWolf
This just isn't fair, first they nerf mining, they nerf loot drops.

Everyone loves a meta 4 drop so looting is really worth it.
Miners are just as dedicated to what they're doing as pvp'ers, so is it fair to nerf they're profession.
Sure this makes eve a hell lot more interesting cause everyone chooses to mission or pvp, since mining doesn't have any profit in it.

But yeah, nerfing the loot drops is just ridicilous, sure mission runners get a ****load of isk atm, but i dont think that nerfing the loot drops isn't going to make much of a difference,

KTHXBAI


Eve has become more and more a pay for but not play game.

Its ridicilous to force more ppl into PvP because many just dont want to PvP but like the PvE part of the game, and the cost of loosing material/ISK in PvP are way to high and are to hard to compensate with mission running and mining because both get nerfed with every patch all the time.

Ppl are not getting forced into PvP but forced into the GTC selling to get there ISK because its getting harder and harder to earn it in game.
This is in CCP`s advantage and good thought over by them.
Its filling CCP`s pockets with RL money so they nerf ISK making again, more ppl go buy and selling GTC`s for ISK and the circel goes on.
Result is simple, Eve is becoming a game for the rich ppl who cant almost an endless ammount of money to buy and sell GTC`s for tons of ISK.

Btw, saying that that mission runners are making a ****load of money is the most ridicilous thought i ever heard.
Those who are making a ****load of money are the Corp/Alliances who own whole 0.0 space and there moons etc etc.

Ships and stuff have to payed with ISK, by nerfing the way to make that ISK in game like it has to be made ( with mission running and mining) is a death end.

Good real life money making business has been set up by CCP.ugh

Mineral market my a**.Wink



Ps* At least CCP can come up with a medium and large Tractor beam.
Looting and salvaging a ****loat of wrecks 40-80 Km away is insane.

Malelle Adelita
Posted - 2010.04.29 09:09:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Shirei Fenikkusu
Edited by: Shirei Fenikkusu on 23/04/2010 20:01:31
It is not an entirely no risk activity. Griefers steal/salvage mission wrecks. Pirates energy neutralize tanks to get easy kills. On top of that, some missions have a high risk of drawing full aggro, which can break even the hardest tank.


Griefers = Zero risk

Loot thieves = Zero Risk

Salvagers = Zero Risk

NPC aggro = Zero Risk

If your results vary, you are clearly doing it very wrong.

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.04.29 10:45:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: RasaelWolf
This just isn't fair, first they nerf mining, they nerf loot drops.


You do realise nerfing the loot drops is a boost to mining right?

Sgt Z3R0
Posted - 2010.04.29 12:33:00 - [22]
 

Sounds ok to me. I don't loot or salvage my missions anymore.

Jint Hikaru
OffWorld Exploration Inc
Posted - 2010.04.29 12:40:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Jint Hikaru on 29/04/2010 12:42:28
The majority of the minerals in Eve should come from miners.

Nerfing the low Meta drops on missions (and replacing them with equal value tags etc) will do a lot to help the miners. AND NOT AFFECT YOUR MISSION INCOME AT ALL!

I fail to see what the problem is.

EDIT:
Ok I may have missread the Blog.
Quote:
Whilst this will reduce one of the secondary incomes from NPC combat initially, this is weighted against all the potential rewards of NPC combat activity. With less overall mineral supply, the lower quantity of minerals still possible from loot reprocessing will eventually be worth more.

Seems mission runners may take a slight hit in the overall value of their loots, but CCP is trying to ballance it out.

Ranka Mei
Caldari
Posted - 2010.04.29 14:39:00 - [24]
 

Far as I'm concerned, PvP-ing should be nerfed. Starting with having your insurance voided when you lose your ship to Concord. Highsec has Concord to punish the gankers. But since this game is played by humans, who always manage to find sleasy ways around the rules, they soon learnt that, with the help of their local insurance company, it's doable and profitable, after all, to attack people in highsec.

So, I say: void their insurance when Concord blows them up. If they want to attack people in highsec, at the very least the penalty should be one which actually costs them something. Or give them a -1 standing hit on each gank. You know, something which actually hurts.

Nihil Nobilitae
Posted - 2010.04.29 16:10:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Nihil Nobilitae on 29/04/2010 16:10:42
Increasing loot and loot tag drops will probably decrease the price of faction modules which in turn is a good thing. LP will probably be worth the same but juicy CN invuln fields and BCU's will be more readily available to all.

Petimineur
Gallente
Gravijan
Posted - 2010.04.29 20:39:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Petimineur on 29/04/2010 20:40:11
Why not reduce the amount of minerals yielded by module reprocessing?

1) The total loot and value of loot as modules would not decrease for missioners.
2) It would reduce the injection of minerals into the market.

Now presumably they've run the figures and decided it won't be enough, but it is a start. (It'd be interesting to see the figures of how many minerals come from modules.)

P.S. Simultaneously, increase the amount of minerals required for production.

Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2010.04.29 20:47:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Ranka Mei
they soon learnt that, with the help of their local insurance company, it's doable and profitable, after all, to attack people in highsec.
You know why? Because of the abundance of minerals – e.g. from mission loot – sold by people with no economical sense. Another reason why you'd want mission loot nerfed… Wink

RentableMuffin
Posted - 2010.04.29 21:09:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Ranka Mei
they soon learnt that, with the help of their local insurance company, it's doable and profitable, after all, to attack people in highsec.
You know why? Because of the abundance of minerals – e.g. from mission loot – sold by people with no economical sense. Another reason why you'd want mission loot nerfed… Wink


there are plenty of miners/producers with no economical sense either. will be interesting to see who has less sense.

and some fits would be profitable to gank even without insurance and if battleships cost their base cost. it has been that way for at least the last 3 years...

overproduction from all sides + super nap trains in 0.0 don't help either.

Czeris
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.04.30 01:43:00 - [29]
 

Reducing the income from L4 missioning is a great idea, long overdue. Anything that can be done afk with no risk (T2 fitted Dominix, just one example) should not yield that kind of income.

What I would be way more in favour of, instead of reducing income from the missions, would be to revamp L4 and L5 missions so that they use better NPC AI and were less predictable, with variable spawn triggers, unpredictable types of rats, maybe even the occasionaly overseer. I would also put a limit per Agent on how many L4 combat missions are given out at a time, while adding more decent L4 Agents.

This would:
1) Make missioning more fun, and less of a snooze.
2) Slightly reduce the ease, speed, and afk-ness with which most people farm Lvl 4 missions since they would actually have to think, wouldn't automatically know the perfect fit for each mission, and might occasionally get booshed.

Unfortunately, it would be a lot of work for CCP, so it just won't happen.

Boogie Bobby
Posted - 2010.04.30 02:07:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Czeris
Reducing the income from L4 missioning is a great idea, long overdue. Anything that can be done afk with no risk (T2 fitted Dominix, just one example) should not yield that kind of income.

What I would be way more in favour of, instead of reducing income from the missions, would be to revamp L4 and L5 missions so that they use better NPC AI and were less predictable, with variable spawn triggers, unpredictable types of rats, maybe even the occasionaly overseer. I would also put a limit per Agent on how many L4 combat missions are given out at a time, while adding more decent L4 Agents.

This would:
1) Make missioning more fun, and less of a snooze.
2) Slightly reduce the ease, speed, and afk-ness with which most people farm Lvl 4 missions since they would actually have to think, wouldn't automatically know the perfect fit for each mission, and might occasionally get booshed.

Unfortunately, it would be a lot of work for CCP, so it just won't happen.



Despite what people think afk Domi missions aren't super amazing isk faucets. I run my Domi mostly not afk and it's slow but it allows me to alt tab to my other account to do things briefly. It's not the 30+mil/hr that people in a Golem or CNR with max skills earn from missions, but it pays the bills.

I do think the AI could be more dynamic and the pool of L4 missions really needs to be expanded. This really falls into the old argument of CCP pushing new features vs giving love to the old ones.



Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only