EVE Search - The Insurance Nerf... I Am Surprised No One Is Up In Arms About It Yet

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The Insurance Nerf... I Am Surprised No One Is Up In Arms About It Yet

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] [13]:: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cyclops43	Posted - 2010.03.18 08:37:00 - [361] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Alliances won't want miners anyway as minerals will be plenty from the macroers, missoners and ratters. Niether of those sources will be touched. Where did you read this? His magic crystal ball lets him see all details of everything CCP are planning to change well before they announce them.... Akita got one of them crystal balls too ONE little piece of what CCP is intending to do is visible to us, and they're all running around screaming "EVE is dying!".... Pretty funny in fact! I'm fairly certain that CCP has thought a lot about this change, and wouldn't do it if it wasn't needed. Most likely they're concerned about the ISK faucet minerals have become, plus the locked T1 market. Making the insurance payout dynamic at the same time as restricting non-mining generated minerals will solve these. I don't know that they'll do the last bit (haven't got a crystal ball), but it seems logical.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.03.18 09:38:00 - [362] Originally by: Cyclops43 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Alliances won't want miners anyway as minerals will be plenty from the macroers, missoners and ratters. Niether of those sources will be touched. Where did you read this? His magic crystal ball lets him see all details of everything CCP are planning to change well before they announce them.... Akita got one of them crystal balls too ONE little piece of what CCP is intending to do is visible to us, and they're all running around screaming "EVE is dying!".... Pretty funny in fact! I'm fairly certain that CCP has thought a lot about this change, and wouldn't do it if it wasn't needed. Most likely they're concerned about the ISK faucet minerals have become, plus the locked T1 market. Making the insurance payout dynamic at the same time as restricting non-mining generated minerals will solve these. I don't know that they'll do the last bit (haven't got a crystal ball), but it seems logical. Ah, I thought as much. Insurance reform and the mineral market has been discussed many times on these forums, and in every discussion, there is a clear majority of arguments in favour of reducing or emininating the mineral component of rat loot. Personally, I'm very much hoping for the Meta BPC option to make rat loot a net consumer of minerals.
Hrodgar Ortal Minmatar Ma'adim Logistics	Posted - 2010.03.18 09:59:00 - [363] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Alliances won't want miners anyway as minerals will be plenty from the macroers, missoners and ratters. Niether of those sources will be touched. Where did you read this? It is my interpretation of what CCP has said over time. Feel free to correct me and point to where they have said they will make mining the primary or only source of minerals. (which is the only way to make mining even remotely worth it if the changes to insurance goes through)
Zey Nadar Gallente S0utherN Comfort Enforcers of Serenity	Posted - 2010.03.18 11:19:00 - [364] Edited by: Zey Nadar on 18/03/2010 11:23:19 Originally by: Nova Fox Remove all ammo and tech 1 meta 0 drops from the tabels, and dont compenstate for lost drops at all. Most everybody seems to agree on same solutions here, why wont CCP? I wish we could get a word out of them. Originally by: Tonto Auri Industrialists will not join military corp, that simple. It's not in their interest to be taxed. There's just NOTHING you can do to force industrialists part with money they earn, except if you blow up all NPC stations. What part of industrialism is taxed? o_o
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.03.18 11:44:00 - [365] Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Alliances won't want miners anyway as minerals will be plenty from the macroers, missoners and ratters. Niether of those sources will be touched. Where did you read this? It is my interpretation of what CCP has said over time. Feel free to correct me and point to where they have said they will make mining the primary or only source of minerals. (which is the only way to make mining even remotely worth it if the changes to insurance goes through) Are there enough miners to oversupply the mineral market right now? (There is certainly enough ore - that's not in dispute)
Zewron Amarr	Posted - 2010.03.18 11:49:00 - [366] Edited by: Zewron on 18/03/2010 11:49:24 Remove asteroid belts and meta 0-4 loot from high sec. Make mining an elite profession, not an AFK one.
Asuri Kinnes Agony Unleashed Agony Empire	Posted - 2010.03.18 18:21:00 - [367] Originally by: Zewron Edited by: Zewron on 18/03/2010 11:49:24 Remove asteroid belts and meta 0-4 loot from high sec. Make mining an elite profession, not an AFK one.
Aixa Syal Minmatar al-Syal Brigade	Posted - 2010.03.18 18:35:00 - [368] Originally by: Zewron Edited by: Zewron on 18/03/2010 11:49:24 Remove asteroid belts and meta 0-4 loot from high sec. Make mining an elite profession, not an AFK one. Thats the problem, when you can do LVL4 missions and end up getting more minerals in that time then if you where mining lol, 0.0 ratting is a joke too, no one mines anything but ark/bistot etc cause of the loot repro when chaining spawns & every now and then a hauler spawns dropping 100mil trit. And drone regions?? I mean mining is almost obsolete as a profession
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.18 19:46:00 - [369] Edited by: Venkul Mul on 18/03/2010 19:50:39 Edited by: Venkul Mul on 18/03/2010 19:50:04 Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Alliances won't want miners anyway as minerals will be plenty from the macroers, missoners and ratters. Niether of those sources will be touched. Where did you read this? It is my interpretation of what CCP has said over time. Feel free to correct me and point to where they have said they will make mining the primary or only source of minerals. (which is the only way to make mining even remotely worth it if the changes to insurance goes through) Are there enough miners to oversupply the mineral market right now? (There is certainly enough ore - that's not in dispute) Hard to say, as the only data available are 18 months old and there were 3 mining buff in the meantime. Probably there is enough ore in the belts, WH and industrial upgrades spawned sites to oversupply the market. Add the drone alloys from the drone regions (and I doubt those will be touched) and I am convinced that the removal of T1 loot will be hardly felt unless CCP add some extra mineral sink. And, BTW, the BPC instead of modules idea is horrible. Why all those NPC will be running around with one or more BPC in its holds? And you have an idea of how many unstackable BPC will be having around? Damaged modules requiring minerals for the repairs would be a bit better, at least a bit more believable. Originally by: Aixa Syal Thats the problem, when you can do LVL4 missions and end up getting more minerals in that time then if you where mining lol, 0.0 ratting is a joke too, no one mines anything but ark/bistot etc cause of the loot repro when chaining spawns & every now and then a hauler spawns dropping 100mil trit. And drone regions?? I mean mining is almost obsolete as a profession Care to prove that statement instead of sprouting false informations? It was tested months ago, you get more minerals from NPCing than mining only running BS heavy belts in 0.0 and gathering all the modules. That way you get a bit more isk value in minerals than mining, but mission rats drop about 1/3 of that. That is one of the reasons (probably) why encounter sites use deadspace rats and not belt rats. Lower rate of module drops.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.03.18 19:59:00 - [370] Originally by: Venkul Mul And, BTW, the BPC instead of modules idea is horrible. Why all those NPC will be running around with one or more BPC in its holds? And you have an idea of how many unstackable BPC will be having around? No need to be over-literal, Venkul. They wouldn't have to be literal BPCs. Sleeperesque "damaged $ITEM" modules would be fine. In fact they'd be better because you could do different things with them than you can with BPCs - eg: make them take up cargo space. eg: allow for variation on the meta-level of the eventual produced item based on skills, material input, etc. And as for why they'd be carrying them... dont look at rat loot of you want stuff to make sense. Why do rat machariels drop so many mining lasers? Why do I sometimes find small arty in Guristas wrecks?

Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.03.18 20:08:00 - [371] Originally by: Venkul Mul Hard to say, as the only data available are 18 months old and there were 3 mining buff in the meantime. Probably there is enough ore in the belts, WH and industrial upgrades spawned sites to oversupply the market. Add the drone alloys from the drone regions (and I doubt those will be touched) and I am convinced that the removal of T1 loot will be hardly felt unless CCP add some extra mineral sink. Yeah that was kind of my point. We now have essentially unlimited ore resources. If CCP remove - as they should alternate sources of mineral supply, then I will approve of that on principle, but it wont really raise the average miner's income. It will - at best merely mean we get more miners. And maybe not even that, because I rather suspect that the miners we have now are more than enough to supply the "real" needs of the economy. Again, adding mineral sinks as you suggest is an excellent idea in principle, but economically speaking, it will have much the same effect on Joe Average Miner's income - ie: not much, unless CCP introduce some truly vast requirement. And even then, the effect will only be temporary. The only methods that aren't some variation of NPC buy orders that can permanently raise mining income are: To make ore scarce again To make mining require more player skills and/ or more dangerous.
NEMESIS SIN Method In Khaos	Posted - 2010.03.18 21:59:00 - [372] Holy 13 pages lol
Slade Hoo Amarr Corpse Collection Point	Posted - 2010.03.18 22:20:00 - [373] Originally by: NEMESIS SIN Threadnought closed. No. No yet
Kharamete	Posted - 2010.03.19 00:33:00 - [374] Originally by: Slade Hoo Originally by: NEMESIS SIN Threadnought closed. No. No yet Nope. But it will we a slow breeze on a wind still day compared to the threadnought that will follow the devblog that CCP Chronotis is polishing, as mentioned in the Test Server area. You know, the one where - probably - CCP will announce the end of the Meta 0 loot drops from missioning. THAT will be a threadnought. Rage will be flowing. Accounts will be cancelled. Paladins and Golems will be self destructed in Motsu. Stuff will be had in droves on the forums. So, it's not over, yet.
Zartrader	Posted - 2010.03.19 00:44:00 - [375] Edited by: Zartrader on 19/03/2010 00:51:23 Originally by: Kharamete Originally by: Slade Hoo Originally by: NEMESIS SIN Threadnought closed. No. No yet Nope. But it will we a slow breeze on a wind still day compared to the threadnought that will follow the devblog that CCP Chronotis is polishing, as mentioned in the Test Server area. You know, the one where - probably - CCP will announce the end of the Meta 0 loot drops from missioning. THAT will be a threadnought. Rage will be flowing. Accounts will be cancelled. Paladins and Golems will be self destructed in Motsu. Stuff will be had in droves on the forums. So, it's not over, yet. If Meta 0 drops are that important to mineral prices they wont need the Insurance nerf, they can just remove the meta 0. Otherwise you get circular affects that just shrink everything to how it is now, and Insurance will once again be an issue. What will they nerf then? Mining yields? Same thing will happen and they discover no matter what you nerf the same will happen again and again. Really, there needs to be a very large ore sink coupled with alternate ways to make generated ISK. Anything else will be nullified by deflation. The EVE economy needs to far more diversified not simplified even more. It's one of the reasons why I think comparing the EVE economy to real life beyond the very basic level is laughable.
Hrodgar Ortal Minmatar Ma'adim Logistics	Posted - 2010.03.19 06:30:00 - [376] Edited by: Hrodgar Ortal on 19/03/2010 06:30:59 Originally by: Zartrader Edited by: Zartrader on 19/03/2010 00:51:23 The EVE economy needs to far more diversified not simplified even more. It's one of the reasons why I think comparing the EVE economy to real life beyond the very basic level is laughable. Quite right. Eve is a game, playability should trump "realism" any day and the system as it is works fairly well.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.19 06:40:00 - [377] Originally by: Malcanis Originally by: Venkul Mul And, BTW, the BPC instead of modules idea is horrible. Why all those NPC will be running around with one or more BPC in its holds? And you have an idea of how many unstackable BPC will be having around? No need to be over-literal, Venkul. They wouldn't have to be literal BPCs. Sleeperesque "damaged $ITEM" modules would be fine. In fact they'd be better because you could do different things with them than you can with BPCs - eg: make them take up cargo space. eg: allow for variation on the meta-level of the eventual produced item based on skills, material input, etc. And as for why they'd be carrying them... dont look at rat loot of you want stuff to make sense. Why do rat machariels drop so many mining lasers? Why do I sometimes find small arty in Guristas wrecks? I have taken it literally because a lot of people mean it literally. I see we concur on the general idea that damaged items are better than BPC. Yes, some of the NPC item drops have little sense, it would be nice if the kinds of NPC were increased and (for example) mining rats were introduced and only them would drop mining lasers and upgrades. Tt wouldn't be hard to add them to belts [hauler spawns are something similar] and to mission, with an appropriate escort to balance for the difficulty of the mission, sec status of the system. They could even warp away if not warp scrambled, like a real miner would do. A lot of work that could be done with NPC if someone at CCP was willing to do it.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.19 07:07:00 - [378] Originally by: Kharamete Originally by: Slade Hoo Originally by: NEMESIS SIN Threadnought closed. No. No yet Nope. But it will we a slow breeze on a wind still day compared to the threadnought that will follow the devblog that CCP Chronotis is polishing, as mentioned in the Test Server area. You know, the one where - probably - CCP will announce the end of the Meta 0 loot drops from missioning. THAT will be a threadnought. Rage will be flowing. Accounts will be cancelled. Paladins and Golems will be self destructed in Motsu. Stuff will be had in droves on the forums. So, it's not over, yet. 3/4 of the people using golems and paladins will simply ask to allow unbonused weapons in the 3 utility slots and go on speed running missions. It is more probable 0.0 alliances will protest as they get a lot of minerals from ratting (and if meta0 drops are nerfed I really hope hauler spawns are nerfed for the same reason, they produce a lot of minerals for "free"). I don't like the complete removal of meta0 loot as I have always been a compulsive looter even if my profit is lower doing that but it will not kill me (or most of the mission runners). The only true problem I see is the build slots in NPC stations. You risk to find those slots filled to produce the meta0 items. As getting the standing to put up a build POS in high sec is not so easy you risk to bar new players from starting a industrialist career.
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.19 07:23:00 - [379] Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame Originally by: Venkul Mul Originally by: Nova Fox Then make drone guts not fully refinable whever you bring it too. Leaving the other proposal aside, any suggestion on what drone regions residents should do? Not that a nerf in mineral values will help them in any way, but further penalizing them mean making that part of EVE a wasteland. Making it so that you don't need to bring an industrial to rat in the drone regions would be better for everyone, methinks. Drone alloys always struck me as a pretty lazy way of making rogue drones unique anyways. Make drones drop components for worthwhile factional drones. There have to be 40+ kinds of player-usable drones. Giving even half of those one variant should provide tons of different drops for the drones to have. Also, Gallente/Amarr hybrid drone "pirate" ships! Where I can sign for more drone stuff? Sadly I think CCP find drones (and the related code) a problem and prefer not touching them. Look how every other patch some of the drone bugs resurface even if apparently no drone related code was touched. To make a few examples of recurring bugs: - drones orbiting within an object and falling to hit it; - drones orbiting too fast and falling to hit the target; - drones failing to dock on your ship when recalled; - drones disconnecting when recalled.
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.03.19 08:24:00 - [380] Edited by: Malcanis on 19/03/2010 08:24:43 Originally by: Venkul Mul I have taken it literally because a lot of people mean it literally. I see we concur on the general idea that damaged items are better than BPC. Yes, some of the NPC item drops have little sense, it would be nice if the kinds of NPC were increased and (for example) mining rats were introduced and only them would drop mining lasers and upgrades. Tt wouldn't be hard to add them to belts [hauler spawns are something similar] and to mission, with an appropriate escort to balance for the difficulty of the mission, sec status of the system. They could even warp away if not warp scrambled, like a real miner would do. A lot of work that could be done with NPC if someone at CCP was willing to do it. A lot work will - someday - be needed on NPCs. It's long been evident that the PvE experience in EVE needs a lot of work. On a side note, if kill missions and ratting were changed in the ways that some of us have been asking for for a long time - many fewer, much more "PvP-realistic" rats with decent AI, that yield higher bounties, then the question of mineral yields from rat-loot becomes moot.

Kyra Felann Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.19 09:02:00 - [381] Edited by: Kyra Felann on 19/03/2010 09:11:01 Originally by: Malcanis To make mining require more player skills and/ or more dangerous. To me, it's obvious that this should be done. I think CCP wants to do it also (they've mentioned something along these lines). I guess it's just a question of priorities. They've talked about system-wide belts, having to scan belts, etc. Originally by: Malcanis On a side note, if kill missions and ratting were changed in the ways that some of us have been asking for for a long time - many fewer, much more "PvP-realistic" rats with decent AI, that yield higher bounties, then the question of mineral yields from rat-loot becomes moot. Yup, and PvE might actually be in danger of becoming--dare I say it?--fun. As long as NPCs are marginally dangerous goodie-bags to be harvested en masse, PvE will be boring.
Sokratesz	Posted - 2010.03.20 13:45:00 - [382] It's not nearly enough of a nerf :) CSM Iceland meeting minutes - READ THEM :D
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative.	Posted - 2010.03.20 13:56:00 - [383] Originally by: Sokratesz It's not nearly enough of a nerf :) Properly managed, it needn't be a nerf at all.
Cassendra Caldari Jovian Labs Jovian Enterprises	Posted - 2010.03.20 14:17:00 - [384] Insurance is for noobs --------x--------- Cassendra Assassin. Merc. Pirate. Jovian Labs
Mari Seles	Posted - 2010.03.20 14:26:00 - [385] Originally by: Malcanis No need to be over-literal, Venkul. They wouldn't have to be literal BPCs. Sleeperesque "damaged $ITEM" modules would be fine. In fact they'd be better because you could do different things with them than you can with BPCs - eg: make them take up cargo space. eg: allow for variation on the meta-level of the eventual produced item based on skills, material input, etc. And as for why they'd be carrying them... dont look at rat loot of you want stuff to make sense. Why do rat machariels drop so many mining lasers? Why do I sometimes find small arty in Guristas wrecks? I quite like that idea, in fact that was the first thing that came to mind, make the items reverse enginerable. As for the pirates with mining lasers... well we have idiots that fit every gun under the sun, why wouldn't the pirates suffer from the same? It's more realistic that way.
Mukuro Gravedigger	Posted - 2010.03.20 17:15:00 - [386] Perhaps one way to reduce the amount of minerals in the market over a (long) period of time is to make refining a specialized career. Currently, any player can crunch modules or rocks anywhere, loose a few minerals, and walk away with a stash. Yet a specialist that learned the [raw ore] processing skill(s) would be able to extract the ore compared to one that had a pile of rocks. The specialist would recognize different minerals within a rock while an unlearned would notice dull and shiny spots. Yet the refining option in stations does all the work while any learned skills offer a bit less loss. While I am a tad biased since I learned these skills, the overall time spent learning them does not balance the amounts gained compared to not knowing them. The same for the refining of modules - the Scrapmetal Processing skill with its requirements should be the means of extracting minerals from finished goods. But again the refining option in stations performs all the work, quickly dissecting a module into neat little mineral piles with a small percentage lost from not knowing a skill. The same for drone alloys - the refinery easily separates the minerals whether the operator knows distinctive skills or not. Speaking of the refinery, CCP could go further - unless the pilot has some faction with the station (and its refinery), the station owners refuse the pilot access. Thus a pilot would need to transport his or her alloys, modules, and ores to a friendly station. Thus instead of a (potential macro) miner dumping cargo at the nearest station, refining, loosing a small percentage, and banking profit, the same miner would need to transport (along with gaining some faction). Thus an opportune chance to make the insides of their ship open to space by some dastardly pilots. Again, these ideas will not fix the issues overnight, much less sit well with the general populace. But whereas other aspects of the game have their specialty niche and skill requirements, refining seems to be a free-for-all. Thanks for reading.
Amberlamps	Posted - 2010.03.22 03:01:00 - [387] RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Slade Hoo Amarr Corpse Collection Point	Posted - 2010.03.22 03:05:00 - [388] What do you expect of CCP Chronitis' Devblog regarding insurance that has been mentioned in the test server forum? ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum!


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 [13] [13]:: 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.