|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 :: one page | |
| Author | Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
 Amicus    |
Posted - 2003.09.03 05:26:00 -
[211] About three months ago, I read excerpts from an interview with a Dev about ore supply in the Eve economy. My recollection is that the Dev said that there is a finite amount of resources in Eve, i.e., that the system was a closed one. There were indications that if you trash something or sell it back to the NPC's, then it will respawn as ore. However, ore can be drained from the fields, especially rare ores -- creating an incentive for warfare. I have not seen anything about the closed system design being scrapped. I assume it is still in effect. |
 Amicus Gold Diggers Inc. |
Posted - 2003.09.03 05:26:00 -
[212] About three months ago, I read excerpts from an interview with a Dev about ore supply in the Eve economy. My recollection is that the Dev said that there is a finite amount of resources in Eve, i.e., that the system was a closed one. There were indications that if you trash something or sell it back to the NPC's, then it will respawn as ore. However, ore can be drained from the fields, especially rare ores -- creating an incentive for warfare. I have not seen anything about the closed system design being scrapped. I assume it is still in effect. |
 Yanko Hush |
Posted - 2003.09.03 12:36:00 -
[213] You got my vote on this post..... I like the "fuel" idea.... If there is any "Futurama" fans out there, everybody know that there ship is powered by antimatter.... And that should be EVE's fuel.... This whould also give demands all over the univers... like RL today :P ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success. |
 Yanko Hush Gallente TarNec |
Posted - 2003.09.03 12:36:00 -
[214] You got my vote on this post..... I like the "fuel" idea.... If there is any "Futurama" fans out there, everybody know that there ship is powered by antimatter.... And that should be EVE's fuel.... This whould also give demands all over the univers... like RL today :P ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success. |
 Trixxy |
Posted - 2003.09.03 13:18:00 -
[215] Edited by: Trixxy on 03/09/2003 13:28:25 SUNchaser said: One other thought. There isn't an economic model that works where base resources are readily availible and free for the taking. The economy in eve isn't working because it is based on readily availible free unlimited resources. That has to be fixed before any other tweaks will have any value... That's exactly one of the main points of this thread (and my previous post).  SUNchaser also said And my complaint was against TOO much realism and not enough focus on making the eve experience more enjoyable because I've seen other very good games get grounded by purist... I agree whole-heartidly. The suggestions are not just for the sake of making the economy more realistic. They are rather to prevent the economy from stagnation. It just happens to turn out that in order to prevent stagnation in the EVE economy, we need to introduce a touch of realism in certain aspects. As I've said numerous times in previous posts - I don't want to see cost introduced into the game simply because ISK are readily available. Any cost to a player should provide a benefit to another. That is how any balanced economy works. In no (forgive me for saying) REAL world economic model do you have someone paying lots of money for no benefit. Money is ALWAYS paid for benefit - even if that benefit is just to stay alive. Furthermore, another party ALWAYS benefits from the money that is paid out. So, for example, I say NO to fuel for its own sake. But I say YES to fuel if it is to be sourced, refined and supplied by other players. Furthermore, it is possible to introduce fuel in a way that it provides more benefit than the current system without fuel (i.e. can travel faster with it, and manuevre better), but at the cost of ISK (which allows a fuel supplier to benefit). It's a win-win introduction if done sensibly. Amicus said: <Some scary comments from the Devs about the closed system of Eve> This IS scary if it's the case. Reason: After a honeymoon period of development, where all ore is mined and used to make ships, you will have TRUE stagnation. Thereafter, each ship that is destroyed will have its very limited ore effectively spread across all the mining systems in Eve. This ore will be competed for by all in the game, so effectively very, very, VERY thinly spread throughout the player community. As such, it is NOT the case that each ship that is destroyed will result in a new ship being built somewhere else. If 1 ship's ore is spread evenly among 100 players, then logically it will take 100 ships to be destroyed before any of those players are able to make a new ship - but ONLY if those same 100 players continue to get their exact share of ore (which realistically won't happen). Furthermore, the lack of availability of ore results in no source of income for a large portion of the current economically active population. So what do the miners do when all the ore exists as ships? Pointlessly wonder around space hoping to pounce on a bit of ore the moment it spawns? My gawd - how mind-numbingly boring. Furthermore, the lack of availability of ready ore will make people even MORE cagey about losing their ships - as the cost of new ones will be stupidly high (because of the scarcity of ore) and they are unable to make their own (because of the scarcity of ore). I can't see that encouraging more war. Oh, and let's consider the fact that players buy lots of ships for themselves, and their alts, but then don't play for a couple of months. With a large community of alts and dormant players, you have a HUGE amount of ore trapped in ships that will never be destroyed, and thereby never relinquish that ore back into the economy. The real world may be a closed system - but I can tell you, there will be mayhem for man-kind when we do eventually hit the limits of that system. There will not be growth. There WILL be war, but no progress will result from it. The only way out is to expand into space in order to OPEN up the system again. If mankind fails to open up the system, it's economy and ultimately its society as we know it will fail. A closed system, I can promise you, is absolute and final economic suicide. If what Amicus claims the devs said is true, then heaven help the long-term future of this game. . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain. |
 Trixxy Gallente The Chaos Fellowship |
Posted - 2003.09.03 13:18:00 -
[216] Edited by: Trixxy on 03/09/2003 13:28:25 SUNchaser said: One other thought. There isn't an economic model that works where base resources are readily availible and free for the taking. The economy in eve isn't working because it is based on readily availible free unlimited resources. That has to be fixed before any other tweaks will have any value... That's exactly one of the main points of this thread (and my previous post). SUNchaser also said And my complaint was against TOO much realism and not enough focus on making the eve experience more enjoyable because I've seen other very good games get grounded by purist... I agree whole-heartidly. The suggestions are not just for the sake of making the economy more realistic. They are rather to prevent the economy from stagnation. It just happens to turn out that in order to prevent stagnation in the EVE economy, we need to introduce a touch of realism in certain aspects. As I've said numerous times in previous posts - I don't want to see cost introduced into the game simply because ISK are readily available. Any cost to a player should provide a benefit to another. That is how any balanced economy works. In no (forgive me for saying) REAL world economic model do you have someone paying lots of money for no benefit. Money is ALWAYS paid for benefit - even if that benefit is just to stay alive. Furthermore, another party ALWAYS benefits from the money that is paid out. So, for example, I say NO to fuel for its own sake. But I say YES to fuel if it is to be sourced, refined and supplied by other players. Furthermore, it is possible to introduce fuel in a way that it provides more benefit than the current system without fuel (i.e. can travel faster with it, and manuevre better), but at the cost of ISK (which allows a fuel supplier to benefit). It's a win-win introduction if done sensibly. Amicus said: <Some scary comments from the Devs about the closed system of Eve> This IS scary if it's the case. Reason: After a honeymoon period of development, where all ore is mined and used to make ships, you will have TRUE stagnation. Thereafter, each ship that is destroyed will have its very limited ore effectively spread across all the mining systems in Eve. This ore will be competed for by all in the game, so effectively very, very, VERY thinly spread throughout the player community. As such, it is NOT the case that each ship that is destroyed will result in a new ship being built somewhere else. If 1 ship's ore is spread evenly among 100 players, then logically it will take 100 ships to be destroyed before any of those players are able to make a new ship - but ONLY if those same 100 players continue to get their exact share of ore (which realistically won't happen). Furthermore, the lack of availability of ore results in no source of income for a large portion of the current economically active population. So what do the miners do when all the ore exists as ships? Pointlessly wonder around space hoping to pounce on a bit of ore the moment it spawns? My gawd - how mind-numbingly boring. Furthermore, the lack of availability of ready ore will make people even MORE cagey about losing their ships - as the cost of new ones will be stupidly high (because of the scarcity of ore) and they are unable to make their own (because of the scarcity of ore). I can't see that encouraging more war. Oh, and let's consider the fact that players buy lots of ships for themselves, and their alts, but then don't play for a couple of months. With a large community of alts and dormant players, you have a HUGE amount of ore trapped in ships that will never be destroyed, and thereby never relinquish that ore back into the economy. The real world may be a closed system - but I can tell you, there will be mayhem for man-kind when we do eventually hit the limits of that system. There will not be growth. There WILL be war, but no progress will result from it. The only way out is to expand into space in order to OPEN up the system again. If mankind fails to open up the system, it's economy and ultimately its society as we know it will fail. A closed system, I can promise you, is absolute and final economic suicide. If what Amicus claims the devs said is true, then heaven help the long-term future of this game. . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ...and remember - No pain, no pain. |
 SUNchaser |
Posted - 2003.09.03 16:23:00 -
[217] Had another thought on this ore issue and it was that instead of having all the common ore types readily found commonly in all regions have each of the four common ore types common only to one races' domain(ie veld spare commonly found in Gallante space but not commonly found anywhere else). An exception can still be that in 0,0 space all common ore types are commonly dispersed. I envision that if this were enacted this would foster more trade than what is currently going on while still keeping base resources easily obtainable and commonly found. By leaving these common ore types readily availible in 0.0 space it would introduce the element of risk from pirating which is the balance for obtaining all the common ores in the closest proximity to manufacturing stations. |
 SUNchaser Doomheim |
Posted - 2003.09.03 16:23:00 -
[218] Had another thought on this ore issue and it was that instead of having all the common ore types readily found commonly in all regions have each of the four common ore types common only to one races' domain(ie veld spare commonly found in Gallante space but not commonly found anywhere else). An exception can still be that in 0,0 space all common ore types are commonly dispersed. I envision that if this were enacted this would foster more trade than what is currently going on while still keeping base resources easily obtainable and commonly found. By leaving these common ore types readily availible in 0.0 space it would introduce the element of risk from pirating which is the balance for obtaining all the common ores in the closest proximity to manufacturing stations. |
Amicus |
Posted - 2003.09.03 18:09:00 -
[219] Hi Trixxy, My memory is not the best, and it is possible that the original design for a closed system has been scrapped. There is one other tidbit of information that I recall about the system described in the interview. With the addition of new players more ore is added to the system, so it is not entirely a closed system. It would be nice to see an update from the Devs about how the system is being managed now, and of course some reply from them to this thread would also be nice.  Amicus |
Amicus Gold Diggers Inc. |
Posted - 2003.09.03 18:09:00 -
[220] Hi Trixxy, My memory is not the best, and it is possible that the original design for a closed system has been scrapped. There is one other tidbit of information that I recall about the system described in the interview. With the addition of new players more ore is added to the system, so it is not entirely a closed system. It would be nice to see an update from the Devs about how the system is being managed now, and of course some reply from them to this thread would also be nice. Amicus |
Mustard |
Posted - 2003.09.04 08:59:00 -
[221] Dropping prices, diminishing demand... A very well written set of ideas. We need more demand in items. They aren't being used up fast enough. One idea I like is completely eliminating NPC supplies of anything in game EXCEPT shuttles and trade goods. War generates economy but who wants to fight and lose everything that takes so long and so hard to accumulate and find? I like equipment needing repair or replacement. Perhaps start an entirely new set of tradeable items and BPs called Repair Kits (or whatever). So you can repair those common and "rare drops" if they fail. And then have a seperate Repair Kit for each weapon type and size or module on the ship. I think cargo expanders and other non technical items should almost never break. With weapons "breaking" people can either replace the weapons or repair them. Repairing would be an additional set of skills. And with each type of skill would come an additional percentage of success and time it required in a factory to get repaired. Repairing would be expensive and time consuming so it would stimulate some need for new items. I am just thinking a loud here. Run with it. I think a demand for stuff is needed. Stuff isn't getting destroyed fast enough for the economy to thrive. Not all of us want war and breaking items has ruined some games (ie DAC). Maybe some items have a percentage of chance of breaking and it can be reduced and it will only break after combat. Who knows. Mustard |
 Mustard |
Posted - 2003.09.04 08:59:00 -
[222] Dropping prices, diminishing demand... A very well written set of ideas. We need more demand in items. They aren't being used up fast enough. One idea I like is completely eliminating NPC supplies of anything in game EXCEPT shuttles and trade goods. War generates economy but who wants to fight and lose everything that takes so long and so hard to accumulate and find? I like equipment needing repair or replacement. Perhaps start an entirely new set of tradeable items and BPs called Repair Kits (or whatever). So you can repair those common and "rare drops" if they fail. And then have a seperate Repair Kit for each weapon type and size or module on the ship. I think cargo expanders and other non technical items should almost never break. With weapons "breaking" people can either replace the weapons or repair them. Repairing would be an additional set of skills. And with each type of skill would come an additional percentage of success and time it required in a factory to get repaired. Repairing would be expensive and time consuming so it would stimulate some need for new items. I am just thinking a loud here. Run with it. I think a demand for stuff is needed. Stuff isn't getting destroyed fast enough for the economy to thrive. Not all of us want war and breaking items has ruined some games (ie DAC). Maybe some items have a percentage of chance of breaking and it can be reduced and it will only break after combat. Who knows. Mustard |
SUNchaser |
Posted - 2003.09.04 18:51:00 -
[223] Edited by: SUNchaser on 04/09/2003 18:57:41 ONe way to prevent stagnation would be for CCP to always have a constant demand for all minerals and ore at NPC prices. The player created economy for these items would be created above NPC and be driven entirely by demand instead of speculation. For any competitive market to work there most be an overall shortage for whatever the goods are resource dependant upon. By creating a "constant" demand players will then have to compete with each other for these resources knowing that if they don't they will lose them to the NPC market. Asteroid respawning could be then based upon the amount of minerals sold to the NPC market and thus reducing the supply of ore and forcing even more competion for these essential resources. With the foundations from which all goods are created "healthy" then manufacturing should be restricted enough because of the cost so that players can then manufacture and sell at profit. Those that don't will soon be out of enough capital to continue and thus weed themselves out of the marketplace. A I've posted earlier but maybe n ot as clearly I feel all asteroids iin 0.6 and more secure areas should be considered low hanging fruit and once harvested its gone for good. One of the best ways to promote interaction is to force it to occur. The "free" unlimited resource problem is what needs to be addressed. If that were to occur the game would change THEN maybe some of the other ideas would be something to be considered. |
SUNchaser Doomheim |
Posted - 2003.09.04 18:51:00 -
[224] Edited by: SUNchaser on 04/09/2003 18:57:41 ONe way to prevent stagnation would be for CCP to always have a constant demand for all minerals and ore at NPC prices. The player created economy for these items would be created above NPC and be driven entirely by demand instead of speculation. For any competitive market to work there most be an overall shortage for whatever the goods are resource dependant upon. By creating a "constant" demand players will then have to compete with each other for these resources knowing that if they don't they will lose them to the NPC market. Asteroid respawning could be then based upon the amount of minerals sold to the NPC market and thus reducing the supply of ore and forcing even more competion for these essential resources. With the foundations from which all goods are created "healthy" then manufacturing should be restricted enough because of the cost so that players can then manufacture and sell at profit. Those that don't will soon be out of enough capital to continue and thus weed themselves out of the marketplace. A I've posted earlier but maybe n ot as clearly I feel all asteroids iin 0.6 and more secure areas should be considered low hanging fruit and once harvested its gone for good. One of the best ways to promote interaction is to force it to occur. The "free" unlimited resource problem is what needs to be addressed. If that were to occur the game would change THEN maybe some of the other ideas would be something to be considered. |
 Erik Finnegan |
Posted - 2003.09.04 19:39:00 -
[225] The idea of common ore being "low hanging fruits" in high sec space is already implemented in the way that only common ore is being found there. To get the more lucrative ore types or to get the ore needed for production you have to go further out. To make common ore, or ore at all, disappear from high sec space would be pretty unfair for new players. The suggestion to shape the distribution of ores more along region/sovereignity borders is a nice thought, though, as it would further emphasize the today thin differences of the races and increase cross border trade. I am reluctant to welcome ever more different items. Already the diversity is such that you have a hard time to grasp different functionalities and the dependencies between items alone is sufficient for now. I'd rather like to see the items' and trade goods' trees interweaved better. Make trade goods necessary to produce/repair/maintain items. The skill system needs more shape, true, but rather in the direction of specialization than to hinder or aggravate repairing/maintianing of ships, i.e. your everyday life. ----- L'obcuritÚ de la Loi est un appel Ó l'intelligence du juge. |
 Erik Finnegan Gallente The Scope |
Posted - 2003.09.04 19:39:00 -
[226] The idea of common ore being "low hanging fruits" in high sec space is already implemented in the way that only common ore is being found there. To get the more lucrative ore types or to get the ore needed for production you have to go further out. To make common ore, or ore at all, disappear from high sec space would be pretty unfair for new players. The suggestion to shape the distribution of ores more along region/sovereignity borders is a nice thought, though, as it would further emphasize the today thin differences of the races and increase cross border trade. I am reluctant to welcome ever more different items. Already the diversity is such that you have a hard time to grasp different functionalities and the dependencies between items alone is sufficient for now. I'd rather like to see the items' and trade goods' trees interweaved better. Make trade goods necessary to produce/repair/maintain items. The skill system needs more shape, true, but rather in the direction of specialization than to hinder or aggravate repairing/maintianing of ships, i.e. your everyday life. ----- L'obcuritT de la Loi est un appel a l'intelligence du juge. |
 SUNchaser |
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:25:00 -
[227] with the term "low hanging fruit" what I meant was based upon availibility of the common ore types only. I think for the more valuble and thus rarer ore's the dev's got it right but totally blew it with the common ores. For meg and zyd the market works. For the others due to any real lack of competion the market isn't working and since these ores provide the foundation mins required for all manufacturing results in the market for ever being depressed. |
SUNchaser Doomheim |
Posted - 2003.09.05 14:25:00 -
[228] with the term "low hanging fruit" what I meant was based upon availibility of the common ore types only. I think for the more valuble and thus rarer ore's the dev's got it right but totally blew it with the common ores. For meg and zyd the market works. For the others due to any real lack of competion the market isn't working and since these ores provide the foundation mins required for all manufacturing results in the market for ever being depressed. |
Prattack Veen |
Posted - 2003.09.05 20:42:00 -
[229]
Good point. In fact, how can equipment on your ship not only survive the explosion but also magically find their way into cargo container? It make no sense and needs to be dropped. Your ship dies, all the equipment on it dies too. Some/most of the cargo can survive because it's already in cargo canisters and they are hardy little blighters. |
 Prattack Veen Gallente Aliastra |
Posted - 2003.09.05 20:42:00 -
[230]
Good point. In fact, how can equipment on your ship not only survive the explosion but also magically find their way into cargo container? It make no sense and needs to be dropped. Your ship dies, all the equipment on it dies too. Some/most of the cargo can survive because it's already in cargo canisters and they are hardy little blighters. |
Prattack Veen |
Posted - 2003.09.05 22:08:00 -
[231] Edited by: Prattack Veen on 05/09/2003 22:12:36 While I appreciate the desire to not introduce ISK sinks simply for the sake of it, I am more in favour of taxes and docking fees than fuel. Think of it this way. Your ship gathers the fuel it needs from the dark matter background. But the intakes clog up and need cleaning. This is done every time you dock. They also provide you with food and water, recharge your pod fluid, connect up the links to the market, etc. This all costs the station energy and a fee is charged for this. Player stations can set their fees to compete with the NPC ones. And to help nOObs, if you dock at a station owned by your corp the fee will be waived. The larger your ship, the bigger the intakes and the higher the fee will be. Frigates will be cheap, but not free, while Battle ships will cost a lot to dock. Also, part of this fee goes towards providing the station services, so those stations with few services will charge less than those with many. Jump gates will also require a fee to be paid. This will depend on the type of jump, constellation or region jumps will cost more. After all, it's obviously the gate that expends the energy, not you, surely you should pay for that. This is independent of ship size, but makes trading a much more specialist occupation as only those with big enough ships will find it economically viable. It also means you have to consider the cost of buying the cheapest item as it may be so many jumps away that'll it'll cost more than the one in the next station. But player traders can transport goods for you if you set up a buy order that makes it worth their while. If you want player created/traded fuel in the game, introduce a requirement for it from stations, jump gates and possibly sentry guns. After all, they all require massive amounts of energy to run, why should this be free? Then introduce specialist "tanker" ships that can supply these entities with the fuel they require and special skills in flying and re-fueling. Suddenly you have another occupation route, but no damage to nOObs. Also you have another opportunity for cash generation from NPCs, after the daily reset the stations and jumpgates have a new fuel requirement, much like the demand for minerals from NPCs. Thankfully, it also introduces a cost for a player run station otherwise they'd just be a cash cow to be milked. Finally, in terms of equipment degredation, this could be implemented by simply having the damage to a module accumulate every time it is used and hence, after a while, it requires repair. The up the cost of repairs, especially for ships. At the moment it's ludicrously cheap to repair even an almost destroyed ship. Repairing modules and ships should cost meaningful amounts of money, and player stations can compete with the NPC ones on this too. Actually, it would become that after a certain amount of damage it would be cheaper to buy a new module than repair an old one, thus stimulating demand for manufacturers products. And the old one can be trashed and hence removed from the eve universe, without having to repackage it. This could be implemented now as modules do get damaged in fights. Indeed, different NPC corps could compete on docking/repair fees so it may be worth your while to shop around for the best price to get your CPU vapour miner fixed. Or even, for a nOOb, to decide exactly where they plan to off load their cargo of ore. Currently the stations do compete on price for refining (in terms of what they take), but it's not easy to see which is the best and the only way to find out the cost is to initiate a refine, by which time you've already docked... For this to work, stations need to advertise their costs outside of the station. Jump gates need to have a fixed cost across the entire galaxy (although their fuel demands and the price they're willing to pay can vary dependent upon their location, outer edge gates need more fuel as they get less regular supplies and are willing to pay for it. But tankers cannot carry guns (for safety reasons) so will need escorts to the out of the way gates). And players need to understand and use the market rather than the trade channel. If you have something to sell, advertise it on the trade channel, but sell it on the market. I've tried to suggest options that could be implemented now without much change to the overall set up of Eve. Fuel use requires a fundamental re-design of the ship mechanics and it does introduce the idea of running out of fuel and being stranded, which would spoil a few aspects of gameplay. While station and gate fuel use is just another buy option on the market. Item/module degredation may be tricky to implement, but increasing the cost of repairing things would be a doddle. I was being pragmatic, CCP may like the ideas, but they won't implement them if they're too costly or difficult. cont...  |
Prattack Veen Gallente Aliastra |
Posted - 2003.09.05 22:08:00 -
[232] Edited by: Prattack Veen on 05/09/2003 22:12:36 While I appreciate the desire to not introduce ISK sinks simply for the sake of it, I am more in favour of taxes and docking fees than fuel. Think of it this way. Your ship gathers the fuel it needs from the dark matter background. But the intakes clog up and need cleaning. This is done every time you dock. They also provide you with food and water, recharge your pod fluid, connect up the links to the market, etc. This all costs the station energy and a fee is charged for this. Player stations can set their fees to compete with the NPC ones. And to help nOObs, if you dock at a station owned by your corp the fee will be waived. The larger your ship, the bigger the intakes and the higher the fee will be. Frigates will be cheap, but not free, while Battle ships will cost a lot to dock. Also, part of this fee goes towards providing the station services, so those stations with few services will charge less than those with many. Jump gates will also require a fee to be paid. This will depend on the type of jump, constellation or region jumps will cost more. After all, it's obviously the gate that expends the energy, not you, surely you should pay for that. This is independent of ship size, but makes trading a much more specialist occupation as only those with big enough ships will find it economically viable. It also means you have to consider the cost of buying the cheapest item as it may be so many jumps away that'll it'll cost more than the one in the next station. But player traders can transport goods for you if you set up a buy order that makes it worth their while. If you want player created/traded fuel in the game, introduce a requirement for it from stations, jump gates and possibly sentry guns. After all, they all require massive amounts of energy to run, why should this be free? Then introduce specialist "tanker" ships that can supply these entities with the fuel they require and special skills in flying and re-fueling. Suddenly you have another occupation route, but no damage to nOObs. Also you have another opportunity for cash generation from NPCs, after the daily reset the stations and jumpgates have a new fuel requirement, much like the demand for minerals from NPCs. Thankfully, it also introduces a cost for a player run station otherwise they'd just be a cash cow to be milked. Finally, in terms of equipment degredation, this could be implemented by simply having the damage to a module accumulate every time it is used and hence, after a while, it requires repair. The up the cost of repairs, especially for ships. At the moment it's ludicrously cheap to repair even an almost destroyed ship. Repairing modules and ships should cost meaningful amounts of money, and player stations can compete with the NPC ones on this too. Actually, it would become that after a certain amount of damage it would be cheaper to buy a new module than repair an old one, thus stimulating demand for manufacturers products. And the old one can be trashed and hence removed from the eve universe, without having to repackage it. This could be implemented now as modules do get damaged in fights. Indeed, different NPC corps could compete on docking/repair fees so it may be worth your while to shop around for the best price to get your CPU vapour miner fixed. Or even, for a nOOb, to decide exactly where they plan to off load their cargo of ore. Currently the stations do compete on price for refining (in terms of what they take), but it's not easy to see which is the best and the only way to find out the cost is to initiate a refine, by which time you've already docked... For this to work, stations need to advertise their costs outside of the station. Jump gates need to have a fixed cost across the entire galaxy (although their fuel demands and the price they're willing to pay can vary dependent upon their location, outer edge gates need more fuel as they get less regular supplies and are willing to pay for it. But tankers cannot carry guns (for safety reasons) so will need escorts to the out of the way gates). And players need to understand and use the market rather than the trade channel. If you have something to sell, advertise it on the trade channel, but sell it on the market. I've tried to suggest options that could be implemented now without much change to the overall set up of Eve. Fuel use requires a fundamental re-design of the ship mechanics and it does introduce the idea of running out of fuel and being stranded, which would spoil a few aspects of gameplay. While station and gate fuel use is just another buy option on the market. Item/module degredation may be tricky to implement, but increasing the cost of repairing things would be a doddle. I was being pragmatic, CCP may like the ideas, but they won't implement them if they're too costly or difficult. cont... |
 Prattack Veen |
Posted - 2003.09.05 22:18:00 -
[233] ...Cont'd Finally, I feel very much as though we're currently the Gamma testers. CCP should accept this, reduce the monthly fee for the next 6 months to a year, then re-launch the game once everyone who's playing at the time is happy that it works well. Eve is not a finished product and there's no way we should be charged as thought it is. There are far too many instabilities and unimplemented but promised functions. The manual is a joke once you play the game, there are so many promises that just aren't fulfilled. Until you can do everything promised in the manual, the game is not worth full price. |
Prattack Veen Gallente Aliastra |
Posted - 2003.09.05 22:18:00 -
[234] ...Cont'd Finally, I feel very much as though we're currently the Gamma testers. CCP should accept this, reduce the monthly fee for the next 6 months to a year, then re-launch the game once everyone who's playing at the time is happy that it works well. Eve is not a finished product and there's no way we should be charged as thought it is. There are far too many instabilities and unimplemented but promised functions. The manual is a joke once you play the game, there are so many promises that just aren't fulfilled. Until you can do everything promised in the manual, the game is not worth full price. |
Mustard |
Posted - 2003.09.08 09:07:00 -
[235] Do somehting about the economy please. Us small timers are being crushed beneath the mega corps. Are you trying to get all the small timers to join mega corps to setup the eventual mega corp wars? Whats the deal? Mustard PS... Oh, and *BUMP* |
Mustard |
Posted - 2003.09.08 09:07:00 -
[236] Do somehting about the economy please. Us small timers are being crushed beneath the mega corps. Are you trying to get all the small timers to join mega corps to setup the eventual mega corp wars? Whats the deal? Mustard PS... Oh, and *BUMP* |
 Ruffles |
Posted - 2003.09.08 13:12:00 -
[237] Hard problem to cure, but I think the way they are reacting to it might actually just go the opposite way to the direction we are heading presently. I think that Tech 2 is likely only going to be available to select few people, in which case we possibly see the availability in terms of the Miner 2 example. Select corps with access to this technology, very few competitors, extortionate prices. If we aren't careful we will go from the one extreme of cheap massively available goods, to the next level of technology being completely unobtainable for most casual players as the virtual-monopolies or cartels keep the prices exceedingly high. Wars: Always the end result for these economic discussions, as it was one of the main reasons for the game after all. They are perceived to cost too much at present, and with insurance being so short in duration, many players are indeed unwilling to risk their vessels for 1 or 2 minutes of fun if it means a weeks working mining/hunting to earn the cash again. I think the gaps between the vessels are quite huge, the jump from frigate-cruiser, and cruiser-battleship are very costly comparables. The performance of these vessels also quite massively different. I would like to see some inter-mediate items, which help to bridge not only the price gap, but the performance also. Destroyers between the frigates-cruisers, and battle-cruisers/Pocket-battleships between the obvious cruiser-battleship gap. Trying to keep the costs of wars in that happy gap between having to work too much, and having no respect for money and too much of it is the very hard task they face at the moment I feel. Do you reduce the costs further, or increase the means of income/hour to try to increase the work-to-fun ratio? If new tech introductions continue the way of the miner 2, then wars costs could increase dramatically, with the same negatives we are already aware of, and only the rich few with access to it. I am waiting to see how things evolve with new technology appearing in game, and if those go hand-in-hand with changes to the market system. |
 Ruffles |
Posted - 2003.09.08 13:12:00 -
[238] Hard problem to cure, but I think the way they are reacting to it might actually just go the opposite way to the direction we are heading presently. I think that Tech 2 is likely only going to be available to select few people, in which case we possibly see the availability in terms of the Miner 2 example. Select corps with access to this technology, very few competitors, extortionate prices. If we aren't careful we will go from the one extreme of cheap massively available goods, to the next level of technology being completely unobtainable for most casual players as the virtual-monopolies or cartels keep the prices exceedingly high. Wars: Always the end result for these economic discussions, as it was one of the main reasons for the game after all. They are perceived to cost too much at present, and with insurance being so short in duration, many players are indeed unwilling to risk their vessels for 1 or 2 minutes of fun if it means a weeks working mining/hunting to earn the cash again. I think the gaps between the vessels are quite huge, the jump from frigate-cruiser, and cruiser-battleship are very costly comparables. The performance of these vessels also quite massively different. I would like to see some inter-mediate items, which help to bridge not only the price gap, but the performance also. Destroyers between the frigates-cruisers, and battle-cruisers/Pocket-battleships between the obvious cruiser-battleship gap. Trying to keep the costs of wars in that happy gap between having to work too much, and having no respect for money and too much of it is the very hard task they face at the moment I feel. Do you reduce the costs further, or increase the means of income/hour to try to increase the work-to-fun ratio? If new tech introductions continue the way of the miner 2, then wars costs could increase dramatically, with the same negatives we are already aware of, and only the rich few with access to it. I am waiting to see how things evolve with new technology appearing in game, and if those go hand-in-hand with changes to the market system. |
Fester Addams |
Posted - 2003.09.08 16:31:00 -
[239] How about implementing the trade skills? Its just a thought... |
 Fester Addams Minmatar |
Posted - 2003.09.08 16:31:00 -
[240] How about implementing the trade skills? Its just a thought... |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 :: one page | |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page | |
Quote:| Copyright © 2006-2025, Chribba - OMG Labs. All Rights Reserved. - perf 0,05s, ref 20250914/2126 EVE-Online™ and Eve imagery © CCP. |
| COPYRIGHT NOTICE EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website. |