open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Introduce FULL auto-balancing rewards for mission-running, not just LP
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

Author Topic

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.08.18 02:41:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 18/08/2008 03:14:11
______

Rethreaded idea from a separate discussion, because it has (some) merit.
Yes, most people WILL complain like hell.
No, EVE won't die because of it.
______

You know, missions do get ISK, LP and standing gains AUTOMATICALLY adjusted up/down according to mission completion times.
How about we bring that concept with a twist in MISSION BOUNTY/LOOT/SALVAGE rewards too ?

The game would have 3 separate sections tallied up : highsec, lowsec and 0.0
EACH bounty reward ISK amount granted, EACH item base mineral value, EACH salvage component obtained, they ALL get tallied up together for each of those three areas constantly.
Now, each downtime, the MODIFIERS for each of those areas get adjusted 1% closer to a point where the grand total of obtainable value in each tier would be equal (or maybe weighted by total solarsystem or agent count, or a combination of both) in each section if the same collection rate would continue.

So... many people run any kinds of missions in highsec, and a few in lowsec and 0.0 ?
Highsec modifier starts dropping like a rock and keeps on dropping as long as the total value is still higher, while the rest keep getting higher and higher.
Kill a "800k BS rat" in highsec, but current modifier is a pathetic *0.3 ? Well, tough luck, you only get 240k. Kill the same one in lowsec, where the modifier is now *2.5 ? Well, whoop-tee-doo, you just got yourself a cool 2 mil ISK !
Same for loot and salvage... if you normally get on average 10 drops out of a BS wreck, you'll only get 3 in highsec, but 25 in lowsec.
Same for mineral value... dropping mods at -70% of normal rate, while in lowsec they drop at +150% rate.

In the end, it will EASILY balance itself out, risk-vs-reward-wise.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.08.18 03:17:00 - [2]
 


Some of the arguments presented....


Originally by: Strictly Forums
CCP has tried six ways till sunday to incent people to move to dangerous space and the reality is that most won't do it regardless of what the rules are, because losing their ship/kit is the Big Terrible. Note: I have lived in 0.0 and lowsec both, but I can tell you that the vast majority of empire dwellers just will never, ever, go there, especially not with a raven set for a level 4.

And why's that ? Because highsec mission-running is profitable enough, with practically zero risk.

Once the profitability of it drops to the point where MINING in highsec becomes more profitable (at least for a while, becore everything is stripmined on a daily basis), while the lowsec mission-running profitability soars sky-high, to maybe the point where you can actually REPLACE the full fit of a T2 Raven from the proceeds of a single mission... don't tell me people will STILL hang around in highsec like sheep ?
Not even you can possibly believe that.


Originally by: Strictly Forums
You may not "get it", but the vast majority of the empire set have zero interest in PVP and zero interest in high risk.

Then they should ALSO get zero interest in high ISK.
The percentage of the population that will BOTH choose to remain in highsec forever AND to try to keep buying gametime with ISK is much, much smaller than you think.
And by gradually adjusting the rewards you give them enough time to reach to the changes.

Also, with a decrease in highsec ISK income, ISK available for GTC purchases will get scarce, and GTC ISK prices will drop.
Just look at the prices the 30/90-vs-60 day cards experienced.
30-days used to go (when the switch to 60-day only was announced) for roughly 180 mil ISK, while 90-day ones for around 450.
When the switch came, 90-day ones shot up to almost 600 mil tops, with 60-day ones regularly selling for almost 450 (the old 90-day price, about the same ISK:USD ratio), and 30-day ones at over 250.
Not so much later, nowadays, you can find 60-day GTCs for as low as 360 mil without searching too much... which is about on par with the old 30-day in ISK/day... and I fully expect the price to stabilize roughly at this ratio, with some occasional 60-day ones going as cheap as 320 mil maybe, soon enough, in a month or two.
If you drop highsec mission-running income levels by any means, GTC ISK prices will drop too soon enough.

Originally by: Black Phlanx
While this is an interesting idea, wouldn't piracy skyrocket as a result then? Or has the FW pretty much taken the **** out of the pies in low-sec since they've been flooded by masses of PVP hungry pilots.


If "masses" (what, less than 10% of EVE's population) of PvP-hungry pilots drove out most pirates from the FW regions, imagine what a massive "export" of mission-runners will do to the rest of lowsec.
Yeah, sure, piracy will still exist, but the "worthwile" hubs will be operating under pretty significant player load, and you can fully expect them to organize some sort of security there.
And heck, if you thought 0.0 mission-running was profitable before (du to pirate LPs being worth so much), just wait until the huge increase in bounties and loot finally kicks in too... and there you REALLY can organize some nice safety.

_____


Granted, it's not the perfect idea, but it's lightyears better than removal of L4s from highsec.
Heck, for all I care, you could even introduce L5s in highsec if you wanted to... they would be subjected to the same rules, so still running them in lowsec would be much more profitable.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.08.18 05:14:00 - [3]
 

Originally by: 5pinDizzy
Although the highsec 800k rat being worth 100k example sounds a bit too harsh to me. I generally like the cut of the jib of this suggestion.

Well, it was "800k rat giving 240k", but still, it's the general idea, not the actual values... they'd constantly change anyway.

HOW IT WOULD WORK

The first day of the "new system", 800k rats would be worth 800k anywhere.

At the next downtime, say we pick 1:1:1 ratios (we could pick 4:2:1 or 4:1:2 or 1:2:3, these are just ideas, actual numbers to be determined later).
Also, let's say bounties in highsec totalled 100 bil, in lowsec 1 bil, in 0.0 1 bil. The weighted average (at the example-chosen) 1:1:1 ratio would be 34 bil each.
If we pick the 1% drift per downtime, this means highsec multiplier goes down from *1.0 to *[1.0-0.01*(100-34)/100] = *0.9934
At the same time, the lowsec and 0.0 multipliers go from *1.0 to *(1.0-0.01*(1-34)/1) = *1.33
So, at the start of the SECOND day, a 800k rat in highsec would only be worth 794.72k... but a lowsec/0.0 800k rat would be worth already 1064k.

At next downtime, let's say we get the same number of raw kills... but now, the highsec totals only 99.34 bil, while both lowsec and 0.0 total 1.33 bil each (the exact same average of 34 bil).
However, now the drifts look like this :
highsec, *[0.9934 - 0.01*(99.34-34)/99.34] = (aprox) *0.9868
lowsec/0.0, * [1.33 - 0.01*(1.33-34)/1.33] = (aprox) *1.5756
At the start of the THIRD day, a 800k rat in highsec will be worth 789,440 ISK, while a rat in lowsec/0.0 will be worth 1,260,480 ISK.


In other words, the drop in highsec will be pretty mild, for a while at least... but the increases in lowsec/0.0 will be HUGE.
Of course, if a couple of days later (when, say, we reached *3 or even *4 multipliers) people start to MASSIVELY farm lowsec/0.0 missions, you still need to have an awful lot of people (compared to what you get now) to start reversing the ratios.

All in all, like I said, all will auto-balance itself out in the end... with total amount of wealth spread more or less evenly (some variations will exist, no questions there) across regions... if not many are there to take the advantages, those who do take the risk will reap huge benefits... while the rest trudge around slowly.

Zo5o
The Scope
Posted - 2008.08.18 05:32:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Zo5o on 18/08/2008 06:11:12

If you nerf hisec income, and do not nerf losec income equally, less players will be able to fund second and third accounts through GTC's whether GTC prices drop or not, and CCP will lose money. The GTC prices will not drop as much as the hisec mission running income, because those who choose to move to losec will make even more isk than before relative to the hisec runners to spend on GTCs, and the countless thousands of risk-averse players who fund primary, second and third accounts with GTCs will make far less isk. The result will be a net loss in subscriptions, since, to the risk-averse mission runners (who ARE the majority, like it or not), the price of GTCs relative to their income will go up.

Aside from the merits of "Eve should be a cold and harsh pvp game," or however you look at it... if you are running Eve as a business, and the largest portion of your playerbase is risk-averse carebears, and many of them fund their gametime by paying ISK to other players who pay you for the GTC's... does it make business sense to heavily nerf the ISK income of such a large playerbase?

So if anyone out there is wondering why hisec income hasn't already been severely nerfed... it's the same reason people across the globe IRL have gone to war for thousands of years... money! Yay money!

I know that nobody here wants to see Eve turned into WOW, but at the same time, I'm sure CCP wouldn't mind bringing in 1.7 billion US dollars in subscription fees a year like Blizzard does...

I'm not advocating a position from a gameplay standpoint here re: nerfing hisec income, mind you. Simply letting everyone who REALLY wants it to happen know that it ain't bloody likely, and if it does happen it probably won't be nearly as severe of a nerf as you'd like.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2008.08.18 06:50:00 - [5]
 

There is problem with your plan -- it might considerably increase server load.

1) Salvage is calculated on the actual salvage event, until that point it's just a wreck in space. In case of salvaging events are distributed over time when calculating it, as salvaging takes time. Same reason why CCP is unwilling to implement 'change ammo' for all guns at once, bcos on manual reload database calls are distributed over time.

2) Maintaining and calculation different mission modifers for each starsystem with agents is propably relatively easy, what would increase load considerably would be need to log everything (loot, salvage, bounties, mission completion times, etc) and later use all that data to calculate mission reward modifers. There would be a lot better areas to use that computing and database power for than calculation relatively uninteresting mission reward modifer (either in industry with personalized productions or in combat with better collision calculations for example)

In addition to above issues it seems to be another 'nerf hisec' idea. I think it would be bad for EVE to 'nerf hisec' as long as PvE and PvP setups do not compute. Most people I know seem to be unwilling to pay for being victims.

Thirzarr
Posted - 2008.08.18 07:32:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Carniflex
Most people I know seem to be unwilling to pay for being victims.


This.

BUT!

If you'd skip the usual "get more victims into lowsec" rant, the balancing of all missions "withing their sec-rating" would definately deepen mission running in eve. It would add a whole "find a good agent to run for right now." Make it dynamic. Spread the server-load with an RP-Explaination.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2008.08.18 08:25:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Thirzarr

If you'd skip the usual "get more victims into lowsec" rant, the balancing of all missions "withing their sec-rating" would definately deepen mission running in eve. It would add a whole "find a good agent to run for right now." Make it dynamic. Spread the server-load with an RP-Explaination.


Yes. I am not opposed to the idea of autobalancing whole mission rewards, not only LP side. When reading proposal above however I tend to get impression it's aimed more at 'nerf hisec' than for autobalancing everything.

For a start I think that agent quality is somewhat awkward solution to start with. Entire process should be more dynamic instead of static agent quality and NPC distribution within mission. Throwing in some more unpredictability, even if it's just small propability of getting additional wave of NPC's jumping on your head on every agression in mission.

Missions in general are also the most used 'unlimited' resource in EVE, most other resources have top population densities they can reliably support. If one reworks mission system in any major way it would be good idea to sit down first and think long and hard where would the resources come from to support the population using missions as their main income. If there is not enough resources to support population anymore then some will 'starve' (ie, leave game) when they are no longer able to afford the 'fun' part of EVE. And yes - missions are not really fun - it's one of the grinds done for isk to fund 'fun' part of game. There is certain amount of hours most players are willing to grind for hour of 'fun', go bejond that and game as whole might stop being fun for those guys.

Just nerfing the hisec is not the solution to populate low sec. There are already lev 5 missions in low sec for those who want the greater rewards for greater risk.

Darth Felin
Posted - 2008.08.18 10:22:00 - [8]
 

Floating rewards can be very good, but this proposal is nothing more than a rant about "high sec carebears that I can not catch". BTW how are you going to balance this? How are you going to get ISK value for a salvage and even more interesting for a LP? And what about mission with another objectives than "Kill them all"?

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.08.18 12:04:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Darth Felin
Floating rewards can be very good, but this proposal is nothing more than a rant about "high sec carebears that I can not catch".

Oh, really ? A rant about highsec carebears ? You mean, people LIKE ME ?
Yeah, I'm a freaking risk-averse highsec-dwelling carebear myself, CEO of a (mostly) highsec mission-runner corporation even (we also joined FW, but after initial novelty effect waned, participation dropped like a rock to almost nothing and it's back to L4s and highsec again).

Quote:
BTW how are you going to balance this? How are you going to get ISK value for a salvage and even more interesting for a LP? And what about mission with another objectives than "Kill them all"?

Ah, I see somebody misunderstood that too.
LP and end-of-mission ISK rewards is already balanced... nobody's touching them at all, and they're not taken into account in this calculation either.

No, it's not ISK value of salvage, it's SALVAGE AMOUNT, and it's calculated separately from raw ISK bounty value.
And mineral base-value of loot is also calculated and adjusted separately.
You have three sets of three calculations : for each income type (bounty ISK, looted loot minerals and actually salvaged salvage), in which you only compare apples with apples, and for each security rating tier (hi/lo/no sec).

Since the calculations would have been almost identical to the ISK calculations (but instead of ISK you would have had salvage item COUNT or mineral base value) I didn't think it was necessary to give a detailed step-by-step example for it too.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.08.18 12:17:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Carniflex
There is problem with your plan -- it might considerably increase server load.
1) Salvage is calculated on the actual salvage event, until that point it's just a wreck in space. In case of salvaging events are distributed over time when calculating it, as salvaging takes time. Same reason why CCP is unwilling to implement 'change ammo' for all guns at once, bcos on manual reload database calls are distributed over time.

The actual salvage type selection process "on salvage event" is much more complicated already, with calls to the NPC wreck type salvage tables and calls to the RNG too... adding a simple multiplication in there on the fetched result before calling the RNG (with the cached daily multiplier value) would hardly add any significant strain.
Also, adding salvage obtained to the cargohold of the player ship is far more time-consuming too, since you have to add each individual type of salvaged item to the proper pile in the cargo... whereas in the daily counter (which should always be in a high-priority memory area anyway due to constant use) you just add up the total number of salvage pieces dropped, which is again not a significant strain either.

Also, these small computational steps ARE distributed evenly in time... unlike the "change all ammo" option, which would most likely be used by opposing fleets approaching at ROUGHLY the same time on a massive scale if available, causing at least a x6-x8 "lagspike" compared to reloading manually (much more due to the fact manual reloading of 6-8 guns is VERY UNLIKELY to happen.


Quote:
2) Maintaining and calculation different mission modifers for each starsystem with agents is propably relatively easy, what would increase load considerably would be need to log everything (loot, salvage, bounties, mission completion times, etc) and later use all that data to calculate mission reward modifers. There would be a lot better areas to use that computing and database power for than calculation relatively uninteresting mission reward modifer (either in industry with personalized productions or in combat with better collision calculations for example)

Well, you could do it per starsystem or even per agent if you really wanted to... and this would actually help "defuse" mission hubs... but then again, simply doing it for the three separate security zones would be enough.
Everything IS already logged anyway, you just add a run-time "summarizer" of everything according to sec region.


Quote:
In addition to above issues it seems to be another 'nerf hisec' idea. I think it would be bad for EVE to 'nerf hisec' as long as PvE and PvP setups do not compute. Most people I know seem to be unwilling to pay for being victims.

Well, actually, L4 PvE/PvP setups are not that great, but for lower levels there's no big deal.
Also, nobody says you HAVE to solo all missions either.
Plus, nobody says you can't have a "local police force".

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2008.08.18 12:24:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Darth Felin
Floating rewards can be very good, but this proposal is nothing more than a rant about "high sec carebears that I can not catch".

Oh, really ? A rant about highsec carebears ? You mean, people LIKE ME ?
Yeah, I'm a freaking risk-averse highsec-dwelling carebear myself, CEO of a (mostly) highsec mission-runner corporation even (we also joined FW, but after initial novelty effect waned, participation dropped like a rock to almost nothing and it's back to L4s and highsec again).



Well. Reason for getting impression that this is 'nerf highsec' thread was magnitude of proposed differences in example you provided.

If differences would remain in same magnitude than current LP system it would be more bearable, but it would not get the 'populated lowsec' goal that seemed to be the main driving force for the proposal. In my personal opinion there is better solutions for the missions in general 'retouching' than nerfing the hell out of them bcos some people seem to think they are 'risk free'.

The full risk vs rewards equation in my opinion does not contain only isk/h on one side and flat propability of shiploss on the other side, salted with statement 'don't fly what you can't afford' as seems to be popular in various 'nerf hisec' threads. In my perspective the situation is more complex containing also the amount of assets in risk, needed experience (not only sp, but the actual gameplay experience), propability of events lowering the isk/h (like refitting after shiploss, getting interrupted) ... altho I'm drifting off from the subject at hand it seems.

The proposal itself is good altho I believe that there should be one equation for auto-balancing, not 3 different equations for different security areas. It does not need to be linear, just there should be no 'jumps' in it when system security changes from low to hisec or to 0.0. Before going that way however it would make sense to revisit the current auto-balance system as it seems oversimplified, taking into account only sucsessful mission completion time and outright ignoring shiplosses and completion failures.

Maximillian Bayonette
White Lion Manufacture and Salvage
Posted - 2008.08.18 13:21:00 - [12]
 

This seems like a pretty good idea. It could help populating low sec, but as I see it, the major pro of the suggestion is that it would fix the risk/reward imbalanced of current high sec mission running.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.08.18 13:22:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Carniflex
Well. Reason for getting impression that this is 'nerf highsec' thread was magnitude of proposed differences in example you provided.

Just an example where things MIGHT head to if people don't adjust their security area according to rewards... I was giving an extreme example to make a point... like you can see from the second relevant post, the variations in time will be far less drastic for highsec (and you can notice how the drop slows down too), while the increase in the other areas ramps up rapidly.

Quote:
If differences would remain in same magnitude than current LP system it would be more bearable, but it would not get the 'populated lowsec' goal that seemed to be the main driving force for the proposal.

Well, assuming that a vast majority of ISK in missions is gained in highsec, that will mean that the lowsec and/or 0.0 rewards WILL ramp up so fast compared to a relatively slow decline in highsec that the ACTUAL effect would be a huge lowsec/0.0 buff, but only a minor highsec nerf.
And the fun part is that it can be easily reverted (just pin the multipliers back to 1 in all areas), or the transition can be either accelerated or slowed down, as desired.

Quote:
The proposal itself is good altho I believe that there should be one equation for auto-balancing, not 3 different equations for different security areas.

You can speak of three sets... but not for security regions, instead income type (out of which only the ISK one is vital, with loot and salvage either fully ingorable, or they could just mirror the ISK set).
Within any of these sets (say only the ISK bounty set), the three multipliers are linked to eachother all the time, so you can't really talk about three separate equations for each security sector, can you ?

Quote:
It does not need to be linear, just there should be no 'jumps' in it when system security changes from low to hisec or to 0.0.

And exactly why not ?
As you so eloquently put it yourself already...
Quote:
the full risk vs rewards equation in my opinion does not contain only isk/h on one side and flat propability of shiploss on the other side, salted with statement 'don't fly what you can't afford' as seems to be popular in various 'nerf hisec' threads. In my perspective the situation is more complex containing also the amount of assets in risk, needed experience (not only sp, but the actual gameplay experience), propability of events lowering the isk/h (like refitting after shiploss, getting interrupted)

...meaning that risk-wise, highsec, lowsec and 0.0 are fundamentally different from eachother, with HUGE jumps in risk levels (especially from highsec to lowsec, with 0.0 arguably actually more secure than lowsec).
Like I said, I'm merely comparing apples with apples here, trying to completely avoid the apples and oranges issue by letting the RESULTS of the actions of the players decide what needs to go up and what needs to go down.

So, if the risk is radically different, why not let the rewards be radically different too ?
The beauty of the auto-balancing system is exactly that, that it automatically self-adjusts rewards according to risks.
Sure, it might take a while... sure, it might have up-then-down-then-back-up-again fluctuations (might depend on day of the week, might depend on some psychological tresholds being reached, might be anything), but in the end, it WILL balance the risk with the reward.

If players lose too many ships (and quit staying there) or "farm too slow" due to interruptions, the total ISK per that security section will be lower than the desired weighted average, so multipliers rise, and they keep rising until they farm just the right PERCENTAGE of total game-wide cash desired. Same for areas of too low risk and/or too high rewards, they keep slowly dropping until the desirable percentage is reached.

Eldar Boon
Posted - 2008.08.18 13:42:00 - [14]
 

I was going to post a similar suggestions about adjusting the rewards in missions. I didn't because I thought other topics covered it. Here are my thoughts anyway:-

Throughout this post, “reward” refers to the mission reward from the agent, the loot dropped by NPCs and the salvage.

As the demand for missions from an agent, the potential reward for the missions should diminish in accordance to the laws of supply and demand. It stands to reason that an agent would only have a limited number of missions for people to do. As the high priority missions are completed, an agent would have to hand out the less lucrative ones. Equally, if the availability of people willing to take on missions is low, then agent would have to improve the reward to entice pilots.

This is not a proposal to move level 4 mission agents to lo-sec. It is also not suggesting an across the board reduction to the reward for missions.

This proposal is designed to address issues created by the current mission system. Many of the problems with missions have been discussed in other topics.

Any changes to the mission system should attempt to address several issues:-
The risk/reward balance of hi-sec missions
The overcrowding of the systems containing hi-sec level 4 agents
The deflationary effect of loot drops on the economy; specifically high value minerals and T1 equipment.
The long term scalability of the mission system as the eve population grows.

Any change should not:-
Force players in to PVP combat
Prevent mission running from being a viable profession.
Stop casual mission running.

The current mission system is very static and is not affected by any external forces. The repeatable nature of missions means that level 4 missions agents can be effectively farmed for ISK with little or no consequence. This is unique in Eve, every other profession, from mining to pirating, is in some way affected by other players in the eve universe.

The introduction of some sort of scaling factor, to reduce the reward as demand for missions increases, should hopefully balance the current hi-sec mission hubs while boosting the agents that are rarely used. I imagine the reward scaling factor should be related to the players standing, the quality of the agent and the agent’s mission rate (“mission count”/”period of time”).

I think this type of change will have some nice benefits. Hopefully players will be rewarded with seeking out agents in quiet backwaters. In extreme cases even low level agents could provide valuable rewards. The risk/reward problem should balance itself because the potential profit will decrease with demand. So even if an agent starts out providing too much easy isk, this should be balanced as demand for their missions increase.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2008.08.18 17:47:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Akita T

And exactly why not ?



Bcos it would be bad to my playstyle. I use hi sec lev 4 missions to grind the isk I need for my fun. Granted this is just my opinion as I have poured considerable resources into the art of milking the most isk I can out of lev 4 agent weighting every isk I spend on my setup vs it's expected payback time. Should missions get 'nerfed' in hi sec I would end up sitting on a nice pile of faction hardware no sane person would be willing to take of my hands at 'fair price' (meaning price I payd for it before that hypotetical nerf).

I'm 'the carebear' as it is called in that sense that I do not like to do 'pewpew' against other players. There is other sides in EVE I find interesting and play it for that take considerable amount of isk. I can and do shoot other players when it's needed - mostly for the glory of my corporation, but thats not something I play the game for. Nor do I like to be alert all the time, would I be willing to do that I do have acsess to 0.0 space to skip the zoo in low sec alltogether (except when having to pass thru that barren land when moving between hi sec and 0.0).

Eldar Boon
Posted - 2008.08.18 18:21:00 - [16]
 

Quote:
Bcos it would be bad to my playstyle. I use hi sec lev 4 missions to grind the isk I need for my fun.


I understand your point, but what about the miners, industrialists and traders, who's source of ISK and play style as drastically affected these missions.

I don't believe a re-balancing of the rewards from missions if unreasonable, it doesn't have to destroy mission running as a method of making ISK, but merely bring it inline with other forms of ISK making in relative safety of hi-sec.




Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2008.08.18 18:46:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Eldar Boon
Quote:
Bcos it would be bad to my playstyle. I use hi sec lev 4 missions to grind the isk I need for my fun.


I understand your point, but what about the miners, industrialists and traders, who's source of ISK and play style as drastically affected these missions.

I don't believe a re-balancing of the rewards from missions if unreasonable, it doesn't have to destroy mission running as a method of making ISK, but merely bring it inline with other forms of ISK making in relative safety of hi-sec.


There has been some discussion about minerals from lev 4 missions. While they are sweet there is problem with those. I can make more minerals from loot if I'm smart what missions I loot than I can from mining in hulk. Have max skills for hulk (started as miner, moved to lev 4 afterwards). Mission minerals are however drop in the sea compared to 0.0 hauler spawns - those were the ones that made me abandom hi sec at the beginning of my career when I saw more minerals drop from spawn than I was able to mine in covertor in a week (was before hulks were in game). Back then logisticks was hard(er), nowdays ... well I imagine most of it still rots away in belts unhauled, if one can be arsed to haul it it would be possible to build approx 2 carriers per week from those per 0.0 system with reasonable amount of belts if one has people grinding there most of the time (unless they chain). Altho thats 0.0, it's supposed to have greater rewards.

Now salvage on the other hand - I think it's attractive mostly to new players. For good mission runner salvage might not be worth the isk/h to bother with. Some people do it just to get wreks out of the way as it makes looting easier (as looting wrek does not make it close nor unlock when it's looted).

If any new autobalance system would be implemented it should take into account also shiplosses in mission and failed missions (unlike current system) also possibly take into account if wreks were actually looted or salvaged. As long as it does not nerf the hi sec missions as whole into oblivion it would be good change altho better option in my opinion would be to rework the entire mission system into more random and dynamic form getting rid of current static and totally predictable missions alltogehter.

Eldar Boon
Posted - 2008.08.18 18:54:00 - [18]
 

Quote:
If any new autobalance system would be implemented it should take into account also shiplosses in mission and failed missions


I think we're in agreement there.

I hoping for a far more dynamic mission system; that, with any luck, should take the grind out of missions.

Karentaki
Gallente
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.08.18 20:55:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Karentaki on 18/08/2008 20:55:36
I see it as a simple balnace between highsec professions - not as any boost to lowsec/0.0 (thought that would be nice)

In highsec there are a number of profitable activities including L4 missions, trading, and research/invention. However, all of these activities are in some way depenant on eachother EXCEPT for missions. If too many people run missions and dump stuff on the market some traders will lose money. If too may people do invention other people will lose out due to competition. Trading is basically PvP, so all actions in that effect other people. However, nothing other people can do (other than suicide ganking) can actually cause a mission runner to lose money. You could have a million mission runners in a system, all using the same agent, and assuming the server could handle it, they would all make ISK at the same rate as if they were solo.

This is why missions need nerfing. No part of this game should be completely solo-playable with NO INTERACTION with other players. It's called an MMORPG for a reason!

EDIT: I fully agree with the op here! Great idea!

Daelin Blackleaf
White Rose Society
Posted - 2008.08.18 21:04:00 - [20]
 

I've seen similar suggested before and it's an excellent idea. The only real issue is the huge uproar any kind of hit to hi-sec mission runners would bring.

In the end I feel CCP is going to have to address the issue of there being too much ISK made for too little risk in empire since it devalues the efforts of every other profession in the game. Once the community gets used to it things will settle down, prices on items currently inflated by mission runners will drop, and the players will adjust to the new standard of "safe income" which is pretty much the benchmark for whether of not anything riskier is worth doing at all.

So yes, I like it, it's a good way to restore the risk vs reward balance and provide a significant bonus to the mission runner who has the balls and the intellect to take his ship out of hi-sec. It would also mean minimal future effort from CCP if implemented well.

I would add one consideration though, that lower level missions be less effected by the modifier for their area. We don't need newbies getting a 0.3 modifier on their level one mission bounties, they'll never get out of their frigates.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.08.18 22:29:00 - [21]
 

Well, you could have the modifier only affect mission L3 and above... nah... it wouldn't be fair for those running L1s and L2s in lowsec/0.0 then.
Better still, cap the effect of the modifier so that no mission NPC gets reduced below a certain bounty value (for instance, say, 100k) no matter how small the modifier actually is.

Example : say you have somehow reached a mythical awful *0.1 highsec modifier (although I doubt this would EVER be the case even if the system would keep going for over a year, and lowsec/0.0 multipliers would reach ludicrous values but still nobody would run them - much more likely modifiers would be around *0.7 or maybe *0.6 at worst).
Ships under the chosen cap (100k) would get no reduction whatsoever. Ships between 100k and 1 mil base ISK reward would all be worth 100k in bounties, and only ships with a bounty over 1 mil would actually get higher than 100k.

Ard UnjiiGo
Meatshield Bastards
Posted - 2008.08.19 02:33:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Ard UnjiiGo on 19/08/2008 02:50:19

Best damn balancing idea for EVE I've heard. Makes a ton of sense and with lower and upper boundaries for NPC bounties it's hard to see any draw back to this unless you are an exclusive high-sec mission runner and want to protect your risk-free isk faucet or an isk-farmer (and the more I read on the forums the less I believe there really is any difference anymore in the mentality of the two groups).

I'd suggest one small expansion on the idea: make the auto rebalancing not just between high, low and null but also by region. That way overpopulated areas would slowly become less profitable then underpopulated ones and encourage folks to move around and also spread the population out more. I can see the future GD threads now: "WTF??!! I Logged Off In Derelik and Can't Log Back On!!" ShockedLaughing

I have one final thing to add based on this idea and many of her previous excellent threads: Akita T FOR CSM.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.08.19 06:54:00 - [23]
 

Well, the idea can easily be extended on a regional or even individual solar system basis, with different weights given to each of the desired balancing factors, and different rates of change if you like.
You know, factors like security tier (hi/lo/no sec) having the brunt of the weighting but the slowest rate of change (just an example), region (moderate weight and moderate rate of change) or even solar system (smallest weight but highest rate of change).

Seing how you only need to collect the data once (wether you do it in 3 accumulators for sec-tier, or 80-ish accumulators for region combined with sec-tier, or just collect it individually for each and every of the 6k-ish systems), and the calculations are done during downtime (and they're not particularly complicated compared to a lot of other things already going on), you can fine-tune this as much as you like.

Hell, you can even LIST the current multipliers in a new overview coloring option... call it, I don't know... "System wealth" ? Wink
I mean, it makes sense... sort of Razz

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2008.08.19 07:22:00 - [24]
 

Some additional toughts on the subject

(1) It would be good to keep number of 'free parameters' low (especially if there is interaction between starsystems thru them) to minimize risk of unexpected 'apparent behaviour' in autobalancing system that might not appear during testing when number of participants is low. I'm getting impression that proposed system is somewhat similar to some crystal structure models in physics.

(2) If agents start getting 'depleted' we will need some kind of carrier craft to move our assets around thru hi sec. Something to carry around multiple rigged and fitted battleships (say, missionrunning golem/CNR, salvage golem, small fast ship for recon 2, nanocruiser for recon 3, rigged itty 5 for 40k m3 storyline, etc) sec and approx 50 000 m3 in ammo/modules (x800 charges, all kinds of ammo). It should have enough hp to be able to carry approx 3 .. 5 bil in assets before it's profitable to suicide gank it. Serious missionrunning as main source of income needs pretty bulky assets in the agent location.

Eldar Boon
Posted - 2008.08.19 08:33:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Eldar Boon on 19/08/2008 08:37:52
Quote:
Something to carry around multiple rigged and fitted battleships


The freigter can carry this type cargo. I realise that you are at risk of a suicide gank, but nowhere in Eve is risk free (nor should it be). There are methods to reduce the risk, and I'm always reminded of the saying "Don't put all you eggs in one basket".

I don't think an agent should become "depleted", but the reward for running their missions may get to the state where it is no longer worth doing. I guess it's then a personal choice about moving on or not. If you're a casual mission runner, it's probably time to find something else to do in eve for a while.

In theory, the auto balancing should not need to be adjusted for hi, lo, and 0.0, since the assumption is that the more risky missions in low and 0.0 will not be as popular. In fact, there should be no adjustment for the security of the system, because that could cause Corp and Alliances to camp and farm valuable low sec agents.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2008.08.19 08:44:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Eldar Boon
Edited by: Eldar Boon on 19/08/2008 08:37:52
Quote:
Something to carry around multiple rigged and fitted battleships


The freigter can carry this type cargo.



Incorrect. It is not possible to fit assembled (ie rigged) ships into freighter, even if they should fit there m3 wise. There is also issue of available room as unlike packaged battleships, that take 50 000 m3 (and can be carried in freighter) assembled ones are approx 1 mil m3 (carrier ship maintenance array has room for 2 assembled battleships and has size of 2 500 000 m3).

Eldar Boon
Posted - 2008.08.19 09:07:00 - [27]
 

Sorry, my mistake, I was thinking unassembled ships.


Mioelnir
Minmatar
Cataclysm Enterprises
Ev0ke
Posted - 2008.08.19 11:37:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Carniflex
[...] assembled ones are approx 1 mil m3 (carrier ship maintenance array has room for 2 assembled battleships and has size of 2 500 000 m3).

Assembled BS are approx 500k m3 (their size got halved couple patches ago)
Carrier ship maintenance bay is 1 mil m3 (up to two assembled battleships)
Mothership ship maintenance bay is 2.5 mil m3 (up to five assembled battleships)

A tech 1 tier 2 freighter with only a ship maintenance bay would be kind of cool. Not jump capable and in the area of 1.5 mil m3 bay.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2008.08.19 11:58:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Mioelnir

A tech 1 tier 2 freighter with only a ship maintenance bay would be kind of cool. Not jump capable and in the area of 1.5 mil m3 bay.


That would do the trick indeed altho some small 'regular' cargo bay would also be needed for some modules needed when moving missioning ships (like spare hardeners for some setups). It would not need to be big if the main bay would function similar to carrier ship maintenance bay (ie possible to carry ammo and cap charges in ship holds).

Whineroy
Posted - 2008.08.19 12:25:00 - [30]
 

Not bad idea, however for it to work there needs to be *much* faster and more decisive CCP action against blatant ISK farmers. Otherwise casual mission runners will be screwed by all the NPC-corp-protection-abusing farmers that will deplete one agent (or region) with their 23/7 mission running and then move on to over-farm next agent.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

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