Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
|
CCP Fallout
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 17:38:00 -
[1]
Ah, endless days. Yes, the midnight sun almost upon us in Reykjavfk, which means it's much, much easier to trick the devs into working longer hours! And who better to tell us about the fruits of this lightly labor than our very own CCP Chronotis, who gives us a nice scoop of Apocrypha 1.3 ice cream in his newest blog.
Fallout Associate Community Manager CCP Hf, EVE Online Contact us |
|
Sophie Daigneau
CAPITAL Assistance in Destruction Society GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 17:43:00 -
[2]
Good stuff, I can't wait.
|
Phantom Slave
JUDGE DREAD Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:17:00 -
[3]
Sweet, with the patch we should see some nice decreases in t3 production, allowing more people to play with these ships and allow us to see their true potential. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:18:00 -
[4]
My nipples got erect after reading that. Looking forward to it |
Doomed Predator
The Graduates Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:25:00 -
[5]
Lets hope this brings T3 closer to the 200 mill mark the devs wanted it to be. |
Treelox
Amarr Seppuku Warriors
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:34:00 -
[6]
do we have a rough ETA on this patches deployment yet? |
EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:45:00 -
[7]
So what about t2 production?
what about Moon mining shortages?
|
Letrange
Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 18:59:00 -
[8]
Interesting solution - would have preferred one that made more use of c84 or one that made more use of Methanofullerine (I think - one of the ones in that area anyways) but *shrug* this is better than nothing.
The drop/recovery rate on the datacores better be seriously increased - as it was it matched the drop rate on the malfunctioning - making wrecked stuff (except wrecked hulls) totally worthless.
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 19:02:00 -
[9]
Mmmm ice cream. Vanilla.
Win a Aeon mothership for 10M ISK |
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 19:26:00 -
[10]
Hmm, yes - increasing drop rates is one solution to fight some shortage and drop prices.
But if drop rates increase and so the supply increase a lot, how are you going to keep the prices up?
If you don't keep the prices high then going into the wormholes will be unprofitable and people will stop doing so. Or do you just hope that demand will increase also somehow and balance out the much higher supply rates and so the prices will be stable?
But is 1.3 all only about wormhole loot/salvage drop changes and some (minor) t3 production changes? Or can we expect also some other stuff?
|
|
Phantom Slave
JUDGE DREAD Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 19:32:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Gnulpie Hmm, yes - increasing drop rates is one solution to fight some shortage and drop prices.
But if drop rates increase and so the supply increase a lot, how are you going to keep the prices up?
If you don't keep the prices high then going into the wormholes will be unprofitable and people will stop doing so. Or do you just hope that demand will increase also somehow and balance out the much higher supply rates and so the prices will be stable?
But is 1.3 all only about wormhole loot/salvage drop changes and some (minor) t3 production changes? Or can we expect also some other stuff?
Honestly I've never understood the "increasing drop rate makes us poor" ideology. If they are dropping more often, you're getting more in the same amount of time, therefore you're making the same isk/hour if the prices drop at the same rate that item drop increases.
|
Morel Nova
z3r0 Gravity YARRR and CO
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 19:39:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Gnulpie Or do you just hope that demand will increase also somehow and balance out the much higher supply rates and so the prices will be stable?
what do you mean "somehow"? everyone and their sister wants a t3 toy, but the current price was just magnitudes too high for real use. increased drop rates, bigger market, more profit baby. |
Marius Deterium
Caldari The Hull Miners Union Gentlemen's Club
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 19:50:00 -
[13]
Agreed,
While I can afford T3 ship, their high cost just doesn't make them practical to use. Lowering cost will entice new customers to buy. |
Karma
Vortex Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 20:01:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Karma on 08/06/2009 20:04:54 spend a few hours to be able to make 1 hull and sell it for 500m. spend the same amount of time to be able to make 5 hulls* and sell each for 100m**.
the end result (isk/hour) is exactly the same.
and yeah, everyone and their mother wants a T3 cruiser... but their usefulness is just not on par with their current price.
* your mileage may wary. ** this mileage will wary too.
|
Luna Nilaya
Blood Works Inc. Circle-Of-Two
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 20:10:00 -
[15]
Don't care really what you do with T3 production. I won't fly them as long as I lose SP when losing one. -
Installing premium content... Deleting file: \boot.ini |
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 20:19:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Karma spend a few hours to be able to make 1 hull and sell it for 500m. spend the same amount of time to be able to make 5 hulls* and sell each for 100m**.
the end result (isk/hour) is exactly the same.
* your mileage may wary. ** this mileage will wary too.
Or spend the same amount of time to be able to make 5 hulls and sell each for 10m?
That was one of my question.
If the devs have some market-model to work out their numbers or if they just hope that somehow the market will balance it out all on its own (which didn't work that well in the first place btw).
|
Gummi
Laughing Leprechauns Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 20:24:00 -
[17]
Interest fading, fading ..
|
steave435
Caldari SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 20:38:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Gnulpie
Originally by: Karma spend a few hours to be able to make 1 hull and sell it for 500m. spend the same amount of time to be able to make 5 hulls* and sell each for 100m**.
the end result (isk/hour) is exactly the same.
* your mileage may wary. ** this mileage will wary too.
Or spend the same amount of time to be able to make 5 hulls and sell each for 10m?
That was one of my question.
If the devs have some market-model to work out their numbers or if they just hope that somehow the market will balance it out all on its own (which didn't work that well in the first place btw).
If that happends, then some people will stop going to WH space until the price rise again, but if the drop rate rose by 5x, then it will not rise much above 20% of the old price since at that point it is just as profitable as it is now, and if it's just as profitable as it is now then the same amount of people will be gathering the materials, but that same amount of people produce 5x the amount of stuff. |
Savage Roar
O X I D E
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 20:54:00 -
[19]
The question no-one seems to be addressing is what this patch will do to t3 module prices... it's just yada yada about the ships, but no-one's talking about the t3 weaponry? Will this patch make it cheaper too? |
Mes Ren
No Trademark
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 21:27:00 -
[20]
I did the number cruching -- here is where we will be after the changes.
First, the assumptions: - Neurovisual Input Matrix drops in price from 6-7mil to 2mil or less. - Carbon-86 drops in price from 3.2mil to 2.3mil or less. - Scandium Metallofullerene increases in price from 34,900 to 100,000isk/unit. - Subsystem Datacore go from 10mil/unit on avg (and 25mil/unit on avg for offensive) to 5mil/unit on avg. across the board. - Reverse Engineer will increase the number of runs per bpc from 3 to 9.
Current costs for T3 (assuming 75% success rate): - Hull - approx. 200 - 250mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 30mil/unit with Wrecked Hulls) - Total Cost: 230mil - 280mil - Defensive Subsystem - approx. 25 - 50mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 19mil/unit) - Total Cost: 44mil - 69mil - Electronic Subsystem - approx. 42 - 51mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 19mil/unit) - Total Cost: 61mil - 70mil - Engineering Subsystem - approx. 42 - 51mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 19mil/unit) - Total Cost: 61mil - 70mil - Offensive Subsytem - approx. 53 - 86mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 46mil/unit) - Total Cost: 99mil - 132mil - Propulsion Subsystem - approx. 42 - 51mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 19mil/unit) - Total Cost: 61mil - 70mil
* cost spread is largely the difference between reacting the polymers yourself and buying them off the market.
Please take into account that for every given subsystem group, there is usually 1 or 2 highly desirable subsystems. Since you can not pick which subsystem you will get (completely random within a group), there is additional costs to produce the desired subsystem. This is figured by multiply the Reverse Engineer Cost/unit by 4.
Proposed System costs for T3 (assuming 75% success rate): - Hull - approx. 95 - 127mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 10mil/unit with Wrecked Hulls) - Total Cost: 105mil - 137mil - Defensive Subsystem - approx. 17 - 34mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 6mil/unit) - Total Cost: 23mil - 40mil - Electronic Subsystem - approx. 18 - 24mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 6mil/unit) - Total Cost: 24mil - 30mil - Engineering Subsystem - approx. 18 - 24mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 6mil/unit) - Total Cost: 24mil - 30mil - Offensive Subsytem - approx. 28 - 51mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 6mil/unit) - Total Cost: 34mil - 56mil - Propulsion Subsystem - approx. 18 - 24mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 6mil/unit) - Total Cost: 24mil - 30mil
If the current markups held true (and current market prices continue to hold steady on materials) you would see the following T3 Retail prices:
Hulls: 350mil - 450mil Defensive Subsystems: 70mil - 120mil Electronic Subsystems: 60mil - 110mil Engineering Subsystems: 60mil - 110mil Offensive Subsystems: 86mil - 140mil Propulsion Subsystems: 60mil - 110mil
So a total T3 Ship would cost between 686mil - 1,040mil (about 1 bil). As competition between producers increases, material costs come down, these retail prices could come down 10% - 25%.
Couple of other notes: The prospective new costs could change dramatically up or down depending on drop rates adjustments. The 2 biggest material costs for T3 (not including reverse engineering costs for subsystems) are Carbon-86 and Neurovisual Input Matrix. Third in line is Melted Nanoribbons (though there is a big gate between this item and the previous 2). Increasing the drop rate of this item (causing it's cost to come down) would also have a decent effect on new pricing. They didn't say in the blog that they are increasing all the ancient salvage drops, just adjusting them to get rid of bottlenecks, so I'm assuming we'll see and increase drop in Neurovisual Input Matrix and probably Melted Nanoribbons. |
|
Karma
Vortex Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 21:32:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Savage Roar The question no-one seems to be addressing is what this patch will do to t3 module prices... it's just yada yada about the ships, but no-one's talking about the t3 weaponry? Will this patch make it cheaper too?
I assume you mean the subsystems, yes? since there aren't any T3 modules as such...
as you can see in this image, updating the droprates of salvage, fullerites, datacores/decryptors, etc will increase the amount of hulls AND subsystems you can create per expedition. just a matter of what blueprints you get, i suppose.
I'm guessing they're flinging around the term "T3 ship" as in, a whole ship, complete with hull and subsystems. |
Ankhesentapemkah
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 22:08:00 -
[22]
Epic mission arcs, any info? ---
|
Shadowsword
Epsilon Lyr Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 22:27:00 -
[23]
Those are some nice steps on the right direction. Time will tell if it's enough or not...
But one thing bother me: You still can't choose which subsystem you want to reverse engineer.
That mean the usefull subsystems will remain expensive due to rarity, and sucky subsystems will be REed at a loss due to supply far exceeding demand. This is a big design mistake here... |
Kinomoto Sakura
FW Scuad
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 22:47:00 -
[24]
Cheaper Legions??? yes please |
Alvara
Kuiper Belt Industries Empire Research
|
Posted - 2009.06.08 23:06:00 -
[25]
I finally buy a strategic cruiser last week, because prices looked to have stabilized, and NOW you announce supply changes. |
Maria Kalista
Amarr Emerald Forest Securities
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 02:05:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Ankhesentapemkah Epic mission arcs, any info?
Yeah, or: what happened to the (new) missions, you (CCP) should be able by now, to add on the fly?
Originally by: Jacharian This sounds like a bad idea. I'm in.
|
Gamer4liff
Caldari Metalworks THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 02:09:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Gamer4liff on 09/06/2009 02:09:37
Originally by: EliteSlave So what about t2 production?
what about Moon mining shortages?
This X1000 -----------
Originally by: CCP Whisper Deal with it.
|
Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 02:29:00 -
[28]
A sound plan, as long as overall isk/hour isn't affected too badly.
Time will tell.
/Ben
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 05:32:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Gamer4liff Edited by: Gamer4liff on 09/06/2009 02:09:37
Originally by: EliteSlave So what about t2 production?
what about Moon mining shortages?
This X1000
Seems to me it's working as intended... |
Louis deGuerre
Gallente Azure Horizon Federate Militia
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 07:42:00 -
[30]
Not being a billionaire these changes do not affect me at all. Acoording to your latest Quarterly report you've just catered to 10 % of your player base.
Where is the love for the common man ? FW ? Epic arcs ? Extra snowballs ?
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 08:42:00 -
[31]
Originally by: EliteSlave So what about t2 production?
what about Moon mining shortages?
Being worked on internally still. Lots of data has been gathered, numbers crunched and solutions being tinkered with.
It is definitely one of our higher priorities but any supply/demand changes are always being considered against the backdrop of the bigger picture of null sec itself.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 08:48:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Gnulpie Hmm, yes - increasing drop rates is one solution to fight some shortage and drop prices.
But if drop rates increase and so the supply increase a lot, how are you going to keep the prices up?
If you don't keep the prices high then going into the wormholes will be unprofitable and people will stop doing so. Or do you just hope that demand will increase also somehow and balance out the much higher supply rates and so the prices will be stable?
But is 1.3 all only about wormhole loot/salvage drop changes and some (minor) t3 production changes? Or can we expect also some other stuff?
It's a possible scenario, but at least in that one, the suppliers will switch to alternative more profitable activities until the supply reduces to profitable levels. It is expected that lower prices will increase the demand substantially and use up the excess materials such as sleeper salvage for example.
It is something we will continue to monitor and tweak alongside broadening wormhole space to be about more than tech 3 material supply so the player activities are not 100% tied to the Tech 3 market.
There are other changes in 1.3, but this blog was only covering the changes to tech 3 itself.
|
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 09:12:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Shadowsword Those are some nice steps on the right direction. Time will tell if it's enough or not...
But one thing bother me: You still can't choose which subsystem you want to reverse engineer.
That mean the usefull subsystems will remain expensive due to rarity, and sucky subsystems will be REed at a loss due to supply far exceeding demand. This is a big design mistake here...
It is true this does increase the reverse engineering costs as you cannot seek the most profitable subsystem without a chance of generating the other three as well. In part, this was designed this way to guard against FOTM combinations a little and ensure variety of subsystem availability but yes, it is not the full control of the output invention has.
We are looking into our options here still and have a few available such as a greater range of relics or an output selection like invention has in the future.
|
|
Jufi Wekior
Arachnid Logistics Fate Weavers
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 10:47:00 -
[34]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Shadowsword ...
It is true this does increase the reverse engineering costs as you cannot seek the most profitable subsystem without a chance of generating the other three as well. In part, this was designed this way to guard against FOTM combinations a little and ensure variety of subsystem availability but yes, it is not the full control of the output invention has.
We are looking into our options here still and have a few available such as a greater range of relics or an output selection like invention has in the future.
Have you considered making time the resource that is wasted? What I mean is, keep the random outcome but when you don't get what you want you could start the job over and essentially roll the dice again, untill you get something you do want. Of course 1 hour might not be enough of a waste then(it's pretty short anyway, super complex technology and it only takes an hour to decypher ). I don't believe having random outcomes that can't be influenced helps guard against FOTM, it only makes the non-FOTM worthless to even consider building, just look at jita prices for Tengu railgun subsystem as an example, it's priced at less then the cost of the raw materials, not including the reverse engineering stuff. |
Altaree
Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 11:11:00 -
[35]
This sounds really nice. Now, when is someone at ccp going to comment over at the level 4 devblog thread? 9 pages of people saying the same thing and no feed back... shameful.. --Altaree Eve University |
Falkrich Swifthand
Caldari eNinjas Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 11:34:00 -
[36]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: EliteSlave So what about t2 production?
what about Moon mining shortages?
Being worked on internally still. Lots of data has been gathered, numbers crunched and solutions being tinkered with.
It is definitely one of our higher priorities but any supply/demand changes are always being considered against the backdrop of the bigger picture of null sec itself.
How about an exploration site which shows up close to (unclaimed) moons, containing an NPC pirate POS and silos full of moon minerals? The POS wouldn't be a full POS, no reinforced mode etc, just a big destroyable object which unlocks the silos when you blow it. Add gun turrets and some pirate ships for extra fun. nullnull
My sig is not my sig. |
galphi
Gallente Sileo In Pacis The Space P0lice
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 12:41:00 -
[37]
It was mentioned that reverse engineering will produce the good modules just as well as the bad ones. I would put to you that there should be no bad modules for t3: Something like the propulsion module that gives a bonus to warp drive cap use doesn't strike me as being terribly useful on a ship where having Energy Management level 5 is practically mandatory. Makes sure all 5 subsystems for a t3 group are decent and this problem is solved :)
|
Dav Varan
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 14:51:00 -
[38]
What price point are the Devs aiming at for an assembled T3 cruiser ?
Current prices seem about right to me , T1 7M , T2 100M , T3 1B
If T3 prices crash to the 200M region then we can pretty much expect that only 4 ship types ( racial T3 ) will be seen on overview in cruiser roaming gangs, whos gonna fly T2 when T3 is superior in every way and only 2x the cost. |
Robot Robot
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 16:14:00 -
[39]
can i just sneak in here to ask if this patch is going to... um... fix the scanning interface
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 16:25:00 -
[40]
Originally by: galphi It was mentioned that reverse engineering will produce the good modules just as well as the bad ones. I would put to you that there should be no bad modules for t3: Something like the propulsion module that gives a bonus to warp drive cap use doesn't strike me as being terribly useful on a ship where having Energy Management level 5 is practically mandatory. Makes sure all 5 subsystems for a t3 group are decent and this problem is solved :)
Seriously, THIS
Why would you ever intend for there to be BAD modules vs. good?
Maybe if your warp drive cap bonus subsystem also added a sweet load of slots, +1 warpcore strength, and 25% less signature than normal (or MWD signature penalty reduction), then we would be talking. --
Don't harsh my mellow |
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 17:20:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Wannabehero
Originally by: galphi It was mentioned that reverse engineering will produce the good modules just as well as the bad ones. I would put to you that there should be no bad modules for t3: Something like the propulsion module that gives a bonus to warp drive cap use doesn't strike me as being terribly useful on a ship where having Energy Management level 5 is practically mandatory. Makes sure all 5 subsystems for a t3 group are decent and this problem is solved :)
Seriously, THIS
Why would you ever intend for there to be BAD modules vs. good?
Maybe if your warp drive cap bonus subsystem also added a sweet load of slots, +1 warpcore strength, and 25% less signature than normal (or MWD signature penalty reduction), then we would be talking.
there is opportunity and room for further balancing however it was more a point towards subsystems which create unique rather than competitive roles will be more in demand such as warp bubble immunity is one which is obviously well sought after.
It is true that there is some less appealing subsystems in there function wise which we can look at again. We have done it in the past with for example converting the legion subsystem to a khanid based system with missiles so open to other subsystem changes in the future. |
|
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 17:26:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Falkrich Swifthand
How about an exploration site which shows up close to (unclaimed) moons, containing an NPC pirate POS and silos full of moon minerals? The POS wouldn't be a full POS, no reinforced mode etc, just a big destroyable object which unlocks the silos when you blow it. Add gun turrets and some pirate ships for extra fun.
EDIT: Obviously tuned so that you couldn't get more moon minerals out of doing exploration than actually owning a moon.
One of the solutions is an alternative source from moons. Alchemy was a stepping stone in that direction by allowing less efficient alternative sources and we are looking at sources outside of moon minerals as well. As originally mentioned in my first reply, there is heavy consideration towards scarcity and value as conflict drivers as well but we are not happy with it being a single passive point source so any changes will look to maintain null sec value whilst distributing the possible sources more.
|
|
rubico1337
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 17:26:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Robot Robot can i just sneak in here to ask if this patch is going to... um... fix the scanning interface
i second this |
Mes Ren
No Trademark
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 17:47:00 -
[44]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Wannabehero
Originally by: galphi It was mentioned that reverse engineering will produce the good modules just as well as the bad ones. I would put to you that there should be no bad modules for t3: Something like the propulsion module that gives a bonus to warp drive cap use doesn't strike me as being terribly useful on a ship where having Energy Management level 5 is practically mandatory. Makes sure all 5 subsystems for a t3 group are decent and this problem is solved :)
Seriously, THIS
Why would you ever intend for there to be BAD modules vs. good?
Maybe if your warp drive cap bonus subsystem also added a sweet load of slots, +1 warpcore strength, and 25% less signature than normal (or MWD signature penalty reduction), then we would be talking.
there is opportunity and room for further balancing however it was more a point towards subsystems which create unique rather than competitive roles will be more in demand such as warp bubble immunity is one which is obviously well sought after.
It is true that there is some less appealing subsystems in there function wise which we can look at again. We have done it in the past with for example converting the legion subsystem to a khanid based system with missiles so open to other subsystem changes in the future.
Now that you mention this, I'm going to mention an obvious discrepency in the Tengu Engineering - Power Core Multiplier. The main purpose of going with this module is to give you boosted MW. Unfortunately, at any skill level, the Tengu Engineering - Capacitor Regeneration Matrix gives more MW in addition to giving you an awesome cap bonus. I can only imagine this was some kind of oversight that hasn't been caught. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 18:21:00 -
[45]
Well, a STEP in the right direction, finally. How big of a step, that remains to be seen... I'd say this will at best reduce T3 ship prices to about a third of their current value (maybe even a quarter, much later on), so around around 600 mil to 1 bil ISK depending on variant, give or take... but still... it's not quite where we'd have expected it to be according to some initial hints (300 mil ISK or thereabouts for the more expensive ones).
However, one has to question the validity of their comments in the feedback threads, when people have been warning of precisely the SORT of things you are now trying to "fix" now even before T3 made it on TQ (with ample details and calculations)... if you didn't really listen to any of those comments back then, and it took so long to even realize you need to do something, what should make us want to comment on it now... since the ONLY thing you seem to listen to is long-term price trends way, way AFTER the changes are made ?
EVE issues|Mining revamp|Build stuff|Make ISK |
DMF KingBob
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 18:48:00 -
[46]
sounds good but please dont forget to fix insurance (t2 and t3) and t2 materials
producing t2 ships is currently pretty rewardless and time wasting a zealot is with 115m (market) to expensiv for an upgraded omen (platin 100% insurance means 17m or so this is already not correct) |
Elementatia
Caldari Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 18:49:00 -
[47]
Well "the drawingboard" is from 8th September...any information, when you will update the information for "Developement" and "Drawingboard" ? |
Arec Bardwin
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 19:39:00 -
[48]
Any word on when we will see some major sound love? A special sound blog was mentioned at some point.... |
EliteSlave
Minmatar Macabre Votum Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 20:27:00 -
[49]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: EliteSlave So what about t2 production?
what about Moon mining shortages?
Being worked on internally still. Lots of data has been gathered, numbers crunched and solutions being tinkered with.
It is definitely one of our higher priorities but any supply/demand changes are always being considered against the backdrop of the bigger picture of null sec itself.
Thankyou for the reply,
Can we expect a blog anytime soon on the matter?
Also, how about instead of 100 Units mined per hour, how about 125 p/h?
I think with just 25% increase of output that it would lower the cost as more supply is available.
|
Template Girl
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 21:38:00 -
[50]
I just wanted to say thanks CCP. This is exactly the sort of stuff I wanted to hear (and felt was needed), and it revitalized my excitement for t3. Its good to see all those hours those poor slave artists put in go to good work :D Things in eve look like they are heading in the right direction.
|
|
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 22:55:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Wannabehero on 09/06/2009 22:57:18
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Wannabehero
Originally by: galphi Paraphrase: There should be no bad subsystems
Paraphrase: Seriously, there should be no bad subsytems
there is opportunity and room for further balancing however it was more a point towards subsystems which create unique rather than competitive roles will be more in demand such as warp bubble immunity is one which is obviously well sought after.
It is true that there is some less appealing subsystems in there function wise which we can look at again. We have done it in the past with for example converting the legion subsystem to a khanid based system with missiles so open to other subsystem changes in the future.
Would it be at all possible for more subsystems to have something uniquely awesome about them? Warp drive cap use reduction is certainly unique, but is by no means awesome. Warp scrambler MWD-deactivation immunity, now that is unique and awesome, almost (not quite) on par with bubble immunity.
here are a few others
Web immunity Minor passive armor regeneration MWD signature bloom reduction Non-racial sensor type(s) Non-zero hull resists Hull repper bonuses to make par/slightly better than armor repping (serious lol factor) Bonus to overheating bonuses (i.e. 25% better overheating bonus, 15% -> 18.75%) Rigging slot/calibration addition
In any case, we appreciate all attention the Dev team gives to fixing making tech 3 better. --
Don't harsh my mellow |
Wannabehero
Absolutely No Retreat
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 22:56:00 -
[52]
Edited by: Wannabehero on 09/06/2009 22:56:49 Double post failure --
Don't harsh my mellow |
StarScream Xion
Caldari Xion Limited Brig Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 23:45:00 -
[53]
Are there any plans to introduce T3 frigates?
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2009.06.09 23:57:00 -
[54]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis the backdrop of the bigger picture of null sec itself.
to me most of 0.0 looks like fecal matter thrown against a wall. posses and blobs... ewww gross.
and then most systems don't have anything to mine that is worth more then veldspar, and can sustain 1 or maybe even 2 ratters. the moon mining is certainly worth it, on some things, but I wonder how most corps/alliances use that profit. and exploration is nice, but hardly worth living in one place as it moves around quite a bit.
|
Slave 2739FKZ
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 00:44:00 -
[55]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
It is true this does increase the reverse engineering costs as you cannot seek the most profitable subsystem without a chance of generating the other three as well. In part, this was designed this way to guard against FOTM combinations a little and ensure variety of subsystem availability but yes, it is not the full control of the output invention has.
We are looking into our options here still and have a few available such as a greater range of relics or an output selection like invention has in the future.
Best way to fix this is rebalance the sucky subsystems, tbh. Make them worthwhile. |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 03:20:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Slave 2739FKZ
Best way to fix this is rebalance the sucky subsystems, tbh. Make them worthwhile.
way to go, you just got all the good subsystems nerfed*
*assuming ccp goes the normal way about things |
Jiks
Caldari Prophets of Doom
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 03:40:00 -
[57]
Good to see you are addressing the major production bottleneck, the datacores. To put it into perspective our little operation is currently sitting on 134 relics of various qualities, nearly as many decryptors and no datacores. What been described should help a lot.
The second biggest obstacle IMO hasn't been addressed, which is the plague of POS sweeping Sleeper space. As it stands theres a huge incentive to base any industrial activity other than moon mining and super-capital production in Sleeper space as its so much more difficult to assemble an attack fleet to take it out. As a result we are seeing the percentage of Sleeper systems with POS steadily increase which hinders gathering the T3 resources. It is unclear to me whether the signature spawns are affected by a POS presence or not ... the info has been conflicting.
Now I don't know what the solution might be, perhaps non gas/ore refining industrial structures going offline at some future date or something. Hopefully someone brighter than me has better idea, otherwise pretty soon nearly all of the regularly empire accessable Sleeper system will have POS in which will hamper both exploring and T3 availability.
Jiks |
Clansworth
Farstrider Industries MARS WARFARE CENTRE
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 09:15:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Jiks Good to see you are addressing the major production bottleneck, the datacores. To put it into perspective our little operation is currently sitting on 134 relics of various qualities, nearly as many decryptors and no datacores. What been described should help a lot.
The second biggest obstacle IMO hasn't been addressed, which is the plague of POS sweeping Sleeper space. As it stands theres a huge incentive to base any industrial activity other than moon mining and super-capital production in Sleeper space as its so much more difficult to assemble an attack fleet to take it out. As a result we are seeing the percentage of Sleeper systems with POS steadily increase which hinders gathering the T3 resources. It is unclear to me whether the signature spawns are affected by a POS presence or not ... the info has been conflicting.
Now I don't know what the solution might be, perhaps non gas/ore refining industrial structures going offline at some future date or something. Hopefully someone brighter than me has better idea, otherwise pretty soon nearly all of the regularly empire accessable Sleeper system will have POS in which will hamper both exploring and T3 availability.
Jiks
Curious, but how do you equate a POS presence with hampering T3 availability? If anything, it means that, odds are, every site that spawns will be quickly harvested, effectively maximizing T3 availability. |
Daedelus51
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 10:38:00 -
[59]
Lowering T3 production costs, making these extremely capable ships available to more players is a good thing, one cannot truly appreciate the awesomeness of T3, till one drives one........Keep up the good work.
|
Braaage
Ministry of Craft
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 11:04:00 -
[60]
Chronotis we still don't know if any of the reverse engineering skills affects the outcome of the RE job. We haven't been told they do, we haven't been told they don't.
How about spilling the beans and if they don't change the outcome how about making them change it? --
POSs, Outposts, Exploration, Mining, Invention, Boosters, EA EVE Database, T2/T3 production & more |
|
Aargh
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 11:08:00 -
[61]
As part of a small corp who have just started to knock out T3 subsystems, this sucks.
I note that none of the changes indicate any increase in sig/anomaly spawns, so there'll still be the same amount of wasting time looking for content and once found, the content will be worth less.
|
Slave 2739FKZ
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 11:09:00 -
[62]
About people talking about T2 & moons, the serious bottleneck there right now are datacore prices, which make prices go up. Remember manufatcure is just a fraction of total cost (a T2 cruiser you can manufacture by around 30-40 mill. without counting time & invention job). But that's an entirelly different topic. |
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 11:14:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Braaage Chronotis we still don't know if any of the reverse engineering skills affects the outcome of the RE job. We haven't been told they do, we haven't been told they don't.
How about spilling the beans and if they don't change the outcome how about making them change it?
ofc they do
|
|
Brolly
Caldari Caldari State Inc.
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 11:59:00 -
[64]
Drops may increase,but it doesn't mean prices will go down, just means a greater profit margin for the industrialists :)
I can see the backlash now where people all over the forums are going to whine at CCP because the manufacturors aren't going to lower prices much :D
Awww, what's that?, 'carebears' not letting you have your shiny ships for a low price
It's all about supply and demand, kid.
|
Jonathan Calvert
Minmatar Empire Mining and Trade
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 12:34:00 -
[65]
Competition will drive prices down. Its unavoidable. Any cost savings as a result of increased supply of materials will cause someone to lower sell prices.
|
Jonathan Calvert
Minmatar Empire Mining and Trade
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 12:36:00 -
[66]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Braaage Chronotis we still don't know if any of the reverse engineering skills affects the outcome of the RE job. We haven't been told they do, we haven't been told they don't.
How about spilling the beans and if they don't change the outcome how about making them change it?
ofc they do
Is there a reason we cant be told exactly how much of an effect skills have on a research job? Like putting in the text of the skill, 5% increase chance of success per level. Mods have this, why dont research skills? And cant we know the base chance as well? Otherwise we have to waste a lot of time and money figuring this out, which other people dont.
|
Braaage
Ministry of Craft
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 13:24:00 -
[67]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Braaage Chronotis we still don't know if any of the reverse engineering skills affects the outcome of the RE job. We haven't been told they do, we haven't been told they don't.
How about spilling the beans and if they don't change the outcome how about making them change it?
ofc they do
Grrr see if I knew this before RE'ing this lot I would have made sure my skills were higher and I wouldn't have wasted billions on RE'ing.
Why we don't get told this on inception is beyond me, I sent numerous emails to CCP, posted forum after forum post asking for info and no-one replied and we were left guessing. At least now we know!!
Time to churn out what's left then before they become worthless. --
POSs, Outposts, Exploration, Mining, Invention, Boosters, EA EVE Database, T2/T3 production & more |
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Shadow Reapers
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 13:25:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Mes Ren Edited by: Mes Ren on 08/06/2009 22:03:32 I did the number cruching -- here is where we will be after the changes.
First, the assumptions: - Neurovisual Input Matrix drops in price from 6-7mil to 2mil or less. - Carbon-86 drops in price from 3.2mil to 2.3mil or less. - Scandium Metallofullerene increases in price from 34,900 to 100,000isk/unit. - Subsystem Datacore go from 10mil/unit on avg (and 25mil/unit on avg for offensive) to 5mil/unit on avg. across the board. - Reverse Engineer will increase the number of runs per bpc from 3 to 9.
Current costs for T3 (assuming 75% success rate): - Hull - approx. 200 - 250mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 30mil/unit with Wrecked Hulls) - Total Cost: 230mil - 280mil - Defensive Subsystem - approx. 25 - 50mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 19mil/unit) - Total Cost: 44mil - 69mil - Electronic Subsystem - approx. 42 - 51mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 19mil/unit) - Total Cost: 61mil - 70mil - Engineering Subsystem - approx. 42 - 51mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 19mil/unit) - Total Cost: 61mil - 70mil - Offensive Subsytem - approx. 53 - 86mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 46mil/unit) - Total Cost: 99mil - 132mil - Propulsion Subsystem - approx. 42 - 51mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 19mil/unit) - Total Cost: 61mil - 70mil
* cost spread is largely the difference between reacting the polymers yourself and buying them off the market.
Please take into account that for every given subsystem group, there is usually 1 or 2 highly desirable subsystems. Since you can not pick which subsystem you will get (completely random within a group), there is additional costs to produce the desired subsystem. This is figured by multiply the Reverse Engineer Cost/unit by 4.
Proposed System costs for T3 (assuming 75% success rate): - Hull - approx. 95 - 127mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 10mil/unit with Wrecked Hulls) - Total Cost: 105mil - 137mil - Defensive Subsystem - approx. 17 - 34mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 2mil/unit) - Total Cost: 19mil - 36mil - Electronic Subsystem - approx. 18 - 24mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 2mil/unit) - Total Cost: 20mil - 26mil - Engineering Subsystem - approx. 18 - 24mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 2mil/unit) - Total Cost: 20mil - 26mil - Offensive Subsytem - approx. 28 - 51mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 2mil/unit) - Total Cost: 30mil - 52mil - Propulsion Subsystem - approx. 18 - 24mil/unit (Reverse Engineering Cost approx. 2mil/unit) - Total Cost: 20mil - 26mil
If the current markups held true (and current market prices continue to hold steady on materials) you would see the following T3 Retail prices:
Hulls: 350mil - 450mil Defensive Subsystems: 66mil - 106mil Electronic Subsystems: 56mil - 96mil Engineering Subsystems: 56mil - 96mil Offensive Subsystems: 82mil - 126mil Propulsion Subsystems: 56mil - 96mil
So a total T3 Ship would cost between 666mil - 990mil. As competition between producers increases, material costs come down, these retail prices could come down 10% - 25%.
Couple of other notes: The prospective new costs could change dramatically up or down depending on drop rates adjustments. The 2 biggest material costs for T3 (not including reverse engineering costs for subsystems) are Carbon-86 and Neurovisual Input Matrix. Third in line is Melted Nanoribbons (though there is a big gate between this item and the previous 2). Increasing the drop rate of this item (causing it's cost to come down) would also have a decent effect on new pricing. They didn't say in the blog that they are increasing all the ancient salvage drops, just adjusting them to get rid of bottlenecks, so I'm assuming we'll see and increase drop in Neurovisual Input Matrix and probably Melted Nanoribbons.
Nice analysis Mes, and it seems those assumptions are about right too. NIMs are in free-fall, buy orders down to 3.5m already. Also, it has come to my attention that I'm really in need of a proper signature. |
Jiks
Caldari Prophets of Doom
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 17:12:00 -
[69]
"Curious, but how do you equate a POS presence with hampering T3 availability?"
Firstly - rumours a POS in the system negatively affects the sig spawn rate. Would be good to know once and for all if thats right or not TBH.
Secondly - many or possibly even most of the POS I've seen exploring since release have had no T3 related gear. They have simply been placed in Sleeper space because its a safer place to build, well anything from carriers to T2 ammo from what I've seen. Visitors entering said systems to run the actual content have met with heavy dictors and other nastiness ^^
Of course POS set up to refine gas, minerals, build sub-systems etc are there too, its the other ones I'm talking about. From various random rants I've seen on GD I'm not the only one who has doubts this is "as intended." I'm biased of course though as I like exploring, roaming through Sleeper space and general blowing stuff up out there...
Jiks
|
Vasta Magna
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 17:17:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Jiks
The second biggest obstacle IMO hasn't been addressed, which is the plague of POS sweeping Sleeper space. As it stands theres a huge incentive to base any industrial activity other than moon mining and super-capital production in Sleeper space as its so much more difficult to assemble an attack fleet to take it out. As a result we are seeing the percentage of Sleeper systems with POS steadily increase which hinders gathering the T3 resources. It is unclear to me whether the signature spawns are affected by a POS presence or not ... the info has been conflicting.
Now I don't know what the solution might be, perhaps non gas/ore refining industrial structures going offline at some future date or something. Hopefully someone brighter than me has better idea, otherwise pretty soon nearly all of the regularly empire accessable Sleeper system will have POS in which will hamper both exploring and T3 availability.
Jiks
Confirming that the quoted post makes no sense. |
|
Mes Ren
No Trademark
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 18:44:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Turiel Demon
Originally by: Mes Ren Edited by: Mes Ren on 08/06/2009 22:03:32 Stuff
Nice analysis Mes, and it seems those assumptions are about right too. NIMs are in free-fall, buy orders down to 3.5m already.
Yeah, everyone is trying to unload their NIM before they become plentiful. Scand Full has also gone way up. The thing I find funny about this is the fact that we still don't have an announcement for when the patch will come .... it could be many weeks away, and even when it does come out, you still have to give it time before we feel the effects because people still have to go out and get these increased drops.
________________________
No Trademark -- Mes Ren, Mes Builder -- -- CEO --
|
Clansworth
Farstrider Industries MARS WARFARE CENTRE
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 18:45:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Jiks "Curious, but how do you equate a POS presence with hampering T3 availability?"
Firstly - rumours a POS in the system negatively affects the sig spawn rate. Would be good to know once and for all if thats right or not TBH.
Secondly - many or possibly even most of the POS I've seen exploring since release have had no T3 related gear. They have simply been placed in Sleeper space because its a safer place to build, well anything from carriers to T2 ammo from what I've seen. Visitors entering said systems to run the actual content have met with heavy dictors and other nastiness ^^
Of course POS set up to refine gas, minerals, build sub-systems etc are there too, its the other ones I'm talking about. From various random rants I've seen on GD I'm not the only one who has doubts this is "as intended." I'm biased of course though as I like exploring, roaming through Sleeper space and general blowing stuff up out there...
Jiks
I guess this isn't my experience. I live in W-Space, and we do not currently run gas processes, however, we DO clear out every site that spawns, stockpiling or selling the gasses/salvage/loot/ore/whatever.
Intel/Nomad |
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2009.06.10 20:35:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Braaage
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Braaage Chronotis we still don't know if any of the reverse engineering skills affects the outcome of the RE job. We haven't been told they do, we haven't been told they don't.
How about spilling the beans and if they don't change the outcome how about making them change it?
ofc they do
Grrr see if I knew this before RE'ing this lot I would have made sure my skills were higher and I wouldn't have wasted billions on RE'ing.
Why we don't get told this on inception is beyond me, I sent numerous emails to CCP, posted forum after forum post asking for info and no-one replied and we were left guessing. At least now we know!!
Time to churn out what's left then before they become worthless.
what in the name of bloody **** would make you think that the skill to reverse engineer wouldn't affect the results of Reverse engineering? |
|
CCP Chronotis
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 07:50:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Clansworth
Originally by: Jiks "Curious, but how do you equate a POS presence with hampering T3 availability?"
Firstly - rumours a POS in the system negatively affects the sig spawn rate. Would be good to know once and for all if thats right or not TBH.
Secondly - many or possibly even most of the POS I've seen exploring since release have had no T3 related gear. They have simply been placed in Sleeper space because its a safer place to build, well anything from carriers to T2 ammo from what I've seen. Visitors entering said systems to run the actual content have met with heavy dictors and other nastiness ^^
Of course POS set up to refine gas, minerals, build sub-systems etc are there too, its the other ones I'm talking about. From various random rants I've seen on GD I'm not the only one who has doubts this is "as intended." I'm biased of course though as I like exploring, roaming through Sleeper space and general blowing stuff up out there...
Jiks
I guess this isn't my experience. I live in W-Space, and we do not currently run gas processes, however, we DO clear out every site that spawns, stockpiling or selling the gasses/salvage/loot/ore/whatever.
There is a larger discussion on the wormholes both between w-space systems and to k-space in terms of both presence and mass and time variables.
As was mentioned in the past, the presence of starbases has nothing to do with the resource replenishment as its the presence of yourselves depleting the resources which causes them to dry up and running efficient operations. The systems were never designed to favour permanent settlement but we are looking at diversifying wormhole space to about more than just Tech III and a small amount of isk income from sleeper tags and will look into allowing more w-w space connections so you can go deeper in and find your way to bat country perhaps.
|
|
Jiks
Caldari Prophets of Doom
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 08:59:00 -
[75]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis will look into allowing more w-w space connections so you can go deeper in and find your way to bat country perhaps.
Thanks Chronotis, sounds excellent!
Jiks |
Jon Neeley001
Caldari Handle and Tang Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 11:18:00 -
[76]
Great posts, man like what i see.
Since you were spilling information, can you confirm if this is a accurate page http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Wormhole_Reference
if its true seems to me a wolf-raynet and a pulsar anomalies favour armour tankers strongly, while no anomalies seem to favour sheild tanks more that armour.
thanks
|
steave435
Caldari SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2009.06.11 13:01:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Brolly Drops may increase,but it doesn't mean prices will go down, just means a greater profit margin for the industrialists :)
I can see the backlash now where people all over the forums are going to whine at CCP because the manufacturors aren't going to lower prices much :D
Awww, what's that?, 'carebears' not letting you have your shiny ships for a low price
It's all about supply and demand, kid.
If drops increase, there will be more stuff that need to be sold. The industrials will want to sell it, but if they keep putting up their stuff at the same price, they will not be able to sell it all since there is not enough people willing to buy at that price. Therefore, they have to lower the price they sell it at to make more people feel that it's worth the price they'd have to pay for it.
|
Blane Xero
Amarr The Firestorm Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 03:21:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Jon Neeley001 Great posts, man like what i see.
Since you were spilling information, can you confirm if this is a accurate page http://wiki.eveonline.com/wiki/Wormhole_Reference
if its true seems to me a wolf-raynet and a pulsar anomalies favour armour tankers strongly, while no anomalies seem to favour sheild tanks more that armour.
thanks
Pulsar is really good for passive shield tanked ships, just FYI. ___________________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008
|
Usagi Tsukino
APEX Unlimited APEX Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 04:33:00 -
[79]
Originally by: rubico1337
Originally by: Robot Robot can i just sneak in here to ask if this patch is going to... um... fix the scanning interface
i second this
Third, oh GOD, third. |
FabriceGP
Amarr Engineer's Vault
|
Posted - 2009.06.12 14:54:00 -
[80]
I'd like to say two things about my feeling on general t3 layouts.
First, the drones : how comes so few subsystems give a dronebay ? On the legion the dronebay is astounding making it very practical on many circumstances, but when heavyer dps is needed we cannot use this subsystem and then the ship itself becomes extremely vulnerable against small ships. "oh lolol we destroyed a legion with 3 tech 1 frigates lolol". I think sincelery that offensive subsystems giving bonuses to guns should always give at least a 25m3 dronebay with the bandwidth for 5 light drones, on all t3 ships of course.
Second : range bonuses and specializations. how comes the Tengu has an ecm range bonus, the loki has a web range bonus, the proteus has a warp scrambler/disruptor range bonus ? On his part , the legion has a bonus on neutraliziing strength but without any range bonus on them. so first, bonuses on other races first affect med slots and for modules which don't eat almost any capacitor while the legion still needs quite big capacitor amount to only hope the capacitor neutralization will work (you only need a cap booster or a nosferatu to delay the neutralization effect, and neutra, as you all know, just make all passive tanking shield ships / missile/projectile boats just laugh). Webifying works alwyas, scramble as well, and ecm... erm not even usefull to say what I think about jamming. just much too powerfull, it's still the I win button. Long explanation I know, but I think this "problem" has to be taken in account when you will start working on rebalancing the subsystem bonuses and/or roles.
about the "augmented capacitor resevoir" on the legion : +1 high slot, +1 turret slot, ok , but how about a +1 launcher slot ? Good to see a khanid oriented subsystem but it's only true if slot bonuses reflect the choice on all configurations.
I think the "assault optimization" subsystem should give a bonus to cargohold, since compared to other subsystems the ship will need to store the missiles added to cap booster charges and other stuff.
A question now, about the tech3 bpc I realized before I knew that the number of runs will surely be changed, will the existing 3 runs bpc in my hangar be changed to 10 runs bpc ? Or will I just have to sit down on the 7 "lost" runs ? (I let you count the amount of isks lost with 7 bpc of 3 runs each)
|
|
Ben Derindar
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2009.06.13 00:24:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Treelox do we have a rough ETA on this patches deployment yet?
Good question...
/Ben
|
Rika I
Caldari Tomoe Laboratories Celestial Imperative
|
Posted - 2009.06.13 00:34:00 -
[82]
Chronotis, you know nothing about the game economy and don't care at all about veteran/fulltime industrialists!
This is just like when invention first came out. It was perfect with it's original release but then you kept making it easier and cheaper until any newbie or alt could do it... and you kept making these changes so fast that the market never had time to stabilize!
The same is true now: The t3 market hasn't yet stabilized and prices will go down more by themselves without your changes. If you keep making it cheaper, it'll become just as bad as t1 and invention where all the "materials I acquire myself are free" idiots ruin everyone's profits.
Short version: * Wait for a new market to stabilize BEFORE making changes to it. * High end stuff needs a high barrier of entry (both isk and skill-wise) so that veteran/fulltime industrialists can make decent profits while keeping out the "materials I acquire myself are free" idiots!
----------------------------- Rika, the Uber Researcher! |
Josehpine
|
Posted - 2009.06.13 08:26:00 -
[83]
Well, that announcement really wasnt a good idea. You completely crashed the T3 market. And with no timeframe announced when this stuff will hit TQ it will stay for that quite a while. Everybody is selling off what they have at ridicoulus prices, afraid they will get even less money for it when the changes hit TQ.
All T3 manufactueres are unemployed now.
Also the changes werent necessary at this time. The profit margins on T3 production where still a 100% + before you announced the changes. With some more competition on the manufactureres side those prices would have steadily decreased, instead of having a big crash!
|
Shadowsword
Epsilon Lyr Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2009.06.13 14:13:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Josehpine Well, that announcement really wasnt a good idea. You completely crashed the T3 market. And with no timeframe announced when this stuff will hit TQ it will stay for that quite a while. Everybody is selling off what they have at ridicoulus prices, afraid they will get even less money for it when the changes hit TQ.
All T3 manufactueres are unemployed now.
Also the changes werent necessary at this time. The profit margins on T3 production where still a 100% + before you announced the changes. With some more competition on the manufactureres side those prices would have steadily decreased, instead of having a big crash!
You and the poster above obviously care only about your own little personnal situations, and not about game balance as a whole... T3 cruisers at 1,5B are ridiculous, period. It needs changing.
Anyone with a clue knew something like that was coming, and pretty soon. If you invested in a market segment that was bound to change drastically, it's your own fault if you get burned fingers. ------------------------------------------
|
Letrange
Minmatar Chaosstorm Corporation Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2009.06.13 17:10:00 -
[85]
@all the "fix the scanning suff guys"... um wrong dev? I'm sure there's a dev that'll be more appropriate to ask about that. Chronotis tends to be the industrial side of the designs - we can blame him for the carbon-86 and NIM issues but not for the scanning ones. |
Veebora
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 03:46:00 -
[86]
It would be nice having T3 really in game, because now it is like a trophy for rich people.
Anyway I hope you will put some real stuff on next expansion, some common and useful T1 stuff that everybody can have access.
|
Lyvanna Kitaen
Minmatar Noonday Sun Corp
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 05:04:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Letrange @all the "fix the scanning suff guys"... um wrong dev? I'm sure there's a dev that'll be more appropriate to ask about that. Chronotis tends to be the industrial side of the designs - we can blame him for the carbon-86 and NIM issues but not for the scanning ones.
You're not going to get *any* T3 stuff without scanning. Scanning is the root game mechanic for finding wormholes and sites. |
King Tope
|
Posted - 2009.06.15 12:14:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Lyvanna Kitaen
Originally by: Letrange @all the "fix the scanning suff guys"... um wrong dev? I'm sure there's a dev that'll be more appropriate to ask about that. Chronotis tends to be the industrial side of the designs - we can blame him for the carbon-86 and NIM issues but not for the scanning ones.
You're not going to get *any* T3 stuff without scanning. Scanning is the root game mechanic for finding wormholes and sites.
Are you nuts??
if you buy a car and the gas station is running dry of fuel, because of a supply lack of fuel, when you donŠt blame the car seller!
hmm maybe YOU would blame him, because he has be secure the fuel supply.
*shakinghaed* |
Josehpine
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 20:38:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Shadowsword
Anyone with a clue knew something like that was coming, and pretty soon. If you invested in a market segment that was bound to change drastically, it's your own fault if you get burned fingers.
No, you dont have a clue since you dont manufacture the ships. They are overpriced of course, but thats not due to the lack of supply, but mainly due to the lack of competition on manufacturer side, as the profit margins were way above 100% per ship. No other item in eve that you can manufacture offers that on every single regional market!
CCP should have waited at least another few months till there was more competition and the market would have settled down. After that you can make right decisions with how much youre going to tweak what, without screwing everything up.
And there's still the timeframe missing for the release
|
Kell Braugh
Dawn of a new Empire The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.06.16 21:29:00 -
[90]
Originally by: EliteSlave So what about t2 production?
what about Moon mining shortages?
was this a serious question coming from a MM guy? |
|
Ghost Prospector
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 05:13:00 -
[91]
make wormhole exploration an activity slightly possible or interesting for a solo player and everyone will be happy |
Jon Neeley001
Caldari Handle and Tang Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 10:25:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Ghost Prospector make wormhole exploration an activity slightly possible or interesting for a solo player and everyone will be happy
You know man solo a drake will do 2's, a raven 3's, a golem 4's sorry its all caldari ships but thats what i fly, im sure there are other ships in other races my corpmate uses a hyperion to clear out grav and ladar sites for example and ive done plenty of 3's in my nightmare.
solo wise the difficulty is like class 2 = lvl 3 mission class 3 = lvl 4 mission class 4 = lvl 5 mission excpt no neuts!
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 10:46:00 -
[93]
I hope you randomize wormhole connections , they suppose to be random ( right ? ) but inside w-space system they are everything but random. |
Marko Riva
Riva Corp
|
Posted - 2009.06.17 23:38:00 -
[94]
Forgive me if the info was there, perhaps I'm just blind but is there a set date or ballpark figure for this? |
Atiana Obaani
Tomoe Laboratories Celestial Imperative
|
Posted - 2009.06.20 03:35:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Rika I Chronotis, you know nothing about the game economy and don't care at all about veteran/fulltime industrialists!
This is just like when invention first came out. It was perfect with it's original release but then you kept making it easier and cheaper until any newbie or alt could do it... and you kept making these changes so fast that the market never had time to stabilize!
The same is true now: The t3 market hasn't yet stabilized and prices will go down more by themselves without your changes. If you keep making it cheaper, it'll become just as bad as t1 and invention where all the "materials I acquire myself are free" idiots ruin everyone's profits.
Short version: * Wait for a new market to stabilize BEFORE making changes to it. * High end stuff needs a high barrier of entry (both isk and skill-wise) so that veteran/fulltime industrialists can make decent profits while keeping out the "materials I acquire myself are free" idiots!
Q F Mother****ing T. I wish you guys would listen to this kind of insight. We aren't even involved in the T3 market for the most part, but the advice that you guys need to chill the **** out on new markets for a few months is GOOD advice that you guys need to look at.
I don't see subscribers bailing by the thousands because they can't fly or afford T3, so calm down, and let it be THE PLAYER BASED ECONOMY you guys constantly brag about. |
Holy Lowlander
Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.06.23 14:58:00 -
[96]
so any timeframe for this patch ?
I for one owuld love to get a tengu for my alt ... |
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2009.06.26 12:29:00 -
[97]
Edited by: JitaPriceChecker2 on 26/06/2009 12:31:41 Yes annoucement of such a changes and no idea when this patch will come out is a little harsh.
Edit: Sory my bad i have just spotted a date.
|
Punishaa
Minmatar The Graduates
|
Posted - 2009.07.04 16:21:00 -
[98]
Now that the patch has been out for a few days is there any explination why the droprate of neurovisual input matrix hasn't been increased? In the runup to the patch the price droped in expectation of it no longer being the main bottleneck in T3 production. However it appears that sleepers don't drop anymore then they used to, and the daily volume traded in jita hasn't increased. All the extra BPCs are nice, but without more neurovisual inputs it is impossible to increase production and the prices will remain high. Datacore prices reacted almost immedietly to the increased droprate, if neurovisual droprates had been increased they would not have gone up 300% since the patch like they have.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 :: [one page] |