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)
Niccolado Starwalker Gallente Shadow Templars	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:02:00 - [91] Personally I hope the T2 insurance payout will be increased. As it is now theres almost no reason at all to innsure it. The payout is not much more than the price of the innsurance itself.. Things have become much more expensive now than before In my experience, but maybe thats just me feeling so. But cloning costs are just one of them I feel the increased pain from. Ship cost too is pretty steep. At least for T2. So I personally think the innsurance payout could be increased without reducing the steep penality for death too much.. Originally by: Dianabolic Your tears are absolutely divine, like a fine fine wine, rolling down your cheeks until they flow down the river of LOL.
Pax Ratlin Gallente Serenity Ascension On the Rocks	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:03:00 - [92] Have i read all this wrong or is the effect, deliberate or otherwise, here to drive cap ship use and production out of the hands of smaller alliances and corps and into the firm control of the much larger alliances???
Jagga Spikes Minmatar Spikes Chop Shop	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:05:00 - [93] thanks for the devblog. looking good. ________________________________ : Forum Bore 'Em : Foamy The Squirrel

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:05:00 - [94] Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker 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 NPC rat and mission rats, or just mission rats? 1. it is better to drop something in reward terms even if it is not worth everyone's time to loot. 2. Limitations of the system - it must drop something or everything else increases in drop rate which we do not want 3. It is already a good volume/trit ratio currently, was boosted a while back in these terms 4. Both.

Abrazzar	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:11:00 - [95] Nice changes, finally people will produce T1 mods for T2 production instead of just buying loot drops from traders. Now about mining, will there ever be a overhaul of the functionality? Like stuff found in this old thread of mine. And the drone regions, think it may be interesting to give them their own drone modules and maybe even ships produced from exploration stuff, drone salvage and drone alloys? --------
Vyktor Abyss The Abyss Corporation	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:13:00 - [96] Re: Loot tables, Mining rebalance For a long time people have been saying T1 meta 0 should be removed and I welcome this overdue change. Better/new ores in low sec and null sec is also great news for pirates, alliances and miners alike. Re: Insurance "Dynamic" insurance based on mineral cost sounds good provided you make those costings regularly and accurately. How do you "cost" a T2 ship though given T2 BPOs give a significant "cost" advantage, as does perhaps being in a 0.0 alliance owning masses of the high end moons; What is to stop said alliances stopping the flow of those limited moon minerals to market to bump up the value of your "costings" allowing them to fly near 100% insured (@ their build cost) T2 ships? And are "costings" based on -4ME invention costs or researched T2 BPO build costs - what about HICs et al without a T2 BPO? Insurance as a mechanism to help people back into ships is admirable; But varying the penalty of loss for certain shiptypes (with Supercaps, coverts etc) it sounds like you're trying to help balance the ships popularity with insurance RATHER than actually balancing the roles of (and counters to) those ships effectively - and this is bad in my opinion. Balancing 'popularity' should be done with the Nerfbat, not insurance, by the appropriately unpopular team. Hope that is constructive enough.
Qujulome Amarr	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:15:00 - [97] Still need to do something about salvage.
LTcyberT1000 Caldari Free Space Tech Red Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:16:00 - [98] Back to supercaps question: Why you instead of nerfing supercaps insuranse give a hug to old players who spent more than year just for skills itself to fly them? Let them get full build minerals price payout. This will at least will keep things going, otherwise if individual player supercap dies->all years savings explode into air->player quits and sells character in ebay.... Are you sure is that the way you want to see? This is very actual question for small alliances who cannot afford x2 supercaps for blowing one after another. ---- T-1000, the old school gamer, started with 80286 machine, 11 years so far for playing games. ****************************************** Skill level: Freelancer Wolf in Moon day :) ****
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:17:00 - [99] Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 30/03/2010 16:21:37 Originally by: DaBlog ..reducing the quantity of the Tech 0 items being dropped and substituting it with a variation of scrap metals or tags, for example. Tags would need to be made especially for this purpose as BS/BC tags are worth a small fortune, since I doubt you want more work that leaves scrap .. the bane of salvagers and loot *****s everywhere. You will need to tweak the tritanium yield of scrap up a notch to meet the stated goal or see the market truly crash when mission runners start blitzing everything without looting at all. Insurance on T2/T3 is a good idea for me since I have money to burn and skills to use whatever I want. Insurance on T2/T3 is absolute crap for anyone not in my position and will skew the entire PvP arena towards the "haves" and leave little room for the "have nots". Good to see you are at least trying to correct the massive underestimation you perpetrated with the whole super-/capital debacle .. sometimes I get the feeling there are more damn capitals than regular ships in null-sec Edit: With minimal payouts on super-/capitals perhaps adding 5-10% of minerals used (perfect build) as random piles in wrecks would provide more incentive to keep them going to the front lines and fighting to the bitter end for the loot rights
LHA Tarawa	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:19:00 - [100] Originally by: Kerfira The basic T1 loot from mission running should not be replaced by anything. Mission running is way too profitable as it is, and the loot is a relative minor part of the total rewards. They said they are replacing them with scrap metal and more tags. Scrap metal pretty much is nothing as it takes a freighter load full to refine into much of anything. Most salvagers just jettison the scrap metal to make more space in the hold and I assume mission looters are just going to leave the scrap in the wreck to despawn. Tags have value only in thier rarity. In my neck of the woods, far more people rat in Hemitar than Metro, so the electrim and paladium angel tags trade at 60K while the brass and silver from Metro trade at 2 million. This despite the electrum and palladium being for higher level data center agents so give larger faction bumps. If there is a significant increase in tag drops... like 1 or 2 more per mission, you double the current supply. I have to assume that will CRUSH prices. So, instead of 100 meta 0 drops let's say I get 1 tag. I think that would cause the price of that tag to fall pretty drastically. If it is 1 tag per 10 removed meta 0, then forget about it. People will be leaving the tags behind like they now leave scrap and cap booster charges. In short, they pretty much are replacing the meta 0 with nothing.
Dorah Hawkwing Old Galactic Earth Regiment	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:20:00 - [101] Anyone also considered that T0 module drops from missions fuel the T2 Module market to some extend?
Mahke Aeon Of Strife Discord.	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:22:00 - [102] Originally by: Dav Varan 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. The way ccp is doing this is ideal. Going ship-by-ship is way too complex and will cause unhappy knock on effects. And really: won't it be nice having t2 destroyers not cost people an arm and a leg to fly considering the combination of cost, vulnerability, and primary-ness?
Grarr Dexx Amarr GK inc. Panda Team	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:22:00 - [103] I think the most burning question here is: How exactly will dynamic insurance work, what kind of standard are you going to base it on and how are you going to counter the obvious exploitation? (ea. driving up mineral values in say systems or regions to warp dynamic insurance values / cause payouts to be much larger than the effective ship price) Also, T3 really shouldn't be insurable. ___
Soulita Gallente Inner Core	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:24:00 - [104] Originally by: CCP Chronotis 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. Thanks for the reply, sounds very reasonable.
Khaelis Caldari Daikoku Enterprises Inc.	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:24:00 - [105] Originally by: Dorah Hawkwing Anyone also considered that T0 module drops from missions fuel the T2 Module market to some extend? It is a very significant factor yes, but this decline has the great positive side effect of possibly making T1 Manufacturing profitable again.. I hope
Larkonis Trassler Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:25:00 - [106] Originally by: LHA Tarawa Originally by: Kerfira The basic T1 loot from mission running should not be replaced by anything. Mission running is way too profitable as it is, and the loot is a relative minor part of the total rewards. They said they are replacing them with scrap metal and more tags. Scrap metal pretty much is nothing as it takes a freighter load full to refine into much of anything. Most salvagers just jettison the scrap metal to make more space in the hold and I assume mission looters are just going to leave the scrap in the wreck to despawn. Tags have value only in thier rarity. In my neck of the woods, far more people rat in Hemitar than Metro, so the electrim and paladium angel tags trade at 60K while the brass and silver from Metro trade at 2 million. This despite the electrum and palladium being for higher level data center agents so give larger faction bumps. If there is a significant increase in tag drops... like 1 or 2 more per mission, you double the current supply. I have to assume that will CRUSH prices. So, instead of 100 meta 0 drops let's say I get 1 tag. I think that would cause the price of that tag to fall pretty drastically. If it is 1 tag per 10 removed meta 0, then forget about it. People will be leaving the tags behind like they now leave scrap and cap booster charges. In short, they pretty much are replacing the meta 0 with nothing. Meta 0 drops hurt the mineral and T1 manufacturing market far more than they benefit the individual miner. Considering the fact that T1 Meta 0 drops make up a tiny fraction of mission income even if what it's being replaced with is worth absolutely nothing you're hardly out of pocket much. Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis
Camios Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:27:00 - [107] Edited by: Camios on 30/03/2010 16:31:02 I am a bit concerned about lowend minerals abundance in 0.0. Usually miners go for ABC because it's not worth to mine veldspar in 0.0, unless you sell tritanium at 7.00 isk per piece or so. So usually in 0.0 tritanium is obtained from reprocessing loot. Now if there will not be any compensation for this producing stuff in 0.0 would become even more difficult, while I mean, it is quite strange that there is hunger for trianium in the richest region of EVE, I think that 0.0 should be self sufficient for low end minerals. Now for many people the tritanium/pyerite supply is a problem. Maybe we need more hauler spawns? or maybe bigger veldspar roids? it's quite strange that the biggest veldspar roids contain just 15k m^3 of veldspar while a crokite roid in a grav site is 160k m3. EDIT: I hope that lowsec mining will become a bit more valuable. You could for example make so that nocxium can be found only in lowsec minerals. Since you don't need extremely large amount of it it can be ferried around with no problem.
AkJon Ferguson	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:29:00 - [108] I second the motion to get rid of insurance. When faced with a hideously broken and misconceived mechanic, removal > modification. Stop bringing european socialist ponzi schemes into my sandbox! If I wanted EZ mode where dying doesn't matter I would play holy crap or whatever it's called. The game's whole economic model is currently driven by insurance payouts. Fix it and stop bragging on it until you do. This 'higher payouts for ships that blow up more' idea is just bass ackwards. Stop inserting 'Hello Kitty' game mechanics into what should be internal corporate/alliance policy.
dischordia Gallente wiggle Tech.	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:30:00 - [109] Originally by: Camios I am a bit concerned about lowend minerals abundance in 0.0. Usually miners go for ABC because it's not worth to mine veldspar in 0.0, unless you sell tritanium at 7.00 isk per piece or so. So usually in 0.0 tritanium is obtained from reprocessing loot. Now if there will not be any compensation for this producing stuff in 0.0 would become even more difficult, while I mean, it is quite strange that there is hunger for trianium in the richest region of EVE, I think that 0.0 should be self sufficient for low end minerals. Now for many people the tritanium/pyerite supply is a problem. Maybe we need more hauler spawns? or maybe bigger veldspar roids? it's quite strange that the biggest veldspar roids contain just 15k m^3 of veldspar while a crokite roid in a grav site is 160k m3. why should 0.0 Be self sufficient for anything, you chose to live there but must remember that the empires do not and they keep themselves happy and safe in high sec. To keep going you will need to get your supply chains working again and in the words of CCP, HTFU.
Jack bubu Lyonesse. RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:32:00 - [110] Sounds good! on the t2 insurance: imho only the payout from throw away ships like dictors/hictors should be increased, rest should stay like it is. and as a trader i can hope this will introduce a little more price flow on t1 ships then currently :P
Het Na'sah'kaor	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:32:00 - [111] As a devoted mission runner i forgot about insurance a long time ago ( no point in insuring faction ships ). But the t0 loot drop changes are the ones I like a lot although I think they should be pushed a bit further. Personally I would like them to be removed completely (apart from tags and named modules which add a little bit of excitement :P into that part of pve stuff and are usually sold instead of reprocessed ) without replacing them with scrap metal. "With less overall mineral supply, the lower quantity of minerals still possible from loot reprocessing will eventually be worth more." - don't u think that after planned changes more people will do more mining so the minerals prices stay at the same level, which will result in missions being nerfed without buffing mining? Usefull tags ( used in LP store ) or increased bounty would be a better solution imo as it would completely remove mineral acquisition from that part of the game, leaving it to miners ( place where it should be ). Making it so would buff mining and maybe t0 production without nerfing mission running. Win/win situation ?
iP0D	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:33:00 - [112] Heh, thank you for stimulating the supercapital production market & trends even more Higher margins, making it much more worthwhile, and a nearly guaranteed high demand rate for replacement purposes, all we need to start building more of them - since the fundamentals which further the use of Titans in game do not change one bit.
Camios Minmatar Insurgent New Eden Tribe Systematic-Chaos	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:42:00 - [113] Originally by: dischordia why should 0.0 Be self sufficient for anything, you chose to live there but must remember that the empires do not and they keep themselves happy and safe in high sec. To keep going you will need to get your supply chains working again and in the words of CCP, HTFU. I understand what you say but 0.0 should be more valuable than high sec for that risk vs reward thing. So what's the point to go in 0.0 if I have to mine veldspar there? It's stupid to mine veldspar in 0.0 when you can mine arkonor isn't it? unless you sell tritanium at 7.00 isk /p. If you do, ships will cost much more in 0.0 than in empire (like it is now), so people usually go to Jita for t1 ship, and cope with it. But that means alliances in 0.0 must have more "logistic" than "industry", and it means that producing stuff in 0.0 is less profitable than doing it in empire: you have the jita concurrence and the 0.0 prices for lowend minerals, and this is bad. It's just a risk&effort/reward thing.
Sargon I	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:43:00 - [114] Originally by: CCP Chronotis However we are interested in your feedback on what you think they should be for each ship class and why. 0% across the board, because death should hurt. a lot. vae victis!
Jason Edwards Internet Tough Guy Spreadsheets Online	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:44:00 - [115] Quote: We identified a core set of loot tables which are responsible for contributing to the majority of the NPC loot sourced minerals and these are the first ones we want to adjust with Tyrannis, reducing the quantity of the Tech 0 items being dropped and substituting it with a variation of scrap metals or tags, for example. There will still be the same amount of Tech 1 meta 1-4 modules being dropped and these will still act as mineral faucets if you desire a source of minerals still from NPC combat. sweet. ------------------------ To make a megathron from scratch, you must first invent the eve universe. ------------------------ Life sucks and then you get podded.
Taedrin Gallente The Green Cross DEFI4NT	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:48:00 - [116] In before Akita T. Regardless of what Akita T says, I think these are all good changes. EVEN IF the insurance changes causes the mineral market to crash, I believe this would be a good thing anyways as artificial floors and ceilings are stupid. I especially approve of the reduction in meta 0 drops. TBH, I would prefer to have all meta 0 drops removed entirely and have only T1 named loot and scraps dropped from wrecks. But I guess we'll take baby steps here, eh? The T2 insurance changes are interesting. Currently, people frequently say that it isn't even worth it to insure T2 hulls. However, now this might change. T2 losses will still hurt, but people will have an incentive to pay money on insurance "just in case". ---------- Originally by: Dr Fighter "how do you know when youve had a repro accident" Theres modules missing and morphite in your mineral pile.
dischordia Gallente wiggle Tech.	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:48:00 - [117] Originally by: Camios Originally by: dischordia why should 0.0 Be self sufficient for anything, you chose to live there but must remember that the empires do not and they keep themselves happy and safe in high sec. To keep going you will need to get your supply chains working again and in the words of CCP, HTFU. I understand what you say but 0.0 should be more valuable than high sec for that risk vs reward thing. So what's the point to go in 0.0 if I have to mine veldspar there? It's stupid to mine veldspar in 0.0 when you can mine arkonor isn't it? unless you sell tritanium at 7.00 isk /p. If you do, ships will cost much more in 0.0 than in empire (like it is now), so people usually go to Jita for t1 ship, and cope with it. But that means alliances in 0.0 must have more "logistic" than "industry", and it means that producing stuff in 0.0 is less profitable than doing it in empire: you have the jita concurrence and the 0.0 prices for lowend minerals, and this is bad. It's just a risk&effort/reward thing. I think a lot of people fail to see what EvE and other MMO's are ... They are games you play with OTHER PEOPLE not solo, therefore there _SHOULD_ always be people out there to work with. Be it mining ops, Pvp, Mission running, industry, exploration etc etc the list goes on. So if you have to work as a team to get your stuff from the source to the end, well then do it, you have a team who work in highsec to get the easy stuff and then a team in low/null sec getting other things you need and you all work for the greater good. But alas people just want to sit and afk most of the time.
Lady Aunia	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:50:00 - [118] Viper makes an excellent point on insurance rates. Other than that, I'm worried about the changes to NPC drop tables. Reduce drop rate, sure, but changing all meta 0 into scraps? It pretty much defeats the point of looting on pve (and hence, marauders).
Awesome Possum	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:50:00 - [119] i dislike t2 ships getting a higher insurance payout. makes it far less fun to blow one up with a t1 ship :( ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Kessiaan Minmatar Vagrants Inc	Posted - 2010.03.30 16:51:00 - [120] Didn't read the pages of comments yet. Good blog, I especially like the bits about insurance. I think it could be a useful mechanism of getting some good-but-not-really-economical ship classes into popular use (coughdeimoscough). And cheap tacklers? Hell yeah I'll take 75% insurance on my Taranises :D

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.