|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
0
   |
Posted - 2014.03.21 08:32:00 -
[1] - Quote
Tauranon wrote:
The point is that the entire setup favors all goods travelling through jita as is, since minerals needed to be collected together to be compressed. This also seriously hammers mining in nullsec, because most compression is done with 425mms, which have the whole basket, which means that nullsec mins were being shipped to highsec where I'd buy them and ship them back if I wanted to build something here. The only mins available here is usually the normal excess you'd expect from people importing the railgun basket, and all miners here export to jita.
I'd also soon as possible prefer that extra mats got taken off blueprints, because they badly scale material research on BPOs.
CCP needed to make all of these changes together. Later they can choose to retune the number of drops in missions if they feel its warranted, but I bet that long term it isn't at all required, because its a portion of a portion of the income (ie meta 4s probably outweigh reproc in most peoples loot piles).
It seems to me that most of what you are writing about would have been fixed by giving POS/null refineries the same rate as in high, without killing off mineral compression and mission loot.
Or not?
|
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 08:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Tauranon wrote:
its not killed. If I looted a railgun worth 1m, it will be worth 800k (or whatever) still, and the price will likely drift up a little bit anyway. Salvage is still salvage, and meta4s are still meta4s, LP is still LP and bounties are still bounty, and importantly for looters, tags are still tags (tag looting was always the most lucrative looting strategy - the missions I looted always were tag missions).
I doubt it, there are not many sought after modules that have their worth without mineral value taken into account.
So your gun will now be 550k , not 1m, if you are blitzing or fw it will not change much, but low mission runners will loose a big chunk of money.
And mineral compression still gone. |
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 09:14:00 -
[3] - Quote
Tauranon wrote:
There is no way a module will halve when you remove a demand component that is entirely irrelevant to its price. ie the module price would have to have an outlook where it occasionally swings to mineral price for that to change its average price - ie this might affect meta3 modules that sell for 5-10% above mineral and swing to mineral, but its not going to affect any of the midslot modules that sell for 1m that have 20k of minerals in them.
Any reduction of looting is however going to positively swing those modules for people that do still loot.
Mineral compression is not gone either, its just lossy.
We will see, as i said i doubt it.
However you are still shy of answering my question whether this may not be fixed more gently with good pos and nullsec refining, or do you think "Well, it will not destroy it completely" is a answer?
Because all we have established is that the nerf may not be 45%, but just 10-20% which i no way explains why it was needed.
EDIT: and by "not gone, just lossy" can be applied to null industry, "not impossible, just harder", doublestandards much? :) |
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 15:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Salvos Rhoska wrote:Ill wire you 10mil for your effort if the reference does indeed answer the question as thanks for the help. Again, see above. Getting 100% back from what's been produced is a moronic mechanic and obsoletes existing mechanics that are supposed to provide the same functionality.
What other mechanics provide the functionality to get 100% back from what has been produced? |
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 16:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
What's going to happen is that the thousands of industrial players who really were "forced" to move - to hi-sec - are going to be given the realistic and viable option to conduct production activity in 0.0
Unfortunately this is not "just an option to move back to null", it also creates the same problem you have percieved with compression in the reverse, the ore will not be snailed to high to get refined and mineral compressed, it will flow compressed to null, be refined and minerals snailed to high. You know how people are about "15% extra".
Not even talking about what i do care about, reprocessing and mineral compression...
The problem in general is that that the overhaul has too many goals, does not seem to achieve them, so they look just like excuses so that whenever anyone points out that goal A can hardly be achieved someone (like you? :) is able to say "but but but goal B!"
Example, intentionally a neutral one:
"104+% (old) refine from POS refineries with skills 0 does not motivate people to skill refining!"
"But but but we NEED to give POS refineries a advantage!"
|
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 17:08:00 -
[6] - Quote
Tippia wrote:You mean like people who wilfully ignore the actual reasons and logic behind a change, only to shout GÇ£no-one has provided any reasoning or logic for this change"?
Wait, removing industry skill involved compression in favor of a (nearly) skilless one so that a handful of people have a incentive to train refining to high levels to use exclusively in null seems logical to you? |
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 17:30:00 -
[7] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Barton Breau wrote:Tippia wrote:You mean like people who wilfully ignore the actual reasons and logic behind a change, only to shout GÇ£no-one has provided any reasoning or logic for this change"? Wait, removing industry skill involved compression in favor of a (nearly) skilless one so that a handful of people have a incentive to train refining to high levels to use exclusively in null seems logical to you? Providing highsec with a mechanism to compress minerals that does not involve the use of scraps is logical, yes.
How so? Indulge me, i want to know whether you will be arguing the new status quo ("coz reprocessing will be nerfed to 55%"), a opinion ("mineral compression is stupid and unbelievable, ore compression is much better and believable") or something else.
Tippia wrote:Whether it should require high-SP requirements to do so (especially in relation to mobile compression) is more a matter of balance than logic.
"Lets wage war on america, we will work out the details later, like where to get an army."
|
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
30
|
Posted - 2014.05.11 05:00:00 -
[8] - Quote
Boost, what boost? |
|
|
| |
|