| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order
Fidelas Constans
286
   |
Posted - 2012.01.06 23:02:00 -
[31] - Quote
Fire Stone wrote:I do not think anyone other than a DEV or someone causing a supply shortage really knows if its a supply bottleneck or a player created one.
Nobody knows, except for people who knew before the moon mineral rebalance expansion was even released. |
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
129
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 23:55:00 -
[32] - Quote
Keep moons the same in null(need some reason to hold sov), make moons in lowsec dynamic. Makes it slightly more difficult for null alliances to hold valuable moons indefinitely. Opens positions for smaller corps invested in finding moons. Creates another "feature" of lowsec living to the emptyness there currently is. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
219
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 00:05:00 -
[33] - Quote
Fire Stone wrote:I do not think anyone other than a DEV or someone causing a supply shortage really knows if its a supply bottleneck or a player created one.
Entire alliances and coalitions go to war over the ownership of technetium moons. Are you really suggesting that we take space off each other so we can ... just not bother to sell the technetium we mine and let it rot in our corp hangars?
Quote:The only other ideas I have come up with lately on this topic is to change how much Tech is used in the supply chain. 20% less Tech and 5% more of the other 4 in its class. I do not personally favor this idea over others thou as I would need to update my spreadsheets yet again for every product that uses it.
Reducing demand for Tech relative to other r32s by tweaking the moon material requirements for T2 construction is a much more sensible solution than rotating moons around the galaxy every month with the various (mostly negative) butterfly effects that would accompany it, even if people would have to rewrite their spreadsheets.
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
499
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 10:34:00 -
[34] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Entire alliances and coalitions go to war over the ownership of technetium moons. Are you really suggesting that we take space off each other so we can ... just not bother to sell the technetium we mine and let it rot in our corp hangars?
Yes. We're all in a literal tech cartel, even if we hate each other.
Oh wait, no, what I meant was that the people who actually believe there's an eve-wide tech cartel are dumb as rocks.
Scatim Helicon wrote:Reducing demand for Tech relative to other r32s by tweaking the moon material requirements for T2 construction is a much more sensible solution than rotating moons around the galaxy every month with the various (mostly negative) butterfly effects that would accompany it, even if people would have to rewrite their spreadsheets.
See, this idea is just too sensible and won't make nullsec ****** enough, it'll never fly. The way to make nullsec rampant with gleeful PVP is to rotate moons every week, no local, and certainly no jumpbridges. Everyone knows local makes nullsec safer than hisec, and jumpbridges project power like mad. |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
489
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 15:28:00 -
[35] - Quote
Quote:Move R64 & R32 Moons
They should do something with moon mining |
Wolodymyr
Mando'a Navy
Controlled Chaos
20
|
Posted - 2012.01.07 20:44:00 -
[36] - Quote
Just make PI able to produce end level products of PI goo, but with much less volume.
if there is a trickle of R32 and R64 finished moon products coming out of PI it would bring the price down a bit and make moon goo a lot less all important for large power blocks.
Scatim Helicon wrote:Reducing demand for Tech relative to other r32s by tweaking the moon material requirements for T2 construction is a much more sensible solution than rotating moons around the galaxy every month with the various (mostly negative) butterfly effects that would accompany it, even if people would have to rewrite their spreadsheets.
This would also be a good idea |
Hrodgar Ortal
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 19:32:00 -
[37] - Quote
Tech is more expensive since it is used in larger quantities compared to the supply, just as was the case with dysp/prom before tech.
The solution is not to kill people IRL (forcing them to probe some 10-30k moons, or whatever there are, even if it would be a isk sink due to the probes....) The first solution is to actually make the value of moons have more to do with rarity so r64>r32 etc (by tweaking the requirements to build) Then to give a more flexible supply you create reasonable alchemy reaction from the bottom up, that is from r8->r16 and r16->r32 etc
That small alliances aren't taking on large or taking "unclaimed space" (please find some unclaimed space?) has more to do with the sov mechanics not promoting living in space but just holding it and also supercapitals. Moons are not that important really and different regions should have different values. If one region is worth twice another so what, get a large enough alliance and kick the holders out if you want it. |
Killstealing
Broski Enterprises
Elite Space Guild
332
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 00:32:00 -
[38] - Quote
itt people who don't know jack about null proposing changes to null |
Fire Stone
Celestial Horizon Corp.
Flatline.
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 22:43:00 -
[39] - Quote
Hrodgar Ortal wrote:Tech is more expensive since it is used in larger quantities compared to the supply, just as was the case with dysp/prom before tech.
The solution is not to kill people IRL (forcing them to probe some 10-30k moons, or whatever there are, even if it would be a isk sink due to the probes....) The first solution is to actually make the value of moons have more to do with rarity so r64>r32 etc (by tweaking the requirements to build) Then to give a more flexible supply you create reasonable alchemy reaction from the bottom up, that is from r8->r16 and r16->r32 etc
That small alliances aren't taking on large or taking "unclaimed space" (please find some unclaimed space?) has more to do with the sov mechanics not promoting living in space but just holding it and also supercapitals. Moons are not that important really and different regions should have different values. If one region is worth twice another so what, get a large enough alliance and kick the holders out if you want it.
After reading everyone's replies and thinking about it further I agree having people/moons move around wont change much and cause more frustration with null in general. I am leaning more towards the value being more in line with rarity and of course lowering quantity used so all 4 R64, R32 etc are mostly even give or take 15% in their needed usage on the market. Since this has been up for a quite some time now I am surprised there is no DEV or CSM replies yet. |
Hrodgar Ortal
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 09:11:00 -
[40] - Quote
Fire Stone wrote:
After reading everyone's replies and thinking about it further I agree having people/moons move around wont change much and cause more frustration with null in general. I am leaning more towards the value being more in line with rarity and of course lowering quantity used so all 4 R64, R32 etc are mostly even give or take 15% in their needed usage on the market. Since this has been up for a quite some time now I am surprised there is no DEV or CSM replies yet.
They didn't respond to the fairly accurate predictions about tech spiking like mad either before the changes and that thread had 80 pages or something. |
|
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
501
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 09:17:00 -
[41] - Quote
Fire Stone wrote:or CSM replies yet.
It's widely known that the CSM itself is expecting and advocating a tech rebalancing at some point, simply because it makes no sense that an r32 is rarer than any r64, when adjusted for demand. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources
Tactical Narcotics Team
138
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 21:48:00 -
[42] - Quote
Killstealing wrote:itt people who don't know jack about null proposing changes to null
Welcome to F&I, you must be new here. |
Lucjan
R-E-D
10
|
Posted - 2012.01.10 23:07:00 -
[43] - Quote
As long as it doesn't beak immersion Im fine with it.
This vaguely runs along the lines of not being able to dock in alliance controlled 0.0 to do trade.
On one hand the little guy will be able to make some major profit. On the other hand a grand alliance deserves their trophy moon. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources
Tactical Narcotics Team
138
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 01:48:00 -
[44] - Quote
Lucjan wrote:As long as it doesn't beak immersion Im fine with it.
This vaguely runs along the lines of not being able to dock in alliance controlled 0.0 to do trade.
On one hand the little guy will be able to make some major profit. On the other hand a grand alliance deserves their trophy moon.
No, the 'little guy' will be able to get fifty titans dropped on his shiny new pos. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |