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) |
![Patrick Baboli Patrick Baboli](https://images.evetech.net/characters/91716562/portrait?size=64)
Patrick Baboli
SunKing Vanguard Black Core Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 15:00:00 -
[601] - Quote
you do know that Technetium is named such because it was the first synthazized element just take Molybdenum and put it in a reactor and boom Technetium just put it and uranium in a reactor and you get tech by the bucket loadjavascript:insertsmiley(' ','/Images/Emoticons/ccp_smile-big.png') |
![marly cortez marly cortez](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1181931577/portrait?size=64)
marly cortez
Mercurialis Inc. RAZOR Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 15:01:00 -
[602] - 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. ;)
Hmmm, bit of selective weighting to your blog here chum, if your going to poll then do so fairly and don,t sit there counting up your likes as if it was some sort of score.
Seen a lotta folk over the past sixty years manipulate the balance in there own favor then publicly pat themselves on the back and claim there was no constructive opposition to there rule, With a broad smile I can assure you that most of them ended up truly in the public cross hairs and the results for them were not favorable.
So far to date reading this blog the general consensus appears to be in the negative camp, this being a bad idea like so many coming from CCP's Devs of late who repeatedly fail to listen to the community at all who's experience of 'Playing' EVE they seem to discount as irrelevant.
Leaves one wondering why they are so blatant in this, the players ask that CCP fix the massive list of little things that 'ARE' broken but instead get a new and utterly broken UI forced down there throats to name but one and are instantly told to 'Go F*** yourself. ' when they object to this cavalier treatment by CCP.
That High ends have been broken since day one is not in dispute here how best to mediate this is the issue, the currently proposed dribble of fixes seems to be the root cause of the objection as players cannot see were the muppets are going with this one and are rightly nervous about seeing there hard work kicked into touch further arrogant action by CCP Dev's.,
Alchemy is by far the oddest of approaches unless it is a cover for something not yet revealed as on the face of things not only is it fundamentally unprofitable to pursue as proposed even if made so would not serve as anything other than a very slow method of implementing a minor change in P/T prices on a very localized scale.
Possibly a wild stab in the dark but could it be that CCP have brought in this DEV to implement further the slow drift of EVE into the clutches of DUST by rooting high ends into PI opening EVE to further infestation by that wretched parasite SONY, and before you comment I ran out of tin foil many years ago.
It is to be hoped that like the his counterparts from the Muppets this dev provides a little more comedy, to to date his contribution seems to be rather lacking in substance more giving the appearance of demanding of adulation, if so he should remind himself daily that failure does not bring anything other than flames in the game. |
![Inspiration Inspiration](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1921676543/portrait?size=64)
Inspiration
Focused Radical Energy Engineering
34
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 15:06:00 -
[603] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:That word, "communist", I don't think you know what it means.
Well not exactly the same, its the tendency is there and thats what counts. This not balancing, this is an attempt to set prices top-down. And that my friend, happens in communist systems as there is no method of valuing anything correctly as there is no free choice that evaluates what a price for an item should be.
Now, if they were to redistribute moon minerals for example, that would be another matter at all! |
![MeBiatch MeBiatch](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1665921521/portrait?size=64)
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
475
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 18:30:00 -
[604] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:Lord Zim wrote:That word, " communist", I don't think you know what it means. Well it is not exactly the same, but the the tendency is there and that is what counts. This is not balancing, this is an attempt to set prices top-down. And that my friend, happens in communist systems as there is no method of valuing anything correctly as there is no free choice that evaluates what the price for an item should be. Now, if they were to redistribute moon minerals for example, that would be another matter at all!
fyp PLEX FOR PIZZA! -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
![Egoz Acai Egoz Acai](https://images.evetech.net/characters/91350419/portrait?size=64)
Egoz Acai
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 19:11:00 -
[605] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:Lord Zim wrote:That word, "communist", I don't think you know what it means. Well it is not exactly the same, but the the tendency is there and that is what counts. This is not balancing, this is an attempt to set prices top-down. And that my friend, happens in communist systems as there is no method of valuing anything correctly as there is no free choice that evaluates what the price for an item should be. Now, if they were to redistribute moon minerals for example, that would be another matter at all!
It creates a release valve for hyperinflation, and the central-banks for any wise Western state do so as well. Tulips anyone ?
|
![Gunner Gunner](https://images.evetech.net/characters/144637270/portrait?size=64)
Gunner
Silver Snake Enterprise Against ALL Authorities
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 19:51:00 -
[606] - Quote
LOL only 3 years too late, well done! |
![Zeruma Zeruma](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1927122906/portrait?size=64)
Zeruma
Krannon of Sherwood Carthage Empires
5
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 22:43:00 -
[607] - Quote
But what happens if i try and bring my brother back from the dead? |
![Richard Desturned Richard Desturned](https://images.evetech.net/characters/90758065/portrait?size=64)
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1368
|
Posted - 2012.07.21 22:54:00 -
[608] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:Now, if they were to redistribute moon minerals for example, that would be another matter at all!
redistributing moon minerals is dumb when there's 180k moons in the game that can potentially be mined
if your idea of a balanced game is "the game rolls 1d20 for me every x months and i might get a personal tech moon in the process!" well it's not a rogue goon |
![Hatsumi Kobayashi Hatsumi Kobayashi](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1973381112/portrait?size=64)
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
122
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 00:59:00 -
[609] - Quote
If I can offer CCP one piece of advice ITT, it's to take the time and listen to Akita T's opinion on this rebalancing. CAUTION
SNIGGS |
![Zagdul Zagdul](https://images.evetech.net/characters/601419392/portrait?size=64)
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
829
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 01:22:00 -
[610] - 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. This is kind of the point and the alchemy addresses the issue.
It's not designed to nerf the tech, only to give players the ability to capitalize on it and set a soft limit on how high it should go. If the people who mine cobalt wish to drive the value of tech down, they may but that the cost of effort.
This proposal serves it's purpose, but it doesn't fix the bottleneck and until that's addressed, tech will still remain a high end resource in EVE.
A list of fixes for the new inventory
Dual Pane idea clicky |
|
![Abdiel Kavash Abdiel Kavash](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1692050071/portrait?size=64)
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
730
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 03:30:00 -
[611] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:Lord Zim wrote:That word, "communist", I don't think you know what it means. Well it is not exactly the same, but the the tendency is there and that is what counts. This is not balancing, this is an attempt to set prices top-down. And that my friend, happens in communist systems as there is no method of valuing anything correctly as there is no free choice that evaluates what the price for an item should be.
No, that would be if CCP decided to set a fixed NPC buy/sell price on moongoo to put hard limits on it. Even with alchemy you are still free to try to buy/sell tech at any price you want.
Alchemy is more comparable to R&D in the real world - expensive materials are being replaced by cheaper and more efficient ones, in order to be able to produce the same stuff cheaper and thus stay competitive. Which is one of the foundations of capitalism. |
![Kaycerra Kaycerra](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1857081059/portrait?size=64)
Kaycerra
Black Lotus Heavy Industries Ethereal Dawn
3
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 07:44:00 -
[612] - Quote
Gunner wrote:LOL only 3 years too late, well done!
It's not done yet. We all know alchemy is going to have prettymuch zero impact on the value of tech. For a temporary bandaid solution, its like putting a bleeding man into a pool of water, and saying "Once you are bleeding fast enough, the water pressure of the pool will equalize blood loss, and you won't bleed 'any faster' "
Also, a little upset to see Fozzy having the nerve to ask for likes, in the face of the fact that there is no dislike button, for all of us to express our dislike for the way the situation is being handled, or the extremely vague nature of the blog, or the fact that alchemy isn't going to do anything. |
![Grath Telkin Grath Telkin](https://images.evetech.net/characters/545094828/portrait?size=64)
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
915
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 08:11:00 -
[613] - Quote
Kaycerra wrote:[quote=Gunner]
Also, a little upset to see Fozzy having the nerve to ask for likes, in the face of the fact that there is no dislike button, for all of us to express our dislike for the way the situation is being handled, or the extremely vague nature of the blog, or the fact that alchemy isn't going to do anything.
Yea i guess it was better when they weren't doing anything at all right?
I mean damn him for even bothering to put out the effort and try and do anything at all right?
He probably should have just sat around doing nothing about it like it has been for the last 3 years until he had a detailed explanation written just for you that had bullet points and exact time tables for completion.
Maybe they'll put a dislike button in and people can hammer it enough times to stop people like you from ever posting again. |
![olan2005 olan2005](https://images.evetech.net/characters/896168574/portrait?size=64)
olan2005
Homicidal Tendencees Ethereal Dawn
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 09:38:00 -
[614] - Quote
they should just bring in planetary ring mining and spawn the tech randomly in null sec all over that would make industry a neccesaty in null sec and break any1 allainces attempt at a mnoply. also goons were given heads up it seems as they conquered the area with the most cobalt moons so nothing has changed |
![Kamuria Kamuria](https://images.evetech.net/characters/90849848/portrait?size=64)
Kamuria
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 11:28:00 -
[615] - Quote
So basically you'll introduce another form of boring micro management PI thingy to moon minerals. Seems very boring to me.
You could have taken a solution closer to reality. Moons and planets are formed from asteroids... the so call moon minerals should come from asteroids and you should find it on moons and planets... |
![CeNedra CeNedra](https://images.evetech.net/characters/148443937/portrait?size=64)
CeNedra
Confrerie des ombres Confrerie de la Lumiere Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 11:51:00 -
[616] - Quote
Hi,
sorry for my english.
Why not give wh, the possibility of undermining the moons? The wh are locked to everywhere, we can not put the station, we can not produce supercaps, we can not claim in the Exploration and is limited |
![Yeep Yeep](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1415050734/portrait?size=64)
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
171
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 12:01:00 -
[617] - Quote
CeNedra wrote:Hi,
sorry for my english.
Why not give wh, the possibility of undermining the moons? The wh are locked to everywhere, we can not put the station, we can not produce supercaps, we can not claim in the Exploration and is limited
Hey guys don't balance tech just give it to me instead of those other dudes thanks. |
![MR DEMOS MR DEMOS](https://images.evetech.net/characters/237807604/portrait?size=64)
MR DEMOS
Death Knight Legion Whiskey Creek Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 13:20:00 -
[618] - Quote
As Normal To little to late CCP hang on let me get the data......... FACEPALM ............ I find this very similar to a man sitting inside a burning house and asking if someone smells smoke..... Brilliant ......
Staples made it easy why can't CCP!!!! |
![Inspiration Inspiration](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1921676543/portrait?size=64)
Inspiration
Focused Radical Energy Engineering
34
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 16:18:00 -
[619] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Inspiration wrote:Now, if they were to redistribute moon minerals for example, that would be another matter at all! redistributing moon minerals is dumb when there's 180k moons in the game that can potentially be mined if your idea of a balanced game is "the game rolls 1d20 for me every x months and i might get a personal tech moon in the process!" well it's not
How does that differ from changing the materials needed in T2 production, like they did before? Which costed me around 25b in reaction input stock i had at the time? If that was is legitimate change, then redistributing moon minerals once so that not all stuff sits in one particular place, certainly is too!
|
![Grath Telkin Grath Telkin](https://images.evetech.net/characters/545094828/portrait?size=64)
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
921
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 16:20:00 -
[620] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Inspiration wrote:Now, if they were to redistribute moon minerals for example, that would be another matter at all! redistributing moon minerals is dumb when there's 180k moons in the game that can potentially be mined if your idea of a balanced game is "the game rolls 1d20 for me every x months and i might get a personal tech moon in the process!" well it's not How does that differ from changing the materials needed in T2 production, like they did before? Which costed me around 25b in reaction input stock i had at the time? If that was is legitimate change, then redistributing moon minerals once so that not all stuff sits in one particular place, certainly is too!
How do you not understand how much moon scanning sucks?
What language does that need to be put in for you?
|
|
![Lord Zim Lord Zim](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1121024806/portrait?size=64)
Lord Zim
1087
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 16:22:00 -
[621] - Quote
I think what needs to happen is that Inspiration needs to be forced to scan down two regions, in one sitting.
I guess we can allow one bathroom break, but no more. |
![Inspiration Inspiration](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1921676543/portrait?size=64)
Inspiration
Focused Radical Energy Engineering
34
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 16:22:00 -
[622] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Inspiration wrote:Lord Zim wrote:That word, "communist", I don't think you know what it means. Well it is not exactly the same, but the the tendency is there and that is what counts. This is not balancing, this is an attempt to set prices top-down. And that my friend, happens in communist systems as there is no method of valuing anything correctly as there is no free choice that evaluates what the price for an item should be. No, that would be if CCP decided to set a fixed NPC buy/sell price on moongoo to put hard limits on it. Even with alchemy you are still free to try to buy/sell tech at any price you want. Alchemy is more comparable to R&D in the real world - expensive materials are being replaced by cheaper and more efficient ones, in order to be able to produce the same stuff cheaper and thus stay competitive. Which is one of the foundations of capitalism.
Like magic is in fantasy!
Transmuting materials is not the thing your analogy will hold up well to. Using various other materials in new proportions to produce the same stuff would be an appropriate match. And that is NOT what CCP is dong here, the T2 stuff requiring technetium still requires the same input! Besides real progress wouldn't require more POS spam! |
![Inspiration Inspiration](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1921676543/portrait?size=64)
Inspiration
Focused Radical Energy Engineering
34
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 16:34:00 -
[623] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:I think what needs to happen is that Inspiration needs to be forced to scan down two regions, in one sitting.
I guess we can allow one bathroom break, but no more.
LOL!
In a real environment new resources are found and others deplete, requiring "scanning" all the time. THis mechanic is totally absent in moon mining, so you trolling me by proposing I have to scan as if that is an unrealistic amount of work...is well...laughable!
You got a pretty poor defense there and the self interest oozes out ! |
![Inspiration Inspiration](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1921676543/portrait?size=64)
Inspiration
Focused Radical Energy Engineering
34
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 16:35:00 -
[624] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Inspiration wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Inspiration wrote:Now, if they were to redistribute moon minerals for example, that would be another matter at all! redistributing moon minerals is dumb when there's 180k moons in the game that can potentially be mined if your idea of a balanced game is "the game rolls 1d20 for me every x months and i might get a personal tech moon in the process!" well it's not How does that differ from changing the materials needed in T2 production, like they did before? Which costed me around 25b in reaction input stock i had at the time? If that was is legitimate change, then redistributing moon minerals once so that not all stuff sits in one particular place, certainly is too! How do you not understand how much moon scanning sucks? What language does that need to be put in for you?
You are just plain lazy and want a static environment, meaning you should not even play a game like EVE that undergoes so many changes over its lifetime! |
![Lord Zim Lord Zim](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1121024806/portrait?size=64)
Lord Zim
1087
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 16:38:00 -
[625] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:Lord Zim wrote:I think what needs to happen is that Inspiration needs to be forced to scan down two regions, in one sitting.
I guess we can allow one bathroom break, but no more. LOL! In a real environment new resources are found and others deplete, requiring "scanning" all the time. THis mechanic is totally absent in moon mining, so you trolling me by proposing I have to scan as if that is an unrealistic amount of work...is well...laughable! You got a pretty poor defense there and the self interest oozes out ! 5 regions, then. |
![Grath Telkin Grath Telkin](https://images.evetech.net/characters/545094828/portrait?size=64)
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
921
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 16:42:00 -
[626] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Inspiration wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:Inspiration wrote:Now, if they were to redistribute moon minerals for example, that would be another matter at all! redistributing moon minerals is dumb when there's 180k moons in the game that can potentially be mined if your idea of a balanced game is "the game rolls 1d20 for me every x months and i might get a personal tech moon in the process!" well it's not How does that differ from changing the materials needed in T2 production, like they did before? Which costed me around 25b in reaction input stock i had at the time? If that was is legitimate change, then redistributing moon minerals once so that not all stuff sits in one particular place, certainly is too! How do you not understand how much moon scanning sucks? What language does that need to be put in for you? You are just plain lazy and want a static environment, meaning you should not even play a game like EVE that undergoes so many changes over its lifetime!
If I'm lazy you're an idiot, hows that fit for you ?
EVE has been around for SOO many years and guess what, Moon mining is so damn tedious that there is not one single complete record of every moon in the game.
8 years, in a relatively unchanging environment and no one has scanned all the moons.
So am I lazy or are you ignorant of what moon scanning entails?
|
![Inspiration Inspiration](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1921676543/portrait?size=64)
Inspiration
Focused Radical Energy Engineering
34
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 16:49:00 -
[627] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Inspiration wrote:Lord Zim wrote:I think what needs to happen is that Inspiration needs to be forced to scan down two regions, in one sitting.
I guess we can allow one bathroom break, but no more. LOL! In a real environment new resources are found and others deplete, requiring "scanning" all the time. THis mechanic is totally absent in moon mining, so you trolling me by proposing I have to scan as if that is an unrealistic amount of work...is well...laughable! You got a pretty poor defense there and the self interest oozes out ! 5 regions, then.
You don't have to move far in a good system at all! |
![Inspiration Inspiration](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1921676543/portrait?size=64)
Inspiration
Focused Radical Energy Engineering
34
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 16:53:00 -
[628] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Inspiration wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Inspiration wrote:Now, if they were to redistribute moon minerals for example, that would be another matter at all! redistributing moon minerals is dumb when there's 180k moons in the game that can potentially be mined if your idea of a balanced game is "the game rolls 1d20 for me every x months and i might get a personal tech moon in the process!" well it's not How does that differ from changing the materials needed in T2 production, like they did before? Which costed me around 25b in reaction input stock i had at the time? If that was is legitimate change, then redistributing moon minerals once so that not all stuff sits in one particular place, certainly is too! How do you not understand how much moon scanning sucks? What language does that need to be put in for you?
You are just plain lazy and want a static environment, meaning you should not even play a game like EVE that undergoes so many changes over its lifetime![/quote]
If I'm lazy you're an idiot, hows that fit for you ?
EVE has been around for SOO many years and guess what, Moon mining is so damn tedious that there is not one single complete record of every moon in the game.
8 years, in a relatively unchanging environment and no one has scanned all the moons.
So am I lazy or are you ignorant of what moon scanning entails? [/quote] |
![Laura Craft Cypher Laura Craft Cypher](https://images.evetech.net/characters/91156643/portrait?size=64)
Laura Craft Cypher
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 16:57:00 -
[629] - Quote
Quote: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
You forgot to account for the vast amount of cash players make doing other things besides creating and selling products. ...This forgotten, reservoir of cash is immense.
So large in fact that players can pay for their game time with it and still have plenty of left over cash to throw away on the market to influence prices. And the more money someone has to toss at the market.. the more control they have over the prices.
Some players might think and say, "Well that's just stupid. Why would anyone want to do that?". The answer is simple... They'll do it to control the market. And they will do it simply because they have the ability to do so.
And since there is more than just a handful of people preforming such practice, the effect gets amplified for each active participant.
For so long as players have the ability to control the low end market and trade freely among themselves and have a reservoir of cash to draw upon. Prices will go where they want them to go with a little coaxing and time. |
![Lord Zim Lord Zim](https://images.evetech.net/characters/1121024806/portrait?size=64)
Lord Zim
1087
|
Posted - 2012.07.22 16:58:00 -
[630] - Quote
Inspiration wrote:You don't have to move far in a good system at all! Missing the point, one post at a time. |
|
|
|
|
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 |