| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
|
|
| 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.
|
Breaker77
Gallente
Reclamation Industries
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:23:00 -
[2]
 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 
|
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:27:00 -
[3]
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?
|
Letrange
Minmatar
Chaosstorm Corporation
Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:34:00 -
[4]
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
|
FunzzeR
Death of Virtue
MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:41:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Letrange
no
Sadly this, some people are just too risk adverse no matter how many incentives are provided.
PRAISE THE SCOTTISH FOLD!!
THEIR WILL SHALL BE DONE!! |
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:43:00 -
[6]
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.
|
Dariah Stardweller
Gallente
Gung-Ho
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:46:00 -
[7]
Originally by: FunzzeR
Originally by: Letrange
no
Sadly this, some people are just too risk adverse no matter how many incentives are provided.
Well, atm there ARE no incentives to mine in low sec cuz you make more in hi sec.
If I was still an active miner I would only consider low sec mining if it could effectively give me at least twice the income of high sec mining. So that includes the pain in the arse of logistics and staying on the move to avoid getting ganked.
IMHO: low sec mining is never going to pay off cause it is too risky.
|
Matalino
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 15:55:00 -
[8]
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.
|
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 16:01:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Breaker77
They are just making the titan BPC business harder and harder
Originally by: Bad Bobby
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.
CCP has simply turn Titans into a massive isk sink. This is a good thing. Those people who can fund and finance a Titan are the most identifiable targets for sucking Isk out of the system. I do shudder though as it is kind of like a "rich caste" tax. Myself... the devblog was nice (and earlier that Akita's dire prediction  ) but still it is hard to say what is what without more detail. I'm just going to let it sink in for a few hours then read it again. Wash, rinse, repeat and hope see more details so that I can actually formulate a more worthwhile opinion to share. Correction: I do have one opinion. The insurance rebalancing and the periodic updating has a distinct stamp of actual Economic theory being applied. I've been critical of the Doctor likening him to a "figurehead". Perhaps I was in error, very much so.
Wealth, howsoever got, in Eve makes
Lords of morons and gentlemen of thieves;
Aptitude and intellect are needless here;
'Tis impudence and money that grants fame. |
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 16:03:00 -
[10]
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.
|
|
|
FunzzeR
Death of Virtue
MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 16:07:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Dariah Stardweller
Originally by: FunzzeR
Originally by: Letrange
no
Sadly this, some people are just too risk adverse no matter how many incentives are provided.
Well, atm there ARE no incentives to mine in low sec cuz you make more in hi sec.
If I was still an active miner I would only consider low sec mining if it could effectively give me at least twice the income of high sec mining. So that includes the pain in the arse of logistics and staying on the move to avoid getting ganked.
IMHO: low sec mining is never going to pay off cause it is too risky.
Solo mining would never payoff given the current payoff/risk ratio. Organizing into groups that and secure a system might tip the balance much like what is done in 0.0. 0.0 would have the same issues as low sec (even with the huge incentives of ABC ores) if not for the fact that there are organized entities providing some degree of safety.
Like I mentioned before, every ones appetite for risk varies. Some might try mining after the changes, but I predict that most will remain in high sec chasing relatively risk less sources of isk.
PRAISE THE SCOTTISH FOLD!!
THEIR WILL SHALL BE DONE!! |
Shar Tegral
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 16:10:00 -
[12]
Originally by: FunzzeR
Some might try mining after the changes, but I predict that most will remain in high sec chasing relatively risk less sources of isk.
I just had a weird hope... CCP makes strip miners unable to operate in 1.0,0.9,0.8 systems. Protects newbs and increases the competition, and depletion, of risk free (or less) mining.
Wealth, howsoever got, in Eve makes
Lords of morons and gentlemen of thieves;
Aptitude and intellect are needless here;
'Tis impudence and money that grants fame. |
Doll
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 16:18:00 -
[13]
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.
|
FunzzeR
Death of Virtue
MeatSausage EXPRESS
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 16:28:00 -
[14]
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?
PRAISE THE SCOTTISH FOLD!!
THEIR WILL SHALL BE DONE!! |
Bad Bobby
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 16:38:00 -
[15]
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.
|
Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
Discord.
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 16:43:00 -
[16]
Edited by: Mahke on 30/03/2010 16:44:15
Edited by: Mahke on 30/03/2010 16:43:36
Originally by: Bad Bobby
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.
I disagree with this and have bought up several regions worth of a certain mineral.
Was right with enough things in dominion that even if it doesn't work out, whatever, didn't want that isk anyway
|
Berenices Herculina
Gallente
Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 16:47:00 -
[17]
About ****ing time CCP! Keep it up!
|
Letrange
Minmatar
Chaosstorm Corporation
Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:00:00 -
[18]
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.
|
Mme Pinkerton
United Engineering Services
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:02:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Mahke
I disagree with this and have bought up several regions worth of a certain mineral.
what mineral was crashed by the drone regions again? 
|
Letrange
Minmatar
Chaosstorm Corporation
Apoapsis Multiversal Consortium
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:10:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Mme Pinkerton
Originally by: Mahke
I disagree with this and have bought up several regions worth of a certain mineral.
what mineral was crashed by the drone regions again?
Zydrine or Megacyte as I recall (probably Zydrine).
BTW as for the "certain mineral", I suggest you look at the published source distributions of minerals published by CCP, certain of them were 60% sourced from melted loot. I suspect that this is what Mahke is buying up. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. I suspect however that what we'll see is an increase of those specific minerals in the low sec ores (which also show up in w-space and 0.0 - surprise surprise).
|
|
|
Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
Discord.
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:13:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Letrange
Originally by: Mme Pinkerton
Originally by: Mahke
I disagree with this and have bought up several regions worth of a certain mineral.
what mineral was crashed by the drone regions again?
Zydrine or Megacyte as I recall (probably Zydrine).
BTW as for the "certain mineral", I suggest you look at the published source distributions of minerals published by CCP, certain of them were 60% sourced from melted loot. I suspect that this is what Mahke is buying up. It doesn't take a rocket scientist. I suspect however that what we'll see is an increase of those specific minerals in the low sec ores (which also show up in w-space and 0.0 - surprise surprise).
There are more than one I'm looking at. Might/probably will make a second play.
|
Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar
Ma'adim Logistics
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:42:00 -
[22]
I'm uncertain how this will turn out in the end.
Seems mining profits will crash to start with.
Ships will be less affordable meaning a higher barrier to entry into pvp. (the difference between payout and cost of ship)
Then the changes to supercaps (he didn't mention caps so where do they fit??) will make them less used, which in turn drives demand down.
If caps are included in the supercap thing then the relative cost of sov warfare goes up which ofc might be fixed by the change to t2 insurance that might drive the price of t2 up but I doubt it will go up significantly.
All in all very mixed feelings about it.
|
Olusegun Obasanjo
Minmatar
CENTRAL BANK OF NIGERIA
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:49:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Olusegun Obasanjo on 30/03/2010 17:49:39
seems like im in the same boat as everyone else in this thread, need to let it sit for a bit and ferment before announcing that the sky is falling 
|
Doll
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 17:56:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Olusegun Obasanjo
Edited by: Olusegun Obasanjo on 30/03/2010 17:49:39
seems like im in the same boat as everyone else in this thread, need to let it sit for a bit and ferment before announcing that the sky is falling
Yeah, I'm waiting for Akita to announce the verdict
|
Kharamete
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 18:05:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Doll
Originally by: Olusegun Obasanjo
Edited by: Olusegun Obasanjo on 30/03/2010 17:49:39
seems like im in the same boat as everyone else in this thread, need to let it sit for a bit and ferment before announcing that the sky is falling
Yeah, I'm waiting for Akita to announce the verdict
S/he's probably passed out since s/he hasn't said anything - and the thread over in Eve info is rapidly going onto its seventh page :D
---
|
Mashie Saldana
Red Federation
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 18:08:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Bad Bobby
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.
The blog said supercapitals, not capitals. Of course with the general tweak of insurance carriers/dreads will cost a little more than just the fittings as it is now.
Godly scientist/builder/reverse engineer for sale |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 18:42:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Bad Bobby
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.
How 'bout those ~400 capitals and supercaps fighting in Saranen right now...?
|
cosmoray
Bella Vista Holdings Corp
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 18:48:00 -
[28]
For low sec, I hope CCP are going to ADD Trit/Pye/Mex to existing low sec ores like hemorphite and hebdergite to increase their value. Otherwise putting lots of extra large trit/pye/mex roids in low sec will do jack *&$#.
Until I fully understand what is going on, my initial thought is to not own ANY T1 ships/modules or minerals on patch day.
|
Companion Trollin
You are going too fast
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 18:52:00 -
[29]
I love just about everything they're doing here, fan-****ing-tastic.
|
Akita T
Caldari
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2010.03.30 19:10:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Akita T on 30/03/2010 19:12:53
Originally by: Kharamete
Originally by: Doll
Originally by: Olusegun Obasanjo
seems like im in the same boat as everyone else in this thread, need to let it sit for a bit and ferment before announcing that the sky is falling
Yeah, I'm waiting for Akita to announce the verdict
S/he's probably passed out since s/he hasn't said anything - and the thread over in Eve info is rapidly going onto its seventh page :D
I was just busy... doing something completely different, but that's another story
Like I just said in the blog comments thread...
Overall, they covered a lot of the things I could have been angry about... so, this is far, FAR better than I had expected it to be, at least in theory.
Of course, in practice, the actual numbers (loot drop tables, what they replace meta-0 loot with, how ore and compound refine ratios will be tweaked and so on) will be extremely difficult to get quite right, and I expect a long, painful transitional period even if they WOULD get it almost perfectly right.
Oh, and I'm a bit skeptic about the percentage of build cost they'd be assigning as payout for each ship class, but that's yet again a completely different story. Only time will tell for sure (and a lot of cursing, most likely, from all camps, just at different times).
P.S. There are also some things left unsaid, for instance, if they'll be reverting the Veldspar respwan boosts made last summer, or even altering respawn rates of other ores (and where), but again, it's yet another (although related) story.
_
Beginner's ISK making guide | Manufacturer's helper | All about reacting
_
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |