| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Wukwuk
   |
Posted - 2005.12.09 11:37:00 -
[1]
Under the current system all that's needed to produce something T1 is Industry I and a few minerals. As a consequence everyone and their dog is building their own ammo and ships, without having invested a significant amount of SP in the rather specialized field of production. (I build a BS not even 2 weeks out of trial ...) No wonder builders can't make a profit without a T2 BPO.
I propose that all building, not just T2, require skills to do it. The skillbooks would have to be introduced well before the BPs get changed so all the current builders have a chance to train them up.
Perhaps something like this:
ammunition construction (rank 1)
proj/hybrid/missile/crystal construction (rank 2), req ammunition construction I
The BPs themselves would require
I for S ammo / light missiles / rockets / defenders
II for M ammo / heavy missiles
III for L ammo / cruise missiles
IV for XL ammo / torpedoes
V (for future expansion)
in both ammunition construction and the specific skill.
For ships maybe:
racial starship construction (I frigs II indy/destroyer III cruiser/bc IV bs)
adv. racial starship construction (various capitals, req racial starship construction V)
non-racial friagte / industrial / cruiser / bs / capital construction + adv. versions if needed. (required level equal to the tier of the ship)
Skill ranks tbd, should still be a lot easier to train for building a ship than flying it.
Discuss.
|
Lygos
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 15:05:00 -
[2]
A skill-based solution isn't going to make your product sell any better than anyone else's.
If you ask CCP to get people to throw money at them for a few more months before they can actually do something fun then there is the risk that they may take you up on the suggestion.
Yes, it is bad that everyone and their mother can sever their interdependence on other players to meet their needs.
Yes, it is annoying that people with max skills can't really compete amongst one another locally, and tend to ignore the tools (war decs) that are at their disposal.
Yes, it is annoying to see people selling tech1 gear at a cost below the minerals value simply because they value their time mining at zero when calculating their overhead.
Can you simply buy them out? Yes.
Is there enough market volume to cover your losses? Of course not, because the field is generally oversaturated and overhubbed.
The only solutions that can come are additional production costs, and dynamic environmental effects on production:
-Make all run have a minimum of 10x the security level of the system. 100 runs in 1.0 space, etc.
-Make global, regional, system, and station taxes. Station taxes rise and fall based on the VOLUME of sales. This still affects competitors equally, but serves to spread out the hubs.
-Station taxes are affected as well by corp standing. System taxes are based on the security level of the system. Regional taxes are based on larger faction standing too. Global taxes are just to keep any spare inflation in check and change randomly or on the whim of GMs.
-Station fees can be lessened based on the amount of business you do in that station. This is based not on the volume of your sales, but on the raw amount of profit you generate for them. This occurs about as fast as you gain standing for slaughtering stupid npcs, but still with diminishing returns. This favors incumbents over upstart entrepreneurs, at least for a time. Station owners are competitive though, so standing with one lowers your standing with others. Either systemwide, constellation wide, or within that npc corporation.
-The most drastic solution would be to force players to have to purchase vending rights at stations. These would always be up for bidding. If someone outbids you on a vending slot, you have to match it within 48 hours or lose it. The costs for each slot you own beyond the first are increased ~20% cumulatively. Bidding rises will always be fixed at 5% increases to prevent ephemeral competition. The usurping bidder must also surrender the gratuity of 5% as a loss, though the base cost will be returned if the incumbent holder matches at 10% increase to that part of overhead.
End note: Skill-based solutions never solve any problem, they merely delay it for another month of boredom. If you want to solve a problem, you have to procure solutions starting[i] at the endgame.
Targetting Sig Variance -- [i]"Everything I love is combustible." |
without
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 15:20:00 -
[3]
t1 industry will never be more than basic profit.
the bpo are "freely" gained off the market. thus is ur profit exceedes like 20%, someone buys a bpo and uder cuts u
not to mention that rats drop t1 gear so u have competition for the npc market ect ect
imo t1 should not be profitable at all. 5% max
|
TotensBurntCorpse
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 20:25:00 -
[4]
its too far in to back peddle on T1 manufacturing....
BUT
manufacturing alone isnt your leverage its mineral supply, BPC supply (or BPO use) and MARKET.
Go where the deals can be made. Being undercut is mainly a symptom of market glut. If there are 10producers for an item in the same area then move to another area.
TotensBurntCorpse
Likes
EVE, Starfleet Command Series, Earth & Beyond, Anything Battlefield, MOHAA, Call of Duty.
Dislikes
Not much. |
Lygos
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 20:52:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: without
imo t1 should not be profitable at all. 5% max
5% profit on any and every bp is a pipe-dream.
The percent of profit is almost irrelevant compared to the volume of an individual category. You can look on the history of a region and see that even the most active (that doesn't mean profitable) categories might sell 50M isk worth of product a day. Though you can't tell without making your own inventory of day to day data, the VAST majority of the sales are conducted primarily in hubs, and secondarily in systems that boast popular L4 agents or empire systems that abut 0.0 access points.
The profits from materials development are quite small compared to elementary resource acquisition or collecting bounties. 1)Little product is moved in non-hub systems because players can buy in bulk where it is artificially cheap. 2)Sellers flock to the buyers and the situation of perfect information exchange results in hypercompetition in the hubs.
This situation may be a minarchist's dream.. but reducing the interdependence, or even wanton dependence between participants makes for a more shallow narrative experience for all. A few tech 1 baronies deserve to exist. Some players should be able to scrabble to the state of robber baron on the virtue of their social skills and ability to network in local venues. (I am horrendously ham-fisted in these aspects, but the point stands.)
When EVE's market is more evenly spread, one may also have a more personal experience in doing business. Perhaps you may even meet the people from whom you buy. Perhaps you may even be tempted to shoot them. At the very least, it would certainly be better for the servers and objective game quality in general.
Targetting Sig Variance -- "Everything I love is combustible." |
Lacero Callrisian
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 20:57:00 -
[6]
The problem isn't building skills, it's that these skills are all or nothing.
The 4% reductionfrom prod eff is so big as to make anything below 5 worthless. We need more gradual changes in building ability due to skills to open up more competition. 0.5% off missiles per level, or even 0.5% off missile production per level while using a POS to build things.
|
Lygos
|
Posted - 2005.12.09 21:52:00 -
[7]
Please. Peruse this thread all the way if you want to see what I am trying to say.
I didn't quite get to cover all the important points, but I only had 14 characters left at the end so..
Targetting Sig Variance -- "Everything I love is combustible." |
Batar Fireheart
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 00:44:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Batar Fireheart on 10/12/2005 00:45:48
I suggest you all read The drawing board notes scroll down to next gen research.. this will be very interesting for tech 1 builders.  edit** i just realized there is 2 sections on next gen research read both..
"MAY YOUR WALLET BE FULL OF ISK AND YOUR CANNONS BLESSED"
|
Wukwuk
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 02:40:00 -
[9]
I wasn't complaining that there isn't enough profit, although that's a side-effect. It's just that I think producer should be a profession, and as such _specialized_. It's true that mineral supply etc plays a large part in this, but generally specialization requires skills in EVE.
Being able to build your own BS with just Industry I and Production Efficiency IV-V seems insane to me.
|
sonofollo
|
Posted - 2005.12.10 11:37:00 -
[10]
u subsidize youre losses with misisons and NPCing - selling in low sec is still a very profitable venture - the hub systems are overpriced leading to losses. Which are offset by bounties this creates more a central planning type of market
Those of us smart enough to set up in low sec either by a) producing or b) hauling from cheap in empire to expensive selling in low sec are able to make a profit - but we carefully scan the market for opportunities and even short term spikes in demand due to PVP - PVE and other elemens
Modules that degrade over time will boost demand (when they need replacing) u buy em off the market - will create more ISK sink
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |