| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
   |
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:15:00 -
[1]
It's here.
Looking forward to interesting times both for PvP and the market.
I'm liking much of the proposal, although the final balance of insurance payouts is still uncertain. The somewhat vague changes to mineral sources look good to me.
|
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:27:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: "Ze Blog"
We have our own ideas for how much of the full insurance value we want to payout for each ship class which generally is 100% for Tech 1 ship groups, 20-60% for Tech 2 and 100% for Tech 3 ships
Increased affordability of T2 ships, particularly the ones that get the 60%. Increased affordability of T3 ships. Increased demand for these ships will be a likely result.
Originally by: "Ze Blog"
The initial changes will introduce higher amounts of low end minerals such as tritanium, pyerite or mexallon to low sec
Low-sec gets some love. Will it be enough to significantly encourage low-sec mining as opposed to 0.0/WH mining? Will it be a boost to piracy?
|
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:43:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Breaker77
Quote:
On the high end game play side of this is the role of strategic ship classes as valuable targets. Here we refer to them as supercapitals, the largest classes of ships in the game which cannot dock in stations. Currently they get a default payout of 40% of the old static value of the ship which is around 5 billion ISK for supercarriers and 20 billion for titans.
The idea is that these are cut to a fraction of their current payout values so they might only get 1-10% for example of the base build value of their ships. This is done with the intention of making strategic ship classes be more valuable targets and their death have much stronger meaning and value.
They are just making the titan BPC business harder and harder 
Going from 40% to 1-10% insurance on a capitals will be punishing and will mean there will be less capital buying isk in circulation and it will discourage some capital pilots from being as bold with their chariots. We do need more people losing and replacing capitals. We need more capital warfare not less. However, I believe it's had more to do with the state of warfare (or the lack of it) and the state of the battlefield (lag etc) than it has to do with the basic affordability of the vessels themselves. So I'm not seeing this as a serious blow yet.
Originally by: Letrange
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Low-sec gets some love. Will it be enough to significantly encourage low-sec mining as opposed to 0.0/WH mining? Will it be a boost to piracy?
no
I agree. I think it's a safe bet it will not be enough of a boost... but I can still dream.
|
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 16:03:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Matalino
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Increased affordability of T2 ships, particularly the ones that get the 60%.... Increased demand for these ships will be a likely result.
...which will result in increased cost becuase Tech 2 supply cannot scale with demand, which will result in a return to affordability similar to current levels. Slightly more affordable for ships with higher percentage payouts, worse affordablity for ships with lower percentage insurance payouts.
Indeed. But I'm interested to see the effect of the specific insurance payouts on the demand for each particuar ship and the impact that has on the demand for similar T1/T3 vessels.
|
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 16:38:00 -
[5]
Originally by: FunzzeR
Originally by: Doll
So what will all of these changes mean for mineral prices? I can't really make up my mind.
T1 gone from mission loot => lower supply of everything except morphite.
Drone loot more "balanced" => higher supply of trit + pyerite (and to lesser extent mex+iso+nocx) and lower supply of morphite.
insurance changes => don't know.
I have to think some more about it but my initial impression is that this is an attempt to reach the progression of high ends > mid ends > low ends (in terms of isk/m3) So perhaps high ends increase, mid ends increase, low ends stay the same or decrease?
How about...
Current levels of oversupply force the prices of all minerals into a downward spiral following insurance payout levels until a new equilibrium is reached whereby oversupply is stopped by lack of reward. Once the equilibrium is reached everything carries on much the same as normal but with a more natural supply and demand dynamic dictating mineral prices.
...I think it would be fun.
|
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:48:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Letrange
The problem all the "is this a boost to low sec mining" people are ignoring like the elephant it is, is that it's safer to mine in w-space than low sec. So I ask you why the hell should a miner settle for lesser choice of ore in low sec when there's less risk in w-space? The MOST dangerous area in eve to mine is low sec. Unless the rewards are better than 0.0 or w-space there's no reason to mine there except stubbornness.
The only reason people try it is because they have not yet invested the scanning skills and basing requirements necessary for w-space existence. Period.
No, it wasn't ignored. It was exactly that that was being referred to:
Originally by: Bad Bobby
Will it be enough to significantly encourage low-sec mining as opposed to 0.0/WH mining?
And...
Originally by: Malcanis
How 'bout those ~400 capitals and supercaps fighting in Saranen right now...?
...was listening to my scout reporting on that while I've been on an op in the north...
Originally by: Scout
node down yes confirmed.
...as expected.
|
| |
|