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) |
NEMESIS SIN
Method In Khaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 19:47:00 -
[1]
Edited by: NEMESIS SIN on 12/03/2010 19:46:48 Not sure if it just hasn't occurred to people yet or what. So I figured I'd chime in and pour a little gasoline on the flames. Tech I insurance seems to have taken a hit on the test server.
Just saying
|
Amberlamps
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 19:48:00 -
[2]
OMGWTFBBQ ROFLWAFLES
CCP accidentally t1 insurance?
10/10 good trolling CCP but roll it back, k thx.
|
Orion GUardian
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 19:49:00 -
[3]
What did happen? I hope the nerf wont hit too hard as BS in 0.0 arent cheap enough to scam
|
Amberlamps
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 19:56:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Amberlamps on 12/03/2010 19:57:46
Originally by: Orion GUardian What did happen? I hope the nerf wont hit too hard as BS in 0.0 arent cheap enough to scam
It hit you so hard in the backside that the ISK has already been removed from your wallet. You now need to sell your left kidney and feed your dog of your own faeces to pay for the plexs you will no doubt now need to pay for your T1 ships.
^^ Great move CCP, Nice way to keep the money rolling in!
From many failed attempts at finding the cause of large scale fleet lagtles, you now believe making fighting unaffordable will reduce the number of ships and save you from having to actually do some work.
P.S You can do what you want CCP, I'm just being a conspiracy theorist.
|
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:00:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Mashie Saldana on 12/03/2010 20:05:58 Edited by: Mashie Saldana on 12/03/2010 19:59:48 Here is the difference for a Rifter. And Hurricane.
Mashie Saldana - Dominique Vasilkovsky - Monica Foulkes |
Zeba
Minmatar Honourable East India Trading Company
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:02:00 -
[6]
CCP has had a tradition of never having the real numbers on the test server for stuff like this. Hell they even borked the stats of the new battlecruisers back in the day right up to launch. Remember the 8 launcher rof bonus drake that had everyone drooling?
Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Get off the forums and go kill someone!
|
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:11:00 -
[7]
If they actually did this, they would lose my accounts...
Not because Id be upset, but because I would DIE OF LAUGHTER after seeing the tears that would follow. Do you really want to kill me CCP?
The only time I insure anything is when I suicide gank, because that is the only time it is ever worth it.
|
Malen Nenokal
The Nightshift
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:18:00 -
[8]
I'm okay with this.
|
SweetHoney
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:19:00 -
[9]
I wonder what will happen w/ the mineral prices after this... |
Soulita
Gallente Inner Core
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:20:00 -
[10]
Yay! Finally!
Thats the good stuff
|
|
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:21:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Slade Hoo on 12/03/2010 20:21:43 Mining will be dead!
This won't be a solution for suicide ganking because in a short amount of time mineral prices will adapt to new insurance payouts. ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
Obsidian Hawk
RONA Legion
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:24:00 -
[12]
0/10
Remember how ccp had insurance for t2 ships that was good and then suddenly got removed? yeah just saying dont believe it until it hits tq.
plus i dont think they will nerf it, it is going to be more of a if you participated in criminal actions in high sec like suicide bombing you wont get your platinum insurence pay out.
|
SweetHoney
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:25:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Slade Hoo Edited by: Slade Hoo on 12/03/2010 20:21:43 Mining will be dead!
This won't be a solution for suicide ganking because in a short amount of time mineral prices will adapt to new insurance payouts.
Exactly... I look forward for 500 Isk Zydrine Also, suicide will be cheaper this way because ships will be cheaper. |
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:25:00 -
[14]
Originally by: SweetHoney I wonder what will happen w/ the mineral prices after this...
They will/would fluctuate, then settle. I could see them doing this as a test. If minerals prices can hold above the insurance cap they have now, then they may proceed to can insurance all together. I think it would be a good test, however I would like to see steady prices for a good 6 months before something like this came into play. They seem to tinker with things that will effect prices on every patch and never really give the market time to settle.
|
Lance Fighter
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:27:00 -
[15]
unfortunately, sisi lacks the ability to test a market :\ OHGODS BELOW THIS LINE IS MY SIG !!!! SRSLY! Blane Xero > Lance is at -0.9 sec status with a 1 million bounty. Lance is also amarrian. Thats 3 evil points |
Phosphorus Palladium
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:28:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Slade Hoo Edited by: Slade Hoo on 12/03/2010 20:21:43 Mining will be dead!
This won't be a solution for suicide ganking because in a short amount of time mineral prices will adapt to new insurance payouts.
lol, the forum ate my post, so in short:
If prices for minerals fall, than pricess for products built from those minerals are also likely to fall. An effect on suicide ganking may not be long term of course, like you say.
May also just be a glitch in the test server database, who knows...
|
Ikathis sihtaki
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:47:00 -
[17]
Haven't insured a ship in over a year, could be cuz damn near everything I fly is t2.
GG CCP get rid of artifical insurance program. One has to wonder if it will make an actual effect in game, or if it will just generate a bunch of tears for collection to feed the devs and keep them motivated. |
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:50:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Slade Hoo Mining will be dead!
What happens to mineral prices when nobody is mining? Also keep in mind that there are some resource extraction additions and changes coming.
In my opinion mineral prices should reflect what people are willing work and sell for, not how much ISK CCP is willing to give you.
|
Steve Celeste
Caldari Inglorious-Basterds
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:52:00 -
[19]
Mineral prices will just drop under the new insurance payout.
WHY don't you understand this CCP. Nothing will change, there are just too many minerals being mined.
|
Ikathis sihtaki
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:53:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Ikathis sihtaki on 12/03/2010 20:53:18
Originally by: Steve Celeste Mineral prices will just drop under the new insurance payout.
WHY don't you understand this CCP. Nothing will change, there are just too many minerals being mined.
WE need sumfin BIG to build, not a single structure, SOMETHING BIG!!!! GIVE IT TO US AND MAKE IT BIG!!!! AND ASSPLODABLE!!!!
AND IT CAN:T TIE INTO SOV!!!! |
|
Boomershoot
Caldari Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 20:53:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Sig Sour
Originally by: Slade Hoo Mining will be dead!
What happens to mineral prices when nobody is mining?
Macro happens, Price keep falling.
The parrot vortex signature had to go. No hypnotic graphics in signatures please. Shadow. World Domination With Hypnotic Parrots Status: FOILED! |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 21:02:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Tippia on 12/03/2010 21:03:04 Meh… all this does is slightly reduce the ISK volume coming through insurance fraud faucet – velocity won't be affected. It provides a nice relative buff for mission income though.
In other words, nothing to be up in arms about (unless you PvP a lot in T1 ships). ——— “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 |
Areo Hotah
Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 21:09:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 12/03/2010 21:03:04 Mehà all this does is slightly reduce the ISK volume coming through insurance fraud faucet û velocity won't be affected. It provides a nice relative buff for mission income though.
In other words, nothing to be up in arms about (unless you PvP a lot in T1 ships).
Considering Battleships and Cap ships are T1, and they are still the backbone of any sov warfare, I say a lot of people are affected.
|
Winged Crime
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 21:17:00 -
[24]
There's no need for insurance nerfs. It'll only serve to encourage more carebearism (not that I have a problem with carebearism unto itself..) and discourages new folk from fun adventures. Making it more expensive to suicide gank AFK macro miners seems counter productive as well. Unless the goal is to keep driving down mineral prices to the point at which only the miners want to go to low sec and the new combat oriented players stay where the miners used to be...
|
arbiter reformed
Minmatar Shut Up And Play WE FORM VOLTRON
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 21:17:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Areo Hotah
Originally by: Tippia Edited by: Tippia on 12/03/2010 21:03:04 Mehà all this does is slightly reduce the ISK volume coming through insurance fraud faucet û velocity won't be affected. It provides a nice relative buff for mission income though.
In other words, nothing to be up in arms about (unless you PvP a lot in T1 ships).
Considering Battleships and Cap ships are T1, and they are still the backbone of any sov warfare, I say a lot of people are affected.
yeh and theyve been too cheap for ages Signature graphics that may only contain your character name, corporation logo, corporation or personal slogan or other text that is directly related to your in-game persona, or content directly related to Eve Online. All content must be in good taste.Applebabe |
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 21:18:00 -
[26]
"Oh no! c-c-c-C-C-C-CHANGE! RUN!"
Only macros would mine? Perfect, ban anyone who undocks in a hulk.
Insurance 100% removed = less seeded isk. Less of an isk supply = mineral to isk value increases.
Really need to seed more isk? "Sanshas Nation commissions 400 trillion ISK for the construction of a new stargate network. Blueprints made available at Ture Creations stations. Stargate components must be delivered to True Creation stations."
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 21:47:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Sig Sour Insurance 100% removed = less seeded isk. Less of an isk supply = mineral to isk value increases.
Or, more likely: insurance 100% removed = less reason to mine = more reason to run missions for your ISK = more ISK seeded = mineral value decreases even further = less reason to mine… ——— “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 |
Cat o'Ninetails
Rancer Defence League
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:01:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Sig Sour
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
|
Boomershoot
Caldari Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:06:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Sig Sour Insurance 100% removed = less seeded isk. Less of an isk supply = mineral to isk value increases.
Or, more likely: insurance 100% removed = less reason to mine = more reason to run missions for your ISK = more ISK seeded = mineral value decreases even further = less reason to mineà
insurance removal = big no.
Tritanium price skyrocketing at 12 isk/u is bad mmmkay?
The parrot vortex signature had to go. No hypnotic graphics in signatures please. Shadow. World Domination With Hypnotic Parrots Status: FOILED! |
Malcolm Minkiahead
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:07:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Malcolm Minkiahead on 12/03/2010 22:09:44 go go CCP!
I actually don't know how much money insurance creates into the system. If it is not a big %, it's a good move. If insurance generates a big portion of all isks, it's going to deflate the economy.
Probably it is going to depress the mineral prices even more.
Is it a problem? It is a problem for miners. But consider that the only way to increase mineral prices is to blow up more ships or reduce supplies (or increase mission rewards end bounties, but mission runners make a lot of money right now).
Since blowing up more ships requires that players change their mind, it's not feasible, so the only solution I see is to reduce mineral supply, but since noobs must have something to mine I would ban hulks and covetor from 1.0 and maybe 0.9.
And fix lowsec minerals please!
edit: insurance refunds should be dynamically calculated considering mineral prices changes
|
|
DJWiggles
Gallente Eve Radio Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:10:00 -
[31]
In my view its a step in the right direction, all that needs to happen now is concord payouts dropped by at least half again and we will be in a workable state IMHO
|
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:14:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Steve Celeste Mineral prices will just drop under the new insurance payout.
Nothing will change, there are just too many minerals being mined.
Exactly.
Minerals prices will adjust until they are in equilibrium with the new insurance prices again. |
Alchemist's Alt
Gallente Hysteria Nexus
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:18:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Cat o'Ninetails
Originally by: Sig Sour
There is more than one way to skin a cat.
Hey cat
I think I love you lol FIRST!! Bring back Derek Chu |
Ella C'Tronix
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:28:00 -
[34]
But what is the purpose of the insurance system? I'm pretty sure it's not to go "oh, sorry you lost your ship, here's enough money to buy some ammo for your next one"
It's to offset the cost of loss in a standard ship.
I would happily trade off some T1 insurance payout for better T2 payout. That stuff is just nuts. Most of the T2 insurance deals I've seen don't even pay for my ammo :)
Oh, and I almost forgot. I just made you read my signature. |
Boomershoot
Caldari Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:32:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Ella C'Tronix But what is the purpose of the insurance system?
Material to Valute Fixed Rate Conversion.
You insert Material You recieve Valute Material Value cannot drop below the Fixed Rate.
The parrot vortex signature had to go. No hypnotic graphics in signatures please. Shadow. World Domination With Hypnotic Parrots Status: FOILED! |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:37:00 -
[36]
Originally by: DJWiggles In my view its a step in the right direction, all that needs to happen now is concord payouts dropped by at least half again and we will be in a workable state IMHO
No. An increase in ganks (especially against miners) when mineral prices drop below insurance rats is just another way for the market to find a balance – that mechanism should not be touched. ——— “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 |
DJWiggles
Gallente Eve Radio Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:40:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: DJWiggles In my view its a step in the right direction, all that needs to happen now is concord payouts dropped by at least half again and we will be in a workable state IMHO
No. An increase in ganks (especially against miners) when mineral prices drop below insurance rats is just another way for the market to find a balance û that mechanism should not be touched.
As I said it SHOULD be dropped so that if you lose a ship you have something going towards getting a replacement, if its at the hands of the police/concord you SHOULD get nothing as you are a criminal, this is how it happens in real insurance cases.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:41:00 -
[38]
words won't do this post justice so
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:44:00 -
[39]
Originally by: DJWiggles this is how it happens in real insurance cases.
Irrelevant. EVE insurance has nothing to do with real insurance. ——— “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 |
DJWiggles
Gallente Eve Radio Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:46:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: DJWiggles this is how it happens in real insurance cases.
Irrelevant. EVE insurance has nothing to do with real insurance.
Well I know this BUT we can also say the market has nothing to do with real life ... oh wait it does supply and demand. All I know is that there will be MANY pirate tears over this.
|
|
Boomershoot
Caldari Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:48:00 -
[41]
Originally by: DJWiggles
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: DJWiggles this is how it happens in real insurance cases.
Irrelevant. EVE insurance has nothing to do with real insurance.
Well I know this BUT we can also say the market has nothing to do with real life ... oh wait it does supply and demand. All I know is that there will be MANY pirate tears over this.
Think of the backslash when CCP trashes the idead
The parrot vortex signature had to go. No hypnotic graphics in signatures please. Shadow. World Domination With Hypnotic Parrots Status: FOILED! |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:52:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Tippia on 12/03/2010 22:53:19
Originally by: DJWiggles Well I know this BUT we can also say the market has nothing to do with real life ... oh wait it does supply and demand.
Your point being?
Quote: All I know is that there will be MANY pirate tears over this.
Unlikely. Unless you see a lot of pirates in capships. ——— “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 |
DJWiggles
Gallente Eve Radio Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:52:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Boomershoot
Originally by: DJWiggles
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: DJWiggles this is how it happens in real insurance cases.
Irrelevant. EVE insurance has nothing to do with real insurance.
Well I know this BUT we can also say the market has nothing to do with real life ... oh wait it does supply and demand. All I know is that there will be MANY pirate tears over this.
Think of the backslash when CCP trashes the idead
Maybe they will be maybe not BUT at least I will have something to talk about on the radio :D
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:52:00 -
[44]
Now they only need to nerf mineral input from secondary sources and prices may even stabilize instead of dropping further. --------
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:55:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Abrazzar Now they only need to nerf mineral input from secondary sources and prices may even stabilize instead of dropping further.
…or they can just do that, and achieve the same effect without resorting to a risky gamble with the game's fundamental value-giving mechanism. ——— “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 |
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 22:57:00 -
[46]
CCP is getting warmer
Originally by: Jim Raynor EVE needs danger, EVE needs risks, EVE needs combat, even piracy, without these things, the game stagnates to a trivial game centering around bloating your wallet with no purpose. |
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 23:03:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Tippia Or, more likely: insurance 100% removed = less reason to mine = more reason to run missions for your ISK = more ISK seeded = mineral value decreases even further = less reason to mineà
Fair logic, assuming the "less reason to mine" holds true - keep in mind ships still require minerals to be built. Yes there will be less of a demand as people wont be ganking freighters on a whim.
Even if the mineral market crashed off this, so what. I didn't complain about the scanning mechanics being changed, and it 'crashed' scanning related items like you wouldn't believe. That was my income before the improvements came to the scanning system. Everything exploration dive bombed in prices when the change came. My income was cut into 1/3 - I adapted and I enjoy the improvements, I didn't complain because it MADE THE GAME BETTER even if it was not good for me.
|
DJWiggles
Gallente Eve Radio Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 23:07:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Sig Sour
Originally by: Tippia Or, more likely: insurance 100% removed = less reason to mine = more reason to run missions for your ISK = more ISK seeded = mineral value decreases even further = less reason to mineà
Fair logic, assuming the "less reason to mine" holds true - keep in mind ships still require minerals to be built. Yes there will be less of a demand as people wont be ganking freighters on a whim.
Even if the mineral market crashed off this, so what. I didn't complain about the scanning mechanics being changed, and it 'crashed' scanning related items like you wouldn't believe. That was my income before the improvements came to the scanning system. Everything exploration dive bombed in prices when the change came. My income was cut into 1/3 - I adapted and I enjoy the improvements, I didn't complain because it MADE THE GAME BETTER even if it was not good for me.
THIS ^^
That is what I think a lot of people will forget is that eve is a MMO and not a single player game. With changes there will always be haters and lovers of the changes, its like RL you adapt or you stop.
|
Alchemist's Alt
Gallente Hysteria Nexus
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 23:07:00 -
[49]
So im thinking reduce refinable drops from missions like 80% but increase bounties, wouldnt this increase mineral prices and encourage mining :D FIRST!! Bring back Derek Chu |
SweetHoney
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 23:08:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Sig Sour
Originally by: Tippia Or, more likely: insurance 100% removed = less reason to mine = more reason to run missions for your ISK = more ISK seeded = mineral value decreases even further = less reason to mineà
Fair logic, assuming the "less reason to mine" holds true - keep in mind ships still require minerals to be built. Yes there will be less of a demand as people wont be ganking freighters on a whim.
Even if the mineral market crashed off this, so what. I didn't complain about the scanning mechanics being changed, and it 'crashed' scanning related items like you wouldn't believe. That was my income before the improvements came to the scanning system. Everything exploration dive bombed in prices when the change came. My income was cut into 1/3 - I adapted and I enjoy the improvements, I didn't complain because it MADE THE GAME BETTER even if it was not good for me.
I don't think anybody was whining about this change ... Getting all the T1 ships 40% cheaper ... can be good for the game , will see. |
|
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 23:18:00 -
[51]
What I want to know is: is this just a reset of the mineral base prices, or have they been made dynamic?
If it's a reset and they're now fixed at the new prices (pretty much current prices it seems) then really this doesn't matter. All that will happen is T1 ships and minerals become worth a bit less... well, about a third less actually.
If they've changed the mineral base price to a dynamic value dependent on a daily/monthly/yearly whatever index, then they just wrecked the basic eve economy. Minerals will trend towards 0 value and ships - even capital ships - will follow.
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap |
DJWiggles
Gallente Eve Radio Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 23:19:00 -
[52]
Originally by: SweetHoney
Originally by: Sig Sour
Originally by: Tippia Or, more likely: insurance 100% removed = less reason to mine = more reason to run missions for your ISK = more ISK seeded = mineral value decreases even further = less reason to mineà
Fair logic, assuming the "less reason to mine" holds true - keep in mind ships still require minerals to be built. Yes there will be less of a demand as people wont be ganking freighters on a whim.
Even if the mineral market crashed off this, so what. I didn't complain about the scanning mechanics being changed, and it 'crashed' scanning related items like you wouldn't believe. That was my income before the improvements came to the scanning system. Everything exploration dive bombed in prices when the change came. My income was cut into 1/3 - I adapted and I enjoy the improvements, I didn't complain because it MADE THE GAME BETTER even if it was not good for me.
I don't think anybody was whining about this change ... Getting all the T1 ships 40% cheaper ... can be good for the game , will see.
atm the cost to build is the same in mats, its just a drop in payouts, yes it would be nice to have a 40% cost drop BUT that would then take all the money out of production
|
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 23:35:00 -
[53]
Originally by: DJWiggles
Originally by: SweetHoney
Originally by: Sig Sour
Originally by: Tippia Or, more likely: insurance 100% removed = less reason to mine = more reason to run missions for your ISK = more ISK seeded = mineral value decreases even further = less reason to mineà
Fair logic, assuming the "less reason to mine" holds true - keep in mind ships still require minerals to be built. Yes there will be less of a demand as people wont be ganking freighters on a whim.
Even if the mineral market crashed off this, so what. I didn't complain about the scanning mechanics being changed, and it 'crashed' scanning related items like you wouldn't believe. That was my income before the improvements came to the scanning system. Everything exploration dive bombed in prices when the change came. My income was cut into 1/3 - I adapted and I enjoy the improvements, I didn't complain because it MADE THE GAME BETTER even if it was not good for me.
I don't think anybody was whining about this change ... Getting all the T1 ships 40% cheaper ... can be good for the game , will see.
atm the cost to build is the same in mats, its just a drop in payouts, yes it would be nice to have a 40% cost drop BUT that would then take all the money out of production
You're missing why this is a big deal:
The cost to build in mats is determined by the value of insurance. Insurance has for the past few years provided a (soft) price-floor to the mineral basket ensuring that all the minerals that go into say, a battleship, are always worth at least as much as a battleship.
See, the way it that works is that there are many more minerals entering the market than there is demand for them. Well, that's not exactly true there is demand for them because there's insurance, but say insurance was gone, there wouldn't be demand and so prices would drop. And by drop I mean crater.
Look at the historical prices of Zydrine, now look at Mega, now look at Pyer. See how while zyd and mega were going down pyer was going up? That's because it was 'relatively' more rare in the available minerals... So how did a drop in zyd and mega force pyer up?
Well, imagine all minerals becoming cheaper (which they have been doing), now look at insurance: at a certain point it becomes actually profitable to build a ship, and then immidiately suicide it because you paid less for the minerals than you're getting for the insurance payout. That's what happened with dropping zyd and mega, there was some industrial-scale building of tier 3 BS (something like 30.000 battleships built for suicide in november alone) and that ate up all the 'spare' minerals, forcing prices back up, particularly the price of pyer.
So what happens if insurance doesn't ensure that there is a price floor? Minerals drop. It becomes less costly to build a ship until it bumps into the new floor... if there is one. That's why it's important whether the mineral base-prices have been reset, in which case minerals just drop by that 30% or so that insurance payouts have or whether the base-price is now dynamic in which case minerals crash. Completely.
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap |
Sig Sour
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 23:37:00 -
[54]
I just canceled all my mineral buy orders. LET THE CRASH BEGIN!
|
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L
|
Posted - 2010.03.12 23:56:00 -
[55]
I'll cross-post from another forum, but as some people think this will somehow mean cheaper ships:
Originally by: "DStopia" ...
but if this means cheaper hurricanes then im all in for it
anything to reduce the ****ing grind to generate isk
This will not result in cheaper hurricanes. Sorry.
What will happen is at first hurricanes (as an example, actually all t1 ships) will cost the same as they do now, but their insurance payout will be less. Over time, the price of minerals will continue to fall, and eventually the hurricane will cost about as much to build as the insurance gives you back again.
So in the end, it will cost you exactly as much to lose a hurricane as it does now, seeing as how 90% of that cost is in modules/rigs whatever anyway. In the intervening time - and that could be months before minerals fall enough - a hurricane will cost you more to lose than it does now.
Again, if the base-price is dynamic it pretty much forever cost you more to lose a hurricane than it costs you now rather than just for a little while.
I suppose that eventually sustaining a capital ship fleet might end up slightly cheaper...
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap |
Caelum Mortuos
Gallente Zero G Research and Development
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 01:03:00 -
[56]
|
Siroh
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 01:05:00 -
[57]
I wondered why blowing up my dread only yielded 980 m in insurance, A+ to fix CCP.
|
Adunh Slavy
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 01:08:00 -
[58]
Removal of insurance is good. Most everything in the game should be player market driven, and not artificially supported by NPCs or game mechanics. If min prices, and consequently T1 prices fall, so what. The end result will likely be that ship cost remains roughly the same as when full insurance is purchased and the ship is lost.
There is much greater supply than demand as it is right now. But this does not mean it will always remain so. Ammunition min requirements can go up, consuming excess minerals. New planetary infrastructure/production may require minerals, Dust may require minerals, ship and mod BPOs could be changed as well, all those POS modules could be handed over too, they could consume minerals as well. Demand can be increased. It is likely better that overabundance be evaluated with out insurance, before creating additional demand. As a step towards freeing the Eve economy from NPCs, this is a good move in that direction.
Those most impacted by the removal of insurance are new players. A safety net for anyone under three months old could be created - Noob insurance. |
Callista Sincera
Amarr
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 01:22:00 -
[59]
I always wondered why they didn't have their economist update baseprices on a quarterly basis. - In simplistic terms it has been said that there is enough Zero Point Energy in the volume the size of a coffee cup to boil away EarthÆs oceans. |
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 01:25:00 -
[60]
All hands, brace for major laughter. Let the mineralopocalypse begin !
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
|
Larkonis Trassler
Genos Occidere Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 01:54:00 -
[61]
I sense a great disturbance in the force. A million miners crying out in pain and then, silence.
Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis |
Benri Konpaku
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 01:55:00 -
[62]
Up in arms? Fuel to the fire or whatever?
Maybe I'm missing some sort of intended reverse psychology here. |
Aera Aiana
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 02:25:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Akita T Let the mineralopocalypse begin !
Yes please, I've already set up my buyorders around the universe
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 02:49:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Aera Aiana
Originally by: Akita T Let the mineralopocalypse begin !
Yes please, I've already set up my buyorders around the universe
... So that you can buy minerals BEFORE they drop in value?
|
Kolatha
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:12:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Turiel Demon That's what happened with dropping zyd and mega, there was some industrial-scale building of tier 3 BS (something like 30.000 battleships built for suicide in november alone) and that ate up all the 'spare' minerals, forcing prices back up, particularly the price of pyer.
30,000?
Really?
You got something to back that up that doesn't start with "But everyone I know is doing it" and conclude with "therefore everyone is doing it"?
Because 30,000 tier 3 battles ships = some 300 billion+ units (around 318.5 billion with a 100 ML maelstrom BPO) of trit or roughly 1 quarter of the total monthly trade. That would create a significant blip in the market.
So, either that 30,000 is a figure pulled from the nether regions to push an agenda (nerf L4s, nerf insurance etc) or someone has found a nice trit generating exploit.
If I'm wrong then please present some compelling evidence that isn't just another opinion piece from the usual crowd.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:18:00 -
[66]
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 !
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:23:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Akita T 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.
At least we know it wasn't Dr. EyjoG's fault since he never understood insurance price floors as they didn't get mentioned in the QEN. I bet he feels stupid now that some random CCP dev changed something he wasn't aware of.
|
Mr Kidd
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:26:00 -
[68]
Not that I really care about insurance. But, it would be nice if they buffed t1 a bit so it's take 2 shots to kill a t1 frigate instead of 1 (example only, not to scale) to offset the lower insurance payments.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:28:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Akita T on 13/03/2010 03:29:28
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab At least we know it wasn't Dr. EyjoG's fault since he never understood insurance price floors as they didn't get mentioned in the QEN. I bet he feels stupid now that some random CCP dev changed something he wasn't aware of.
No, we don't know it wasn't him. Actually, it sounds more and more AS IF it was him. As he had to at least stumble upon how we were grilling him about not understanding how "insurance fraud" works (be it he actually *gasp* read the forum himself or somebody from CCP told him to read about it), he got the gist of how it works (fixed item payout, variable build cost), but not WHY it works the way it works (as a "demand valve" in case of oversupply), so he was probably the one coming up with the half-assed solution of adjusting insurance payouts based on the "current mineral average prices" instead of some old set baseprices... attacking the symptom instead of the underlying problem, completely ignoring why "insurance fraud" actually works at all in the first place. So, yeah, I can totally end up blaming him... again... for this too. That's what happens when somebody who doesn't understand why stuff works the way it works gets any say-so at all.
P.S. Let's not call it "insurance fraud" anymore, let's call it "insurance exchange rate" instead
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:42:00 -
[70]
Edited by: Rakshasa Taisab on 13/03/2010 03:46:50
Originally by: Akita T No, we don't know it wasn't him. Actually, it sounds more and more AS IF it was him.
I was actually mocking you for your rant about the doctor not mentioning insurance fraud in QEN, when it was clear to some of us that if it wasn't mentioned there must have been a reason for it since that mechanism is so obvious.
Like an impending change to the insurance mechanism.
Originally by: Armchair Economist THIS CHANGE IS ONE OF THE MOST HORRIBLE POSSIBLE CHANGES YOU COULD POSSIBLY MAKE.
Making insurance dynamic based on e.g. empire average prices would be a first step in fixing things. So what if the mineral prices collapse and the new floor is hit (until insurance prices again update)?
Well... The problem here is partially the lack of mineral sinks. Hey, did you know we're getting Planetary Interaction in May?
|
|
Omara Otawan
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:49:00 -
[71]
Originally by: DJWiggles
Well I know this BUT we can also say the market has nothing to do with real life ... oh wait it does supply and demand. All I know is that there will be MANY pirate tears over this.
You really think so?
Tbh, I think there will be a huge load of carebear tears and not much more, those are the ones that run into a gatecamp unscouted after all...
Ganking a Hulk will still be cheap as hell, heck I dont even insure my destroyers for that anyway, I wouldnt care if there was no insurance at all for that as the kill usually pays for the whole gank squad.
Anyway, I dont think it'll happen, all the major 0.0 alliances will be up in arms about it bigtime.
|
Evelgrivion
Ignatium. Aggressive Dissonance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 03:58:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Evelgrivion on 13/03/2010 04:00:54
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab At least we know it wasn't Dr. EyjoG's fault since he never understood insurance price floors as they didn't get mentioned in the QEN. I bet he feels stupid now that some random CCP dev changed something he wasn't aware of.
No, we don't know it wasn't him. Actually, it sounds more and more AS IF it was him. As he had to at least stumble upon how we were grilling him about not understanding how "insurance fraud" works (be it he actually *gasp* read the forum himself or somebody from CCP told him to read about it), he got the gist of how it works (fixed item payout, variable build cost), but not WHY it works the way it works (as a "demand valve" in case of oversupply), so he was probably the one coming up with the half-assed solution of adjusting insurance payouts based on the "current mineral average prices" instead of some old set baseprices... attacking the symptom instead of the underlying problem, completely ignoring why "insurance fraud" actually works at all in the first place. So, yeah, I can totally end up blaming him... again... for this too. That's what happens when somebody who doesn't understand why stuff works the way it works gets any say-so at all.
P.S. Let's not call it "insurance fraud" anymore, let's call it "insurance exchange rate" instead ___
P.P.S. Seriously, what the bloodly hell is THIS supposed to solve anyway ?
Do you think it will solve suicide-ganking ? IT WON'T ! Do you think it will solve the highsec/lowsec/0.0 mining income issue ? IT WON'T ! In fact, it will make it even worse, MUCH worse. Do you think it will reduce the ISK inflow from the insurance faucet ? Ok, that it would do, to some degree.
If it's a flat adjustment, all you solved is getting the price of ships even lower than before, until the previous situation gets repeated, just with lower prices. Miners end up screwed, since ALL mining income will get reduced, but the worst effects will be felt by 0.0 miners, since the highends will be the first to drop heavily, while lowends should remain about the same, and they might actually start to go UP in price ! If it's a dynamic adjustment, you're delaying the return of the suicide-gank cost issues, but you're making the mining imbalances and mining revenue drops even more pronounced earlier on, and going to a lower overall level.
THIS CHANGE IS ONE OF THE MOST HORRIBLE POSSIBLE CHANGES YOU COULD POSSIBLY MAKE. Whoever had the idea to do this, and only this (if it's accompanied by a lot of other changes it might actually work, but I see none others) should be handled the same way the "boot.ini" guy was handled in your "funny vid".
This change will have significant effect on the ISK faucet issue in current insurance values, but it's not going to fix the loot distribution/mineral value problem, and I can't even say if that's even vaguely what they're addressing with this change.
I think the only way to fix the issue of there being too many raw materials is to throw out and re-do the drone region's loot tables and to take out meta 0 (tech 1) loot from other general loot tables. Mining contributes a relatively insignificant portion of eve's mineral supply, and that's the only way to fix the problem you're complaining about.
Now the last question is, are suicide ganking and loot value problem the ones CCP is looking to fix by nerfing T1 insurance payouts? By my account it seems rather unlikely.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 04:38:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Akita T on 13/03/2010 04:40:48
Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab Making insurance dynamic based on e.g. empire average prices would be a first step in fixing things.
And considering CCP's track record, the ONLY thing they'll "fix" in a long time, hence ending up worse off than when they started, until it becomes unbearable again. If they don't put ALL necessary things in place, they should keep their hands off completely. One of several partial solutions that only work properly together is worse than no partial solution at all.
Originally by: Evelgrivion This change will have significant effect on the ISK faucet issue in current insurance values
It's not a big problem at the time being. It's actually not much of a problem at all. You don't see faction item prices or other "rare" item prices skyrocketing, now do you ? We do not have an "inflation" problem.
Quote: but it's not going to fix the loot distribution/mineral value problem
Which IS a big problem, because it's a gameplay balance issue.
Quote: I think the only way to fix the issue of there being too many raw materials is to throw out and re-do the drone region's loot tables and to take out meta 0 (tech 1) loot from other general loot tables. Mining contributes a relatively insignificant portion of eve's mineral supply, and that's the only way to fix the problem you're complaining about.
There is no good overall solution to that except a heavy REDUCTION in ore respawn rates. Which would be bad because of other reasons. Meanwhile, what we had now was a decent stopgap measure. The proper way to do it would have been to change ore mineral distributions instead, and leave insurance alone.
Quote: Now the last question is, are suicide ganking and loot value problem the ones CCP is looking to fix by nerfing T1 insurance payouts? By my account it seems rather unlikely.
Hence, my question of "what the bloodly hell is THIS supposed to solve anyway ?"
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Aera Aiana
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 04:45:00 -
[74]
Originally by: chatgris ... So that you can buy minerals BEFORE they drop in value?
Great, now you've ruined it.
|
CoCobus
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 04:45:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Kolatha
Originally by: Turiel Demon That's what happened with dropping zyd and mega, there was some industrial-scale building of tier 3 BS (something like 30.000 battleships built for suicide in november alone) and that ate up all the 'spare' minerals, forcing prices back up, particularly the price of pyer.
30,000?
Really?
You got something to back that up that doesn't start with "But everyone I know is doing it" and conclude with "therefore everyone is doing it"?
Because 30,000 tier 3 battles ships = some 300 billion+ units (around 318.5 billion with a 100 ML maelstrom BPO) of trit or roughly 1 quarter of the total monthly trade. That would create a significant blip in the market.
So, either that 30,000 is a figure pulled from the nether regions to push an agenda (nerf L4s, nerf insurance etc) or someone has found a nice trit generating exploit.
If I'm wrong then please present some compelling evidence that isn't just another opinion piece from the usual crowd.
Finally someone who does not take the word of somebody making grand claims, to simply make grand claims.
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 04:52:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Akita T on 13/03/2010 04:55:19
Originally by: CoCobus, Kolatha stuff
Linkage - there you go. cosmoray : 13600x Rokh Lui Kai : 13662x Abaddon plus god knows how many more people, but not quite on that scale.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Evelgrivion
Ignatium. Aggressive Dissonance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 05:03:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 13/03/2010 04:57:03
Originally by: CoCobus, Kolatha stuff
Linkage - there you go - if you are to believe what they posted. cosmoray : 13600x Rokh Lui Kai : 13662x Abaddon ...plus god knows how many more people, but not quite on that scale.
Where'd that 13600 number come from? The OP says he destroyed a total of 365 Rokhs + Abaddons + another 200 built Rokhs, unless I missed something completely?
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 05:35:00 -
[78]
Edited by: Akita T on 13/03/2010 05:46:21
He also said "2140 freighterloads of minerals" or "200 bil units", and last time I checked, a tier 3 battleship only needs around 1/6 of a freighterload's worth of minerals (~150k m^3 / 15 mil units of minerals). So I'm guessing the 1360 is a typo and the 13600 number is the correct one. Or it could be the other way around, who knows. That's why I said "if you are to believe what they posted".
P.S. And the absolute maximum number of tier 3 BSs you can manufacture per character per month is around 2.5k, not the 10k one of them mentions. That's over 4 characters working non-stop with pretty much maxed everything, monopolizing nearly one entire station's worth of manufacture lines. More like, 5 nearly maxed chars and one entire station's manufacture lines taken over nearly non-stop.
P.P.S. Still, 30k BSs in a single month, that's doable with just ~14 manufacturing chars working with ~140 BPOs. There have been many more tier 3 BS blueprints sold of each tier 3 BS type than that since they were introduced. It's not too much to consider not just possible, but actually likely if you think EVE-wide across all four tier 3 BSs.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Drachiel
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 06:07:00 -
[79]
Frankly, I think its crap. Not the idea, but its prospects as an actual change. Remember, everyone, that assault frigates were ungodly overpowered on Sisi before Dominion launched. I will have your stuff. |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 06:40:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Drachiel Frankly, I think its crap. Not the idea, but its prospects as an actual change. Remember, everyone, that assault frigates were ungodly overpowered on Sisi before Dominion launched.
Yeah, and then we got the dramiel instead.
|
|
Kolatha
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 07:54:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 13/03/2010 04:57:03
Originally by: CoCobus, Kolatha stuff
Linkage - there you go - if you are to believe what they posted. cosmoray : 13600x Rokh Lui Kai : 13662x Abaddon ...plus god knows how many more people, but not quite on that scale.
Interesting, but there are a number of anomalies that were pointed out in that thread. Namely how many of each unit a maxed out industrialist can actually create in a month.
Then there is the lack of response in the market. Even if the trit market could absorb those numbers one would think there would be a noticeable impact on the availability of other ships due to roughly a quarter of the whole trit market for that month going into just those 2 people.
The numbers just sound fishy when you examine the overall market trends for that period. My guess is these people are just exaggerating their efforts either through lack of book keeping (admitted in that thread) or just to make themselves look like big men on the campus.
I am disappointed with the lack of any mention in the Q4 report, but then again the issue may have been left out purely because it really is a non-issue that has simply been overinflated by a few fragile egos.
I'll wait and see what official reports from CCP have to say.
|
Qel Hoth
Visionary Explorers
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 08:02:00 -
[82]
Edited by: Qel Hoth on 13/03/2010 08:04:59 Edited by: Qel Hoth on 13/03/2010 08:04:35
Originally by: Akita T Edited by: Akita T on 13/03/2010 04:40:48
Quote: I think the only way to fix the issue of there being too many raw materials is to throw out and re-do the drone region's loot tables and to take out meta 0 (tech 1) loot from other general loot tables. Mining contributes a relatively insignificant portion of eve's mineral supply, and that's the only way to fix the problem you're complaining about.
There is no good overall solution to that except a heavy REDUCTION in ore respawn rates. Which would be bad because of other reasons. Meanwhile, what we had now was a decent stopgap measure. The proper way to do it would have been to change ore mineral distributions instead, and leave insurance alone.
A dramatic increase in the amount of minerals required for all forms of manufacturing could have the same effects as well. Also, it would prevent even more systems from being stripped clean...
Also, to bring high-ends back in line, increase their amounts disproportionately high compared to the low-ends.
IMO this would have the least unintended side effects, and would increase low/null mining value considerably, as well as (temporarily, since it would only work until more people started mining again...) slow or reverse the mineral trends. ----- The above does not represent the opinions of my corp or alliance. |
Ran Khanon
Amarr Vengeance Innovations
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 08:22:00 -
[83]
Good thing. Having a huge isk faucet from insurance and being able to break even on self destruction and suiciding your ship to concord is hugely unrealistic and not worthy of any game that takes game mechanics, economy and immersion seriously. Insurance fraud was never designed to be such a huge isk faucet. Now let the players adapt with a little help from CCP I say.
Little help as in:
- Vastly nerf the minerals gained from reprocessing mission loot - Increase the amount of minerals needed for certain trade goods - Another round of banning macro miners; there's still plenty out there - Future mineral sinks, perhaps related to planetary exploitation - INCREASE insurance payouts for T2 and T3 ships to tempt the vast "I only pvp in T1" crowd to risk more expensive ships (but of course still not to the point where suiciding becomes profitable) - *stuff I didn't think of yet*
Support Lana's new bounty system. |
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 08:33:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Akita T All hands, brace for major laughter. Let the mineralopocalypse begin !
this ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 08:53:00 -
[85]
Originally by: Turiel Demon What I want to know is: is this just a reset of the mineral base prices, or have they been made dynamic?
If it's a reset and they're now fixed at the new prices (pretty much current prices it seems) then really this doesn't matter. All that will happen is T1 ships and minerals become worth a bit less... well, about a third less actually.
If they've changed the mineral base price to a dynamic value dependent on a daily/monthly/yearly whatever index, then they just wrecked the basic eve economy. Minerals will trend towards 0 value and ships - even capital ships - will follow.
No, if they've made mineral prices dynamic, then they've mining in to a competitive profession, as opposed to a subsidised one. In short, miners will have to really care about other people mining.
Next up: war dec reform!
|
Dirk Mortice
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:01:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Kolatha
Originally by: Turiel Demon That's what happened with dropping zyd and mega, there was some industrial-scale building of tier 3 BS (something like 30.000 battleships built for suicide in november alone) and that ate up all the 'spare' minerals, forcing prices back up, particularly the price of pyer.
30,000?
Really?
You got something to back that up that doesn't start with "But everyone I know is doing it" and conclude with "therefore everyone is doing it"?
Because 30,000 tier 3 battles ships = some 300 billion+ units (around 318.5 billion with a 100 ML maelstrom BPO) of trit or roughly 1 quarter of the total monthly trade. That would create a significant blip in the market.So, either that 30,000 is a figure pulled from the nether regions to push an agenda (nerf L4s, nerf insurance etc) or someone has found a nice trit generating exploit.
If I'm wrong then please present some compelling evidence that isn't just another opinion piece from the usual crowd.
Uh, you do realise that it it is insurance and insurance alone which is holding up mineral prices across the board. I think that counts as a significant blip in the market.
Personally, I think they should do it, if it causes widespread chaos across the boards with minerals then we sit down and figure out why they're crashing and fix that as the next problem. Artificially pegging the value of ships with an isk faucet is no good imo
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:03:00 -
[87]
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 !
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?
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?
At the moment, as is well documented, EVE has much much higher mineral supply than the real demand can sustain. Either CCP continue to run what is effectively a command economy, or they make good on their stated goal of phasing towards a player economy. Non-dynamic insurance values have been the elephant in the room here for a long long time. So please do explain why a switch to dynamic insurance would be a "failure"?
PS Of course, the other really interesting thing about this is that it leaves hi-sec mission running as an even more glaring economic anomaly
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:04:00 -
[88]
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.
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. --------
|
Roemy Schneider
Vanishing Point.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:06:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Ran Khanon Edited by: Ran Khanon on 13/03/2010 08:36:25 Good thing. Having a huge isk faucet from insurance and being able to break even on self destruction and suiciding your ship to concord is hugely unrealistic and not worthy of any game that takes game mechanics, economy and immersion seriously. Insurance fraud was never designed to be such a huge isk faucet. Now let the players adapt with a little help from CCP I say.
Little help as in:
- Vastly nerf the minerals gained from reprocessing mission loot - Increase the amount of minerals needed for certain trade goods - Another round of banning macro miners; there's still plenty out there - Future mineral sinks, perhaps related to planetary exploitation - INCREASE insurance payouts for T2 and T3 ships to tempt the vast "I only pvp in T1" crowd to risk more expensive ships (but of course still not to the point where suiciding becomes profitable) edit: Apparently T2 payouts get buffed now on Sisi. (Needs confirmation). - *stuff I didn't think of yet*
humm sry... but increased insurance on T2 is not a good idea and will only favor indu-poses and, eventually, the good ole' "large alliance grab all the good ones!!!" discussion. and that's exactly what this is about: - we are willing to blow ~0 isk on T1 ships. (well... we're willing to spend ~100mil on rigs&modules - BS, that is) - we are willing to blow ~175mil on a rigged&fitted vaga - etc
so if a platinum-insured vaga were to return 50mil, then the price of those would more or less slowly climb by 50mil until all those that find the loss of 175mil too expensive have jumped off the T2-wagon again. ... and this profit won't stay with the producers; during the climb, we'll have increased moon goo consumption, driving those prices up.
the same thing applies to this T1 insurance change, just the other way 'round, obviously - with the miners being the ones at the end of the line.
all this happens because we're willing to pay that little/much. also the reason for the skewed logistics prices compared to HACs or CSs, btw 8[ - putting the gist back into logistics |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 09:08:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Adunh Slavy There is much greater supply than demand as it is right now.
…and the player driven market has already acted to get that back into balance. Now this comes along and completely fails to solve the problem – in fact, it makes the problem even worse by weakening one of the safeguards that lets the market determine its value.
Quote: Those most impacted by the removal of insurance are new players. A safety net for anyone under three months old could be created - Noob insurance.
No, those most impacted by the removal of insurance are miners, since their work is now inherently worthless, unlike before. ——— “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 |
|
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.
|
|
Amberlamps
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 13:45:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Norsefire 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?
5/10
Would read again!
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 13:46:00 -
[122]
Edited by: Cyclops43 on 13/03/2010 13:48:58
Originally by: Akita T 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.
I really don't see the huge problem in that.... To me it just seems you're afraid of change...
Why is it wrong for the EVE supply/demand economy to determine how much the effort expended to get the different minerals should be paid? It's a FAR better method than some artificial number set back in 2001...
As long as the circumstantial generation of minerals is curtailed, it'll work out just fine. The thing that also should be done is that the amount of 'roid types should be reduced to 8 (one for each mineral), and that each belt should only contain one type. That way players could target their mining and the mineral price would reflect the value the effort was worth...
EDIT: We also don't have one crucial piece of the puzzle, which is WHY CCP is doing this! My guess is they're seeing a massive ISK faucet that is unbalancing the game economy, and have decided to stop it...
|
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 13:48:00 -
[123]
Edited by: Zartrader on 13/03/2010 13:53:29
Originally by: Norsefire 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?
Insurance sets the minimum price a ship costs to buy and therefore minimum mineral value, which is roughly where mineral values are now. Of course humans do not always follow common sense which insurance fraud exploits, but the principle is there.
If the number of ships destroyed (from Insurance fraud and suicide ganking for instance) goes down due to a bigger loss on ships then demand for minerals goes down. With supply fixed this will lead to a reduction in prices of minerals. As it is now, this price is fixed at a level too high.
In a free market is is an aberration as it distorts the market, it's only there for game play purposes.
|
Arec Bardwin
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 13:49:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Norsefire
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?
Perfect bait for Akita T
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 13:53:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Norsefire 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?
lower insurance payoff will remove suiciders and create surplus. lower demand + higher supply = lower prices. and circle begins again. ________________________________ : Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 13:54:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Cyclops43 EDIT: We also don't have one crucial piece of the puzzle, which is WHY CCP is doing this! My guess is they're seeing a massive ISK faucet that is unbalancing the game economy, and have decided to stop it...
…what, missions are getting nerfed? ——— “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 |
Norsefire
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 13:58:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Zartrader Insurance sets the minimum price a ship costs to buy and therefore minimum mineral value
I thought I had it; ships are cheaper because insurance is lower, ships are built/refined into minerals = minerals are cheaper.
Except for the bit where the ships become cheaper. is everyone who makes ships going to think "I have to sell for this for less because insurance is lower"? Or is that exactly what will happen and CCP has made the same mistake I am? |
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 13:59:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Cyclops43 EDIT: We also don't have one crucial piece of the puzzle, which is WHY CCP is doing this! My guess is they're seeing a massive ISK faucet that is unbalancing the game economy, and have decided to stop it...
àwhat, missions are getting nerfed?
Nerf bots first.
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:00:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Cyclops43 EDIT: We also don't have one crucial piece of the puzzle, which is WHY CCP is doing this! My guess is they're seeing a massive ISK faucet that is unbalancing the game economy, and have decided to stop it...
àwhat, missions are getting nerfed?
I WAS thinking about the insurance fraud ISK sink, but if removing that also involves reducing mission income, you'll not see me crying about it
I've always found it weird that I could make more money in almost complete safety in high-sec than I could ratting in 0.0....
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:05:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Cyclops43 I really don't see the huge problem in that.... To me it just seems you're afraid of change...
Afraid of change JUST for the sake of change ? Oh, you sure bet I am afraid of something like that. No, "afraid" isn't really the proper word for it though. More like, disgusted. Appalled. Sick and tired. You know, stuff like that.
Quote: Why is it wrong for the EVE supply/demand economy to determine how much the effort expended to get the different minerals should be paid? It's a FAR better method than some artificial number set back in 2001.
Because most miners don't "play fair", and everybody that DOES play fair will end up paying the price. Do you really want an economy where the main mineral source is either people that run 6-12 accounts at the same time mining with the aid of supervised macros/bots or people that really have nothing better to do with your time ? Sure, if you revamp mining so that player interaction (one that wouldn't be easily replicated by a run-of-the-mill macro/bot) could result in vastly increased mining yield, I'm all game for that, but before, not really.
Quote: EDIT: We also don't have one crucial piece of the puzzle, which is WHY CCP is doing this! My guess is they're seeing a massive ISK faucet that is unbalancing the game economy, and have decided to stop it...
My magic crystal ball tells me they're changing it for the sake of "realism" at the expense of gameplay, thanks to encouragements from their economist and/or god knows what other non-gameplay-related pressures.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
|
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:08:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Cyclops43
Originally by: Akita T 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.
I really don't see the huge problem in that.... To me it just seems you're afraid of change...
Why is it wrong for the EVE supply/demand economy to determine how much the effort expended to get the different minerals should be paid? It's a FAR better method than some artificial number set back in 2001...
As long as the circumstantial generation of minerals is curtailed, it'll work out just fine. The thing that also should be done is that the amount of 'roid types should be reduced to 8 (one for each mineral), and that each belt should only contain one type. That way players could target their mining and the mineral price would reflect the value the effort was worth...
Bolded important part. It won't be.
This reeks of kneejerk, it's a reaction to the few tens of thousands of battleships that have been self destructed over the past 4 months or so.
The only way that this change doesn't crater mineral prices and in so doing eviscerate mining as a player profession is if they cut T1 loot out of missions, or flat out delete the drone regions, or remove belts from highsec and make mining an exploration activity like Akita mentioned.
If they don't do at least one of those things then yeah, this is mineralocalypse.
It's all well and good wanting a fully player-driven economy, but the situation does not exist right now in which that would be good for EVE. T2 works thanks to the hard limit on T2 production. The T3 market doesn't really work... prices are still dropping and will continue to do so; it might work if there was some more tweaking of drop rates. Salvage works because drop rates are just about right to sustain the population's demand for rigs.
T1 does not belong in that group because of all the mineral inflow so drastically outpacing demand. Insurance has so far functioned as an overflow valve: turning excess minerals into ISK.
Think of it this way: if there were no incentive what so ever to mine there would probably still be enough minerals entering eve to support the player base's needs. How's it good for the eve economy to remove that overflow valve at this point?
Mineral influx has to be fixed first, or else this is a very very big mistake.
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap |
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:09:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Cyclops43
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Cyclops43 EDIT: We also don't have one crucial piece of the puzzle, which is WHY CCP is doing this! My guess is they're seeing a massive ISK faucet that is unbalancing the game economy, and have decided to stop it...
àwhat, missions are getting nerfed?
I WAS thinking about the insurance fraud ISK sink, but if removing that also involves reducing mission income, you'll not see me crying about it
I've always found it weird that I could make more money in almost complete safety in high-sec than I could ratting in 0.0....
As an occasional Missions Runner it is weird but it's necessary. It happens to suit some players play styles including many PVP players who use it to fund their activities. Not everyone is smart enough to earn bigger ISK and if it's nerfed it will affect a lot more than carebears. I wouldn't care if they nerfed it but that should be a properly thought out argument rather than this continuous and tedious sniping from a few PVP players who hate others play style and do not care one bit how they screw others over to suit their preferred method of play. If they do nerf it then they should nerf ratting too, that's hardly unsafe in a secure Alliance area most of us would not be allowed to get near.
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:09:00 -
[133]
Edited by: Cyclops43 on 13/03/2010 14:14:43
Originally by: Akita T Do you really want an economy where the main mineral source is either people that run 6-12 accounts at the same time mining with the aid of supervised macros/bots or people that really have nothing better to do with your time?
*shrug* I don't see anything inherently wrong with it.... It is, after all, not really different from how it is today.....
The only real difference is that these people will be paid less....
Originally by: Zartrader As an occasional Missions Runner it is weird but it's necessary. It happens to suit some players play styles including many PVP players who use it to fund their activities. Not everyone is smart enough to earn bigger ISK and if it's nerfed it will affect a lot more than carebears. I wouldn't care if they nerfed it but that should be a properly thought out argument rather than this continuous and tedious sniping from a few PVP players who hate others play style and do not care one bit how they screw others over to suit their preferred method of play. If they do nerf it then they should nerf ratting too, that's hardly unsafe in a secure Alliance area most of us would not be allowed to get near.
How does it hurt you that your mission income is reduced if EVERYONE's mission income is reduced? Relatively you're just as well off.... All it'll be is a realignment between professions... Adapt!
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:11:00 -
[134]
Edited by: Tippia on 13/03/2010 14:13:16
Originally by: Norsefire
Originally by: Zartrader Insurance sets the minimum price a ship costs to buy and therefore minimum mineral value
I thought I had it; ships are cheaper because insurance is lower, ships are built/refined into minerals = minerals are cheaper.
Except for the bit where the ships become cheaper. is everyone who makes ships going to think "I have to sell for this for less because insurance is lower"? Or is that exactly what will happen and CCP has made the same mistake I am?
What happens is that, if people are selling the minerals (or entire ships) at less than mineral values, others will instantly pick them up and have them blown up for ISK at a profit. This means that only minerals (and ships) that sit at or slightly above the insurance-mandated minimum value remains at the market for any period of time, and as others come along and try to get their stuff sold, they'll use this value as a hint of what they should sell it at as well. As they'll want their wares sold, they'll put in a price just below what the market seems to say – if it's below insurance value, it gets snapped up, if not it stays. On the one hand, we have traders pushing the price down to get their stuff sold; on the other we have the insurance determining how low they can push it, which is maintained by long-running buy orders.
If insurance payout is lowered, the threshold at which minerals will get insta-bought is lowered as well. As people push to get their minerals sold, same as they always have, they'll constantly undercut each other until we once again hit the lower value that the new insurance rates dictate.
In short, they don't have to think "I need to sell for less because insurance says so" – they just have to think "I want to sell at all some time before the game shuts down", and then the market takes care of the rest. ——— “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 |
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:14:00 -
[135]
Originally by: Cyclops43 *shrug* I don't see anything inherently wrong with it.... It is, after all, not really different from how it is today..... The only real difference is that these people will be paid less....
You start with the assumption you can't get rid of all macroers and/or botters, no matter how hard you try. You can keep catching and punishing some, or even most, but some will always escape, either just unpunished because of "lack of evidence", or downright undetected. Then, you realize that if you have something in your game (no matter what it is), it should be useful also for non-botters/non-macroers, or you might as well get rid of it altogether. This goes directly against that idea, and that's what's wrong with it : it turns mining into something that's increasingly attractive more and more just for macroers and botters as opposed to legitimate players.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:17:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Akita T ...it turns mining into something that's increasingly attractive more and more just for macroers and botters as opposed to legitimate players.
How is smaller returns attractive to macro'ers??
I'd think they'd turn to 0.0 ratting or mission macro's instead....
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:20:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Cyclops43
Originally by: Akita T ...it turns mining into something that's increasingly attractive more and more just for macroers and botters as opposed to legitimate players.
How is smaller returns attractive to macro'ers??
Returns matter less than AFK:ability. Bots don't particularly care about the boredom:income ratio – players do. ——— “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 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:22:00 -
[138]
Edited by: Malcanis on 13/03/2010 14:23:37
Originally by: Akita T
Do you really want an economy where the main mineral source is either people that run 6-12 accounts at the same time mining with the aid of supervised macros/bots or people that really have nothing better to do with your time ?
lolwut?
Are you seriously proposing that this isn't what we have now?
There are only 2 ways to increase mineral prices, and really they're almost the same thing:
(1) Reduce the available supply of ore (2) Make mining more difficult.
You said it yourself: Mining is a very low effort activity. Low effort activities in a non-competitive resource will always be low-reward. The ONLY reason that mining is remotely rewarding is because of NPC buy orders aka Insurance.
So either we accept that mining is very low effort and poorly rewarded, or we make it higher effort and better rewarded.
CCP attempted to do both by making "hi-sec" minerals and "lo-sec/0.0 minerals", but now that ABC ores are so widely available, there is hardly any difficulty variance between them. Make insurance dynamic, and the ore prices will spiral down to the lowest level that miners are willing to accept, because of the huge oversupply situation. (It is easy to infer that mining in 0.0 is roughly twice as demanding as mining in hi-sec). CCP can try and improve miner pay by nerfing alternative mineral sources and increasing demand, but in the absence of NPC buy orders, these will be temporary measures. Because if miing ISK/hr is perceptibly improved, people can just create more mining alts, because mining is such low effort - as per your question.
In the end, miners must ask themselves: how much ISK is my mining time worth.
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:23:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Tippia Returns matter less than AFK:ability. Bots don't particularly care about the boredom:income ratio û players do.
True, but there's no real inherent difference between a 0.0 ratting macro and a mining macro...
The same economic reality that Akita claims will drive players from mining will also drive macro'ers from mining.
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:29:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Cyclops43 The same economic reality that Akita claims will drive players from mining will also drive macro'ers from mining.
True enough, but that will happen much later for macros than for players, leading to his claim: that this kind of change only pushes us closer to where only macros will be able to provide us with minerals and still remain sane. ——— “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 |
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:35:00 -
[141]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Cyclops43 The same economic reality that Akita claims will drive players from mining will also drive macro'ers from mining.
True enough, but that will happen much later for macros than for players, leading to his claim: that this kind of change only pushes us closer to where only macros will be able to provide us with minerals and still remain sane.
I beg to differ... Macro'ers have a KEEN interest in how much money they make. They'll be the first to change away from something not profitable, not the last...
Besides, the production rate doesn't change, and as less minerals will be needed (no need to supply the insurance fraud'ed ships), less mining is needed... If players are keeping sane today, they should keep sane after this change...
Besides, I really don't think it'll be much different from today. My guess is that 90% or more of low-ends mined are already done by macro'ers....
|
Akita T
Caldari Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 14:43:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Akita T Do you really want an economy where the main mineral source is either people that run 6-12 accounts at the same time mining with the aid of supervised macros/bots or people that really have nothing better to do with your time ?
lolwut? Are you seriously proposing that this isn't what we have now?
We might have that now to SOME degree. Implementing the SiSi changes (and only those changes we see now) will only make it even worse. After it (and either subsequent manual periodic adjustments or an automated adjustment system), that will almost exclusively be the only types of "players" left in that activity type, and then you might as well remove it altogether since it's no good anymore.
Quote: There are only 2 ways to increase mineral prices, and really they're almost the same thing: (1) Reduce the available supply of ore (2) Make mining more difficult. You said it yourself: Mining is a very low effort activity. Low effort activities in a non-competitive resource will always be low-reward. The ONLY reason that mining is remotely rewarding is because of NPC buy orders aka Insurance.
I do not disagree those are two possibilities, but as some other people mentioned, those aren't the only two options, and ideally, you'd take a bit of every possible option (including those named below) and combine them all into a single solution. You also have (3) increase demand for minerals by making them useful in producing previously NPC-only sold products (4) introduce more T1 hulls on a regular basis (even if the models are identical to existing T1 hulls, only changing some bonuses and the texture color scheme) (5) make "regular" minerals a (more or less significant) part of the T3 production cycle and introduce more T3 ships (destroyer and battlecruiser class would be most attractive, but frigate and battleship would be nice too)
Quote: So either we accept that mining is very low effort and poorly rewarded, or we make it higher effort and better rewarded.
Or, how about this novel idea, make it so it can be both, depending on attention level given. You could leave mining on "automatic" and get a nominal yield, or you could engage in some challenging, attention-intensive optional things that would heavily boost yields. You could even add a danger element (damage to your ship) if you get stuff too wrong. However, that alone will not really be enough, you also need to ramp up the usage rate of minerals too.
Ideally, a miner using top-notch gear and paying close attention to what he does should more or less match the payment of other attention-intensive activities in the equivalent security rating, and his chance of critical failure should also be vaguely similar.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting _
|
Amberlamps
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 15:42:00 -
[143]
Rabble rabble rabble!
|
NEMESIS SIN
Method In Khaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 15:59:00 -
[144]
Edited by: NEMESIS SIN on 13/03/2010 15:59:39 This is my very first Threadnought
No threadnought however is complete without an ample dose of Rico Suave universally accepted as one of the most gifted singer song writers of the 20th century. God I love that man
On a more serious note
The more that things get nerfed, the more things stay the same. People are like ZOMG tech II prices are ridiculous, forgetting that the cost to rig them is now much less. Outcome = nothing changed People are only perceiving changes because they are utterly short sighted.
What will this do to the market? Well... since no one here has much of a clue about planetary interaction, no one here has a clue about what this will do to the market. People are already loving what they are seeing coming off of the planets, which may very well offset any loss miners might receive from a nerf like this.
Might I go so far as to say planetary interaction will be so lucrative that raw isk from mining needed to get nerfed to balance it all out? I don't know... and neither do you. But CCP sure does.
Nerf missions, Nerf mining, Nerf nanos, Nerf tracking, Nerf cruiser missiles, BUFF rockets ex.) ex.) ex.) and what do you get? NOTHING CHANGING
Its all the same dribble and at worst we will have a few months of growing pains along the way.
Now Commence Threadnought my minions \0/
|
Leocadminone
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 16:10:00 -
[145]
The only price support for minerals is insurance payouts. Drop those and mineral prices will drop - not instantly, it'll take a bit of time for the word to get around - but probably less than a month.
And not too long after that quite a few miners will quit the game, as the price of GANK SHIPS will also drop, thus mining will not only become less worth doing, but the risk of losing your mining ship will increase - but this probably will NOT drive mineral pricing up due to the widespread "macro miner" issue.
Hopefully it's just a Sisi glitch/difference like others that have happened in the past.
|
Leocadminone
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 16:19:00 -
[146]
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Cyclops43 *shrug* I don't see anything inherently wrong with it.... It is, after all, not really different from how it is today..... The only real difference is that these people will be paid less....
You start with the assumption you can't get rid of all macroers and/or botters, no matter how hard you try. You can keep catching and punishing some, or even most, but some will always escape, either just unpunished because of "lack of evidence", or downright undetected.
Consider the lengths that Blizzard went to in an attempt to shut down Glider and ISX and other bots - and that they had to resort to a lawsuit (which right now looks like it is going to go in Glider's FAVOR on appeal) to succeed at all - and that it only worked because Glider used a 'server authorization' model. Consider that bots ae STILL not dead in Diablo II despite more strong efforts on Blizzard's part.
Then factor in that Blizzard pulls in more money in a MONTH than CCP has grossed off of Eve during the entire existance of Eve, and you realise that CCP can't AFFORD to go to those lengths.
That also ignores how big of a hit CCP would take to it's income if it managed to ban ALL macro users, rather than just targeting RMT-related ones.
Looks to me that "the assumption you can't get rid of all macroers and/or botters" is a perfectly correct assumption.
|
Evelgrivion
Ignatium. Aggressive Dissonance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 17:04:00 -
[147]
There's important information to weigh against the rabble fodder here:
Proportions of materials supplied by mining, loot drops, and drone compound reprocessing
Raw information courtesy CCP Relative market quantity is unweighted Mining is already bordering on insignificant; it's the mission runners who grab all their loot and the drone regions full of ravens that log off when someone else enters local and otherwise spend all day mining with guns that need to be dealt with to fix the problems with mineral prices and oversupply.
|
mygirl2
Caldari Hell's Horsemen
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 17:39:00 -
[148]
Look at all the crying...
This is a good thing, get rid of the NPC market stuff. The players can build it. Get rid of the insurance, people can afford to lose ships.
In the long run this is great, the mineral prices will go up since demand will. How do I figure that? Once everything is built by the players as intended in EvE, there will be more mineral requirements to sustain everything in eve.
So stop *****ing and play the game...
WoW has kids EvE has Cry Babies |
Marko Riva
Adamant Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 17:49:00 -
[149]
I like it, more people will pay ransoms then.
----------- I think, therefore I'm single. Want to learn combat/PVP? Alliance creation service |
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 17:53:00 -
[150]
Originally by: Marko Riva I like it, more people will pay ransoms then.
Unlikely. Ship loss cost will be the same. In fact, it's likely to be less if you're using player-built modules. ——— “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 |
|
mygirl2
Caldari Hell's Horsemen
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 17:57:00 -
[151]
Edited by: mygirl2 on 13/03/2010 17:57:53
Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 13/03/2010 17:08:18 There's important information to weigh against the rabble fodder here:
Proportions of materials supplied by mining, loot drops, and drone compound reprocessing
Raw information courtesy CCP Relative market quantity is unweighted Mining is already bordering on insignificant; it's the mission runners who grab all their loot and the drone regions full of ravens that log off when someone else enters local and otherwise spend all day mining with guns that need to be dealt with to fix the problems with mineral prices and oversupply.
Redo the loot drops from the drone regions completely and reconsider their intended audience; virtually nobody but macro users want them because they don't fix your sec status, and they're contributing enormous quantities of materials that should be sourced by mining in high sec and even lowsec.
Axing the highest mineral reprocessing proportion loot from NPC loot tables will make mining the dominant profession for sourcing raw materials again. The fact that more than half of eve's material supply appears to come from mission running and loot refining is astounding.
Look at that again... Isogen, Mex, and Pyerite mostly come from Loot. Zydrine, Mega, morphite, and Trit comes from mining. Noxcium mainly comes from drones.
Ill restate my above post... Stop *****ing and play the game.
WoW has kids EvE has Cry Babies |
Marko Riva
Adamant Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 18:01:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Marko Riva I like it, more people will pay ransoms then.
Unlikely. Ship loss cost will be the same. In fact, it's likely to be less if you're using player-built modules.
You have to realise that most people adopt the "I got paid insurance so you blowing up my ship was actually a GOOD thing hahhaha /cackle".
If the difference between payout and actual worth of a ship becomes more, then the willigness to pay a ransom increases, if you'd dig deeper and start to calc it then it won't change much but that would require people to put in thought and effort... They're being held at gunpoint, can't think straight and have to make a instant choice; pay or die. The simple fact that insurance payout is lower will sway them easier towards paying.
----------- I think, therefore I'm single. Want to learn combat/PVP? Alliance creation service |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 18:02:00 -
[153]
Originally by: mygirl2 Look at that again... Isogen, Mex, and Pyerite mostly come from mining. Zydrine, Mega, morphite, and Trit comes from mining. Noxcium mainly comes from mining.
This is how it should be. --------
|
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 18:03:00 -
[154]
Cool. I hope they remove insurance on capital ships too, while they're at it. Its easily the biggest and dumbest insurance mistake they ever made.
|
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 18:09:00 -
[155]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist Cool. I hope they remove insurance on capital ships too, while they're at it. Its easily the biggest and dumbest insurance mistake they ever made.
hey...you an insured t2 carrier will cost around 300-400m. This is very much for a ship But even when ccp makes those insurance changes live...capitals won't be affected at all. ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 18:09:00 -
[156]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist Cool. I hope they remove insurance on capital ships too, while they're at it. Its easily the biggest and dumbest insurance mistake they ever made.
That wouldn't be a bad idea.
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap |
Evelgrivion
Ignatium. Aggressive Dissonance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 18:10:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: mygirl2 Look at that again... Isogen, Mex, and Pyerite mostly come from mining. Zydrine, Mega, morphite, and Trit comes from mining. Noxcium mainly comes from mining.
This is how it should be.
Exactly my point. Mission loot should not be the bulk supplier of mid range and low end minerals, and drone's probably shouldn't be a factor for mineral loot at all. There should be, in my opinion, one primary method for gathering raw materials in bulk, and mining should be that method.
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 18:11:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Marko Riva If the difference between payout and actual worth of a ship becomes more, then the willigness to pay a ransom increases
But that's just it: the difference won't increase, because the ship will have been cheaper as well.
And if they haven't insured the ship at all, your logic turns on its head: they'll instead be more inclined to think "meh, it's not like I paid a lot for it" and have it blow up. ——— “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 |
Stephente
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 18:11:00 -
[159]
Once upon a time, people built warships to fight wars. Now, ships are built so they can be self-destructed and converted into isk. Eve has been taken over by carebears. What this game needs is a mass-scale war where tons of minerals are taken out of the game.
|
mygirl2
Caldari Hell's Horsemen
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 18:13:00 -
[160]
Originally by: Abrazzar
Originally by: mygirl2 Look at that again... Isogen, Mex, and Pyerite mostly come from mining. Zydrine, Mega, morphite, and Trit comes from mining. Noxcium mainly comes from mining.
This is how it should be.
Why exactly?
The drone regions are fine, people who dont want to train barge can still mine. Plus they have to haul that back to empire or build somthing to get the isk.
Loot drops are fine. You either need the skills to make it worth while to refine, and still need to haul it to make any isk.
People ***** that missions are an "ISK Faucet." Which is hilarious to me. So whats mining? Moon mining? Ratting? The majority of eve use these to make ISK, which all is spawned from nowhere.
WoW has kids EvE has Cry Babies |
|
Tulisin Dragonflame
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 18:13:00 -
[161]
The best part about this whole ordeal is that it is going to be discussed to death before release, and then once it hits all those folks who still haven't heard about it are going to flood the forums with "wat happen to market?!"
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 18:16:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Stephente What this game needs is a mass-scale war where tons of minerals are taken out of the game.
Yes. And yet, people are adamant on wanting to make it harder to lose ships, and to remove incentives for people to get their ships blown up. ——— “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 |
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 18:21:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Slade Hoo
Originally by: DigitalCommunist Cool. I hope they remove insurance on capital ships too, while they're at it. Its easily the biggest and dumbest insurance mistake they ever made.
hey...you an insured t2 carrier will cost around 300-400m. This is very much for a ship But even when ccp makes those insurance changes live...capitals won't be affected at all.
And you get even more back, in equal proportion to every other insurable ship.
Whats the average loss rate from the last QEN? Like 500-1000 capitals a month? They remove capital insurance and they'd be doing the economy a huge goddamn favour.
|
Cipher Jones
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 18:31:00 -
[164]
Edited by: Cipher Jones on 13/03/2010 18:31:46 Ok heres how it works:
The insurance price on ships is the in game equivalent of "minimum state prices" on smokes.
Lower it and prices will drop.
Ore now costs less, everything produced by ore costs less, and of course the almighty plex costs less.
-------------------------------------------------- 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 |
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 18:40:00 -
[165]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: mygirl2 The drone regions are fine, people who dont want to train barge can still mine.
That's what's wrong with it: why should you be able to mine if you don't want to mine?
Because in the end, we're just doing some simulated action that gets us stuff so we can go get it blown up. A hulk pilot can also go ratting with his drones while he mines.
RP wise, rogue drones are a huge, self-replicating mining operation (and why on earth we have capsuleers doing mining that is so easily bottable, I don't know. You'd think we'd be good enough to make some very simple programs to do it for us, even if we just drive the ship there and let it slurp stuff up). People who are good at blowing stuff up go to the drone regions, and make off with what the rogue drones have.
It still takes time and effort to attack the drones, logistics to make sure you have the ammo there, and you move the minerals around etc.
|
Breaker77
Gallente Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 19:10:00 -
[166]
Originally by: mygirl2 People ***** that missions are an "ISK Faucet." Which is hilarious to me. So whats mining? Moon mining? Ratting? The majority of eve use these to make ISK, which all is spawned from nowhere.
Lets see, missions give rewards, time bonus, and bounties which are created from nothing.
Mining and moon mining get ISK from another player. The ISK is not created from nothing.
Missions and ratting are an ISK faucet.
Mining redistributes ISK from 1 person to another.
Office rent, sov bills, public slot fees, and some POS fuels are ISK sinks as ISK is removed from the game.
|
Evelgrivion
Ignatium. Aggressive Dissonance
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 19:22:00 -
[167]
Edited by: Evelgrivion on 13/03/2010 19:23:32
Originally by: chatgris It still takes time and effort to attack the drones, logistics to make sure you have the ammo there, and you move the minerals around etc.
You mean it doesn't take time, ammo, effort, and logistics to get minerals in and out of the rest of 0.0 space? The effort required to get raw materials from point A to point B are just as present in Fountain or Paragon Soul as they are in Perrigen Falls. If anything, it's easier to move things from the drone regions since the minerals come pre-compressed; a luxury that doesn't exist for the rest of 0.0's denizens.
|
chatgris
Quantum Cats Syndicate
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 19:40:00 -
[168]
Originally by: Evelgrivion Edited by: Evelgrivion on 13/03/2010 19:23:32
Originally by: chatgris It still takes time and effort to attack the drones, logistics to make sure you have the ammo there, and you move the minerals around etc.
You mean it doesn't take time, ammo, effort, and logistics to get minerals in and out of the rest of 0.0 space? The effort required to get raw materials from point A to point B are just as present in Fountain or Paragon Soul as they are in Perrigen Falls. If anything, it's easier to move things from the drone regions since the minerals come pre-compressed; a luxury that doesn't exist for the rest of 0.0's denizens.
The direction I meant to take was more this:
My basic premise: Everyone should be able to make a living in the type of gameplay that they enjoy. Mining rocks is incredibly boring for some, and shouldn't be the only way to input materials.
Now, in combat just shooting rats and getting ISK isn't sustainable IMO, it just leads to inflation. Thus, I think that combat pilots shooting with guns to get material and then taking it to market is better than just getting bounties. And it's not that different from shooting asteroids that don't shoot back with mining lasers. Plus, combat pilots doing so give greater potential for pvp than a hulk pilot.
I was not trying to belittle other forms of logistics.
|
Ai Mei
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 19:55:00 -
[169]
Originally by: DigitalCommunist Cool. I hope they remove insurance on capital ships too, while they're at it. Its easily the biggest and dumbest insurance mistake they ever made.
There is nothing wrong with capital insurance you dont even get everything.
Carrier 650 - 700 million + 200 million in fighters + 50-400 million in mods, (smart carrier pilots have faction smarties at least) so about 1.1 for a carrier then another 250 million for insurence to get a pay out of 750 million for just a new carrier. I think capital insurance is ok.
and blahh blaah blaaaa. OP is a troll, insurance on the test server is not final. Remember when beta testing they had full pay outs for t2 ships and that did not make it into dominion? Yeah, take all the changes with a grain of salt cause they might not all happen.
|
Baneken
Gallente Aseveljet
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 20:30:00 -
[170]
Well if they would drop the insurance then it would be a question of "how much would you charge for sitting hours to and on a belt ?" Ultimately "time spent getting item X that someone else wants to buy" is what defines the prices in MMO.
|
|
Amerilia
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 20:49:00 -
[171]
Edited by: Amerilia on 13/03/2010 20:49:19
Originally by: Baneken Well if they would drop the insurance then it would be a question of "how much would you charge for sitting hours to and on a belt ?" Ultimately "time spent getting item X that someone else wants to buy" is what defines the prices in MMO.
time spent on building a ship? a few seconds, it builds itself. And the "minerals are free" people will probably do the rest.
So you that would bring us to around sisi prices, or what?
|
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 21:07:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Ai Mei
and blahh blaah blaaaa. OP is a troll, insurance on the test server is not final. Remember when beta testing they had full pay outs for t2 ships and that did not make it into dominion? Yeah, take all the changes with a grain of salt cause they might not all happen.
Remember on test server they changed the T2 ship build ratios and it did make it into dominion?
Yeah, I do cause I made about 35 billion ISK off of that. HINT: It's worth looking at potential changes when they appear on SISI.
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap |
Baneken
Gallente Aseveljet
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 23:00:00 -
[173]
Edited by: Baneken on 13/03/2010 23:02:17
Originally by: Amerilia Edited by: Amerilia on 13/03/2010 20:49:19
Originally by: Baneken Well if they would drop the insurance then it would be a question of "how much would you charge for sitting hours to and on a belt ?" Ultimately "time spent getting item X that someone else wants to buy" is what defines the prices in MMO.
time spent on building a ship? a few seconds, it builds itself. And the "minerals are free" people will probably do the rest.
So you that would bring us to around sisi prices, or what?
And where do you think those minerals come from ? Someone mined them or shot rats to get those minerals or bought from a market. You see it doesn't matter if making a ship takes a second when getting those minerals take hours anyway along with copying prints to make those ships.
|
DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.03.13 23:38:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Ai Mei
Originally by: DigitalCommunist Cool. I hope they remove insurance on capital ships too, while they're at it. Its easily the biggest and dumbest insurance mistake they ever made.
There is nothing wrong with capital insurance you dont even get everything.
Carrier 650 - 700 million + 200 million in fighters + 50-400 million in mods, (smart carrier pilots have faction smarties at least) so about 1.1 for a carrier then another 250 million for insurence to get a pay out of 750 million for just a new carrier. I think capital insurance is ok.
Christ, people on the forums are lazy. You haven't backed your argument with anything, you just stated facts about how insurance works that hold true for any tech 1 ship. Lets put this very simply:
- Basic 40% insurance is a safety net introduced for complete newbies, to prevent them from quitting the game after their first ship loss. You know, before they've even heard of how to insure their ships.
- Regular insurance exists to help regulate the sustainability of pvp, so people can fly something bigger than a frigate without fear.
Even if you somehow don't find this at complete odds with the concept of Capital ships, the idea that we should stop the unnecessary injection of trillions of isk per month to the economy is a fundamentally good one. Even more when you consider that isk enters the economy faster than it leaves, causing a constant and pointless buildup of wealth.
The fact that capital insurance is protecting some of the richest in the populace from their biggest mistakes doesn't even need mentioning.
|
Benri Konpaku
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 08:03:00 -
[175]
Edited by: Benri Konpaku on 14/03/2010 08:04:32 I'd like to see the insurance fee removed from the game, but in return have insurance that would be completely dependant on current market averages (calculated considering not only the price of the ship but also the price of materials required to build it) and paid say, 40%-75% of the avg value of the ship flat, depending on standings and things like that.
But I have no idea (or more exactly no interest in finding out) how that system could be implemented or what isk sink(s) to add to replace that fee.
So I'll just wait and see what CCP does about it. |
Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar Ma'adim Logistics
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 10:58:00 -
[176]
Remove insurance and you remove pvp.
Reduce insurance and you remove mining as a non macro profession.
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 11:08:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Remove insurance and you remove pvp.
So people didn't PvP back when rigs were 20m each and back when guns were 15m each? Right! People don't use T2 ships for PvP either? Check!
Which game are you playing? It's definitely not EVE....
Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal Reduce insurance and you remove mining as a non macro profession.
Macro'ers are MUCH more interested in high return than players. Reduce insurance, and you'll chase more macro's away than players.
|
Prt Scr
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 11:32:00 -
[178]
If insurance is being hit buy the nerf hammer it should be done right. leave premiums as they are, but add a no claims system. If you dont claim on a ship next insurance period your rate goes down. If you do claim next period your rate goes up. You want to gank and be ganked...why should the insurance companys pay for your bad habits? Insurance companys should be making a profit not subsidising a bunch of whinging loosers. And those of us with isk should be able to be shareholders and collect dividends, even more profit
|
vetodel morei
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 11:35:00 -
[179]
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
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2010.03.14 11:41:00 -
[180]
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
Mission runners will still do missions and acquire modules they can reprocess for minerals, even if the prices drop. People will still loot then, as it's little added effort to the salvaging procedures. --------
|
|
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?
|
|
Aera Aiana
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 08:43:00 -
[211]
Originally by: Zewron 7 pages and no feedback from Chribba on this?
He's probably still looking for words that don't get him banned ;)
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
ANZAC ALLIANCE IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 09:16:00 -
[212]
Edited by: Rexthor Hammerfists on 15/03/2010 09:16:55 If the change is done/tried to nerf suicide ganking and insurance fraud it is indeed a kneejerk reaction tho i hope ccp knows better. In any way, i wish they would recognize the current state the mining professionis in. Fix it first and then work on insurance payouts and any other radical changes.
From all the professions in eve there are a couple with much potential but for so long ignored by ccp in favour of introducing new shiny things. Pirating and mining being the most important ones imo, long forgotten by ccp.
which is surprising tho, is this cant be in their interest. Any new player saying his first hello in an npc startercorp will ask about either mining or pirating within his first hour ingame - the answers (for mining) will almost always look like "Dont bother with mining but do kill missions instead. Youll make more isk and you get standings that give you access for better missions later, and train for salvagers.."
Personally, when i set out to make money, and i do like to make money not only for the moneys sake, i prefer to cycle the professions you can do in 0.0. As in do some exploration, trading, ratting, mining and even missions, to keep things less tedious. Tho for some time i havent bothered with some of these as, even under perfect conditions, the isk/effort is fubared. The more professions players can specialize or simply do, the happier players are.
I believe more time and work put into professions that are lacking at the moment would benefit eve more then planetetary interaction or walking in stations.
My favourite post in this thread:
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.
[..]
Save mining, kill insurance. -
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 09:33:00 -
[213]
Originally by: Aera Aiana
Originally by: Zewron 7 pages and no feedback from Chribba on this?
He's probably still looking for words that don't get him banned ;)
5 minute posting rules and I haven't been able to dock my titans yet to upgrade the insurance so I haven't bothered to look into it all
But what do wonder about the whole insurance thing is why CCP steps in to change it, I haven't really put my mind into it all, but how I understood it - it is actually players selling ships for less than mineral cost, making the cost+insurance payout result in profit.
Changing insurance won't make a difference if everyone started to produce ships for 50% of mineral cost, I mean it's the dynamic market and the whole "minerals is free" concept, or did I not get the point of all this? Like I said, I never really put my mind into it all. And MY minerals are free
Secure 3rd party service |
|
Armoured C
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 09:40:00 -
[214]
Originally by: Chribba
Originally by: Aera Aiana
Originally by: Zewron 7 pages and no feedback from Chribba on this?
He's probably still looking for words that don't get him banned ;)
5 minute posting rules and I haven't been able to dock my titans yet to upgrade the insurance so I haven't bothered to look into it all
But what do wonder about the whole insurance thing is why CCP steps in to change it, I haven't really put my mind into it all, but how I understood it - it is actually players selling ships for less than mineral cost, making the cost+insurance payout result in profit.
Changing insurance won't make a difference if everyone started to produce ships for 50% of mineral cost, I mean it's the dynamic market and the whole "minerals is free" concept, or did I not get the point of all this? Like I said, I never really put my mind into it all. And MY minerals are free
confirmed i want to touch chribba minerals
|
DJWiggles
Gallente Eve Radio Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 11:15:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Armoured C
Originally by: Chribba
Originally by: Aera Aiana
Originally by: Zewron 7 pages and no feedback from Chribba on this?
He's probably still looking for words that don't get him banned ;)
5 minute posting rules and I haven't been able to dock my titans yet to upgrade the insurance so I haven't bothered to look into it all
But what do wonder about the whole insurance thing is why CCP steps in to change it, I haven't really put my mind into it all, but how I understood it - it is actually players selling ships for less than mineral cost, making the cost+insurance payout result in profit.
Changing insurance won't make a difference if everyone started to produce ships for 50% of mineral cost, I mean it's the dynamic market and the whole "minerals is free" concept, or did I not get the point of all this? Like I said, I never really put my mind into it all. And MY minerals are free
confirmed i want to touch chribba minerals
Can i play too?
|
MaterialsEngineer Kariya
Caldari Deformed inc A.P.O.P.H.I.S
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 11:47:00 -
[216]
Originally by: Shrike Arghast 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.
This much is true.
For me, the loss of a ship isn't a problem as I can just remake another, but the loss of implants are the hurt factor. Implants for a n00b player are w-a-y expensive to lose, so I wind up being a "carebear" even though I love to fight.
No ship I have now, even with rigs, costs more than having a set of implants. :(
If the implants were cheaper I'd be more inclined to fight in 0.0, but the amount of ore/products needed to sell at this stage (can't do level 4 missions yet) to replace the implants makes it cost prohibitive to PvP.
It just comes down to if it's economical to fight. When it's not, the percentage of botters and "carebears" go up.
|
Rexthor Hammerfists
ANZAC ALLIANCE IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 12:00:00 -
[217]
Edited by: Rexthor Hammerfists on 15/03/2010 12:02:37
Originally by: MaterialsEngineer Kariya
This much is true.
For me, the loss of a ship isn't a problem as I can just remake another, but the loss of implants are the hurt factor. Implants for a n00b player are w-a-y expensive to lose, so I wind up being a "carebear" even though I love to fight.
No ship I have now, even with rigs, costs more than having a set of implants. :(
If the implants were cheaper I'd be more inclined to fight in 0.0, but the amount of ore/products needed to sell at this stage (can't do level 4 missions yet) to replace the implants makes it cost prohibitive to PvP.
It just comes down to if it's economical to fight. When it's not, the percentage of botters and "carebears" go up.
Id prefer to keep this topic on minerals, tho i need to say this. You sir, are a sissy. Fortunately theres less with your attitude in eve then without. Insurance alrdy does little for t2 ships and plenty fly them. They were used more in the past but battlecruiser buffs and other changes made bcs and bs more attractive in terms of quality.
Imo t1 frigs and cruisers are alrdy so cheap, that with todays ease of making isk, even few days old rookies need no insurance nomore to afford losing them daily. Anyone flying ships above frigs and cruisers shouldnt depend on insurance anyways anymore. At the same time ccp should bring the 2/3 of t1 ships inline with rifters/punishers/ruptures/arbitrators etc. to give ppl more options to choose from. -
|
Cecilia Syal
Minmatar al-Syal Brigade
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 12:39:00 -
[218]
I think insurance should be dynamic to build costs of said ships not a artificial floor to basically set mineral prices, if prices drop its a matter of supply and demand. but its step in right direction, they really need to fix mining as a profession so this dyanamic insurance doesnt hurt that as a career.... idea?
1) Remove drones from drone regions... or give them bountys. 2) Reprocess of named modules gives no minerals :P
30-50% of all minerals on market low and highs are from drone reprocess and mission loot reprocess. so if they made dynamic insurance sooner or later mineral prices will drop like rock and mining will be not worth it anymore.
|
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 12:50:00 -
[219]
Edited by: Zartrader on 15/03/2010 12:54:27
Originally by: Cecilia Syal
I think insurance should be dynamic to build costs of said ships not a artificial floor to basically set mineral prices, if prices drop its a matter of supply and demand. but its step in right direction, they really need to fix mining as a profession so this dyanamic insurance doesnt hurt that as a career.... idea?
1) Remove drones from drone regions... or give them bountys. 2) Reprocess of named modules gives no minerals :P
30-50% of all minerals on market low and highs are from drone reprocess and mission loot reprocess. so if they made dynamic insurance sooner or later mineral prices will drop like rock and mining will be not worth it anymore.
So the only source of minerals is mining? How regressive. And why is mining seen as an exclusive industry to be protected at all costs? Its just as valid as what I do. It would be like a closed industry which forces players into a style of playing they do not want. And how many players do you think will stop casual manufacturing? Is that good for the game? The effects would be substantial and annoy people for no reason.
It's a lot better to think of the ways ore demand can be increased. This is is a game, that means nerfs are always the worst option. It's always better to give more options instead. Alternatives to mission running do not exist, that's a problem they can address very easily. A bigger number of Ore sinks do not exist. There is a whole bunch of changes they can make. Rather than nerf elements of the game they should add to it to balance it.
|
Cecilia Syal
Minmatar al-Syal Brigade
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 12:59:00 -
[220]
Edited by: Cecilia Syal on 15/03/2010 13:02:00
Originally by: Zartrader
So the only source of minerals is mining? How regressive.
Well, might not be best idea. but Mining should be a useful career like drilling for oil in real life or going underground to get coal out of the earth to power our power plants..., each day mining minerals is more and more obsolete. they just keep adding ships that mine more, orca giving bonus's up to 50% of hulks in its gang, adding drone region with uber drone lewt. lvl4 missions still in high sec people reprocessing loot for minerals, and only thing holding minerals from becoming near worthless is insurance. pretty sad and broken game mechanics.... hope someone thinks of something, i threw my idea out
i mean two days of ratting in 0.0, and i was able to get minerals for two battleships, cause hauler convoy dropping 100mil of trit and all the smartbombs and modules i reprocessed, thats why veld is never touched in 0.0... for instance, no need for miners out in 0.0 really, hardly worth mining the bistot roids anymore either
|
|
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 13:18:00 -
[221]
Edited by: Zartrader on 15/03/2010 13:24:36
Originally by: Cecilia Syal Edited by: Cecilia Syal on 15/03/2010 13:08:07
Originally by: Zartrader
So the only source of minerals is mining? How regressive.
Well, might not be best idea. but Mining should be a useful career like drilling for oil in real life or going underground to get coal out of the earth to power our power plants..., each day mining minerals is more and more obsolete. they just keep adding ships that mine more, orca giving bonus's up to 50% of hulks in its gang, adding drone region with uber drone lewt. lvl4 missions still in high sec people reprocessing loot for minerals, and only thing holding minerals from becoming near worthless is insurance. pretty sad and broken game mechanics.... hope someone thinks of something, i threw my idea out
i mean two days of ratting in 0.0, and i was able to get minerals for two battleships, cause hauler convoy dropping 100mil of trit and all the smartbombs and modules i reprocessed, thats why veld is never touched in 0.0... for instance, no need for miners out in 0.0 really, hardly worth mining the bistot roids anymore either,
edit: Oh, level 4's in empire are the same, but you get 100s of mil in bounty isk and salvage too, LP also, oh, occasional +4 implant too.... and mission reward , and enough to build a battleship every day or two from repro :P
Yes agree. It would be best if mechanics were added to help miners though. I just wish CCP would do that rather than use a band aid to fix an underlying issue (Insurance nerf which wont work anyway)
As an example mission running bores me and I like exploration. But unless I go to low sec its simply not worth doing, they are frigate or cruiser size sites at best..hopeless. In low sec it's not cost effective (that's arguable but many see it that way) I'd be happy to do just exploration but its not an option right now that earns me the income I need.
Another example. I need standings but the only practical way to get them is missions. Same for Faction BPS's and modules. WH space is too cluttered for casual income streams.
I have a lot of sympathy for miners right now as I hate any valid play style nerfed in this cack handed way. But I think solutions which help everyone are better, especially if they give more variety to the game. Someone in another post suggested switching mission meta 0 items to another item that can be used for Tech 2. That may then mess up Inventors but it's the sort of ideas that are useful I think.
|
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 13:42:00 -
[222]
Edited by: Slade Hoo on 15/03/2010 13:46:05 Edited by: Slade Hoo on 15/03/2010 13:45:46 Only possible solution to mining can either be:
a) remove mineral offer (nerf drone regions, rat loot or ore) or b) increase demand for minerals (increase BPOs building costs)
to ensure offer and demand is in balance. Which also solves the insurance-problem as a secondary effect. ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
Malakai Draevyn
Caldari Internet SpaceShips Is Serious Business
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 14:01:00 -
[223]
An interesting way of solving this issue, in my opinion would be to :
1. Set the insurance payout in line with average mineral costings for a perfect ME/PE copy from a BPO (ie. Index link the payout to how much it'd cost to make one ship)
2. Suicide Gankers, struck down by Concordokken, should get zero insurance payout. "You broke the law - you pay for your loss." Same should go for ships pwnt by navy / gate guns in empire space.
3. Self Destructed Ships should get zero insurance payout. "You have voided the terms of your insurance contract by detonating it in space." After all, you don't get insurance if you recycle / trash your ship hull, do you ?
4. LowSec and NullSec could have a reduction in insured value payouts - it says that the law of empire doesn't extend to 0.4 and below - treat it as such. It's lawless space, so there's more risk etc etc.
Caveat 1 : If you still have the 2x SP/hr newbie bonus, then in either of the 2 non-payout situations above, you'd get the basic insurance (40% of hull value) as a "Oh well - you didn't really know any better..... don't be an idiot."
Mal D ..:: MD ::..
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 14:04:00 -
[224]
Originally by: Malakai Draevyn 3. Self Destructed Ships should get zero insurance payout. "You have voided the terms of your insurance contract by detonating it in space." After all, you don't get insurance if you recycle / trash your ship hull, do you ?
…and with that, you remove the whole reason we have insurance to begin with. ——— “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 |
DJWiggles
Gallente Eve Radio Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 14:09:00 -
[225]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Malakai Draevyn 3. Self Destructed Ships should get zero insurance payout. "You have voided the terms of your insurance contract by detonating it in space." After all, you don't get insurance if you recycle / trash your ship hull, do you ?
àand with that, you remove the whole reason we have insurance to begin with.
well if you do that in real life (yes i know im talking about real life again) you have broken the terms of the contract there for its invalid ... insurance should be there BUT have limits, that is just my view.
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 14:20:00 -
[226]
Originally by: DJWiggles well if you do that in real life (yes i know im talking about real life again) you have broken the terms of the contract there for its invalid ... insurance should be there BUT have limits, that is just my view.
…and that's why RL is irrelevant: it doesn't serve the same purpose and the two have nearly nothing in common apart from the name.
If you add those kinds of limits, you might as well remove insurance entirely because it no longer serves any purpose in the game. ——— “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 |
DJWiggles
Gallente Eve Radio Corporation
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 14:25:00 -
[227]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: DJWiggles well if you do that in real life (yes i know im talking about real life again) you have broken the terms of the contract there for its invalid ... insurance should be there BUT have limits, that is just my view.
àand that's why RL is irrelevant: it doesn't serve the same purpose and the two have nearly nothing in common apart from the name.
If you add those kinds of limits, you might as well remove insurance entirely because it no longer serves any purpose in the game.
why remove it ... it WILL serve a purpose, just to the rules you have to ad-hear to. We all know most of the People QQing over this change are worried about there "income" but meh, PLAY EVE dont afk
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 14:38:00 -
[228]
Originally by: DJWiggles why remove it ... it WILL serve a purpose, just to the rules you have to ad-hear to.
…and those rules are the equivalent of removing it. The purpose it would serve with those rules in place is something completely different than the purpose it has now. What you're doing is removing one game mechanic and adding something unrelated – you're not even replacing what was there before. ——— “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 |
MaterialsEngineer Kariya
Caldari Deformed inc A.P.O.P.H.I.S
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 14:41:00 -
[229]
Originally by: Rexthor Hammerfists Imo t1 frigs and cruisers are alrdy so cheap, that with todays ease of making isk, even few days old rookies need no insurance nomore to afford losing them daily.
They are "cheap" if you have the industry to build them and mats at the prices that are affordable. But any change in the ratio, PvPers are going to sissy up like anyone else.
Economics rules in games, not just who can shoot the fastest.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 14:50:00 -
[230]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Malakai Draevyn 3. Self Destructed Ships should get zero insurance payout. "You have voided the terms of your insurance contract by detonating it in space." After all, you don't get insurance if you recycle / trash your ship hull, do you ?
àand with that, you remove the whole reason we have insurance to begin with.
From which I infer that you believe the purpose of insurance is to be able to convert minerals to ISK.
If that is the purpose of insurance - and I'm not convinced - then it is arguably obselete.
|
|
NEMESIS SIN
Method In Khaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 14:55:00 -
[231]
I am not a cearbear and I don't know jack about mining or industry . . .
However, people seem to be doing This with planets.
And getting stuff like this:
Granted it is still in its infant stages, but if AFK mining gets nerfed strait to hell, and in return EVE gets a more interactive manufacturing system (that generates about the same amount of ISK as pre-nerfed mining) then just maybe the sky is not falling?
We all know that the market has been meh for a while:
1.) So if there is a drop in prices all around the board. 2.) And if PVP losses are = to the same amount of ISK lost when a ship blows up as right now. 3.) And if insurance fraud dies off. 4.) And then if the Miners who are getting screwed over, in return get what seems intended to be a readily available manufacturing network capable of generating market items.
Then . . . it all balances itself out don't it? Yay CCP?
|
Malakai Draevyn
Caldari Internet SpaceShips Is Serious Business
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 14:57:00 -
[232]
Originally by: Malcanis From which I infer that you believe the purpose of insurance is to be able to convert minerals to ISK.
If that is the purpose of insurance - and I'm not convinced - then it is arguably obselete.
I'll agree with the above point - and the one made by Tippia at the same time. The difference between RL insurance on an item, and ingame insurance on a ship, is so much of a wide gulf that one bears little to no resemblance to the other, apart from in name alone.
Let's sanity check this sucker for a minute, and apply ingame events to RL circumstances.
* Get shiny new ship, take it outside the station, and self destruct it, making isk on the insurance because you acquired the ship through building it cheap.
This is the equivalent of driving a new Mercedes off the forecourt of a car dealer, and, after insuring it, having your friend in an 18-wheeler semi drive over it a few times. And then claiming on the insurance. 20 times in a row - and only because you can make ú150 per car you trash.
Sanity Level : MINIMAL Needs Sanity Checking : LOTSLY
..:: MD ::..
|
DeBingJos
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 15:04:00 -
[233]
The big underlying problem is the oversupply of minerals...
Possible sollution:
- Drop the meta 0 loot drops from missions
- Decrease the yield of all mining lasers/strip miners bij 75%
- Nerf reprocessing bij 75%
- Introduce a new module 'belt scanner' and remove the belts from the overview. (To stop macro's)
These actions will drastically decrease the supply of minerals to the market. Lower supply means mining will be interesting as mineral and ship prices will rise.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 15:29:00 -
[234]
People are simply ignorign that CCP MIGHT.. and should in this expansion introduce a HUGE mineral requirement for the planetary stuff. That would help a LOT to fix most economical issues in eve. MAke planetary exploration a transformation of minerals in planet resources. And make those planetary resources very needed for somethign everyoen will want.
That would be the right way to start fixing things. With that,.... adjustments in insurance are also passable.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 15:36:00 -
[235]
Originally by: DeBingJos The big underlying problem is the oversupply of minerals...
Not exactly. The problem is the oversupply of ore and the oversupply of miners.
I agree that none-ore mineral sources should be strongly curtailed or eliminated. But doing that will only ever be a temporary boost to mining income.
There is much more than enough of every ore type to supply the market. Vastly more. If EvE was a free, player-run market, the price of minerals would be determined by the minimum amount of ISK/hr that sufficient miners would accept. I think that there is every indication that large numbers of non-bot miners would be willing to mine at lower rates at present. In the last analysis, it is these people (as well as the bots of course- that goes without saying!) who are your "enemy" in your campaign to raise your ISK/hour.
PS Is anyone in the market for a Hulk? I have one to sell.
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 15:48:00 -
[236]
Much easier than try to cut supply here and there and creating balance issues between professions is find out new LARGE requirements for minerals. And By that I mean really larger. Enough so that prices rise above the need of a insurance floor.
Hard thing is to find where to do it. Must be something cheap and useful enough that most players soon or later wil require 1. And if possible should be something that need to be redone after destroyed or lost.
Why doesn t ccp changes LP store from eating ISK into eating minerals? :P
|
Chuck Sands
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 16:24:00 -
[237]
It sounds like ccp wants to cut down on the suicide ganks and make insurance fraud a less viable career option.
Other people have mentioned this, but if you get killed by the space cops - no insurance.
If you self destruct - no insurance.
Doesnt remove suicide ganks, just makes it more risky. You have to have a nice juicy target; killing on a whim is less profitable.
And getting paid for a ship you self destructed? That is just dumb.
I understand that internet spaceship insurance is not Geico, but even the benevolent EVE insurance gods should not fall for this.
Heck, you could even INCREASE payouts for those that use the insurnce system "properly."
But if ccp just wants to make minerals worth less because of some unseen thing with planetary interaction, then go for the nerf.
It is all pretty much speculation at this point anyway.
|
Jeneroux
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 16:45:00 -
[238]
When Toyota can build cars to blow up in the parking lot for profit.. is stupid.. maybe unexpected acceleration is ok but not to blow up..
When a person can drive a Toyota into the street and blow up Mercedes for profit.. is stupid. Mercedes should get insurance.. not Toyota.. Where is realism here?
Insurance now is to support unrelated game mechanic with unrealistic concept. Is not insurance.. is bonus.. call the spade a spade.. maybe create pirate union.. let them give bonus.. let high sec people buy insurance but make it reality based... not illogical based.
Did the pirate on the high seas get insurance when he attack the kings navy? No.. but he still have his chests of gold hidden away. The pirate lived for adventure and risk and great profit from the things he steals. Loss is reality.. lose nothing and be pirate.. this is funny.. and stupid.. oh.. but I am the insured pirate.. let me just check to see I pay premium before I kill you and cost you far far more than it cost me.
The insured pirate is carebear... maybe pirate light? less filling? better taste? maybe polyester bandana?
Eve is 3 games. The 0.0 player, the high-sec player, and the player who do both.
Effort to make one become the other will fail and this is not the reason Eve awarded best mmo.
Any effort by CCP to make Eve more of the realistic market simulation which they say that it is.. is smart.
Spaceships, futuristic environment, danger, piracy, revenge.. This is Eve. Remove the unbelievable and nonsensical mechanics and the game is only better.
Let the market crash. Crash is opportunity.
|
Dethmourne Silvermane
Gallente Silvermane Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 17:09:00 -
[239]
Let's say, for theory's sake, that insurance stays the same, with these rules changes:
Self-destruct voids insurance. Aggressing a station voids insurance. Being killed by Concord voids insurance.
(These are the ones people are talking about most, right?)
Now I just need an alt in a gank geddon/apoc/abaddon/whatever to sit outside station; i'll pick up the 1 unit of trit he drops to give him aggro and he'll pop me over and over and over.
Alternately, same-corp, no need to drop anything.
Neatly avoiding the rules suggested in this thread, and still utilizing insurance.
People exploding ships for insurance will continue to do so for as long as it is profitable; suicide gankers will lose the occasional ship without insurance, they'll just move from battleships to dual-/tri-destroyer fleets.
The only person that the insurance nerf that appears on SISI really hurts long-term is the miner. --------------------------------- Regarding high-sec mining:
Originally by: AmarrettoDiAmarr 3-4 million ISK/hr is perhaps .15 0r .20 US$/hr; not quite prison wages and you are around less honest people. |
Zions Child
Caldari Carthage Industries Consortium.
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 17:23:00 -
[240]
Edited by: Zions Child on 15/03/2010 17:25:44 Something tells me that CCP listened to their economist, which was a terrible mistake.
/begin random analogy
EVE is essentially a free market model. It accurately models what would happen in the real world if there were unlimited resources available at all times. Let's take a look at a modern-day real life resource which is functionally unlimited - corn. Corn is pointless to grow. Farmers actually lose money purchasing the pesticides and fuel etc. needed to grow acres of corn. In other words, corn is so plentiful, and so cheap, because it is nearly unlimited in availability. There is so much corn being grown today, we have no clue what to do with it all. Brazil started using ethanol as fuel because they had too much corn. Corn would NEVER be grown, if it weren't HEAVILY subsidised by the government. So, what does corn have to do with EVE? Corn = Minerals.
/end random analogy
Minerals are functionally unlimited in EVE, belts respawn, rats respawn, missions are always available. No matter what, in the matter of a few seconds, you can produce minerals. EVE now has a large enough population, and the respawn rates on mineral sources are short enough, that mineral production is functionally unlimited. Insurance acts as a government (CCP) sanctioned subsidy. If minerals are so cheap that suiciding insured ships = profit, then the minerals start to get consumed by people willing to take the time to suicide the ships. By changing the insurance rates so that they are either dynamic, or are regularly changed based on the average mineral prices, you are essentially removing the subsidy.
Insurance isn't a soft price floor, it's hard as rock right now, because it doesn't go down. There are some people willing to lose money by selling minerals at rates that are cheaper than using them to suicide a ship, but they are not numerous enough to significantly alter the average price. Changing insurance in the way CCP seems to be planning, will destabilize the market over the course of a few weeks, possibly to the point that ships become pointlessly cheap. Removing the price floor, will reduce minerals to their actual price, which is next to zero. Supply currently exceeds demand by a HUGE margin. And, the worst part about this is that supply is still increasing at a rate far above that which demand is increasing. EVE is suffering, and flawed mineral balancing, not insurance, is to blame.
To re-iterate, EVE is a market simulation. It almost perfectly models a real-world situation. Unfortunately, there are very few real-world situations where there are unlimited resources. The EVE market is suffering from deflation, which is a known economic problem, but unusual. Reducing the price floor (insurance) in direct proportion to the unlimited resource (minerals) will result in a never before seen effect, hyperdeflation. Watch as your isk becomes so absurdly valuable, that it's meaningless, watch, as wealth in EVE becomes meaningless, and watch, in horror, as the EVE market quickly and effectively destroys itself. Although I'm fairly certain that if hyperdeflation did start to happen, CCP would think about pulling the plug on the market, and functionally reset it using npc buy orders and such...
Anyways, Akita mentioned something I thought would be pretty cool, what with more variants of t1 hulls, perhaps with different paint jobs and such, as a method of increasing demand for minerals, even if only slightly. When I saw the scorpion hulls all in their respective hulls with the various paint jobs in that dev blog, my first thought was "YAY! POSSIBLY GETTING SPECIFIC PAIN JOBS ON SHIPS!" Then I realised that it wouldn't happen, and that it was just the colors of the npc's. I think that would be a good idea... hmmm something to post in the assembly forum... hmmm.... _________________________________________________________________ You just lost the game, my friend... Wrong! - Cortes
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 18:29:00 -
[241]
Why should minerals used to make ships be convertible into ISK, when minerals used to make modules aren't?
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 19:09:00 -
[242]
Originally by: Dethmourne Silvermane Let's say, for theory's sake, that insurance stays the same, with these rules changes:
Self-destruct voids insurance. Aggressing a station voids insurance. Being killed by Concord voids insurance.
(These are the ones people are talking about most, right?)
Now I just need an alt in a gank geddon/apoc/abaddon/whatever to sit outside station; i'll pick up the 1 unit of trit he drops to give him aggro and he'll pop me over and over and over.
Alternately, same-corp, no need to drop anything.
Neatly avoiding the rules suggested in this thread, and still utilizing insurance.
People exploding ships for insurance will continue to do so for as long as it is profitable; suicide gankers will lose the occasional ship without insurance, they'll just move from battleships to dual-/tri-destroyer fleets.
The only person that the insurance nerf that appears on SISI really hurts long-term is the miner.
You can make you not receive insurance if you die to same player again in less than 24 hours. Making unreasonable to have so many characters to make real proffit form that. Also is VERY rare mindly SANE persons die more than once per day to same person.
|
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 19:16:00 -
[243]
Edited by: Slade Hoo on 15/03/2010 19:16:00
Originally by: Seishi Maru
You can make you not receive insurance if you die to same player again in less than 24 hours. Making unreasonable to have so many characters to make real proffit form that.
Will still be exploitable and be done by players. And if mineral prices drop and insurance stays the same.....well. 4 Accounts, 12 Chars = 12x insurance fraud with 20mio (example) isk gain per ship. Nice income ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
MaterialsEngineer Kariya
Caldari Deformed inc A.P.O.P.H.I.S
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 19:21:00 -
[244]
Originally by: Zions Child Anyways, Akita mentioned something I thought would be pretty cool, what with more variants of t1 hulls, perhaps with different paint jobs and such, as a method of increasing demand for minerals, even if only slightly. When I saw the scorpion hulls all in their respective hulls with the various paint jobs in that dev blog, my first thought was "YAY! POSSIBLY GETTING SPECIFIC PAIN JOBS ON SHIPS!" Then I realised that it wouldn't happen, and that it was just the colors of the npc's. I think that would be a good idea... hmmm something to post in the assembly forum... hmmm....
...The merge begins...
Don't know if anyone else is seeing it or not, despite that Eve is a different genre of MMOs, it's becoming more and more like other MMOs. If the paint scheme came into effect, I can say welcome to one of SOE's games. Switch the paint for hulls for inks and armor dyes, and you see what I mean. I prefer it, yet I'm a crafter. ;)
Material sinks I believe will come in the next expansion. The best type of mineral sink is the need for engineers to repair structures weekly, especially any plantary base. Eve doesn't have a durability stat, which is weird considering ships/structures wear and tear like anything else in the universe. All that welding, bolts, plates and what not adds up!
|
Seishi Maru
The Black Dawn Gang
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 19:40:00 -
[245]
Originally by: Slade Hoo Edited by: Slade Hoo on 15/03/2010 19:16:00
Originally by: Seishi Maru
You can make you not receive insurance if you die to same player again in less than 24 hours. Making unreasonable to have so many characters to make real proffit form that.
Will still be exploitable and be done by players. And if mineral prices drop and insurance stays the same.....well. 4 Accounts, 12 Chars = 12x insurance fraud with 20mio (example) isk gain per ship. Nice income
If you spendign that much effort and time jsut ot make that isk.. well sorry to be that person. Because you can make 2 times more isk in normal ways
|
Mire Stoude
The Undesirables
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 19:41:00 -
[246]
Remove insurance completely. Let prices of minerals drop to their natural prices.
|
Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc. Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 19:45:00 -
[247]
Granted I have not read the entire thread at this point, but I had this thought a few days ago and want to throw it out before I have to get with another client.
How about scaling the returns from insurance according to skill points. This way real noobs will not get hurt, old players are not able to work the system as much as they are currently able to, and new players that somehow get enough money to buy a high skill point character without knowing how things work will continue to learn the hard way.
Slade
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!
≡v≡ |
Xtover
Suicide Kings
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 19:50:00 -
[248]
Originally by: Mire Stoude Remove insurance completely. Let prices of minerals drop to their natural prices.
When I first started off I was in a ferox (afforded it on a gift from some random char). It cost me 24m I believe. I must have been 3 or 4 weeks old in the game. I go and run a lvl 3 blockade. oh crap. my tank breaks of course, I go to warp out. I can't warp... crap a frig scrammed me. My heavy missiles aren't doing crap. I blow up.
now... if I don't have insurance, I'm left with nothing. I'm back into a t1 kessie if I'm LUCKY and definately can't do level 3 missions which means I make an average of 1.5-2 mil per mission.
so no, bad idea.
|
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 20:11:00 -
[249]
Originally by: Slade Trillgon
How about scaling the returns from insurance according to skill points.
Hi Slade, (awesome name me thinks)
Scaling like we got it in medical clone pricing? Or a decrease in insurance payout from 100% (50k SP) to maybe 50% (5m SP) that is fixed around 5m SP?
Well..nice idea..but yet another reason to create an alt for this (you don't even have to train them) to do your insurance fraud stuff for you.
------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc. Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 20:42:00 -
[250]
Originally by: Slade Hoo
Hi Slade, (awesome name me thinks)
Scaling like we got it in medical clone pricing? Or a decrease in insurance payout from 100% (50k SP) to maybe 50% (5m SP) that is fixed around 5m SP?
Well..nice idea..but yet another reason to create an alt for this (you don't even have to train them) to do your insurance fraud stuff for you.
Yes very nice name
Scaling down as in decreased payout the higher your skill points.
50k - 4 million SP = 100% payout
4 million - 8 mill = 75% payout
8 million - 16 mill = 50% payout
16 million plus = 40%
As for the alt insurance work around then just make the insurance contract only pay out if the insured pilot is in the ship at the time. But as I have said many times before, I have no clue how programming works and if the above is poosible to determine efficiently or if this would hurt Corp/Alliance based reimbursement programs.
Slade
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!
≡v≡ |
|
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 20:48:00 -
[251]
Ok...my counter: train "insurance alt" (tm) to BS III which is under 4m SP and trainable in a few days.
Would be so great if the solution to this would be ****ing simple ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
Kamenwati
Senex Legio Get Off My Lawn
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 21:29:00 -
[252]
Originally by: Xtover
Originally by: Mire Stoude Remove insurance completely. Let prices of minerals drop to their natural prices.
When I first started off I was in a ferox (afforded it on a gift from some random char). It cost me 24m I believe. I must have been 3 or 4 weeks old in the game. I go and run a lvl 3 blockade. oh crap. my tank breaks of course, I go to warp out. I can't warp... crap a frig scrammed me. My heavy missiles aren't doing crap. I blow up.
now... if I don't have insurance, I'm left with nothing. I'm back into a t1 kessie if I'm LUCKY and definately can't do level 3 missions which means I make an average of 1.5-2 mil per mission.
Fine, you want easy mode Eve, seems a lot of people do these days. All right, if that's what you like then let's just do away with the whole pretense of buying a ship, insuring it, throwing it away, and getting all your money back and just hand tech 1 ships and gear out for free. It'll save everyone the time of going thru the motions pretending they're not free. Oh, and let's rename Eve into Counterstrike while we're at it. Make everything free and easy, it'll be swell!
I know this a difficult concept to believe, but there once was a time that people didn't fly ships they couldn't afford to lose. There was a time that losing a ship could sting a bit. Not game ending hurt, but a setback. Now, losing a tech 1 ship is a "so what?" moment, and I say the game hasn't improved but indeed has suffered because of it.
Maybe you think it's strange, but I actually think losing a ship should hurt some. How silly and ignorant we were to think we were having fun before insurance came along and put Eve on easy mode. |
Slade Trillgon
Endless Possibilities Inc. Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2010.03.15 22:21:00 -
[253]
Originally by: Slade Hoo Ok...my counter: train "insurance alt" (tm) to BS III which is under 4m SP and trainable in a few days.
Would be so great if the solution to this would be ****ing simple
Excellent counter
Increase the barrier to entry for the BS class ships
Slade
Originally by: Niccolado Starwalker
Please go sit in the corner, and dont forget to don the shame-on-you-hat!
≡v≡ |
Ori Blake
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 00:51:00 -
[254]
Originally by: Kamenwati
Originally by: Xtover
Originally by: Mire Stoude Remove insurance completely. Let prices of minerals drop to their natural prices.
When I first started off I was in a ferox (afforded it on a gift from some random char). It cost me 24m I believe. I must have been 3 or 4 weeks old in the game. I go and run a lvl 3 blockade. oh crap. my tank breaks of course, I go to warp out. I can't warp... crap a frig scrammed me. My heavy missiles aren't doing crap. I blow up.
now... if I don't have insurance, I'm left with nothing. I'm back into a t1 kessie if I'm LUCKY and definately can't do level 3 missions which means I make an average of 1.5-2 mil per mission.
Fine, you want easy mode Eve, seems a lot of people do these days. All right, if that's what you like then let's just do away with the whole pretense of buying a ship, insuring it, throwing it away, and getting all your money back and just hand tech 1 ships and gear out for free. It'll save everyone the time of going thru the motions pretending they're not free. Oh, and let's rename Eve into Counterstrike while we're at it. Make everything free and easy, it'll be swell!
I know this a difficult concept to believe, but there once was a time that people didn't fly ships they couldn't afford to lose. There was a time that losing a ship could sting a bit. Not game ending hurt, but a setback. Now, losing a tech 1 ship is a "so what?" moment, and I say the game hasn't improved but indeed has suffered because of it.
Maybe you think it's strange, but I actually think losing a ship should hurt some. How silly and ignorant we were to think we were having fun before insurance came along and put Eve on easy mode.
That's fine, but then you shouldn't complain when players PvP less. If losses hurt, players will take longer to recover, and be less inclined to engage in risky behavior. They'd be less likely to make a go of a losing battle, and either avoid it or opt out early.
Even if risk is manageable by shipping down, the psychological effects will still be there. They will have to think twice about doing something that might cause ship losses: be it joining the militia, opting to keep the corp together and fighting back wardeccers, or keep on mining in areas that hostile reds could enter.
This game needs people to be willing to take more risk, not less.
|
Discrodia
Gallente Green Peace Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 00:54:00 -
[255]
Originally by: NEMESIS SIN
This Post Is now A Threadnought.
Got Nerfed?
/thread
You haz mah supports gud sur.
Originally by: CCP Zymurgist Locked, thread is filled with trolling.
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 01:09:00 -
[256]
If the problem with mining is that it's macro-heaven, then the mining need changes, not insurance, that keep mining worth mining.... Make named ores spawn only in exploration sites. Make them yield not 5%-10% more, but 50%-100%. Spice these sites with non-dumb NPC (Sleepers AI anyone? They do like drones...) A player with 2 accounts mining would be able to get over the competition, macroer with 10 accounts will be beaten. Could as well kill all ores but Veld/Scord from static belts, if the change wasn't enough. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Henri Rearden
Gallente Mantic Mining Inc
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 01:11:00 -
[257]
Post 1 of 2 This whole debate amuses me. Just like real economics when you take away government meddling, the EVE economy will act most stably, predictable, and logically with the least regulation and meddling. It would be simple to make the EVE economy realistic - simply eliminate "inflation," that is, any non-player source of currency. The ISK in the economy at present would be it. In keeping with this idea, all NPC-originated missions, bounties, loot, or spawns of any kind would disappear. Essentially, all NPCs would be eliminated from the game - Concord and Empire Space gone. In their place, the player economy would step in. Since the only way to ACTUALLY produce anything (even in real life) is to harvest natural resources and turn them into products, miners and industrialists would be the sole source of modules, ships, minerals, fuel, ammo, etc. In this environment, the number and role of combat pilots would change.
With the notable exception of PvP piracy (which, I might add, would become more profitable), the only legitimate source of income for a combat pilot would be mercenary missions offered by player corporations. These missions would have more to do with PvP assignments than missions as they exist now. For example, a mining corporation (who now wields the realistic financial power to hire mercenaries because of the economic changes) would hire a mercenary pilot, group, or corporation to guard a mining operation against attack by pirates or mercenaries hired by another mining corporation to sabatoge their competitors. The guards would get paid regardless of whether they fought off anyone or not. Players would be able to afford to hire ecorts when moving valuable goods. This change would also require a change of the blueprint/invention system, since NPCs would no longer exist to drop loot, blueprints, special items, or be salvaged. Rigs would need to be manufactured with "normal" resources rather than salvage, although salvage from player ships might be usable as a substitute for certain manufactured components in rigs or in other modules. In fact, to use salvage for the construction of ships seems a logical idea, given that they are components which have already been manufactured. They might be usable as is, or perhaps some procedure for "reconditioning" salvage is in order.
In short, the above changes would result in a 100% fair and realistic portrayal of how capsuleers and others would interact in such an environment! After the initial economic unheaval and political changes, things would stabilize into fairly logical parameters as long as appropriate game mechanisms were included to facilitate more in-depth corporation and alliance control, for instance. Corporations as described in the game lore would actually emerge, hiring and building military forces to further their own economic agenda - to protect the carebears without whom they literally could not exist.
|
Henri Rearden
Gallente Mantic Mining Inc
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 01:19:00 -
[258]
Edited by: Henri Rearden on 16/03/2010 01:22:15 Post 2 of 2 To make the game still more realistic, a very limited amount of NPC income would have to be included in the form of harvested resources (similar to those we all look forward to in Tyrannis) AND tax revenue to the sov holder of a system whose planets, moons, and stations are not under civil unrest from the inhabitants. The tax rate would be adjustable and total income contingent upon the population and industrial development of the station/moon/planet in question. Higher taxes could cause civil unrest, or simply make the citizens less apt to rebel when the planet is taken by an enemy. Planetary bombardments, as described in the game lore, might be an effective way of reducing the population/infrastructure of an enemy-held planet, as might certain types of terrorism (the success of which would be variable and based on equipment/skills of the attacker along with the political/military/economic policies of the occupying corporation). It is, of course, very important to make sure that this planetary revenue is insufficient to effectively support a governing corporation's hold on the area without carebear activities, but only allow the ratio of combat pilots to carebears to increase to nearer the current levels, ensuring that the new factional corporate warfare would continue at enthusiastic levels. Of course, the planetary tax revenue would, over time, cause economy-wide inflation if it were too high and would therefore need a "sink" - combat losses would be an important part of this, and ideally, the other part would be costs or "salaries" incurred during the extraction of resources from stations, planets and moons, only logical since our little station- and dust-bound peons wouldn't work for nothing. This means that there would be an ISK cost associated with every action taken on planets, moons, and stations. Those peons living in locations which saw a lot of business would of course be able to demand higher salaries and fees since there would be a limited number of them, encouraging the development and use of as many planets/etc as possible.
Of course, the changes required to "fix" the economy are so extensive that it is unlikely they would ever be fully implemented except in the very far future. If Tyrannis comes off well, that would be a good baby-step in the direction of this development. The only problem I'm having trouble with is how to maintain "immersion" and "cultural flavor" with the elimination of almost all NPC entities. It is likely that the storyline, even as vague as it is, would have to be abandoned, since the high-sec empires would essentially disappear unless certain game-lore limitations were placed on corporations with the bulk of their territory in one former-empire's space or another. This isn't necessarily a problem from a gameplay standpoint, particuarly in light of the advantages to offset it, but it is a marked departure from precedent set previously.
EDIT: Oh yes, as you might have guessed, there is no NPC-sourced insurance in this version of EVE. You want insurance? Start an insurance corporation and offer it!
|
Rumba Purring
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 02:08:00 -
[259]
If CCP is serious about fixing the economy, how about balancing NPC budget?
In other words, set sum of all NPC payouts (missions bounties, insurance payout, etc.) equal to sum of all NPC intakes (taxes, fees, sales of NPC goods).
Yes, it will be disruptive and painful in the short term, since many players depend on NPC hand-outs. But in the end, we will have a truly player-driven economy. ------------- Would you be ready if the gravity reversed itself? |
Nauplius
Amarr 1st Praetorian Guard
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 02:24:00 -
[260]
Zero-sum closed systems (which is what some of the last few posters are advocating) make for lousy MMO design because:
ù they have trouble handling player turnover ù they lead to risk-adverse hoarding
|
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 02:28:00 -
[261]
Originally by: Henri Rearden stuff
LOL'd hardcore. wht you propose, could just be done by giving all ISK to industrialists, they will never give them back. Where'd you get ISK to pay for new ships? -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Emperor Cheney
Celebrity Sex Tape
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 02:28:00 -
[262]
awesome! now it just needs to be removed completely.
although man i do love me some insurance fraud, the massive economic disruption of insurance just ain't right.
|
Tito Taneki
German Science and Industry Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 02:30:00 -
[263]
Edited by: Tito Taneki on 16/03/2010 02:30:55 mmmh, actually activities with a high probability to lose your ship (= destroy minerals), needed to be more rewarding, not less, to increase demand for minerals.
If you just make pvp more expensive, people will either need to be more careful to not lose their ship or spent more time carebearing in comparison to pvp. Both things would decrease the demand for minerals and carebearing increases the supply of minerals, so that would all lead to a falling mineral price.
|
Henri Rearden
Gallente Mantic Mining Inc
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 02:51:00 -
[264]
Edited by: Henri Rearden on 16/03/2010 02:54:07
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: Henri Rearden stuff
LOL'd hardcore. wht you propose, could just be done by giving all ISK to industrialists, they will never give them back. Where'd you get ISK to pay for new ships?
Actually, what I propose is exactly how things function in the real world, where the control of capital and resources are in the hands of private citizens, industry, and government, not (except in areas of political unrest or other breakdown/absence of law) self-directing militia or standing armies. Historically speaking, that latter option has never worked very well. As far as "giving all ISK to industrialists," from a certain point of view that is correct. In the real world, armed forces do not create or produce, they are consumers only, at best facilitating the ownership of places or things by force. They are utterly reliant upon the civilian world to provide everything they need, from the food they consume every day to the helicopters and tanks they use in combat. (Incidentally, this is why military spending tends to be so high, we don't get anything back for our investment except bad foreign policy...) So it would be in EVE, where the realistic structure of the economy would allow nothing else. Combatants would either get ISK for ships/modules from their corporations (who would tax the production of their carebear members), directly from fees charged for services to carebears (bounties, security patrol/escort fees, fees for attacking other carebears/corporations, fees for conducting terrorism to destroy population/infrastructure, etc), salvaging the modules/wrecks from the aforementioned activities or from piracy. Or, of course, there's always the option to lead dual lives and contribute to the economy by both producing AND destroying. Personally, that's my favorite option.
Essentially, what I'm proposing would allow PVP to function more like it did when moon-goo reigned surpreme, except that a carebear wing would be required for that income - or it would be like factional warfare, where you're a soldier for a corporation/empire. And all the carebears wouldn't be clustered in empire, because there would be no more high-sec.
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar Anti Fundie Patrol
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 02:58:00 -
[265]
Edited by: Surfin''s PlunderBunny on 16/03/2010 02:57:52 Just posting to see if I can snipe the 10th page turning the thread epic
Edit:
Originally by: Xen Gin
Originally by: FOl2TY8
I know that some people like to have voluntary periods of abstinence.
Yeah, I use that excuse too.
|
Salmeria
Advanced Component Research Enterprise
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 03:03:00 -
[266]
Removing insurance will not end PVP because those of us who truly have the balls to do it will PVP regardless of insurance or not!
|
Henri Rearden
Gallente Mantic Mining Inc
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 03:04:00 -
[267]
Originally by: Tito Taneki Edited by: Tito Taneki on 16/03/2010 02:56:18 mmmh, actually activities with a high probability to lose your ship (= destroy minerals), needed to be more rewarding, not less, to increase demand for minerals.
If you just make pvp more expensive, people will either need to be more careful to not lose their ship or spent more time carebearing in comparison to pvp. Both things would decrease the demand for minerals and carebearing increases the supply of minerals, so that would all lead to a falling mineral price.
edit: Well, I don't know, it's all connected. There is just too many people carebearing and producing minerals, so either the npcs need to buy them up via insurance fraud or players need to lose more ships.
You're right, it is all connected. The best way to handle it is to let the bottom fall out of the artificially-supported mineral market. Less people will carebear, supply of minerals will decrease, demand for ships will increase, prices of minerals will increase, a new equilibrium will be reached, etc. The only problem could be if more people realize (than already have)they can make far more money running level 4 missions than they ever will mining, which means more ISK injected into the economy and less minerals available for sale, which will lead to price inflation from both increased demand AND decreased supply. If CCP views this as "working as intended" then no problem, and if not then they can nerf missions until people start mining some again.
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 03:11:00 -
[268]
Originally by: Henri Rearden Edited by: Henri Rearden on 16/03/2010 02:54:07
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: Henri Rearden stuff
LOL'd hardcore. wht you propose, could just be done by giving all ISK to industrialists, they will never give them back. Where'd you get ISK to pay for new ships?
Actually, what I propose is exactly how things function in the real world, where the control of capital and resources are in the hands of private citizens, industry, and government, not (except in areas of political unrest or other breakdown/absence of law) self-directing militia or standing armies. Historically speaking, that latter option has never worked very well. As far as "giving all ISK to industrialists," from a certain point of view that is correct. In the real world, armed forces do not create or produce, they are consumers only, at best facilitating the ownership of places or things by force. They are utterly reliant upon the civilian world to provide everything they need, from the food they consume every day to the helicopters and tanks they use in combat. (Incidentally, this is why military spending tends to be so high, we don't get anything back for our investment except bad foreign policy...) So it would be in EVE, where the realistic structure of the economy would allow nothing else. Combatants would either get ISK for ships/modules from their corporations (who would tax the production of their carebear members), directly from fees charged for services to carebears (bounties, security patrol/escort fees, fees for attacking other carebears/corporations, fees for conducting terrorism to destroy population/infrastructure, etc), salvaging the modules/wrecks from the aforementioned activities or from piracy. Or, of course, there's always the option to lead dual lives and contribute to the economy by both producing AND destroying. Personally, that's my favorite option.
Essentially, what I'm proposing would allow PVP to function more like it did when moon-goo reigned surpreme, except that a carebear wing would be required for that income - or it would be like factional warfare, where you're a soldier for a corporation/empire. And all the carebears wouldn't be clustered in empire, because there would be no more high-sec.
Idealist much? 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. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Tulisin Dragonflame
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 03:21:00 -
[269]
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: Henri Rearden Edited by: Henri Rearden on 16/03/2010 02:54:07
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: Henri Rearden stuff
LOL'd hardcore. wht you propose, could just be done by giving all ISK to industrialists, they will never give them back. Where'd you get ISK to pay for new ships?
Actually, what I propose is exactly how things function in the real world, where the control of capital and resources are in the hands of private citizens, industry, and government, not (except in areas of political unrest or other breakdown/absence of law) self-directing militia or standing armies. Historically speaking, that latter option has never worked very well. As far as "giving all ISK to industrialists," from a certain point of view that is correct. In the real world, armed forces do not create or produce, they are consumers only, at best facilitating the ownership of places or things by force. They are utterly reliant upon the civilian world to provide everything they need, from the food they consume every day to the helicopters and tanks they use in combat. (Incidentally, this is why military spending tends to be so high, we don't get anything back for our investment except bad foreign policy...) So it would be in EVE, where the realistic structure of the economy would allow nothing else. Combatants would either get ISK for ships/modules from their corporations (who would tax the production of their carebear members), directly from fees charged for services to carebears (bounties, security patrol/escort fees, fees for attacking other carebears/corporations, fees for conducting terrorism to destroy population/infrastructure, etc), salvaging the modules/wrecks from the aforementioned activities or from piracy. Or, of course, there's always the option to lead dual lives and contribute to the economy by both producing AND destroying. Personally, that's my favorite option.
Essentially, what I'm proposing would allow PVP to function more like it did when moon-goo reigned surpreme, except that a carebear wing would be required for that income - or it would be like factional warfare, where you're a soldier for a corporation/empire. And all the carebears wouldn't be clustered in empire, because there would be no more high-sec.
Idealist much? 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.
The idea is really that for industrial folks to optimize their output they'd have to be protected by military folks. The problem is that nullsec doesn't act so much as a center of industry as much as it is a strip mine where you make a mad grab for all the resources you can, and then haul them back to Jita to trade in peace and safety.
Whereas many people would like to see the empires become islands surrounded by lowsec, I'd like to see some more secure islands within the bounds of nullsec, with the hopes of being able to develop a real functioning economy there.
The problem also lies with industry being too easy to get into. It is fairly easy for a PvP corp's main fighting force to simply train some alts for an "industrial backbone", no real need to hire specialists when alts will get up to speed and be able to do the job fairly easily.
|
Surfin's PlunderBunny
Minmatar Anti Fundie Patrol
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 03:23:00 -
[270]
Remove all insurance... that'll make the carebears whine even more when they get ganked
Originally by: Xen Gin
Originally by: FOl2TY8
I know that some people like to have voluntary periods of abstinence.
Yeah, I use that excuse too.
|
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 03:25:00 -
[271]
Edited by: Tonto Auri on 16/03/2010 03:30:00
Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame Whereas many people would like to see the empires become islands surrounded by lowsec, I'd like to see some more secure islands within the bounds of nullsec, with the hopes of being able to develop a real functioning economy there.
Not really. The problem is that it's actually cheaper to haul to/from Jita, than to build up in-place. And that's because EVE is damn small now-a-days. I wouldn't mind some increased security (certainty?) in player-controlled sectors of space, but actually, this could be solved the other way, by making it extremely inefficient to haul resources anywhere past the (e.g.) current constellation. (Make minerals 100 times more in volume? Just a thought...)
Quote: The problem also lies with industry being too easy to get into. It is fairly easy for a PvP corp's main fighting force to simply train some alts for an "industrial backbone", no real need to hire specialists when alts will get up to speed and be able to do the job fairly easily.
Not really. You forgot the time factor. How fast (slow!) the replacement being built.
P.S. Oh, and good snipe to p10. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Henri Rearden
Gallente Mantic Mining Inc
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 03:31:00 -
[272]
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Idealist much? 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.
Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame
The idea is really that for industrial folks to optimize their output they'd have to be protected by military folks. The problem is that nullsec doesn't act so much as a center of industry as much as it is a strip mine where you make a mad grab for all the resources you can, and then haul them back to Jita to trade in peace and safety.
Whereas many people would like to see the empires become islands surrounded by lowsec, I'd like to see some more secure islands within the bounds of nullsec, with the hopes of being able to develop a real functioning economy there.
The problem also lies with industry being too easy to get into. It is fairly easy for a PvP corp's main fighting force to simply train some alts for an "industrial backbone", no real need to hire specialists when alts will get up to speed and be able to do the job fairly easily.
Tulisin made an excellent response, highlighting the necessity of military security for functional industry operation, and pointed out something I hadn't thought of: Industry IS too easy to get into. If this type of change were implemented, it would need to be made harder. The concerns about nullsec not functioning as a center of industry wouldn't be an issue because there would be no high-sec. Problem solved. :-)
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 03:39:00 -
[273]
Originally by: Henri Rearden Tulisin made an excellent response, highlighting the necessity of military security for functional industry operation, and pointed out something I hadn't thought of: Industry IS too easy to get into. If this type of change were implemented, it would need to be made harder. The concerns about nullsec not functioning as a center of industry wouldn't be an issue because there would be no high-sec. Problem solved. :-)
You completely missed the point that military force is the plague of economy, made by human mind out of boredom. If there's nothing to blow up, there's no military need. Nor there's any present. -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Henri Rearden
Gallente Mantic Mining Inc
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 05:10:00 -
[274]
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: Henri Rearden Tulisin made an excellent response, highlighting the necessity of military security for functional industry operation, and pointed out something I hadn't thought of: Industry IS too easy to get into. If this type of change were implemented, it would need to be made harder. The concerns about nullsec not functioning as a center of industry wouldn't be an issue because there would be no high-sec. Problem solved. :-)
You completely missed the point that military force is the plague of economy, made by human mind out of boredom. If there's nothing to blow up, there's no military need. Nor there's any present.
I have to respectfully express my disagreement with that statement. If we look back through history, we will find that military action arises not out of boredom, but out of desire to possess and control that which belongs to someone else - or, of course, the desire to defend oneself and possessions from the same. You surely can't be implying that without NPC ships to destroy, nobody would want to PvP, take territory, struggle for possession of adventageous resources...? Perhaps I still misunderstand what you mean.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 06:51:00 -
[275]
Originally by: MaterialsEngineer Kariya
Material sinks I believe will come in the next expansion. The best type of mineral sink is the need for engineers to repair structures weekly, especially any plantary base. Eve doesn't have a durability stat, which is weird considering ships/structures wear and tear like anything else in the universe. All that welding, bolts, plates and what not adds up!
A simple way would be to have station repairs consume materials (an maybe even armor/hull repairers using materials). The problem would be shields.
If they auto repair at no cost and every other form of repairs cost materials they would becom eextremly unbalanced.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 09:25:00 -
[276]
Originally by: Tonto Auri
Originally by: Henri Rearden Tulisin made an excellent response, highlighting the necessity of military security for functional industry operation, and pointed out something I hadn't thought of: Industry IS too easy to get into. If this type of change were implemented, it would need to be made harder. The concerns about nullsec not functioning as a center of industry wouldn't be an issue because there would be no high-sec. Problem solved. :-)
You completely missed the point that military force is the plague of economy, made by human mind out of boredom. If there's nothing to blow up, there's no military need. Nor there's any present.
But in EVE, if nothing gets blown up, there's no economy.
|
Akita Tee
Jita Investments and Trade Firm
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 10:23:00 -
[277]
did not read past page 5... but what I got was this:
Akita T is ****ed that cheaper T1 ships will kill demand for T2 ships and Technetium products (Think Hulks). You know, since he is sitting on 5 million units of the crap. "To imitate the god of the people, when he acts like a fool, makes one a wise ass." |
IVeige
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 10:48:00 -
[278]
Originally by: Akita Tee did not read past page 5... but what I got was this:
Akita T is ****ed
|
David Grogan
Gallente Final Conflict UK Warped Aggression
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 11:54:00 -
[279]
aint the test server prices all set to 100 isk for everything?
surely that is why the insurance is not right on it. SIG: if my message has spelling errors its cos i fail at typing properly :P |
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 12:03:00 -
[280]
My question would be that without insurance what would the mineral cap be at?
I mean I understand that insurance is the hedge against free market on ship materials, which imo is stupid in terms of design but the nature of human greed forced it so.
I do agree missions generate far to much minerals.
So to start...
Remove all ammo and tech 1 meta 0 drops from the tabels, and dont compenstate for lost drops at all.
This will shift tech 1 production and possibly spur it a bit (thus increase mineral use as well)
Then make drone guts not fully refinable whever you bring it too.
Further extremes would be to make it so that meta level models no longer drop purely but isntead as mentioned earlier parts and chips needed to make a tech 1 item INTO a meta item, this will further increase mineral sinking and increase tech 1 item demands and opens the door for possible tech 2 meta items.
But as it stands we have to wait until we see what tryanis brings us. Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 24FEB10
|
|
MaterialsEngineer Kariya
Caldari Deformed inc A.P.O.P.H.I.S
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 12:11:00 -
[281]
Originally by: Venkul Mul A simple way would be to have station repairs consume materials (an maybe even armor/hull repairers using materials). The problem would be shields.
If they auto repair at no cost and every other form of repairs cost materials they would becom eextremly unbalanced.
That wouldn't be very realistic, and there won't be any side products produced (e.g., bolts, plates, wiring, etc.).
The added benefit is, it'll give something for industrialists to do in 0.0, especially after their slots are full with things baking in the oven. Not just logging them in to do odd jobs, add a skill in a queue and log off, never intending to make that alt do anything else but fill a quick role.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 12:11:00 -
[282]
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.
|
Dianna Soreil
Monolithic. Aggressive Dissonance
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 12:45:00 -
[283]
Originally by: Akita Tee did not read past page 5... but what I got was this:
Akita T is ****ed that cheaper T1 ships will kill demand for T2 ships and Technetium products (Think Hulks). You know, since he is sitting on 5 million units of the crap.
doesn't moar liquid isk == moar isk to spend on T2?
|
NEMESIS SIN
Method In Khaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 12:57:00 -
[284]
PAGE 10 \0/!!
Yes this thread is that epic . . .
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 13:47:00 -
[285]
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.
Possibilities include:
(1) Drone alloys refining to moon minerals
(2) Drones wrecks yielding more salvage
(3) Drone faction modules and ships (would be p popular)
(4) Some new previouslyunobtanium stuff like specialised decryptoresque itmes required for building all these new meta BPC-style drops we'll hopefully be seeing. Eg: bounty rat drops a "wrecked modified 425mm railgun" which can be constructed to make a meta item - but using an "Alvus Reconstruction Unit" improves your chance of getting a higher meta item. Put in some fluff about rogue drones having partially cracked the DRM on human nanite engineering or something.
|
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 14:03:00 -
[286]
Originally by: Malcanis
Possibilities include:
(1) Drone alloys refining to moon minerals
(2) Drones wrecks yielding more salvage
(3) Drone faction modules and ships (would be p popular)
(4) Some new previouslyunobtanium stuff like specialised decryptoresque itmes required
I really like Option No. 1. But this would lead to an infinite supply of moon minerals..consequences could be fatally for t2-business. No2. : is ok for me. No3. : CCP already stated that there will be no rogue drone ships in eve. But i like your idea of drone guns, etc.
In another forum there was a suggestion about also adding more stuff like parts for special drones (augmented, integrated,etc.). ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
Solomunio Kzenig
Amarr InterSun Freelance
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 14:11:00 -
[287]
Malcanis, where exactly did you hear about the plans for replacing loot drops with 'damaged' modules that can be converted into meta items? casue that would be a great idea as it would remove a huge ammount of minerals from the market at a stroke.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 14:14:00 -
[288]
Originally by: Solomunio Kzenig Malcanis, where exactly did you hear about the plans for replacing loot drops with 'damaged' modules that can be converted into meta items? casue that would be a great idea as it would remove a huge ammount of minerals from the market at a stroke.
From the voices in my head.
They tell me things.
|
Tulisin Dragonflame
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 14:35:00 -
[289]
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!
|
Kewso
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 14:55:00 -
[290]
Yea I agree that killed by concord or self destructing should not give insurance
|
|
bff Jill
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 15:11:00 -
[291]
self destruction has to give insurance or minerals will become almost worthless - Killed by concord probably shouldn't, however. Not that that would seriously ruin suicide ganking, just make a few targets that would have maybe been worth the hassle no longer be worth the hassle.
|
AngryMax
Gallente Woopatang
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 15:12:00 -
[292]
Originally by: Windbag Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.
EVE is not yak yak, its blah blah. And you have no yak what you blah blah about. Blah blah blah, low sec yada yada blah. Insurance, high sec industry blah blah. Yakadiyak, nonsense, real backbone yak yak. Making it so yak yak blah blahs the monkeypants.
1) Blah blah blah faction.
2) Yada yada possibilities.
3) Blah blah blah blah.
4) Market shmarket Whatever.
Yak yak industry yak yak yak, blah blah blah. Lol. Therefore, blah blah is yakidy yak yak.
And if you disagree, you have no blah blah what you yak yak about.
|
Motseth
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 15:24:00 -
[293]
Alliances have a ****load of isks and make ****loads of titans and dreads because they dont lose enough isks when their battleship fleets get killed, insurance covers most of the pie that was lost.
Just remove insurance, insurance is a **** and makes no sense, remove this feature please. People would start flying smaller and much funnier ships, insurance is killing this game.
This game is not for losers, if you are a loser, pack up your stuff and get the **** out, if not you dont need insurance because you are smart enough to know that you shouldnt use ships you cant afford, people will start to use t1 cruisers and frigates and the game would be much more fun for everyone.
But Im probably wrong on that.
|
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 15:27:00 -
[294]
reducing insurance output won't solve your suicide-gank problem or costs for ships after insurance. get familiar with eve economy and post again, thanks. ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
Kuar Z'thain
Fraser's Finest
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 15:30:00 -
[295]
Originally by: Akita Tee did not read past page 5... but what I got was this:
Akita T is ****ed that cheaper T1 ships will kill demand for T2 ships and Technetium products (Think Hulks). You know, since he is sitting on 5 million units of the crap.
Wow, take that crap back to MD.
You're just jealous Akita T made bank on speculating Technetium for Dominion.
|
Marchocias
Silent Ninja's
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 15:31:00 -
[296]
Originally by: Slade Hoo reducing insurance output won't solve your suicide-gank problem or costs for ships after insurance. get familiar with eve economy and post again, thanks.
If ship base cost was calculated as 90% of the average price at which a ship changes hands, and recalculated every downtime, surely this would go some way to fixing insurance.
---- I belong to Silent Ninja (Hopefully that should cover it). |
Gunfugue
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 15:43:00 -
[297]
Originally by: Marchocias
Originally by: Slade Hoo reducing insurance output won't solve your suicide-gank problem or costs for ships after insurance. get familiar with eve economy and post again, thanks.
If ship base cost was calculated as 90% of the average price at which a ship changes hands, and recalculated every downtime, surely this would go some way to fixing insurance.
Untill everyone decided to manipulate ship costs to a billion isk and then self destruct their stock =P
|
chrisss0r
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:01:00 -
[298]
you need to be a total moron to lose any of the dedicated transport ships. Thats the main problem in eve.
the "harsh world" concept is broken because people can precisely decide what amount of iskies to put at risk at any time. Everything else gets jumped around in jumpfreighters or cloaky warpies
|
Princess Jodi
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:07:00 -
[299]
As a null-sec dweller, I doubt insurance changes will have any effect on 0.0 pvp. First off, the only T1 ships accepted in fleets are battleships and capitals. BS losses are basically just module losses now, and are projected to be the same after this nerf. Capitals lose more due to Fighters and uber mods. Many alliances cover the replacement cost of these ships when used in fleet battles.
T2 ships are the remainder of null-sec ships. It sounds like T2 insurance will actually go UP. At present, I don't even insure T2 ships.
The need to protect your 0.0 space overrides any cost in doing so.
|
bff Jill
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:18:00 -
[300]
Edited by: bff Jill on 16/03/2010 16:19:53 The problem has nothing to do with ship costs, it has to do with crashing the mineral market since the only thing that keeps t1 ships costs where they currently are, and therefore sets the price of minerals, is that nobody is going to sell their stock of t1 ships for less than they could make blowing them up with insurance.
insurance goes down -> ship cost goes down due to market competition -> mineral prices go down because people are not going to pay more for minerals than they can make selling/blowing the ship up.
As has been said, EVE works backwards. Its not supply and demand, there is more supply than anybody needs. Its insurance payoff vs demand.
You either convert the minerals to battleships and blow them up, or turn them into something people want enough to pay more for than you would get for turning it into a battleship and blowing it up. Insurance is the base line and people who produce t1 and sell them skim just right above that line, a tiny tiny amount, due to constant market competition.
|
|
Motseth
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:31:00 -
[301]
Originally by: Princess Jodi As a null-sec dweller, I doubt insurance changes will have any effect on 0.0 pvp. First off, the only T1 ships accepted in fleets are battleships and capitals. BS losses are basically just module losses now, and are projected to be the same after this nerf. Capitals lose more due to Fighters and uber mods. Many alliances cover the replacement cost of these ships when used in fleet battles.
T2 ships are the remainder of null-sec ships. It sounds like T2 insurance will actually go UP. At present, I don't even insure T2 ships.
The need to protect your 0.0 space overrides any cost in doing so.
Yes, I agree with that, but check it from this perspective:
Each time an alliance loses 100 battleships in a fight, with insurance you lose what, 30m in modules per battleship? so 3 billion total? without insurance you lose 100m or more per battleship I guess, so you now lose 10 billion plus, this hurts, in a LONG war an alliance would lose a few thousands battleships, so we are talking about losing hundreds of billions just in battleship fleets. So quickly FCs and alliance managers would try to field t1 cruisers and battlecruisers and improve their tactics to win battles instead of big bulky expensive hard hitting fleets.
I guess that in some months of battleship fleet fights, alliances would start to see how bad the hit to their wallet is and soon all alliances would start to use more smaller ships and of course more tactics. I think EVE blob warfare would hit the golden age. But Im just a pet so I probably dont know anything (I mean that)
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:59:00 -
[302]
Originally by: bff Jill Edited by: bff Jill on 16/03/2010 16:19:53 The problem has nothing to do with ship costs, it has to do with crashing the mineral market since the only thing that keeps t1 ships costs where they currently are, and therefore sets the price of minerals, is that nobody is going to sell their stock of t1 ships for less than they could make blowing them up with insurance.
insurance goes down -> ship cost goes down due to market competition -> mineral prices go down because people are not going to pay more for minerals than they can make selling/blowing the ship up.
As has been said, EVE works backwards. Its not supply and demand, there is more supply than anybody needs. Its insurance payoff vs demand.
You either convert the minerals to battleships and blow them up, or turn them into something people want enough to pay more for than you would get for turning it into a battleship and blowing it up. Insurance is the base line and people who produce t1 and sell them skim just right above that line, a tiny tiny amount, due to constant market competition.
Why is the artificial inflation of the mineral market a good thing? Why should players have to compete with NPCs who have infinite ISK for their minerals?
|
bff Jill
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 17:24:00 -
[303]
Edited by: bff Jill on 16/03/2010 17:26:07
Originally by: Malcanis
Why is the artificial inflation of the mineral market a good thing? Why should players have to compete with NPCs who have infinite ISK for their minerals?
Idealy it would not be, but currently the insurance is sort of a broken mechanic that counters a different broken mechanic. If you were going to 'fix' insurance you would also need to 'fix' mineral generation else the profession of player miner would go extinct.
There will be no longer term change in anything if this goes live.
All that will happen is player miners will be able to make even less money than they could before, and anyone with a substantial investment in minerals during the change will lose a large amount of isk.
The cost of losing a t1 ship after insurance will be the same as it currently is, because the cost of t1 ships will decrease, due to the decreased value of minerals, due to the decreased insurance payoff of t1 ships=P
|
Princess Jodi
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 17:33:00 -
[304]
Originally by: Motseth
Originally by: Princess Jodi As a null-sec dweller, I doubt insurance changes will have any effect on 0.0 pvp. First off, the only T1 ships accepted in fleets are battleships and capitals. BS losses are basically just module losses now, and are projected to be the same after this nerf. Capitals lose more due to Fighters and uber mods. Many alliances cover the replacement cost of these ships when used in fleet battles.
T2 ships are the remainder of null-sec ships. It sounds like T2 insurance will actually go UP. At present, I don't even insure T2 ships.
The need to protect your 0.0 space overrides any cost in doing so.
Yes, I agree with that, but check it from this perspective:
Each time an alliance loses 100 battleships in a fight, with insurance you lose what, 30m in modules per battleship? so 3 billion total? without insurance you lose 100m or more per battleship I guess, so you now lose 10 billion plus, this hurts, in a LONG war an alliance would lose a few thousands battleships, so we are talking about losing hundreds of billions just in battleship fleets. So quickly FCs and alliance managers would try to field t1 cruisers and battlecruisers and improve their tactics to win battles instead of big bulky expensive hard hitting fleets.
I guess that in some months of battleship fleet fights, alliances would start to see how bad the hit to their wallet is and soon all alliances would start to use more smaller ships and of course more tactics. I think EVE blob warfare would hit the golden age. But Im just a pet so I probably dont know anything (I mean that)
I don't think that will happen. Bob taught us early on that one uber-fitted ship was worth many junk fit ones. Regardless of the cost, you won't see Razor flying T1 cruisers anytime soon.
Also, alliances already use all the available pilots in their fleets. We won't magically get more people in fleets just cuz we're flying T1 cruisers.
|
space bear
Gallente Farbotz
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 18:43:00 -
[305]
I can't believe some people is really serious in here
If actually, your concerns about such a change is, that mining only being a viable in-game career because it's artificially sustained by the insurance mechanism, you can find an easy, simple and obvious solution to that : introduce NPC buy/sell-orders for minerals to regulate the market.
All kind of changes that are introduced to prevent abuses and unintended game-exploits, and thus, giving us a better game, will always be very welcomed.
|
bff Jill
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 18:48:00 -
[306]
Originally by: space bear I can't believe some people is really serious in here
If actually, your concerns about such a change is, that mining only being a viable in-game career because it's artificially sustained by the insurance mechanism, you can find an easy, simple and obvious solution to that : introduce NPC buy/sell-orders for minerals to regulate the market.
All kind of changes that are introduced to prevent abuses and unintended game-exploits, and thus, giving us a better game, will always be very welcomed.
I wouldnt call self destructing an exploit. The main game problem is that the entire system was set up so there are inevitably more minerals than there need to be ships, and the capacity to produce more ships than people actually consume.
BOTH are caused by the ability for a single player to run multiple accounts by the way. Be it a macro miner with lots of randomly named hulk alts, or an industrialist with 5 production alts churning things out 24/7, alts have always been the cause of all of eves problems.
|
NEMESIS SIN
Method In Khaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 20:40:00 -
[307]
Edited by: NEMESIS SIN on 16/03/2010 20:44:08
Originally by: bff Jill I wouldnt call self destructing an exploit. The main game problem is that the entire system was set up so there are inevitably more minerals than there need to be ships, and the capacity to produce more ships than people actually consume.
BOTH are caused by the ability for a single player to run multiple accounts by the way. Be it a macro miner with lots of randomly named hulk alts, or an industrialist with 5 production alts churning things out 24/7, alts have always been the cause of all of eves problems.
An abundance of items to actually play the game with is not a problem
Also... you don't seem to have a clue. Have a nice day.
|
Wod
Gallente Fallen Pandas
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 21:48:00 -
[308]
This thread needs a Dev reply with the crystal ball image. - "* CCP Tuxford can no longer shut down TQ on a whim."
|
Skex Relbore
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 21:49:00 -
[309]
11 pages and I still haven't seen anything that actually details what this change actually is.
Read 7 before I just couldn't take anymore.
From what I've gathered is that the payout on insurance is being lowered for some reason or another (Presumably to address the Insurance Scam I guess)
Why? Probably because CCP hired a Chicago School Supply-sider who actually thinks that the market will somehow take care of the problem. Really that supply side nonsense should be called faith based economics because it has no empirical basis.
I hear all kinds of economic misconceptions on this site let me lay some stuff down.
The problem with mineral prices has nothing to do with insurance in fact as has been pointed out by many on here with some semblance of an understanding of how real markets perform (rather than this fictional free market) insurance is the only thing currently keeping mineral prices from falling at this point.
To understand this one has to actually what money is. It's a representation of the collective work and resources in an economy. so in theory if one were to gather up all the stuff and time in the EVE universe and create a 100isk then each one of those ISK would represent 1% of the value of everything, If there are 1 trillion ISK then each ISK represents 1 trillionth of everything.
Now neither real nor fictional markets work this way because of two factors. Resources are continually created and destroyed and at the same time currency is created and destroyed. The value of a currency is directly related to the total product of an economy relative to number of units of said currency.
If the supply of currency increases faster than the total amount of resources entering an economy you have inflation as each unit currency represents a smaller percent of the total value. If the amount of resources increase at a greater rate than the units of currency you get a deflationary pressure because each unit of currency ends up representing a greater share of those total resources.
The problem with mining in EVE is a problem of over production. There are just way too many minerals entering the market relative to the amount of ISK.
That means there are two ways to address the problem. Either increase the flow of ISK into the economy or reduce the rate at which minerals enter it.
Insurance worked pretty well in this respect because it was a two fer. I removed minerals from the economy and injected more ISK into said economy.
Reducing insurance payouts will only further exacerbate the existing problem because it will reduce both the rate at which minerals are removed and reduce the amount of liquid ISK injected.
The truth is what would have been a better solution would have been to have increased insurance payouts which would have caused more destruction of minerals and ISK until a new floor stabilizes.
The reason that the "law of supply and demand" breaks down in EVE is that minerals are essentially a limitless resource that is very low effort to produce and require next to nothing in terms of capital investment to create or refine. Unlike minerals in the real world which are a finite resource that require a massive capital investment to produce (not to mention continuing operating costs).
In EVE all it takes to mine is a newb frigate and civilian miner to create minerals. Unlike in the real world where it takes geologists to find them then specialized equipment to mine it plus wages paid to workers to operate that equipment energy costs to run said equipment and transport the goods, more of the same to refine it into usable materials not to mention the royalties and other fees that must be paid in order to extract the minerals in the first place.
I could go on and on but I'm running out of characters and up against my 5 minute timer.
Suffice to say that no good will come from reducing insurance payouts and a hell of a lot of damage is far more likely.
|
Akita Tee
Jita Investments and Trade Firm
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 22:10:00 -
[310]
Originally by: Kuar Z'thain
Originally by: Akita Tee did not read past page 5... but what I got was this:
Akita T is ****ed that cheaper T1 ships will kill demand for T2 ships and Technetium products (Think Hulks). You know, since he is sitting on 5 million units of the crap.
Wow, take that crap back to MD.
You're just jealous Akita T made bank on speculating Technetium for Dominion.
Not at all jealous, just tired of seeing Akita T post in every ****ing thread on anything which might somehow effect the outcome of his moon goo stockpile. The dude has crapped on the planetary development thread, this thread, made several "this is how Minerals work" lectures and craps on T3 due to it's direct competition to T2. The man is the worst kind of scammer in this game because people still think he is on their side or something. "To imitate the god of the people, when he acts like a fool, makes one a wise ass." |
|
Barakkus
Caelestis Iudicium
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 22:20:00 -
[311]
Originally by: Skex Relbore Why? Probably because CCP hired a Chicago School Supply-sider who actually thinks that the market will somehow take care of the problem.
Don't knock Chicago, we're better at scamming here than any eve player could possibly ever become.
Originally by: CCP Dropbear
rofl
edit: ah crap, dev account. Oh well, official rofl at you sir.
|
Roo Roo
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 22:24:00 -
[312]
Insurance values needed to be adjusted because "insurance fraud" is a frickin' ISK faucet. You can make infinite cash by just building, insuring, and blowing up ships. Its going on right now.
If you are worried about what effect this will have on mineral prices - big deal. Deal with that problem separately. If (a big IF) people believe that mineral prices NEED a floor, for whatever reason, then the easiest and most direct way to establish one is NOT through insurance - its by reinstituting NPC mineral buy orders at strategic locations (mineral markets) for a set price. Voila, your minerals now have a floor again.
Insurance needs to be fixed. If you want a mineral floor - fine. The latter does not justify the former.
|
Plutusian
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 22:34:00 -
[313]
If you really want mineral prices to go up... you just move all the mining to low sec and keep maybe 7 roids in each high sec for beginners... then mineral prices would go up... making ship prices go up... and insurance to match the ships cost...
|
Stephente
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 23:11:00 -
[314]
You know, back when the light bulb was invented, everybody used candles. And when light bulbs entered mass production, the candle market crashed. The only way for the candle makers to stay in business was with the government intervening and subsidizing their industry. But it didn't fix the root of the problem... which was that people didn't need candles anymore. Eventually, the majority of candle makers found other careers and the candle market stabilized.
A similar thing is happening in Eve. For whatever reason, people don't need as many minerals anymore. The only way that the miners are staying in business is because minerals can be converted into isk by building, insuring, and self-destructing ships. If insurance is removed from the game, the mineral market will crash. The majority of miners will have to find new ways to make isk (ratting, exploration, T2 production, missions, salvaging, ransoms, scams, stealing from corporations, etc). Eventually the market will stabilize. We'll still have miners, just not as many of them as we do now.
|
Henri Rearden
Gallente Mantic Mining Inc
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 23:13:00 -
[315]
Skex, congratulations on being one of the first people with a brain to post on this thread. I'm glad to see some arguement that has some logic behind it, even if I don't necessarily agree with everthing.
Originally by: Skex Relbore
...insurance is the only thing currently keeping mineral prices from falling at this point.
OK, this premise seems pretty well universally agreed on. Insurance payouts keep mineral prices inflated above where they would normally stabilize.
Originally by: Skex Relbore
...money is.. a representation of the collective work and resources in an economy. ...if one were to gather up all the stuff and time in the EVE universe and create a 100isk then each one of those ISK would represent 1% of the value of everything.
Dear God, it's nice to see that somebody understands this concept.
Originally by: Skex Relbore
Now neither real nor fictional markets work this way because of two factors. Resources are continually created and destroyed and at the same time currency is created and destroyed. The value of a currency is directly related to the total product of an economy relative to number of units of said currency.
Historically, real markets did function like this because the supply of money did not vary greatly. Gradual inflation was inevitable because over time more gold would have been removed from the ground, but inflation did not have a significant effect on the economy until banks arose and began to lend out more currency than they had money. You are, of course, correct that resources are continually created and destroyed, so their value in money/currency scales with supply/demand. ISK, being a currency that can be created, is susceptable to the same type of manipulation that our real-world currency suffers at the hands of the government.
Originally by: Skex Relbore
If the supply of currency increases faster than the total amount of resources entering an economy you have inflation as each unit currency represents a smaller percent of the total value. If the amount of resources increase at a greater rate than the units of currency you get a deflationary pressure because each unit of currency ends up representing a greater share of those total resources.
The problem with mining in EVE is a problem of over production. There are just way too many minerals entering the market relative to the amount of ISK....
You are absolutely correct. You have hit the nail on the head in every way excepting one possibility: why is there a universal assumption that it is bad for mineral prices to plummet? If the current artificially-supported prices are resulting in an over-supply of minerals, why should the prices remain supported? In the event of a sudden removal of price supports, prices will drop drastically. People will find that they are making less ISK for the same time/effort, and will do one of two things: Complain to CCP and keep mining, or stop mining and start doing something else more profitable. If they keep mining, they'll simply keep making less ISK/hour of their time. If they stop mining, then the amount of minerals on the market will decrease and prices will likely stabilize at a price lower than supported prices but higher than the lowest they will reach during the crash. Is this bad or good? Is it desirable that more people abandon mining and run missions, complexes, enter manufacturing, etc? That's what we're talking about here - so what we're really saying is, do we want to manipulate the economy to encourage people to mine, or not? If we want more people sitting still in belts eating rocks, raise the payout. If we want more people to turn to other sources of income (and nerf the income of macro-miners in the process) then decrease or do-away with insurance. Simple.
|
Henri Rearden
Gallente Mantic Mining Inc
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 23:19:00 -
[316]
Originally by: Stephente You know, back when the light bulb was invented, everybody used candles. And when light bulbs entered mass production, the candle market crashed. The only way for the candle makers to stay in business was with the government intervening and subsidizing their industry. But it didn't fix the root of the problem... which was that people didn't need candles anymore. Eventually, the majority of candle makers found other careers and the candle market stabilized.
A similar thing is happening in Eve. For whatever reason, people don't need as many minerals anymore. The only way that the miners are staying in business is because minerals can be converted into isk by building, insuring, and self-destructing ships. If insurance is removed from the game, the mineral market will crash. The majority of miners will have to find new ways to make isk (ratting, exploration, T2 production, missions, salvaging, ransoms, scams, stealing from corporations, etc). Eventually the market will stabilize. We'll still have miners, just not as many of them as we do now.
Fantastic real-world illustration of the situation, thank you for posting it! If I may add one thing - it's not necessarily that people need more or less minerals, per se, it's just that, as with the candles, the supply of minerals is greater than the demand for them. It could be that demand has increased, and supply has simply increased faster.
|
Tulisin Dragonflame
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 23:27:00 -
[317]
Originally by: Henri Rearden
You are absolutely correct. You have hit the nail on the head in every way excepting one possibility: why is there a universal assumption that it is bad for mineral prices to plummet? If the current artificially-supported prices are resulting in an over-supply of minerals, why should the prices remain supported? In the event of a sudden removal of price supports, prices will drop drastically. People will find that they are making less ISK for the same time/effort, and will do one of two things: Complain to CCP and keep mining, or stop mining and start doing something else more profitable. If they keep mining, they'll simply keep making less ISK/hour of their time. If they stop mining, then the amount of minerals on the market will decrease and prices will likely stabilize at a price lower than supported prices but higher than the lowest they will reach during the crash. Is this bad or good? Is it desirable that more people abandon mining and run missions, complexes, enter manufacturing, etc? That's what we're talking about here - so what we're really saying is, do we want to manipulate the economy to encourage people to mine, or not? If we want more people sitting still in belts eating rocks, raise the payout. If we want more people to turn to other sources of income (and nerf the income of macro-miners in the process) then decrease or do-away with insurance. Simple.
It isn't the drop in mineral prices that is directly bad, it is the effect of, as you mentioned, killing the mining profession. Diversity in the things you can do and the playstyles you can pursue is one of the primary strengths of EVE. Advertising heavily features the ability to become a professional miner. There are several ship classes, at least two capital ships, and countless modules devoted to the profession. It is a vital part of what makes EVE the game it is today, and simply chopping it off is not good.
If it becomes the case that farmers and missioners really can provide all the minerals required of the EVE population, mining may never truly recover as a real option for regular players, and that would be a tragedy.
|
Motseth
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 00:06:00 -
[318]
Originally by: Princess Jodi
Originally by: Motseth
Originally by: Princess Jodi As a null-sec dweller, I doubt insurance changes will have any effect on 0.0 pvp. First off, the only T1 ships accepted in fleets are battleships and capitals. BS losses are basically just module losses now, and are projected to be the same after this nerf. Capitals lose more due to Fighters and uber mods. Many alliances cover the replacement cost of these ships when used in fleet battles.
T2 ships are the remainder of null-sec ships. It sounds like T2 insurance will actually go UP. At present, I don't even insure T2 ships.
The need to protect your 0.0 space overrides any cost in doing so.
Yes, I agree with that, but check it from this perspective:
Each time an alliance loses 100 battleships in a fight, with insurance you lose what, 30m in modules per battleship? so 3 billion total? without insurance you lose 100m or more per battleship I guess, so you now lose 10 billion plus, this hurts, in a LONG war an alliance would lose a few thousands battleships, so we are talking about losing hundreds of billions just in battleship fleets. So quickly FCs and alliance managers would try to field t1 cruisers and battlecruisers and improve their tactics to win battles instead of big bulky expensive hard hitting fleets.
I guess that in some months of battleship fleet fights, alliances would start to see how bad the hit to their wallet is and soon all alliances would start to use more smaller ships and of course more tactics. I think EVE blob warfare would hit the golden age. But Im just a pet so I probably dont know anything (I mean that)
I don't think that will happen. Bob taught us early on that one uber-fitted ship was worth many junk fit ones. Regardless of the cost, you won't see Razor flying T1 cruisers anytime soon.
Also, alliances already use all the available pilots in their fleets. We won't magically get more people in fleets just cuz we're flying T1 cruisers.
Because alliances swim in isks, if there was little isks in their wallets things could/would change, but I see your point and I agree with it, also it would make blobs even worse because each side at a war would need more people because they cant field a true BS fleet, this would lead to bigger and bigger blobs, and that would be bad, anyway I hate insurance and I think the game would be better without it.
|
Elgaris Dukor
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 00:14:00 -
[319]
Reducing the insurance payout is fine as long as the mineral faucets are reduced like isk faucets (insurance). This will keep the ballance between isk and minerals.
- reduce loot from rats or even completely remove it - remove drone loot and give them some kind of bounty instead. (maybe similar to sleepers)
Ideally make mining the only source of minerals in game, that will make sure that the profession will live on.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Initiative Mercenaries
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 00:40:00 -
[320]
Originally by: Skex Relbore That means there are two ways to address the problem. Either increase the flow of ISK into the economy or reduce the rate at which minerals enter it.
Insurance worked pretty well in this respect because it was a two fer. I removed minerals from the economy and injected more ISK into said economy.
There are actually four ways... The other two being reduction of flow of ISK out of the economy and increasing the demand for minerals.
As we know PI will do the former by allowing players to produce NPC goods. If some hypothesized PI production lines, e.g. POS modules, would use minerals that takes care of the latter.
Originally by: Skex Relbore Reducing insurance payouts will only further exacerbate the existing problem because it will reduce both the rate at which minerals are removed and reduce the amount of liquid ISK injected.
The truth is what would have been a better solution would have been to have increased insurance payouts which would have caused more destruction of minerals and ISK until a new floor stabilizes.
As an economic mechanism the insurance is no doubt ****le filled pants worthy, yet as a game mechanics there are rather strong arguments against it.
As such, saying it good to have insurance due to those properties ignores that this is a game and in a game we actually _want_ chaos and mayhem in the financial system. (To a certain degree) Also, once the ideal economic mechanism that the insurance is gets removed, you may introduce more interesting ones that increase an oft overlooked part of the eve economics; fun.
|
|
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 01:48:00 -
[321]
Edited by: Zartrader on 17/03/2010 01:53:33
People are focusing on reducing this or nerfing that, it's very limited and really not any sort of solution at all, especially as it will annoy at least one class of player which is not in the interest of CCP and by extension any player.
There just needs to be a new mineral sink. The majority of posts here look at existing mechanics but no fiddling with them will work as the diversity is lacking. Also these solutions just serve to push the problem elsewhere and many of the ones suggested here won't work anyway. We need more diverse ways to generate ISK and more ways to destroy minerals. Ship and mods turnover is not cutting it right now. Having the primary source of ISK generation as Missions and Insurance is perverse.
If CCP have nothing planned for the Insurance reduction in the planetary expansion then Miners will be completely screwed and nothing else will change much at all.
The EVE economy is far too simplistic when it comes to inputs and outputs from the server. As it grows that's becoming more obvious. Messing with existing mechanics completely fails to address the problem, all that will happen is deflation, the opposite of what's needed with a growing player base.
So back to what I did ask for from CCP days ago is this: CCP, could you please state if you are intended to introduce any new mechanics that will affect the supply or consumption of minerals or not? Also, how will you deal with the limited methods by which ISK is generated?
|
Tulisin Dragonflame
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 02:13:00 -
[322]
Originally by: Zartrader Edited by: Zartrader on 17/03/2010 01:56:29
People are focusing on reducing this or nerfing that, it's very limited and really not any sort of solution at all, especially as it will annoy at least one class of player which is not in the interest of CCP and by extension any player.
There just needs to be a new mineral sink. The majority of posts here look at existing mechanics but no fiddling with them will work as the diversity is lacking. Also these solutions just serve to push the problem elsewhere and many of the ones suggested here won't work anyway. We need more diverse ways to generate ISK and more ways to destroy minerals. Ship and mods turnover is not cutting it right now. Having the primary source of ISK generation as Missions and Insurance is perverse.
If CCP have nothing planned for the Insurance reduction in the planetary expansion then Miners will be completely screwed and nothing else will change much at all.
The EVE economy is far too simplistic when it comes to inputs and outputs from the server. As it grows that's becoming more obvious. Messing with existing mechanics completely fails to address the problem, all that will happen is deflation, the opposite of what's needed with a growing player base.
So back to what I did ask for from CCP days ago is this: CCP, could you please state if you are intending to introduce any new mechanics that will affect the supply or consumption of minerals or not? Or are you hoping for a massive war? Also, how will you deal with the limited methods by which ISK is generated?
They could use Tyrannis for this if they wanted to. Make the presumption that planets have a huge demand for space-minerals and have them supply NPC goods in exchange for minerals. A planet given enough minerals will industrialize and require more minerals and output more trade goods.
|
Henri Rearden
Gallente Mantic Mining Inc
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 03:22:00 -
[323]
Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame
It isn't the drop in mineral prices that is directly bad, it is the effect of, as you mentioned, killing the mining profession. Diversity in the things you can do and the playstyles you can pursue is one of the primary strengths of EVE. Advertising heavily features the ability to become a professional miner. There are several ship classes, at least two capital ships, and countless modules devoted to the profession. It is a vital part of what makes EVE the game it is today, and simply chopping it off is not good.
If it becomes the case that farmers and missioners really can provide all the minerals required of the EVE population, mining may never truly recover as a real option for regular players, and that would be a tragedy.
I'm inclined to agree with you. I also abhor the idea that it is possible to make a profit by destroying ships for insurance payouts. So - how can we remove insurance while using other methods to increase the demand for minerals to the point that the mineral market doesn't crash when that major sink is removed? We seem to have had many reasonable suggestions: 1) Pull Meta 0 modules from the loot tables. 2) Pull Meta 1-4 modules from the loot tables and seed BPOs/BPCs for the items that would no longer be available. 3) Correct the mistake that is drone alloys - Elgaris Dukor suggested Sleeper-like bounties as a replacement. 4) Use Tyrannis as a mineral sink by using both space and terrestrial resources in planetary development and manufacturing. This has the potential to be a great solution if CCP implements it properly. 5) Simply change the formulas for everything so that everything or most things require more minerals to make - this would require a nerf of loot tables or mission runners would laugh even harder on the way to the bank. 6) Make the formulas for rigs more complex so that components built from minerals and salvage are both required build them. 7) Slightly increase the minerals required to make ammo, and change frequency crystals so that all of them eventually break. 8) Add more mining missions and increase the payout for them.
|
Jhagiti Tyran
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 03:40:00 -
[324]
Originally by: Akita Tee Bitter posting
You know you have hit it big on any forum when you get your own personal troll complete with parody name.
|
Zions Child
Caldari Carthage Industries Consortium.
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 04:07:00 -
[325]
Originally by: Henri Rearden
Originally by: Stephente You know, back when the light bulb was invented, everybody used candles. And when light bulbs entered mass production, the candle market crashed. The only way for the candle makers to stay in business was with the government intervening and subsidizing their industry. But it didn't fix the root of the problem... which was that people didn't need candles anymore. Eventually, the majority of candle makers found other careers and the candle market stabilized.
A similar thing is happening in Eve. For whatever reason, people don't need as many minerals anymore. The only way that the miners are staying in business is because minerals can be converted into isk by building, insuring, and self-destructing ships. If insurance is removed from the game, the mineral market will crash. The majority of miners will have to find new ways to make isk (ratting, exploration, T2 production, missions, salvaging, ransoms, scams, stealing from corporations, etc). Eventually the market will stabilize. We'll still have miners, just not as many of them as we do now.
Fantastic real-world illustration of the situation, thank you for posting it! If I may add one thing - it's not necessarily that people need more or less minerals, per se, it's just that, as with the candles, the supply of minerals is greater than the demand for them. It could be that demand has increased, and supply has simply increased faster.
As many people have said already, the problem isn't that deflation wouldn't be profitable for a large portion of the player base (although the decreased challenge would be irritating). The problem is that you are killing a profession which has literally built EVE. There are plenty of people who do nothing but mine, and mining supports a large quantity of PvP accounts. Also, the problem with the candle-maker and lightbulb analogy, is that there is no new technology. What has happened is that there are three groups of candle-makers. Miner's sole source of income is mining, missioners make millions in other ways, and yet introduce huge quantities of minerals into the market. Drone Region ratters sole source of income is also introducing minerals to the market. Removing mining and Drone killing as a profession won't fix the mineral problem. In your analogy, it would be removing the two groups of candle-makers who feed their families making candles, but leaves those who do it as a hobby alone. Missioner's are either the second largest or the outright largest source of minerals in the game, they are destabilizing the market, and not in a way it was intended. What we would have without insurance is massive destabilization of the market, and it would be several weeks and perhaps even months of absolute chaos, and not the fun Hulkageddon type of chaos, the HOLY LORD WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO!?!?!? chaos.
Also, people don't like that mining is a profession that is easily subject to macro-farming, but this is an easily solved problem. Forcing miners to use their system scanners to find large asteroid deposits would keep the afk macro-miners out for at least a fairly long period of time... _________________________________________________________________ You just lost the game, my friend... Wrong! - Cortes
|
Nova Fox
Gallente Novafox Shipyards
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 06:28:00 -
[326]
First off let me say to the OP
0/10 troll, what you hoped to be a flame fest has somewhat turned into a civil discussion of eve economics.
That aside...
I am in full agreement that the minerals being introduced into the market is more of an issue than any insurance faucet is.
I heard a generalized idea on how to fix the problem partially and that was to make ALL production activities to require minerals.
So a small list of what where good ideas in this thread so far and a few more of my own.
1 Eliminate meta 0 drops and ammo from rats. 2 Eliminate built metas drops make them bpcs 3 Have Tech 2 and beyond ships and modules factor in more tech 1 materials 4 Have Rigs factor in more minerals as well 5 Have Tryanis eat more minerals which cannot be easily recoverable (ie to upgrade a road requires materials) 6 Create a isk based fee for reprocessing modules 7 Make it so that researching bpos requires minerals, more secure the lab the more materials it requires! (so station and outpost labs will eat up the most) 8 Make drone guts harder to get refined products out of, by making the guts usable to build soemthing that is refinable and by possibly build it buffer back some of the materais or by some other means such as an expendable tool that allows thier refinement but has limited uses and it built out of other not commonly sought for drone gut refining materials or spreading out the loot table some more by throwing tech 2 moon goo basic materials into the mix there has to be a balance striked here to compensate for bountyless drones none the less but kill the material output. Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 24FEB10
|
Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar Ma'adim Logistics
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 07:13:00 -
[327]
Originally by: Skex Relbore Stuff to long to quote
You are right in your arguments. Just forgetting that Eve isn't the real world and shouldn't be measured against that.
Personally I don't see that insurance is causing any problems. No serious inflation is happening so the big question is why CCP is actually considering this course of action.
|
Solomunio Kzenig
Amarr InterSun Freelance
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 09:43:00 -
[328]
Edited by: Solomunio Kzenig on 17/03/2010 09:44:17 So if CCP would please take note of this thread we've actually solved their problem for them .
1. Remove Meta 0 from loot tables. 2. Remove Meta 1-4 from loot tables, replace either with BPC or 'damaged module' that needs minerals + 'other stuff' to repair/fix. 3. Tyranis planetry structures + the goods they produce to need minerals. 4. Station Service repairs to need minerals to function. 5. Increase across the board the ammount of minerals that all goods need to be produced, especially ammo. 6. Have Rigs need minerals and/or 'intermediate' trade goods (electronics etc.) to be built. Said 'intermediate' goods being produced by players on planets post Tyranis and OFC needing minerals to be produced. 7. Decreas the ammount of minerals that can be refined from Drone poo and general module refining, probably by as much as 75%. Replace Drone poo with Sleeper style drops/bounties, i.e. specialised Drone modules for building Drone Rigs/Drone variants.
|
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 09:44:00 -
[329]
Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal
Originally by: Skex Relbore Stuff to long to quote
You are right in your arguments. Just forgetting that Eve isn't the real world and shouldn't be measured against that.
Personally I don't see that insurance is causing any problems. No serious inflation is happening so the big question is why CCP is actually considering this course of action.
The only logical reason is to reduce the ISK inflows as they may be wanting to introduce new ways of earning ISK from the new expansion. I doubt they have an issue with suicide ganking and Insuarnce fraud will always happen as long as minerals are so oversupplied. However only CCP know exactly how big the mineral mountain is. I also assume they will have new ways to use minerals with planets.
The fact is it seems clear to everyone I think that just reducing Insurance will no nothing except affect miners. So we do not seem to have all the pieces of the jigsaw.
Really it would be good if they could introduce a way to eliminate macrores which must be a big source of minerals. Rather than have mission runners suffer or any of the other nerfs suggested it would be better to deal with these cheaters as well.
|
Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar Ma'adim Logistics
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 11:00:00 -
[330]
Originally by: Zartrader
Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal
Originally by: Skex Relbore Stuff to long to quote
You are right in your arguments. Just forgetting that Eve isn't the real world and shouldn't be measured against that.
Personally I don't see that insurance is causing any problems. No serious inflation is happening so the big question is why CCP is actually considering this course of action.
The only logical reason is to reduce the ISK inflows as they may be wanting to introduce new ways of earning ISK from the new expansion. I doubt they have an issue with suicide ganking and Insuarnce fraud will always happen as long as minerals are so oversupplied. However only CCP know exactly how big the mineral mountain is. I also assume they will have new ways to use minerals with planets.
The fact is it seems clear to everyone I think that just reducing Insurance will no nothing except affect miners. So we do not seem to have all the pieces of the jigsaw.
Really it would be good if they could introduce a way to eliminate macrores which must be a big source of minerals. Rather than have mission runners suffer or any of the other nerfs suggested it would be better to deal with these cheaters as well.
Doesn't matter if it seems clear really. They can do it and mess up anyway. Fact is that the only thing they have changed is the insurance so from the looks of it we can't assume they will do anything else. However missionrunners really shouldn't be a primary source of minerals. So removing the minerals from them first would go some way to fix the oversupply while not harm them that much and bring their income more inline with other incomesources in the game. (given that lvl4 missioning in high sec is nearly risk free compared to for example beltratting or something similar to that in low or no sec)
|
|
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 12:01:00 -
[331]
Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal
Originally by: Zartrader
Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal
Originally by: Skex Relbore Stuff to long to quote
You are right in your arguments. Just forgetting that Eve isn't the real world and shouldn't be measured against that.
Personally I don't see that insurance is causing any problems. No serious inflation is happening so the big question is why CCP is actually considering this course of action.
The only logical reason is to reduce the ISK inflows as they may be wanting to introduce new ways of earning ISK from the new expansion. I doubt they have an issue with suicide ganking and Insuarnce fraud will always happen as long as minerals are so oversupplied. However only CCP know exactly how big the mineral mountain is. I also assume they will have new ways to use minerals with planets.
The fact is it seems clear to everyone I think that just reducing Insurance will no nothing except affect miners. So we do not seem to have all the pieces of the jigsaw.
Really it would be good if they could introduce a way to eliminate macrores which must be a big source of minerals. Rather than have mission runners suffer or any of the other nerfs suggested it would be better to deal with these cheaters as well.
Doesn't matter if it seems clear really. They can do it and mess up anyway. Fact is that the only thing they have changed is the insurance so from the looks of it we can't assume they will do anything else. However missionrunners really shouldn't be a primary source of minerals. So removing the minerals from them first would go some way to fix the oversupply while not harm them that much and bring their income more inline with other incomesources in the game. (given that lvl4 missioning in high sec is nearly risk free compared to for example beltratting or something similar to that in low or no sec)
I do mission run so I have an invested interest in no nerfs to it. But even then I do think its dealing with the issue the wrong way. It's better to give more variety in income and ore sinks than simply nerf a mechanic, especially as I do not know if it will really work. Also, why should mission runners suffer from gluts contributed to by cheaters? If all miners were genuine I would not have an issue. Being nerfed to allow even more cheaters decent profits sticks in by throat.
But as you say expecting CCP to actually deal with the issue by providing new mechanics may be naive. Also there are a substantial number of small changes they could do to help everyone affected but they seem to take the easy option which is unlikely to work as intended at all. I simply fail to see the point of reducing Insurance unless they want mining to be a pointless profession. Maybe that's what they want.
|
Eternum Praetorian
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 13:13:00 -
[332]
You may be on to something . . .
For all you smart folks here, say this kills mineral prices in empire. What does it do for manufacturing in 0.0 economies, where industrialists can (and often do) charge whatever they want??
Dominion was intended to get people out of empire and into 0.0 space. Might this create an environment where the most ZERO risk of all profession in EVE (mining in empire) would be forced to move out into a null space alliance where they could set their own cost for minerals? Could this ultimately lead to a stronger 0.0 economy?
P.S.
This is pure theory craft on my part, in my experience whiny-little empire based miners don't like to do anything but fatten their own assets. You have to poke and prod them just to get anything done in terms of manufacturing. So if minerals prices suddenly plummeted, it stands to reason that manufacturing in a 0.0 environment might start to look much more appealing, no?
|
Tippia
Reikoku IT Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 13:25:00 -
[333]
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Might this create an environment where the most ZERO risk of all profession in EVE (mining in empire) would be forced to move out into a null space alliance where they could set their own cost for minerals?
No. It might move miners, but the most zero-risk of all EVE professions (highsec mission running) will still remain largely untouched – in fact, it would receive a fairly decent boost in relative value should the mineral market collapse. ——— “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 |
Eternum Praetorian
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 13:28:00 -
[334]
So that is a yes then?
And at least you cant AFK missions . . .
|
HeliosGal
Caldari
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 13:29:00 -
[335]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Might this create an environment where the most ZERO risk of all profession in EVE (mining in empire) would be forced to move out into a null space alliance where they could set their own cost for minerals?
No. It might move miners, but the most zero-risk of all EVE professions (highsec mission running) will still remain largely untouched û in fact, it would receive a fairly decent boost in relative value should the mineral market collapse.
ccp could then move level 4 mission runners to low sec to offset the risk v reward matrix Signature - CCP what this game needs is more variance in PVE aspects and a little bit less PVP focus, more content more varied level 1-4 missions more than just 10 per faction high sec low sec and 00 |
Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar Ma'adim Logistics
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 13:38:00 -
[336]
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian You may be on to something . . .
For all you smart folks here, say this kills mineral prices in empire. What does it do for manufacturing in 0.0 economies, where industrialists can (and often do) charge whatever they want??
Dominion was intended to get people out of empire and into 0.0 space. Might this create an environment where the most ZERO risk of all profession in EVE (mining in empire) would be forced to move out into a null space alliance where they could set their own cost for minerals? Could this ultimately lead to a stronger 0.0 economy?
P.S.
This is pure theory craft on my part, in my experience whiny-little empire based miners don't like to do anything but fatten their own assets. You have to poke and prod them just to get anything done in terms of manufacturing. So if minerals prices suddenly plummeted, it stands to reason that manufacturing in a 0.0 environment might start to look much more appealing, no?
You forget that getting into 0.0 isn't exactly easy nor make sense for a industrialist due to the rent charged by the entities holding it. Nor the fact that mining in 0.0 isn't exactly safe while it will have a lower profit/h than lvl4 missions which also give a significant amount of minerals.
|
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 13:43:00 -
[337]
Originally by: HeliosGal
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Might this create an environment where the most ZERO risk of all profession in EVE (mining in empire) would be forced to move out into a null space alliance where they could set their own cost for minerals?
No. It might move miners, but the most zero-risk of all EVE professions (highsec mission running) will still remain largely untouched û in fact, it would receive a fairly decent boost in relative value should the mineral market collapse.
ccp could then move level 4 mission runners to low sec to offset the risk v reward matrix
They could do that but then its forcing players to do what they don't want to do. That would be fine if there were viable alternatives but there isn't. That's the problem, not enough genuine choice. No choice means players will simply stop playing. Pushing players to change their habits will fail in any game. Its not like life where you're stuck with Government decisions, enough players do not have a strong attachment to EVE that they will simply move on. It's much smarter to encourage rather than punish. I know some in EVE will welcome players leaving the game (especially the Carebear haters) but it's not good for CCP and therefore not something I would think they would realistically consider.
Anyway if CCP have not come up with something unannounced in the next expansion there will be players stopping as it is and the only miners left will be the bots and the addicted.
|
Serpents smile
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 13:52:00 -
[338]
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian And at least you cant AFK missions . . .
Uhm... you sure?
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 15:06:00 -
[339]
Quote:
The man is the worst kind of scammer in this game because people still think he is on their side or something. "To imitate the god of the people, when he acts like a fool, makes one a wise ass."
Why, are the RL politicians different? People get easily fooled by everyone better than an amoeba. If they fall for that, they deserve their fate.
Quote:
Dominion was intended to get people out of empire and into 0.0 space. Might this create an environment where the most ZERO risk of all profession in EVE (mining in empire) would be forced to move out into a null space alliance where they could set their own cost for minerals? Could this ultimately lead to a stronger 0.0 economy?
1) The most ZERO risk profession is probably hi sec industry, then hi sec plexing, then hi sec missioning. Mining is very low risk but higher than the above due to the super low barrier to ganks.
2) One of the most overlooked factors is that this is a game and people are not forced to pay for it. You cannot "force" anyone to go to 0.0, in fact CCP's super slow gradual approach at trying to *entice* people to move to 0.0 is probably the best compromise between results and possibility to achieve those results.
Quote:
And at least you cant AFK missions . . . --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uhm... you sure?
Dominixes exist, maybe he does not know.
- Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Eternum Praetorian
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 15:18:00 -
[340]
Well personal opinions aside, the consensus is that yes this may entice more miners/manufacturers to give 0.0 a go?
|
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 15:25:00 -
[341]
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Well personal opinions aside, the consensus is that yes this may entice more miners/manufacturers to give 0.0 a go?
When I wanted to upgrade my mining operation (2 hulks and logistics) I started hi sec L4 missioning. Works great so far, with added morphite for T2 production as the side. - Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Motseth
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 16:00:00 -
[342]
First lvl 4 missions give too much isk, risk free things should give low isk, and all the missioners here deep deep in their hearts know that Nerf lvl 4 missions, replace or do whatever to take out the mineral items from it, that would give lower income and would help miners. And all the missioners stop crying about being nerfed, you know you earn to much for the risk free job you do.
0.0 mining should be strongly encouraged, there are giant roids there and so many that you could field mining fleets in each system everyday, so the renter fees would be easily paid, and remember you can find stuff like arkonor in nullsec.
CCP needs to balance highsec versus nullsec profit, people living in highsec must understand they are almost risk free.
Lots of good ideas in this thread.
|
Slade Hoo
Amarr Corpse Collection Point
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:00:00 -
[343]
Originally by: Motseth
CCP needs to balance highsec versus nullsec profit, people living in highsec must understand they are almost risk free.
You suppressed lowsec in your calculations. ------ Make Lowsec useful! Vote in the CSM-Forum! |
NEMESIS SIN
Method In Khaos
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:40:00 -
[344]
Edited by: NEMESIS SIN on 17/03/2010 17:41:14
Originally by: Motseth First lvl 4 missions give too much isk, risk free things should give low isk, and all the missioners here deep deep in their hearts know that Nerf lvl 4 missions, replace or do whatever to take out the mineral items from it, that would give lower income and would help miners. And all the missioners stop crying about being nerfed, you know you earn to much for the risk free job you do.
0.0 mining should be strongly encouraged, there are giant roids there and so many that you could field mining fleets in each system everyday, so the renter fees would be easily paid, and remember you can find stuff like arkonor in nullsec.
CCP needs to balance highsec versus nullsec profit, people living in highsec must understand they are almost risk free.
Lots of good ideas in this thread.
Well TBH creating a market crash by killing mineral prices (and thus lowering tech I ship prices around the board) may be the first step to an up coming Lv 4 mission nerf.
Oh dear how the tears will flow then
|
Henri Rearden
Gallente Mantic Mining Inc
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:43:00 -
[345]
Originally by: Solomunio Kzenig Hell why not go the whole hog 8. Have all T1 ships/modules/ammo require the former NPC trade goods as part of their manufacturing process. As these goods will be player produced post Tyranis and should need minerals to be produced, this one ack in and of itself would be a huge minerals sink.
This... this is a freakin' great idea. And simple, to boot. I always thought the idea of trade goods was kind of silly. Well giving them a purpose through Tyrannis and tying that in with the mineral-sink need would be fantastic! Good thinking.
I sure hope CCP is reading this thread and that they're noticing at least one thing: These separate "threads" of production where materials for manufacturing do not overlap isn't good. Many suggestions involve the diversification of input materials. For instance, why don't you need any oxygen to build a ship? Crew's gotta breathe. Why don't you need a crew? You can't build people out of minerals. Why don't you need polymers? Surely ships are not entirely composed of metal. Why can't you use salvaged parts when building a ship or a module? They're already manufactured parts, aren't they? Just add a "remanufacturing" or "reconditioning" step - hell, you could add a skill or two just for that. And why is it that you can take a pile of minerals and, in one step, make a ship or a module? Shouldn't here be intermediate components which are then used to build ships/modules? - and these wouldn't necessarily all be race specific! Use the types of salvage that already exist as a jumping-off point for what kind of components ships/modules would be made from. There are so many resources in the game even before Tyrannis that are extremely limited in their use... this really shouldn't be. A complex and interconnected economy is less subject to manipulation, hoarding, monopolies, etc.
|
Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar Ma'adim Logistics
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 17:58:00 -
[346]
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Well personal opinions aside, the consensus is that yes this may entice more miners/manufacturers to give 0.0 a go?
Eh, you can't get a consensus without personal opinions. And No. It won't "entice" more industrialist to 0.0 due to the simple fact that is are no 0.0 where they are welcome. Alliances do not want industrialists, they want cap pilots and T2 geared BS pilots. Not hulks. So that leaves renting. Not profitable. People interested in industry purely will probably leave the game rather than move to 0.0.
|
Scarlet Crimson
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 18:32:00 -
[347]
Did CCP realy cave into this? I hope not. First the problem was exageratted. You still loose a couple of million on bs ships. After first hearig about this "scam" I looked in a lot of regions just to find the same thing over and over again, a small loss of iskies.
And the only real problem with this is how a suicide ganker can loose a bs ship killing a transport with as little as 5 million worth of cargo, and make money off doing it that way. Easy fix, if you loose a ship to concord your ships insurance is made invalid. So just make sure your target is truly worth the loss. :p
Otherwise working as intended.
|
Kyra Felann
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 20:42:00 -
[348]
Originally by: Henri Rearden
Originally by: Solomunio Kzenig Hell why not go the whole hog 8. Have all T1 ships/modules/ammo require the former NPC trade goods as part of their manufacturing process. As these goods will be player produced post Tyranis and should need minerals to be produced, this one ack in and of itself would be a huge minerals sink.
This... this is a freakin' great idea. And simple, to boot. I always thought the idea of trade goods was kind of silly. Well giving them a purpose through Tyrannis and tying that in with the mineral-sink need would be fantastic! Good thinking.
I sure hope CCP is reading this thread and that they're noticing at least one thing: These separate "threads" of production where materials for manufacturing do not overlap isn't good. Many suggestions involve the diversification of input materials. For instance, why don't you need any oxygen to build a ship? Crew's gotta breathe. Why don't you need a crew? You can't build people out of minerals. Why don't you need polymers? Surely ships are not entirely composed of metal. Why can't you use salvaged parts when building a ship or a module? They're already manufactured parts, aren't they? Just add a "remanufacturing" or "reconditioning" step - hell, you could add a skill or two just for that. And why is it that you can take a pile of minerals and, in one step, make a ship or a module? Shouldn't here be intermediate components which are then used to build ships/modules? - and these wouldn't necessarily all be race specific! Use the types of salvage that already exist as a jumping-off point for what kind of components ships/modules would be made from. There are so many resources in the game even before Tyrannis that are extremely limited in their use... this really shouldn't be. A complex and interconnected economy is less subject to manipulation, hoarding, monopolies, etc.
I support both of your ideas and would like to subscribe to your respective newletters.
It makes sense both from a realism/immersion perspective and from an economic/gameplay one. I think the barrier to manufacturing is too low. This leads to alts doing much of manufacturing. I think it should require more varied materials and intermediate steps, similar to capitals and tech 2 ships.
It would be awesome if you had to get electronics, mechanical parts, crewmembers, etc to build a ship, and all those things could come from planetary industry.
|
Cyclops43
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 21:55:00 -
[349]
FYI...
Originally by: CCP Soundwave CCP Chronotis is working on a dev blog about insurance which should detail the how's and why's.
From here.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:00:00 -
[350]
Originally by: Cyclops43 FYI...
Originally by: CCP Soundwave CCP Chronotis is working on a dev blog about insurance which should detail the how's and why's.
From here.
x2 -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
|
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:40:00 -
[351]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Cyclops43 FYI...
Originally by: CCP Soundwave CCP Chronotis is working on a dev blog about insurance which should detail the how's and why's.
From here.
x2
Well, at least now we know it wasn't some kind of accident... I look forward to the reasoning and still maintain the hope that this isn't all that is being changed to achieve whatever the goals behind this may be.
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap |
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:57:00 -
[352]
Originally by: Turiel Demon
Well, at least now we know it wasn't some kind of accident... I look forward to the reasoning and still maintain the hope that this isn't all that is being changed to achieve whatever the goals behind this may be.
Rest assured that whatever approach they take, of all the different possible ones suggested by the players as a viable course of action, they'll pick the absolute worst one and make a complete mess of it. -- Bellum Eternus Inveniam viam aut faciam.
Tier 5 Battleships
|
Turiel Demon
Minmatar Celtic industries F A I L
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 23:02:00 -
[353]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Turiel Demon
Well, at least now we know it wasn't some kind of accident... I look forward to the reasoning and still maintain the hope that this isn't all that is being changed to achieve whatever the goals behind this may be.
Rest assured that whatever approach they take, of all the different possible ones suggested by the players as a viable course of action, they'll pick the absolute worst one and make a complete mess of it.
Well you could say that about any gameplay mechanic.
Oh wait, that doesn't make things better >.<
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes Don't be greedy :P -Cap |
Henri Rearden
Gallente Mantic Mining Inc
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 00:10:00 -
[354]
Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal
Eh, you can't get a consensus without personal opinions. And No. It won't "entice" more industrialist to 0.0 due to the simple fact that is are no 0.0 where they are welcome. Alliances do not want industrialists, they want cap pilots and T2 geared BS pilots. Not hulks. So that leaves renting. Not profitable. People interested in industry purely will probably leave the game rather than move to 0.0.
I'm going to proceed on the premise that you are correct about about miners/industrialists and their reception in 0.0... Have you considered WHY industrialists aren't welcome in 0.0 Alliances? It's because they're not needed. What does that imply? Well, it implies that mining doesn't generate resources much faster than ratting/plexing/missioning, with the result that, given the option between two pilots who can contribute the same amount of resources to the cause, alliances choose the one that is already skilled for combat. So how do we fix this? Well, no matter how much ISK you have, you can't blow someone up unless you have a ship. This is another argument for the removal of drone poo and most/all NPC loot and the increase of bounties, mission payments, etc. The idea is to make it so the two groups, combat pilots and miners/industrialists, both have something the other needs. The combat pilots would have ISK from mission payouts and bounties that the miners/industrialists need to buy other things, and miners/industrialists would have the minerals, ice, ships, modules, etc, that the combat pilots need... just like reality. Alliances won't be recruiting industrialists/miners until it becomes worth their while to protect them, and until mission/rat loot is nerfed and passive resource streams are eliminated, that won't happen. When this is finally straightened out, a capsuleer in an Exhumer will look at a capsuleer in a HAC out on patrol and think, "I'm glad he's there protecting me so I can mine without getting popped." The capsuleer in the HAC will look at miners and think, "I'm glad he's there mining and building so I have something to buy when this ship gets popped."
Oh yes, alts are the other problem. It never ceases to amaze me how many problems alts and dual-boxing create...
|
Tulisin Dragonflame
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 02:28:00 -
[355]
Originally by: Zartrader
Originally by: HeliosGal
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Might this create an environment where the most ZERO risk of all profession in EVE (mining in empire) would be forced to move out into a null space alliance where they could set their own cost for minerals?
No. It might move miners, but the most zero-risk of all EVE professions (highsec mission running) will still remain largely untouched û in fact, it would receive a fairly decent boost in relative value should the mineral market collapse.
ccp could then move level 4 mission runners to low sec to offset the risk v reward matrix
They could do that but then its forcing players to do what they don't want to do. That would be fine if there were viable alternatives but there isn't. That's the problem, not enough genuine choice. No choice means players will simply stop playing.
Force is a tough word. They'd still be able to do level 3s in complete safety.
It is a good option, TBH. Level 4 missions acting as an "income floor" does a lot of bad for EVE. Changing that would have huge ramifications, but I believe it'd be mostly positive in the long run.
|
Zartrader
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 03:07:00 -
[356]
Edited by: Zartrader on 18/03/2010 03:13:20
Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame
Force is a tough word. They'd still be able to do level 3s in complete safety.
It is a good option, TBH. Level 4 missions acting as an "income floor" does a lot of bad for EVE. Changing that would have huge ramifications, but I believe it'd be mostly positive in the long run.
I just feel nerfing something without replacing it with a viable alternative is bad design in any game. Level 4's are often the stepping stone to further things anyway (seed capital) as well as being the source of many PVP player's funds.
This whole game suffers badly from a lack of options for earning ISK (generated rather than passed on) and consuming ore, that's the real issue. All these nerfs called for do precisely nothing to expand the game and provide the variety a sandbox is supposed to give.
Hopefully the blog from CCP will explain what more is to come in the game. We need a lot more complexity and variety so mission running becomes a poor second or at least equal to other options and no one is forced to do anything they do not want to do.
A friend of mine who played Pirates of the Caribbean was saying how that market works in that game and it seems a lot more integrated, as someone earlier was suggesting EVE needs, with new planetary resources being the obvious new source and ore sink. That would go a long way to sorting the problems out. We don't need nerfs we need innovation.
|
Tulisin Dragonflame
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 03:26:00 -
[357]
Edited by: Tulisin Dragonflame on 18/03/2010 03:27:50
Originally by: Zartrader Edited by: Zartrader on 18/03/2010 03:13:20
Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame
Force is a tough word. They'd still be able to do level 3s in complete safety.
It is a good option, TBH. Level 4 missions acting as an "income floor" does a lot of bad for EVE. Changing that would have huge ramifications, but I believe it'd be mostly positive in the long run.
I just feel nerfing something without replacing it with a viable alternative is bad design in any game. Level 4's are often the stepping stone to further things anyway (seed capital) as well as being the source of many PVP player's funds.
The economy is remarkably self-repairing. Either people will decide that the risk of lowsec is still not worth the (now actually large) increase in income, or they'll stick with level 3s. Either way, the baseline income will decrease, making more methods of money-making viable options (and since the general populace will have less ISK on hand, deflation will happen and prices will drop).
It isn't about removing missions from hisec altogether, but rather incentivizing lowsec missions as compared to hisec missions. If you want to run missions in safety, they'll still be available, but running them in lowsec would actually be a viable choice.
|
Phosphorus Palladium
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 04:33:00 -
[358]
Originally by: Tulisin Dragonflame Talk about missions and low sec and stuff...
I think you are straying slightly off topic.
|
Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar Ma'adim Logistics
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 06:00:00 -
[359]
Originally by: Henri Rearden
Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal
Eh, you can't get a consensus without personal opinions. And No. It won't "entice" more industrialist to 0.0 due to the simple fact that is are no 0.0 where they are welcome. Alliances do not want industrialists, they want cap pilots and T2 geared BS pilots. Not hulks. So that leaves renting. Not profitable. People interested in industry purely will probably leave the game rather than move to 0.0.
I'm going to proceed on the premise that you are correct about about miners/industrialists and their reception in 0.0... Have you considered WHY industrialists aren't welcome in 0.0 Alliances? It's because they're not needed. What does that imply? Well, it implies that mining doesn't generate resources much faster than ratting/plexing/missioning, with the result that, given the option between two pilots who can contribute the same amount of resources to the cause, alliances choose the one that is already skilled for combat. So how do we fix this? Well, no matter how much ISK you have, you can't blow someone up unless you have a ship. This is another argument for the removal of drone poo and most/all NPC loot and the increase of bounties, mission payments, etc. The idea is to make it so the two groups, combat pilots and miners/industrialists, both have something the other needs. The combat pilots would have ISK from mission payouts and bounties that the miners/industrialists need to buy other things, and miners/industrialists would have the minerals, ice, ships, modules, etc, that the combat pilots need... just like reality. Alliances won't be recruiting industrialists/miners until it becomes worth their while to protect them, and until mission/rat loot is nerfed and passive resource streams are eliminated, that won't happen. When this is finally straightened out, a capsuleer in an Exhumer will look at a capsuleer in a HAC out on patrol and think, "I'm glad he's there protecting me so I can mine without getting popped." The capsuleer in the HAC will look at miners and think, "I'm glad he's there mining and building so I have something to buy when this ship gets popped."
Oh yes, alts are the other problem. It never ceases to amaze me how many problems alts and dual-boxing create...
Yes, it would be great if industry was needed in 0.0. (great empires should be built on a great economy nothing else) But fact is that making mining less profitable won't make it so people risk their 200m isk hulks to roaming gangs more. Alliances won't want miners anyway as minerals will be plenty from the macroers, missoners and ratters. Niether of those sources will be touched. However we will see the probably idiotic reasoning behind this change soon enough. (if they are worried about inflation then the best would be to reduce the income from lvl4s and possibly ratting rather than crashing the mineralprice)
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 07:52:00 -
[360]
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?
|
|
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] |