Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 67 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Tauranon
Weeesearch Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
849
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 08:41:00 -
[211] - Quote
Barton Breau wrote:Tauranon wrote:
The point is that the entire setup favors all goods travelling through jita as is, since minerals needed to be collected together to be compressed. This also seriously hammers mining in nullsec, because most compression is done with 425mms, which have the whole basket, which means that nullsec mins were being shipped to highsec where I'd buy them and ship them back if I wanted to build something here. The only mins available here is usually the normal excess you'd expect from people importing the railgun basket, and all miners here export to jita.
I'd also soon as possible prefer that extra mats got taken off blueprints, because they badly scale material research on BPOs.
CCP needed to make all of these changes together. Later they can choose to retune the number of drops in missions if they feel its warranted, but I bet that long term it isn't at all required, because its a portion of a portion of the income (ie meta 4s probably outweigh reproc in most peoples loot piles).
It seems to me that most of what you are writing about would have been fixed by giving POS/null refineries the same rate as in high, without killing off mineral compression and mission loot. Or not?
its not killed. If I looted a railgun worth 1m, it will be worth 800k (or whatever) still, and the price will likely drift up a little bit anyway. Salvage is still salvage, and meta4s are still meta4s, LP is still LP and bounties are still bounty, and importantly for looters, tags are still tags (tag looting was always the most lucrative looting strategy - the missions I looted always were tag missions).
|
Saya Ishikari
Akagi Initiative
246
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 08:45:00 -
[212] - Quote
You know... This really is only a small hit, by comparison. And if it makes somebody elses niche a bit more viable, I'm fine with that. Roll with it, says I. |
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 08:49:00 -
[213] - Quote
Tauranon wrote:
its not killed. If I looted a railgun worth 1m, it will be worth 800k (or whatever) still, and the price will likely drift up a little bit anyway. Salvage is still salvage, and meta4s are still meta4s, LP is still LP and bounties are still bounty, and importantly for looters, tags are still tags (tag looting was always the most lucrative looting strategy - the missions I looted always were tag missions).
I doubt it, there are not many sought after modules that have their worth without mineral value taken into account. So your gun will now be 550k , not 1m, if you are blitzing or fw it will not change much, but low mission runners will loose a big chunk of money. And mineral compression still gone. |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
379
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 08:57:00 -
[214] - Quote
Saya Ishikari wrote:You know... This really is only a small hit, by comparison.
Its an unnecessary one with no direct feasible benefit.
The "problem" of people sidestepping mineral shipping difficulties across secs by moving masses of certain specific modules with skewed mineral refinement output is already fixed by the changes specific to ore/ice refinement efficiency at POS and the compression.
The additional change to non-ore/ice refinement efficiency is quantitatively too deep, and seems to not recognise that not only does it further de-incentivise people bringing trash loot from wrecks to market, it also reduces the mineral value of every single non-ice/ore refinable item in the game, hence devaluing them. As a result of this, it makes skilling into non-ice/ore refinement efficiency a dead profession because a) nobody will be bringing trash modules to market for you to refine and profit off of with a small margin b) you are better off skilling and then buying/refining ore/ice.
Its a "bad" change, with far greater negative impacts than may be immediately apparent, and which is unneccessary to fix the "425mm" shipping issue as that is already corrected by the ice/ore/compression efficiency changes themselves. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
14195
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 08:59:00 -
[215] - Quote
Ella Echerie wrote:"High sec Mission runners just got completely screwed by CCP"
No they didn't. You are just having a kneejerk panic attack over a very slight nerf.
This change is good for the whole game, including High Sec. 100% reprocessing was quite broken.
Don't be silly. This is the end of the world man, THE END.
Starving mission runners will be dying in the streets. We will be stepping over their emaciated corpses, tutting sadly to ourselves about how we let this tragedy come to pass?
How on earth could these magnificent, noble creatures ever have been expected to survive on only their mission rewards, completion bonuses, bounty, special items, faction tags, meta 4 loot, LP store income and only 55% of the mineral value of the trash loot.
Only now, at this late hour, do we realise what we have done
1 Kings 12:11
|
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
379
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 09:04:00 -
[216] - Quote
@ Malcanis: This is not the time or place for hyperbolic and misplaced sarcasm, though I know you love that.
Nor did his post warrant it. It was matter of fact and not worthy of ridiculing.
This kind of aggressive posting just lends itself to the impression that you have a vested interest in destroying discussion on this topic, or that you are having a bad day and looking to vent on someone. Both of which I would hope are not the case. |
Tauranon
Weeesearch Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
849
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 09:05:00 -
[217] - Quote
Barton Breau wrote:Tauranon wrote:
its not killed. If I looted a railgun worth 1m, it will be worth 800k (or whatever) still, and the price will likely drift up a little bit anyway. Salvage is still salvage, and meta4s are still meta4s, LP is still LP and bounties are still bounty, and importantly for looters, tags are still tags (tag looting was always the most lucrative looting strategy - the missions I looted always were tag missions).
I doubt it, there are not many sought after modules that have their worth without mineral value taken into account. So your gun will now be 550k , not 1m, if you are blitzing or fw it will not change much, but low mission runners will loose a big chunk of money. And mineral compression still gone.
There is no way a module will halve when you remove a demand component that is entirely irrelevant to its price. ie the module price would have to have an outlook where it occasionally swings to mineral price for that to change its average price - ie this might affect meta3 modules that sell for 5-10% above mineral and swing to mineral, but its not going to affect any of the midslot modules that sell for 1m that have 20k of minerals in them.
Any reduction of looting is however going to positively swing those modules for people that do still loot.
Mineral compression is not gone either, its just lossy.
|
Barton Breau
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 09:14:00 -
[218] - Quote
Tauranon wrote:
There is no way a module will halve when you remove a demand component that is entirely irrelevant to its price. ie the module price would have to have an outlook where it occasionally swings to mineral price for that to change its average price - ie this might affect meta3 modules that sell for 5-10% above mineral and swing to mineral, but its not going to affect any of the midslot modules that sell for 1m that have 20k of minerals in them.
Any reduction of looting is however going to positively swing those modules for people that do still loot.
Mineral compression is not gone either, its just lossy.
We will see, as i said i doubt it.
However you are still shy of answering my question whether this may not be fixed more gently with good pos and nullsec refining, or do you think "Well, it will not destroy it completely" is a answer?
Because all we have established is that the nerf may not be 45%, but just 10-20% which i no way explains why it was needed.
EDIT: and by "not gone, just lossy" can be applied to null industry, "not impossible, just harder", doublestandards much? :) |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
379
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 09:21:00 -
[219] - Quote
Tauranon wrote: ie this might affect meta3 modules that sell for 5-10% above mineral and swing to miner
Its not a question of "might". It concretely will, because the value of that item in minerals is directly dropped as a result of reduced refinement efficiency.
Tauranon wrote:but its not going to affect any of the midslot modules that sell for 1m that have 20k of minerals in them.
Yes, it will not. Because the value of those items is in their function, not in their mineral value. Hence, its irrelevant to the change and the topic at hand.
Tauranon wrote:Any reduction of looting is however going to positively swing those modules for people that do still loot.
You are confusing the issue. This is specifically about the looting of modules for their mineral value. A reduction in looting of trash for its mineral value does not reduce or affect people looting modules for their functional fitting value. People will still loot the modules which have a value vested in function, however they will not loot modules which have a value vested in mineral content.
This change essentially kills the non-ore/ice refinement profession. A) Because there will be much less refinable modules on the market, and for smaller margins of profit. B) Because the same skill time is better spent training ore/ice refining instead, because it has a systematically higher efficiency and the influx of ice/ore will not decrease as a result of the changes (infact it will increase until the market becomes saturated with capable ore/ice refiners). |
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers SpaceMonkey's Alliance
434
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 09:28:00 -
[220] - Quote
Seraph Essael wrote:To be fair, there's a mission runner in my corp who loots and refines his mission loot... He actually gets more from that per hour that a dedicated miner friend of his... So yeah, this is a buff to mining and refining not a foot up the mission runners arses.
Link to devblog please... Stupid search function gone kaput on me damn phone...
for those of us that can not click on the big " DEV BLOGS " button on the top right of this very page
also i suggest folks read ALL the way through rather than read the first paragraph then " TO THE FORUMS!!!"
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/reprocess-all-the-things/
|
|
Tauranon
Weeesearch Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
849
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 10:40:00 -
[221] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:Tauranon wrote: ie this might affect meta3 modules that sell for 5-10% above mineral and swing to miner
Its not a question of "might". It concretely will, because the value of that item in minerals is directly dropped as a result of reduced refinement efficiency. Tauranon wrote:but its not going to affect any of the midslot modules that sell for 1m that have 20k of minerals in them.
Yes, it will not. Because the value of those items is in their function, not in their mineral value. Hence, its irrelevant to the change and the topic at hand. Tauranon wrote:Any reduction of looting is however going to positively swing those modules for people that do still loot.
You are confusing the issue. This is specifically about the looting of modules for their mineral value. A reduction in looting of trash for its mineral value does not reduce or affect people looting modules for their functional fitting value. People will still loot the modules which have a value vested in function, however they will not loot modules which have a value vested in mineral content. This change essentially kills the non-ore/ice refinement profession. A) Because there will be much less refinable modules on the market, and for smaller margins of profit. B) Because the same skill time is better spent training ore/ice refining instead, because it has a systematically higher efficiency and the influx of ice/ore will not decrease as a result of the changes (infact it will increase until the market becomes saturated with capable ore/ice refiners).
Who cares, as long as you are not holding that capital in modules during the changeover, you can redirect that capital to whatever you choose to use it for. its not like owning a rattlesnake which has devalued to nothing and been nerfed to death trying to bring the domi/Ishtar back into the envelope.
One imagines the lowends -> compressed lowends market will be at least as big, and carry margin because the optimal method is probably to cart a pos in an orca and run the region tending to your region wide orders in much the same way you might have done pickup with a freighter for regionwide reproc orders
|
Oxide Ammar
80
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 10:42:00 -
[222] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Well ****, looks like CCP is on the path to fixing Null industry
Like you ever care about null sec indy at all. |
Helicity Boson
Immortalis Inc. Shadow Cartel
657
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 10:48:00 -
[223] - Quote
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say something people might not expect given my predilection for turning the lives of miners into a wasteland of despair at irregular intervals but...
Good.
This change will result in mining being more profitable, both for the hardcore multiboxing miner and the just-starting-newbie in his Venture.
Mining needs to have a lower break-even threshold of profitability vs. time investment so that mining is not -entirely- relegated to multiboxing madmen and the (far less scrupulous) filth macro miners, and this is a good start.
Now all we need is an interesting minigame or other way to allow actual player interaction with the mining process to discourage afk-multibox-mining over actually playing the game and we're good to go.
|
Anomaly One
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
28
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 10:53:00 -
[224] - Quote
wait.. mining got buffed? so it's no longer a minimum wage job?
Helicity Boson wrote: Now all we need is an interesting minigame or other way to allow actual player interaction with the mining process to discourage afk-multibox-mining over actually playing the game and we're good to go.
oh the day CCP does something to differentiate between active and afk miners will be a glorious day! hell for the forums though. Psychotic Monk for CSM9 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326497 you want content in highsec? vote Monk |
Trii Seo
Sabotage Incorporated Executive Outcomes
549
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 10:54:00 -
[225] - Quote
While I'm not a miner, I highly approve of this change.
More profit from mining equals more miners.
More miners equals more targets - if mining in hostile space is given some love as well, it'll lead to more gangs etc etc.
And that is good.
Glory to Arsto- erm, Nullcartelland? Is it Hotdrop O'Clock yet?
Covert pilots unite! Safer working conditions, less accidental limb loss due to unfortunate Cyno accidents! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=258986 |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
379
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 10:57:00 -
[226] - Quote
Tauranon wrote:Who cares, as long as you are not holding that capital in modules during the changeover, you can redirect that capital to whatever you choose to use it for
True.
But it does not answer why the change should be made in the first place.
Ive already demonstarted the negative effects: -Looters will no longer bring in modules valued only for refinement.
-A categoric and universal reduction in the mineral value (base value) of ALL non-ore/ice refinement items, from modules to ships. (This one cannot be overstated. ALL non-ice/ore refinement items in the game will have their base value reduced by this change)
-Death of the non-ore/ice refining profession, for the two stacking reasons outlined above. Lack of materials brought to market for refinement AND the reduced value of every single on of those items in refinement mineral outcome.
-Further excacerbated by the fact that instead of skilling for non-ice/ore refinement into an market devoid of refinable items and all at reduced value, the dame time can be spent to skill into ice/ore refinement instead, for which the market will provide plenty of unrefined materials and of which there is likely to be an net increase of in volume.
What is the reason/justification that is beneficial to the game, for causing the above?
The Dev Blog does not provide one either directly or by implication.
Infact it tries to claim that this will encourage the non-ice/ore refining profession for skilling, which is unfortunately completely false for the reasons I have demonstrated above. It infact does the exact opposite of what they propose, and kills that niche profession which already today is a very tight margin business.
WHY is this change being made? |
Kyperion
121
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 11:10:00 -
[227] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Ella Echerie wrote:"High sec Mission runners just got completely screwed by CCP"
No they didn't. You are just having a kneejerk panic attack over a very slight nerf.
This change is good for the whole game, including High Sec. 100% reprocessing was quite broken. Don't be silly. This is the end of the world man, THE END. Starving mission runners will be dying in the streets. We will be stepping over their emaciated corpses, tutting sadly to ourselves about how we let this tragedy come to pass? How on earth could these magnificent, noble creatures ever have been expected to survive on only their mission rewards, completion bonuses, bounty, special items, faction tags, meta 4 loot, LP store income and only 55% of the mineral value of the trash loot. Only now, at this late hour, do we realise what we have done
whether or not I agree with you, reading this post was a good time |
Cynar Pappotte
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 11:10:00 -
[228] - Quote
Maybe this is a backdoor corp recruiting tool?
Looking at it from a carebear angle I can't see it having much effect. Unless I'm in a bad section of space probanly 90% salvage / loot from High-sec mission running is stuff that can be sold directly on the marketplace anyway. Any real high-value stuff only comes from any PvP remains I'm lucky enough to stumble acroos when transiting lo-sec.
Where it is going to hurt (if I understand it correctly) is people who are salvaging in null but reprocessing at NPC stations. To reprocess in Null means starting up your own POS or using somebody elses. I don't think this change is necessarily intended to screw over high-sec, but to screw over non-corp players operating in null. Either way the big corps / alliances are going to be the winners. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5158
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 11:42:00 -
[229] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote: 1. The moon goo changes were not a nerf for null sec per se. The amount of ISK gained by null sec did not change. It was transferred to a different moon goo. Now, the dev's, in order to give their associates in null sec something to do, DID directly attack goons with the distribution, and force them to attack Test for a moon grab. But it turns out the cartels' overall moon goo income was not nerfed at all, even after alchemy.
2. I always laugh at the sense of entitlement so many cartel members have about what they "deserve". And how it is never enough. Sounds like a typical koch brother attitude. Taking more from all other sectors of space is somehow their birthright, no matter how much CCP has already gifted them. What is really funny is how many have joined up long after goons actually did any fighting for territory, and act like they have are some battlescarred vet of years of sov warfare.
3. And cloaking another attack against high sec as some kind of inevitable balance is ridiculous. This nerf to mission runners was not warranted in any sense, given how much has been taken from them already. Oh, and it is going to be really funny for all the causal miners when they see how much more training and implants will be needed to maintain their current income levels. Wrecking the status quo in high sec for the benefit of null sec is NOT some redress against some long term flaw. There was no flaw. Only the null sec propagandists drummed up a campaign suggesting there was a flaw.
And of course, the dev's happily obliged. And yes, their actions prove precisely where their allegiances lie. Actions speak far louder than words, and what they think of high sec and null sec.
Oh snap, an epic Dinsdale whine thread and I'm late to the party!
1) You're wrong. The moon goo changes drastically reduced null sec income such that coalitions that never would've considered having renters now have huge renter networks to bolster their income. Stop being bad at math with imaginary numbers that you don't even have.
2) Sense of entitlement must come naturally for you - being the casual highsec mission runner demanding to keep such risk-free income. How dare CCP take part of your cookie away from you! You deserve that cookie don't you?! The whole cookie dammit! GRR Goons!
3) Casual miners are getting a boost from this. The ore they sell will be worth more. Casual miners don't train for refining you see, only min-maxing miners do, and they'll be fine because they'll see the benefit of owning a POS they always wanted anyway and use it to refine or compress. Again, you're just wrong.
P.S. When pluralizing a noun, one does not add an apostrophe before the 's'.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
ACE McFACE
The Scope Gallente Federation
1775
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 11:47:00 -
[230] - Quote
A Dinsdale thread? I have to post in this. You should be notified if someone quotes your post so you can continue the argument! |
|
Tauranon
Weeesearch Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
849
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 12:04:00 -
[231] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:
Infact it tries to claim that this will encourage the non-ice/ore refining profession for skilling, which is unfortunately completely false for the reasons I have demonstrated above. It infact does the exact opposite of what they propose, and kills that niche profession which already today is a very tight margin business.
WHY is this change being made?
The business of running regional buy orders and collecting up the reprocs got a huge buff, you are now able to directly expose yourself to a significant proportion of the titan building business. That business comes to you by a kick in the nuts for the 425mm railgun producers who now need to become mobile to get to the locations where the ore is uncompressed.
As far as the claim goes, CCP claim the whole reproc business became more important, after they renamed everything in refining to reproc for the purposes of this patch. It is not an unreasonable claim, though I could understand someone who doesn't have English as their first language not understanding the subtlety (even though it was laboriously spelled out). |
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1227
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 12:11:00 -
[232] - Quote
Seraph Essael wrote:
Link to devblog please...
It was at the top of the devblog list, here
It's affecting a reasonable chunk of the playerbase, regardless of where they are based.
If you don't refine stuff, then I expect it will only affect you indirectly due to the probable price changes this might cause.
|
Notorious Fellon
Republic University Minmatar Republic
279
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 12:50:00 -
[233] - Quote
I don't object to this change when considered inside an isolated box. However, I fail to see why this change was more important than nerfing blitzing. |
Anne Dieu-le-veut
Natl Assn for the Advancement of Criminal People
92
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 12:51:00 -
[234] - Quote
Tavin Aikisen wrote:Mining just became a proper profession.
All they need to do now is add a mini-game so you can't AFK mine and make even more ISK while watching Netflix. |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
380
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 13:00:00 -
[235] - Quote
English is my second language out of four, but it is the language of all my tuition and education in life, as well as the one I comprehend and speak best.
I am not linguistically impaired from understanding your English.
425 manufacturers are not directly connected to reprocessors. They are in competition with other manufacturers over minerals, not over the reprocessable materials that are delivered to market.
Your post completely missed the point and impetus of mine, as well as its central question.
Whether that is due to you not linguistically understanding it, not comprehending it, or doing so deliberately is unclear but with each subsequent post I find the benefit of the doubt eroding on the two former and indicating the remaining latter option.
425 manufacturers can simply manufacture other goods after the change. They need to diversify their products, but they still carry the same skill set which is not affected in anyway directly by the changes. All that will happen, is 425 demand for purposes of transporting minerals to null sec will become void.
Reprocessor efficiency, and the associated skill set, however, is centrally changed.
Nothing you, anyone else, or the Devs have said, justifies or explains the need to make the change which results in the negative effects I have already demonstrated and outlined in two previous posts.
This thread, and my points, are specific to the reduction on reprocessing efficiency on ALL non-ore/mine refinables in the game, and the subsequent repercussions.
I ask once again, what is the justification for this?
|
Kitty Bear
Disturbed Friends Of Diazepam Disturbed Acquaintance
1227
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 13:12:00 -
[236] - Quote
Notorious Fellon wrote:I don't object to this change when considered inside an isolated box. However, I fail to see why this change was more important than nerfing blitzing.
That's easily resolved by making missions require that all npc's are dealt with. however this thread isn't about that.
if you want to discuss nerfing blitzing (the how and why) make a thread in F&ID
and i'll pop along and not troll you in it.
|
Victor Andall
Complexes and Abaddons
287
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 13:16:00 -
[237] - Quote
Uhhhh...I was supposed to actually loot missions instead of just blaze through for the bounties/LP/Rewards?
Awkward. I just undocked for the first time and someone challenged me to a duel. Wat do?
Andall Combat Tournaments - on hiatus. Contact for more information. |
admiral root
Red Galaxy Disband.
986
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 13:17:00 -
[238] - Quote
Salvos Rhoska wrote:@ Malcanis: This is not the time or place for hyperbolic and misplaced sarcasm, though I know you love that.
This kind of aggressive posting just lends itself to the impression that you have a vested interest in destroying discussion on this topic, or that you are having a bad day and looking to vent on someone. Both of which I would hope are not the case.
Think of it more as him speaking to muppets in a language they might understand. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff |
Salvos Rhoska
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
381
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 13:27:00 -
[239] - Quote
Victor Andall wrote:Uhhhh...I was supposed to actually loot missions instead of just blaze through for the bounties/LP/Rewards?
Awkward.
What little reason there might have been for doing that, when it comes to modules that have value only as reprocessed minerals, will be made even less worthwhile by this.
And not only is this the case for missioners, but for ratters and anomaly/sig runners as well, AND, most importantly for non-ore/ice Reprocessing skilled players who bought what they brought in inorder to reprocess into minerals for a small proft margin.
Why? I have no idea, and no player or Dev seems to be able or willing to explain the reasoning or justification for that. |
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
739
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 13:29:00 -
[240] - Quote
nerf? If there is less minerals on market, price will rise accordingly to nerfed mineral influx -> in the long term nothing will change at all.
On the opposite, the silly module compression is nerfed and perfect refining skills finally get some purpose, which is a huge win IMO. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 67 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |