Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
OkaskiKali
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 21:55:00 -
[1] - Quote
when ccp **** up moon minerals.
It brings the whole system to a standstill. |
Sabre Rolf
Republic University Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 22:20:00 -
[2] - Quote
OkaskiKali wrote:when ccp **** up moon minerals.
It brings the whole system to a standstill.
call me paranoid, but something tells me that you actually dont love it, am i right?
|
OkaskiKali
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
37
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 22:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
Sabre Rolf wrote:OkaskiKali wrote:when ccp **** up moon minerals.
It brings the whole system to a standstill. call me paranoid, but something tells me that you actually dont love it, am i right?
I just wish they would stop being so damn reactive all the time. I want them to come up with better ideas that allow the player base to create their own play styles and one that combats the so called "in-balance". In essence i want them to be proactive.
Time and time again play styles are broken apart becuase they take the easy route and nerf it.
The reason why moon mining is the way it is, is becuase its too hard to disrupt. On the other hand reacting material on a dead moon for me is an entirely different game.
Its too easy just to change "the numbers".
|
Alex Grison
Grison Interstellar
286
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 23:21:00 -
[4] - Quote
OkaskiKali wrote:Sabre Rolf wrote:OkaskiKali wrote:when ccp **** up moon minerals.
It brings the whole system to a standstill. call me paranoid, but something tells me that you actually dont love it, am i right? I just wish they would stop being so damn reactive all the time. I want them to come up with better ideas that allow the player base to create their own play styles and one that combats the so called "in-balance". In essence i want them to be proactive. Time and time again play styles are broken apart becuase they take the easy route and nerf it. The reason why moon mining is the way it is, is becuase its too hard to disrupt. On the other hand reacting material on a dead moon for me is an entirely different game. Its too easy just to change "the numbers". All im saying is that we have: Coka Cola Pepsi Pepsi Max Diet Cola Diet coke They all taste the same. One simple hasn't just "changed" numbers unless you are a diabetic. How many different types of material are used to make a table? Wood, plastic, metal steel etc and yet they are still called a table.
If I want to make a table out of sheet metal I am going to call it a flamboozle.
|
Callduron
196
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 16:30:00 -
[5] - Quote
Alex Grison wrote:OkaskiKali wrote:Sabre Rolf wrote:OkaskiKali wrote:when ccp **** up moon minerals.
It brings the whole system to a standstill. call me paranoid, but something tells me that you actually dont love it, am i right? I just wish they would stop being so damn reactive all the time. I want them to come up with better ideas that allow the player base to create their own play styles and one that combats the so called "in-balance". In essence i want them to be proactive. Time and time again play styles are broken apart becuase they take the easy route and nerf it. The reason why moon mining is the way it is, is becuase its too hard to disrupt. On the other hand reacting material on a dead moon for me is an entirely different game. Its too easy just to change "the numbers". All im saying is that we have: Coka Cola Pepsi Pepsi Max Diet Cola Diet coke They all taste the same. One simple hasn't just "changed" numbers unless you are a diabetic. How many different types of material are used to make a table? Wood, plastic, metal steel etc and yet they are still called a table. If I want to make a table out of sheet metal I am going to call it a flamboozle.
As a result of this cynical piece of manipulation I can't find any Pepsi Max on the Jita market at all. |
Jonasan Mikio
Hateful Munitions Totally Consensual
23
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 21:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
Callduron wrote:Alex Grison wrote:OkaskiKali wrote:Sabre Rolf wrote:OkaskiKali wrote:when ccp **** up moon minerals.
It brings the whole system to a standstill. call me paranoid, but something tells me that you actually dont love it, am i right? I just wish they would stop being so damn reactive all the time. I want them to come up with better ideas that allow the player base to create their own play styles and one that combats the so called "in-balance". In essence i want them to be proactive. Time and time again play styles are broken apart becuase they take the easy route and nerf it. The reason why moon mining is the way it is, is becuase its too hard to disrupt. On the other hand reacting material on a dead moon for me is an entirely different game. Its too easy just to change "the numbers". All im saying is that we have: Coka Cola Pepsi Pepsi Max Diet Cola Diet coke They all taste the same. One simple hasn't just "changed" numbers unless you are a diabetic. How many different types of material are used to make a table? Wood, plastic, metal steel etc and yet they are still called a table. If I want to make a table out of sheet metal I am going to call it a flamboozle. As a result of this cynical piece of manipulation I can't find any Pepsi Max on the Jita market at all.
I bought up all the pepsi max, and am holding it until after the nerf.... I plan to make zillions!
|
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
608
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 23:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
you win some you lose some when it comes to trading.
in the end the game simply got better because there was some serious issues with not mining but being Able to legitimately run an industrial operation in low-sec and nulsec due to a severe lack of trit and pyerite, 2 very heavy materials to transport.
on top of that, people where using all sorts of blueprints to compress minerals, completely not what these blueprints where made for in the first place, making actual mineral compression a joke.
before you needed a large operation, jump freighters and many people who you had to keep secretive with, now any little joe has the option to head out there and start his/her little sandbox operation with like 20M ISK initial investment.
Instead of crying, why don't you go ahead and think, how can I take advantage of these changes and actually try to see WHY these changes where made in the first place. |
Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
230
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 02:59:00 -
[8] - Quote
Kara Books wrote:you win some you lose some when it comes to trading.
in the end the game simply got better because there was some serious issues with not mining but being Able to legitimately run an industrial operation in low-sec and nulsec due to a severe lack of trit and pyerite, 2 very heavy materials to transport.
on top of that, people where using all sorts of blueprints to compress minerals, completely not what these blueprints where made for in the first place, making actual mineral compression a joke.
before you needed a large operation, jump freighters and many people who you had to keep secretive with, now any little joe has the option to head out there and start his/her little sandbox operation with like 20M ISK initial investment.
Instead of crying, why don't you go ahead and think, how can I take advantage of these changes and actually try to see WHY these changes where made in the first place.
I think we both know it just means Null will have even more super caps and what doesn't get used for Supers will end up in Jita.
|
Rual Storge
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 09:43:00 -
[9] - Quote
Sisohiv wrote:Kara Books wrote:you win some you lose some when it comes to trading.
in the end the game simply got better because there was some serious issues with not mining but being Able to legitimately run an industrial operation in low-sec and nulsec due to a severe lack of trit and pyerite, 2 very heavy materials to transport.
on top of that, people where using all sorts of blueprints to compress minerals, completely not what these blueprints where made for in the first place, making actual mineral compression a joke.
before you needed a large operation, jump freighters and many people who you had to keep secretive with, now any little joe has the option to head out there and start his/her little sandbox operation with like 20M ISK initial investment.
Instead of crying, why don't you go ahead and think, how can I take advantage of these changes and actually try to see WHY these changes where made in the first place. I think we both know it just means Null will have even more super caps and what doesn't get used for Supers will end up in Jita.
90% of all pew pew ships in 0.0 gets imported.
CCP buffs 0.0 station manufacturing (with extra slots) Lots more low end mins (which was the bottlenex) Ice gets nerfed (more jumpfule cost to ships stuff down in JF) High ends gets redistributed...
Just let those braincells crack and you will realise CCP is buffing 0.0 industry which was desperatly needed!
The next evulutuonary step is more industrycorps in 0.0 minign and making stuffs. The early stages of spacedevelopment are getting created.
I guess thats still better than having two 11k allied alliances that monopolized moon goo for the past 2.5 years.. |
Captain IQ
Innocent Traders Ltd
39
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 10:44:00 -
[10] - Quote
Agreed, more 0.0 industry to defend more 0.0 industry to attack, it's all good. |
|
OkaskiKali
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 12:05:00 -
[11] - Quote
Kara Books wrote: Instead of crying, why don't you go ahead and think, how can I take advantage of these changes and actually try to see WHY these changes where made in the first place.
Crying? Whose crying?
If you understand the concept of causality you might actually get what i meant by CCP's constant, relentless and reactive use of their "Get out of jail free" card the nerf bat, rather than taking the game forward proactively by creating alternative game plays.
I've said it a million times - people will not go to live in null sec for the industry. Alliances will continue to haul resources from Jita and the hubs becuase it is far easier. People go to null sec to blow stuff up. |
OkaskiKali
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 12:16:00 -
[12] - Quote
Rual Storge wrote:Sisohiv wrote:Kara Books wrote:you win some you lose some when it comes to trading.
in the end the game simply got better because there was some serious issues with not mining but being Able to legitimately run an industrial operation in low-sec and nulsec due to a severe lack of trit and pyerite, 2 very heavy materials to transport.
on top of that, people where using all sorts of blueprints to compress minerals, completely not what these blueprints where made for in the first place, making actual mineral compression a joke.
before you needed a large operation, jump freighters and many people who you had to keep secretive with, now any little joe has the option to head out there and start his/her little sandbox operation with like 20M ISK initial investment.
Instead of crying, why don't you go ahead and think, how can I take advantage of these changes and actually try to see WHY these changes where made in the first place. I think we both know it just means Null will have even more super caps and what doesn't get used for Supers will end up in Jita. 90% of all pew pew ships in 0.0 gets imported. CCP buffs 0.0 station manufacturing (with extra slots) Lots more low end mins (which was the bottlenex) Ice gets nerfed (more jumpfule cost to ships stuff down in JF) High ends gets redistributed... Just let those braincells crack and you will realise CCP is buffing 0.0 industry which was desperatly needed! The next evulutuonary step is more industrycorps in 0.0 minign and making stuffs. The early stages of spacedevelopment are getting created. I guess thats still better than having two 11k allied alliances that monopolized moon goo for the past 2.5 years..
I am still to find people that moved to null sec becuase of "Industry" and even if industry was 300% more lucrative than high sec I still don't see people moving to null sec for industry. |
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
609
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 13:53:00 -
[13] - Quote
First of all apologies for the grammatical mistakes in my original reply, English is not my only language.
As for people are not going to rush over there for the California gold rush, but they will trickle, first with a low SP alt, then a 2nd slowly but surely.
Personally im not going to go crazy, but I definitely will try to toy around with an alt or 3, mostly for knowledge sake but you never know, low/null is definitely more fun then highsec, people might actually... dare I say it, Like it. |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
785
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 13:55:00 -
[14] - Quote
Ahhh, the "you cant make me move to be the maratanni's nullslave" argument has hit MD.
Nobody cares about people who don't want to move to nullsec. These changes are about players who would like to do their industry in nullsec, but are forced to do it in hisec to stay competitive with the current build in hi and jump to null model.
Everyone, and especially devs, are well aware that you can't make someone play in a certain area of space if they really don't want to, but you can remove those senseless barriers that keep people from playing where they want to. |
Kara Books
Deal with IT.
610
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 14:07:00 -
[15] - Quote
Varius Xeral wrote:Ahhh, the "you cant make me move to be the maratanni's nullslave" argument has hit MD.
Nobody cares about people who don't want to move to nullsec. These changes are about players who would like to do their industry in nullsec, but are forced to do it in hisec to stay competitive with the current build in hi and jump to null model.
Everyone, and especially devs, are well aware that you can't make someone play in a certain area of space if they really don't want to, but you can remove those senseless barriers that keep people from playing where they want to.
Did you notice Technatium prices? I still cant understand.. why would CCP do something like that hmm? |
Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
230
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 15:08:00 -
[16] - Quote
Kara Books wrote:
Did you notice Technatium prices? I still cant understand.. why would CCP do something like that hmm?
The trouble with the Technetium is, they didn't fix anything. They just moved the problem. Technetium was a bottleneck. Now we have a new bottleneck and in order to obtain what we need to produce ships and modules, we will need to mine based on that bottleneck. In order to do that we will be bringing more Technetium in to the game than we need. It's that way because we don't have technetium Moons, we have R64 moons and we mine many things from them. Technetium being just one.
For the average player, Ice is a better example. In Ice the bottleneck is Liquid Ozone. If you mine enough Ice to get all the Liquid Ozone you need to make Fuel Blocks you will have a surplus of everything else. It's the way it refines.
To the other replies, I'm still not convinced Null Industry will suddenly flourish. Spew "facts" and venom about my Brain cells all you want. Null sec is about winning and the win sauce is in Super cap Blobs. Null will produce Super Caps. It's the demand, it's what works. I'm sure there will be a rush of Null Industry in the beginning. Some poor shlub will make 200 Talos, they will sit on the market and not sell for 3 months and no more will be made because there is no demand. there are no wars, there is demand. But lets watch it happen anyway. |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
787
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 15:10:00 -
[17] - Quote
Sisohiv wrote: the win sauce is in Super cap Blobs
Nope.
|
Diesel Phumes
State Protectorate Caldari State
32
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 15:12:00 -
[18] - Quote
I got this feeling on the summer day when you were gone. I crashed my car into the bridge. I watched, I let it burn. I threw your **** into a bag and pushed it down the stairs. I crashed my car into the bridge.
I don't care, |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
787
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 15:12:00 -
[19] - Quote
They want r64s to be bottlenecked because they want moons to have different values, thereby acting as scaled conflict drivers.
The moon rebalance has next to nothing to do with industry and almost everything to do with shaping conflict in nullsec. |
Sisohiv
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
230
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 15:24:00 -
[20] - Quote
Varius Xeral wrote:Sisohiv wrote: the win sauce is in Super cap Blobs Nope.
EVE History says otherwise.
Varius Xeral wrote:They want r64s to be bottlenecked because they want moons to have different values, thereby acting as scaled conflict drivers.
The moon rebalance has next to nothing to do with industry and almost everything to do with shaping conflict in nullsec.
Lets shape conflict by taking all the tools away from the people not in power and giving it to the people in power. I don't know what the goal was but I suspect what the result will be is to create status Quo. Moons are a gravy train. Nobody ever took or held sov using a T2 sub cap fleet and nobody ever held an R64 moon that couldn't hold Sov.
- I'm not trying to troll you, Varius. Or be contrary for the sake of contrary. I genuinely don't think this will work out the way CCP want it to. |
|
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
794
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 15:29:00 -
[21] - Quote
Sisohiv wrote:EVE History says otherwise.
No, you say otherwise, and you're wrong.
Sisohiv wrote:- I'm not trying to troll you, Varius. Or be contrary for the sake of contrary. I genuinely don't think this will work out the way CCP want it to.
No, you don't think it will work out the way CCP wants it to that you just invented. Also, I agree that it won't work out according to your incorrect invention. |
OkaskiKali
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 16:54:00 -
[22] - Quote
Varius Xeral wrote:They want r64s to be bottlenecked because they want moons to have different values, thereby acting as scaled conflict drivers.
The moon rebalance has next to nothing to do with industry and almost everything to do with shaping conflict in nullsec.
This is complete rubbish.
The devs are trying to create a null sec where conflict ISN'T driven by moon drivers. The last few CSM minutes confirm that they really do not like the fact that entities will go shoot a pos into reinforcement to get a bigger fight the when it comes out of reinforcement.
|
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
794
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 17:02:00 -
[23] - Quote
OkaskiKali wrote:The devs are trying to create a null sec where conflict ISN'T driven by moon drivers. The last few CSM minutes confirm that they really do not like the fact that entities will go shoot a pos into reinforcement to get a bigger fight the when it comes out of reinforcement.
Nope. They did say they are not happy generally with moons in null, but that this was a fix to make the existing system better because they can't (or won't) address the entire system now.
So, yes, in the grand scheme of development moons are not considered optimal as they are, but, no, this specific change was directly about improving the current moon system as it stands.
On a larger note, this is a pretty sad thread for the state of MD. My guess is S&I would have less mouth-breathing mongs who for someone reason think they know what they're talking about despite being utterly clueless. The key to making money in the market is information; something the average poster here displays a painful lack of. |
OkaskiKali
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 17:03:00 -
[24] - Quote
Varius Xeral wrote:Sisohiv wrote:EVE History says otherwise. No, you say otherwise, and you're wrong. Sisohiv wrote:- I'm not trying to troll you, Varius. Or be contrary for the sake of contrary. I genuinely don't think this will work out the way CCP want it to. No, you don't think it will work out the way CCP wants it to that you just invented. Also, I agree that it won't work out according to your incorrect invention.
When things are dependant on an entity you will find that the price paid is significantly higher. The reason for changing the need of the R64's in the first place was because alliances had become stagnant living in their turf and being able to fund entire fleets from holding a mere handful of these moons. By changing the need for the R64's and increasing the number of moons that have a R64 resource we are heading back to a similar situation of 2008. |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
794
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 17:05:00 -
[25] - Quote
OkaskiKali wrote:When things are dependant on an entity you will find that the price paid is significantly higher. The reason for changing the need of the R64's in the first place was because alliances had become stagnant living in their turf and being able to fund entire fleets from holding a mere handful of these moons. By changing the need for the R64's and increasing the number of moons that have a R64 resource we are heading back to a similar situation of 2008.
Around half right and half wrong, and I don't really fell like digging through to fix it for you, so I'll just go with "nope". |
OkaskiKali
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 17:10:00 -
[26] - Quote
Varius Xeral wrote:OkaskiKali wrote:The devs are trying to create a null sec where conflict ISN'T driven by moon drivers. The last few CSM minutes confirm that they really do not like the fact that entities will go shoot a pos into reinforcement to get a bigger fight the when it comes out of reinforcement. Nope. They did say they are not happy generally with moons in null, but that this was a fix to make the existing system better because they can't (or won't) address the entire system now. So, yes, in the grand scheme of development moons are not considered optimal as they are, but, no, this specific change was directly about improving the current moon system as it stands. On a larger note, this is a pretty sad thread for the state of MD. My guess is S&I would have less mouth-breathing mongs who for someone reason think they know what they're talking about despite being utterly clueless. The key to making money in the market is information; something the average poster here displays a painful lack of.
Darling
If you are going to post a reply to my thread make sure you include the whole post that includes your statement of
Varius Xeral wrote:They want r64s to be bottlenecked because they want moons to have different values, thereby acting as scaled conflict drivers.
The moon rebalance has next to nothing to do with industry and almost everything to do with shaping conflict in nullsec.
The only person that is "being utterly clueless" is you. Go read the CSM minutes and you might discover that time and time again they do not want moons being the catalyst for conflict.
On a larger scale it's sad that you reverted to personal attacks. If someone doesn't agree with your posting then perhaps put your point across differently. |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
794
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 17:15:00 -
[27] - Quote
My "personal attacks" are a supplement to my statements.
I'm not sure what school people went to that taught them that personal attacks associated with a statement or argument invalidate that statement or argument, but that is a blatant misunderstanding.
I am confident that I am right, the "personal attacks" are meant to illustrate my disappointment in the context in which my statements are correct. |
OkaskiKali
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
38
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 17:24:00 -
[28] - Quote
Varius Xeral wrote:My "personal attacks" are a supplement to my statements.
I'm not sure what school people went to that taught them that personal attacks associated with a statement or argument invalidate or weaken that statement or argument, but that is a blatant misunderstanding.
I am confident that I am right, the "personal attacks" are meant to illustrate my disappointment in the context in which my statements are correct.
Or they are a sign of a weak argument. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
978
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 17:39:00 -
[29] - Quote
Sisohiv wrote:I think we both know it just means Null will have even more super caps and what doesn't get used for Supers will end up in Jita.
Null isn't going to build more supercaps unless they're worth building (hint they're not worth building, that's why the data shows that supercarrier production fell off a cliff after they nerfed them).
OkaskiKali wrote:I am still to find people that moved to null sec becuase of "Industry" and even if industry was 300% more lucrative than high sec I still don't see people moving to null sec for industry. Hell people aren't doing the incursions in low sec let alone null sec even though they are more lucrative.
Null sec just isn't the game style that a lot of people play eve want. Null sec is a job which is why you see more people in high sec, low sec and factional warfare.
That's fine. We don't want mewling, risk averse pilots that do nothing but industry and ramble on about how we HAVE to protect them and so on and so forth in nullsec.
What we want is the ability for those of us who are already in nullsec and are comfortable with the risk to be able to actually build, with material we're getting out of our own space.
In this, CCP has done a fine job, though we're still short on Mexallon...
Varius Xeral wrote:They want r64s to be bottlenecked because they want moons to have different values, thereby acting as scaled conflict drivers.
The moon rebalance has next to nothing to do with industry and almost everything to do with shaping conflict in nullsec. My opinion is they want the R64s to be bottlenecked so that they can be sure that the pricing structure is correct before moving on to phase 3 and phase 4 and so on in the future, where they start shifting moon minerals aware from moons entirely and into a new system. The point is to only change one variable at a time, however. So this change tweaks the supply, and then in the future, when they implement a new way of obtaining the minerals, they know what kind of supply they have to tune towards to make it work.
The fact that so violently shaking up the moon resources will probably create a fair amount of conflict in the coming months is a bonus, not the goal. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
795
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 17:50:00 -
[30] - Quote
mynnna wrote:The fact that so violently shaking up the moon resources will probably create a fair amount of conflict in the coming months is a bonus, not the goal.
Hmmmm...I didn't exactly want to imply that they thought it would directly lead to "more fighting", a hard thing to quantify and predict for nullsec, rather that having the vast majority of the value in a few (couple) regional moons is generally a suboptimal set-up for conflict and politics in general, or even just a general sense of "fairness".
You're probably correct with it being a side-effect of a bigger picture. I went back and reread the blog, and it jives with what you're saying more than my memory of it initially suggested.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |