EVE Search - New Dev Blog: The Circle of Life

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: The Circle of Life

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 11 post(s)
Victor Valka Caldari Preta Light Industries Naraka.	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:28:00 - [61] Originally by: Nick Curso Edited by: Nick Curso on 30/03/2010 15:09:29 Originally by: CCP Chronotis The flip side of that would be the risk adversity argument, that some would risk them less because of this. People wouldn't use them at all because of this. That's bull and you know it. Originally by: Spaztick You are not outnumbered, you are in a target-rich environment.
Nick Curso Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:29:00 - [62] Originally by: Victor Valka Originally by: Nick Curso Edited by: Nick Curso on 30/03/2010 15:09:29 Originally by: CCP Chronotis The flip side of that would be the risk adversity argument, that some would risk them less because of this. People wouldn't use them at all because of this. That's bull and you know it. Possibly but instead of quoting the first line why dont u reply constructively? Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Larkonis Trassler Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:30:00 - [63] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Revisions to drop loot tables and ore distribution are great but I'm somewhat concerned about the changes to T2 insurance. What with the finite supply of moongold if you make T2 ships cheaper to lose you will see more people flying them, driving up prices which then adjust insurance payouts etc thus potentially leading to spiralling costs all over the place. The valuations are clamped to always payout a fraction of the market value of the materials used to manufacture the ships in the case of Tech 2. Yes if the value of those materials increases so does the cost of building the ship and it's market price and the relative insurance payout. The same is true of all ships hence why its called dynamic insurance :). True but with the likes of T1 and T3 ships you can easily mine more rocks/shoot more drones/do whatever wormhole people do to keep prices down and or competitive. You can't simply mine more moons. While it may act as a conflict driver for some of the mid cost moonmins (not that there are many of those anymore) are you not slightly concerned about a return to the pre Dominion Moonopolies (hey, that's pretty catchy)? Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis
Matalino	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:30:00 - [64] Originally by: CCP Chronotis The valuations are clamped to always payout a fraction of the market value of the materials used to manufacture the ships in the case of Tech 2. Yes if the value of those materials increases so does the cost of building the ship and it's market price and the relative insurance payout. The same is true of all ships hence why its called dynamic insurance :). The same things are not true of all ships. Tech 1 and Tech 3 ships are built from components with dynamic supplies. Tech 2 ships are built from components with fixed supplies. Increasing the payouts in proportion to the cost of those components will result in an increase in the cost of those components.

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:31:00 - [65] Originally by: Soulita CCP Chronotis, since you are reading this thread and asked for a constructive open discussion I do have a question for you and would be very interested to hear your opinion on this: Insurance payout for ship losses resulting from Concord kills. What is your stance on this much discussed insurance related issue? Our stance is that this should get a further nerf some day outside of the initial relative reduction in Tech 1 ship payout which will occur after Tyrannis. However it should be noted this will not stop 'suicide ganking' since it is up to the player how much they can afford to lose in this way. It will cost more but if they can still afford it then it will still happen.

Viper ShizzIe Habitual Euthanasia Dystopia Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:32:00 - [66] Originally by: Nick Curso Edited by: Nick Curso on 30/03/2010 15:09:29 Originally by: CCP Chronotis The flip side of that would be the risk adversity argument, that some would risk them less because of this. People wouldn't use them at all because of this. I think like viper said where is the logic in nerfing the one ship class where a respectable amount of ISK is lost in its loss. Not to mention the massivly expensive fittings they need. Unless ofc u want to see t2 fitted super carriers and titans. Has it also been considered how much of a time sink it is to build super caps from a non ISK perspective such as compression time/hauling/build time etc. In some cases ppl have worked for years to get these ships and contrary to the myth don't have 100's of bils in the bank after the ship purchase. To be punished with next to no insurance payout meaning you have to start from scratch again. Seems like a bit of a crazy plan to me maybe its time to look away from the numbers and actually consider the other requirements of getting a ship like that and think to yourself "Is this really fair?" It's not so much that as their logic for lowering supercap and t1 insurance is to create more risk (of losing isk) while they're going to improve t2 insurance to create less risk (of actually losing isk). If anything insurance should be removed period, it's already far too easy for every random scrub to replace every ship they want to fly on a constant basis. While availability has gone up the risk for flying anything has gone down, losing a ship in this game used to hurt, now it's more difficult r-click -> buy another in Jita than it is to actually have to afford it.
Trauli	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:33:00 - [67] Originally by: Nick Curso Edited by: Nick Curso on 30/03/2010 15:24:23 Originally by: Trauli Originally by: Nick Curso Edited by: Nick Curso on 30/03/2010 15:09:29 Originally by: CCP Chronotis The flip side of that would be the risk adversity argument, that some would risk them less because of this. People wouldn't use them at all because of this. I think like viper said where is the logic in nerfing the one ship class where a respectable amount of ISK is lost in its loss. Not to mention the massivly expensive fittings they need. Unless ofc u want to see t2 fitted super carriers and titans. Has it also been considered how much of a time sink it is to build super caps from a non ISK perspective such as compression time/hauling/build time etc. In some cases ppl have worked for years to get these ships and contrary to the myth don't have 100's of bils in the bank after the ship purchase. To be punished with next to no insurance payout meaning you have to start from scratch again. Seems like a bit of a crazy plan to me maybe its time to look away from the numbers and actually consider the other requirements of getting a ship like that and think to yourself "Is this really fair?" The world needs less super capitals (so unless you are super rich and replace them at the drop of a hat) then of course there should be a massive risk for you to deploy one. My point is for most it already is a massive risk to deploy them. After this you would just have to be insane. 'Fly what you can afford to lose' Im not sure what we are debating here, supercarriers cost upwards of 40bill when properly officer fit so really a nerf to the 5 bill you get from insurance shouldnt really be a real hinderance.
Lord Helghast	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:33:00 - [68] i hope CCP is taking T2 ME-4 into account in the insurance calc for cost atleast. The loot table changes are welcome, but i worry of how much of a difference it will make if meta0 are replaced with meta1 isnt the refined loot the same in the end? Love the idea of dynamic insurance, its a great idea.... BUT I AGREE THAT Current insurance should be posted via API so that evemon and the others can access current insurance rates. I dont really see much impact from these changes though to the undervaluation of morphite and megacyte and zydrine really... is the drone poo change supposed to make that big of a difference, i mean as it scordite is #4 (i suppose the increased availability of this in nullsec/lowsec will help to ballance this lower again), but mercoxite being valued below arkonor is an issue for the last few weeks, how will these changes impact that exactly?
Andre Vauban Gallente Quantum Cats Syndicate	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:34:00 - [69] Originally by: Nick Curso Edited by: Nick Curso on 30/03/2010 15:24:23 Originally by: Trauli Originally by: Nick Curso Edited by: Nick Curso on 30/03/2010 15:09:29 Originally by: CCP Chronotis The flip side of that would be the risk adversity argument, that some would risk them less because of this. People wouldn't use them at all because of this. I think like viper said where is the logic in nerfing the one ship class where a respectable amount of ISK is lost in its loss. Not to mention the massivly expensive fittings they need. Unless ofc u want to see t2 fitted super carriers and titans. Has it also been considered how much of a time sink it is to build super caps from a non ISK perspective such as compression time/hauling/build time etc. In some cases ppl have worked for years to get these ships and contrary to the myth don't have 100's of bils in the bank after the ship purchase. To be punished with next to no insurance payout meaning you have to start from scratch again. Seems like a bit of a crazy plan to me maybe its time to look away from the numbers and actually consider the other requirements of getting a ship like that and think to yourself "Is this really fair?" The world needs less super capitals (so unless you are super rich and replace them at the drop of a hat) then of course there should be a massive risk for you to deploy one. My point is for most it already is a massive risk to deploy them. After this you would just have to be insane. It might be extreme, but it might help prevent some of the lolz hot drops. As a smaller entity, it gets difficult to deploy capitals as we know a larger entity has no problem making a 10 minute detour to fly across the universe and back to hot drop our 2-3 capitals with 10+ super caps with carrier support. Maybe it will no longer be too risky and not worth it to deploy super caps and to a lesser degree caps for the lolz.

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:35:00 - [70] Originally by: Letrange 2 things: - Is the cost of insurance pegged to a % of estimated payout? - I would advise updating the rates monthly. If you look at the basket value of minerals as they change over time I suspect that once every 3 months is insufficient. If it's on a set schedule then it could eventually be automated to a certain degree. Yes, insurance premium cost is still 5% of the insurance value incrementing up to platinum at 30%. It is an automated task and the first change will be the largest correcting for seven years of movement. It can be altered to run on a different schedule however is designed to account for chaotic transitions like the mineral supply changes and avoid short term spikes and going for long term trends.

Aineko Macx	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:37:00 - [71] Edited by: Aineko Macx on 30/03/2010 15:41:31 Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Revisions to drop loot tables and ore distribution are great but I'm somewhat concerned about the changes to T2 insurance. What with the finite supply of moongold if you make T2 ships cheaper to lose you will see more people flying them, driving up prices which then adjust insurance payouts etc thus potentially leading to spiralling costs all over the place. The valuations are clamped to always payout a fraction of the market value of the materials used to manufacture the ships in the case of Tech 2. Yes if the value of those materials increases so does the cost of building the ship and it's market price and the relative insurance payout. The same is true of all ships hence why its called dynamic insurance :). The cost of replacing a T2 ship after the change will reach the same level as before the change, after a while, given the situation of moon goo supply. Not taking into account price elasticity and the cost part of invention, the numbers are: old_price/(old_price -insurance_payout +insurance_fee) = new_price
Dav Varan	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:39:00 - [72] I think your missing an opportunity here. Dont simple reduce the amount of Meta 0 drops, remove them alltogther and decrease meta 1-4 drops. Make T1 production somewhat worthwhile again. As far as scrap metal goes is this going to just refine to trit as current , or will there be different types of scrap metal ?. A bit unrelatted but if your going to do stuff to the loot tables can you please fix the broken drop items. Currently some meta items ( ballistic controls spring to mind ) tend to drop very very rarely. In fact I think I've only ever seen them drop from DG rats.
Nick Curso Black Nova Corp IT Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:42:00 - [73] Originally by: Trauli 'Fly what you can afford to lose' Im not sure what we are debating here, supercarriers cost upwards of 40bill when properly officer fit so really a nerf to the 5 bill you get from insurance shouldnt really be a real hinderance. So then why nerf it at all if by your own admission is a paltry amount anyway therefor sufficient risk to field? Or is this just coming from supercap hate and not actual reason? Please re-size your signature to the maximum allowed of 400 x 120 pixels with a maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist
Mahke Aeon Of Strife Discord.	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:42:00 - [74] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Revisions to drop loot tables and ore distribution are great but I'm somewhat concerned about the changes to T2 insurance. What with the finite supply of moongold if you make T2 ships cheaper to lose you will see more people flying them, driving up prices which then adjust insurance payouts etc thus potentially leading to spiralling costs all over the place. The valuations are clamped to always payout a fraction of the market value of the materials used to manufacture the ships in the case of Tech 2. Yes if the value of those materials increases so does the cost of building the ship and it's market price and the relative insurance payout. The same is true of all ships hence why its called dynamic insurance :). This is an important issue and you should re-read and think about Larkonis' post. Moon material supply is static. The combination of reduces insurance coverage of t1 and insurability of t2 (especially command ships, but, others will see the effect too) is going to drive up t2 demand hard: I fly mainly t1 because of relative prices but expect to go back to t2 (and perhaps t3 for pve, "100% for Tech 3 ships" is insane) because of this and am probably not the only one. This will constitute a HUGE demand shift for t2 ships against a fixed moon mineral supply. Unless tyrannis is coming with a new moon mineral sink, you really should have whoever at CCP looks at economic changes take a good look at the numbers involved and consider the knock-on effects of this. P.S. -- thanks for the obvious arbitrage opportunity on the drone loot change

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:43:00 - [75] Originally by: Batolemaeus Edited by: Batolemaeus on 30/03/2010 14:58:21 One question. Wouldn't the re-evaluation of insurance payout for certain battleships that are rarely used outside of pvp (like the armageddon or rokh) but have a rather low live expectancy especially during times of war result in these ships getting more and more easy to replace, to the point of making their loss nearly meaningless (like it is now)? Of course i'm assuming this is an automatic process. And if it is, it would mean that certain ships coughdrakecoughravencough would suddenly be more expensive to lose in pvp, since they rarely die due to being flown in pve a lot. If it is automatic, this could easily be a self reinforcing process, prompting people to fly other ships for their insurance payout, further reducing insurance payouts for these ships.. I think you misunderstand, the debate on whether certain ship groups get more or less insurance based on their role and place in the universe is not automatic based on ship use and loss. It is more us looking at certain ship groups and specifying some to pay out a little more than others based on their role and use. For example covert classes get less than tacklers as an example here as they are less prone to dying due to their role. Battleships all get the same payout multiplier (1.0) since they are tech 1 currently which equates to a 70% net payout as usual. However covert ops might only get 0.2 but interceptors might get 0.4 is how we translate the goal and the mechanics behind the scene.

Mashie Saldana Red Federation	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:48:00 - [76] Can you please make sure whatever the meta 0 replacment is doesn't need a stupid amount of space? Godly scientist/builder/reverse engineer for sale
Tuborg Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:48:00 - [77] Quote: Our next expansion is focused around planets and all the cool stuff going on there as outlined in Hammer's recent blog. Gah! you made me look. 20 days ago is not very "recent", you know.

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:49:00 - [78] Originally by: Mahke Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Larkonis Trassler Revisions to drop loot tables and ore distribution are great but I'm somewhat concerned about the changes to T2 insurance. What with the finite supply of moongold if you make T2 ships cheaper to lose you will see more people flying them, driving up prices which then adjust insurance payouts etc thus potentially leading to spiralling costs all over the place. The valuations are clamped to always payout a fraction of the market value of the materials used to manufacture the ships in the case of Tech 2. Yes if the value of those materials increases so does the cost of building the ship and it's market price and the relative insurance payout. The same is true of all ships hence why its called dynamic insurance :). This is an important issue and you should re-read and think about Larkonis' post. Moon material supply is static. The combination of reduces insurance coverage of t1 and insurability of t2 (especially command ships, but, others will see the effect too) is going to drive up t2 demand hard: I fly mainly t1 because of relative prices but expect to go back to t2 (and perhaps t3 for pve, "100% for Tech 3 ships" is insane) because of this and am probably not the only one. This will constitute a HUGE demand shift for t2 ships against a fixed moon mineral supply. Unless tyrannis is coming with a new moon mineral sink, you really should have whoever at CCP looks at economic changes take a good look at the numbers involved and consider the knock-on effects of this. P.S. -- thanks for the obvious arbitrage opportunity on the drone loot change it is a doomsday scenario and wont happen tbh but yes we were aware of what increased payout entails with ship use.

Mahke Aeon Of Strife Discord.	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:49:00 - [79] Edited by: Mahke on 30/03/2010 15:51:18 Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Letrange 2 things: - Is the cost of insurance pegged to a % of estimated payout? - I would advise updating the rates monthly. If you look at the basket value of minerals as they change over time I suspect that once every 3 months is insufficient. If it's on a set schedule then it could eventually be automated to a certain degree. Yes, insurance premium cost is still 5% of the insurance value incrementing up to platinum at 30%. It is an automated task and the first change will be the largest correcting for seven years of movement. It can be altered to run on a different schedule however is designed to account for chaotic transitions like the mineral supply changes and avoid short term spikes and going for long term trends. Just a thought: the algorithm should be ran on minerals actually traded, not buy/sell orders listed as a way to stop people from abusing the system. For example, if someone wanted to lower prices they could use the margin order trick to put up huge buy orders in a backend area of space where they won't be filled instantly and then take them down and repeat to drive prices in the desired direction. But, if it was based on minerals traded and not orders, then taxes would stop people from doing this (although I understand that clipping the ends off the mean is designed to do the same thing, this would add an extra layer of security). edit: you may already be doing this, I have no clue, but if you're not its worth considering
Malakai Draevyn Caldari Internet SpaceShips Is Serious Business	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:50:00 - [80] Edited by: Malakai Draevyn on 30/03/2010 15:51:09 Originally by: CCP Chronotis It is more us looking at certain ship groups and specifying some to pay out a little more than others based on their role and use. For example covert classes get less than tacklers as an example here as they are less prone to dying due to their role. Battleships all get the same payout multiplier (1.0) since they are tech 1 currently which equates to a 70% net payout as usual. However covert ops might only get 0.2 but interceptors might get 0.4 is how we translate the goal and the mechanics behind the scene. Sorry to try to bring that irritation known as "Real Life" into the bargain here, but if a specific model of car is stolen/destroyed/something else that needs an insurance claim, then typically the insurance premiums on that model climb through the roof. By that measure, as covops will, in theory, die less, what about having some kind of 'infinity welcomes careful drivers' no claims policy ? :p ..:: MD ::..
Lika Mal	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:52:00 - [81] Originally by: Dav Varan I think your missing an opportunity here. Dont simple reduce the amount of Meta 0 drops, remove them alltogther and decrease meta 1-4 drops. Make T1 production somewhat worthwhile again. As far as scrap metal goes is this going to just refine to trit as current , or will there be different types of scrap metal ?. A bit unrelatted but if your going to do stuff to the loot tables can you please fix the broken drop items. Currently some meta items ( ballistic controls spring to mind ) tend to drop very very rarely. In fact I think I've only ever seen them drop from DG rats. Would love for t1 production to mean something again :)
Larkonis Trassler Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:54:00 - [82] Originally by: CCP Chronotis it is a doomsday scenario and wont happen tbh but yes we were aware of what increased payout entails with ship use. Quoting, saving and bookmarking for future reference. Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis
Trauli	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:54:00 - [83] Edited by: Trauli on 30/03/2010 15:55:06 Originally by: Nick Curso Originally by: Trauli 'Fly what you can afford to lose' Im not sure what we are debating here, supercarriers cost upwards of 40bill when properly officer fit so really a nerf to the 5 bill you get from insurance shouldnt really be a real hinderance. So then why nerf it at all if by your own admission is a paltry amount anyway therefor sufficient risk to field? Or is this just coming from supercap hate and not actual reason? My point is that supercapitals should only be for a select few that have the isk to replace them. There are too many in the game. Massive supercapital fleets (and all capital blobs FYI) that can jump massive distances in a matter of minutes are a huge barrier in preventing smaller entities from getting a foothold in SOV space. This in turn prevents any sort of real, new 'emergence' unless you become a pet of a larger overlord coaltion. This is one of the main reasons why 0.0 is so stagnant. Nerfing insurance is no way going to solve that, but at least its a start.
Aineko Macx	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:55:00 - [84] Originally by: CCP Chronotis it is a doomsday scenario and wont happen tbh but yes we were aware of what increased payout entails with ship use. With Dominion, you guys missed a good opportunity to rework the moon goo system into one that actually scales, IMO.
dischordia Gallente wiggle Tech.	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:55:00 - [85] Originally by: Lika Mal Originally by: Dav Varan I think your missing an opportunity here. Dont simple reduce the amount of Meta 0 drops, remove them alltogther and decrease meta 1-4 drops. Make T1 production somewhat worthwhile again. As far as scrap metal goes is this going to just refine to trit as current , or will there be different types of scrap metal ?. A bit unrelatted but if your going to do stuff to the loot tables can you please fix the broken drop items. Currently some meta items ( ballistic controls spring to mind ) tend to drop very very rarely. In fact I think I've only ever seen them drop from DG rats. Would love for t1 production to mean something again :) As would i love for t1 to mean something again. Would make the market very interesting too
Arkady Sadik Minmatar Electus Matari	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:55:00 - [86] Awesome changes! Will there be a way to automatically compute / look up the recalculated base price (or insurance values)? Via an API call maybe?

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2010.03.30 15:58:00 - [87] Originally by: Arkady Sadik Awesome changes! Will there be a way to automatically compute / look up the recalculated base price (or insurance values)? Via an API call maybe? It is on our 'backlog' to use agile speak. Something for the possible future.

Manfred Rickenbocker	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:00:00 - [88] Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 30/03/2010 16:05:12 Im surprised noone has said this yet but: If you have an insurance contract now, self-destruct your ship before you lose your payouts! So, some questions come to mind: Why replace loot drops with scrap metal? Why not just remove the drop (the one replaced with scrap) all together? Will there be any thought put towards reducing the volume of scrap metal so that it can be efficiently looted? Does this affect both regular belt rats and mission rats, or just mission rats? ------------------------ Peace through superior firepower: a guiding principle for uncertain times.
Iguanoid Caldari The 5th Freedom Gentlemen's Club	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:00:00 - [89] So with Dominion in came the changes to super-carrier build costs and hp / damage boosts, to bring super caps of this type back to the battlefield. Now with the next big patch its planned to reduce insurance to an absolute minimum to make deployment more of a risk. Someone in the CCP office needs to decide wtf they want. You want them on the field more or less, because you cant have it both ways... --
Dav Varan	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:01:00 - [90] Interceptors dont need a large payout percentage , they are one of the more survivable classes due to there nanobility. You'll need to be able to specify percentages by ship type not just there class. e.g. Hacs. Deimost < Instantly vaporised whenever it shows its face on the battlefield sue to high damage / no tank needs a big payout. Vagabond < Uber nano*** running away ship excelent survivability , low payout required.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 24 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.