Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
seller1122
Perimeter Trade and Distribution Inc
13
|
Posted - 2017.04.09 21:55:57 -
[1] - Quote
So after watching some of the fanfest videos I took note that CCP Fozzie wants to stop npcs dropping meta items and instead get them to drop components for us to build the meta items as part of their vision to have the players build all items. This doesn't make sense to me for a few reasons.
First off it feels just like its adding in an arbitrary layer of complexity without really providing any benefit, you just have to go through an extra step before you have the item to use or sell.
Secondly it removes the ability for the market to control the pricing of the items based upon their usefulness; instead as (I assume) each item will be built from similar components to each other, their pricing will be arbitrary set by ratios defined by CCP in the BPCs.
Thirdly it doesn't quite make sense from a "lore" / practical standpoint. Player ships drop their equipment when they die; why now for NPCs should they behave different and drop components instead of modules, unless of course the intent is for the same to be done with player ships ?
As a general side note is this change expected to affect faction / deadspace / officer items as well or just the basic meta 0-4 modules from standard rats? |
Alever Minmatar
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2017.04.09 22:06:51 -
[2] - Quote
more and more players have moved away from industry, mining barges was the highest ranked skill removed with injectors. maybe they are trying to force us back. |
MegaLuter
Horizon Eventus SOLAR FLEET
32
|
Posted - 2017.04.09 22:20:11 -
[3] - Quote
They want to break down what works. |
oiukhp Muvila
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
154
|
Posted - 2017.04.09 22:25:07 -
[4] - Quote
Alever Minmatar wrote:more and more players have moved away from industry, mining barges was the highest ranked skill removed with injectors. maybe they are trying to force us back.
Yeah, I removed my Hi Sec main's mining skills as soon as I could since it was safer to mine on my Pirate main char in Low Sec.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3933
|
Posted - 2017.04.09 22:49:33 -
[5] - Quote
The reason will be to increase the T1 market, as the meta items will be like T2 builds, but with loot components rather than moon goo, adding onto a T1 module. It also reduces the mess that ratters collect since they will be collecting a range of maybe 50 components rather than 1000 different modules they'll never use.
The market still has the ability to control based off usefulness though, since the margins on an item are dictated by how good it is, but the fact that meta modules were in some cases cheaper than T1 items was a reflection on the fact they came from thin air,
So all in all, a good change if they go that direction. |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
1538
|
Posted - 2017.04.09 23:37:55 -
[6] - Quote
If done right, this will be a really good change. Can be a stepping stone into industry especially for new players.
Remove standings and insurance.
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6371
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 00:03:02 -
[7] - Quote
seller1122 wrote:
Secondly it removes the ability for the market to control the pricing of the items based upon their usefulness; instead as (I assume) each item will be built from similar components to each other, their pricing will be arbitrary set by ratios defined by CCP in the BPCs.
No. Provided the meta items have the same usefulness having components drop, then players can build based on what is going on in the market. For example if the 1400 'Scout' Artillery I currently have a high price the components will be moved into producing those guns. In other words, "the market" will be more able to respond to a surge in demand.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Bjorn Tyrson
EVE University Ivy League
498
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 00:11:33 -
[8] - Quote
This is going to be particularly good for meta 1 modules. Currently the existence and prevelance of meta modules means that many meta 1 items cannot actually be built for profit since they need to compete with mods that are better and "free" due to drops.
This evens the playing field and will increase the demand for t1 modules since they said they will he a component in manufacturing the meta variants. |
Cade Windstalker
1256
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 00:13:08 -
[9] - Quote
Lemme see if I can explain why this isn't just arbitrary complexity.
First off, this is something that's been talked about among players and CCP for years now, ever since they removed most of the Meta 0 loot from the NPC drop tables to remove "gun mining" as a significant source of minerals.
That's the first thing, a lot of these Meta items aren't actually used much, they just get reprocessed into minerals. This hurts miners and industrialists by, very slightly, increasing the supply of minerals and pushing down their price.
So, what does changing these drops into components get us?
Right now, we have several hundred different Meta modules that are dropped by rats. What this could be replaced by is a smaller set of components similar to what we have with Rigs and Salvage currently. I would imagine some components only get dropped by some rats under this model and others get dropped by most or all rat types.
So someone ratting or doing missions gets these component drops, sells them on the market, and then these components get turned into meta modules by industrialists. This helps both parties. The industrialists get something new to make and sell, and as a result the mission runners get more stable loot drops. Since this smaller set of modules get used to make everything almost everything dropped should get used and turned into valuable modules instead of having a small set of valuable drops and everything else being more or less worthless.
Some components will probably still be more valuable than others, but if it's balanced right so that everything has at least one useful module that it goes into both parties should benefit.
I don't think anyone's talking about this affecting Officer/Deadspace/Faction loot but it easily could, just instead of dropping a module it drops one or two components that get fed into making one of these modules, which could help normalize the value of some of these modules, raising the value of lower demand ones and dropping the price for the more in-demand items.
From a lore perspective this just gets explained as the differences between pirate/NPC and capsuleer ships. Capsuleer ships are more durable and perform better so their systems survive intact better, as opposed to pirate vessels whose guns and other systems are more tightly integrated and less well isolated from a catastrophic disassembly incident. |
Avaelica Kuershin
Paper Cats
341
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 00:17:07 -
[10] - Quote
Alever Minmatar wrote:more and more players have moved away from industry, mining barges was the highest ranked skill removed with injectors. maybe they are trying to force us back.
Just want to say there's much more to industry than just mining. I just buy the ore rather than mine it. |
|
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse Somethin Awfull Forums
611
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 01:23:44 -
[11] - Quote
Mara Pahrdi wrote:If done right, this will be a really good change. Can be a stepping stone into industry especially for new players.
Agreed but 'done right' being the key to that. Instead we will get gluts and a bottleneck component that is exclusive to regions resulting in another monopoly scenario. Why? Because that's what happens every single time.
R.I.P. Vile Rat
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6371
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 02:11:02 -
[12] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Lemme see if I can explain why this isn't just arbitrary complexity.
First off, this is something that's been talked about among players and CCP for years now, ever since they removed most of the Meta 0 loot from the NPC drop tables to remove "gun mining" as a significant source of minerals.
That's the first thing, a lot of these Meta items aren't actually used much, they just get reprocessed into minerals. This hurts miners and industrialists by, very slightly, increasing the supply of minerals and pushing down their price.
So, what does changing these drops into components get us?
Right now, we have several hundred different Meta modules that are dropped by rats. What this could be replaced by is a smaller set of components similar to what we have with Rigs and Salvage currently. I would imagine some components only get dropped by some rats under this model and others get dropped by most or all rat types.
So someone ratting or doing missions gets these component drops, sells them on the market, and then these components get turned into meta modules by industrialists. This helps both parties. The industrialists get something new to make and sell, and as a result the mission runners get more stable loot drops. Since this smaller set of modules get used to make everything almost everything dropped should get used and turned into valuable modules instead of having a small set of valuable drops and everything else being more or less worthless.
Some components will probably still be more valuable than others, but if it's balanced right so that everything has at least one useful module that it goes into both parties should benefit.
I don't think anyone's talking about this affecting Officer/Deadspace/Faction loot but it easily could, just instead of dropping a module it drops one or two components that get fed into making one of these modules, which could help normalize the value of some of these modules, raising the value of lower demand ones and dropping the price for the more in-demand items.
From a lore perspective this just gets explained as the differences between pirate/NPC and capsuleer ships. Capsuleer ships are more durable and perform better so their systems survive intact better, as opposed to pirate vessels whose guns and other systems are more tightly integrated and less well isolated from a catastrophic disassembly incident.
To build on Cade's post....
Right now ratters are supplying a fairly fixed amount of meta modules to "the market". The justification for this statement is the law of large numbers. When there are N thousands of rats being killed that can drop X meta module with probability P, the number of meta modules X being dropped will be N*P. Thus the supply is rather inelastic--i.e. fairly fixed. This means that the price is largely determined by demand. Thus, if there is a sudden change in demand the only way for the market to resolve this change is through a price change...usually large price changes.
If there are common components across meta modules then this kind of situation can be ameliorated in that the demand will become more elastic--i.e. the familiar upward sloping supply curve. That is components will move between meta module markets as preferences shift and change for whatever reason. Thus a particular doctrine will not be limited by the limits of the market.
Think of it this way, suppose all modules of meta level K share the same components. And suppose the Amarr modules become more in demand, the market can adjust more easily/readily under the proposed change than under the current regime. Not only that, but for people who rat, their markets also become more...."smooth". They don't have to worry what the flavor of the month is.
Seriously...trust "the market" it is surprisingly good at getting people what they need and want. It isn't perfect, but there aren't may such systems that are better really.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
295
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 02:19:21 -
[13] - Quote
Teckos Pech wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Lemme see if I can explain why this isn't just arbitrary complexity.
First off, this is something that's been talked about among players and CCP for years now, ever since they removed most of the Meta 0 loot from the NPC drop tables to remove "gun mining" as a significant source of minerals.
That's the first thing, a lot of these Meta items aren't actually used much, they just get reprocessed into minerals. This hurts miners and industrialists by, very slightly, increasing the supply of minerals and pushing down their price.
So, what does changing these drops into components get us?
Right now, we have several hundred different Meta modules that are dropped by rats. What this could be replaced by is a smaller set of components similar to what we have with Rigs and Salvage currently. I would imagine some components only get dropped by some rats under this model and others get dropped by most or all rat types.
So someone ratting or doing missions gets these component drops, sells them on the market, and then these components get turned into meta modules by industrialists. This helps both parties. The industrialists get something new to make and sell, and as a result the mission runners get more stable loot drops. Since this smaller set of modules get used to make everything almost everything dropped should get used and turned into valuable modules instead of having a small set of valuable drops and everything else being more or less worthless.
Some components will probably still be more valuable than others, but if it's balanced right so that everything has at least one useful module that it goes into both parties should benefit.
I don't think anyone's talking about this affecting Officer/Deadspace/Faction loot but it easily could, just instead of dropping a module it drops one or two components that get fed into making one of these modules, which could help normalize the value of some of these modules, raising the value of lower demand ones and dropping the price for the more in-demand items.
From a lore perspective this just gets explained as the differences between pirate/NPC and capsuleer ships. Capsuleer ships are more durable and perform better so their systems survive intact better, as opposed to pirate vessels whose guns and other systems are more tightly integrated and less well isolated from a catastrophic disassembly incident. To build on Cade's post.... Right now ratters are supplying a fairly fixed amount of meta modules to "the market". The justification for this statement is the law of large numbers. When there are N thousands of rats being killed that can drop X meta module with probability P, the number of meta modules X being dropped will be N*P. Thus the supply is rather inelastic--i.e. fairly fixed. This means that the price is largely determined by demand. Thus, if there is a sudden change in demand the only way for the market to resolve this change is through a price change...usually large price changes. If there are common components across meta modules then this kind of situation can be ameliorated in that the demand will become more elastic--i.e. the familiar upward sloping supply curve. That is components will move between meta module markets as preferences shift and change for whatever reason. Thus a particular doctrine will not be limited by the limits of the market. Think of it this way, suppose all modules of meta level K share the same components. And suppose the Amarr modules become more in demand, the market can adjust more easily/readily under the proposed change than under the current regime. Not only that, but for people who rat, their markets also become more...."smooth". They don't have to worry what the flavor of the month is. Seriously...trust "the market" it is surprisingly good at getting people what they need and want. It isn't perfect, but there aren't may such systems that are better really.
and to further build on this.......... Even my own mission running alt has nothing better to do than grind the loot down into minerals, so (and i assuming especially in null) "Gun Mining" is not quite as dead as some people think. Doing this will promote mining by someone as someone else like me will need the rocks to turn into minerals. AND, missioners will provide the new components that I as a manufacturer will also need to build the meta-modules.
No more gun mining.
|
Cade Windstalker
1260
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 02:27:47 -
[14] - Quote
Max Deveron wrote:and to further build on this.......... Even my own mission running alt has nothing better to do than grind the loot down into minerals, so (and i assuming especially in null) "Gun Mining" is not quite as dead as some people think. Doing this will promote mining by someone as someone else like me will need the rocks to turn into minerals. AND, missioners will provide the new components that I as a manufacturer will also need to build the meta-modules.
No more gun mining.
And to add to this and Techos' comment about supply, quite often what actually drives the supply of these modules isn't how many drop it's how many bother to be looted. At the very high end ratters and mission runners don't actually loot their missions most of the time. The MTU helps this somewhat but it's still often not worthwhile to pick up most of the loot dropped.
The Shadows of the Serpent event threw this into pretty stark relief because it had you running around for long periods without docking up. Very very little of the loot was worth grabbing and even less was worth the effort of hauling it around. The metric I ended up using was Grapplers, because those are a fairly new module and therefore lower in supply than others that have been around and looted for years and also fairly large. If something wasn't more valuable per M3 than a Grappler then I didn't grab it.
Also a note on Max's post, very little in the way of minerals enters the game this way anymore. It used to be something like 25% of the mineral volume in the game but since the drops rebalance I think it's down to less than 5%, though I can't recall the last time CCP published numbers on it.
Ioci wrote:Agreed but 'done right' being the key to that. Instead we will get gluts and a bottleneck component that is exclusive to regions resulting in another monopoly scenario. Why? Because that's what happens every single time.
This is actually an indication of a properly designed system, not a badly designed one. The supply and demand are set by the players, and over time they'll even out. We've seen this with Salvage with items that are very valuable being prioritized and influencing player behavior on what is or isn't worthwhile to salvage. The end result is some things are slightly more valuable and others less so, but with the determining factor being based on player demand.
Combined with salvage this would give CCP another lever to pull for mission reward balancing, so if one faction is very much not worthwhile to mission for then this could be improved by tweaking the Components that they drop. |
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6372
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 02:35:00 -
[15] - Quote
Max Deveron wrote:
and to further build on this.......... Even my own mission running alt has nothing better to do than grind the loot down into minerals, so (and i assuming especially in null) "Gun Mining" is not quite as dead as some people think. Doing this will promote mining by someone as someone else like me will need the rocks to turn into minerals. AND, missioners will provide the new components that I as a manufacturer will also need to build the meta-modules.
No more gun mining.
When I do mission/rat in NS, I pretty much do this too. That we can get away from this, another reason to like this change.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6372
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 02:36:59 -
[16] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Max Deveron wrote:and to further build on this.......... Even my own mission running alt has nothing better to do than grind the loot down into minerals, so (and i assuming especially in null) "Gun Mining" is not quite as dead as some people think. Doing this will promote mining by someone as someone else like me will need the rocks to turn into minerals. AND, missioners will provide the new components that I as a manufacturer will also need to build the meta-modules.
No more gun mining.
And to add to this and Techos' comment about supply, quite often what actually drives the supply of these modules isn't how many drop it's how many bother to be looted. At the very high end ratters and mission runners don't actually loot their missions most of the time. The MTU helps this somewhat but it's still often not worthwhile to pick up most of the loot dropped. The Shadows of the Serpent event threw this into pretty stark relief because it had you running around for long periods without docking up. Very very little of the loot was worth grabbing and even less was worth the effort of hauling it around. The metric I ended up using was Grapplers, because those are a fairly new module and therefore lower in supply than others that have been around and looted for years and also fairly large. If something wasn't more valuable per M3 than a Grappler then I didn't grab it. Also a note on Max's post, very little in the way of minerals enters the game this way anymore. It used to be something like 25% of the mineral volume in the game but since the drops rebalance I think it's down to less than 5%, though I can't recall the last time CCP published numbers on it. Ioci wrote:Agreed but 'done right' being the key to that. Instead we will get gluts and a bottleneck component that is exclusive to regions resulting in another monopoly scenario. Why? Because that's what happens every single time. This is actually an indication of a properly designed system, not a badly designed one. The supply and demand are set by the players, and over time they'll even out. We've seen this with Salvage with items that are very valuable being prioritized and influencing player behavior on what is or isn't worthwhile to salvage. The end result is some things are slightly more valuable and others less so, but with the determining factor being based on player demand. Combined with salvage this would give CCP another lever to pull for mission reward balancing, so if one faction is very much not worthwhile to mission for then this could be improved by tweaking the Components that they drop.
And these things can be tweaked going forward. If something is ridiculous...change the BPOs/BPCs.
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Eternus8lux8lucis
Primus Inc. LEGIO ASTARTES ARCANUM
1442
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 03:01:56 -
[17] - Quote
I am also on the "for" side with this one. Nice clarification for those who contributed. A few +1s for you guys.
Have you heard anything I've said?
You said it's all circling the drain, the whole universe. Right?
That's right.
Had to end sometime.
|
mkint
1708
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 03:30:06 -
[18] - Quote
I'd have to be in the 'for' side as well, if it was someone other than CCP doing it. They can't figure out how bottlenecks work with T2 production or with T3 production. There's no reason to think this won't be just as broken, and likely moreso considering how much broader it is in scope. Especially since nobody has even mentioned the BPs yet.
The broken future I see is 1 run BPCs being dropped at the same rate as current named modules, every module using the exact same components in the exact same proportions as every other module, and the components being dropped at an insufficient rate to keep up with the amount of BPCs being dropped (and not in the same proportions at which they are consumed.) Oh, and one of the components only gets dropped by 1 rat that spawns for 3 minutes a day in Syndicate.
Is there any reason to expect a better implementation than this? Even when they had a PHD economist on board they couldn't figure this kind of stuff out.
Maxim 6. If violence wasnGÇÖt your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
|
Teckos Pech
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
6372
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 03:52:44 -
[19] - Quote
mkint wrote:I'd have to be in the 'for' side as well, if it was someone other than CCP doing it. They can't figure out how bottlenecks work with T2 production or with T3 production. There's no reason to think this won't be just as broken, and likely moreso considering how much broader it is in scope. Especially since nobody has even mentioned the BPs yet.
The broken future I see is 1 run BPCs being dropped at the same rate as current named modules, every module using the exact same components in the exact same proportions as every other module, and the components being dropped at an insufficient rate to keep up with the amount of BPCs being dropped (and not in the same proportions at which they are consumed.) Oh, and one of the components only gets dropped by 1 rat that spawns for 3 minutes a day in Syndicate.
Is there any reason to expect a better implementation than this? Even when they had a PHD economist on board they couldn't figure this kind of stuff out.
I think you are right to express these concerns. After all, they did create the technetium bottleneck. However, I don't think this will be quite as bad...or at least it wont be as bad so long as components are not rat specific like how technetium was region specific. And hopefully CCP will be quicker on the response if there is a bottleneck.
And to be fair "this kind of stuff" can be hard to spot ahead of time...but that being said CCP would be very wise to leverage the player community. IIRC AkitaT noted the technetium bottleneck before they implemented and posted about it here on the forums. Make the changes known ahead of time and make use of the hundreds even thousands of players who will look at it and analyze it and do projections, forecasts and so forth. Listen to what they have to say. Yes, 99.9% of the responses will be errant nonsense, but still...look for that one player like AkitaT who will see the problem....
"The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design."--Friedrich August von Hayek
8 Golden Rules for EVE Online
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
173
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 04:46:59 -
[20] - Quote
My curiosity is two fold. 1) Where do the prints originate? -LP store -drops -new inventions from corresponding T1 prints
Would be cool to know. But I can only imagine options 1 and 3 being the foolproof way of avoiding over or under supplying the market without any of the needed mess of having to tweak numbers down the line as everything would already be in game and on the market.
And lets face it increasing usage of data cores would increase their cost and actually push up the viability of running data sites which have always been in need of love.
2) How do we obtain these components? -ships drop components -ships drop "burnt out/broken modules which need to be reprocessed for parts
First would work, but makes you wonder why a frigate was hauling components around used to construct modules into combat. Second makes thematic sense as you just blew them up and found their damaged weapon systems. Reprocessing it down to it's still functioning base parts.
All very interesting, and I do hope they go through with this change. It would be good for all players in the long term and not just for mission runners (more-so if they do the invention bit), even if they don't see how right now. |
|
Matthias Ancaladron
Wrath of Angels Solitaire.
256
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 05:01:13 -
[21] - Quote
Idk sounds like they wants to elinate bekt rattibg since that's where 50% of belt ratting income comes from. Idk why they want to get rid of it when it's hard enough to make money as is. |
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
61251
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 06:53:43 -
[22] - Quote
Considering the fact that CCP has already nerfed the hell out of loot drops to the point of being nonexistent, what little amount of dropped modules that are reprocessed now basically has very little to no effect on current Mineral prices in the Market.
Tech 1 Meta level 1 modules = Stock modules Tech 1 Meta level 2 & 3 modules = Modified modules.
Stock modules can be mass produced from BPO's. Currently they're pretty much worthless and only used by brand new players for a short period of time. Removing the Modified modules from loot drops and placing the Stock modules as a base invention item for Modified modules will make the Stock modules a worthwhile investment.
I understand the reason for it and the change will definitely make the Stock modules more valuable in the Market. Naturally I don't like it, just another aspect on a long list of gameplay activities that I engage in being removed from the game.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
296
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 07:05:07 -
[23] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Considering the fact that CCP has already nerfed the hell out of loot drops to the point of being nonexistent, what little amount of dropped modules that are reprocessed now basically has very little to no effect on current Mineral prices in the Market.
who said anything about mineral prices?
and as to the other guy to go along with your response.........
Having build components drop instead that will most likely be used more often should more than adequately make up/replace income from module drops while belt rating. |
seller1122
Perimeter Trade and Distribution Inc
14
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 07:05:13 -
[24] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Lemme see if I can explain why this isn't just arbitrary complexity. .....
Very good post; thank you for your reply and explanation.
Reading the replies in this thread has convinced me that this is a good change in the long run. A couple of ideas others have mentioned that I quite like.
Ships should drop "burnt" / "ruined" modules which are reprocessed into the components used to build meta modules. This way still makes sense to me in terms of the loot you get from ships and adds more uses for the re-processing skills BPCs should be available via LP stores / invention or some other way (basically don't have them drop from rats as you still have the same supply issues as now). Careful work is needed to ensure there are no bottlenecks as this would ultimately end up with all bar a few components being worthless.
I will still miss the fact that pricing in the future will be set by ratios rather than actual usefulness but I can now at least appreciate why this is an overall good thing for the game.
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
61252
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 07:25:38 -
[25] - Quote
Max Deveron wrote:DeMichael Crimson wrote:Considering the fact that CCP has already nerfed the hell out of loot drops to the point of being nonexistent, what little amount of dropped modules that are reprocessed now basically has very little to no effect on current Mineral prices in the Market.
who said anything about mineral prices? and as to the other guy to go along with your response......... Having build components drop instead that will most likely be used more often should more than adequately make up/replace income from module drops while belt rating. Um, learn to read, quite a few of the posters saying they like the change made reference to 'Gun Mining' and the effect it has on Minerals in the Market.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
296
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 07:40:36 -
[26] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Max Deveron wrote:DeMichael Crimson wrote:Considering the fact that CCP has already nerfed the hell out of loot drops to the point of being nonexistent, what little amount of dropped modules that are reprocessed now basically has very little to no effect on current Mineral prices in the Market.
who said anything about mineral prices? and as to the other guy to go along with your response......... Having build components drop instead that will most likely be used more often should more than adequately make up/replace income from module drops while belt rating. Um, learn to read, quite a few of the posters saying they like the change made reference to 'Gun Mining' and the effect it has on Minerals in the Market. DMC
Uhm your character is about as old as i have been playing..........
Gun Mining, is/was more of the definition: of combat characters killing rats to acquire minerals as opposed to mining Rocks, there fore they could also contribute to the industry of their organizations without having to mine boring rocks.
Now i read back, and i have percieved the market pricing references have nothing to do with "mineral" prices, it has to do with selling and buying the actual modules not grinding them down for minerals....which right now would be stupid they are worth more as a module than mineral.
Think you better go back and learn to read......oh and maybe brush up on your history a little bit of EvE, ie 425 rail guns to compress minerals perhaps........ |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers EVEolution.
611
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 07:53:01 -
[27] - Quote
Max Deveron wrote:
which right now would be stupid they are worth more as a module than mineral.
this may be true for most modules but for some it's the reverse.
this is a very interesting idea/move by CCP, i guess all we can do is wait and see how this is going to work out fully.
|
Max Deveron
Deveron Shipyards and Technology
296
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 08:04:27 -
[28] - Quote
Cade, this one is for you since you like to think of the economy as encompassing the entire star cluster......
Getting rid of 'Gun Mining' would make Arkonor and Bistot the only sources for megacyte.
With the number of combat anoms in nullsec, Null would have no reason to use Markets to acquire these components for any meta modules they would wish to use. However places like Highsec mostly and maybe even losec (WH have access to AB) would be sol without gun mining to supplement their industry needs, especially in the case of new bros trying to cut their teeth on the subject would be hard pressed to get some without using the market.
So, Pros/Cons, balance/counterbalance for this that you might be able to come up with? Would something have to be buffed for Highsec/Losec to make this palatable in 'every ones' eyes? |
xxxTRUSTxxx
Galactic Rangers EVEolution.
611
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 08:08:41 -
[29] - Quote
Max Deveron wrote:Cade, this one is for you since you like to think of the economy as encompassing the entire star cluster......
Getting rid of 'Gun Mining' would make Arkonor and Bistot the only sources for megacyte.
With the number of combat anoms in nullsec, Null would have no reason to use Markets to acquire these components for any meta modules they would wish to use. However places like Highsec mostly and maybe even losec (WH have access to AB) would be sol without gun mining to supplement their industry needs, especially in the case of new bros trying to cut their teeth on the subject would be hard pressed to get some without using the market.
So, Pros/Cons, balance/counterbalance for this that you might be able to come up with? Would something have to be buffed for Highsec/Losec to make this palatable in 'every ones' eyes?
moon mining in high sec that gets you A & B, maybe in smaller amounts??
|
Do Little
Virgin Plc Evictus.
1005
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 08:12:59 -
[30] - Quote
I suspect the subcap meta modules will work the same way as the capital ones. BPOs are available on the market as are named components.
Production will require a T1 module plus some named components which will presumably be available as loot or salvage.
Named components are tiny, .001 m3, so ratters & mission runners won't need huge cargo bays for their loot.
This is a very positive change for nullsec since the meta modules needed for doctrine fits will be able to be built locally.
It's also a very positive change for the Eve economy since the minerals required to make these things will now need to be harvested by players - only the named components will drop as loot/salvage. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |