| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Grozen
Caldari
Titan Core
   |
Posted - 2010.03.16 14:04:00 -
[61]
The only answer to inflation is wars and pvp and lots of it.With the increase of players pvp will increase too.
knowledge is power |
Navi HeyListen
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 15:28:00 -
[62]
o/
n00b here.
From my limited knowledge of the game, I see all the calls for insurence nurfs to be based around the issues of how easy and rewarding it is to suicide gank people. I myself was suicided for the first time yesterday in Jita, I was in a bestower carrying around 40mill of loot i was goining to sell. I thought (incorrectly) that with such a low ammount I would not be a very good target. However a raven took me clean out :)
Why dont they simple reduce the payout if you are killed by concord. They could make it 50% payout or that your simple not eligable for the plat pay out. This would mean that suicide gankiing would still be very profitable - you would just have to be more picky about the targets, and less n00bs without the knowledge or skills to haul to still make a reasonable amount of isk for themself. People would also be able to self destruct their ships for the minerals.
Im sure this has been sugested many times befor and im sure there is somthing im overlooking but if somone could take the time to explain what I would apreciate it.
Navi - p.s love the depth of this game :)
|
RJ Nobel
Nobel Research and Development
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:12:00 -
[63]
 Originally by: Navi HeyListen
o/
n00b here.
From my limited knowledge of the game, I see all the calls for insurence nurfs to be based around the issues of how easy and rewarding it is to suicide gank people. I myself was suicided for the first time yesterday in Jita, I was in a bestower carrying around 40mill of loot i was goining to sell. I thought (incorrectly) that with such a low ammount I would not be a very good target. However a raven took me clean out :)
Why dont they simple reduce the payout if you are killed by concord. They could make it 50% payout or that your simple not eligable for the plat pay out. This would mean that suicide gankiing would still be very profitable - you would just have to be more picky about the targets, and less n00bs without the knowledge or skills to haul to still make a reasonable amount of isk for themself. People would also be able to self destruct their ships for the minerals.
Im sure this has been sugested many times befor and im sure there is somthing im overlooking but if somone could take the time to explain what I would apreciate it.
Navi - p.s love the depth of this game :)
Sorry to hear about your loss. Welcome to Eve.
Your suggestion to reduce or remove the insurance payout when killed by Concord has been made several times. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it is a reasonable, logical response to an issue that is not a problem. Suicide ganking is the only thing keeping high-sec from becoming an oversaturated haven of carebear activity. The current issues with mineral supply and insurance exchange indicated that the ratio of carebears : PVP'ers is already out of balance. Anything that is detrimental to PVP activity, which includes suicide ganking, will only exacerbate the imbalance.
Eve needs to be more dangerous, not less.
|
Navi HeyListen
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:30:00 -
[64]
Originally by: RJ Nobel
Originally by: Navi HeyListen
o/
n00b here.
From my limited knowledge of the game, I see all the calls for insurence nurfs to be based around the issues of how easy and rewarding it is to suicide gank people. I myself was suicided for the first time yesterday in Jita, I was in a bestower carrying around 40mill of loot i was goining to sell. I thought (incorrectly) that with such a low ammount I would not be a very good target. However a raven took me clean out :)
Why dont they simple reduce the payout if you are killed by concord. They could make it 50% payout or that your simple not eligable for the plat pay out. This would mean that suicide gankiing would still be very profitable - you would just have to be more picky about the targets, and less n00bs without the knowledge or skills to haul to still make a reasonable amount of isk for themself. People would also be able to self destruct their ships for the minerals.
Im sure this has been sugested many times befor and im sure there is somthing im overlooking but if somone could take the time to explain what I would apreciate it.
Navi - p.s love the depth of this game :)
Sorry to hear about your loss. Welcome to Eve.
Your suggestion to reduce or remove the insurance payout when killed by Concord has been made several times. Unfortunately, in my opinion, it is a reasonable, logical response to an issue that is not a problem. Suicide ganking is the only thing keeping high-sec from becoming an oversaturated haven of carebear activity. The current issues with mineral supply and insurance exchange indicated that the ratio of carebears : PVP'ers is already out of balance. Anything that is detrimental to PVP activity, which includes suicide ganking, will only exacerbate the imbalance.
Eve needs to be more dangerous, not less.
Just to clarify I dont think suiciding is a 'problem'. Just somthing that could be tweaked slightly to improve.
The danger of the game is somthing that attracted me to start and is what will no doubt keep me playing and paying.
Only thing is there is no danger for somone to suicide gank anyone due to the fact they know even if the drop is poor - they will loose nothing and may even gain off the insurence. I think a reduction (not removal) of insurence payouts related to CONCORD deaths would increase the depth and skills of the suicide gank mini-profesion. I dont think it should be reduced massivly - its just it seems to easy and risk free to suicide people for profit. If they were not garenteed the money they invested back. They would have to pick the targets more wisly. Hi-sec will always be full of bares, due to its nature. It will also be full of n00bs trying to learn the complex game that is EVE.
I see hi-sec as space with training wheels - preparing you for low - null sec.
I see suicide ganking as an important part of the fun that is Empire space. Its just that unlike most things in eve - its increadbly low risk - hi profit.
|
Dethmourne Silvermane
Gallente
Silvermane Enterprises
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 16:58:00 -
[65]
The problem with high-sec "training wheels" is that far too frequently, people keep the training wheels on.
Highsec is still significantly more profitable than lowsec or 0.0 for most people, with a minimum of thought.
---------------------------------
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. |
Leonin Sun
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 19:41:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Leonin Sun on 16/03/2010 19:45:25
why dont we split high sec up
1.0-0.8=high sec like it is now
0.7-0.5=mid sec
0.4-0.1= low sec like it is now
0.0= null sec
mid sec can be a combination of low and high sec:
i.e there is concord but they don't react it distress signal from belts,Plex,mission ETC they only hang out around gates and stations so people cant gate camp but can still suicide people if they are carrying good loot or whatever.
And sice all the high-sec lvl4 happen in 0.7 or lower it put more risk on grinding them and most 08-1.0 system have few belts i them with only veldspar and scocite etc it is less profitable for macro miners. and as all the major market hub are in 1.0 to 0.8 it will still be useful.
its my two Isk worth anyway
|
Tehg Rhind
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 21:51:00 -
[67]
Having insurance payouts be the bottom for the mineral market is bad. It works, but in the words of my old programming professor, it's duct tape and duct tape is bad. The real issue is a lack of balance in supply/demand. Modifying the demand can only be done on a consistent level through major patches to introduce isk sinks, however, modifying supply is not hard at all.
I hate even mentioning this as it's how I have made most of my fortune, but other people already have so I'm not the first traitor. The fact is that the reprocess market is clearly a serious part of the problem. While reprocessing should be a viable route for traders currently I think it is way out of balance. A pretty simple fix is to simply reduce the mineral reproc value of items across the board.
Less from small and large energy transfers, smartbombs, passive targeters. All of those items that only exist to be scrapped, and have embarrasingly large profit margins on them (well, not smartbombs) You could probably just lower values on these kinds of items and leave the rest of the scrap market alone and remove a massive quantity of mineral supply.
And honestly I don't think this would kill my business. As it is the scrap market is total easy mode, and there are a LOT of clearly stupid traders in it (hint: if your buy order volume is 50 times daily volume and you adjust your orders daily, I'm talking about you). Making the reproc market have lower margins would make a more niche trading market for people who have the skills to operate in it, which ultimately I wouldn't mind.
|
Xenofur
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2010.03.16 22:51:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Xenofur on 16/03/2010 22:50:51
Originally by: Leonin Sun
Edited by: Leonin Sun on 16/03/2010 19:45:25
why dont we split high sec up
1.0-0.8=high sec like it is now
0.7-0.5=mid sec
0.4-0.1= low sec like it is now
0.0= null sec
mid sec can be a combination of low and high sec:
i.e there is concord but they don't react it distress signal from belts,Plex,mission ETC they only hang out around gates and stations so people cant gate camp but can still suicide people if they are carrying good loot or whatever.
And sice all the high-sec lvl4 happen in 0.7 or lower it put more risk on grinding them and most 08-1.0 system have few belts i them with only veldspar and scocite etc it is less profitable for macro miners. and as all the major market hub are in 1.0 to 0.8 it will still be useful.
its my two Isk worth anyway
That would result in a flood of support tickets the likes of which Eve has never seen as all the people who missed the change get ganked.
|
Thrasymachus TheSophist
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 04:06:00 -
[69]
The mineral basket price being supported by insurance is an observation, not a rule.
It need not be that way. Indeed, its a really stupid system.
With the changes on SISI, I suspect we'll see a disaggregation of the two. Insurance payouts will be recalculated, intermittently, to some base formula, preventing the majority of insurance fraud.
Mineral prices will no longer be "supported" by insurance - as it should be. Should CCP wish to support mineral prices artificially (for whatever reason), there are a variety of tools to do so - the cleanest being NPC mineral purchasers at the floor price.
|
Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar
Ma'adim Logistics
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 06:52:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Thrasymachus TheSophist
The mineral basket price being supported by insurance is an observation, not a rule.
It need not be that way. Indeed, its a really stupid system.
With the changes on SISI, I suspect we'll see a disaggregation of the two. Insurance payouts will be recalculated, intermittently, to some base formula, preventing the majority of insurance fraud.
Mineral prices will no longer be "supported" by insurance - as it should be. Should CCP wish to support mineral prices artificially (for whatever reason), there are a variety of tools to do so - the cleanest being NPC mineral purchasers at the floor price.
And what would you fix by doing it?
Which problem would it solve?
Making mining, the clearly best moneymaker (or not), worse?
This is a game. This means that real-life has very little to do with anything in it. Just wanting to remove something because it isn't "realistic" or similar isn't good enough a reason.
There needs to be some tangible reason how it improves the game for the people playing rather than some intangible will to get a more realistic economy.
If they need to change something with the mineral market they should start by removing reprocessing of anything not m0 and preferably the drop of m0 items from npc's.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 07:12:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Leonin Sun
Edited by: Leonin Sun on 16/03/2010 19:45:25
why dont we split high sec up
1.0-0.8=high sec like it is now
0.7-0.5=mid sec
0.4-0.1= low sec like it is now
0.0= null sec
mid sec can be a combination of low and high sec:
i.e there is concord but they don't react it distress signal from belts,Plex,mission ETC they only hang out around gates and stations so people cant gate camp but can still suicide people if they are carrying good loot or whatever.
And sice all the high-sec lvl4 happen in 0.7 or lower it put more risk on grinding them and most 08-1.0 system have few belts i them with only veldspar and scocite etc it is less profitable for macro miners. and as all the major market hub are in 1.0 to 0.8 it will still be useful.
its my two Isk worth anyway
"High sec is small, why don't we make it smaller?"
Any other bright idea?
|
Ki Shodan
Gallente
deep blue
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 10:59:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
"High sec is small, why don't we make it smaller?"
Any other bright idea?
I think something like this would do the trick:
The Noob #270: The safe zone
--
Evemail me, if my name is used as guarantor! |
Galdir Ragnek
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 13:36:00 -
[73]
Are there actually any stats on the number of ships that have been self destructed in the last year?
|
Turiel Demon
Minmatar
Celtic industries
F A I L
|
Posted - 2010.03.17 14:01:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Galdir Ragnek
Are there actually any stats on the number of ships that have been self destructed in the last year?
Unfortunately no, though we know that the minimum number of ships built for insurance fraud reasons exceeds 30 thousand battleships just from two months worth of activity reports by Cosmo and Lui
If you can't beat Eris, join her, hmmm that sounded so much better in my head - Cortes
Don't be greedy :P -Cap |
Smendrik Von'Smendle
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 17:31:00 -
[75]
The easiest way for CCP to stabilize the mineral market (or any <insert buyable market item here> market) would be to seed buy orders for minerals (or other market buyable item). Some of the buy orders I have seen (for minerals anyway) it wouldnt surpise me if they are already doing it.
|
Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar
Ma'adim Logistics
|
Posted - 2010.03.18 19:22:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Smendrik Von'Smendle
The easiest way for CCP to stabilize the mineral market (or any <insert buyable market item here> market) would be to seed buy orders for minerals (or other market buyable item). Some of the buy orders I have seen (for minerals anyway) it wouldnt surpise me if they are already doing it.
They have removed that once, doubt they will add it back. |
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 03:34:00 -
[77]
A new dev blog about insurance on the way
CCP Chronotis |
Umega
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 17:57:00 -
[78]
Originally by: cosmoray
A new dev blog about insurance on the way
CCP Chronotis
I can hardly wait for what info may be in that dev blog. Chronotis.. so insurance setup for a possible mining system overhaul?
Also new teaser video out.. that doesn't show much. What I took from it was the MASS amount of freighters heading towards planets. Oh and the Caldari desgined station orbiting one, NPC or POS.. idk. Oh.. and that either rocket, 'shuttle', or possible missile coming up from one of the planets towards a ship.
----------------------------------------
-Treat the EVE Market like you're a pimp and it is your 'employee'.. freely fondle it as you wish and make it pay you for it- |
Wyke Mossari
Gallente
Staner Industries
|
Posted - 2010.03.19 20:35:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Wyke Mossari on 19/03/2010 20:45:20
The rockets are probably the supply rockets mentioned in the Dev blog lifting goods from the surface. The freighters are probably hauling in the huge amount of minerals needed to build the space elevators.
|
Tenebrae Syrennis
|
Posted - 2010.05.07 18:21:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Tonto Auri
So, problem on hand: game has much more minerals that it can eat.
Solution: create a way to blow up minerals.
How? Just look around. What is blown up constantly, what is not created by players? Obviously: POS stuff... Towers, modules, sov units...
....Apropos nothing else whatsoever, I must remember to ask Helicity Bosun (sp?) when the next Hulkageddon will be. Wherever the economy may/may not have gone by then, the lol-factor alone will be worth it. 
|
Svarty II
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2010.07.06 16:24:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Svarty II on 06/07/2010 16:24:51
Originally by: Akita T
This mechanism might be revised in future expansions, but for now, it's based on some ancient ass-pulled mineral baseprices (2/8/32/128/512/2048/8192 ISK for trit/pye/mex/iso/nox/zyd/mega).
By "ass-pulled" I'm going to assume you mean arbitrary.
It doesn't take a genius to recognise those arbitrary base prices are powers of two: 1,3, 5, 7, 9 and 11. How cute.
Obviously, the whole "base price" concept is utter bunkum and should be cast to the four winds.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |