Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
mimshot
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 21:39:00 -
[1]
I think boosters (the ones from gas clouds, not fleet boosters) are one of the cooler, underutilized parts of the game. As it is, the combat boost is sufficiently small and expensive that they are only really used by PvP BS blob-fleet pilots. Why not have some industrial boosters? I'm thinking a mining yield bonus and a bonus to invention percent.
I'm not going to do a full balancing, but my back-of-the-envelop numbers say a 40% mining yield bonus for 30 mins from a 6M ISK booster sounds about right. That would be profitable on a Hulk or Covetor mining ABC ores, but not otherwise.
There might be more uses, and I'd be interested to hear other ideas. |
Ephemeron
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 22:24:00 -
[2]
and since all the currently used side effects would be pointless, we'll have a new one:
20% chance that 3x NPC Battleship and 3x scramble inties will spawn on top of your ship and attack it.
How's that?
|
Jerid Verges
Gallente The Society of Innovation The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 22:27:00 -
[3]
No. You can't have isk be a balancing factor in booster bonus. Because players set the price, not CCP. I can imagine that booster would be in high demand. High demand = increase in price. If the price increases to where it isn't profitable to use then price would abrudptly drop due to nonexistant demand. If that happened then people could buy these cheap and reap huge benefits.
Come up with a way to properly balance these vs isk cost and I might like to see them.
The problem is this just increases to the mineral oversupply and could just deflate mineral prices even more.
|
Caldari Citizen20090217
|
Posted - 2010.04.27 22:53:00 -
[4]
Random late-at-night-not-thought-through post:
Maybe give the boost for x time, then have the same boost applied as a penalty for the same time after (comedown). And no you can't just drop another hit. Or maybe you can, delaying the penalty and gaining the same productivity level as a normal miner, so now you're addicted
|
Jerid Verges
Gallente The Society of Innovation The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2010.04.28 02:12:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Caldari Citizen20090217 Random late-at-night-not-thought-through post:
Maybe give the boost for x time, then have the same boost applied as a penalty for the same time after (comedown). And no you can't just drop another hit. Or maybe you can, delaying the penalty and gaining the same productivity level as a normal miner, so now you're addicted
...So then that means people will just use a ton of boosters before they go into DT or go to bed and completely ignore the aftereffects...
|
mimshot
|
Posted - 2010.04.28 14:49:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Ephemeron and since all the currently used side effects would be pointless, we'll have a new one:
20% chance that 3x NPC Battleship and 3x scramble inties will spawn on top of your ship and attack it.
How's that?
I like it. The problem is that for some gangs this would be a bonus, not a problem.
The idea to cause a decrease in yield after the increase is nice because it helps someone mine some ore quickly (e.g., in a hostile system), but doesn't provide a benefit to the 23/7 macro miners.
Originally by: Jerid Verges No. You can't have isk be a balancing factor in booster bonus. Because players set the price, not CCP. I can imagine that booster would be in high demand. High demand = increase in price. If the price increases to where it isn't profitable to use then price would abrudptly drop due to nonexistant demand. If that happened then people could buy these cheap and reap huge benefits.
Come up with a way to properly balance these vs isk cost and I might like to see them.
No. This is the "suggest a new feature" forum not the "completely design a new feature from the ground up" forum. I can't properly balance the feature because I don't have access to the market and gas cloud spawn rate data that CCP does. I can however, as a proof of concept, describe how they might go about doing it.
First, as for the price ramp up followed by crash concern, prices in markets simply do not behave that way. You are right that it cannot be priced so high that it is unprofitable under all situations, but if the prices ever swung that high, the result would be for them to fall back to the just profitable level, not crash to zero. No rational market participant would sell such a booster below the price at which it would be profitable to use it him/her self. Unprofitablity creates a price ceiling in the market that is easy to balance. Cytoserocin prices create the price floor.
Creating a new use for cytoserocin (or any commodity) causes a rightward demand curve shift. This means that there will be more sold on the market at a higher price. If there is truly a concern about the price dropping too low, then CCP could create a new gas cloud type for this booster and tweak its spawn rate. Increasing the cost (either price or difficulty in obtaining) of raw materials will cause a leftward supply curve shift, meaning fewer sold and at a higher price.
CCP has the ability to manipulate both the price and frequency of consumption of such a booster. Just because I don't have the data to do a thorough market analysis and set the spawn rates, bonuses, etc. doesn't mean it can't be done.
|
darius mclever
|
Posted - 2010.04.28 15:15:00 -
[7]
Well your idea should be a bit more than just "it would be nice to have X" that is even mentioned in the rules for the F&ID forum.
and the issue of side effects for non synth boosters is a big part of your proposal and not just a minor detail.
I propose a mining booster with those positive effects and those side effects. I propose an invention booster with those positive effects and those side effects.
something along those lines. prices and availability are something the players decide and not so much CCP.
So maybe take the proposal back to the drawing board and think about possible side effects. how viable those sorts of side effects are. and how those side effects would affect the general acceptance. e.g. Ephemeron's proposal as side effect for the mining booster isnt a bad one. the ship amount might be something for a strong mining booster. and you scale it down for the weaker boosters.
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |