Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Olorin O'Maiar
Caldari Cadre Quietus
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:05:00 -
[61]
Way to screw up the Cadmium market with all kinds of speculators, since it is now the Dyspro 'substitute'. It was around 900 a week ago and now you cannot find anyone selling for under 4500. You should have allowed for multiple different cheap minerals to pair with the higher end minerals to distribute the pressure.
|
RedMage
Black Rabbits
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:07:00 -
[62]
Edited by: RedMage on 27/10/2008 18:09:38 Well, this can bring the prices lower, hoever it will also require more reactions to produce the same. Just as a note: (hq = high quality)
If 1 HQ = 20 LQ, then remember it will take 20 posses popping out the LQ reactions 23 hrs a day to compete with 1 HQ pos reaction.
With this being said, i would not expect the high end reactions that are being effected to drop in price too much maybe 5-6%.
Also, for every 1% increase in HQ reactions, it will require a 20% increase in posses doing HQ reactions.
Most likely the pos parts for reactions will slowly start to creep before the HQ reactions creep down.
Additional, smaller pos corps will prolly jump on the bandwagon thinking that the money will be flowing in. Most likely by setting up moon posses not death starts, and little roaming geddon gangs will joyfully shoot at some of the largest targets in eve.
My complete outlook: -T2 mod/ship prices will remain the same. -Pos toweres and parts will start to sell off market (so pay attention to your sell orders and local markets) -More less experienced builder corps will jump into moon mining. -The low end materials will prolly go up in price as ppl try to create new supply lines for themselves of HQ reactions. This will happen disproportionately to the reduction in HQ reaction prices initialy. -Long term: P(LQ) up -Long term: P(HQ) unchanged/up
T2 Output: UP
RedMage
|
Trading Bunnz
Equatorial Industires Dark Taboo
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:08:00 -
[63]
This change is woeful.
Steps should have been taken to address the discrepancy in valuation between the moon materials. r64 metals, rightly, are fought over. Allowing them to be replaced by r16's is.. short sighted. Additionally, the choice of r16's and the mechanic involved is.. absurd.
These are the same metals that build racial carbides. At the moment, the only r64 even close to worth replacing with these alchemical formulas is dysprosium with cadmium. The net effect of this, while it will lead to an increase in supply of dysprosium-based simple reactions, is a signficant increase in the value of the inputs into gallente racial carbides. This will lead, directly, to an increase in the "street price" of all gallente t2 hulls. Not just gallente of course, the t2 ORE ships as well. Sure, it'll take a month or more even to reflect in the markets, but its as predictable as ice in the antarctic.
You've got better options open. Implement reactions that use r16's but dont pair the minerals up like you are. Use reactions that allow 2:1 or 4:1 r64 straight replacements. Think up a better alternative CCP, this one really is a killer blow.
Even without considering the political implications of the impact on 0.0 operations, the flow on economic effects of this policy will be bad, bad, bad. Luckily, I'm Caldari, but I shoot lots of gallente pilots and I'd like them to be able to continue to afford shiney t2 ships for me to blow up please. :( FRPB Shares in Default |
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:09:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Karina Bellac Edited by: Karina Bellac on 27/10/2008 17:21:06
Originally by: Shadowsword
Why don't you just create some reaction requiring 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium = 200 ferrofluid? The T2 production cycle is already complex enough as it is without having to add some new unrefined reactions.
A product cannot be manufactured from two different blueprints with differing material requirements. I would hazard a guess that reactions suffer from the same piece of awful design*. The workaround, instead of actually fixing things, is to react something that can then use refining definitions to create a product that has an existing reaction/blueprint defined.
(* Materials needed to build item <x> using blueprint <y> are indexed under item <x> itself. Common sense would say you would index the Bill of Materials by <y>, the blueprint being used.)
Fine, then a simpler reaction to do the same thing: 200 Cadmium = 10 Dysprosium. Yes, both are raw materials. Does it matter? ------------------------------------------
|
Karina Bellac
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:12:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Shadowsword Fine, then a simpler reaction to do the same thing: 200 Cadmium = 10 Dysprosium. Yes, both are raw materials. Does it matter?
You're applying common sense and simplicity to EVE Online game mechanics. What's wrong with you?! |
Vio Geraci
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:25:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Olorin O'Maiar Way to screw up the Cadmium market with all kinds of speculators, since it is now the Dyspro 'substitute'. It was around 900 a week ago and now you cannot find anyone selling for under 4500. You should have allowed for multiple different cheap minerals to pair with the higher end minerals to distribute the pressure.
It was above 4000 before this announcement was made. Speculation, not new demand caused by this patch, is what drove that price up. Maybe it will stay elevated because of this announcement, who knows.
|
Farrellus Cameron
Sturmgrenadier Inc Cosmic Anomalies
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:28:00 -
[67]
ETA? ----------------------------------------------------
|
Aprudena Gist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:31:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Aprudena Gist on 27/10/2008 18:31:35 are you guys brain dead or something why not add more reactions for ferrogel from r64's and nothing else to make 64's useful?
|
Fulber
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:34:00 -
[69]
Originally by: Aprudena Gist Edited by: Aprudena Gist on 27/10/2008 18:31:35 are you guys brain dead or something why not add more reactions for ferrogel from r64's and nothing else to make 64's useful?
It's in the interest of game balance that R32s are more valuable than R64s. |
Recluse Viramor
Reikoku Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:37:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Recluse Viramor on 27/10/2008 18:39:21
Quote: This happened in a big way two years ago when we added the invention mechanics - essentially an innovation that allowed you all to bypass the T2 production bottleneck imposed by the limited supply of BPOs.
This comparison is flat out flawed.
T2 BPO's were held by single players and only changed hands by either the BPO holder selling the BPO or getting himself blown up while transporting it.
Limited supply of high end moons however are not restricted in the same ways that T2 BPO's are, obviously. Currently high end moons are the cause of large 0.0 conflicts and represent a large portion of the value of holding 0.0 space. Alliances wage wars for control of these moons alone; I hope CCP has seriously considered the ramifications of this change to the worth of 0.0 and the impact of the entire EVE community at large.
IE. Less Valuable moons = less reasons to fight = less ships being blown up = less demand for ships being made = less demand for materials to build ships = ....
|
|
Kweel Nakashyn
Minmatar Aeden
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:47:00 -
[71]
Originally by: CCP Fallout (...) This is an interesting change to our economy, so let's focus on that (...)
Well, the problem is dysprosium/promoteum selling concerns, say, 100 players ? 150 ? I think you won't have many applauses, then.
It won't be the same if you told this about salvaging materials (for exemple)
Good idea anyway. Too bad only 100-150 players (the same as before) will profit. |
Verite Rendition
Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Elitist Cowards
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:48:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Verite Rendition on 27/10/2008 18:48:34
Originally by: Aprudena Gist Edited by: Aprudena Gist on 27/10/2008 18:31:35 are you guys brain dead or something why not add more reactions for ferrogel from r64's and nothing else to make 64's useful?
Oh don't be so negative. I can exchange my worthless Thulium with equally worthless Vanadium; this is great. |
Aprudena Gist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:53:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Verite Rendition Edited by: Verite Rendition on 27/10/2008 18:48:34
Originally by: Aprudena Gist Edited by: Aprudena Gist on 27/10/2008 18:31:35 are you guys brain dead or something why not add more reactions for ferrogel from r64's and nothing else to make 64's useful?
Oh don't be so negative. I can exchange my worthless Thulium with equally worthless Vanadium; this is great.
Well they are supposed to be r64's for some reason right? i mean its not like they are supposed to be rare or useful or anything. |
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:55:00 -
[74]
This sounds very sub-optimal compared with what Chronotis was throwing around months ago. You're not removing the bottleneck at all, you're just shifting it a whole 1 pace to the left until we come up with the same problem again in 3 months time, and then you get another 12 months to fix it.
Contrary to what people are saying, this is still 1 step in the right general direction, and ISN'T going to make 0.0 less valuable but more, because most of it is filled with these 'alternate' moons which largely at the moment aren't all populated. It is simply going to require more people to fully utilise, instead of the current situation where a single person can manage a 200b/month network.
Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans CCP is a greedy money chewing monster
|
Aprudena Gist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:57:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Aprudena Gist on 27/10/2008 18:57:29
Originally by: Lord Fitz This sounds very sub-optimal compared with what Chronotis was throwing around months ago. You're not removing the bottleneck at all, you're just shifting it a whole 1 pace to the left until we come up with the same problem again in 3 months time, and then you get another 12 months to fix it.
Contrary to what people are saying, this is still 1 step in the right general direction, and ISN'T going to make 0.0 less valuable but more, because most of it is filled with these 'alternate' moons which largely at the moment aren't all populated. It is simply going to require more people to fully utilise, instead of the current situation where a single person can manage a 200b/month network.
The only people that can hold that many moons are alliances and war happens because of them if you dont think there are huge costs associated with holding the moons then your crazy. Most wars in 0.0 happen over moons/space Or Grudge matches because we just dislike the other side.
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 19:00:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Recluse Viramor Limited supply of high end moons however are not restricted in the same ways that T2 BPO's are, obviously. Currently high end moons are the cause of large 0.0 conflicts and represent a large portion of the value of holding 0.0 space. Alliances wage wars for control of these moons alone; I hope CCP has seriously considered the ramifications of this change to the worth of 0.0 and the impact of the entire EVE community at large.
IE. Less Valuable moons = less reasons to fight = less ships being blown up = less demand for ships being made = less demand for materials to build ships = ....
How much did Bob win with it's moons in the last month? At a vague guesstimate, it's say easily 180 billions (35 dyspro + 35 prom).
How many attacks on those POS did you fend off in the last month?
Like any 0.0 real estate, the amount of efforts required in holding one after the first doesn't just add up in a linear fashion. It is a curse of inversed diminishing returns. Because holding 70 moons isn't significantly harder than holding 50. So those 20 fall in the little effort, huge reward category.
If you can't see why it's bad than one or two alliances in the game should have near illimited funds, without huge efforts of logistics and men/hours to provide it, you're hopeless. ------------------------------------------
|
MFWood
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 19:03:00 -
[77]
The problem wasn't only limited to dys/prom being extremely expensive, there was also the problem of 2 of the 4 rarity 64 mins being practically worthless. Your solution, while it will lower the price of dyspro and (maybe) prom, it doesnt solve the problem of Thulium and Neodymium being worth less that r32 mins.
Also, now there is less reason for the expansion into 00 space. The fact that there were some expensive moon mins to help offset the massive costs of POS infrastructures neede4d to maintain 00 sovereignty was the only thing keeping the expansion going.
If the resources for full t2 production can be gotten from high and low sec space, you might as well erase the whole 00 space concept and turn it all into low sec and dot it with NPC stations so atleast people can do missions.
Wouldn't it make more sense instead to have thulium and neodymium as substitutes for dyspro and prom? There were ample over supplies of those 2 as they were under used. The only reason there are shortages now is that many people assumed you would do something to increase their value so there were market buyouts.
Soz CCP, usually I try to find the better sides of your decisions, but this time there really is no better side. You need to stop allowing beer at your dev planning meetings.
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 19:03:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Serenity Steele on 27/10/2008 19:04:15
This is a creative game mechanic that is obviously achievable using "item type" modifications, and in this case the attributes of a reaction.
While it's a highly creative solution that requires minimum programming effort, it is nothing more than that; - It buys time, but doesn't solve the alleged problem (Which I believe is actually a feature) - It fundamentally changes the physics of the universe (alchemy indeed, and limited only to moon minerals - what about zydrine then!) - It destabilizes existing 0.0 holding on the map - A better solution could be achieved by multiple other routes. Eg. Increasing calibration on Tech1 ships, so there are multiple routes to a Tech II Pimping instead of or as well.
Obviously now that it's announced it's a CCP policy no-go to un-announce it, so the EVE-universe is stuck with it.
Now in the context of this uber technologically driven change why I still can't make Dairy Products, Construction Blocks and Mechanical Parts, which would really be useful?
≡v≡ Strategic Maps in Eve-Online Store | eve-maps.com |
Vio Geraci
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 19:22:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Kweel Nakashyn
Originally by: CCP Fallout (...) This is an interesting change to our economy, so let's focus on that (...)
Well, the problem is dysprosium/promoteum selling concerns, say, 100 players ? 150 ? I think you won't have many applauses, then.
It won't be the same if you told this about salvaging materials (for exemple)
Good idea anyway. Too bad only 100-150 players (the same as before) will profit.
It concerns every single player in 0.0 and, by extension, empire as well. The fights over these moons determine the course that the entire game takes.
This is not a market balance change, this is a 0.0 warfare change. And it stinks.
|
Patripassion
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 19:23:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Aprudena Gist Well they are supposed to be r64's for some reason right? i mean its not like they are supposed to be rare or useful or anything.
Rarity does not necessarily have to translate into value, even in a game.
|
|
Blazde
4S Corporation Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 19:24:00 -
[81]
Totally satisfied with this change. Most of the people crying omg-you-nerfed-0.0-without-solving-the-actual-problem either don't understand the moon-material supply chain or haven't crunched a few numbers based on the change.
Totally sensitive (and sensible) nerf. I'd say you future proofed the problem up to 400k subscribers anyway _
|
Vio Geraci
Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 19:27:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Serenity Steele This is a creative game mechanic that is obviously achievable using "item type" modifications, and in this case the attributes of a reaction.
While it's a highly creative solution that requires minimum programming effort, it is nothing more than that;
...
Obviously now that it's announced it's a CCP policy no-go to un-announce it, so the EVE-universe is stuck with it.
Creative? Hardly. This is a no-effort solution that dilutes the value of 0.0 space without seriously alleviating the market bottleneck. A more effective solution would be introducing quanitites of moon minerals in gravimetric sites, or very small amounts in high end ore refines.
|
Fulber
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 19:33:00 -
[83]
How about this for a simpler fix:
Throw <x> m3 of Heavy Water into a POS Reactor, set to fusion boil for 1 hour, then reduce to a fusion simmer for <y> hours. Wait <z> hours for residual heat to diminish, and out pops <n> m3 of moon mineral <m> of your choice.
If you're gonna make screwy design decisions, at least go for gold. |
Bane Glorious
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 19:47:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Vio Geraci A more effective solution would be introducing quanitites of moon minerals in gravimetric sites,
I like this idea. |
Martis Gomery
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 19:50:00 -
[85]
I just want to know who picked cadmium for the dyspro reaction? This material is already used in the prometium reaction.
So now we have something that is needed for an r64 reaction being gobbled up to make dyspro. This fix also does nothing for the neodymium and thulium problem. |
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 20:02:00 -
[86]
After more thinking, and discussing it with corpmates, we think the profit in those reactions isn't worth the effort and investment. While profit is possible at current dysprosium and cadmium prices, it's not enough to bother...
A ratio of 1/10 would be more sensible.
That or make this something that can be run in a station, that would avoid the fuel cost of 20 reactors in 10 large reaction POS to run the equivalent of one small dyspro mining POS.
As it is this change will have really minimal influence on dyspro price. A drop of 15% at most. ------------------------------------------
|
Tarnia Xavian
Minmatar Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 20:07:00 -
[87]
The amounts of the raws really aren't the problem.
The problem is the huge amount of capital needed to draw them out and the ability to do so while the POS owner is afk. Let's have a ship or turret that will draw from the moons directly, robbing the guy with the POS. So, instead of getting 100 dyspro from the moon in that cycle he only gets 70 or less, and the "prospector" gets the remainder in his cargo hold.
This requires them to more actively defend their moons, and it gives the little guy a financial interest in the moon mineral market instead of being just the "bend-over" victim.
|
Einstein's Ghost
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 20:11:00 -
[88]
This change is useless at best. First, puting a cap on dysprosium/promethium does not solve the underlying problem of inconsistent moon material requirements for tech2 production. With the ratios for new intermediate materials provided in the devblog you are merely slowing down the issue instead of rectifying it.
Furthermore, in contradiction to the ferrofluid example - the price of dysprosium has been relatively stagnant for the past 6 months and the same for the price of ferrofluid. Ferrogel even dropped by 30% a while back. So you are in fact capping a stable market at current prices.
|
General Xenophon
Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 20:11:00 -
[89]
Originally by: CCP Fallout As EVE OnlineÆs playerbase grows, so does its economy. Supply and demand canÆt always be naturally met, and from time to time we have to make changes to the system to make sure supply and demand is well- balanced and healthy. GreyscaleÆs newest dev blog, ôAlchemy,ö explains some of the upcoming changes to limited resources and industry. You can read GreyscaleÆs blog here.
Can we concentrate on things which really need more work? Example: Like fixing the darn pos interface and controls? It's a royal pain in the ass to anchor modules with that stupid green box 500 million miles away, let alone get a moon to mine from! Again, issues like lag, glitches, and such need PRIORITY instead of trying to 'fix' (translating from CCP speak -> Break) things?
There's a whole slue of more important things to work on, and this is being critical I realize, I trust you guys are trying to make things better, but where do you guys get your lists of issues from? The last changes have been making the game more of a pain in the ass then really helping players or making the game just more playable in general. Fix the things that ARE broken. Don't just go break more things. You've got to be competitive guys! I try to get my friends to play Eve but when they hear about the changes you make to the game they say 'no thanks!' and they're hardcore gamers too. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= "Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men." - Boondock Saints |
Wadaya
Caldari Trailerpark Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.27 20:13:00 -
[90]
So, what is the fail rate for this "invention"? Don't think anyone has brought that up
Wad
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |