| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Zircon Dasher
271
   |
Posted - 2013.06.23 00:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
What a refreshing and innovative idea! I am so glad that I am alive here in 2009.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Zircon Dasher
271
|
Posted - 2013.06.23 00:45:00 -
[2] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:OP must be trolling. That's the only way this can be interpreted seriously.
The containment field around General Discussion has had a leak for several days.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Zircon Dasher
272
|
Posted - 2013.06.23 02:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:
This first and most obvious is, the more activities there are, that do not generate ISK, the more balance there is with regards to growth of the money supply. The less people there are shooting rats, the less ISK there is entering the system. If mining veld gave as ISK/hr as running lvl 4 missions, there would be a lot more people mining and instead of shooting rats.
I do not get the impression that CCP is actually concerned about money supply.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Zircon Dasher
272
|
Posted - 2013.06.23 02:27:00 -
[4] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:
I do not get the impression that CCP is actually concerned about money supply.
That's why they raised taxes and Doc E looks for new sinks.
Did we see the same economic presentation at fanfest this year?
Let me rephrase my comment: I did not get the impression that CCP was as concerned about money supply now as it was a year ago given the efficacy of past changes.
I am not saying that they are not open to new sinks, but, rather, that the urgency and priority of finding new sinks is much lower.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Zircon Dasher
275
|
Posted - 2013.06.23 18:56:00 -
[5] - Quote
Erutpar Ambient wrote: This is pretty funny. You're saying that Miners, let me emphasize here, MINERs shouldn't have monopoly on MINERal acquisition? You also think that running missions should get you isk (in faucet form), minerals, modules, LP and more isk(also in faucet form)? You think that miners who only get ore/minerals from their extremely SP intensive profession that does not overlap any other profession in any way should not have the sole access to minerals?
The reason mission running is not profitable is for many reasons. First, lots and lots of people/bots do it. Because so many people do it LP and the majority of salvage are basically worthless. There is absolutely no competition between mission runners, you each get your own semi-instance that is all to yourself where miners have to compete for limited resources especially in high sec where even the lowest end ore can be wiped out of a system at any given time. Though they could go run "mining missions" they would have to deal with rats occasionally and have to switch ships back and forth and would need extra skill points in combat to even be able to do that. And not only that but high sec miners do not have access to high end minerals at all, while mission runners actually do! And potentially unlimited amounts of them with their unlimited instanced mission sites! And don't get me started on hauling ore!
If you think mission running is not profitable without hours of bot-like grinding, try the mining profession.
As for faction/Deadspace/officer mods, I don't care if they continue to drop like normal. If you want to reprocess those for the minerals then go right ahead.
1)Your SP intensive claim is factually false.
When you remove the SP that can cross over to other activities besides mineral acquisition its really not that skill intensive.
Off the top of my head the skills that can not translate are:
mining upg. I-V
exhumer IV-V
mining V(?)
Total SP value is a few mill in absolute terms and pales in comparison to other professions (so not great in relative terms either). The fact that you think this is relevant in the first place is p. laughable.
2)Your "Mission mining requires ship changes" is also factually false. Unless you mean to tell me that mining vessels that operate in places with multiple BS spawns magically lose the ability to deal with frig/cruiser rats in mining missions.
3) Your claim that highsec miners do not have access to high end materials is factually false (hint its in the same objects that mission runners get their "minerals" from)
4) You "undermind" your own argument by saying faction/deadspace/officer are ok.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Zircon Dasher
275
|
Posted - 2013.06.23 19:07:00 -
[6] - Quote
TBH if people want changes to how named loot enters the game they might do better making an argument related to invention.
That said, I will be happier than a pig in **** if/when CCP removes named drops from missions. If it is perceived as a nerf by any substantial number of players there are two things that occur that will make me giggle to no end:
1) the rage threads
2) the influx of characters into activities that produce significantly more raw ISK per hour. Which will drive money supply higher along a (roughly) exponential curve.
3) drives people to purchase more alts; because specialization never necessitated interaction.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Zircon Dasher
275
|
Posted - 2013.06.23 19:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote: Manufacturing is totally undermined by rat loot
This is a questionable statement and hinges on vague terminology.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Zircon Dasher
276
|
Posted - 2013.06.23 22:40:00 -
[8] - Quote
Adunh Slavy wrote:Zircon Dasher wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote: Manufacturing is totally undermined by rat loot This is a questionable statement and hinges on vague terminology. It's not vauge at all. It's provable to anyone that has an ounce of knowledge about economics.
You are forgetting the qualifier that was used-- "totally". This term deals with the degree of impact, but "totally" does not admit of a specific quantity (outside of perhaps 100%). As such, the term is rightfully considered vague.
His claim is questionable since it admits of false, true, and indeterminate Truth values as we move across the full range of degrees in possible impact.
If you thought I was questioning whether NPC mods can have an effect on manufacturing: you assumed I made a much stronger claim than I did.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Zircon Dasher
276
|
Posted - 2013.06.23 22:45:00 -
[9] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:
The effect of increasing raw supply without a corresponding increase in demand is to deflate the value.
This is exactly why I thought CCP should not have increased the amount of low-end minerals in 'roids. It was a NERF to mining as a profession.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Zircon Dasher
278
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 15:11:00 -
[10] - Quote
Erutpar Ambient wrote:
1) You forgot about Refining V, Refinery Effeciency V, Astrogeology V, Industry V, Mining Barge V, and all of the Specific refining skills IV ranging from 1 to 4x skill training time multiplier. And then if you want to fly an orca for boosting there's another load of skills including level 5 leadership skills and the 8x Industrial command ship skill. Then there's a Rorqual which requires learning cap ship skills with high multipliers and the Industrial Reconfiguration that requires Mass Production V and Advanced Mass Production IV. Not sure what professions these skill requirements pale in comparison too.
2) I guess we should add drones and tanking to the list of skills to add on top of mining skills.
3) So you're counter point is that miners could switch to combat? This is the entire point of me making this thread. Good job getting it.
4) As for now my crusade is against the high volume loot. But it is true that those modules do also undermind harvesting and production.
I did not forget about the skills you list (and tank+drones would not count under your rubric) with the exception of the mining specific leaderships. I also forgot mining drones. I am sure those will compensate for the multiple rank 5,8 and 14 skills that other professions need.
If tank and drones are skills needed for mining, then miners do not need to "switch" to combat -- or combat ships-- in order to do mining missions.
Ah, so you are crusading against high volume. I am sure that you can provide up to date and accurate data to show that such a high volume exists? Meaning you have up to date CCP data which shows the amount of minerals that come from rats?
Troll on playa'..... it keeps this thread amusing since it is otherwise devoid of empirical content.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Zircon Dasher
278
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 15:42:00 -
[11] - Quote
chaosgrimm wrote:The meta T1s dropped are better than what can be manufactured, and are obtained at rates or volumes that in many cases, drop the market prices of the meta T1s well below what it would cost to manufacture the non meta counterpart.
Just an example let's use 425mm autos:
At current min prices and before taxes + fees, they run around 130k to produce with a decent BPO material level and level 5 production efficiency. Note that that figure is at cost and before any profits. (closer to around 150k @ production efficiency 4 and no research)
The meta 3 I believe: 425mm Medium Gallium Machine Gun can currently be purchased in jita at approximately 65k. It is better and less expensive.
Imma go out on a limb and say that there aren't any T1 modules with T1 meta counterparts that can be produced for less than the average market value of its least valued meta module.
I think you are assuming that the price of the dropped modules is based upon abundant supply. The funny thing is that CCP could make the drop rate .00000001% and it would not necessarily effect the market price.
If meta 1 mods are "too cheap" it has more to do with the previous nerf to mineral content (the artificial floor price) and the overall lack of people fitting them onto ships. That is why making upgrade tokens will decrease LVL 4 income. The upgrade tokens for anything but meta 4 (and sometimes meta3) will be worth squat since the demand for the actual items stems from the material content.
Generally, tying meta 0 mods into named mods will only increase the demand for meta 0 on a small portion of total game items, since the demand for meta 1-3 (and even meta 4 in many cases) is not heavily driven by people using the item for its intended purpose.
The only real "winners" of making this change are those items are those which have high t2 skill costs, items where t2 has worse stats than meta 4, and items which are actually used by the population. In other words meta 4 med/large weapons.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Zircon Dasher
280
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 16:50:00 -
[12] - Quote
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Manufacturing: Not exactly "suppressed".
Actually it is in absolute terms. The question is the degree of suppression.
Quote:
It's worth taking a moment here to comment that Meta modules are usually not purchased for melting down. They're bought to be used on ships or used in Invention,
Given the price points between meta levels there are actually many meta items that never see use on ships. While invention does consume npc mods, the cost (including transport) many times does make them viable. If we assume that people are taking all this into account (which is entirely open for debate i admit) then there is an excess of NPC mods being traded/used for mineral content.
Just sayin'
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Zircon Dasher
281
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 20:59:00 -
[13] - Quote
tiericide with weapons would be interesting....
and being the dev responsible for them is not a job I would even wish upon my mother-in-law.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
Zircon Dasher
281
|
Posted - 2013.06.24 23:37:00 -
[14] - Quote
Discussing weapon tiericide is probably a bit premature atm.
Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'. |
| |
|