EVE Search - Ok when is ccp going to address this Dysprosium problem.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Ok when is ccp going to address this Dysprosium problem.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Gamer4liff Caldari Metalworks THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY	Posted - 2009.03.26 13:54:00 - [91] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Gamer4liff Edited by: Gamer4liff on 26/03/2009 12:15:07 As somebody who makes T2 ships I HATE HATE HATE the static supply of moon minerals. It more or less guarantees that build costs will constantly rise, making the price at the end rise (though usually not enough to make up the difference), but also making demand fall. It can't have been more than three years ago that Antimatter Reactor Units were only 50k or so, now the price has more than tripled. This is a huge problem that will eventually stifle ship choice in PvP unless something is done, no materials in eve should have totally static supplies. In the Apocrypha devblogs, CCP hinted pretty strongly at an expansion of K-space 0.0 Alternatively, W-space could become a moon mineral source W-space was initially set to have moon minerals, but a development change led to that functionality being dropped. This leads me to believe that CCP is conceptualizing some new system for the distribution of moon minerals. W-space would have opened op the moon mineral market in much the same way that invention opened up the T2 production market. Deciding not to do that tells me they are working on some other, even better, system. Or at least that's what I'm personally hoping. ----------- Originally by: CCP Whisper Deal with it.
Colonel Xaven Decadence. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.26 13:57:00 - [92] There has to be a reason to keep 0.0. Proud member of RZR - Decadence.
Alora Venoda GalTech Whiskey Creek Alliance	Posted - 2009.03.26 14:11:00 - [93] some realistic changes that should help bring down the price of dysp: buff dysp-alchemy ratio to 1:5 instead of 1:20 add a new 1:20 dysp-alchemy using more common moons than cadmium (ie- silicates) make some new alchemy to directly "make" raw dysp instead of dysp compounds double (or maybe even triple) the number of dysp moons available open up hi-sec moons to mining implement T2 moon harvesters add exploration sites with high-end moon materials that can be "mined" actively from some new gas or ore, or maybe just looted ~~~~ ~~~~ ~~~~ Take away the risk and it would make flying around in space utterly pointless. Take away the flying around part and you make EVE into a space themed spreadsheet application.
Gamer4liff Caldari Metalworks THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY	Posted - 2009.03.26 14:13:00 - [94] Originally by: Colonel Xaven There has to be a reason to keep 0.0. People were fighting over 0.0 long before moon minerals were even in the game, and people would be fighting over it still were they removed today. Not that I'm suggesting that mind you, it's important a steady supply of the stuff comes in, I'm just saying there should be some way to increase the supply other than alchemy, which has failed miserably under the current system. ----------- Originally by: CCP Whisper Deal with it.
FireAnt Caldari Wings of the Storm	Posted - 2009.03.26 14:20:00 - [95] Edited by: FireAnt on 26/03/2009 14:20:55
FireAnt Caldari Wings of the Storm	Posted - 2009.03.26 14:20:00 - [96] Edited by: FireAnt on 26/03/2009 14:21:15 Originally by: Ak'athra J'ador Edited by: Ak''athra J''ador on 26/03/2009 13:46:00 Originally by: FireAnt capitalism is awesome. actually, you say it isnt. you are complaining that big alliances are making lots of money, with which they buy caps and are therefore even harder to kill? so they will keep making money and they will keep getting bigger. that is one of the fundamental principles of capitalism. money accumulates where there is money. so those who have (the big alliances) will have more and more, while you have less and less :) or short version: in the immortal words of avenue Q:"sucks to be you" Originally by: FireAnt capitalism is awesome. yeah, that is why so many people are declaring bankruptcy and are struggling to survive, while you buy your car from china, computer from Japan and fruit from Spain... anyhow, remember BRUCE? it was an alliance which sized and held fountain for a period of time. so they got to the moons, if only for a while. so it can be done. this isnt about moons or who controls them. this is about one material having a chokehold on all of t2 production. even in capitalism there are rules about monopolies. if you dont see that, then you are a moron and should stay out of my thread with your stupid comments.
Malcanis R.E.C.O.N. Dara Cothrom	Posted - 2009.03.26 14:27:00 - [97] Originally by: Gamer4liff Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Gamer4liff Edited by: Gamer4liff on 26/03/2009 12:15:07 As somebody who makes T2 ships I HATE HATE HATE the static supply of moon minerals. It more or less guarantees that build costs will constantly rise, making the price at the end rise (though usually not enough to make up the difference), but also making demand fall. It can't have been more than three years ago that Antimatter Reactor Units were only 50k or so, now the price has more than tripled. This is a huge problem that will eventually stifle ship choice in PvP unless something is done, no materials in eve should have totally static supplies. In the Apocrypha devblogs, CCP hinted pretty strongly at an expansion of K-space 0.0 Alternatively, W-space could become a moon mineral source W-space was initially set to have moon minerals, but a development change led to that functionality being dropped. This leads me to believe that CCP is conceptualizing some new system for the distribution of moon minerals. W-space would have opened op the moon mineral market in much the same way that invention opened up the T2 production market. Deciding not to do that tells me they are working on some other, even better, system. Or at least that's what I'm personally hoping. Meanwhile I don't think that somewhat higher T2 prices are purely a bad thing. The "T2 fitted T2 ships or GTFO" mentality obseletes T1 sub-BS ships and discriminates against lower-SP players. "Inventionising" moon minerals - replacing relatively efficient, centralised, monopolised production with inefficient, distributed accessible production sounds exactly like what CCP are trying to do with T3. That might be why they took moon mins out: to retain the focus on T3. R64 moons have a use as high-value alliance warfare objectives. If they're planning a large expansion of 0.0 then they might not want to dilute the value of R64s any more then necessary. What with the drone regions for minerals and hi-sec level 4s for ISK generation, there's little enough that's truly worth fighting for in 0.0 as it is.
Research Rachel	Posted - 2009.03.26 14:30:00 - [98] yeey, another ccp whine thread!
Uzume Ame	Posted - 2009.03.26 14:33:00 - [99] My only problem with moon mienrals is thir usage in t2 production not being equally distributed. Every R64 should be as important (making them probably racial dependant, but this would be hard to balance but nice addition), same with R32, 16 or 8; and any should be usefull to a point in the process.
Illiya GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.03.26 15:04:00 - [100] people daytrading and screwing with markets has more to do with high prices these days than actual supply shortages. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal
Rexthor Hammerfists Rage of Inferno Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2009.03.26 15:14:00 - [101] Originally by: Gamer4liff Originally by: Colonel Xaven There has to be a reason to keep 0.0. People were fighting over 0.0 long before moon minerals were even in the game, and people would be fighting over it still were they removed today. People have always been fighting about ressources tho. Good Belts and spawns, then DED Plexes and now moons. Eve has evolved alot since the days when all you had todo to take a station was to shoot through 3m shield - nowadays belts mean nothing in the economy anymore and wouldnt keep an alliance running. making moons disappear after a while and spawn somewhere else would remove the need for outposts and sov (it takes 6 weeks to get sov3 which enables cyno jammers etc.). Instead any capable alliance would become nomadic and follow moons - alliances that strife to build up an empire in 0.0 would simply be overrun, or go bankrupt. -
Br41n Pinky and the Brain corp	Posted - 2009.03.26 15:15:00 - [102] Make it even more rare, do that with all T2 materials, make T1 frigs/cruisers/BC/BS usefull again. and make T2/T3 ships very expensive. Thats how it should be imho. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Pinky: Gee, Brain. What are we going to do tonight? Brain: The same thing we do every night, Pinky. Try to take over the world. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
wickedpheonix	Posted - 2009.03.26 15:19:00 - [103] Originally by: Gallente trader10 working as intended earn more isk - problem solved. qft. People who control the means of production can control the price. If you don't like it, get people to go down with you to seize a dyspro moon. This is what EVE is all about - players control the market so combat PVP results, i.e. market PVP affects combat PVP and vice versa.
FireAnt Caldari Wings of the Storm	Posted - 2009.03.26 15:21:00 - [104] CCP could just fix the ratios, leave the moons alone, let the strong hold the still very valuable moons. seems pretty simple to me.
Breaker77	Posted - 2009.03.26 15:29:00 - [105] Edited by: Breaker77 on 26/03/2009 15:30:04 Originally by: FireAnt CCP could just fix the ratios, leave the moons alone, let the strong hold the still very valuable moons. seems pretty simple to me. Or you can learn to fly T1 ships. As I mentioned in an earlier post, you don't NEED T2 ships. If people stoped buying T2 ships then the demand would fall which in turn would make prices fall. When the expansion came out I was selling expanded launchers at 150k each and probes at 100k each. Both cost about 7k each to make and the demand was very very high. Now the launchers are just above build cost because no one is buying them anymore, and the probes are close. I made over 1.5 billion in profit in a day. Now I can't even sell those items There is nothing wrong with the way it is. The players and markets will balance out in time.
Gamer4liff Caldari Metalworks THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY	Posted - 2009.03.26 15:30:00 - [106] Edited by: Gamer4liff on 26/03/2009 15:34:47 Originally by: Malcanis Meanwhile I don't think that somewhat higher T2 prices are purely a bad thing. The "T2 fitted T2 ships or GTFO" mentality obseletes T1 sub-BS ships and discriminates against lower-SP players. "Inventionising" moon minerals - replacing relatively efficient, centralised, monopolised production with inefficient, distributed accessible production sounds exactly like what CCP are trying to do with T3. That might be why they took moon mins out: to retain the focus on T3. R64 moons have a use as high-value alliance warfare objectives. If they're planning a large expansion of 0.0 then they might not want to dilute the value of R64s any more then necessary. What with the drone regions for minerals and hi-sec level 4s for ISK generation, there's little enough that's truly worth fighting for in 0.0 as it is. I guess at a certain point becomes a value conflict where on one hand you have high value alliance warfare targets vs. accessible T2 I can more than willingly see why people think that the moons are necessary to 0.0 as we know it. I personally do not believe this. It is my belief that 0.0 warfare was never about the isk, but the fight itself, the controlling of territory people can call home, and of course the terrible CAOD posting. Of course though moons should have things of value high enough to offset the costs of sovereignty. Even still I think creating more 0.0 would be analogous to seeding more BPOs on the T2 lottery. It might create more oligopoly members but the competition still won't be high enough to stem the tide of the rising build costs given an always increasing player base in the long run. Where did they say were going to create more 0.0 by the way? I probably missed it because I haven't been reading the forums as much recently. While T2 ships should not be cheap by any measure, I agree with your assessment that there shouldn't be a T2-only mentality in PVP, they are starting to push back to unreasonable areas. I believe that as build costs increase, demand will fall accordingly. While T2 should not be standard, it should hardly be an extreme luxury, and it is my belief that certain ships are headed in that direction. For example I make Damnations via a BPO. The build price has increased dramatically to the point where not only are the margins terrible, but the wholesale price has risen to heights never before seen. At a certain point I'm probably just going to stop making them altogether until the market improves. With additional, competitive, supply there would be a reduction of build cost, I would start producing more, and the wholesale price would lower. ----------- Originally by: CCP Whisper Deal with it.
Gamer4liff Caldari Metalworks THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY	Posted - 2009.03.26 15:33:00 - [107] Originally by: wickedpheonix Originally by: Gallente trader10 working as intended earn more isk - problem solved. qft. People who control the means of production can control the price. If you don't like it, get people to go down with you to seize a dyspro moon. This is what EVE is all about - players control the market so combat PVP results, i.e. market PVP affects combat PVP and vice versa. Don't you get it that in the long run the static supply will crush the T2 ship market? It doesn't matter who owns the moons (from a standpoint of limited competition under the current system). Nobody is demanding that they personally own more dysprosium moons, what people want is a reasonable solution to the static supply which will yield a better market. ----------- Originally by: CCP Whisper Deal with it.
bitters much Nekkid Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.26 15:40:00 - [108] Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists making moons disappear after a while and spawn somewhere else would remove the need for outposts and sov (it takes 6 weeks to get sov3 which enables cyno jammers etc.). Instead any capable alliance would become nomadic and follow moons - alliances that strife to build up an empire in 0.0 would simply be overrun, or go bankrupt. I think your wrong because I doubt that your "capable alliance" runs after 1 Dyspro moon that just contains glue for 30 days ( as I mentioned 1 side back ). Lets say IRON finds/probes out that an Dyspro moon had spawned in your controlled space. You set up POS to suck on it and the 30 day timer starts. Meanwhile one of your no so happy members thinks: Ok, I sell the location to ****zlemaNizzle from PL. I doubt PL would just come to: Siege your POS, get the job done in maybe 1 week after they know about the location while risking cap ships, install own POS and suck the remaining 3 weeks of Dysro but only if you dont shot the POS in RF again.
Uzume Ame	Posted - 2009.03.26 15:43:00 - [109] Edited by: Uzume Ame on 26/03/2009 15:44:01 Originally by: Gamer4liff Don't you get it that in the long run the static supply will crush the T2 ship market? It doesn't matter who owns the moons (from a standpoint of limited competition under the current system). Nobody is demanding that they personally own more dysprosium moons, what people want is a reasonable solution to the static supply which will yield a better market. Why? We have scarcity in RL, and in game terms is even better, it promotes competition amongst players. Tech 1 are the only neccessity goods in EVE (and there are plenty of these as ther eis plenty of mienrals/loot and its easy for CCP to add more, i.e. cosmic sigs following the current exploration trend, instead of fixed belts), tech 2/3 are luxury goods and NEVER should be mandatory. Indeed I think t2/t3 being extremelly expensive would be one of the best things that could happen to the game: lowering entry barrier for pvp, making pvp 'cheaper' and hence more popular over eve population and driving the 'mandatory t2' f*gs/elitists to a minority.
Gamer4liff Caldari Metalworks THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY	Posted - 2009.03.26 15:51:00 - [110] Edited by: Gamer4liff on 26/03/2009 15:51:46 Originally by: Uzume Ame Edited by: Uzume Ame on 26/03/2009 15:44:01 Originally by: Gamer4liff Don't you get it that in the long run the static supply will crush the T2 ship market? It doesn't matter who owns the moons (from a standpoint of limited competition under the current system). Nobody is demanding that they personally own more dysprosium moons, what people want is a reasonable solution to the static supply which will yield a better market. Why? We have scarcity in RL, and in game terms is even better, it promotes competition amongst players. Tech 1 are the only neccessity goods in EVE (and there are plenty of these as ther eis plenty of mienrals/loot and its easy for CCP to add more, i.e. cosmic sigs following the current exploration trend, instead of fixed belts), tech 2/3 are luxury goods and NEVER should be mandatory. Indeed I think t2/t3 being extremelly expensive would be one of the best things that could happen to the game: lowering entry barrier for pvp, making pvp 'cheaper' and hence more popular over eve population and driving the 'mandatory t2' fgs/elitists to a minority. I disagree because certain T2 ships provide functions T1 cannot. For example Heavy Interdictors have no T1 equivalent that does their job adequately. Another example would be covert ops ships. If T2 got dramatically expensive you would see less variation in combat, which I do not think is a good thing. ----------- Originally by:* CCP Whisper Deal with it.
Uzume Ame	Posted - 2009.03.26 16:03:00 - [111] That can be easilly tuned adding new t1 variants (in case of hics) or modifing current bonuses (in case of covertops). The game was fun before t2 and will be if t2 is LESS common 8I'm not asking for removal). Also I think CCP is pretending T3 to be middleground between t1 and t3 and the scarcity problem is not as hard (now it is, but they can tune the spawn rate of certain signatures -archaelogy/hacking/gas sites-) because is not limited. IMO is a good compromise.
Rexthor Hammerfists Rage of Inferno Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2009.03.26 16:04:00 - [112] Originally by: bitters much I think your wrong because I doubt that your "capable alliance" runs after 1 Dyspro moon that just contains glue for 30 days ( as I mentioned 1 side back ). Lets say IRON finds/probes out that an Dyspro moon had spawned in your controlled space. You set up POS to suck on it and the 30 day timer starts. Meanwhile one of your no so happy members thinks: Ok, I sell the location to ****zlemaNizzle from PL. I doubt PL would just come to: Siege your POS, get the job done in maybe 1 week after they know about the location while risking cap ships, install own POS and suck the remaining 3 weeks of Dysro but only if you dont shot the POS in RF again. Of course bigger alliances wouldnt run after one but after several closer together, or instead run away from the area where no highend is. Btw Ra has done it alrdy last year, taking many of the highend moons around eve with a fleet mobile enough to protect moons being attacked many regions away of their own. Instead my proposal to ccp would be to leave the static moons in eve, but bring changing moons with a maybe one month or even cycle into wormhole space. Introduce a mechanic in wormhole space that allows smaller forces that fit through a wormhole to be able to take down a pos which in the end would add more moon mins to the market and also allow smaller factions to compete with said moons. A mechanic could be to amke it impossible to anchor large poses, or more drastic to allow poses as we know them without the bubble around it - there are many ways todo this. -
bitters much Nekkid Inc.	Posted - 2009.03.26 16:22:00 - [113] Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists Of course bigger alliances wouldnt run after one but after several closer together, or instead run away from the area where no highend is. Btw Ra has done it alrdy last year, taking many of the highend moons around eve with a fleet mobile enough to protect moons being attacked many regions away of their own. But RA was just able because the entire area was on fire and everyone else had better things to do then look after the moon in Pure Blind, I doubt that would happen in a "stable" controled region.
Hyveres Caldari	Posted - 2009.03.26 16:25:00 - [114] Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists Of course bigger alliances wouldnt run after one but after several closer together, or instead run away from the area where no highend is. Btw Ra has done it alrdy last year, taking many of the highend moons around eve with a fleet mobile enough to protect moons being attacked many regions away of their own. Instead my proposal to ccp would be to leave the static moons in eve, but bring changing moons, with a maybe one month or even two, cycle into wormhole space. Introduce a mechanic in wormhole space that allows smaller forces that fit through a wormhole to be able to take down a pos which in the end would add more moon mins to the market and also allow smaller factions to compete with said moons W-space. A mechanic could be to make it impossible to anchor large poses, or more drastic to allow poses as we know them without the bubble around it - there are many ways todo this. Actually I think holding a wide area of space making you have effective logistics and a large area where moons could spawn would be even more important. Instead of having small fortress areas of 0.0 with extreme concentration of resources and other areas being considered worthless it will make keeping a wider territory for maximised chance of discovering valuable minerals a lot more important. "Subtlety is a thing for philosophy, not combat. If you're going to kill someone, you might as well kill them a whole lot." - Vulcan Raven, The Last Days Of Foxhound
meat vapour	Posted - 2009.03.26 16:33:00 - [115] looks like an akita t thread reads like an akita t thread smells like an akita t thread curious...
Korrakas Caldari Legion of Ascension Beyond Ascension	Posted - 2009.03.26 16:44:00 - [116] you should get courses in debating kid, you keep repating yourself after having the reasons explained to you, whoever you cannot mindlessly erode by repeating you call a moron and that they have no reading comprehension after they kindly sit and wade through all your whining drivel and then calmly explain to you why you are acting like a spoilt child. Now on your flawed argument of "I want other moons to be as valuable as Dyspro" which frankly makes no sense because Dyspro would remain high, just more of your so called "bloated allainces" will become more bloated as they have acces to cad and prom that would now be mandatory for each T2 ship. Also you cannot expect alliances such as Goons and BoB that have been working for 3 years to acces and hold these moons to have to compete with every tom, **** and harry that want to earn a quick buck to be wannabe pirate. These people sometimes devote days to go forward and backward shipping into empire so ungrateful people like you can buy your Nighthawk, fail fit it, lose it and subsequently whine on the fourmns about it. The also patrol their space to avoid roamers dropping caps all over their POSes for "lulz" and defend from other money hungry allainces, it is only fair that they should earn 100bil per moon and build all the f#cking titans they can get their hands on because they earned it. Also T2 is already too commonplace. It should be the endgame of elite solo pvpers and T3 a rare alliance used ship. If you dont like it that way, either apply to allaince XXX or GTFO and grind up the walls at WoW. T1 should be the top for the avarage pilot with T2 thrown in for important engaments/1vs1. Finally, if you find capitalism so "awsome" then you should know that monopolies are very commonplace (im thinking of a little company called M$) and that EVE is very much like it. and p.s learn to earn ISK, pvp in T1, debate and stop whining...oh and read peoples answers before deriding them and tl:dr On the matter of EVE in general, uninstall client and leave quitley
FireAnt Caldari Wings of the Storm	Posted - 2009.03.26 17:12:00 - [117] Originally by: Korrakas you should get courses in debating kid, you keep repating yourself after having the reasons explained to you, whoever you cannot mindlessly erode by repeating you call a moron and that they have no reading comprehension after they kindly sit and wade through all your whining drivel and then calmly explain to you why you are acting like a spoilt child. Now on your flawed argument of "I want other moons to be as valuable as Dyspro" which frankly makes no sense because Dyspro would remain high, just more of your so called "bloated allainces" will become more bloated as they have acces to cad and prom that would now be mandatory for each T2 ship. Also you cannot expect alliances such as Goons and BoB that have been working for 3 years to acces and hold these moons to have to compete with every tom, **** and harry that want to earn a quick buck to be wannabe pirate. These people sometimes devote days to go forward and backward shipping into empire so ungrateful people like you can buy your Nighthawk, fail fit it, lose it and subsequently whine on the fourmns about it. The also patrol their space to avoid roamers dropping caps all over their POSes for "lulz" and defend from other money hungry allainces, it is only fair that they should earn 100bil per moon and build all the f#cking titans they can get their hands on because they earned it. Also T2 is already too commonplace. It should be the endgame of elite solo pvpers and T3 a rare alliance used ship. If you dont like it that way, either apply to allaince XXX or GTFO and grind up the walls at WoW. T1 should be the top for the avarage pilot with T2 thrown in for important engaments/1vs1. Finally, if you find capitalism so "awsome" then you should know that monopolies are very commonplace (im thinking of a little company called M$) and that EVE is very much like it. and p.s learn to earn ISK, pvp in T1, debate and stop whining...oh and read peoples answers before deriding them and tl:dr On the matter of EVE in general, uninstall client and leave quitley Your wall of text is blinding! if you seriously dont see that one material controls the entire t2 ship production market then really and truely you are a "MORON". The more people that play eve will drive up the contruction costs due to "capitalism". the difference in rl life monopolies and eve is that if you dont want to help "M$" then go buy a different equally effective product. t1 vs t2 and pc vs mac is a bit different match up dont you think. What i find very funny is people making judgements on what i can do, cannot afford, or what game i should play next. CCP has been trying to balance this game, this aspect of the game is out of balance. it should be fixed, PERIOD. dont give me the crap that the big alliances need the moons income to protect the said pos from destruction. their size and numbers allow them to keep the pos. the isk made from them due to a imbalance with dysprosium is what should be changed. make the other 3 moon materials equal in use. the moons will still be very valuable and needed. oh and a news flash, they will still be coveted and defended with the same vigor if they are ONLY making say 5 billion a month. the only difference is they will defend 4 pos worth 20 billion a month instead of 1 pos worth 10 billion a month and 3 worth 3 each.
Pistonbroke LCN - Armada	Posted - 2009.03.26 19:21:00 - [118] It seems totally obvious to me that things are working as intended. The POS Exploit permitted higher than planned amounts of the most precious moon material in eve onto the market. As a result, T2 components got a lot cheaper than they should have been Meaning we all got used to T2 ships and T2 fit ships being the default setting. Now that issue has been redressed, prices are rising, and will (in my opinion) continue to rise. I don't think it will quite back to the point where it was all excitement when you opened a can (wreck) and found a load of t2 and were actually pleased/excited.... but one can hope..... in reality I suspect that back then, before invention, there were far more minerals than the BPO holders could use... now it's kinda the other way with thousands of people doing (lossy and inefficient) invention. T2 not cheap? Fine, there's plenty of T1 and named out there for those of you who can't find a way to make enough isk to get what you want. More T2 for me then
Hariya	Posted - 2009.03.26 19:38:00 - [119] Yeah I want arkonor to 1.0 too
Illiya GoonFleet	Posted - 2009.03.26 19:54:00 - [120] Edited by: Illiya on 26/03/2009 19:54:21 Originally by: Pistonbroke It seems totally obvious to me that things are working as intended. The POS Exploit permitted higher than planned amounts of the most precious moon material in eve onto the market. As a result, T2 components got a lot cheaper than they should have been Meaning we all got used to T2 ships and T2 fit ships being the default setting. Now that issue has been redressed, prices are rising, and will (in my opinion) continue to rise. I don't think it will quite back to the point where it was all excitement when you opened a can (wreck) and found a load of t2 and were actually pleased/excited.... but one can hope..... in reality I suspect that back then, before invention, there were far more minerals than the BPO holders could use... now it's kinda the other way with thousands of people doing (lossy and inefficient) invention. T2 not cheap? Fine, there's plenty of T1 and named out there for those of you who can't find a way to make enough isk to get what you want. More T2 for me then except by and large there was never any "shortage" of dyspro/ferrogel on the markets, the absurdly rising prices were due mainly to speculation on moon products, and in at least 1 very large case, a faked killmail of a freighter completely full of ferrogel. Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.