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) |
Orion GUardian
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 11:44:00 -
[181]
Originally by: vetodel morei insurance payout on ships is not going to affect how much a ship costs, the amount of people mining and reprocessing affects the ship cost.
if minerals were to start dropping in price you would get less people mining, once that happens more demand then suply happens and so the cost of minerals goes up again
You have wrong assumptions. Do you know why the Insurance Scam works? Because the ships are cheaper than insurance. Why is that so? Because everyone and their mother could build T1 ships and minerals prices are rather low. Why aren't ships even cheaper? becuase undercuting is inhibited by insurance cost.
If you lower insurance payout people may be lowering their prices to get better sales even lower as the bottom line went down. Especially people who think "mined minerals/reprocessed minerals are free" can do that. Thus mineral prices will go down.
|
vetodel morei
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 11:44:00 -
[182]
Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Remove insurance and you remove pvp.
Reduce insurance and you remove mining as a non macro profession.
not everyone needs to insure there ships in pvp, removal of insurance will not remove pvp
|
JitaPriceChecker2
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 12:11:00 -
[183]
Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Remove insurance and you remove pvp.
Reduce insurance and you remove mining as a non macro profession.
I never insure my ships in small gank pvp. Only when in blobs.
|
Tulisin Dragonflame
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 15:42:00 -
[184]
Edited by: Tulisin Dragonflame on 14/03/2010 15:42:26
Originally by: vetodel morei insurance payout on ships is not going to affect how much a ship costs, the amount of people mining and reprocessing affects the ship cost.
if minerals were to start dropping in price you would get less people mining, once that happens more demand then suply happens and so the cost of minerals goes up again
Except demand right now for mineral-based goods is pretty low (as evidenced by ships selling at or under their price floor). If all the miners quit mining then eventually, yeah, the market saturation will dry up and force prices high enough to make it worthwhile to some folks to keep mining.
But all of the miners won't quit mining, the few bots, RMT macros, really dedicated miners, missioners, and drone regions farmers may be able to provide all the minerals the entire population of EVE needs on their own, and regular player mining may never recover.
Only time will tell.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 15:53:00 -
[185]
Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame Edited by: Tulisin Dragonflame on 14/03/2010 15:42:26
Originally by: vetodel morei insurance payout on ships is not going to affect how much a ship costs, the amount of people mining and reprocessing affects the ship cost.
if minerals were to start dropping in price you would get less people mining, once that happens more demand then suply happens and so the cost of minerals goes up again
Except demand right now for mineral-based goods is pretty low (as evidenced by ships selling at or under their price floor). If all the miners quit mining then eventually, yeah, the market saturation will dry up and force prices high enough to make it worthwhile to some folks to keep mining.
But all of the miners won't quit mining, the few bots, RMT macros, really dedicated miners, missioners, and drone regions farmers may be able to provide all the minerals the entire population of EVE needs on their own, and regular player mining may never recover.
Only time will tell.
Conceivably, "regular player miners" will come to understand that crying out against anything that ever stops mining ever is not in their best interests.
The way for miners to make more ISK is to stop other miners mining.
|
Cipher Jones
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 17:06:00 -
[186]
Quote: ...causing a constant and pointless buildup of wealth.
Pointless to who? It's why thousands of people play this game.
-------------------------------------------------- This is clearly a rage post because I lost my ship to a Lvl4 mission, We lost around 1.5b worth of tower, fuel and modules total. (Pause for amu |
Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar Ma'adim Logistics
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 17:29:00 -
[187]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame
Conceivably, "regular player miners" will come to understand that crying out against anything that ever stops mining ever is not in their best interests.
The way for miners to make more ISK is to stop other miners mining.
Actually it is in their best interest since the problems that mining as a profession is facing has nothing to do with regular miners and everything to do with lvl4 reprocessing, drone region ratting and macroers. Remove those first and then see if the "insurance fraud" exists.
|
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 18:14:00 -
[188]
Originally by: Cipher Jones
Quote: ...causing a constant and pointless buildup of wealth.
Pointless to who? It's why thousands of people play this game.
People don't play this game because they know in three years of normal activities they'll have more money than they know what to do with.
Getting wealthy should be possible, but so should hitting rock bottom again. The average amount of isk people have is constantly growing because the amount of isk entering the economy is constantly growing. Its not going to sit in limbo, but in people's wallets.
When the tools of warfare cost nothing, and do nothing, wars end when one or both sides get bored of fighting. Most wars begin that way too, because no one is really sacrificing anything or putting anything on the line.
Adding more isk to the game for the same amount of players is like adding water to wine.
|
Spurty
Caldari D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 19:34:00 -
[189]
Edited by: Spurty on 14/03/2010 19:35:21 "And this too, shall pass"
Remove all insurance, remove artificial, computer controlled payouts including bounty on rats. Zero the value of higher than t2. Modules.
Remove reprocessing of modules, remove remove remove.
Only then will the businessman thrieve and war mongers need to turn to them to refill their coffers to wage more wars
Originally by: Hurley I WAS NOT QUITTING SoT AND WAS NOT THINKING ABOUT JOINING IT. PL/SoT MADE A MISTAKE AND ARE NOT MAN ENOUGH TO ADMIT IT OR FIX IT.
|
Baillif
Red Mist Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 21:44:00 -
[190]
I for one welcome our new dirt cheap t1 ships
|
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 21:54:00 -
[191]
Originally by: Baillif I for one welcome our new dirt cheap t1 ships
Again: the end cost will remain the same. ——— “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 |
Forum Mcforum
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 22:04:00 -
[192]
can someone explain whats going on, i gather insurance has been fixed? so if i lose a hulk i get paid for a hulk?
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 22:08:00 -
[193]
Originally by: Forum Mcforum can someone explain whats going on,
Read the thread – it's all there.
Quote: i gather insurance has been fixed? so if i lose a hulk i get paid for a hulk?
Nope. And that wouldn't really be a "fix" either. ——— “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 |
Eric Xallen
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 23:42:00 -
[194]
Ok, so what have i gained over the past couple of months, where this sort of discussion is the staple of the industrial community?
Right - As a member of a largely industrial corp that has now moved down into nullsec (hoorah), i can state the following things:
- Half of our people aren't interested in mining there because hi-sec missions pay out for so much less risk (comments as to the motivations of these people are a different topic) - We don't mine much low end stuff, because bounties and loot supply most of our trit and pyreite, and hauler spawns offer ridiculous amounts of minerals. - The margins are quite low even in low sec for heavy manufacture so we manufacture mostly for ourselves and alliance members
So this said, what are some things i have learned?
- Hi-sec mining is incredibly oversupplied - Bots probably supply this to a large degree, along with reprocessed loot - CCP want to get rid of bots to improve the quality of the game, but may not want to get rid of bots en-masse because they're all paying customers too. Even if they're buying plexes from mining revenue, they're stil genereating real-time dollars for CCP because someone is buying the PLEX to sell them. CCP has to pay its workers, and as far as a business argument goes, providing a better game at the cost of a large chunk ofpaying users doesn't stack up,. Especially when they're already being voted the best MMO. -ISK faucets aren't a bad thing, the more ISK is around, the more people are willing to pay. Huge amounts of isk generated from missioning and rats will actually support mineral prices, as people will be willing to spend it more rather than horde it and panic when their stuff gets blown up.
So as a newb still, a few suggestions: - Decrease the % yield from loot reprocessing, or alternatively, only have trit and pyerite from loot reprocessing, thus supporting the low and null minerals. - Make it harder for macro's to function without reducing the multi-user account's abilities. The guy with 4 simultaneous accounts isn't the issue, its the guy who's botting 23/7 while not at the computer who is the problem. Cutting roid fields by 50% and upping grav site anomalies would help this. - Make a decent mineral sink, perhaps via LPs (one way), perhaps planetary construction projects, perhaps market averaged NPC contracts (Say Kor Prime planets or Caldari Navy puts out a dozen mineral contracts once a month to sponge up excess minerals). This however would only be temporary, people would just mine more and the price would fall again - but as others have already pointed out, supply/demand doesn't necessarily completely govern mining, people will mine anyway. Plus, the contracts would be dynamically priced and thus not provide a floor, we should only have one floor (insurance) so it can be controlled.
Insurance fraud affects demand, remove it and demand decreases, deflating prices further. There's just too much crap loot in the game, too much stuff. CCP has the data and the economist, they would be better served by examining where there are major identifiable areas of supply, which may be byproducts (rat drops) or 'illegal activities'(bots) which can be reduced/removed without affecting the enjoyment of the majority of players.
Its the mineral faucets which provide a gradual but never ending accretion of goods in the universe which don't get removed as fast as they are supplied, deflating their worth over time, until they hit the floor (insurance). Moving the floor lower will only reduce their value further. ISK faucets aren't much of a problem in my opinion.
|
Shrike Arghast
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 23:45:00 -
[195]
If you nerf insurance you're going to wind up with a game like Pirates of the Burning Sea, which - to a degree - was a different 'take' on the EVE forumula for how to build an MMO.
The primary issue with POTBS was that, in its quest to be more realistic and hardcore, it was designed with no insurance - ships had a certain, set durability (say, 4/4), and when that ship was lost 4 times, it vanished.
For PvPers this was a wonderful system - their actions created real, terrible losses for the players who they lorded over. For the rest of the population, PvP became something to be avoided at all costs - and so it was. Ships didn't get sunk, so players who built ships couldn't sell them, and even the hardcore PvPers ultimately left because nobody was willing to challenge them. The entire system of POTBS' (and EVE's) economy was based around ship loss and replacement - without quick and easy loss and fast replacement, the game simply didn't work anymore. It was like ripping the engine out of a car and expecting it to still run.
The simple fact of the matter is, the more you 'hurt' players when they lose, the less PvP you'll see.
Look at it this way:
1) Nobody playing any competitive computer game likes to lose. Ergo, defeat in of itself, with no actual penalties (the WoW formula) is already painful. Even with this formula, you still see people who don't PvP because some people simply can't handle losing to other players. Result: lots of PvP.
2) PvP with some loss associated with it (EVE, pre-expansion SWG with skill point loss. etc) has a real, tangible value - it teaches players to exercise caution, but doesn't hurt so much that the loss coupled with the embarassment of losing (see point 1) causes them to stop PvPing. Result: a decent amount of coordinated PvP.
3) PvP with lots of loss (heavy experience or item penalties [the 'I dropped all my loot when I died' matrix]) is only fun for a select few who are highly successful at it, and only in the short term while prey are plentiful. Like all things in life, the talented and skilled in computer games naturally rise to the top - and those players come to dominate (and eventually cripple) games that embrace this formula. Look at how (un)popular POTBS is. That game was released in the wake of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies - it should still be a hugely-populated playground, yet its virtually deserted. The reason for this is heavy loss. Result: no PvP.
So, IMO, a big insurance nerf would destroy EVE. Within a few months you'd see players stop going to 0.0 in any large numbers, and then they'd get bored and quit. The PvPers who are hungry for this change don't comprehend that in making combat more crushing to those who participate in it, their supply of enemy combatants will rapidly wain. Kill off the prey and the preditors die too.
I don't know why people want to change this so much. The insurance system in EVE is brilliant, and works very well. The economy is humming, PvP is fairly frequent and brutal... why do you want that to change? To stop people from suicide ganking? What makes you think an insurance nerf would stop this, really? And are you actually willing to accept ruining the game in order to potentially prevent it?
Because that's what we're talking about here.
Ruining the game.
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 00:36:00 -
[196]
Originally by: Shrike Arghast EVE is dying!!
And yet, back in the time when ship costs were higher than insurance paid out, and T2 guns were 15m per gun, people still PvP'd in great numbers.... Even now people are PvP'ing in uninsured T2 ships, something you basically claim can't happen...
Your post is pretty ridiculous...
|
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 01:33:00 -
[197]
Originally by: Shrike Arghast potbs analogy.. insurance nerf end of pvp
You're ignorant if you think insurance is what keeps PVP all happy fun and kisses. Insurance has existed since Beta, largely unchanged to this day. Yet, pvp used to be brutally painful and extreme.
How much isk you lose does not determine how bad the loss is. Do you know what does? Time.
How long does it take you to replace the losses determines how painful they are. And to put that into perspective, I'd say the loss of a battleship in early retail is about as painful as a loss of a mothership today. That is, two to six weeks of grinding, depending on your skill and playtime.
Fleet battles used to be won or lost with anywhere between 2 to 8 battleship losses per side. In the Great Northern War (not to be confused with every just any northern war), I personally frapsed one of the biggest smackdowns to ever take place: 13 battleships killed to 1 loss. The end result puts a psychological toll on the losing party as hard as losing a few Titans in a single fight would today.
In the event they nerfed insurance:
- it would not change the rate at which money was being acquired by players - it would not change the rate at which money left the economy, through insurance or otherwise - it would slightly reduce the rate at which money entered the economy through insurance, through lower payouts - it would cause a lot of rich or casual people to not even bother with insurance - it would cause a shift slight towards favouring T2 now that T1 is no longer as efficient
Enjoy your pointless doomsday prophecies while you can.
|
NEMESIS SIN
Method In Khaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 01:48:00 -
[198]
Originally by: Shrike Arghast If you nerf insurance you're going to wind up with a game like Pirates of the Burning Sea, which - to a degree - was a different 'take' on the EVE forumula for how to build an MMO.
The primary issue with POTBS was that, in its quest to be more realistic and hardcore, it was designed with no insurance - ships had a certain, set durability (say, 4/4), and when that ship was lost 4 times, it vanished.
For PvPers this was a wonderful system - their actions created real, terrible losses for the players who they lorded over. For the rest of the population, PvP became something to be avoided at all costs - and so it was. Ships didn't get sunk, so players who built ships couldn't sell them, and even the hardcore PvPers ultimately left because nobody was willing to challenge them. The entire system of POTBS' (and EVE's) economy was based around ship loss and replacement - without quick and easy loss and fast replacement, the game simply didn't work anymore. It was like ripping the engine out of a car and expecting it to still run.
The simple fact of the matter is, the more you 'hurt' players when they lose, the less PvP you'll see.
Look at it this way:
1) Nobody playing any competitive computer game likes to lose. Ergo, defeat in of itself, with no actual penalties (the WoW formula) is already painful. Even with this formula, you still see people who don't PvP because some people simply can't handle losing to other players. Result: lots of PvP.
2) PvP with some loss associated with it (EVE, pre-expansion SWG with skill point loss. etc) has a real, tangible value - it teaches players to exercise caution, but doesn't hurt so much that the loss coupled with the embarassment of losing (see point 1) causes them to stop PvPing. Result: a decent amount of coordinated PvP.
3) PvP with lots of loss (heavy experience or item penalties [the 'I dropped all my loot when I died' matrix]) is only fun for a select few who are highly successful at it, and only in the short term while prey are plentiful. Like all things in life, the talented and skilled in computer games naturally rise to the top - and those players come to dominate (and eventually cripple) games that embrace this formula. Look at how (un)popular POTBS is. That game was released in the wake of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies - it should still be a hugely-populated playground, yet its virtually deserted. The reason for this is heavy loss. Result: no PvP.
So, IMO, a big insurance nerf would destroy EVE. Within a few months you'd see players stop going to 0.0 in any large numbers, and then they'd get bored and quit. The PvPers who are hungry for this change don't comprehend that in making combat more crushing to those who participate in it, their supply of enemy combatants will rapidly wain. Kill off the prey and the preditors die too.
I don't know why people want to change this so much. The insurance system in EVE is brilliant, and works very well. The economy is humming, PvP is fairly frequent and brutal... why do you want that to change? To stop people from suicide ganking? What makes you think an insurance nerf would stop this, really? And are you actually willing to accept ruining the game in order to potentially prevent it?
Because that's what we're talking about here.
Ruining the game.
Wear in your demented little mind did you read that insurance was going to leave the game?
My epic Threadnought is about miners getting a royal screwdgy from CCP. For PVP'ers however, nothing changes \0/ for the very cost of loosing a ship will remain approximately the same as it is now, once the market naturally re-balances itself.
And if cap ship pilots get a little screwed too, well meh . . .
Notification: Your post is beyond irrelevant
Commence.
|
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 02:00:00 -
[199]
Edited by: Zartrader on 15/03/2010 02:06:23
The only players who will be affected are miners, I don't know why an earlier poster thinks it will affect the game in any other way, this is not Pirates which I suspect suffered from players with low risk tolerance (which most games have), other game mechanics messing with the ISK flows or they simply did not understand the concept of real loss.
Anyway prices will readjust as the issue is an excess of minerals.
Being even more aggressive with botters , increasing materials needed for building, getting rid of Drone regions or reducing mission loot salvage would help. Alternately they could make Tech 2 insurance viable which to me makes the most sense. In fact that may be the reason they did this, to balance insurance income once Tech 2 insurance comes in.
|
Eric Xallen
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 02:08:00 -
[200]
Eve players like risk?
What planet are you orbiting? I don't see a lot of risk takers around this area...
|
|
Namira Sable
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 02:12:00 -
[201]
Good riddance. It's not like t1 ships are expensive before insurance.
|
Baillif
Red Mist Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 02:35:00 -
[202]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Baillif I for one welcome our new dirt cheap t1 ships
Again: the end cost will remain the same.
Not when my income stream is isolated from the effects of the change its not
|
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 05:25:00 -
[203]
Edited by: Zartrader on 15/03/2010 05:26:35
Originally by: Namira Sable Good riddance. It's not like t1 ships are expensive before insurance.
They will probably be just as cheap as the prices will crash to compensate until they balance with ore supply (or hit the new bottom from Insurance) which right now is far too high. You could see ore selling at 1 ISK or something silly. I'm exaggerating but the effect will be there, how much is to be seen.
The issue is the oversupply of ore and the underutilisation of it. I hope that CCP has some form of ore sink in mind and they put it in soon.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 06:00:00 -
[204]
Originally by: Zartrader The issue is the oversupply of ore and the underutilisation of it. I hope that CCP has some form of ore sink in mind and they put it in soon.
Yeah, and instead they're busy wasting time on making Interactive Planets which obviously can not in any way of form be an ore sink and timing of the insurance nerf must have been completely random since Akita T says the CCP economist is clueless.
|
Sol Lethe
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 06:15:00 -
[205]
Originally by: Baillif
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Baillif I for one welcome our new dirt cheap t1 ships
Again: the end cost will remain the same.
Not when my income stream is isolated from the effects of the change its not
The cost of losing a T1 ship is almost entirely in the modules and rigs. The price of the hull makes no difference, as it is offset by insurance.
Cost of ship hull: 30 million. Cost of insurance: 10 million. Payout: 40 million. Net loss when ship goes boom: 0 isk + cost of modules/rigs.
Now with lower costs:
Cost of ship hull: 20 million. Cost of insurance: 5 million. Payout: 25 million. Net loss when ship goes boom: 0 isk + cost of modules/rigs.
To take it to an extreme:
Cost of ship hull: 2 isk Cost of insurance: 1 isk Payout: 3 isk Net loss when ship goes boom: 0 isk + cost of modules/rigs.
The hull is essentially an investment that is returned to you upon its destruction.
|
NSSQUAD
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 07:09:00 -
[206]
i really do think ccp is just doing this to stop people from pvping. if we all lived in empire and didnt use more then 1 ship at a time ccp would be beating their meat all over the EU and america.
|
NSSQUAD
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 07:28:00 -
[207]
i want to point out to people that when i die in a ship i dont worry about buying the hull since i got insurance i worry about the mods to fit. loseing isk on the mods is expected but why would i wanna drop hundreds of mils a day on ship hulls in big battles? i dont
|
Seth Ruin
Minmatar Ominous Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 07:43:00 -
[208]
Originally by: NSSQUAD i want to point out to people that when i die in a ship i dont worry about buying the hull since i got insurance i worry about the mods to fit. loseing isk on the mods is expected but why would i wanna drop hundreds of mils a day on ship hulls in big battles? i dont
Hypothetically, even if insurance were completely removed from the game, PvP wouldn't die. You'd most likely just see a shift towards smaller/cheaper setups, less T2/T3, etc.
|
Ker HarSol
Minmatar Zip - I
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 07:54:00 -
[209]
Assuming that the amount of minerals available to the market due to mining/mission running will stay roughly the same, then any insurance change will result in ... nothing.
The mineral prices will drop until the equilibrium with new insurance prices are reached.
The result? After a period of adjustment, the insurance fraud will just continue as it is now. Just that the miners and drone regions will earn less.
Big deal? Not really. |
Zewron
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 08:39:00 -
[210]
7 pages and no feedback from Chribba on this?
|
|
|
|
|
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 |