| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
RAZOR Alliance
514
   |
Posted - 2015.03.14 06:34:21 -
[1] - Quote
Let's look at the basic issues.
You produce your own ships in your own station: there is no reason for costs to increase just because volume of use for a given hull increases.
The games resource model is completely ******** and will never ever allow for a true economic production model until it is changed. Allow me to qualify: highsecs resources should by 11 years in to the game be practically nonexistent. I don't mean mined out by some isboxer before you get there I mean literally nonexistent. Those resources were consumed a long time ago. Similarly to how real life works where you must go further and further abroad for materials eve could run a "regional resource monitor" where there is a static amount of resources available for mining per week and that systems/constellations which see heavy mining will quickly deplete utterly and all the resources eventually consolidate towards less used systems (predictably leading all resources to concentrate in lowsec) over time.
This has the same effect of increasing cost for a given region on manufactured items. Observe: regions where all the resources have pooled in lowsec now face dynamic danger to mining ships such as frequent pirate attacks with no concord, extortion, mining protection fleets and inevitability prices for goods spiralling out of control as gankers starve the market for minerals. A starvation so severe big groups might decide to put the cheap ganks down. This is how you encourage people to take risks - by starving them.
In nullsec the lack of easy minerals (in addition to new sov indices) encourages mining locally. Over time resources get further and further away from central systems (caveat - indices for industry get modified to be based on industry not just mining) and this promotes risks for mining fleets as they by necessity get closer to the front lines. In all ways do prices for things go up especially mineral inefficient tech2 ships but also incomes go up too since mining itself becomes a more valuable task and the trade of B.N.I. (bearer negotiable instruments) can become a second market.
I've been involved in real life mining/markets/logistics for years. My understanding might not be as complete as guys like Ejyog but to me this would promote a healthier market climate, healthier gameplay and give more reasons to concentrate your empires power near its edges not its centres.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
RAZOR Alliance
514
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 17:43:21 -
[2] - Quote
What.. the hell are you talking about? One of the first pieces of feedback on the new sov system was to make the industry indices account for performed construction jobs (and presumably a lot more than just mining which is bullshit).
And why does everyone assume that all systems must be taken and MUST have sov structures up? Most of nullsec is empty just leave those POS systems to rot with no structure in them it doesn't matter, and sure send your mining fleet in there hell we had a team of prospects raiding some mining anomalies in my region of space. We don't care, we might as well not even own those systems since noone lives in them.
It's kind of like the argument of sending an army to conquer a swamp, a swamp that stretches for miles and miles and is full of discarded large-web fishing net and bear traps. Only someone with a fetish for preserved cadavers and a high casualty rate would bother.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
RAZOR Alliance
516
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 23:13:53 -
[3] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:GǪno reason for costs to increase just because volume of use for a given hull increases. I agree there is little lore justification for this. I think diversity is more important than lore. IGÇÖm sure a way could be found GÇô just look at the Entosis link.
WHAT
WHAT THE HELL
ARE YOU SERIOUS
ITS NOT A MATTER OF LORE: ITS ABOUT GAME BALANCE AND PRACTICALITY AND YOUR SUGGESTION IS AN INSULT TO EVERY PERSON WHO WORKS THEIR ASS OFF IN THIS GAME. You need to lay of the DRUGS and get back in touch with reality. Your suggestion is so game-breakingly unfair and ridiculous I am astounded that you even managed to conceptualise it in the first place and it yanks on heart strings that there are idiots on planet who might agree with you
what next? Some arbitrary tax on being taxed on taxable income???? because that's the slippery slope this kind of degenerative and backwards thinking is going to take us.
The problem with ishtars is that they're OVERPOWERED when using SENTRIES. This has everything to do with poor design choices for just ONE ship and nothing to do with penalising players for using one type of ship "too much".
What else? Oh yeah, what about the ships that are actually balanced and see common use because they're good at solo or good for fleets or logi or whatever the **** else that will get arbitrarily made more expensive because it sees common use.
WHAT
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
RAZOR Alliance
516
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 09:32:13 -
[4] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Maybe you should search for the term, "Ishtars online".
NO
don't you dare sass me on ishtars
I have done nothing but strive to see the game brought to balance and that meaningful choices be opened up to players based on ship performance not cost
I will not be dragged down to this lower level of anti-intellectual dialog through the insinuation that I am ignorant to the workings of the current meta and of the future meta - I'm already doing it. I've been doing it for years. I am currently in the CFC, one of the biggest abusers of rail-tengu and shield ishtar fleets if not the biggest in the whole game.
Your solution to the problem I do NOT agree with. At all. Period.
The solution to better balance is through modifying the resources in the game. Lowering them enough so that having gigantic fleets of supers is simply unsustainable and that titans stop being some laughable "end game goal" peddled to the newbies.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
RAZOR Alliance
517
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 10:07:55 -
[5] - Quote
Zappity wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:Zappity wrote:Maybe you should search for the term, "Ishtars online". NO don't you dare sass me on ishtars -snip- Your solution to the problem I do NOT agree with. At all. Period. The solution to better balance is through modifying the resources in the game. Lowering them enough so that having gigantic fleets of supers is simply unsustainable and that titans stop being some laughable "end game goal" peddled to the newbies. Your suggested approach of limiting resources would not help diversity at all. Diversity would not change, just the total number of ships. Or, more likely, the cost of those ships. This is a suggestion to help increase diversity within a class.
What we are dealing with here is the long term effects of an economic model with technically unlimited resources. The battle of B-R5B made barely a dent in the resource market for the game and this was hands down the most expensive fight in the game ever with trillions of isk being destroyed.
The only only only way to beat this deathspiral is to restrict resource generation and force entities to manage their space and harvesting capacity intelligently. The new industrial sov index as proposed by Fozzie is legitimately terrible and an insult. Instead of making supers a rare and valuable thing through having only so many able to be produced per year due to resource starvation they instead neglected to address basic issues with the game and the resulting proliferation of ships that theoretically cannot even function normally without a support fleet became so horrendously commonplace that now they are talking about completely changing how this ship class works because it is irredeemably broken.
I wrote a massive post about this in the CSM subforum years ago. I maintain the same position. This game will always be irrevocably ****** so long as idiots can continue to practically bot-mine forever without any consideration to the rational idea that maybe saving resources close to home for times of trouble is the practical way to run an empire but instead we see the incredible ecological **** of easily accessed resources day in and day out only because the game allows it. Only because the game allows it. A real world economy under EVE's misdirected sense of player entitlement and abuse would have collapsed completely years ago.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
Caleb Seremshur
Gladiators of Rage
RAZOR Alliance
517
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 10:16:44 -
[6] - Quote
Tabyll Altol wrote:
Nice idea but i have to point out that there is a big problem in that idea:
E.g The big coalitions would be able to get ships much cheaper. They would introduce two differen doctrins e.g. Wolf / Hawk. So now the only take the wolfs to push them in the statistic and the Hawk goes straight down --> the price will fall and the producer will now produce much of the hawks if they have a big enough stock they will switch the doctrin. Without any change of the ships from CCP they would massive reduce they cost to build ships.
There should be a "minimum" cost for each ship.
but a nice idea +1
That's right. Quoted for posterity. You just completely broke this proposal and in exactly the same way I did. It arbitrarily penalises people for pushing a doctrine, even a bad one. It's a trash proposal in its current form and would be exploited immediately.
Veteran and solo/small gang PVP advocate.
|
| |
|