Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 30 .. 34 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Lord Zim
1079
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 23:04:00 -
[571] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Death before online requirement for singleplayer games. :colbert: sure and when d3 becomes a single player game sure thing It is. They've apparently managed to fool you into thinking that D3 actually must have an always-on internet connection to run the logic, but there's no part of the game (while you're not playing with others) which should in any way, shape or form require external resources. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
I'll bet you're one of the people who thinks IW were right to remove lean, console, mods and dedicated servers, too. |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
475
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 23:17:00 -
[572] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Death before online requirement for singleplayer games. :colbert: sure and when d3 becomes a single player game sure thing It is. They've apparently managed to fool you into thinking that D3 actually must have an always-on internet connection to run the logic, but there's no part of the game (while you're not playing with others) which should in any way, shape or form require external resources. Nada. Zip. Zilch. I'll bet you're one of the people who thinks IW were right to remove lean, console, mods and dedicated servers, too.
Nah im one of those guys who likes to play games and does not take them too seriously... You on the other hand... PLEX FOR PIZZA! -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
910
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 23:23:00 -
[573] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Lord Zim wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Death before online requirement for singleplayer games. :colbert: sure and when d3 becomes a single player game sure thing It is. They've apparently managed to fool you into thinking that D3 actually must have an always-on internet connection to run the logic, but there's no part of the game (while you're not playing with others) which should in any way, shape or form require external resources. Nada. Zip. Zilch. I'll bet you're one of the people who thinks IW were right to remove lean, console, mods and dedicated servers, too. Nah im one of those guys who likes to play games and does not take them too seriously... You on the other hand...
Ah the post of a man bested in rightful word to word combat.
Your surrender is noted and accepted, please move to the back of the bus.
|
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
475
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 23:47:00 -
[574] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Lord Zim wrote:MeBiatch wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Death before online requirement for singleplayer games. :colbert: sure and when d3 becomes a single player game sure thing It is. They've apparently managed to fool you into thinking that D3 actually must have an always-on internet connection to run the logic, but there's no part of the game (while you're not playing with others) which should in any way, shape or form require external resources. Nada. Zip. Zilch. I'll bet you're one of the people who thinks IW were right to remove lean, console, mods and dedicated servers, too. Nah im one of those guys who likes to play games and does not take them too seriously... You on the other hand... Ah the post of a man bested in rightful word to word combat. Your surrender is noted and accepted, please move to the back of the bus.
Lmao PLEX FOR PIZZA! -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Patri Andari
Thukker Tribe Antiquities Importer
103
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 23:55:00 -
[575] - Quote
Alchemy as a solution to broken Tech is DOA.
Why? Because Goons seem to have seen this one coming over a year ago and took steps to abort this tactic. To add a bit of irony to this, they enlisted the aid of the common gank happy empire dwellers as willing pawns to insure that the high prices for tech stay intact despite Alchemy. Follow the bouncing ball and sing along:
Alchemy is only worth while when you consider fuel prices.
Fuel comes only from ice products.
Only ice harvesters can mine ice.
Only exhumers and barges can fit ice harvesters.
Who is paying to have those ships destroyed?
So you see, if you are ganking for the few pence you get from Goons I hope they send you thank you card. Alchemy has already been defeated as long as ice is being interdicted and last i checked hulkagedon is perma.
Nice move Goons.
Be careful what you think, for your thoughts become your words. Be careful what you say, for your words become your actions. Be careful what you do, for your actions become your character. And character is everything. - author unknown |
Lord Zim
1079
|
Posted - 2012.07.20 23:59:00 -
[576] - Quote
Don't worry, CCP are handholding the awful pubbies who can't fit ships for anything other than "maximum yield". |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
574
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 00:08:00 -
[577] - Quote
^ Sounds like you are all for, minimitar being nerfed then, as well as drake and tengu. IF miners want to fly well, its a crime. Maybe combat ships should be put under your scrutiny.
All tengus, and minmitar ships, get a ton of tank, but can only fit frigate guns.
Plus only soundwave can hold my hand. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
Lord Zim
1080
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 00:12:00 -
[578] - Quote
Sure, nerf all the things. We don't need to nerf the lokis and rokhs, though, since if they aren't nerfed, maybe soco might even actually work up the balls to undock and fight for their space. |
asidburn Enaka
Alpha Arms and Manufacturing BROTHERHOOD OF DESTRUCTION
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 00:15:00 -
[579] - Quote
hell yea kick the tec moon goo in the balls hard as hell stick it to the tec monopolys |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
574
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 00:16:00 -
[580] - Quote
SoCo just needs to be re-educated. You made me laugh, listing the ships they used. I havn't heard those ship names since leaving rookie help channel.
Maybe they will use nano ships with blasters next time. Or perhaps rely on AOE doomsdays, to win the tide of war. I will not be voting in the CSM election, so you need to go vote to make up for me. |
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1175
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 00:30:00 -
[581] - Quote
Quick calc, "initial draft" tech alchemy is 10 Plat Tech = 100 cobalt + (100-95=)5 platinum + 1h of fuel for 3000+tf (which would be 20 fuel blocs or around 350k ISK). So that's 1 PT = 10 cobalt + 0.5 plat + 35k ISK for fuel (the old alchemy 20:1 tech:cobalt replacement ratios) Plat Tech used to sell for around 92k ISK lately, but it will almost certainly be falling.
Cobalt used to sell for ~500 but it recently spiked to over 3k, Platinum was around 2.5k and now it's around 4.5k, so that's 30k from Cobalt, barely over 2k from Platinum, 35k from fuel, making PT cost 67k to manufacture. Add in at least 100m ISK/mo per reactor profit to make it start worth bothering with (7,200 units/reactor/month), so another 14k minimum, and you're looking at a 81k price for PT down from the previous 92k trade level. Not a lot less, but still noteworthy. That would cap tech price at around 145k-155k or thereabouts. Assuming Cobalt/Platinum or fuel block prices would not spike, and assuming people would be willing to accept a mere 100m per month from a reactor. So, maybe, tech price won't be going down much in the long run, but it won't go up more as it could have if there was no tech alchemy at all. Depends how long they'd keep the reactions at that level.
And of course, they could bring the replacement ratios further down from 10 Cobalt and 20 fuel blocks more in line with other current alchemy numbers (2.5 Cobalt and 5 fuel blocs and just 3.5k minimum added expected minimum profit, so the new 5:1 alchemy), which would make it much cheaper (assuming cobalt and platinum would NOT spike even further in price, to a mere 22k per unit of PT). That would cap tech to a negligible price compared to the current level, probably below 40k per unit. Of course, in that case, I expect both cobalt and platinum to go up more, and I also expect people to want more monthly profit from reactors than a measly 100m/mo/reactor, so before any further changes, we might as well still see tech over 60k per unit (or even a bit higher) even with the VASTLY buffed alchemy reactions. Depends how much it takes them to implement OTHER changes on top of just alchemy. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
216
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 00:52:00 -
[582] - Quote
you're valuing cobalt, a worthless mineral found in much greater abundance than people willing to run alchemy towers, at market price |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
216
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 00:53:00 -
[583] - Quote
sorry: not market price, "speculative bubble price" |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1176
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 01:00:00 -
[584] - Quote
I'm valuing it at "worst case scenario" price. For all I know, it could be platinum that rises up and goes bananas instead.
Besides, it's not like you can have a lot of cobalt hitting the market unless it's profitable to mine cobalt moons, so that makes, what, 10 blocks for 100 cobalt, or something like 1700 minimum cobalt price for barely breaking even if you only find cobalt on a moon ? Sure, you can find other junk to extract to mitigate that, but I'm still expecting cobalt prices to be at least a 2k per unit or thereabouts.
Besides, if they buff the alchemy from 20:1 to 5:1, that just lowered cobalt's importance by a factor of 4, so, meh. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
119
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 01:04:00 -
[585] - Quote
Was wondering when you'd pop up here, Akita. CAUTION
SNIGGS |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1177
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 01:06:00 -
[586] - Quote
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:Was wondering when you'd pop up here, Akita. Busy week with RL work. Still kinda' busy, but on a break because most of the other colleagues are sleepin'. http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
Highauger's animated corpse
Eve Defence Force Fatal Ascension
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 02:39:00 -
[587] - Quote
Ha ha ha I like this OP. Raver, calling it |
Rachel Silverside
Handsome Millionaire Playboys Flatline.
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 04:08:00 -
[588] - Quote
Lilliana Stelles wrote:Generating elements from other elements?
Cold fusion, or is spacewizard now a viable profession?
|
steave435
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
73
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 04:20:00 -
[589] - Quote
Akita T wrote:Quick calc, "initial draft" tech alchemy is 10 Plat Tech = 100 cobalt + (100-95=)5 platinum + 1h of fuel for 3000+tf (which would be 20 fuel blocs or around 350k ISK). So that's 1 PT = 10 cobalt + 0.5 plat + 35k ISK for fuel (the old alchemy 20:1 tech:cobalt replacement ratios) Plat Tech used to sell for around 92k ISK lately, but it will almost certainly be falling.
Cobalt used to sell for ~500 but it recently spiked to over 3k, Platinum was around 2.5k and now it's around 4.5k, so that's 30k from Cobalt, barely over 2k from Platinum, 35k from fuel, making PT cost 67k to manufacture. Add in at least 100m ISK/mo per reactor profit to make it start worth bothering with (7,200 units/reactor/month), so another 14k minimum, and you're looking at a 81k price for PT down from the previous 92k trade level. Not a lot less, but still noteworthy. That would cap tech price at around 145k-155k or thereabouts. Assuming Cobalt/Platinum or fuel block prices would not spike, and assuming people would be willing to accept a mere 100m per month from a reactor. So, maybe, tech price won't be going down much in the long run, but it won't go up more as it could have if there was no tech alchemy at all. Depends how long they'd keep the reactions at that level.
And of course, they could bring the replacement ratios further down from 10 Cobalt and 20 fuel blocks more in line with other current alchemy numbers (2.5 Cobalt and 5 fuel blocs and just 3.5k minimum added expected minimum profit, so the new 5:1 alchemy), which would make it much cheaper (assuming cobalt and platinum would NOT spike even further in price, to a mere 22k per unit of PT). That would cap tech to a negligible price compared to the current level, probably below 40k per unit. Of course, in that case, I expect both cobalt and platinum to go up more, and I also expect people to want more monthly profit from reactors than a measly 100m/mo/reactor, so before any further changes, we might as well still see tech over 60k per unit (or even a bit higher) even with the VASTLY buffed alchemy reactions. Depends how much it takes them to implement OTHER changes on top of just alchemy.
You make the mistake of assuming that you have to have someone mine it, bring it to wherever to sell and then bring it back somewhere to react on a different tower. Simply put a medium POS on a cobalt moon and buy some plat, and run the reaction right there on the moon while mining. That may sound like a "minerals I mine myself are free" argument, but the difference is that doing that cuts out the cost of acquiring the cobalt since you don't need an extra tower consuming fuel for it, while also cutting out all the work required to run that tower and haul stuff to and from it, so unlike the mining scenario you perform less work by acquiring it yourself instead of more work. Cobalt is so cheap that it's not even worth mining+hauling (yes, some do it, but those are the same people that would be willing to run plat tech alchemy without profit, just like they now run cobalt mining without profit), so you can't even argue opportunity cost. Therefore, the only math needed was described a few pages ago:
steave435 wrote:With current prices, running a medium POS with a simple reactor on a Cobalt moon would cost ~360k for the fuel and ~30k for the platinum each hour, for a total of 390k. That produces 10 plat tech, so to break even, plat tech price wouldn't have to be higher then 39k/unit, roughly equivalent to a regular tech price of 70-75k.
The profit scales up very slowly though as tech price goes up, even with the pre-anouncement plat tech price at 90k you'd only be making 85m/week, but it's still profit beyond the 40k/unit mark, and even lower if you can get the stuff you need trough buy orders instead of getting it from sell orders. Since cobalt moons are so common though, any individual could easily set up a few moons without support from a corp or alliance, so despite the low profit margin, you'd still have a fair number of people doing it if price gets too high.
That's based on a the inflated plat price of 6k, so with a normal price you'd make a profit even earlier. |
HAMBER BOGAN
House Of Serenity. Unprovoked Aggression
32
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 04:22:00 -
[590] - Quote
Feligast wrote:HAMBER BOGAN wrote:3) Take post nerf tech and spread it out throughout null sec, not bunched up in one place.
I personally would like option 3. So essentially, you're saying it's not fair we fought, held, defended, fueled, scooped, and politicked our way to tech holding. It should be taken away from us by the Devs and given to alliances that refuse to do that, amirite?
No. I used to be in CFC and spent my 3 week christmas holiday taking branch.
If the tech is spread out, then it means there will be more medium sized coalitions holding 1 or 2 regions, not half the entirety of null sec. And eve region would have their own fun, not just the borders of goons and everyone else.
Goons have proven they are the best at this game, grats, you win at eve, and yea, you guys are having fun. But I believe it would be a lot more fun if you have a bunch of ******** alliances/coalitions running around derping all over the place trying to take tech moons and having good fights that aren't always blobbed into tidi. I think once you have experienced that too, then you would see it as a lot more fun too.
Either way, CFC's days are numbered.
Eve Down Under Australian Eve Fanfest Event Sydney in November https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=115795&find=unread |
|
mjgvjbk
Rio Tinto Jnr Bluescope Mining
25
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 05:11:00 -
[591] - Quote
Should be able to moon mine hi end minerals from empire, don't see why 0.0 has to have everything maybe even let the low end moon goo be available from hi sec ?
Just a thought |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1362
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 05:13:00 -
[592] - Quote
mjgvjbk wrote:Should be able to moon mine hi end minerals from empire, don't see why 0.0 has to have everything maybe even let the low end moon goo be available from hi sec ? Just a thought
Yeah hiseccers should be able to mine tech moons with their invincible towers that they tear down during the 24 hour wardec warning and reanchor with a new corp
Also you can already mine moons in empire, just that it has to be 0.1-0.3 a rogue goon |
Glacies Regina
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 06:30:00 -
[593] - Quote
Oh the tears
Oh the mega corps
oh the very epic nature of
Someone is going to rage quit
Can i get this super sized |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1362
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 07:47:00 -
[594] - Quote
Glacies Regina wrote:Oh the tears Oh the mega corps oh the very epic nature of Someone is going to rage quit Can i get this super sized
nobody's crying over a nerf that's basically been inevitable since 2009 a rogue goon |
Malarkey
Twisted Creations Low Hanging Fruit
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 09:23:00 -
[595] - Quote
I'm sorry, but I don't think this goes far enough.
It will mean that a few more moons become attractive and viable enough to mine, but these will all soon be taken but rarely fought over.
I would suggest expanding the number of available moons to include Class 4 systems. (I never really understood why it had to be Class 3) and I agree with previous posts calling for moon goo to be available through PI. |
From Ua
Migratory fleet
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 12:28:00 -
[596] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Wocka Wocka!
Remember that if you like this change you should hit the "like" button on this post. I need to know if this is the kind of work the community is looking for. ;)
|
Laura Craft Cypher
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 12:46:00 -
[597] - Quote
Quote:Most of these reactions will sit unused at any given time, and that is by design. Alchemy will kick in as a pressure valve in case prices of any moon mineral spike. As long as prices remain low there is no need to bypass the original mineral.
Until some jack-ass like myself comes along while prices are low and continues pressing the "pressure valve".
So what happens then?
You would think that the prices would keep going down until they reach the minimum price of the materials and taxes that went into creating the product. Right?
Wrong....
They would continue to plummet for so long as players continue to pump capital into the market and force the price down.
Over "X" amount of duration and practice, this sets a new standard.
Now with a new standard set. There is nothing to prevent the events that took place and forced the market prices up in the first place from happening again.
Alchemy will only buy time. As the current standard goes away and the new standard becomes the current standard which sits in place of the old standard. Basically, "one cycle".
So how long is, "one cycle"? One cycle is as long as it takes for those with and industrious mind-set to calculate the numbers and re-stage events.
Prices may go down during the interim, while those that understand EVE is nothing more than a "Unit and ISK Generator" and scramble to regain control. They will eventually regain control and put the prices where they want them. It is just a matter of time. |
Inspiration
Focused Radical Energy Engineering
34
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 14:03:00 -
[598] - Quote
Who says fuel prices will remain the same if more towers are put on cobalt moons?
The cost is sure to go up and we will see price rises as will be the demand for new towers. And given the likelihood that current towers will not be taken down, multiple classes of items will go up in price without solving ANYTHING of the original problem!
This CCP is what you get for playing communist!
FAIL in the power of two!
Time to abort this change right here and now and also kill of the past alchemy introduction, just axe it already!
|
Lord Zim
1081
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 14:10:00 -
[599] - Quote
That word, "communist", I don't think you know what it means. |
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
1179
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 14:10:00 -
[600] - Quote
True, it's possible.
Let's say you want to get the absolute LOWEST value technetium is likely to settle down at.
So, let's downvalue cobalt back down to previous negligible levels of 500 ISK and assume platinum hovers at only around 5k and with a very pathetic 100m/mo/reactor (be it regular reaction of alchemy reaction, although it's more work to do an alchemy reaction than a regular reaction due to the extra refine and refill step). 1 "regular" non-alchemy PT should be 0.5 tech + 0.5 plat + 0.1 fuel cube + 700 ISK for 100m ISK/mo/reactor profit. 1 tech = 2 PT - (plat+0.2 fuel cube+1.4k ISK), give or take, so in other words, 1 tech = 2 * alchemy PT - 8.8k, roughly. Let's make that 1 tech = 2 * PT - 9k.
A) for 20:1 alchemy 1 alchemy PT = 5k cobalt + 2.5k plat + 35k fuel + 14k profit = 56.5k ISK 1 tech = 105k ISK minimum
B) for 10:1 alchemy 1 alchemy PT = 2.5k cobalt + 2.5k plat + 17.5k fuel + 7k profit = 29.5k ISK 1 tech = 50k ISK minimum
C) for 5:1 alchemy 1 alchemy PT = 1.25k cobalt + 2.5k plat + 8.75k fuel + 3.5k profit = 16k ISK 1 tech = 23k ISK minimum
http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/User:Akita_T http://eve-search.com/stats/Akita_T T2 BPO poll : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=114789 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 30 .. 34 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |