Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Vincent Athena
V.I.C.E. Aegis Solaris
1904
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 19:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
Other names: neckicide or bottle-neckicide.
This is a proposal to change the philosophy of how resources in eve are made available from a principle of bottlenecks to a principle of diminishing returns with effort.
A bottleneck is a means CCP uses to help maintain a stable economy, by controlling supply. Either the amount of an item is limited, or how much of item A you get is limited by how much of item B you get. I propose instead that players be given more control over the situation, and the economy be kept in balance by making it progressively harder to get more of any one thing.
Example: The poster child of bottlenecks is moon materials. Once all the tech moons are being harvested, no amount of player effort will result in more Tech being harvested. To some extent the new extra reactions move us closer to the principle of diminishing returns. But its still bottle necked in that the total number of moons in the game is fixed. Ring mining as a replacement for moon mining may allow for a mechanic that has diminishing returns.
On the other side is pre-Odyssey ice mining where there is no bottle neck at all. And in a few days that changes to one of being bottle necked. Here I think CCP went overboard. Yes unlimited is bad, but so is a hard limit. The principle of diminishing returns with effort calls for soft limits.
Areas where the principle of diminishing returns is in place are ore mining and PI. In ore mining, easy mode is warp to your belt and mine. Its slightly harder when your belt is mined out and you got to go to another. Still harder if you entire system, or area is mined out and you got to go far afield, or blitz missions until you get a good mission belt.
With PI the more you harvest the more depleted the planet gets. But no matter what the harvesters will return more than zero. It never totally runs out.
A not too obvious bottleneck is salvage. At first you would think its not bottle necked as you can just do another mission and get more. But here the bottleneck is more subtle: Its in the type of salvage. There nothing you can do to get more of, say, armor plates at the expense of other types of salvage. The result is there are a few really high priced items and a big pile of junk. Now if pilots could do something like "Ill avoid targeting defensive systems so I get more armor plates even though that means I get far less of all other salvage types" the salvage bottleneck would be removed.
In the same vein is ore in Null. The ore spawns always have the same minerals. You got to mine them all out before you get another. The players cannot decide what resources they want to harvest, its spoon fed to them by the game.
Do you think what gets harvested should be determined by the players, or game mechanics? If you think the players should be making the decisions, support Bonkicide!
http://vincentoneve.wordpress.com/ |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1215
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 19:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bottlenecks, if properly implemented, are a good and healthy thing for the game. They are a way to ensure that a given thing that should be valuable (eg, R64 moon goo) actually is valuable, without resorting to more overt means such as NPC buy orders for said item that set a minimum price builders must pay and thus a minimum value.
So to give a general answer to your general "should players chose what is harvested" question, even if you did have that choice, it would really only be the illusion of choice in any case where the materials in question needed to have a certain value for one reason or another. For example, if players only harvested Arkonor, perhaps the mechanism would be that less and less Arkonor would spawn in the next spawns of the region, ultimately obliging them to harvest other things whether they wanted to or not. This would actually be rather similar to how PI works now, where an over-harvested commodity on a planet becomes harder and harder to get. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1451
|
Posted - 2013.05.28 20:07:00 -
[3] - Quote
Rareness = conflict driver.
What you need to make sure of is that you don't end up with groups who it's nigh impossible to compete with, because of their control of that rare thing. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9!-á I'm starting early :) Handy tools and an SDE conversion Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9603
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 10:51:00 -
[4] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Rareness = conflict driver.
What you need to make sure of is that you don't end up with groups who it's nigh impossible to compete with, because of their control of that rare thing.
I'll sloganise this very correct statement: "Bottleneck materials should not be protected by timers."
1 Kings 12:11
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1453
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 11:23:00 -
[5] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:Rareness = conflict driver.
What you need to make sure of is that you don't end up with groups who it's nigh impossible to compete with, because of their control of that rare thing. I'll sloganise this very correct statement: "Bottleneck materials should not be protected by timers."
Oh hell yes.
I would love moon mining facilities to be open to raiding.
Maybe hackable, to get it to spew some of its contents (to then be stolen). Without having to get through a shield.
/Destroyable/ only with a timer, but raidable without, seems like a good mix. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9!-á I'm starting early :) Handy tools and an SDE conversion Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1221
|
Posted - 2013.05.29 11:49:00 -
[6] - Quote
Timers give mono-timezone entities (usually smaller) a chance to compete on their own terms.
But they also give multi-timezone entities (usually larger) the chance to compete on their best terms.
~Malcanis' Law Strikes Again~ Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Oliver Stoned
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 04:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
Bottleneck materials should be available to all players. With exploration being opened to everyone and made a lot easier, when will the newbie pilots have easy access to R64?
Shouldn't new pilots experience moon reactions and mining too?
Just remove moon mining from POS's and move it to MI (moon interaction) just like PI. That will remove the majority of the bottleneck and allow new players to have a equal play. |
Mike Azariah
Gallente Benevolence Association
360
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 05:32:00 -
[8] - Quote
Oliver Stoned wrote:Bottleneck materials should be available to all players. With exploration being opened to everyone and made a lot easier, when will the newbie pilots have easy access to R64?
Shouldn't new pilots experience moon reactions and mining too?
Just remove moon mining from POS's and move it to MI (moon interaction) just like PI. That will remove the majority of the bottleneck and allow new players to have a equal play.
wow
Not a reaction . . . that is what Eve would become.
a vibrant market with changing supply and demand is what makes Eve special. If everything is handed to you on in the frist month how long will people continue to play?
Unless there are un;limited amounts of all materials then there will always be bottlenecks. accept that.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
2251
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 06:58:00 -
[9] - Quote
Time ago, i suggested that bottleneck matherials should move across the map. Once harvested beyond a threshold in a part of the map, they would begin spawning elsewhere. That would keep space conquerors on the move and would add a lot more drama to null/low.
Just figure small entities A finding that worthy R64s are on their backyard and larger ones come after them. Or figure larger blocs whose R64s no longer are worth harvesting and must fight the neighbor to get some.
Maybe then they wouldn't bore to the point of messing with hisec, heh. The Greater Fool Bar-áis now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden!-áIngame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9730
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 08:36:00 -
[10] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Time ago, i suggested that bottleneck matherials should move across the map. Once harvested beyond a threshold in a part of the map, they would begin spawning elsewhere. That would keep space conquerors on the move and would add a lot more drama to null/low. Just figure small entities A finding that worthy R64s are on their backyard and larger ones come after them. Or figure larger blocs whose R64s no longer are worth harvesting and must fight the neighbor to get some. Maybe then they wouldn't bore to the point of messing with hisec, heh.
Please scan out a constellation full of moons.
Now imagine having to scan out a couple of regions every week or so.
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
Indahmawar Fazmarai
2251
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 09:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Time ago, i suggested that bottleneck matherials should move across the map. Once harvested beyond a threshold in a part of the map, they would begin spawning elsewhere. That would keep space conquerors on the move and would add a lot more drama to null/low. Just figure small entities A finding that worthy R64s are on their backyard and larger ones come after them. Or figure larger blocs whose R64s no longer are worth harvesting and must fight the neighbor to get some. Maybe then they wouldn't bore to the point of messing with hisec, heh. Please scan out a constellation full of moons. Now imagine having to scan out a couple of regions every week or so.
I was thinking about months, actually. Sure nullseccers could figure how long could take a war for a well defended valuable region, with a sov conquer system that made more sense than the current. Maybe 2 months to conquer + 4 to exploit it before it depletes? The point is, conflict drivers should keep moving goals away. The Greater Fool Bar-áis now open for business, 24/7. Come and have drinks and fun somewhere between RL and New Eden!-áIngame chat channel: The Greater Fool Bar |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1244
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 11:59:00 -
[12] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Malcanis wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Time ago, i suggested that bottleneck matherials should move across the map. Once harvested beyond a threshold in a part of the map, they would begin spawning elsewhere. That would keep space conquerors on the move and would add a lot more drama to null/low. Just figure small entities A finding that worthy R64s are on their backyard and larger ones come after them. Or figure larger blocs whose R64s no longer are worth harvesting and must fight the neighbor to get some. Maybe then they wouldn't bore to the point of messing with hisec, heh. Please scan out a constellation full of moons. Now imagine having to scan out a couple of regions every week or so. I was thinking about months, actually. Sure nullseccers could figure how long could take a war for a well defended valuable region, with a sov conquer system that made more sense than the current. Maybe 2 months to conquer + 4 to exploit it before it depletes? The point is, conflict drivers should keep moving goals away.
If moons moved every 6 months, we'd NIP everyone, take whatever moons happened to appear in our territory and have fun fights with each other instead. And, of course, continue to **** on highsec. See, even the most valuable of moons just aren't that valuable. At 80k, a moon generates about 5.5b/mo, for example, yet it's entirely possible to spend 10-20b fighting over it, in a single fight. Why fight over a single moon when I could lose its entire value in that fight?
Oliver Stoned wrote:Bottleneck materials should be available to all players. With exploration being opened to everyone and made a lot easier, when will the newbie pilots have easy access to R64?
Shouldn't new pilots experience moon reactions and mining too?
Just remove moon mining from POS's and move it to MI (moon interaction) just like PI. That will remove the majority of the bottleneck and allow new players to have a equal play. Your punishment for this bad post is to go write "Bottlenecks are a good and healthy thing for Eve Online." on the chalkboard, fifty times. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9773
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 12:41:00 -
[13] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Timers give mono-timezone entities (usually smaller) a chance to compete on their own terms.
But they also give multi-timezone entities (usually larger) the chance to compete on their best terms.
~Malcanis' Law Strikes Again~
Only if the bottleneck materials are collected via the static structure model.
Let's imagine (for instance) a system where the Bottleneckium is found in semi-randomly spawned deadspace plexes. Certain areas of space have a relatively high frequency of them, others have a lower frequency. To get the bottleneckium, you have to find a bottleneckium plex and mine it, scoop it, kill bottleneckium carrying rats, or whatever. Some mechanic that requires having ships out in space doing stuff.
Small agile entities could theoretically go prospecting in the space belonging to a large sprawling entity, because even the biggest blocs like the CFC can't keep an eye on every system in their territory all the time.
Likewise small mono-TZ spaceholders would focus more tightly on their small area of space, but would be unable to prevent bottleneckium claim jumpers from filching the goodness from their space when they were doing so in an off-TZ, or if they turned up in superior force. But as long as the small spaceholders held that space, they'd get at least some of the bottleneckium that arose there. And if they were well organised, agile and skillful, they could take at least some of the bottleneckium from space belonging to larger entities.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1476
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 12:42:00 -
[14] - Quote
mynnna wrote: If moons moved every 6 months, we'd NIP everyone, take whatever moons happened to appear in our territory and have fun fights with each other instead. And, of course, continue to **** on highsec. See, even the most valuable of moons just aren't that valuable. At 80k, a moon generates about 5.5b/mo, for example, yet it's entirely possible to spend 10-20b fighting over it, in a single fight. Why fight over a single moon when I could lose its entire value in that fight?
The one counter argument to that (with a debatable strength) is:
Bring a force relative to the value of the asset. There's no /requirement/ to bring a force worth significantly more than the value of the asset.
People who don't stick to that rule, will churn through their isk, and burn out.
The primary counter argument to that is: Bring more, so you lose less. Which escalates on both sides, increasing the losses on both sides.
Introducing a lower importance fight (not 'defend or lose it completely' but, 'defend, or you're going to lose some output') /should/ help mitigate that, a bit. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9!-á I'm starting early :) Handy tools and an SDE conversion Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9773
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 13:14:00 -
[15] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:mynnna wrote: If moons moved every 6 months, we'd NIP everyone, take whatever moons happened to appear in our territory and have fun fights with each other instead. And, of course, continue to **** on highsec. See, even the most valuable of moons just aren't that valuable. At 80k, a moon generates about 5.5b/mo, for example, yet it's entirely possible to spend 10-20b fighting over it, in a single fight. Why fight over a single moon when I could lose its entire value in that fight?
The one counter argument to that (with a debatable strength) is: Bring a force relative to the value of the asset. There's no /requirement/ to bring a force worth significantly more than the value of the asset. People who don't stick to that rule, will churn through their isk, and burn out. The primary counter argument to that is: Bring more, so you lose less. Which escalates on both sides, increasing the losses on both sides. Introducing a lower importance fight (not 'defend or lose it completely' but, 'defend, or you're going to lose some output') /should/ help mitigate that, a bit.
With all due respect, I'm not sure that a Goonswarm Director is someone you want to tell that they're Doing It Wrong when it comes to holding space and securing moons.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1476
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 14:53:00 -
[16] - Quote
I did say the strength of the argument was debatable Then pointed out the counter to it.
I wasn't exactly disagreeing with mynnna. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9!-á I'm starting early :) Handy tools and an SDE conversion Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
1003
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 15:09:00 -
[17] - Quote
Then lose that entire fleet value because the other guy brought something slightly bigger/better.
Another conversation not worth having because it will never happen. We'll never let it happen, that's why we took the CSM. |
Ali Aras
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
296
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 15:48:00 -
[18] - Quote
Er...what? I have no idea what conversation you're talking about. If someone brings a fleet that is more skilled than my fleet, that is larger than my fleet, that is a good ship counter to my fleet...yeah, they're gonna win the fight. That's EVE. There are a lot of ways to deal with that-- bombing runs are amazingly great at ruining someone else's fleet (especially void bombs on ships with active-tank, all bombs on papertank).
Flying cheap-but-effective is also a great way of ruining someone's fleet, especially if you're better and more doctrine-fit than the other dudes (if you go back, there was a fight in G-5EN2 where Provi lost a full fleet-- 255+ guys-- to 80-100 European Goonion caracals). I think CVA might have gotten more kills, but the eurogoon kills were all spendy tech 2 ships (RIP my rapier).
I do like what Malcanis is saying about not defended by timers, although I also *really* like the idea of being able to hack the POS/moongoo silos to get Bottleneckium out, if I'm in say a small/medium sized roaming gang. http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
1476
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 15:51:00 -
[19] - Quote
The whole problem with that logic chain, and I'm not disagreeing with the logic, is that pretty much no resources are going to be worth fighting for, until it, by itself, can replace the entire fleet
Which pretty much removes them as conflict drivers, leaving you only with two reasons to fight: 1: Boredom 2: Ideology.
Which points to a requirement for a big shake-up in how resources can change hands. Where small fleets can make a difference, without being hideously expensive to replace. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9!-á I'm starting early :) Handy tools and an SDE conversion Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
1003
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 15:57:00 -
[20] - Quote
Ali Aras wrote:Er...what?
You're missing a line of conversation. Whether that's my fault or yours I'm unsure, but it's on you to rectify it.
|
|
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
1003
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 16:01:00 -
[21] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:The whole problem with that logic chain...
I think Malc was just trying to use a conceptual example to give some meaning to the relative value of moons.
The point is that drastically increasing the "cost" (risk, effort, etc) of finding, taking, and holding moons will not increase the conflict generated by them.
And again, it's moot because CCP won't do it, and we wouldn't let them do it. Bad "outsider-looking-in" ideas like this are precisely why nullsec dominates the CSM now, and will continue to do so in perpetuity.
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1244
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 17:19:00 -
[22] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:The whole problem with that logic chain, and I'm not disagreeing with the logic, is that pretty much no resources are going to be worth fighting for, until it, by itself, can replace the entire fleet
Which pretty much removes them as conflict drivers, leaving you only with two reasons to fight: 1: Boredom 2: Ideology.
Which points to a requirement for a big shake-up in how resources can change hands. Where small fleets can make a difference, without being hideously expensive to replace.
Well the trick with moons now is that if you do well, you can expect you'll hold that moon as well as all your other moons indefinitely, so even if the money you spend fighting for one exceeds the value of that one moon for the next few months, your other moons make it up over that time and on into the future.
Again, not the case if they're always moving. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
MeBiatch
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1053
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 18:20:00 -
[23] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Time ago, i suggested that bottleneck matherials should move across the map. Once harvested beyond a threshold in a part of the map, they would begin spawning elsewhere. That would keep space conquerors on the move and would add a lot more drama to null/low. Just figure small entities A finding that worthy R64s are on their backyard and larger ones come after them. Or figure larger blocs whose R64s no longer are worth harvesting and must fight the neighbor to get some. Maybe then they wouldn't bore to the point of messing with hisec, heh. Please scan out a constellation full of moons. Now imagine having to scan out a couple of regions every week or so.
personally moons should not be dynamic... but i would love to see hauler spanws in 0.0 belts drop moon goo instead of mins... Ok, so you've corrected my spelling,do you care to make a valid point? -áThere are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9773
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 18:26:00 -
[24] - Quote
Varius Xeral wrote:
And again, it's moot because CCP won't do it, and we wouldn't let them do it. Bad "outsider-looking-in" ideas like this are precisely why nullsec dominates the CSM now, and will continue to do so in perpetuity.
Not to mention the "Grrr nullseccers!!!11" people who make this suggestion will be the first to cry like a stuck pig when the price of T2 stuff soars to 2006 levels, because you can be damb sure that when the supply plummets (as it obviously would), the R64 holders would use it to assure their own supply of T2 stuff first.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
8098
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 19:18:00 -
[25] - Quote
I did write a piece saying why moongoo rotation is a Bad Idea: http://themittani.com/features/case-against-moongoo-depletion
Of course some morons attacked it because they think moongoo rotation was the only way to nerf tech, so just ignore the comments section. Twitter: @EVEAndski
TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest.-á |
Oliver Stoned
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2013.05.31 22:29:00 -
[26] - Quote
mynnna wrote:[ Oliver Stoned wrote:Bottleneck materials should be available to all players. With exploration being opened to everyone and made a lot easier, when will the newbie pilots have easy access to R64?
Shouldn't new pilots experience moon reactions and mining too?
Just remove moon mining from POS's and move it to MI (moon interaction) just like PI. That will remove the majority of the bottleneck and allow new players to have a equal play. Your punishment for this bad post is to go write "Bottlenecks are a good and healthy thing for Eve Online." on the chalkboard, fifty times.
"Bottlenecks are a good and healthy thing for Eve Online." "Bottlenecks are a good and healthy thing for Eve Online." "Bottlenecks are a good and healthy thing for Eve Online." "Bottlenecks are a good and healthy thing for Eve Online." "Bottlenecks are a good and healthy thing for Eve Online."
WAIT!!... they aren't a good thing unless you OWN the bloody bottleneck, then it's a monopoly bottleneck. Especially when it comes to the rarer moons. Let us see how Odyssey will weaken the hold/increase the flow on moon goo.
I still think that removing moon mining from POS's and creating MI (moon interaction) will move playing field to be somewhat equaled.
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1244
|
Posted - 2013.06.01 02:10:00 -
[27] - Quote
Oliver Stoned wrote:mynnna wrote:[ Oliver Stoned wrote:Bottleneck materials should be available to all players. With exploration being opened to everyone and made a lot easier, when will the newbie pilots have easy access to R64?
Shouldn't new pilots experience moon reactions and mining too?
Just remove moon mining from POS's and move it to MI (moon interaction) just like PI. That will remove the majority of the bottleneck and allow new players to have a equal play. Your punishment for this bad post is to go write "Bottlenecks are a good and healthy thing for Eve Online." on the chalkboard, fifty times. "Bottlenecks are a good and healthy thing for Eve Online." "Bottlenecks are a good and healthy thing for Eve Online." "Bottlenecks are a good and healthy thing for Eve Online." "Bottlenecks are a good and healthy thing for Eve Online." "Bottlenecks are a good and healthy thing for Eve Online." WAIT!!... they aren't a good thing unless you OWN the bloody bottleneck, then it's a monopoly bottleneck. Especially when it comes to the rarer moons. Let us see how Odyssey will weaken the hold/increase the flow on moon goo. I still think that removing moon mining from POS's and creating MI (moon interaction) will move playing field to be somewhat equaled.
R64s are distributed across all of eve, which will make a "monopoly" on them unfeasible.
In any case, I still disagree with MI, if only because it's a duplication of an existing game system, and I think it's preferable to avoid that sort of thing when possible. There are plenty of other means by which moon mining could become a bottom up rather than top down resource.
Now get back to writing. You've got 45 more times to go. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Prince Kobol
764
|
Posted - 2013.06.01 10:04:00 -
[28] - Quote
The advantages I see moving moon goo to a similar system like PI is that it is no longer controlled by a few, custom offices are much easy to interrupt, destroy, camp then pos's, less pos's in space which has to be a good thing and it is another possible source of income for grunts.
The downside is that the current PI mechanic is a horrible and most of the null sec alliance which own moons will hate this idea as it gives them less control.
Also there is a lot more work involved in regards to managing all that moon goo coming in from possibly hundreds, even thousands of players.
Saying all of that I would love moon goo to use a system similar to PI.
|
Oliver Stoned
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
10
|
Posted - 2013.06.01 20:33:00 -
[29] - Quote
]mynnna wrote:[ Oliver Stoned wrote: WAIT!!... they aren't a good thing unless you OWN the bloody bottleneck, then it's a monopoly bottleneck. Especially when it comes to the rarer moons. Let us see how Odyssey will weaken the hold/increase the flow on moon goo.
I still think that removing moon mining from POS's and creating MI (moon interaction) will move playing field to be somewhat equaled.
R64s are distributed across all of eve, which will make a "monopoly" on them unfeasible. In any case, I still disagree with MI, if only because it's a duplication of an existing game system, and I think it's preferable to avoid that sort of thing when possible. There are plenty of other means by which moon mining could become a bottom up rather than top down resource. Now get back to writing. You've got 45 more times to go.
So you don't like PI in any form?
What other means do you see for moon mining. Keep in mind, it has to be entry level like PI and the changing scanning/probing coming in Odyssey.
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1260
|
Posted - 2013.06.04 03:03:00 -
[30] - Quote
Oliver Stoned wrote:] mynnna wrote:[ Oliver Stoned wrote: WAIT!!... they aren't a good thing unless you OWN the bloody bottleneck, then it's a monopoly bottleneck. Especially when it comes to the rarer moons. Let us see how Odyssey will weaken the hold/increase the flow on moon goo.
I still think that removing moon mining from POS's and creating MI (moon interaction) will move playing field to be somewhat equaled.
R64s are distributed across all of eve, which will make a "monopoly" on them unfeasible. In any case, I still disagree with MI, if only because it's a duplication of an existing game system, and I think it's preferable to avoid that sort of thing when possible. There are plenty of other means by which moon mining could become a bottom up rather than top down resource. Now get back to writing. You've got 45 more times to go. So you don't like PI in any form? What other means do you see for moon mining. Keep in mind, it has to be entry level like PI and the changing scanning/probing coming in Odyssey.
Says who? One of the overall concepts of ring mining was that it would be an "incursion-like" activity, in that it would be a group focused, periodic, high value activity. It'd have to be periodic and high value if it were an active profession, in fact, because if it's constantly accessible like regular mining it just isn't worth it. A Tech moon at 80k, for example, was only worth about 7m per hour. But, if mining an intergalactic comet or what have you took twenty players but delivered two weeks worth of output from several moons in the span of a day, the hourly value is considerably higher.
While the specific concept of "ring mining" seems to be abandoned, I still like the principles of it. Not everything has to be "entry level" or "accessible to new players", nor something you can do alone. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |