| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Omnathious Deninard
Novis Initiis
2802
   |
Posted - 2015.04.21 00:16:53 -
[421] - Quote
I might be late to the party with this one, but it seems that with these changes you could get at least 1 battlecruiser worth of minerals per hulk per hour, plus some extra might be enough for a cruiser also.
Roleplaying Trinkets for Explorers and Collectors
|
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
114
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 00:21:06 -
[422] - Quote
Speaking of cybernetics-enhanced performance - this was in Rancer, Rancer of all places! 
http://i.imgur.com/MVMMQco.jpg
Didn't stop to think about the Legion having Beams. vOv
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
533
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 00:24:06 -
[423] - Quote
Basil Pupkin wrote:Querns wrote:Basil Pupkin wrote:
So all of the Deklein ratting bots will be "promoted" to mining bots?
Well, like I were saying, whoever has the biggest bot fleet wins the mineral rush.
Why use a bot when a Mackinaw does 95% of what a bot does without the attendant risk of being hellbanned by CCP? The same thing applies to ishtars and ratting. Because as long as they make enough, you don't care if they're banned. CCP can hellban individuals, but not alliances. And you cannot manage 20 Mackinaws while you're asleep. The same thing applies to carriers and ratting.
Some serious grasping going on itt |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2321
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 00:40:16 -
[424] - Quote
GankYou wrote:Speaking of cybernetics-enhanced performance - this was in Rancer, Rancer of all places! http://i.imgur.com/yiNTZ9S.jpg
Didn't stop to think about that Legion having Beams. vOv I think that's a Role-Playing corp with real people. 
What the hell is up with that HUD? CAPSULEEJECTEDWARPDRIVEACTIVEKILLREPORTAVAILIBLESHIELDSATFIFTYPERCE T
Don't you just love that post-Exploding lag |
GankYou
Redshield Holding Company
115
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 00:46:07 -
[425] - Quote
Used to be far worse back in the day, with a loading bar across the screen. 
I'd love to see the capsule being ejected prior to complete destruction of the spaceship, so you can enjoy the nice explosions as you fofofofofo into warp. 
Since we're in Rancer - Anyone in this thread that actually mines in Lowsec - do you think the changes are sufficient to actually draw some portion of Hisec miners a step lower?
I can understand your concerns for anonymity, if you refuse to disclose that.
...And They All Crave One Thing - ISK.
|
Simon Alfrir
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 03:30:17 -
[426] - Quote
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:[quote]
As a nullsec miner I endure considerably more risk that a highsec miner. I would challenge you to show that there are more per capita highsec miner deaths from CODE etc. than nullsec miner deaths from all the people who can shoot them.
Care to give us your miner character's name so we can see just how 'dangerous' it is for you? It's not with this account which you posted with as I can't find the mining ships you've lost. How many times has your miner died in the past month? How about for your entire corp? Are we talking daily, weekly, monthly or bi-annual kills?
From what I've read there are null systems safely tucked away at the end of a pipe with no travel and full-time miners using multi-boxers to haul in the ore. Do you dispute that is occurring? That doesn't sound very dangerous to me.
The rich will get richer off the backs of the Highsec miners. You already get enough bonuses for living in 0.0. There is nothing broken in Null right now but this will change things negatively for Highsec. I would hazard to guess that the number of players being negatively affected outweighs the number who will be benefiting from the proposed change. |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
533
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 03:55:55 -
[427] - Quote
Simon Alfrir wrote:The rich will get richer off the backs of the Highsec miners. You already get enough bonuses for living in 0.0. There is nothing broken in Null right now but this will change things negatively for Highsec.
Wealth per hour comparison
Simon Alfrir wrote: I would hazard to guess that the number of players being negatively affected outweighs the number who will be benefiting from the proposed change.
The only hazard with this change is your posting |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
587
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 03:57:07 -
[428] - Quote
When does this change take effect, anyways? April what? |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2323
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 04:17:11 -
[429] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:When does this change take effect, anyways? April what?
april 28th |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1606
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 05:05:11 -
[430] - Quote
Simon Alfrir wrote:FearlessLittleToaster wrote:[quote]
As a nullsec miner I endure considerably more risk that a highsec miner. I would challenge you to show that there are more per capita highsec miner deaths from CODE etc. than nullsec miner deaths from all the people who can shoot them.
Care to give us your miner character's name so we can see just how 'dangerous' it is for you? It's not with this account which you posted with as I can't find the mining ships you've lost. How many times has your miner died in the past month? How about for your entire corp? Are we talking daily, weekly, monthly or bi-annual kills? From what I've read there are null systems safely tucked away at the end of a pipe with no travel and full-time miners using multi-boxers to haul in the ore. Do you dispute that is occurring? That doesn't sound very dangerous to me. The rich will get richer off the backs of the Highsec miners. You already get enough bonuses for living in 0.0. There is nothing broken in Null right now but this will change things negatively for Highsec. I would hazard to guess that the number of players being negatively affected outweighs the number who will be benefiting from the proposed change.
Ah, yes, the killboard challenge from a poster who has been alive for four days.
But hey, I'll oblige anyways: Deklein sees some barge kills often. When you consider how awful mining is right now in nullsec, this is quite a lot!
e: bbcode is hard
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
|
Simon Alfrir
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 06:11:25 -
[431] - Quote
Querns wrote:Simon Alfrir wrote:FearlessLittleToaster wrote:[quote]
As a nullsec miner I endure considerably more risk that a highsec miner. I would challenge you to show that there are more per capita highsec miner deaths from CODE etc. than nullsec miner deaths from all the people who can shoot them.
Care to give us your miner character's name so we can see just how 'dangerous' it is for you? It's not with this account which you posted with as I can't find the mining ships you've lost. How many times has your miner died in the past month? How about for your entire corp? Are we talking daily, weekly, monthly or bi-annual kills? From what I've read there are null systems safely tucked away at the end of a pipe with no travel and full-time miners using multi-boxers to haul in the ore. Do you dispute that is occurring? That doesn't sound very dangerous to me. The rich will get richer off the backs of the Highsec miners. You already get enough bonuses for living in 0.0. There is nothing broken in Null right now but this will change things negatively for Highsec. I would hazard to guess that the number of players being negatively affected outweighs the number who will be benefiting from the proposed change. Ah, yes, the killboard challenge from a poster who has been alive for four days. But hey, I'll oblige anyways: Deklein sees some barge kills often. When you consider how awful mining is right now in nullsec, this is quite a lot! e: bbcode is hard
So you live in an area about 10x safer to mine than in The Forge.
https://zkillboard.com/region/10000002/group/463/
Nullsec mining = Less risk and soon to be more reward |
Mr Omniblivion
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
534
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 06:17:47 -
[432] - Quote
Keep digging that hole-
Here, let me help you out. How many more factors of ore is mined in The Forge than in Deklein?
Hint: more than 10x |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
587
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 07:15:09 -
[433] - Quote
Mr Omniblivion wrote:Here, let me help you out. How many more factors of ore is mined in The Forge than in Deklein?
That is simply because farming other PVE activities in null sec, such as combat anoms, is easier, less risky and, as Querns points out, far more profitable than mining. And, why bother mining when you are rich enough from other PVE sources to afford to buy minerals in high sec and pay to ship them out to null sec?
As for those few poor Goons who got themselves popped mining in Deklein... they are obviouslly part of the group which Querns rightly labeled as "a wide buffet of folks in space without significant 'street smarts.'" They probably all got popped in high sec by the CODE before joining the Goons... lol. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2323
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 08:13:09 -
[434] - Quote
Sure, picking the single most populated region in the game and comparing it to any area in null, the volume of kills will be different. But then you realize, that with the number of people in that highsec region, its a bit less isk lost per capita than the aforementioned nullsec region.
So, divide the total loss in isk by number of losses. Nullsec residents are losing 40mil more per loss than highsec residents. So theres that too.
Also, it doesn't really matter how safe the players make it. I imagine if highsec worked together and invested like nullsec, they too, would achieve paradise. |
Simon Alfrir
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 09:17:42 -
[435] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Sure, picking the single most populated region in the game and comparing it to any area in null, the volume of kills will be different. But then you realize, that with the number of people in that highsec region, its a bit less isk lost per capita than the aforementioned nullsec region. So, divide the total loss in isk by number of losses. Nullsec residents are losing 40mil more per loss than highsec residents. So theres that too. Also, it doesn't really matter how safe the players make it. I imagine if highsec worked together and invested like nullsec, they too, would achieve paradise.
Much more money is lost from mining in Highsec than in Null. That's what the killlboard is showing.
There are more miners in Highsec therefore more people are being hurt than helped by this change.
There is no added game play value (miners need not apply to your Null corps).
No one in this thread has demonstrated why these changes are needed. Answer: The changes aren't needed. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE
Fidelas Constans
2324
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 09:51:34 -
[436] - Quote
Simon Alfrir wrote:Much more money is lost from mining in Highsec than in Null. That's what the killlboard is showing.
maybe you need to look at more than just 'this number is bigger than that one. Its not surprising that highsecs massive population (3-4x greater than null iirc) would have more lost from mining barges by volume. It's expected since there are so many more miners in null. What we were comparing is the relative safety, which is far more skewed toward nullsec being the least safe.
Simon Alfrir wrote:There are more miners in Highsec therefore more people are being hurt than helped by this change.
There is no added game play value (miners need not apply to your Null corps).
No one in this thread has demonstrated why these changes are needed. Answer: The changes aren't needed.
If you really havent bothered to read the dozens of responses as to why the change is needed, I doubt repeating them to you again is going to make you actually read them.
As to hurting more players, just because one group of players is benefitting off the lack of gameplay from another group doesn't justify keeping the status quo.
Or, of course, we could drivel down the path of only doing what the majority of players want and just toss out any kind of gameplay implications.
Hell, since all those miners in highsec seem to be what we balance the entire game around, why don't we remove barge ganking? Or, better yet, increase the refine rate of highsec stations to surpass nullsec, since its only fair to the greater population. |
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
587
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 09:56:28 -
[437] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Hell, since all those miners in highsec seem to be what we balance the entire game around, why don't we remove barge ganking? Or, better yet, increase the refine rate of highsec stations to surpass nullsec, since its only fair to the greater population.
I'm sure that the high sec miners will be happy to hear that null sec players, such as yourself, are finally admitting this is what CCP really should be doing in order to balance and improve the game.
+1 |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1611
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 10:02:35 -
[438] - Quote
Simon Alfrir wrote:
No one in this thread has demonstrated why these changes are needed. Answer: The changes aren't needed.
Easy:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
These changes are intended to make Nullsec more self sufficient then it is currently.
Right now nullsec is reliant on JFs to have anything. CCP wants it to be less so.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6714
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 11:41:11 -
[439] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Rowells wrote:Hell, since all those miners in highsec seem to be what we balance the entire game around, why don't we remove barge ganking? Or, better yet, increase the refine rate of highsec stations to surpass nullsec, since its only fair to the greater population. I'm sure that the high sec miners will be happy to hear that null sec players, such as yourself, are finally admitting this is what CCP really should be doing in order to balance and improve the game. +1
Giving in to highsec, and giving to highsec is what it is all about
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1611
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 12:53:27 -
[440] - Quote
Sizeof Void wrote:Rowells wrote:Hell, since all those miners in highsec seem to be what we balance the entire game around, why don't we remove barge ganking? Or, better yet, increase the refine rate of highsec stations to surpass nullsec, since its only fair to the greater population. I'm sure that the high sec miners will be happy to hear that null sec players, such as yourself, are finally admitting this is what CCP really should be doing in order to balance and improve the game. +1
Man, talk about things that would negatively affect the sacred cow of "highsec miner isk/hr" GÇö turning highsec into a risk free theme park would drop lowends to the minimum possible price faster than the OP's changes ever would.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
|
|
Dentia Caecus
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 13:12:20 -
[441] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
We're very interested to hear from miners, nullsec industrialists and prospective nullsec industrialists. Let us know how you view these changes and how you would like to see them changed to better meet your needs. Thanks!
It has been approximately a week since this post was created. Do the devs have any feedback? |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc
The Bloc
1707
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 13:20:05 -
[442] - Quote
Querns wrote:Sizeof Void wrote:Rowells wrote:Hell, since all those miners in highsec seem to be what we balance the entire game around, why don't we remove barge ganking? Or, better yet, increase the refine rate of highsec stations to surpass nullsec, since its only fair to the greater population. I'm sure that the high sec miners will be happy to hear that null sec players, such as yourself, are finally admitting this is what CCP really should be doing in order to balance and improve the game. +1 Man, talk about things that would negatively affect the sacred cow of "highsec miner isk/hr" GÇö turning highsec into a risk free theme park would drop lowends to the minimum possible price faster than the OP's changes ever would.
It's be fun to see what would happen but I bet the economy would not take it too well... Selling ore/minerals to NPC buy orders if they become the best price would be odd... |
|
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
12648
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 14:03:45 -
[443] - Quote
Hey everyone. After reading through the feedback so far we've made some tweaks to the compositions of the Anoms. Now the ratios between different minerals have more variance from anom type to anom type, so that nullsec groups will be able to take advantage of the choice of different anoms to get slightly different mineral ratios. For instance, under the new numbers the Mediums have extra Mexallon so if you find you're low on Mex you can mine out some mediums.
The OP has been updated.
Game Designer | Team Five-0
https://twitter.com/CCP_Fozzie
http://www.twitch.tv/ccp_fozzie/
|
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1611
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 14:17:32 -
[444] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Hey everyone. After reading through the feedback so far we've made some tweaks to the compositions of the Anoms. Now the ratios between different minerals have more variance from anom type to anom type, so that nullsec groups will be able to take advantage of the choice of different anoms to get slightly different mineral ratios. For instance, under the new numbers the Mediums have extra Mexallon so if you find you're low on Mex you can mine out some mediums.
The OP has been updated.
Good move lowering the ark/bist composition of small sites. This should help out the imbalance even more, as this is most likely the anom that is seen and is mined the most, due to its lowest barrier of entry.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1102
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 14:22:03 -
[445] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Simon Alfrir wrote:Much more money is lost from mining in Highsec than in Null. That's what the killlboard is showing. maybe you need to look at more than just 'this number is bigger than that one. Its not surprising that highsecs massive population (3-4x greater than null iirc) would have more lost from mining barges by volume. It's expected since there are so many more miners in null. What we were comparing is the relative safety, which is far more skewed toward nullsec being the least safe. Simon Alfrir wrote:There are more miners in Highsec therefore more people are being hurt than helped by this change.
There is no added game play value (miners need not apply to your Null corps).
No one in this thread has demonstrated why these changes are needed. Answer: The changes aren't needed. If you really havent bothered to read the dozens of responses as to why the change is needed, I doubt repeating them to you again is going to make you actually read them. As to hurting more players, just because one group of players is benefitting off the lack of gameplay from another group doesn't justify keeping the status quo. Or, of course, we could drivel down the path of only doing what the majority of players want and just toss out any kind of gameplay implications. Hell, since all those miners in highsec seem to be what we balance the entire game around, why don't we remove barge ganking? Or, better yet, increase the refine rate of highsec stations to surpass nullsec, since its only fair to the greater population.
I'm trying to take a balanced view on these changes since it doesn't affect me so muchin the areas I operate. I am uncomfortable with this change as it seems geared towards making life easier for those in null at the expense of players in other areas. I always thought players wnating things to be 'easier' in EvE was scoffed at but in this case it seems not.
My impression was that EvE was balanced around the much vaunted economy and the interplay between the 'destructors' and 'Makers', not the ease in which the richest area of the game can make more ISK. Making changes that benefit one area at the expense of another is always going to be risky, doing so in such an overty anti-hisec way even moreso.
Will we see a similar change that begins to spawn high end rocks in low amount in hisec? This would be good for explorers to hunt down, lucky miners to hit the odd payday, gankers to stake out. If one area is to be made more self sufficient then all must be in some way. Make it so that being self sufficient requires effort, with effort scaling inverse linear with risk.
We'll see how this shakes out but it doesn't strike me as a fair or reasonable change to favour one area. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1611
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 14:23:37 -
[446] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Will we see a similar change that begins to spawn high end rocks in low amount in hisec? This would be good for explorers to hunt down, lucky miners to hit the odd payday, gankers to stake out. If one area is to be made more self sufficient then all must be in some way. Make it so that being self sufficient requires effort, with effort scaling inverse linear with risk.
This already happens -- the sites are called "wormholes."
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1611
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 14:39:28 -
[447] - Quote
CCP Fozzie -- I had heard mention of the mining requirement for maintaining an industrial index being lowered for Sov 5.0. Is this something you're still considering, and if so, would it be for this patch, or the Sov 5.0 patch?
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Farsaidh's Freeborn
1102
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 14:41:53 -
[448] - Quote
Querns wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Will we see a similar change that begins to spawn high end rocks in low amount in hisec? This would be good for explorers to hunt down, lucky miners to hit the odd payday, gankers to stake out. If one area is to be made more self sufficient then all must be in some way. Make it so that being self sufficient requires effort, with effort scaling inverse linear with risk.
This already happens -- the sites are called "wormholes."
And that means using 2 areas and is therefore not self sufficient. My point being that if you make null more self sufficient then you should make balanced changes to make all areas self sufficient to greater or lesser degrees. I could just as easily point out to null players that for trit the best place is called 'hisec'. |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
Goonswarm Federation
1611
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 14:53:33 -
[449] - Quote
Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Querns wrote:Corraidhin Farsaidh wrote:Will we see a similar change that begins to spawn high end rocks in low amount in hisec? This would be good for explorers to hunt down, lucky miners to hit the odd payday, gankers to stake out. If one area is to be made more self sufficient then all must be in some way. Make it so that being self sufficient requires effort, with effort scaling inverse linear with risk.
This already happens -- the sites are called "wormholes." And that means using 2 areas and is therefore not self sufficient. My point being that if you make null more self sufficient then you should make balanced changes to make all areas self sufficient to greater or lesser degrees. I could just as easily point out to null players that for trit the best place is called 'hisec'.
So, in order for something to count as "self-sufficient," you can't take one jump into a wormhole to get what you want? Do you think that everything required to build stuff should be available in one system?
The joke about this conversation is that highsec has never been self-sufficient for minerals, ever. The fact that highends were swirling around in a financial toilet only masked this fact. Even with 400 isk zydrine and 650 isk megacyte, those minerals, by and large, came from nullsec. This is a deliberate game design decision; one of the oldest there is.
Conversely, nullsec was never designed to be so beholden to highsec for its materiel. The fact that it currently is has come about due to emergent gameplay and the ruthless optimization by players to combat the tyranny of distance from Empire. Making nullsec more self-sufficient improves the quality of life for a significant swathe of nullsec, especially those in the south and east, whose logistics are markedly difficult (and about to get a lot worse.)
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Shadow of xXDEATHXx
179
|
Posted - 2015.04.21 15:02:37 -
[450] - Quote
Fozzy im not seeing that much variance between the belts...
the figures I have in the pic are max possible refine (tier 3 minmatar, max skills, +4 implant)
https://www.dropbox.com/s/09f8xcee00ys4ta/ores.jpg?dl=0
as you can see, the variance between mineral per m3 after the small belt is almost identical for every belt.
if you were to make it so one belt provided more, the small would stay as it is.
the large would need mex to be 200%
the xl put nocxium at 20 to 30%
the xxl should have the greater highends to make it more valuable, say 8% zydrine and 4% mega.
as it is. the belt that everyone is going to mine is the small, because it has the highest % of all the lowends |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 [15] 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |