| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 10 post(s) |
Sigmorhair
Gallente
Eisenmetal
   |
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:03:00 -
[121]
 Originally by: Elmicker
Originally by: Zenst
Well this change is sound, as there are ways to adapt.
Enlighten us. How exactly are we meant to move freighterloads of minerals without 50-man 8-hour escort ops without mineral compression? Short of using a titan, that is.
This benefits Bob more than anyone. Are you surprised that they like it? Hell he probably asked for it on MSN.
|
Mynas Atoch
Eternity INC.
Mercenary Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:04:00 -
[122]
It took us three minutes (going over out of favour soltions), and then a bit longer proving it with spreadsheets, to come up with a cost effective alternative production process for supercaps. CCP, you guys need to play this game more, actually INSIDE the main alliances, to understand how it works.
|
Virtuozzo
IVC Consortium
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:05:00 -
[123]
Just realising something. With all this being a slap in the face of younger organisations trying to compete in 0.0 warfare (not ganks, but war) and CCP thinking to throwing a bone and hoping to address their perceived problem of too many supercapitals in game ... established organisations will only get pushed even more to invest in supercapitals.
Jumpbridge networks are a liability for logistics, and only a feasible instrument of shipping people into the combat zone, furthermore they are incredibly expensive.
Freighters in 0.0 are a joke :P
So with combat and logistics being as close as they are, folks will have to take the road to keeping the game fun, and not work, and investing in, yes, more supercapitals and more and more to facilitate the logistics :P
Has anyone been thinking at all about consequences of these changes from an organisational point of view at all? Counterproductive is the word here, and nerfing the opportunity of younger organisations to even begin to compete or try to.
Virtuozzo
Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!"
*snip* Inappropriate. -Elmo Pug |
Okotomi Anki
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:07:00 -
[124]
Ok guys, chill abit. The "nerf" is bad, but not as bad as you think.
First, battleships in 0.0 would go up in price only by 10%, not 20%. Not a big deal.
However, the only way i see lowends transported ATM is from 0.0 to empire, i really dont understand what is all those people are concerned about. 0.0 space has really huge NPC hauler spawns. I have seen 75m trit + 25m pyerite spawns quite regularily. Pain to haul it to station, i know, but you get minerals for free! If you pay for lowends in 0.0 more than in empire, then your ratters are lazy. I do pay half the empire price most of the time.
So, stop whining about empire-to-0.0 hauling nerf! Lets start crying about 0.0-to-empire nerf!!!
Supercap production may suffer full 20%, i agree. Because some are too lazy to compress lowends separately from high-ends.
About the loss of income for NPC ratters and mission runners. There is a way CCP can get around it. Just lock some guys in the office untill they fix ALL the loot tables, adding 20% more stuff in the process.
|
Sha Kharn
Minmatar
Brutor tribe
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:07:00 -
[125]
Originally by: Virtuozzo
Just realising something. With all this being a slap in the face of younger organisations trying to compete in 0.0 warfare (not ganks, but war) and CCP thinking to throwing a bone and hoping to address their perceived problem of too many supercapitals in game ... established organisations will only get pushed even more to invest in supercapitals.
Jumpbridge networks are a liability for logistics, and only a feasible instrument of shipping people into the combat zone, furthermore they are incredibly expensive.
Freighters in 0.0 are a joke :P
So with combat and logistics being as close as they are, folks will have to take the road to keeping the game fun, and not work, and investing in, yes, more supercapitals and more and more to facilitate the logistics :P
Has anyone been thinking at all about consequences of these changes from an organisational point of view at all? Counterproductive is the word here, and nerfing the opportunity of younger organisations to even begin to compete or try to.
OMG Im on the same page as Virt for once.... Yes its a PUN
|
Virtuozzo
IVC Consortium
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:08:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Mynas Atoch
CCP, you guys need to play this game more, actually INSIDE the main alliances, to understand how it works.
Signed. They're either too compartimentalised, too focused on the marketing, or too detached it almost seems.
Virtuozzo
Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!"
*snip* Inappropriate. -Elmo Pug |
Virtuozzo
IVC Consortium
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:11:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Okotomi Anki
the only way i see lowends transported ATM is from 0.0 to empire, i really dont understand what is all those people are concerned about. 0.0 space has really huge NPC hauler spawns. I have seen 75m trit + 25m pyerite spawns quite regularily. Pain to haul it to station, i know, but you get minerals for free!
Wait till someone living in the drone regions sees that. No hauler spawns, at all.
Virtuozzo
Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!"
*snip* Inappropriate. -Elmo Pug |
Zingo Aleig
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:18:00 -
[128]
Edited by: Zingo Aleig on 12/08/2007 13:20:03
ore compression is shaping up to be a ****ty replacement for mineral movement. This because it is going to take more effort, more risk and more isk for much less minerals moved per m3.
CCP, why not boost the lower tier ore's in 0.0, so mineral compression is not needed anymore? That would actually be a solution instead of replacing a player devised patch job with one by ccp.
honestly we should just follow bob's example, titan+ freighters, much better then wasting isk and time on your mining capital idea ccp.
|
Okotomi Anki
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:20:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Virtuozzo
Wait till someone living in the drone regions sees that. No hauler spawns, at all.
Well, their main concern was about transporting the minerals to empire markets, wich is exactly my point.
|
Jacob Majestic
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:21:00 -
[130]
In EVE there has always been a basic symmetry between production and consumption. You have always been able to build items for X and refine those items for the same X, minus a few percentage points based on your refinery and skills. Breaking this symmetry, even for as few as 170 items, could have profound affects on the EVE economy.
Has there been any research on the probably economic affect of this change? Seems like it should be Master's Thesis work, at least. How will it affect empire markets? What is your projective time for the price shocks to level out? How do you think this will affect Empire and 0.0 fleet composition? How do you think this will affect capital producers? Do you think capital producers will be more or less able to respond to rapidly-changing demand? How does this affect moving material to and from 0.0 space in terms of man-hours per 100km3 moved?
Are you even planning on doing the research and crunching the numbers to see what tearing down this fundamental symmetry will do to the economy?
---
Originally by: steamy
thank you Hippoking for doing a Jacob on the goons 
|
|
|
Cergorach
Amarr
The Helix Foundation
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:21:00 -
[131]
Nerfing mineral compression sounds like a good thing:
- Means a lower supply of low end minerals in Highsec.
- Makes low end minerals more expensive in Highsec.
- Ensures newbies find it profitable to mine in Highsec.
Common elements are not supposed to be profitable when shipped large distances, they are to be used locally. Makes location a lot more interesting and tactically challenging. Mineral compression will still happen, but not for profit, but rather for logistics...
What i'm concerned with is the new 80% reprocessing limit, i'm concerned that they'll forget to adjust loot tables, i think it'll mean a 20% reduction in profits for mission runners and ratters, who are very dependand on loot dropped (most of which is recycled).
|
Zingo Aleig
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:24:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Cergorach
Nerfing mineral compression sounds like a good thing:
- Means a lower supply of low end minerals in Highsec.
- Makes low end minerals more expensive in Highsec.
- Ensures newbies find it profitable to mine in Highsec.
you're missing something. You export low ends from high sec.
less compression, means more minerals staying behind in high sec, so bigger supply, lower prices on low ends in high sec, etc
|
Admus
Mobius Construct
Knights Of the Southerncross
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:25:00 -
[133]
While it is going to be more difficult for titan-less groups in 0.0, there can be no doubt the the jump portal generators and other such items were gross workarounds to shift materials. While there might be an argument that there should be a better way to compress ore than a 2 billion capital hauler, you can't keep it the way it is now.
Perhaps it is the devs' intent that ship acquisition in 0.0 become harder? It would help to alleviate the capital ship spam and revert fleet mainstays back to battleships - though capital blobs are needed due to POS and sovereignty mechanics  .
The other thing the ore capital seems to encourage is more low-sec/0.0 mining, and less reliance on empire minerals in 0.0 warfare. I don't know how far this will go, though, since it is so much more profitable to mine other ores in 0.0 - and profit is more desirable due to the common threat of a roaming gank squad.
I'm not really sure what to make of all this yet. Some insight from the dev team as to what they envision 0.0 warfare and logistics to be. It would be nice to understand the reasons to why mineral transport will be so difficult, why the POS spam and such is there, and what they intend with it all.
----------------------------------------------------------
"Villains always have antidotes. They're funny that way." |
Cker Heel
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate Operations
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:28:00 -
[134]
Has anyone calculated the what the new price caps on minerals would be? The tritianium cap must be over 3isk after this.
Changing refinery mechanics is a very fundamental change to the t1 market. Wider min/max prices on minerals, no more refiners to mop up t1 gear sold below mineral costs, and rat/mission loot worth substantially less.
If CCP increases loot drops to compensate, building t1 for profit becomes that much harder.
Buckle your seat belts. t1 is going for a wild ride.
|
Lazaroth
Caldari
Quantum Synergies
YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:31:00 -
[135]
well this pretty much kills the hope for the little guys who had any hope or dreams about building the big stuff. I'm sorely disappointed there has to be a better way then this..
Laz
|
Montaire
Lacedaemon.
Fallen Souls
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:38:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Lazaroth
well this pretty much kills the hope for the little guys who had any hope or dreams about building the big stuff. I'm sorely disappointed there has to be a better way then this..
Laz
No, it doesnt.
In about 30 mins me and 5 other Logistics people worked completely around this issue in a cost effective way that was only about 10% more time consuming than our current method.
What this does is increase the probability that any mineral you use will be MINED instead of originating in reprocessed loot. Which overall isnt necessarily a bad thing.
Anyone who take a few mins to reason on this issue is goingto realise its NOT a bad thing.
|
Aelicia
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:42:00 -
[137]
to all the ppl that have invested billions of isk in capital production and for u to completely eradicate that isk into complete nothingness is complete insanity on your behalf.
how can u even entertain the thought of this mineral nerf. ppl have paid their subscriptions to play eve and if they have chosen to, build capitals. by u doing this u have stripped all that hard work away from them in one fell swoop, which to me represents nothing less than CCP stealing their players r/l money.
|
Lazaroth
Caldari
Quantum Synergies
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:45:00 -
[138]
Originally by: Montaire
Originally by: Lazaroth
well this pretty much kills the hope for the little guys who had any hope or dreams about building the big stuff. I'm sorely disappointed there has to be a better way then this..
Laz
No, it doesnt.
In about 30 mins me and 5 other Logistics people worked completely around this issue in a cost effective way that was only about 10% more time consuming than our current method.
What this does is increase the probability that any mineral you use will be MINED instead of originating in reprocessed loot. Which overall isnt necessarily a bad thing.
Anyone who take a few mins to reason on this issue is goingto realise its NOT a bad thing.
I wonder if you would share this awsome solution with the rest of us? otherwise it's for the winds.. I'm talking about the trasporting of this stuff.. not wether it comes from mining or loot
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:49:00 -
[139]
That is an important question indeed:
Are large turrets included in thos 170 modules with more than 5:1 compression?
If yes, that is a decrease of about 8-12% income for 0.0 ratters, and 3-5% for mission runners.
------------------------------------------
What is Oomph? It the sound Amarr players makes when they get kicked in the ribs. |
Claudia Grant
Gallente
Quantum Synergies
YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:50:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Montaire
Originally by: Lazaroth
well this pretty much kills the hope for the little guys who had any hope or dreams about building the big stuff. I'm sorely disappointed there has to be a better way then this..
Laz
No, it doesnt.
In about 30 mins me and 5 other Logistics people worked completely around this issue in a cost effective way that was only about 10% more time consuming than our current method.
What this does is increase the probability that any mineral you use will be MINED instead of originating in reprocessed loot. Which overall isnt necessarily a bad thing.
Anyone who take a few mins to reason on this issue is goingto realise its NOT a bad thing.
Yes it does.
People with titans and established Jump bridges = np.
Anyone else = fubared. It makes the blance even more screwed up as the smaller organizations will completely loose any competitive situation to be in, not to mention how Drone Regions people must feel now. again I might add.
And to say "we have found this and that dont mean squat. Proof or be quiet. If it was almost the same if would not be such a big issue in the first place. Claiming in obscurity that secret methods are an alternative doesnt help this debate.
|
|
|
Benedic
Minmatar
The Aftermath
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:51:00 -
[141]
So this benefits:
Alliances with titans
People who hate 0.0
People who hate mission runners
Sounds great! (if only we didn't own a bunch of mineral compression bpos)
|
Freyja Swater
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:58:00 -
[142]
Well isint this a sweat Ass**** from CCP More like a *****of the entire game on ther behalf the smal corps like mine that have tens of bilions of isk stuck inn mineral compression and compression Bpo right now and wont be out until after the patch basickli sinks our dream of having a capitol ship pilots and ruins the corp wallet and its members whitch donetid billions for this dream and ho are ccp (FIXING) the game for well for 1 thing not the smal corps or allyances not the guy slaving in empire but the allyances that allredy have the most motherships and in the way ******* upp the (Player controled econamy) can CCP **** the small guy inn a better way yes thay can by banning corps with less than 2 titans from the game witch will be the next thing thay anonce on monday
|
Lord Loom
Loom Service
Derek Knows Us
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 13:59:00 -
[143]
Edited by: Lord Loom on 12/08/2007 14:00:31
Originally by: murder one
If anything, this change will make mining mins in highsec even more lucrative for the ISK farmers. This can be solved by removing 50% of the minerals from high sec belts, and moving them all to low sec.
or even better, remove high-sec, AMIRITE? oh, you forgot to add some call to boost gallente ships to your pathetic "waah waah, everyone against pirates, no fair" whining
YOU ROX, no really...
RE: Devblog: this nerf is more 'tarded than the one to bulkheads, and that says a lot
----------
KEEP TRY!!!
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 14:16:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Okotomi Anki
Originally by: Francesca Dell'Agio
But there are other questions you should be asking yourself.
- why have some folks no longer been bothering with keeping their pets alive for other purposes then the meatshield
- why have some folks sold off their jump portal generators en masse about a month ago after non stop production and shipping for 3 months and refining them like mad
- why have some folks consciously decided to not upgrade refineries at a point in time well before this came out
I seriously hope it's not getting to that point again, but a few leadership posts on a few forums from before all of this surfaced now make sense.
Very interesting. Thank you for the info. Can you provide any proof? Not in this thread, of course.
I dubt she can, but what was important is to throw the accusation. Proof is a secondary matter. And that is why I hate tinhattery.
|
Fun Bunny
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 14:42:00 -
[145]
Haha, I didn't even think about the drone region people. God they must be annoyed with getting stomped on by CCP with every patch.
|
Zaphroid Eulthran
Minmatar
Imperial Visions
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 14:44:00 -
[146]
Has anyone considered the problems now with moving minerals in Hisec?
It was difficult enough moving volumes to factories anyway, now its uncompressable?
Industry (its not just mining) needs mini freighters.
The vast majority of manufacturing corps cant, (or just plain dont want to) blow 1 BILLION ISK, and the training time, on a ship far too large for what they need.
The biggest transport ships are to small for minerals and product hauling, freighters are overkill. 150,000m3 is a nice number.
Warning, sig starts here,
Imperial Visions, Now 756448 seconds since our last fatality
Gis dekcajih a ton! |
Liv Dawn
PPN United
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 14:59:00 -
[147]
well well. all these changes seem reasonable and stuff. what i do not get is why the skills we learned so long for (scrapmetal processing) are nerfed. you could just have increased the volume of the items so the compression rate is appropiate again but not taking away the use of a skill which took quite a long time to train for.
yeye, you shrink the supply of minerals too this way but this seems like a fast added idea than a well rounded concept. please do not alter existing game mechanics by trying to close an exploit.
|
Apocalytica Insomnia
DarkSide Defenders
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 15:12:00 -
[148]
Edited by: Apocalytica Insomnia on 12/08/2007 15:20:47
Originally by: Admus
It would help to alleviate the capital ship spam and revert fleet mainstays back to battleships - though capital blobs are needed due to POS and sovereignty mechanics
You sir, need to be informed that you can build Carriers and Dreadnoughts in lowsec, and that this is most popular place where those ships are beeing build, cause the Cheep and easy mineral flow is just 2-4 jumps away, in your frighter.
Apocalytica Insomnia
DarkSide Defenders
Accounting and More |
Laendra
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 15:13:00 -
[149]
Yipee, making this even more like a r/l job for the win \o/
</sarcasm>
-------------------
|
Virtuozzo
IVC Consortium
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.08.12 15:13:00 -
[150]
I took a dip in the pool to cool down, but then something else struck me. Wouldn't it have been rather nice to - if CCP insists on putting Citadel Torps into how people play the game - introduce this a decent amount of time before introduction so folks could adjust skill queues, investments, production programs with hundreds of billions of isk invested instead of dropping this on folks out of the blue. Investments which are pretty much a writeoff for a good portion of their value as it is clear now what the consequences will be.
What is this? Throwing people a quick bone in the hope that the grand theory of that bone will solve things which in practice are a lot different then how content design has been able to investigate? Or is it not having enough capacity for checking interdependancies of features or even checking how feature elements have different then planned in game integrations? While at the same time giving a pretty hard kick in the teeth of the concept of competition between younger and older organisations in game.
Btw. It will be quiet from the drone regions people for a bit. They are all shell shocked.
Virtuozzo
Last words of a Caldari general: "Pull the Ravens back! Full retreat! they've got frigates!"
*snip* Inappropriate. -Elmo Pug |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |