EVE Search - Move R64 & R32 Moons

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Move R64 & R32 Moons

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Fire Stone Celestial Horizon Corp. Flatline. 0	Posted - 2011.12.27 21:58:00 - [1] - Quote Well it seems CCP does not care to fix their mistakes with R64 & R32 moons to fix the bottleneck. So I would like to propose every 2-4 months moving all the current R64 & R32 moon concentrations to other regions forcing the mega-alliances to move if they wish to keep their cash cows. It would give CCP much more PVP in null-sec as everyone will move to the new locations of the moons and give player alliances something to really fight over vs the entrenched situations we have today. It will also cause major disruptions in the supply chain maybe forcing CCP's hand into actually adding more of them slowly as they re-locate them. For example move them from the north to the south then to the east then the west etc.. Please only post constructive criticism.
Nicolo da'Vicenza Divine Power. Cascade Imminent 163	Posted - 2011.12.27 22:47:00 - [2] - Quote tearing down all moon mining pos's every 2 months and putting them back up again: the ultimate revitalizer to pvp warfare
Elindreal Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 37	Posted - 2011.12.28 00:37:00 - [3] - Quote turn moon goo mining in a mechanic similar to PI, except unlike PI these moons will not regenerate. overmining will cause the moons to deteriorate and then poof, or perhaps for extra fun explode due to overmining and damage/destroy orbiting stations. overmining can be determined by some equation of moon mass vs. goo extracted per day, if the balance tips... see above once a moon has been mined out the moon will 'respawn' in another corner of new eden (east, west, south, north). by respawn I mean use a bit of RP and say a new unnoticed vein of moon goo was discovered, or a comet full of magical materials from the deep reaches of unknown space has crashed into a nearby moon adding to its minable contents. blah blah blah the concept is sound imo. too many people in nullsec not moving around is boring. might also change sov strategy where instead of owning massive swathes of nullsec, alliances will decide to own small pockets within jump bridge range of one another to increase their agility and ability to project power throughout new eden. rather than being confined to their little corner.
Emperor Salazar Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 294	Posted - 2011.12.28 12:22:00 - [4] - Quote Fire Stone wrote: It would give CCP much more PVP in null-sec as everyone will move to the new locations of the moons and give player alliances something to really fight over vs the entrenched situations we have today. You really have no idea what you're talking about do you? There is plenty of pvp in null sec these days. And different values for regions is a good thing. It means some regions are better than others. If people are content with the fat chick they settled with, then thats fine. But if they decide they want the hot chick with a perfect rack, they know where to go to find it. The only change I would support is moving moon harvester arrays and silos outside of POS shields like jump bridges are and make the silos hackable. This would encourage more small gang roaming (especially with the new Tier 3 bcs).
Fire Stone Celestial Horizon Corp. Flatline. 0	Posted - 2011.12.29 16:49:00 - [5] - Quote Thanks for the constructive feedback Elindreal. Your implementation of my idea is exactly what I was looking for to promote this. As for Nicolo, that's exactly what I am proposing. There is no reason these huge alliances with massive resources should not be able to take down and setup new towers in new locations every few months. It only takes 1 second now to online and offline modules for the POS if you didn't read the patch notes for the winter expansion.
Abdiel Kavash Paladin Order Fidelas Constans 236	Posted - 2011.12.29 17:58:00 - [6] - Quote Yeah right, let's go and invade that space which may or may not have the valuable moons (of course we first need to spend hundreds of man-hours scouting every single moon in a region every time they switch around to see which moons are actually valuable). Oh, but by the time the invasion is done, the minerals are already somewhere else. This would only encourage holding massive areas of unused empty space to get the highest chance that a rare moon randomly appears in your space.
Ilany Nightingale Enterprises 4	Posted - 2011.12.29 19:03:00 - [7] - Quote Elindreal wrote: Good ideas. I have been thinking along very similar lines for some years now. I've set out how I would see it working in this post. The only issue, as the poster above says, is moon scanning time. This would need reworking.
Twylla Blue.Shift 8	Posted - 2011.12.29 19:10:00 - [8] - Quote Abdiel Kavash wrote: Yeah right, let's go and invade that space which may or may not have the valuable moons (of course we first need to spend hundreds of man-hours scouting every single moon in a region every time they switch around to see which moons are actually valuable). Oh, but by the time the invasion is done, the minerals are already somewhere else. This would only encourage holding massive areas of unused empty space to get the highest chance that a rare moon randomly appears in your space. Right now mega-alliances like Goon, Red, and TEST already control vast tracts of unused space because their combat projection keeps potential allies from establishing in unclaimed nullsec. On one hand, destabilising them means keeping the game fresh, but it also means making nullsec almost completely uninhabitable by anyone else while they remove previously allied organisations who suddenly find themselves with a hot moon. Carebear: Passive-agressive industralist; Prey. Gunrunner:-áIndustrialist with a lot of big guns, keeps big friends supplied with big guns, and doesn't take sh*t from anybody.
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 369	Posted - 2011.12.29 19:44:00 - [9] - Quote Twylla wrote: Right now mega-alliances like Goon, Red, and TEST already control vast tracts of unused space because their combat projection keeps potential allies from establishing in unclaimed nullsec. I think you mean that the SOV system makes it way too easy to defend systems against an even vaguely competent (and alive) foe. Twylla wrote: On one hand, destabilising them means keeping the game fresh, but it also means making nullsec almost completely uninhabitable by anyone else while they remove previously allied organisations who suddenly find themselves with a hot moon. I literally can't wait to have to scan every moon in every region, repeatedly, just to see what moons have gotten what material, so I can plop down a POS for a few weeks before it runs out.
Karthwritte Darthrin Storm Enterprise Drunken Capsuleers 8	Posted - 2011.12.29 20:33:00 - [10] - Quote This idea rocks.

Elindreal Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 41	Posted - 2011.12.30 03:04:00 - [11] - Quote if there is so much hate towards having to rebuild a new moongoo mining pos every couple months then by all means make the mooning similar to PI where it does naturally regen its moongoo. that said, if you outstrip its natural regen (akin to PI) it will eventually poof. therefore major alliances who get a moon are able to hold their moon more or less indefinitely by limiting their greed. meanwhile if a tech moon appears in enemy territory, but not too far off, an alliance could conceivably run over, set up a pos and mine the hell out of the moon until it poofs. you now have a game of risk, a sov holding alliance will want to limit their take to hold their moon, an opposing alliance has an incentive to storm in, set up their own pos which will likely tip the regen balance over the edge and cause the moon to poof. the sov holding alliance will only have a couple days to rid the enemy pos before the regen is overcome. as for having to scan all these moons down to find the new tech, i dunno, maybe issue regionwide DED reports which talk of new veins appearing. if the tech does come from distant comets crashing into moons the report can talk about a comet headed for system 'x' so at least people know where they have to scan as opposed to looking for a needle in a haystack. /shrug not very creative i know, the concerns are valid but not insurmountable.
Fire Stone Celestial Horizon Corp. Flatline. 0	Posted - 2011.12.31 21:39:00 - [12] - Quote Elindreal brings up an interesting point about changing moon mining to be more like PI. Remove the POS from the equation and use a new module with the hit points of a large tower called "Moon customs offices" or something, which would be harder to defend as it does not have the ability to have hardeners, guns etc, and would almost beg to be destroyed by an occupying force. Id like to hear more about how we could implement something like this.
Lord Aliventi Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2012.01.01 10:09:00 - [13] - Quote I will begin by say that I wish these wasn't a Tech bottleneck. Mostly because I PvP and would love for my Basilisks, Falcons, etc to be much cheaper. However.... There is nothing wrong with how things are now. Everyone is complaining about Tech moons being all taken by the big alliances who are only releasing a small amount to keep their isk flowing. I think this is awesome for a bunch of reason: There is incentive to go to war for better SOV These moons allow larger alliances to take on larger projects like ship replacement programs These moons allow smaller alliances to fight over the few not controlled by the major SOV alliances If a smaller alliance manages to be in control of one of these moons then they have the ability to get more caps, super caps, and possibly even a titan for PvP. These moons allow for SOV alliances to build up and maintain a large number of systems, even one or more regions with upgrades, SOV bills, POS fuels, etc. Now when something is valuable people are drawn to it. So it would make sense that these moons are taken by larger alliances capable of defending them from others. Don't like it? Get a PvP alliance going and work to taking these moons from them. Pandemic Legion is a great example. They hold little to no SOV, but a large number of moons they can defend. And PL is one of the few alliances I would not want to fight. You can do this too. You just have to work for it. Of course you could always go a different route. You could turn always turn another moon goo in to a bottleneck without people realizing then cash in. No doubt it will be a lot of work. But it would be very worth it. I would recommend an R64 moon goo. That would mean fewer moons to control and maintain. And the goo is worth more than Tech would be without the monopoly on it. So a monopoly on R64 goo would make Tech look like child's play. But let's say we decide to change things. 1. Don't even think about getting rid of POS mining. If it's worth it you need to be able to defend it. A POS allows you to do that. No POCO for moons is going to help you defend anything. SOV is about building up infrastructure and then having someone else painfully tear it down. POS are all part of this. And if you went away from POS then all of the PI materials would crash hard since the demand would plummet. More harm than good IMO. 2. An idea that has been kicked around is unlocking Moon mining in highsec. You could moon mine, but all of the reactors would have to be in low and null. Of course then pet alliances from the large SOV alliances would move in and claim all the good highsec moons. Altogether, his would cause far too much damage to 0.0 SOV isk making. SOV is not cheap. Something has to pay for it. 3. Randomizing/evenly distributing the moons so all of SOV is worth the exact same isn't a good solution. You have no idea how annoying it is to put up or take down a POS. And scanning the moons isn't any more fun. So randomization is out the window. (No. Really. I am serious. Randomization would cause a revolt that would make Incarna look small.) You could evenly distribute them to all the regions. But that really doesn't make any particular space more valuable than any other. This would cause massive stagnation in SOV holding since there would be no motivation to attempt to get better, more profitable space. 4. You could have the moons not regenerate resources. I am not going to waste my time explaining just how large a moon is and how pulling out just a few m3 an hour would not deplete the resources. If the moon did not regenerate resources then you would have to get some way to create new moons with that resource. And we are back to randomization. And let me remind you that is a terrible idea. But what if you had them slowly regenerate resources? Then you would have to add a new mechanic to vary how much of the resource you pulled out. Something not currently supported but he Moon Harvesting Array (MHA) on a POS. So this is a no go. 5. But what if we added t2 MHA? This would allow you to pull out 200 units per hour instead of 100. Brilliant. I think this would be an idea supported by all. Who wouldn't want more profit from their moons? And possibly eventually if there were enough moons that you could pull 200 units out of the sheer amount produced would eventually lower prices. But I doubt this would make much of a difference. If the large alliances are already not releasing all the units they mine then they just won't release the extra 100 units they get a hour. In all reality you are better off playing by the rules that are already in place. No solution for re-balancing, redoing, redistributing, etc is going to solve this. In fact just about anything you do will make this worse and make everyone angry. Go become another Pandemic Legion. Make a PvP alliance with the goal of taking moons away from the large SOV alliances. Or go make your own bottleneck. As Goonswarm has proved with the oxi-topes a dedicated group of pilots can change Eve.
Fire Stone Celestial Horizon Corp. Flatline. 0	Posted - 2012.01.01 18:48:00 - [14] - Quote Lord Aliventi, the problem I see is that the bottleneck is too large right now giving the holding alliances too much defending power. You mention ship replacement programs, well there is so much isk being made, every super capital ship destroyed defending can be replaced the same day with cash and no hardship on the alliance at all. They have trillions of isk saved up in their entrenched positions and even the damage caused by PL which is massive is not enough to remove these mega alliances who own these moons. #3 - You are correct we do not want to make all SOV space the same in any respect and doing so would cause major issues. But we need the bottleneck to be smaller than it is today. Maybe adding 10% more R64 moons to be mined in null in a dead area of null. #5 - This is a bad idea imo because as you said the current owners would not release more than they do today. If CCP added more moons by a random number of 10% to a different region these mega alliances don't own, the new owners would reap the profits and the market would have a smaller bottleneck lowering prices, therefor mega alliance income by a few hundred billion per month to benefit the economy as a whole vs the small % that live in null.
Pidgeon Saissore Black Dagger Corp EDEN Alliance 7	Posted - 2012.01.01 19:17:00 - [15] - Quote Since a pos is anchored to a moon moving the moon would drag any pos with it. It would make for an interesting opportunity for someone to try to destroy the pos as it would likely be in someone elses soverign territory. Such a pos would likely be set with a cyno generator since when it moves they would want to catch up to it fast. This might make for an unxpected giant fleet battle which might loosen mega alliance control over both the moon and the system they left to chase it.
Velicitia Open Designs 399	Posted - 2012.01.01 20:09:00 - [16] - Quote Pidgeon Saissore wrote: Since a pos is anchored to a moon moving the moon would drag any pos with it. It would make for an interesting opportunity for someone to try to destroy the pos as it would likely be in someone elses soverign territory. Such a pos would likely be set with a cyno generator since when it moves they would want to catch up to it fast. This might make for an unxpected giant fleet battle which might loosen mega alliance control over both the moon and the system they left to chase it. um, what? "Moving" a moon is nothing more than changing the DB entry that reads "hasTech" (or whatever they decided to name it) from '1' to '0' on one moon, and from '0' to '1' on another.
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 481	Posted - 2012.01.01 20:27:00 - [17] - Quote Are most of you guys actually spending time thinking when coming up with these ideas? Because while I kind of like the idea of changing moongoo to a PI like system, adding depletion which can "permanently" deplete moongoo from a moon is just awful because you just know people won't be able to restrain themselves. Randomly moving moongoo from moon to moon every 2 months or whatever is just as bad. And now, moving the entire moon and any potential mining POS? Mother of god.
Velicitia Open Designs 399	Posted - 2012.01.01 20:37:00 - [18] - Quote I never said I liked the idea of moving moons (I don't ... it's already hard enough to get stuff with you guys in null continually shooting one another in the face) ... just pointing out that "moving" them was a simple value in the DB.
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 481	Posted - 2012.01.01 20:49:00 - [19] - Quote Don't worry, I wasn't talking about your post.
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 193	Posted - 2012.01.01 20:57:00 - [20] - Quote Moon mineral depletion would remove a major purpose of territorial conquest, and would primarily benefit large superbloc alliances with the manpower to repeatedly carry out boring, tedious moon-scanning operations, whilst diverting that same manpower away from emergent gameplay activities (like fighting). If you want to cement the status quo even more thoroughly than they are now, you should support this idea.

Velicitia Open Designs 405	Posted - 2012.01.01 20:58:00 - [21] - Quote Lord Zim wrote: Don't worry, I wasn't talking about your post. I'be been badpoasting all day today ... I think I'm starting to go cross-eyed I wouldn't mind seeing more alchemy reactions though (there are, to my knowledge, only 4 or 5). Granted that means finding a nice backwater 0.3/2/1 system, which will take :effort: to find people who won't just sell me out to the FOTM "bad guys".
Lord Aliventi Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2012.01.01 21:54:00 - [22] - Quote Fire Stone wrote: Lord Aliventi, the problem I see is that the bottleneck is too large right now giving the holding alliances too much defending power. You mention ship replacement programs, well there is so much isk being made, every super capital ship destroyed defending can be replaced the same day with cash and no hardship on the alliance at all. They have trillions of isk saved up in their entrenched positions and even the damage caused by PL which is massive is not enough to remove these mega alliances who own these moons. #5 - This is a bad idea imo because as you said the current owners would not release more than they do today. If CCP added more moons by a random number of 10% to a different region these mega alliances don't own, the new owners would reap the profits and the market would have a smaller bottleneck lowering prices, therefor mega alliance income by a few hundred billion per month to benefit the economy as a whole vs the small % that live in null. The thing you don't seem to understand is it's not the moons that are the problem. You aren't having any bottleneck because of the moons. There are 4 R32 and 4 R64 goos. 7 of those there aren't any major problems. The prices reflect their rarity. Tech is the only exception. But you know why prices are so high? Because the players themselves have made it so. Changing the moons won't change the players. The players have a benefit of making Tech worth more. So they do and reap the rewards. And if you change things around they will follow the moons and continue their player created monopoly. And dont give me any of that "SOV players have so much isk from their Tech moons that it is almost impossible to remove them from their 'entrenched position'. " That's pure BS. If that were true IT., the NC, BoB, and a whole host of other large SOV alliances would still hold SOV. And your reply to my #5 shows how little you understand of where these moons are. You are in Flatline.? There is a Tech moon 4 jumps from where your alliance lives in Syndicate. The moon is in an lowsec system that is 2 jumps from highsec. It was owned for the longest time by Rooks and Kings who aren't a major SOV holding alliance. Of course RnK had to fight off several large alliances who wanted the moon, and they eventually lost it so some alliance I don't recognize. But putting the new moons in systems where the SOV alliances don't own will just cause them to seek them out and take control of them. The Venal Tech moons are a great example. NPC space but owned by SOV alliances. So again adding more or re-balancing the moons is not going to solve the player created monopoly.
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 200	Posted - 2012.01.01 23:34:00 - [23] - Quote Lord Aliventi wrote: The thing you don't seem to understand is it's not the moons that are the problem. You aren't having any bottleneck because of the moons. There are 4 R32 and 4 R64 goos. 7 of those there aren't any major problems. The prices reflect their rarity. Tech is the only exception. But you know why prices are so high? Because the players themselves have made it so. Umm, tech prices are so high because the demand for it is high and rising, as Crucible seems to have dragged back a lot of old players who had let their subs expire and as more newer players gain skills and money and start purchasing T2 items, whilst the supply is fixed. Its pretty explicitly a result of simple market forces caused by a supply bottleneck and the limited availability of the material.
Lord Aliventi Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2012.01.02 00:31:00 - [24] - Quote Scatim Helicon wrote: Lord Aliventi wrote: The thing you don't seem to understand is it's not the moons that are the problem. You aren't having any bottleneck because of the moons. There are 4 R32 and 4 R64 goos. 7 of those there aren't any major problems. The prices reflect their rarity. Tech is the only exception. But you know why prices are so high? Because the players themselves have made it so. Umm, tech prices are so high because the demand for it is high and rising, as Crucible seems to have dragged back a lot of old players who had let their subs expire and as more newer players gain skills and money and start purchasing T2 items, whilst the supply is fixed. Its pretty explicitly a result of simple market forces caused by a supply bottleneck and the limited availability of the material. Tech was high prior to Crucible. And there are a roughly equal number of tech moons as any other R32 moon. The only reason why Tech is worth more than any of the other R32 and R64 goo is because the players are releasing less Tech to the market. Therefore Tech being 100k isk a unit where all of the other R32 goos are 10k or less a unit is not a result of natural supply and demand as you are attempting to point out. It is a result of the players releasing less Tech to the market. Which means you are wrong. This is not going to be solved by re-distibuting the moons or changing how the moons are mined. Of course people coming back because of Crucible have made these bottlenecks worse. That is what people call supply and demand. Tech is feeling the same market forces that are hitting all the minerals and t2 components. But Tech being 100k a unit while Caesium (Another R32 moon goo) is 5k a unit is not a result of natural supply and demand. It is the result of low supply and equal demand as any other R32 goo. Let's do some math: Caesium: normal supply + normal demand = low price Tech: player created lower supply + normal demand = high price
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 487	Posted - 2012.01.02 00:56:00 - [25] - Quote Um. Let me help you: You're being dumb. The reason tech is so high, is because it's being used in higher quantities than the other R32s. You say "let's do some math". Well, do them, instead of pulling incorrect assumptions out your ass.
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 201	Posted - 2012.01.02 12:02:00 - [26] - Quote Lord Aliventi wrote: Scatim Helicon wrote: Lord Aliventi wrote: The thing you don't seem to understand is it's not the moons that are the problem. You aren't having any bottleneck because of the moons. There are 4 R32 and 4 R64 goos. 7 of those there aren't any major problems. The prices reflect their rarity. Tech is the only exception. But you know why prices are so high? Because the players themselves have made it so. Umm, tech prices are so high because the demand for it is high and rising, as Crucible seems to have dragged back a lot of old players who had let their subs expire and as more newer players gain skills and money and start purchasing T2 items, whilst the supply is fixed. Its pretty explicitly a result of simple market forces caused by a supply bottleneck and the limited availability of the material. Tech was high prior to Crucible. And there are a roughly equal number of tech moons as any other R32 moon. The only reason why Tech is worth more than any of the other R32 and R64 goo is because the players are releasing less Tech to the market. Therefore Tech being 100k isk a unit where all of the other R32 goos are 10k or less a unit is not a result of natural supply and demand as you are attempting to point out. It is a result of the players releasing less Tech to the market. Which means you are wrong. lawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwl
Scatim Helicon GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 201	Posted - 2012.01.02 15:50:00 - [27] - Quote Its a thing of beauty when an idiot makes such a definitively incorrect statement with such certainty. Guys guys guys the only reason tech is so expensive is because the players just aren't selling it, nothing to do with high demand at all!
Elindreal Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 73	Posted - 2012.01.05 01:49:00 - [28] - Quote what, it's goonswarm's fault moongoo is so expensive?!?!
Lord Zim Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 492	Posted - 2012.01.05 08:08:00 - [29] - Quote If in danger or in doubt, blame goonswarm, scream and shout.
Fire Stone Celestial Horizon Corp. Flatline. 0	Posted - 2012.01.06 22:42:00 - [30] - Quote 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. My idea revolves around a supply shortage due to higher demand, more players etc. If this idea gets reviewed by CCP they can answer the question and we can all move on. Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the matter even if others do not agree with it. 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. A CCP reply would be nice as well :-) Thoughts?

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]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.