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)
Jimu Orgas Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness	Posted - 2010.03.30 17:37:00 - [151] I agree with most of the other folks - forget the scrap metal idea (except maybe on the smallest pve rats) and just do the Meta 1 to 4 and useful (LP store) tags. I'm a mission runner, and I think this would be a good improvement to the game without impacting income too severely.
Kenz Rider J Club	Posted - 2010.03.30 17:38:00 - [152] Originally by: Mirei Jun There is a great deal of speculation on the results of this change. However: Absolutely no one can predict with pure accuracy what this will do. It simply affects too many aspects of Eve. I, as many do, support the intention, but close monitoring of the results is absolutely essential. This brings me to the second point. Too often are changes and additions made to Eve only to be left by the wayside when the focus of our illustrious development team changes. This update is so far reaching it must be monitored and carefully adjusted diligently. You cannot declare this change "done" and push it to the back shelf while working on "the next big thing". Economy is what drives Eve. This is the biggest change the game has seen yet -bigger then the speed changes, bigger then the entire graphics update, bigger then sovereignty. Please tread carefully. This is exactly right, and I know this is the failing of many games I have played. I have always argued for fairly numerous instances of incremental change rather than the big bang approach, although the BB approach is useful at times. What this means is that if the Dramiel appears overpowered, then make one small change and see the impact (for example reduce the CPU or PG to make dual prop harder). A big bang approach would nerf PG, CPU, speed and take away a midslot all at once. So many other examples can be given but it should be obvious what I'm saying: make a small change and monitor the results. This may sound too reasonable to some, but I can't count how many times a game has been rebalanced to the extent where the previously best unit is now literally the worst (or at least bad enough to never be used).
Missm Uppet Caldari	Posted - 2010.03.30 17:41:00 - [153] Edited by: Missm Uppet on 30/03/2010 17:41:24 Originally by: CCP Chronotis "Here we can then say that a tackler class which is a highly dangerous role and prone to see you dying a lot might pay out more than say a specialist covert ops class of ship has a higher survival rate" Yeah because that's the way real insurance companies work: Customer: Hi, I would like to buy a life insurance policy. Insurance Salesperson: Ok, any pre-existing conditions? Customer: Yes, I weigh 400lbs, have an all-lard diet, and the doctor says I am at risk for my fourth heart attack in as many years. Insurance Salesperson: Hmm, sounds like you deserve a higher payout. Inline with this form of thinking, can I get insurance for my t2 missiles now? They seem to have a high attrition rate and need a buff just like interceptors. These changes are in the right direction but still need some adjustments.
Daminma2 Perkone	Posted - 2010.03.30 17:42:00 - [154] Quote: Things that cause emotional response in players (whether positive or negative) are good! ROFL! Way to generalize there. Stop working on lag developers because it causes negative emotional response which is GREAT!!!
ArmyOfMe Resonance. RED.OverLord	Posted - 2010.03.30 17:44:00 - [155] why in gods name would you want to punish ppl for wanting to risk their super caps in battles?
Mashie Saldana Red Federation	Posted - 2010.03.30 17:48:00 - [156] Originally by: CCP Chronotis On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. We looked at and will continue to look at this in the future speculatively as its not a huge step to account for premium removal now and cause less pain for you folks in remembering to insure your ships. In this case you would then only get a single payout per ship always on death with caveats in the future which might affect this like concordokken for example and never need to insure the ship. Oh, YES please!! Godly scientist/builder/reverse engineer for sale
TheLostPenguin	Posted - 2010.03.30 17:50:00 - [157] Getting rid of the meta 0 rubbish seems a good idea, yes replacing it all with scrap is a nerf to earnings potential but really the profit from selling/melting those mods is a pretty small % of your earnings from missions so meh, seems we're only getting scraps as it's easier for CCP to change the dropped item rather than remove it and redo the drop rates for the other stuff anyway. With regards to the insurance tweaks I think making T2 slightly more worthwhile insuring would be nice, the poor payouts for T2 are one of the most common gripes I hear about insurance (other than the perennial issue of suicide ganks). Not sure I'm in favour of making the payouts higher for T3 ships higher tho, they are high-end ships and should carry a significant risk to fly imo, possibly even payout less of their cost than T2. (And yes I fly T3 myself so I'm not just hating on those that do :P) Mentioning suicide ganks this wont "fix" the issue, but at least now it's a bit of an outlay for the ganker(s) rather than the current situation, an improvement and tbh the main thing I've felt was wrong with the insurance system as it stands, no more free ship/fittings :) As for making insurance automatic/free this sucks frankly, sure it's a pita if you need to insure a bunch of ships at once, but making it so you dont have to think at all just cheapens EVE, if you cba/forgot to insure your ship then tough luck, nobody but yourself to blame. Personally I dont insure much if anything unless its pretty much 100% certain to be lost, if you change the system do I then have to pay automatically for insurance each time I assemble a ship or is it just there free? If it's free than doesn't that then throw out your calculations for payouts since there's no longer a premium to pay to take into account? Ok it's only mentioned in passing here but it's clearly been considered, bad idea imo, leave it the way it is, or possibly the option of a lower renewal premium would work better, with the renewal decreasing over time if you dont lose the ship (basicly a no-claims bonus stacking up). That way you still have the input of opting for insurance at whichever level, but you reduce the costs of reinsuring to a sensible level should you somehow manage to outlast your insurance.
Nyphur Pillowsoft Total Comfort	Posted - 2010.03.30 17:50:00 - [158] Better late than never, I suppose. Even if it is almost three years late. EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.
Mahke Aeon Of Strife Discord.	Posted - 2010.03.30 17:55:00 - [159] Originally by: Abrazzar Originally by: CCP Chronotis On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. We looked at and will continue to look at this in the future speculatively as its not a huge step to account for premium removal now and cause less pain for you folks in remembering to insure your ships. In this case you would then only get a single payout per ship always on death with caveats in the future which might affect this like concordokken for example and never need to insure the ship. To give you some data: 75% of ships that were insured were platinum. Most ships were not insured with only battlecruisers, battleships and dreadnoughts being the most insured groups as a % of the total for each group. While this may make things a bit more convenient and simple for many, it would also remove an ISK sink that would need replacement. Actually, we could use some more ISK sinks as is, I think. The change would be very pleasant and nice, but, as stated the lack of expiring unused insurance (sometimes its easier to just reinsure than self-destruct, buy, fit and haul a new ship) and the lack of deaths of uninsured ships would increase liquid isk sloshing around, so, would need to be balanced with a new isk sink. If it's not balanced with a sink to get rid of the extra isk in the system, I'm ambivalent (another isk faucet bad, not worrying about insurance expiration good). If it is matched with a sink, I'm for this 100%.
LHA Tarawa	Posted - 2010.03.30 17:56:00 - [160] Originally by: Jimu Orgas I agree with most of the other folks - forget the scrap metal idea Read the whole thread. They are not changing the CHANCE of a drop. They just want to remove the things that are the produce the majority of minerals from being reprocessed. So, I kill a rat battleship X. In the tables there is a 20% chance of a large projectile weapon dropping from the rat. Okay, that code fires. Now it selects the type of large projectile weapon. 1 in 100 chance of a meta 4, 5 in 100 chance of a meta 3, 10 in 100 of meta 2, 20 in 100 chance of a meta 1, 64 in 100 chance of a meta 0. Okay. This results in too many meta 0 that get reporcesed into a crud load of minerals. Nedd to make fewer meta 0. If they just drop the meta 0 to 20... then the "in 100" becomes "in 56". 1 in 56 of a meta 4. 5 in 56 of a meta 3... So, they are adding scrap and tags to fill in the numbers. 1 in 100 of a meta 4. 1 in 100 of a tag. 5 in 100 of a meta 3. 10 in 100 of a meta 2. 20 in 100 of a meta 1. 10 in 100 of a meta 0. 53 in 100 of a scrap metal. Meta 1-4 drop exactly the same frequency. meta 0 from 1/5th as often. Small chance of a tag to make up for some of the loss of the meta 0. Likely to get a scrap metal that you are going to leave behind.
Di Mulle	Posted - 2010.03.30 17:57:00 - [161] Originally by: Missm Uppet Edited by: Missm Uppet on 30/03/2010 17:41:24 Originally by: CCP Chronotis "Here we can then say that a tackler class which is a highly dangerous role and prone to see you dying a lot might pay out more than say a specialist covert ops class of ship has a higher survival rate" Yeah because that's the way real insurance companies work: Customer: Hi, I would like to buy a life insurance policy. Insurance Salesperson: Ok, any pre-existing conditions? Customer: Yes, I weigh 400lbs, have an all-lard diet, and the doctor says I am at risk for my fourth heart attack in as many years. Insurance Salesperson: Hmm, sounds like you deserve a higher payout. Inline with this form of thinking, can I get insurance for my t2 missiles now? They seem to have a high attrition rate and need a buff just like interceptors. These changes are in the right direction but still need some adjustments. What was already said many times, insurance in EVE has nothing to do with it's real life counterpart except the same word used. Not by mistake, but by the very intent. Actually, the purpose of EVE's insurance is directly opposite from real life. This comes with side effect, known as "insurance fraud".
BenjaminBarker	Posted - 2010.03.30 17:57:00 - [162] Originally by: CCP Chronotis On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. We looked at and will continue to look at this in the future speculatively as its not a huge step to account for premium removal now and cause less pain for you folks in remembering to insure your ships. In this case you would then only get a single payout per ship always on death with caveats in the future which might affect this like concordokken for example and never need to insure the ship. To give you some data: 75% of ships that were insured were platinum. Most ships were not insured with only battlecruisers, battleships and dreadnoughts being the most insured groups as a % of the total for each group. No! Bad CCP! Choices make good game play, even if they're obvious choices. That's like saying you should get rid of clones and just charge a fee every time you die. It may be the same cost, but the choice and repercussions for failing are still there. That's what makes EVE so great. I'd rather see this turned around to make sense. If a ship is more likely to explode into bits before it's insurance contract expires, make it cost more, not less. Have that cost equal the percentage of insurance contracts that paid out over the last x amount of time, plus an isk sink percentage. The system is self leveling. The more ships that get blown up, the more it costs to fly, so the more they move to new ships. FOTM ships become more expensive simply through use. The system becomes isk neutral (or an isk sink, if required).
Trimutius III Legio Octae Rebellion Alliance	Posted - 2010.03.30 17:59:00 - [163] Idea Add crew to loot tables instead of Meta 0. Like ships will drop people, that could be sold later on... ------------------------------------------------- I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius
Mashie Saldana Red Federation	Posted - 2010.03.30 18:01:00 - [164] Originally by: Trimutius III Idea Add crew to loot tables instead of Meta 0. Like ships will drop people, that could be sold later on... Make it exotic dancers and everyone will start to PVE Godly scientist/builder/reverse engineer for sale
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2010.03.30 18:04:00 - [165] Very interesting. Not everything I hoped for, but then the level of overhaul I had in mind would have caused far more instability and been a much higher-risk path. The more I look at it, the more I think this is a sensible first-pass at the problem. Enough measures to start making a difference without throwing everything and the kitchen sink at it at once. NPC Loot Would have preferred "remove" to "reduce", but hopefully the reduction will be significant enough to have a decent impact. Also encouraging that they are being replaced with non-module items, which nicely avoids the substitute-good problem. Though the meta1-4 drops will still induce this effect to some degree, so it's not 100% eliminating the influence of NPC Loot. In terms of why replace it with anything at all, I would say: 1) If you drop something, people expect it to be worth something. Dropping something that's not (and likely will never be) worth collecting will just annoy people. It also makes it harder sifting through the even-more-worthless junk to find the meta items that might actually be worth collecting (kinda like the situation when wrecks were first introduced and you couldn't tell which ones contained loot). 2) Removing something increasing the drop rate of everything else - makes perfect sense. I'm just wondering if there is a technical solution to this problem, as to whether it's possible to have a dummy item type in the drop tables that takes up the probability space, but doesn't actually result in a spawned item (e.g. IF ItemToSpawn="Dummy Nothing Item" THEN Do Nothing ELSE Spawn Item). This would allow the option of having rare drops without having to have a flood of worthless items in the drop table. I am not that concerned about reducing income from loot drops for several reasons: 1) If grabbing T1 loot gives better isk/hour than the core missioning/NPCing activity, then something is wrong with the core element of the activity. 2) There is always the option not to loot and devote the time into more of the core activity, limiting the potential impact of any loss of loot. 3) If you manage to strip out the low-value loot from the tables altogether, then you can still get the high-value loot items, and invest significantly less time in getting them by not having to sift through the low-value loot, which may actually work out better isk/hour wise. It will also be interesting to see how much impact this has on the T1 market, as to how much of the T1 loot was being sold as modules (and thus impacting both the miners and T1 manufacturers), and how much was simply melted down (just impacting miners). Rogue Drone Compounds While I am not keen on trying to manually match the mineral mix between supply and demand, this is probably the best that can be achieved without fundamentally changing the principles you describe by which Rogue Drones are intended to work. Particularly interested in how much the mid-ends are going to bounce back from this change. Asteroids An interesting first step. I can see some advantages of trying this route before going for my preferred all-out redistribution (which would basically see the three ore variants become high-sec, low-sec and 0.0 variants with a full redistribution). Significant amounts of low-end minerals in the higher-end ores will mean that mineral prices have to skew less before alternate supply begins to come online (only being the gap between the good and bad 0.0 ores, rather than between the high-sec and 0.0 ores). It also has the nice effect of keeping significant comparative advantage between the ores - while it will be more economically viable to get trit as part of a mixed supply from these revised ores, Veldspar will still win out in terms of getting just trit. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Buzz Aldrino	Posted - 2010.03.30 18:04:00 - [166] Its a change with huge potential, good and bad. Insurance has kept things in check since i started the game in 04 and im glad youre willing to try a change. I come from the alliance warfare corner. Larger and smaller scale warfare is both on the menue and has been for years. A fact, ive grown as used to it than to a tree in front of a window and only now youre mentioning a change, i can imagine how it would be without it - cheap, replaceable battleships have always been THE most used ships in fleets. Even tho there is a huge number of available ships to choose from, battleships not only because of their usefulness, or other ships uselessness - are bought, lost and replaced by alliances over and over again because they are so bloody dirt cheap. Imagine if i didnt pay 30m for an insured t2 fit battleship, but 100m for the whole thing - it would allow a change of fleet compositions that still are unresistably costeffective with no other alternative. It may bring frigates and cruisers into fleets flown by pilots who suddenly cant afford losing 15 battleships a week anymore. More tacklers flown because killing a battleship now has the purpose of hurting a players wallet next to holding the field/killing the objective. More antitacklers to keep Battleships alive and anti-anti tacklers.. To the rest of the blog, for what its worth would my zealot or vaga costs 110m or 80m i dont care, if my dictor costs 30m or 15m to replace, im not bothered. I would appreciate another look at the current t1 tier system to make more t1 frigates and cruisers viable options, same for a handful t2 hulls. More changes to the already proposed ones to keep miners going would be nice.
Ashina Sito Gallente Center for Advanced Studies	Posted - 2010.03.30 18:05:00 - [167] Originally by: Jimu Orgas I agree with most of the other folks - forget the scrap metal idea (except maybe on the smallest pve rats) and just do the Meta 1 to 4 and useful (LP store) tags. I'm a mission runner, and I think this would be a good improvement to the game without impacting income too severely. NO NO NO!!! Only problem is that Scrap Metal is still to bulky even after the reduction in m3 that CCP did last year. I have NO issues with the loss of income with the removal of Tech 0 items from the loot table. So adding meta 1-4 items would be a bad thing. Also they are not adjusting rates they are just simply replacing the slots for the Tech 0 items with something else. A quick and simple fix. Now I do have to admit I hope that LP store tags show up in heavy numbers. I hate with a a passion getting tags for LP store items. More tags would help to alleviate this issue. Welcome change but not needed. We shall see. My CSM post from the last CSM Election Ashina for CSM
Cid Mutation	Posted - 2010.03.30 18:06:00 - [168] The loot table changes were needed thank you for that. For the insurance the way I see it, if you want to figure out the best period to calculate the pay out you got to know what you want it to be and that is up to you CCP. -If you want people to be able to speculate on insurance payout then put a 3 month calculation. But the insurance pay out may end up being very low while the market is very high giving a ****ty payment to replace a ship. -If you want the insurance to be a tool to help player by giving out payout that reflect the actual price of building a ship, then 1 month or 2 weeks should work fine. or -You could put certain class of ship on a 3 month period, those that have a long life, but they should have 100% pay out like the others, and the ship that donÆt survive long put them on a 1 month calculation so it reflect the market. or -You could give the choice between a long or short term insurance plan. The long term insurance plan would calculate the pay out base on the last 3 month period for the next 3 month period and the short base on the last month for the next month. But the price to insure on a long term would be higher than the short one. Go the way you want I'll find a way to make money anyway. Cheers
Shepard Book Imperial Academy	Posted - 2010.03.30 18:08:00 - [169] 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. More steps in the wrong direction helping people stay safer in empire. I am also against anything that boosts level four missions in high sec by giving them more tag drops. Where did the vision go to make people want to go to low sec and 0.0? This does not help the sandbox grow. It just makes the weak want to stay in high sec.
Serpents smile	Posted - 2010.03.30 18:11:00 - [170] Originally by: Shepard Book This does not help the sandbox grow. It just makes the weak want to stay in high sec. Stop telling people to play the game your way.
Ai Mei	Posted - 2010.03.30 18:12:00 - [171] Love the blog, sounds like some good solid changes and a good way to inflate the mineral prices once again. Though the metal scraps drop does confuse me a little along with the tags. CCP Chronotis - Do you guys have plans to use these tags in the lp store for new items? Or maybe turn them in for lp? say like a serpentis gold tag is worth 150 lp? Cause if so that would give me a reason to finally sell my stack of pirate tags I have. And will the metal scraps be able to be refined into anything? PS: IB4 Akita T raging.
Illectroculus Defined	Posted - 2010.03.30 18:15:00 - [172] So, may I point out that it's quite possible to manipulate the global average mineral price downwards for almost no cost? At least if it's a simple average based on volume and price. Not sure why someone would want to do this, maybe they sell t2 ships and want to reduce the appeal of insurance payouts? Scenario is - pilot in sparsely populated region puts up a buy order for 100,000,000 units of some high end mineral at 0.01 isk per unit, believe it or not there are regions where it's possible to put up such an order and not have a better one on the market. Broker fees and taxes are maybe 1% of that - so 10,000 isk. Pilot then proceeds to sell himself a pile of minerals until the order is fulfilled, volumes on high ends are small enough that this kind of scheme would push the average down. So, I hope you use a decent algorithm that reduces the potential for such manipulation.
Nova Fox Gallente Novafox Shipyards	Posted - 2010.03.30 18:15:00 - [173] Originally by: Arra Lith Another change that will sooner or later kill EVE - this time it will kill EVE economy. Dynamically calculates payouts gives huge possibility for speculants to kill market and earn nice profit - imagine scenario: 1. Group of speculant players agree to work with each other for huge profits. They need to have some ISK on wallets. 2. First they buy all ships possible and insure them. They also buy all minerals available - and build ships from them, also insuring. Goal is to move minerals price as high as possible before insurance recalculations (with is 1 - 3 months = less than insurance cycle) 3. At recalculations day minerals price skyrocketed since last change - so insurance payouts from old contracts are like 2-5x higher. Players blow previously insured ships to collect their money. 4. At this time speculants can do 2 things: - play to lower minerals price (just stopping buying massive amounts of them will do all the trick actually - with demand lowered 100x price will fall FAST) - they can play with T2 insurance ships now for example. - continue to rise minerals (but that way can be risky, cause at this stage half of eve will be miners already - and with high minerals price they can no longer be able to increase minerals price 5x higher) as low as possible - they buy tritanium from each other to move down average price to like 1 isk per trit. And if you think there are no people with so many ISK on wallet to be able to do it - I can tell there are wallets with thousand of billions on account... should be enough for keeping minerals price high enough even for year. In conclusion: CCP if you dont want to kill economics keep insurance contracts fixed for whole time they last. Ie if player bought platinum insurance on 01/01 for 3m and SCC agreed to pay 10m then no matter when ship gets killed (well before 01/04) player will get this 10m. If recalculations happened mid time - it will affect only new contracts. This way only uninsured ships can get affected by speculants - as its not possible to track at what price ship X was built. But without insurance they will need to make prices 3x higher just to break even - much less likely to happen. You do realize that eve sufferes from an extreme deflation situation where the value of materials (minerals in this case) is so freakishly rock bottom youll have to spend trillions in order to cause price movements. Better to let the masses adjust it and profit on the ship alone. Pre-order your Sisters of ≡v≡ Exploration ship today, Updated 24FEB10
Mashie Saldana Red Federation	Posted - 2010.03.30 18:16:00 - [174] Instead of scrap metal, can't the NPC's drop 10isk notes with a 0.01m3 volume? I mean once upon a time currency was a commodity so now would be a great time to bring it back. Dunno what technique to use to get it back in the wallet, maybe just right click on them? Godly scientist/builder/reverse engineer for sale
Gabriel Blade Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2010.03.30 18:18:00 - [175] Originally by: CCP Chronotis On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. I'm not in favor of removing insurance premiums. My view is that insurance should mainly be for the benefit of new players. New players tend to have fewer ships than older players, so maintaining insurance on all there ships is relatively less of a burden for a new player in terms of total ISK. I also think that T2 ships should have the same payout as there T1 counterparts. One of the greatest things about EVE is that you can lose your stuff, and insurance detracts from that. I'm OK with T1 insurance since it provides a low cost base of ships to fly for people who are new or are down on there luck. T2 ships are luxuries for people who have the ISK, and I think it's good that one feel an element of risk when flying one.
Razin The xDEATHx Squadron Legion of xXDEATHXx	Posted - 2010.03.30 18:21:00 - [176] 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?" That's actually some pretty good reasons why this change should be implemented as is. The number of titans in 0.0 is approaching ridiculous levels. The benefit of having one should have some very high costs that include the risk of severe ISK hit for losing one. ...
Callic Veratar	Posted - 2010.03.30 18:21:00 - [177] In my view insurance should be purchased for a known payout value, not for the value when the ship explodes. If I insure a ship today for 10M, when it explodes, I should get 10M. Not whatever the current payout is. The hit will come from me buying a new ship from the market if it's doubled or halved in value. As well, self destructs and CONCORD kills should not pay out insurance. Yes, there are many ways you can easily get yourself killed, but it should require more effort than undocking and shooting at the station. In my view, insurance is an incentive to get more players into PVP. It should not be set up in a way so it can be exploited to make money.
Furb Killer Gallente	Posted - 2010.03.30 18:23:00 - [178] Originally by: Shepard Book 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. More steps in the wrong direction helping people stay safer in empire. I am also against anything that boosts level four missions in high sec by giving them more tag drops. Where did the vision go to make people want to go to low sec and 0.0? This does not help the sandbox grow. It just makes the weak want to stay in high sec. More steps in the right direction, gives additional incentive for the suicide gankers to move away from their carebearish concord hugging where they are afraid of any risk. This way they will sooner decide they might try the scary low sec and 0.0. Face it, it doesnt make sense you profit from suicide ganking even if you shoot an empty hauler. Yes it should be possible, but it also should hurt your wallet if you randomly gank around. Quote: 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. Yep this is what i think will happen without additional moon goo sources. And @ CVA guy, do you have any idea how much it would cost to buy all minerals? And that for a few months, effectively shutting down the entire eve economy? Forget it, it is impossible.
Veliria	Posted - 2010.03.30 18:24:00 - [179] How exactly are the drone compounds being changed? If I recall correctly, the introduction of the Drone Regions completely destroyed (to this day) the value of Nocxium. It crashed from a price of 500-600 ISK to a pathetic 80-70 ISK as time went on. This made Pyroxeres, Jaspet, Hemorphite, Hedbergite and Dark Ochre completely worthless to mine, because they depend on Nocxium for most of their raw value. Obviously the drone compounds gave far too much Nocxium per drone/kill. I believe the same is true for Isogen, which may have followed a similar path (it used to be worth a lot more). Zydrine and Megacyte are at a low point too, but this is caused by the industrial stuff in 0.0 rather than the drones. Seeing as how the Drone Regions could cause such a change in a mineral's value, I wonder how the new mineral quantities given by the compounds will effect the mineral market. It would be rather odd to see Nocxium finally rise again after these changes, only to see another mineral take its place and go down the drain. On a side note, are there any plans for changing the functionality of Mining? Out of all the changes made to the various professions of EVE as it evolved, Mining only got a shiny update when the asteroids got new models. Currently Mining is (very) boring to do whilst there are many ideas and concepts floating around that could improve this without modifying the risk/reward or such. Belts being moved to exploration, belt composition being changed (each belt being identical is boring), comets, planetary rings, combination ores, precision mining are just a few of the ideas that could simply make the profession more fun to do.
Obsidian Hawk RONA Legion	Posted - 2010.03.30 18:27:00 - [180] Blade] Originally by: CCP Chronotis On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. I'm not sure how I feel about this. It could go both ways with the player base here. W/o the full pay out, people would inherently be willing to risk less in pvp. It's just human nature. Though if it was a flat pay out of something like 70-75% of the ships value, then people would probably be ok with it. It is one of those things that YOU need to do an email survey about to the eve community. Offer us all Options and ideas and sort through the feed back. Example just have a link in the email to a form with Here is what we want to change in game XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX which do you think is better A. _______ B. _____________ C. ______________ D. ________________ E. none of the above. That would be your best way to find out.

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.