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) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:16:00 -
[91]
Originally by: Abrazzar What I'd like to see is all module drops removed from all rats and replaced with meta components that act as BPCs that can build a meta module with a T1 module as material. This would increase demand for T1 modules and remove all mineral input from ratting and missions.
Agreed. I've been campaigning for this for years. The meta components should also be directly useful for invention.
Originally by: Abrazzar
Then drone goo needs to be adjusted, especially in the Nocxium department which needs at least a 50% drop but also a reduction in the Isogen and Zydrine area. This will reduce the mining unrelated input of those minerals, increase their prices and might maybe even make lowsec ores worthwhile.
Drone loot needs reworking full stop. The idea was interesting, but it would only really have worked if the drone regions were much much harder to reach from the rest of the map.
|
Fi Vantage
Minmatar Bristol Freedom Cooperative Jovian Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:34:00 -
[92]
Can somebody explain how this is a nerf? Because those rifter/hurricane comparison pictures really doesn't lend me that idea.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:38:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Fi Vantage Can somebody explain how this is a nerf? Because those rifter/hurricane comparison pictures really doesn't lend me that idea.
It's a nerf if you're a mineral producer because mineral prices are pretty much sustained by the net insurance value of T1 ships. If the net insurance value falls, there's less ISK to pay for minerals, so mineral prices fall.
|
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:39:00 -
[94]
Originally by: Ran Khanon edit: Apparently T2 payouts get buffed now on Sisi. (Needs confirmation).
Anyone with access to sisi can confirm this? ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
EvilCheez
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:40:00 -
[95]
The thread in market forum has some more info - apparently battleships are hit harder than smaller ships.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:40:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Malcanis It is a failure if their intent is to maintain the economic status quo. Do you think that their intent in making a change is to maintain the status quo?
I have no idea what their true reasoning behind this would be, I see no GOOD reasoning behind it for now.
Quote: It is not necessarily a failure if you dont believe that mineral producers have an intrinsic right to a noncompetitive (ie: unlimited) NPC subsidy. (Especially in light of the recent increase in ore supply - to the extent that the resources themselves are hardly competitive either) Do you think miners have that intrinsic right?
I believe that (gameplay-wise) it is wise to try to keep income levels of as many professions as possible in a certain "security level" group at roughly the same levels, adjusted for effort/risk. Mining is already the red-headed stepchild of highsec activities, it doesn't need to become even less profitable. They might as well remove mining from the game and put up NPC sell orders and mineral bundle offers in the LP shop.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:53:00 -
[97]
Edited by: Chaos Incarnate on 13/03/2010 09:53:40 I hereby dub this nascent threadnaught "MINERALPOCALYPSE: TEMPORARY RESHUFFLING OF THE INSURANCE PRICE FLOOR, 2010 *explosion*"
A quick glance on my awesome rock-ator and basilisk on sisi suggests that t2 insurance has basically been doubled in price and payout, although the prices are still far below build value _____________________ Horrors! Demons in the deep! |
Tulisin Dragonflame
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 10:09:00 -
[98]
As a mission runner:
1. Time to turn as much of my stuff as possible into ISK. Minerals and therefore everything built out of them will be losing value compared to ISK. 2. I'm now relatively richer, as my profession brings in real liquid ISK via bounties, whereas the ISK gained via selling stuff to other players is going to drop.
Looking forward to 20million ISK Domis, and glad I stay mostly aloof from direct trading because this is going to set the economy aflame.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 10:12:00 -
[99]
Edited by: Abrazzar on 13/03/2010 10:12:10
Originally by: Chaos Incarnate MINERALPOCALYPSE
Sounds like a Great Old One. --------
|
Ran Khanon
Amarr Vengeance Innovations
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 10:13:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Chaos Incarnate
A quick glance on my awesome rock-ator and basilisk on sisi suggests that t2 insurance has basically been doubled in price and payout, although the prices are still far below build value
Thanks for confirmaration wurk.
Support Lana's new bounty system. |
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 10:15:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Chaos Incarnate please proceed with your regularly schedul-THE SKY IS FALLING
Meh. The sky is not falling. It's just that mining has gotten one hell of an unnecessary nerf while mission-running got a much-not-at-all-needed buff. The market will correct itself – only it wil be to a worse state than right now. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
Tulisin Dragonflame
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 10:26:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Chaos Incarnate please proceed with your regularly schedul-THE SKY IS FALLING
Meh. The sky is not falling. It's just that mining has gotten one hell of an unnecessary nerf while mission-running got a much-not-at-all-needed buff. The market will correct itself û only it wil be to a worse state than right now.
Perhaps a small light at the end of the tunnel being that making bounties more relatively valuable by deflating ISK (being able to buy more minerals/ships per ISK) means that nullsec and lowsec ratting will get a boost, since that income stream is even more bounty-based than mission running.
I mean, it won't be enough to make anyone rat in lowsec unless mission loot is completely worthless, but it'll certainly make nullsec ratting a little more interesting looking.
If it makes you feel any better, this will probably be a big blow to the farming alliances that live in the Drone regions, since they've got absolutely no bounty-based income to keep them going when alloys take a dive.
|
Tulisin Dragonflame
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 10:31:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Akita T
Linkage Seems like they simply set the new baseprice of minerals (for insurance purposes only) to the average market price. If it's dynamic or static, we'll have to wait and see.
So far, yet another (almost completely predictable) CCP economic failure. YAY !
Dynamic would just be scary, both due to the possibility for manipulation and the possibility of a complete market crash. Speculating what such a crash would do is fun though. I'm of the mind that people would not actually sell lots of battlecruisers for 4 mil even if minerals were near worthless enough that they could do so. We'd probably see a huge rise in PvP instead, with the opportunity cost being so low.
|
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 10:39:00 -
[104]
Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame We'd probably see a huge rise in PvP instead, with the opportunity cost being so low.
We won't. The price of t1 ships after insurance will still be as it is today. There is no difference between a 50m geddon with 45mio insurance payout and a 30m geddon and 25m payout. ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 10:39:00 -
[105]
Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame ...
Dynamic would just be scary, both due to the possibility for manipulation and the possibility of a complete market crash. Speculating what such a crash would do is fun though. ...
QFT :)
imho, if cooks are not up for a chat, let them do the cooking. at least we know who gets the "credit".
insurance was never an issue. minerals spread is. give people reason to mine ALL ore (denser low-ends) in low-sec and null, and minerals will balance in price. ________________________________ : Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel |
Kharamete
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 10:43:00 -
[106]
I can only see this being "good" if they at the same time make ores harder to get to. Ie CCP gets around to making mining exploration-based, ie Tyrannis will end the asteroid-belt mining, and make it harder for macros to mine.
That is of course pure speculation on my part, so take it for what it is, since we don't know jack about Tyrannis except for what's been stated by CCP in the dev blogs about it.
We of course already have this system, lack of asteroid belts, in wormhole space in-game. ---
|
Chaos Incarnate
Faceless Logistics
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 10:50:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Tippia Meh. The sky is not falling.
Or, to put it another way:
Originally by: Akita T THIS CHANGE IS ONE OF THE MOST HORRIBLE POSSIBLE CHANGES YOU COULD POSSIBLY MAKE.
i believe my point stands
Quote:
It's just that mining has gotten one hell of an unnecessary nerf while mission-running got a much-not-at-all-needed buff. The market will correct itself û only it wil be to a worse state than right now.
Worse how? _____________________ Horrors! Demons in the deep! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 11:00:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Malcanis It is a failure if their intent is to maintain the economic status quo. Do you think that their intent in making a change is to maintain the status quo?
I have no idea what their true reasoning behind this would be, I see no GOOD reasoning behind it for now.
Quote: It is not necessarily a failure if you dont believe that mineral producers have an intrinsic right to a noncompetitive (ie: unlimited) NPC subsidy. (Especially in light of the recent increase in ore supply - to the extent that the resources themselves are hardly competitive either) Do you think miners have that intrinsic right?
I believe that (gameplay-wise) it is wise to try to keep income levels of as many professions as possible in a certain "security level" group at roughly the same levels, adjusted for effort/risk. Mining is already the red-headed stepchild of highsec activities, it doesn't need to become even less profitable. They might as well remove mining from the game and put up NPC sell orders and mineral bundle offers in the LP shop.
It has been blatantly obvious for a long time now that non-mining sources of minerals need to be basically eliminated for mining to be a viable profession.
I think there's also a pretty strong argument for increasing mineral sinks. Trading minerals for LP isn't actually an entirely bad idea, although trading LP for minerals is. But again, there is a huge and obvious potential mineral sink staring us in the face: POS and POS modules. These have the advantages of being very high value and with no preset mineral ratio - giving CCP the chance to tweak relative demand for specific mineral types.
Currently POS are a huge ISK sink, but if the insurance ISK fountain is being scaled back, then the need for POS to sink that ISK reduces. CCP can maintain an ISK sink component by only selling BPCs
|
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 11:12:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Malcanis It is a failure if their intent is to maintain the economic status quo. Do you think that their intent in making a change is to maintain the status quo?
I have no idea what their true reasoning behind this would be, I see no GOOD reasoning behind it for now.
Quote: It is not necessarily a failure if you dont believe that mineral producers have an intrinsic right to a noncompetitive (ie: unlimited) NPC subsidy. (Especially in light of the recent increase in ore supply - to the extent that the resources themselves are hardly competitive either) Do you think miners have that intrinsic right?
I believe that (gameplay-wise) it is wise to try to keep income levels of as many professions as possible in a certain "security level" group at roughly the same levels, adjusted for effort/risk. Mining is already the red-headed stepchild of highsec activities, it doesn't need to become even less profitable. They might as well remove mining from the game and put up NPC sell orders and mineral bundle offers in the LP shop.
It has been blatantly obvious for a long time now that non-mining sources of minerals need to be basically eliminated for mining to be a viable profession.
I think there's also a pretty strong argument for increasing mineral sinks. Trading minerals for LP isn't actually an entirely bad idea, although trading LP for minerals is. But again, there is a huge and obvious potential mineral sink staring us in the face: POS and POS modules. These have the advantages of being very high value and with no preset mineral ratio - giving CCP the chance to tweak relative demand for specific mineral types.
Currently POS are a huge ISK sink, but if the insurance ISK fountain is being scaled back, then the need for POS to sink that ISK reduces. CCP can maintain an ISK sink component by only selling BPCs
Well, I doubt CCP'll rework POS but we can hope that the new planet interaction structures would have to be player-built, but I doubt even that. I think that in any event a mineral-sink will be insufficient to deal with the oversupply.
No, the only thing that could save minerals from worthlessness in a dynamic insurance-payout situation if this went through would be a drastic reduction in spawn rates, and especially reducing the ease of acquisition of the high-ends which have been dropping the most. Prefferably that would be by simply deleting the drone regions, and/or loot drops from missions...
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 11:17:00 -
[110]
Originally by: Turiel Demon
Originally by: Malcanis Currently POS are a huge ISK sink, but if the insurance ISK fountain is being scaled back, then the need for POS to sink that ISK reduces. CCP can maintain an ISK sink component by only selling BPCs
Well, I doubt CCP'll rework POS but we can hope that the new planet interaction structures would have to be player-built, but I doubt even that. I think that in any event a mineral-sink will be insufficient to deal with the oversupply.
By the (speculative) looks of it so far, what they're doing with PI is simply moving the ISK sink for POS:es one layer down – instead of paying NPC:s for POS consumables, we'll be paying NPC:s for planetary facilities that create POS consumables. ——— “If you're not willing to fight for what you have in ≡v≡… you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.” — Karath Piki |
|
Zmersch
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 11:29:00 -
[111]
The only real impact that this change will have is, as other said already that the mineral prices will balance around the new insurance payout. And since this is lower will decrease the turnover permanufacturing slot and thus how much isk you can get per manufacturing slot As long as there is an overproduction no insurance change will ever do something.
as long as mineral price is f(minerals available, ships demand=blown up, ships produced) Insurance just modifies ships blown up As long as there is no significant cost that cant be totaly influenced by players or has a hardcap like installationcost, prices will always settle around insurance payout
The root of the problem is imho mission loot (not speaking about 00 here) if mission drops would be divided by ... 10 and compensated by npc trade goods t1 stuff would be reasonable to produce again and in higher demand since meta 2,3,4 prices would skyrocket, less t1 stuff would be seeded to the market and increasing the demand. Since there is also less stuff to reprocess mineral prices would be increased by lower availability and higher demand, and maybe mining would be a source of better income that it is now
but as a t1 ship manufactor that change to me means only 1 month of not subscribing after the patch goes live and starting my buisness after the market is stable again
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 11:53:00 -
[112]
Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame As a mission runner:
1. Time to turn as much of my stuff as possible into ISK. Minerals and therefore everything built out of them will be losing value compared to ISK. 2. I'm now relatively richer, as my profession brings in real liquid ISK via bounties, whereas the ISK gained via selling stuff to other players is going to drop.
Looking forward to 20million ISK Domis, and glad I stay mostly aloof from direct trading because this is going to set the economy aflame.
I'm fairly certain CCP wouldn't do this without touching mission running profits too. Doing so would be more foolish than anything.
What they'll do, however, that is the question...
My best guess is, that since what they're touching here is minerals, they'll reduce the amount of minerals coming from mission loot in some fashion (removing non-named modules, or reducing their refine ratio). Whether they touch other areas of mission-running (isk-income) is a coin-toss...
No matter what the doom'n'gloom guys/gals are saying, I think this will turn out well in the end. There'll be a period of absolute turmoil after something like this is introduced, but after a while a new equilibrium will be found. If minerals are valued by a free market, that is better than if they're valued by a fixed price-floor. Maybe not better for miners, but better for the economy as a whole.
|
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 12:46:00 -
[113]
Originally by: Cyclops43
If minerals are valued by a free market, that is better than if they're valued by a fixed price-floor. Maybe not better for miners, but better for the economy as a whole.
Why?
No, seriously, why would it be better?
There eve economy exists to provide players with fun, be it by actively working the market or simply through facilitation of trade to provide players with what items they want to let them have fun in their chosen way.
Does a price-floor harm the economy? I think so. Would removing the price-floor improve the economy? Maybe.
Would removing the price floor make the economy better at providing fun for players? I really don't see it.
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap |
Hyveres
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 13:06:00 -
[114]
Edited by: Hyveres on 13/03/2010 13:05:48 I'll say it again as I've done before.
The only viable fix for mining comes in removing the manufacturable tech 1 loot from rat loottables. "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 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 13:16:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Turiel Demon
Originally by: Cyclops43
If minerals are valued by a free market, that is better than if they're valued by a fixed price-floor. Maybe not better for miners, but better for the economy as a whole.
Why?
No, seriously, why would it be better?
There eve economy exists to provide players with fun, be it by actively working the market or simply through facilitation of trade to provide players with what items they want to let them have fun in their chosen way.
Does a price-floor harm the economy? I think so. Would removing the price-floor improve the economy? Maybe.
Would removing the price floor make the economy better at providing fun for players? I really don't see it.
Well if nothing else it might persaude people that dying of boredom mining in hi-sec isn't a good idea for new players
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 13:16:00 -
[116]
Originally by: Turiel Demon Why?
Kindly take a look at the T2, T3 and the rigs markets. They function well within an almost completely player-driven supply/demand economy. The 'almost' covers the use of T1 minerals...
Why should T1 function any differently? There is absolutely no reason to believe that minerals would function in some kind of 'special' way!
Sure, minerals will drop like rocks in price for the first while, but then they'd rebound as less people mine, and finally they'd find an equilibrium where supply meets demand. The critical part is that circumstantial generation of minerals (through loot and drone stuff) is curtailed.
|
Cor Aidan
Shore Leave
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 13:21:00 -
[117]
Edited by: Cor Aidan on 13/03/2010 13:24:32 Edited by: Cor Aidan on 13/03/2010 13:21:58
Originally by: Hyveres Edited by: Hyveres on 13/03/2010 13:05:48 I'll say it again as I've done before.
The only viable fix for mining comes in removing the manufacturable tech 1 loot from rat loottables.
This change will indeed increase miners' income. It will also simultaneously increase the price level on all goods fairly significantly (due to sudden drop in mineral supply*) - at least as a one-time market shift (much joy to many traders, I'm sure.)
However, just because a move is good for miners doesn't mean it's good for New Eden as a whole. Now, if this is a one-time resetting of the price levels it might not be that bad on the whole; what would be bad is a change that results in an ever-increasing price level. By price here I don't even so much mean isk but how much time is required to obtain some asset.
As an aside, I often wonder that if mining is such a lousy way to earn isk why do people keep mining instead of switching to another activity? If the goal is to pad the wallet, refusing to change to more lucrative activities is foolish. If you mine just because you like mining, then the isk shouldn't matter anyway. So much for the basic economic assumption of "rational participants"!
*You could counteract this price change by a vast increase in mining yield and ore availability, or even perhaps a simultaneous reduction in insurance and/or mission/bounty payouts to keep isk supply in line with the new reduction in supply. However, only the increase in mining yield will keep the amount of time required per asset produced constant, which is the real measure of economic efficiency.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 13:26:00 -
[118]
Originally by: Cyclops43 Sure, minerals will drop like rocks in price for the first while, but then they'd rebound as less people mine
Yeah... it DOESN'T quite work that way. The rebound part, I mean. It's never coming back anywhere close to the level they've been before. Sure, they might settle a bit higher than they used to be at in the lowest drop area of this whole ordeal, but still much lower than where they are now. Why ? First and foremost because the price drop will be disproportionate - highend minerals will be those dropping in price the most, and lowends might even barely budge. Congratulations in not doing all that much for highsec mining, but destroying the last shreds of 0.0/wildspace mining profitability.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Norsefire
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 13:39:00 -
[119]
Edited by: Norsefire on 13/03/2010 13:42:40 I don't understand. Why will insurance payouts being lower decrease the price of minerals? How are they connected?
Yes ships are built with minerals but if I lose a ship and get less insurance for it why does that mean the price of minerals will decrease? |
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 13:43:00 -
[120]
CCP better ban more bots after this.
Insurance has always had a perverse effect on the market and it needed a big nerf. Bots are the opposite side of the coin and it's they that should be looked at before messing with other mechanics. If that's sorted supply and demand will do the rest.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |