EVE Search - The Reason for TechII whine posts - GM's lack of proper introduction

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

The Reason for TechII whine posts - GM's lack of proper introduction

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Joe	Posted - 2006.04.22 12:29:00 - [1] I notice alot of of threads about the price and availability of tech II items. I'm not going to get into these arguments in this thread, because I'm always right, and this isn't the place for a rant.... Players that join the game may be a little confused to why there is tech II, why the prices are high, why it is introduced into the game they way it is, and why shouldn't they? there has never been a clear explanation given. Nothing in the backstory, nothing in the F.A.Q. Is tech II meant to be the new wave of tech for the mass's, or just for the corps that make breakthroughs? Is tech II meant to be in such limited supply, should prices really be higher then tech 1? Is the limited seeding of bpos intentional, will there be more in the future? These may sound like pretty simple questions, but because they've been unanswered for 2 years countless Forum posts concerning the 'broken tech II system' have popped up (every damn week). Why have the GM's been so slow in properly defining their own system? Do people want to know the reasons, or are people happy with state of the forums as they are now? I'll be immediately petitioning forum moderators about any replies in this thread that are off topic, or discuss prices or availability of items, to be frank everyone's heard enough already.
Dark Shikari	Posted - 2006.04.22 12:33:00 - [2] What do you mean by "tech 2"? You state that T2 is in "very limited supply", yet the vast majority of tech 2 is in complete oversupply and costs relative pennies. By "tech 2" do you mean "the 2% of tech 2 that is in undersupply such as HACs"? Or are you purposefully generalizing to turn what may be a problem with a tiny minority of items into a problem with all tech 2, when it isn't? [23] Member: Official Forum Warrior What's with the blue robots? Click my sig. RAWR!11 Sig Hijack!11 - Imaran
Splagada	Posted - 2006.04.22 12:33:00 - [3] oh please, PLEASE, MORE T2 THREADS yessssssssssss - Member of [AAST]
Joe	Posted - 2006.04.22 12:40:00 - [4] Originally by: Dark Shikari What do you mean by "tech 2"? You state that T2 is in "very limited supply", yet the vast majority of tech 2 is in complete oversupply and costs relative pennies. By very 'limited supply' i refer to the amount of bpos that are seeded - 10-20 in total, compared with the unlimited amount of Tech 1 bpos that can be purchased and used. with 10-20 bpos there is a limited supply that can be produced in total all over eve each day, tech 1 products by comparison have unlimited production capabilities. before any new players post with 'that just the way it is, deal with it, adapt or die etc' Tech II was introduced after game release, but there was no clear definition to what it is and how it should be valued.
Dragon	Posted - 2006.04.22 12:40:00 - [5] GM's you say. The GM's work in customer support. They have nothing to do with game design or roleplaying out some storylines. That's up to the devs. And I think we all know that the roleplaying part and the event team are basically non existant, so that explains why there haven't been any articles about tech II. There is a lot of competition among TII producers for certain items. And none for others. CCP's inability to deal with that says all there is to say about this subject. Either they simply don't care or they want it to stay as exactly as it is.

wystler	Posted - 2006.04.22 12:42:00 - [6] The devs have posted that future content patches (probably Kali) will change the way the R&D system works. I don't believe anything solid has been posted as to exactly how it will change yet though You can keep an eye on development via the "Patch Notes" section on the left. This is the page which discusses, among other things, the new R&D system So, CCP are aware, and are going to do something forum rules \| [email protected]

The Cosmopolite	Posted - 2006.04.22 12:46:00 - [7] Originally by: Joe Tech II was introduced after game release, but there was no clear definition to what it is and how it should be valued. Perhaps that is because CCP wanted the players to define these values for themselves. There are many aspects of Tech 2 industry I feel should be changed but the one I believe needs to be retained and indeed enhanced is the way the playerbase as a whole sets a value on these items. It's as it should be. The problems with the Tech 2 industry are best addressed by increasing the player-led elements even more and particularly in a player-led, non-random R&D system... but that's another argument. CCP defining the value of Tech 2 in advance though? The best thing they did was to leave it to us. Cosmo Jericho Fraction
Joe	Posted - 2006.04.22 12:49:00 - [8] Originally by: Dragon GM's you say. The GM's work in customer support. They have nothing to do with game design or roleplaying out some storylines. That's up to the devs. And I think we all know that the roleplaying part and the event team are basically non existant, so that explains why there haven't been any articles about tech II. thanx for pionting that out, you are right, the game developers are the ones who should have explained their system before implementing it. wether or not this was overlooked due to the dodgey way it was introduced into the game (miner II scandel), or due to lack of 'active event teams' the situation is out of control on these forums. The devs must be able to realise that a constantly unhappy forum community reflects badly on their game. (yes i know it may be a minority that are unhappy, but hey, they're the ones posting every week) surely a news article or backstory is all that is needed to clear everything up (a simple reply in this thread isn't going to help in a week once its bumped off 1st page)
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2006.04.22 12:54:00 - [9] Originally by: Joe Originally by: Dragon GM's you say. The GM's work in customer support. They have nothing to do with game design or roleplaying out some storylines. That's up to the devs. And I think we all know that the roleplaying part and the event team are basically non existant, so that explains why there haven't been any articles about tech II. thanx for pionting that out, you are right, the game developers are the ones who should have explained their system before implementing it. wether or not this was overlooked due to the dodgey way it was introduced into the game (miner II scandel), or due to lack of 'active event teams' the situation is out of control on these forums. The devs must be able to realise that a constantly unhappy forum community reflects badly on their game. (yes i know it may be a minority that are unhappy, but hey, they're the ones posting every week) surely a news article or backstory is all that is needed to clear everything up (a simple reply in this thread isn't going to help in a week once its bumped off 1st page) Ive seen mostly posts about hac prices (and some other posts... btw, have you noticed Missile Launcher II sells for 7 million each now? But anyway...). My guess is that CCP wants the system to work this way. I see both advantages and disadvantages with it. --- "2006.04.15 05:48:19 notify Ditrigonal Thermal Barrier Crystallization I is already modifyActiveShieldResonanceAndNullifyPassiveResonance."
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.04.22 12:59:00 - [10] Edited by: Jenny Spitfire on 22/04/2006 13:00:57 Originally by: Jim McGregor Ive seen mostly posts about hac prices (and some other posts... btw, have you noticed Missile Launcher II sells for 7 million each now? But anyway...). My guess is that CCP wants the system to work this way. I see both advantages and disadvantages with it. CCP can indirectly control T2 prices. 1. More BPOs. Not a good idea. 2. More BPCs. Better idea. 3. More high-end named loot drop i.e. near T2 but named T1s. Not a good idea too coz named items all dropped in prices but players still not happy with T2. 4. Wait for Kali. /me thinks most players are T2 capable just lacking of T2 mentality. Dont think anyone needs T2 to win/play. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT! RAWR!11 Sig Hijack!11 - Imaran
Jim McGregor	Posted - 2006.04.22 13:03:00 - [11] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire /me thinks most players are T2 capable just lacking of T2 mentality. Dont think anyone needs T2 to win/play. If you mean that they have the cash but dont want to spend it, i think you are right. --- "2006.04.15 05:48:19 notify Ditrigonal Thermal Barrier Crystallization I is already modifyActiveShieldResonanceAndNullifyPassiveResonance."
Grimpak	Posted - 2006.04.22 13:04:00 - [12] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire /me thinks most players are T2 capable just lacking of T2 mentality. Dont think anyone needs T2 to win/play. QFTFT! ---------------- Originally by: Abdalion Shoot him ingame if you don't like this person. If you do like him, go mine veldspar with him.
Joe	Posted - 2006.04.22 13:08:00 - [13] Originally by: Jim McGregor Ive seen mostly posts about hac prices (and some other posts... btw, have you noticed Missile Launcher II sells for 7 million each now? But anyway...).My guess is that CCP wants the system to work this way. I see both advantages and disadvantages with it. There have been countless posts regarding HACS's, Cap II's, and originally Miner II's. when the first bp was given to a player (traded for an Item he acquired by 'accident', long story) the whole community stood back in shock. we did not get given a reason for it then, there is simply no way they could roleplay it, and they let it slide. Unfortunately 'your guess' is about as good as it gets, and to me, that's not good enough. I shouldn't need to make assumptions when it comes to a games system, and i shouldn't have to see posts from concerned payers each week, confused, and arguing with other confused players. In the current situation nobody can be right, as everyone's arguments are based on assumptions.
Hunters Presence	Posted - 2006.04.22 13:14:00 - [14] Quote: Unfortunately 'your guess' is about as good as it gets, and to me, that's not good enough. I shouldn't need to make assumptions when it comes to a games system EvE has a very solidly built market economy. The game's economical system is to let the players sort out prices and availability by themselves. Making assumptions and speculating on prices is one of the skills needed to get by in such an economy. ----- Lead Games Programmer @ Quasit-Rushyo Games \| Me!
Joe	Posted - 2006.04.22 13:34:00 - [15] Originally by: Hunters Presence Quote: Unfortunately 'your guess' is about as good as it gets, and to me, that's not good enough. I shouldn't need to make assumptions when it comes to a games system EvE has a very solidly built market economy. The game's economical system is to let the players sort out prices and availability by themselves. Making assumptions and speculating on prices is one of the skills needed to get by in such an economy. I'm not referring to the 'player run economy', speculating on what battleship will become the next flavour of the month, or what mineral price will crash as people dump or rise as panick buying occurs etc. I believe miss-quoting is quite rude, so Ive decided to re-post the full sentence and not just the part you chose: Originally by: meh Unfortunately 'your guess' is about as good as it gets, and to me, that's not good enough. I shouldn't need to make assumptions when it comes to a games system, and i shouldn't have to see posts from concerned payers each week, confused, and arguing with other confused players. People aren't complaining each week because there's a 'player run economy', they're complaining because they see a system as 'broken', if it were explained on its implementation, the number of whines would be reduced to an amount similar to the 'skillpiont system is broken, i can never catch up to veterans' posters (who get promptly flamed these days, as GM's/Devs were kind enough to make a few posts on it) (ps. i know there is no true 'player run economy' as GM's/dev's change npc prices, nerf/boosts different mining amounts and item availability's etc in patch's, its off-topic and i don't want to see posts concerning 'free markets' or 'player run economies')
Deja Thoris	Posted - 2006.04.22 13:43:00 - [16] The role of tech 2 was decided by default when the player base grew so unexpectdly rapidly. CCP's failure to do anything lead to the current situation.

wystler	Posted - 2006.04.22 14:18:00 - [17] Originally by: Joe snipped a bit surely a news article or backstory is all that is needed to clear everything up (a simple reply in this thread isn't going to help in a week once its bumped off 1st page) Have you read the Crielere story? That's about scientists researching new technologies While its not directly about tech2, or indeed the technologies they release, at least it shows that there are people out there researching? forum rules \| [email protected]

Hellspawn666	Posted - 2006.04.22 14:42:00 - [18] I think the t2 whine threads are less based around the fact that t2 costs alot more, i mean we expect it to cost more since its t2 but its still meant to be proportional to otehr t2 gear which is why people say that it is "broken". HACs costing up to 180 mil with somthing like 8 mil insurance is a tad extream when you compair it to say sensor booster 2's. I admit that hacs should be expensive but only if ure willing to further limit the supply of other t2 items so it is in line with hacs. CCP need to learn that too much player control over certain items just makes gameplay slow and boring for those without bpos. Hacs at 80 mil ish is fair and thats how they were released, i cant simply believe that its supply and demand and if thats the case i want ccp to say so not just some forum muppet to shout about it.
Viktor Fyretracker	Posted - 2006.04.22 15:22:00 - [19] just think all those suckers who spend 200mil+ on a HAC get bent when they blow up while the person smart enough to fly Tech 1 all the time gets full insurance.
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.04.22 15:37:00 - [20] Originally by: Hellspawn666 I think the t2 whine threads are less based around the fact that t2 costs alot more, i mean we expect it to cost more since its t2 but its still meant to be proportional to otehr t2 gear which is why people say that it is "broken". HACs costing up to 180 mil with somthing like 8 mil insurance is a tad extream when you compair it to say sensor booster 2's. I admit that hacs should be expensive but only if ure willing to further limit the supply of other t2 items so it is in line with hacs. CCP need to learn that too much player control over certain items just makes gameplay slow and boring for those without bpos. Hacs at 80 mil ish is fair and thats how they were released, i cant simply believe that its supply and demand and if thats the case i want ccp to say so not just some forum muppet to shout about it. Well, everything in EvE is about ISKs. When you kill someone, it hurts because they lose ISKs. PvP is all about ISKs damage isnt it? If I am an alliance, I would be increasing T2 items until the point where nobody will buy them anymore because everytime when someone loses them, it will hurt them badly. Want to destroy an alliance, hurt their wallets first, then you will hurt them. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT! RAWR!11 Sig Hijack!11 - Imaran
Malthros Zenobia	Posted - 2006.04.22 16:46:00 - [21] Edited by: Malthros Zenobia on 22/04/2006 16:49:10 Originally by: Joe I notice alot of of threads about the price and availability of tech II items. I'm not going to get into these arguments in this thread, because I'm always right, and this isn't the place for a rant.... I really wish BPC's would become more scace so that even t1 production would become more specialized, sicne atm, it's not very profitable or worthwhile. Being able to reverse engineer ships for a multi-run BPC wouldn't be that bad either. Maybe with make skills spend a week reverse enginnering a HAC and you get a 10 run copy or whatever. Originally by: Dark Shikari Istvaan Shogaatsu's ego, when combined with a veldspar asteroid, would create 500 titans. Too bad he's never mined. RAWR!11 Sig Hijack!11 - Imaran
Tar Magen	Posted - 2006.04.22 17:06:00 - [22] Edited by: Tar Magen on 22/04/2006 17:08:56 Just listen to the monopolists and oligarchs fight like mad to hang onto their endless source of crazy profit. If the R&D system in EVE even remotely resembled a working capitalist system, HACs, Cap IIs and so forth would have been researched and reverse-engineered across known space and the market would be awash with them. There is no reason BPOs should be present in limited numbers. You think that because one team discovers that 1+1=2, no other team could ever derive this equation again? Research is more the opposite, you're always rushing to get the product to market for fear of being outrun. EDIT: And for the record, I did receive a tech II BPO and I don't care about tech II ships, since my "love" in this game is frigates.
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2006.04.22 17:38:00 - [23] Tar Magen, in RL you could make a copy if you spent 6 months working on it, but then you'd be taken to court, stripped of any sales profit and fined a few billion <insert currency here>. IP law means you can do PRECISELY that. "The Human eye is a marvelous device, with a very little effort it can overlook all but the most glaring injustice" - Quellchrist Falconer
Kata Dakini	Posted - 2006.04.22 18:10:00 - [24] Maybe they are simply stumped to find a way to explain the quality of tech 2 items relative to other tech 2 items and high quality tech 1 items. For example, you have tech 2 ships versus tech 1 ships. In every case, the tech 2 ships are bigger/better/stronger/faster than their tech 1 counterparts. Then you get into certain items like 200mm armor plate, where in fact the tech 2 version is not even as good as tech 1! Rolled Tungsten is of course better, and many times is comparable in price (if you know where to look) for the smaller sized plates. My guess is that they are overwhelmed by all this, and rather than taking the time to sort it all out, they just go 'meh' and figure it's not really that important, since it's been so long anyway. Explaining the usefulness of some tech 2 items, and at the same time explaining how other tech 2 items are really not that good, kind of seems like a headache waiting to happen.
Kata Dakini	Posted - 2006.04.22 18:10:00 - [25] Maybe they are simply stumped to find a way to explain the quality of tech 2 items relative to other tech 2 items and high quality tech 1 items. For example, you have tech 2 ships versus tech 1 ships. In every case, the tech 2 ships are bigger/better/stronger/faster than their tech 1 counterparts. Then you get into certain items like 200mm armor plate, where in fact the tech 2 version is not even as good as tech 1! Rolled Tungsten is of course better, and many times is comparable in price (if you know where to look) for the smaller sized plates. My guess is that they are overwhelmed by all this, and rather than taking the time to sort it all out, they just go 'meh' and figure it's not really that important, since it's been so long anyway. Explaining the usefulness of some tech 2 items, and at the same time explaining how other tech 2 items are really not that good, kind of seems like a headache waiting to happen.
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.04.22 18:13:00 - [26] Originally by: Kata Dakini Explaining the usefulness of some tech 2 items, and at the same time explaining how other tech 2 items are really not that good, kind of seems like a headache waiting to EVE Online \| EVE Insider \| Forums
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.04.22 18:13:00 - [27] Originally by: Kata Dakini Explaining the usefulness of some tech 2 items, and at the same time explaining how other tech 2 items are really not that good, kind of seems like a headache waiting to happen. People should check out killboard and see how people are killed in T1 ships. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT! RAWR!11 Sig Hijack!11 - Imaran
Kata Dakini	Posted - 2006.04.22 18:25:00 - [28] Originally by: Jenny Spitfire People should check out killboard and see how people are killed in T1 ships. Could you be any more ambiguous? I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. What does the word "how" mean in this context? That people should look at killboards and see that people in T2 ships are using better items when killing T1 ships? (Did you see how that guy killed my T1 ship? What did he use?) Are you saying that there are more T1 ship losses relative to T2 ship losses? (Boy look how T1 ships are killed compared to T2.) Please clarify your post.
Ilya Murametz	Posted - 2006.04.22 18:30:00 - [29] Originally by: Maya Rkell Tar Magen, in RL you could make a copy if you spent 6 months working on it, but then you'd be taken to court, stripped of any sales profit and fined a few billion <insert currency here>. IP law means you can do PRECISELY that. Wrong honey bunches.. the product has to be 25% different than the original one for it to be legaly sold for profit! There is a ton of Real World companies who do just that. Research a reverse an existing big hit seller product, change it just a little and find cheaper way to make it and whuolllaaa! So, you're absolutley right Tar
Jenny Spitfire	Posted - 2006.04.22 18:32:00 - [30] Originally by: Kata Dakini Originally by: Jenny Spitfire People should check out killboard and see how people are killed in T1 ships. Could you be any more ambiguous? I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. What does the word "how" mean in this context? That people should look at killboards and see that people in T2 ships are using better items when killing T1 ships? (Did you see how that guy killed my T1 ship? What did he use?) Are you saying that there are more T1 ship losses relative to T2 ship losses? (Boy look how T1 ships are killed compared to T2.) Please clarify your post. T1 ships can easily ripped apart T2 ships. Rocket Kestrels and Blaster Merlins with tracking disruptor can give most interceptor pilot a headache. Methinks most people need to free thier minds of T2 mind set. T1 ships with T2 weapons can also be effective. You do not need everything T2. Everything is T2 is getting more expensive because everyone thinks they need and must have T2 to win. T2 != Win. T2 == More chances to win. ---------------- RecruitMe@NOINT! RAWR!11 Sig Hijack!11 - Imaran

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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.