|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
37
   |
Posted - 2011.11.15 02:49:00 -
[1] - Quote
Would like a dev's response on this.
Also, what will i do with my lo-grade Edge implants now ??? |
Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 19:41:00 -
[2] - Quote
Bump for a dev response.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=35926&find=unread
|
Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 16:11:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:Just chiming in to let you know that this topic is not forgotten by the responsible devs.
Thanks CCP Phantom
|
Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 00:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
I think i see a compromise here to increase demand while protecting low-sec PVPers.
As the drug market is now we have different levels of drugs and each level gives a different level of boost to attributes which is kind of stupid as there is no reason not to use strong pills and train out the side effects with skills and implants.
Below is my suggest for booster re-balance.
Strong = Shortest duration + Most side effects (Chance based on all 4 side effects to be imposed all in one go) + biggest boost to attributes (25% boost as they are now) + highest cost of production
Improved = 2nd shortest duration + only 3 side effects (Chance based on each of the 3 side effects imposed) + 2nd biggest boost to attributes + 2nd highest cost of production
standard = 3rd shortest duration + only 2 side effects (Chance based on each of the 2 side effects imposed) + 3rd biggest boost to attributes + 3rd highest cost of production
Synth = longest duration + no side effects + weakest boost to attributes + cheapest cost of production
For the Improved and Standard pills, keep all 4 side effects in place; however, make it chance based on which of the 4 the system picks to impose using the system above. This will keep the devs from having to go trough and balance each of the side effects for the Improved and Standard level pills again which is un necesarry as most PVPers can live with the current type of side effect for each pill. Now they just dont know what they might get once poped 
As you can see there is a reason to use each level of the boosters depending on your location and situation and still allows high sec people to pop the pills in a station and keep the high bonuses for the hard core low-sec pvpers |
Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
44
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 02:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
Rangloff wrote:
The problem I see with your solution is that it does not make drugs more desirable. I hope the change will create a better market for drugs and increase there use. I for one would like to get into the drug trade however the market for drugs seems to be lacking. If they became more popular, then I would assume we would see more players like myself enter the market to ensure the prices do not over inflate.
I enjoy seeing others interested in this topic like myself, and I hope this constructive discussion may lead to increased visibility of the drug trade. It upsets me that many changes like the hybrids are worthy of a sticky, but boosters get no love.
Lets keep the ideas rolling. I am sure those that are making the changes do not mind borrowing ideas off the forums. (especially now given the current climate at CCP)
I don't see how this would not increase the usage. It would allow High sec pilots to use boosters (all be it synth and standards until the new contraband enforcement system goes into place) and once the new contraband enforcement system is in place; high sec pilots will be able to carry around the improved and strong boosters as well in their cargo bays with the understanding that if caught they can be shoot at.
Personally, I see this as a perfect way to transition the booster market into the new contraband enforcement system while increasing the usage in high sec and increasing the knowledge of them.
Rangloff, could you give a reason/example as to why this proposal would not increase demand? |
Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
45
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 17:39:00 -
[6] - Quote
I do not like the direction CCP Ytterbium is taking boosters by doing this blanket change to them.
My position and suggestion for a compromise have already been stated here. I do not see nor has anyone pointed out any issues with my suggestion.
I am sadden that CCP Ytterbium felt the need to take a unique and low-sec specific feature of the game, water it down for ex-wow players, and have the gall to call it a better system.
At this point, CCP will be rolling this change out regardless of what is discussed here. (with over sights of implants included) To me, the oversights are proof that these change were rushed and not well thought through, let alone discussed.
I will say that the new expansion is by far the best one released in a long time, but i have to say that these changes to boosters constitute a missed opportunity and a dropped ball on the dev's part and specifically on CCP Ytterbium part if he is the lead for these changes.
G¥Æ Single G¥Æ Taken G£ö Playing EVE Online |
Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
47
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 17:10:00 -
[7] - Quote
Emperor Salazar wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:We hear you.
This has been a long day in the office, but after chasing various people here and discussing this internally based on your feedback, we have decided not to change boosters for Crucible.
Thank you.
QFT
G¥Æ Single G¥Æ Taken G£ö Playing EVE Online |
Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
47
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 18:43:00 -
[8] - Quote
First, If you have not read my suggestion for the booster fix, please go here and take a read.
First supply, As most people here have pointed out, gass clouds and the process of harvesting is broken if you take into account the volumes to which CCP Ytterbium would like to see them used at.
I am in agreement with most in here that gass needs to have its volume reduced. This would open up the prospect and incentive for individuals to actively seek out ladar sites. Now, if this change needs to balance out, I would suggest increasing the cycle times for harvesters and increasing the cycle time bonus to the gas harvesting skill book. From a rational point of view, gas by its nature does not have a lot of volume and I would think that harvesting gas in space would be a time consuming project by its nature. This would increase the profit to volume ratio for gas which will make it profitable from a logistical stand point.
With that addressed, the issue then becomes the ladar sites and bpcGÇÖs found within. Personally I do not think that BPCGÇÖs should be directly droped, ever! Some will argue with me about this, but IGÇÖm under the idea that one should research or reverse engineer to produce bpcGÇÖs. I would like to see this idea applied to the boosters as well. This will have an added bonus of giving a buff to the science sub-career and research POS owners while giving CCP another point where they can adjust the profitability of boosters. Nothing too complicated, I would just like to see that reverse engineering skill used somewhere else other than just T3 development.
Ladar sites, in general are tied to the same issue as all other anomalies that are currently being discussed over on CCP GreyscaleGÇÖs thread. My suggestion for the Anomalies rebalance is located here. In a nut shell, my suggestion is that players should be able to infuince the True sec of a system through playerGÇÖs action and from there; Anomalies spawn rates (ladar sites included) can be dictated by how much work a group of players put into a system. This system can be balanced on CCPGÇÖs end by adjusting the spawn values for each anomaly and the spawn rate depending on the level of true sec . Further, this system could be augmented with the current Ihub system for 0.0 residents thus making the system extendable.
This would address the risk reward problem low-sec currently has while maintaining 0.0 as the dominate place to make money, while giving a tool to CCP to adjust the risk/reward curve trough iteration and analysis.
As for the production process its self. I like the idea of having a fairly complicated and risky production process for boosters. POS manufacturing, as it is now, Sets an investment bar for individual/organization so that only dedicated and capable people/organization have to make the decision if they want to make the investment to stick a assets in space 23/7 to make money. As I see it, I think booster production should be low-sec moon mining w/ out the moons.
As for demand, I think this will be addressed once the new custom/contraband system is implemented. I hinted at this in the above suggestion for booster changes for high sec.
G¥Æ Single G¥Æ Taken G£ö Playing EVE Online |
Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
47
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 21:06:00 -
[9] - Quote
Di Mulle wrote:Zendoren wrote:FFrom a rational point of view, gas by its nature does not have a lot of volume and I would think that harvesting gas in space would be a time consuming project by its nature. Just nitpicking here In an opposite, gas have most volume, just by its' nature. Also, applauds for CCP by taking this step back. Proposed changes were not good.
haha! yep your right! I was thinking of more along the line of compressed gas 
Other than that.. anything else you see wrong?
G¥Æ Single G¥Æ Taken G£ö Playing EVE Online |
Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
48
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 13:14:00 -
[10] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Grath Telkin wrote: even MAWR QQ (Keep it coming, you're hysterical!)
Grath - do some math for Chribba's sake. Halberstam, it's quite unnecessary to show him your numbers here. If you're making money, just keep it to yourself, if Grath really is this ignorant he needs to get out and figure it out for himself. Don't rise to the bait and give away your business model to a troll. This may very well be his endgame, he's mad because he hasn't been able to make money off boosters so he's trying to bait one of us into explaining how you do it and why his math seems to fail. If Grath is going to make outrageous claims, let him. Burden of proof is on him to show that you can't profit off Boosters. He's the one saying its impossible. He's shown no data, only said that LADAR sites are unpopular, therefore no one can make money. Also, obsessed with silly alliance stories from 3 years ago thinking they have anything to do with boosters today. Basically he's arrogant enough to believe that if it could be done, he'd know about it. Just have a laugh, and do your thing, enjoy the fact there's one less person going after your LADAR sites and let him show us his supreme knowledge and explain just how this is such a fail venture if he's so confident in his claims.
Agreed, It's up to CCP to investigate who is right and who is just BSing in this thread. The people who know, see what's going no and compares it to what they know out here in the game who uses and produces boosters.
I'll be the first to admit that I'm looking at this from mostly a users standpoint from PvP. The addition of no side effect drugs to low-sec PvP would be equivalent to adding gold ammo to the nex store, due to the issues with supply IMHO
It's our job now to give suggestions and offer plans to CCP in this thread for the re-balancing of boosters. IMHO i think the new high sec contraband system needs to come first, then the changes to production and ladar sites (supply) then finally, start looking at changes to boosters.
Overhauling the contraband system to be more straight forward, as to what you can and cant do, will increase the demand as people will know if they can carry boosters in high sec and what that means for them.
Changes in production and supply will mean that suppliers will not find them selves in a situation of buying out an entire market of a product in the game just to fill a fraction of the demand they have.
I think i have given a fair road map to how i would like boosters overhauled as a whole. I just hope that people here can give counter suggestions that can tackle the issues at hand so that we can have a good and healthy debate.
G¥Æ Single G¥Æ Taken G£ö Playing EVE Online
CCP Guard > Where's the shoot button on this thing?
CCP Space Cadet > What's this "offline guns" button do? |
|
|
Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
48
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 13:55:00 -
[11] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:
So the whole time your gaming community is screaming at you to fix low sec and add more value to 0.0, and you FINALLY add a change that buffs that, then you take it away because the guys that manufacture the drug suddenly bug out because there might be competition, and 11 pages of one sided feedback.
Sounds like someone bought boosters due to speculation!
Grath Telkin wrote:
The laws of supply and demand fix everything in the end, and suddenly "Drug Dealer" is a viable new profession in your game.
Yes, because this worked soo well for supers! 
G¥Æ Single G¥Æ Taken G£ö Playing EVE Online
CCP Guard > Where's the shoot button on this thing?
CCP Space Cadet > What's this "offline guns" button do? |
Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 04:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
Does anyone have a serious proposal to the booster issue that i can debate with instead of this e-peen contest over profitability?
We need some focus here. CCP has given us some time to debate this issue and come to a consensus on a viable fix. I have a solution up for debate but only one person has shown support for it which leads me to believe that most of you in here have some issues with it.
G¥Æ Single G¥Æ Taken G£ö Playing EVE Online
CCP Guard > Where's the shoot button on this thing?
CCP Space Cadet > What's this "offline guns" button do?
http://tinyurl.com/dxwseds |
Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 15:18:00 -
[13] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:
Exactly, not adding more sites keeps them super rare, theres no way they ever get to be MUST HAVEs because the system doesn't support MUST HAVES as is, they become extreme emergency use items, like, oh crap big fight time to pop this half billion isk strong blue pill, I NEED this boost.
I hate to make this reference again as it appears that you did not take my first hint. We have tried to use the in game economy to balance game play before. It's called super capitals. As you can see this idea will not work because in fact the market WILL support MUST HAVES and players will find ways to do so.
Yes, i agree that if this change was to be put on TQ, boosters would initially be balanced out by the scarcity the raw materials and boosters themselves. However, as history has shown us, once the price gets to a point where ladar sites are worth a damn, Then everybody and their grandmother will be doing ladar sites and flooding the market with gass and then the boosters will be like supers are now on the WTS EVE-O forums. NOT GOOD. I base this on the fact that Ladar sites are indeed plateful in this game. I know some of you in here have argued that ladar sites are rare. I happen to disagree. I think we have plenty of ladar sites to be found. the issue is the improved and strong BPC's found within.
I'm sure you can see that given enough time, boosters w/out side effects would be a bad thing for PVP as a whole and that this issue would lead us to a similar situation as we are with supers caps now.
Boosters need to balanced within its self instead of relying on the market. By using the market to balance game play, you are inviting players to create market bubbles centered around the issue you want to balance (kind of how the housing market is in the USA was once the federal government started it's march towards affordable home ownership) and we can all agree that this is a bad idea. Boosters need a side effect just like Rigs and stacking modules need negative side effects. These negative side effects need to be proportional to the amount of benefit each level of booster gives.
Grath Telkin wrote:
Yes, I can. The current condition of half the things wrong in game is CCP over nerfs or just straight gimps a ship or item out of the box then says they'll review if it needs fixing. EAF's have been waiting for that review for YEARS.
It just never comes.
This change would have made areas that produce drug materials in 0.0 worth a fortune, and it would have fixed some of whats taken people out of 0.0, the High Sec Incursions are worth so much more than anything else in game, and ratting as a source of alliance level income so utterly destroyed because of the huge expanses of crap space.
I happen to agree with you here; however, i do not like the idea of balancing this issue on the backs of low-sec PVPers. I understand your reason for wanting this change; however, we need to find a balanced approach and spread this risk reward balance issue over a wider area of game play then just on the shoulders of PVPers with boosters.
G¥Æ Single G¥Æ Taken G£ö Playing EVE Online
CCP Guard > Where's the shoot button on this thing?
CCP Space Cadet > What's this "offline guns" button do?
http://tinyurl.com/dxwseds |
Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 15:19:00 -
[14] - Quote
double post
G¥Æ Single G¥Æ Taken G£ö Playing EVE Online
CCP Guard > Where's the shoot button on this thing?
CCP Space Cadet > What's this "offline guns" button do?
http://tinyurl.com/dxwseds |
|
|
| |
|