EVE Search - Boost output for adv.materials

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Science and Industry

Boost output for adv.materials

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 5 post(s)
Neon Neya	Posted - 2007.12.10 23:04:00 - [1] Edited by: Neon Neya on 10/12/2007 23:05:13 With release of new ships and especially T2BS Jump.Frght. consumption of adv.mat. will rise the 2nd problem is negative ME on all BPC around -5 that rise demand even more. After a while the demand for adv.mat. will be so high which will increase prices for all T2 ships and mods.CCP we need to boost output of adv.mat. in reactors just тo compensate occurrence of these new monsters that you have created aka T2 BS and T2 Jump.Frght.
Horchan Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.10 23:09:00 - [2] Edited by: Horchan on 10/12/2007 23:09:12 And why is the price of T2 increasing a bad thing? Why should this be exempt from the rules of supply and demand? (edit: grammar) --- Originally by: VJ Maverick Jita is closed on Sundays. It's a holy day.
Pizi Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.10 23:13:00 - [3] naja a t2 jumpfrighter for 8-10 bis a bit insane hope the doctor watches the prices and if he finds there is a hole in aviable moones CCP will react _______________________________________________ EVEpedia[Deutsch] Sign this to bring EvE TV back
Lara Dantreb New Horizons	Posted - 2007.12.10 23:21:00 - [4] Dysprosium : 60000 pu atm reactors cost now 50000 isks to produce. say hello to the good old time when Cerberus and Ishtars worthed 250 Mil because it's coming again and soon, nothing will stop the process, a cartel controls Dysprosium prices and it's gonna kill something in the production process
Killian Darkwater Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.10 23:47:00 - [5] The material prices spike every time theres new t2 content released and once the initial demand is met they tend to return to 'normal.' Even if they don't it isn't necessarily a bad thing, the rise in prices makes moon mining more profitable and more people will start doing it. Which provides more supplies of materials and forces sellers to be more competative in their prices. Its hardly the end of the world. Oh, and to make a point regarding the jump freighters: a ship that can carry well in excess of 200k m3 cargo, move through empire space and use a jump drive to travel in almost complete safety through lowsec and 0.0 is worth the 5-10billion isk people complaining about. People have always had to pay through the nose for the best gear in eve, and this is no different.
Lara Dantreb New Horizons	Posted - 2007.12.11 00:00:00 - [6] Originally by: Killian Darkwater The material prices spike every time theres new t2 content released and once the initial demand is met they tend to return to 'normal.' Even if they don't it isn't necessarily a bad thing, the rise in prices makes moon mining more profitable and more people will start doing it. Which provides more supplies of materials and forces sellers to be more competative in their prices. Its hardly the end of the world. I agree with you except that all Dysprosium moons are harvested yet, do you imagine seriously that something which makes 1 Bil per week would be ignored ? (lols) the supply of Dysprosium is not enough OR simply too many people involved in T2 production considering the demand for these fine ships.
Na'amah	Posted - 2007.12.11 04:15:00 - [7] Originally by: Lara Dantreb Originally by: Killian Darkwater The material prices spike every time theres new t2 content released and once the initial demand is met they tend to return to 'normal.' Even if they don't it isn't necessarily a bad thing, the rise in prices makes moon mining more profitable and more people will start doing it. Which provides more supplies of materials and forces sellers to be more competative in their prices. Its hardly the end of the world. I agree with you except that all Dysprosium moons are harvested yet, do you imagine seriously that something which makes 1 Bil per week would be ignored ? (lols) the supply of Dysprosium is not enough OR simply too many people involved in T2 production considering the demand for these fine ships. Or certain people are stocking said Dysprosium supplies for their own reaction chains/T2 production.... or waiting to dump a massive quantity on the market once the price peaks.
iNOX Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.11 09:12:00 - [8] Originally by: Killian Darkwater The material prices spike every time theres new t2 content released and once the initial demand is met they tend to return to 'normal.' Even if they don't it isn't necessarily a bad thing, the rise in prices makes moon mining more profitable and more people will start doing it. Which provides more supplies of materials and forces sellers to be more competative in their prices. Its hardly the end of the world. Oh, and to make a point regarding the jump freighters: a ship that can carry well in excess of 200k m3 cargo, move through empire space and use a jump drive to travel in almost complete safety through lowsec and 0.0 is worth the 5-10billion isk people complaining about. People have always had to pay through the nose for the best gear in eve, and this is no different. It's not just a price spike for materials it's quite natural rise in demand and price for materials.Just go and сompare need for materials between HAC's and T2 BS on some components you need 10 times more then for HAC's and that not just armor plates.I remember a similar situation after release of new ships CCP boosted output for materials but that was long ago.I think nobody want to pay 200kk for some HAC's or 200+ for CS and even more for T2 BS.
Karanth Gallente Eve's Brothers of Destiny Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2007.12.11 09:24:00 - [9] Originally by: Lara Dantreb Originally by: Killian Darkwater The material prices spike every time theres new t2 content released and once the initial demand is met they tend to return to 'normal.' Even if they don't it isn't necessarily a bad thing, the rise in prices makes moon mining more profitable and more people will start doing it. Which provides more supplies of materials and forces sellers to be more competative in their prices. Its hardly the end of the world. I agree with you except that all Dysprosium moons are harvested yet, do you imagine seriously that something which makes 1 Bil per week would be ignored ? (lols) the supply of Dysprosium is not enough OR simply too many people involved in T2 production considering the demand for these fine ships. Again, WHY is it bad? Cost is cost, and once it passes your limit, buy other ships. I think there are about 150 or so different ships. All that's left... There is only one sig hijack that matters, the orginal and only member of the hijack squad. me. -Eris. ps Black russians are better then beer. Well, there's not many of us left! -Rauth
Lara Dantreb New Horizons	Posted - 2007.12.11 14:06:00 - [10] Originally by: Karanth Again, WHY is it bad? Cost is cost, and once it passes your limit, buy other ships. I think there are about 150 or so different ships. It's bad because ALL T2 ships are going to be VERY expansive it's bad because a game is fun when it's balanced. Ships too cheap or too expansive is not balanced. Why ? : not enough moon materials, and a cartel controls Dysprosium prices

Daerkannon Shimmerscale Gallente Paxton Industries Paxton Federation	Posted - 2007.12.11 15:36:00 - [11] Originally by: Lara Dantreb Why ? : not enough moon materials, and a cartel controls Dysprosium prices Repeat after me: there is no Dysprosium cartel. There is no Dysprosium cartel. Sure, there are people manipulating the market, but that's only possible because of the increased demand for this moon mineral combined with a one-two punch of recent supply disruption. There is not, however, some great hegemony or OPEC like entity that is trying to drive up and keep the price at a certain level. The market will ultimately stabilize at a fair price. The market manipulators do not have infinitely deep pockets and if one of the larger alliances were to suddenly have their logistics problems solved and dumped a lot on the market there could be a lot of said manipulators left holding the proverbial bag. In the meantime relax, enjoy the ride and don't sell your products for less than build cost. --- Honest officer, the dwarf was on fire when I got here! Can't find a mechanical engineering agent? Need a non-Caldari Navy agent? http://www.eve-agents.com/ for all your agent needs!
Nar Shear	Posted - 2007.12.11 15:44:00 - [12] welcome to supply and demand? gas price isn't rising and falling IRL because of new vehicals. This is balanced.....
Pizi Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.11 16:09:00 - [13] Edited by: Pizi on 11/12/2007 16:13:24 Originally by: Nar Shear welcome to supply and demand? gas price isn't rising and falling IRL because of new vehicals. This is balanced..... gasprice is rising because there IS a Cartel (that influences the price also that it doesnt get to high , because it would kill their bussines but also for falling to low something thats missing in EvE) and the price of oil rises because of huge speculation and the demand of china and others _______________________________________________ EVEpedia[Deutsch] Sign this to bring EvE TV back
Benvie Benvie Enterprises	Posted - 2007.12.11 17:47:00 - [14] Originally by: Pizi Edited by: Pizi on 11/12/2007 16:13:24 Originally by: Nar Shear welcome to supply and demand? gas price isn't rising and falling IRL because of new vehicals. This is balanced..... gasprice is rising because there IS a Cartel (that influences the price also that it doesnt get to high , because it would kill their bussines but also for falling to low something thats missing in EvE) and the price of oil rises because of huge speculation and the demand of china and others This is a myth. Yeah there's OPEC, but the reason OPEC doesn't increase production is because they CAN'T. 5 member nations of OPEC are officially DECLINING in oil production. There's only a handful of nations left in the entire world that are able to increase production each year, the vast majority are DECREASING each year. It's a lot more similar to dysprosium than most people think. Except its worse. Imagine that after a while of mining a moon it started to give less materials. This is what happens with oil fields. At this point we only find 1 new barrel of oil in new fields for every 6 we burn up in our cars. There isn't going to be more oil, there is going to be less. And it's going to keep being less every year. Look up "Peak Oil" for more infos.
Pizi Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.11 18:39:00 - [15] im fully aware that thewre isnt infinite oil, but also that OPEC isnt running at 100 % so to say not so long ago a economist said thet the worldwide economy "could" live with a barrel price of 200 so there is noo need to react _______________________________________________ EVEpedia[Deutsch] Sign this to bring EvE TV back
Nar Shear	Posted - 2007.12.11 18:50:00 - [16] Originally by: Pizi Edited by: Pizi on 11/12/2007 16:13:24 Originally by: Nar Shear welcome to supply and demand? gas price isn't rising and falling IRL because of new vehicals. This is balanced..... gasprice is rising because there IS a Cartel (that influences the price also that it doesnt get to high , because it would kill their bussines but also for falling to low something thats missing in EvE) and the price of oil rises because of huge speculation and the demand of china and others market research before posting please....mmmkthnx For those who didn't know, Russia is currently the worlds most untouched oil reserve in the world. As the poster above me stated, China is becomming in abit of a mess, as well as a few other countries, they are depleting the available oil from thier fields. Demand of Oil goes up....Supply of oil go down....price goes up. Lets take a look back at the early 80's.... Demand of Oil going up.....high surplus of oil....companies (even the huge "cartel" OPEC) fight for best price to get thier quantities sold. Now, on a EVE note to bring this into perspective. Low quantity of T2 materials.......high and rapidly increasing demand.....HIGH PRICE. (oh my god, this is 7th grade economics here...) Now, just as the poster above me stated....and what would be seriously interesting is what happens when the materials run out? well, I think that would be game over for t2. Can anyone guess what would happen then Thats correct class! The prices would go UPUPUP! Why Right again! Low quantity + High Demand = Price Gouging! Who wants a star?
Pizi Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.11 18:57:00 - [17] all oil aside =) i think what happend is some are speculeting with the materials, there must be huge quantities stored buy now it will get released when they think the price is peaked or they run out of money (not likley) so in the end it will be business as usual or if the availible moons are too few CCP wil alow moonmining in 0.4 and 0.5 and so on _______________________________________________ EVEpedia[Deutsch] Sign this to bring EvE TV back
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.11 19:58:00 - [18] Originally by: Nar Shear welcome to supply and demand? gas price isn't rising and falling IRL because of new vehicals. This is balanced..... You mean that some billion of Chinese people getting cars don't influence the market?
Darth Nerf	Posted - 2007.12.11 20:28:00 - [19] Instead of whining you filthy rich industrialists should get together, hire some serious firepower and take control of some dysprosium-sources yourselves.
iNOX Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.11 21:36:00 - [20] Edited by: iNOX on 11/12/2007 21:36:45 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=651891 Nice one.Anyone want to place a bet how much prices for all T2 will increase?

Qual Gallente Cornexant Research	Posted - 2007.12.12 10:03:00 - [21] Originally by: iNOX Edited by: iNOX on 11/12/2007 21:36:45 http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=651891 Nice one.Anyone want to place a bet how much prices for all T2 will increase? Not much. Well ok, for about two weeks yes, but after that it will stabalize +/- 20% of pre patch prices. The thing is that if you look at the market you can already see teh prices starting to fall. Why is this? Well a lot of people expected the prices to rise, so huge volumes have been stocked to make a profit during the goldrush. Now these people see the prices stopping to rise, so they want to check in now. Caldari reactor cores was 130k yesterday morning, they are less than 100 now. That will continue. The really clever people are the ones like the one you link to, who have stocked up pre patch, and are now building the ships at a pure isk cost of less than 500M, but are pricing the ships based on the current gold rush market. They are looking at 1B profit per ship. Yes, I know the argument: "But the materials are worth what you could sell them for on market!" Sure! You just can sell that much materials at the price... So in short, people who planed ahead got everything shopped way before patch, stand to make alot of ISK in the gold rush. Unless: So many T2 ships are build so it gets to be the buyers market. "The short version: Qual is right." -Papa Smurf
Ione Hunt 0utbreak	Posted - 2007.12.12 10:36:00 - [22] The market will regulate itself...no need for CCP intervention. As in RL, you no mystical being will just show up and say "here, I just trippled the total oil reserves on earth...enjoy, I hope you're happy you don't have to pay as much anymore!!". _______________
Lara Dantreb New Horizons	Posted - 2007.12.12 13:01:00 - [23] Originally by: Daerkannon Shimmerscale Originally by: Lara Dantreb Why ? : not enough moon materials, and a cartel controls Dysprosium prices Repeat after me: there is no Dysprosium cartel. There is no Dysprosium cartel. Sure, there are people manipulating the market, but that's only possible because of the increased demand for this moon mineral combined with a one-two punch of recent supply disruption. There is not, however, some great hegemony or OPEC like entity that is trying to drive up and keep the price at a certain level. The market will ultimately stabilize at a fair price. The market manipulators do not have infinitely deep pockets and if one of the larger alliances were to suddenly have their logistics problems solved and dumped a lot on the market there could be a lot of said manipulators left holding the proverbial bag. In the meantime relax, enjoy the ride and don't sell your products for less than build cost. 1) If you throw a look at dysprosium price history, you will see that these prices are under influence since around 3 month 2) OK I admit there might no be a cartel. Anyway I've been int he Moon materials/pos/T2 business for long enough to say that there is NOT ENOUGH dysprosium supply and maybe other raw materials aswell. 3) The demand for materials/T2 component is huge, I doubt strongly that there will be a big demand for these ships at these rates (Colsup made a mistake announcing their prices too early)
Admiral Nova Strike Team Nova	Posted - 2007.12.12 17:01:00 - [24] You can't really compare oil to moon mins, because there is a fixed 'total' amount of oil in the ground, when it goes it goes. So if you slow your pumping, you can get higher prices now, and higher prices later. Moon materials there is a fixed amount generated per hour, always, you can't stuff some back into the moon for later. (Though I guess you can hold onto some). They will never 'run out' though, there will always be the same amount (roughly) generated per hour. This will let 'x' many T2 ships be built, prices will go up and will only be released by people stopping their purchase of T2 ships because they are too expensive again. In this patch invented ships actually now use alot less of these materials, but of course there are alot more of them being invented, soon the invention itself won't be making much difference to the build price, but the extra wastage will.

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2007.12.12 23:56:00 - [25] We do agree that the demand for components will only increase due to invention removing the limiting factor of a fixed original blueprint supply and new tech II ships being introduced. This has warranted a fresh look at the moon mining and construction component processes which has been ongoing for a while since we first confirmed we were introducing so many new ships and also making some big changes to invention which have lead to a very in-depth look at the industry from top to bottom. Nothing has been decided as yet, basing anything on the short term fluctuations of a post trinity market would be a knee-jerk response at best as to whether or not the answer to the question, "Do we need to increase supply rates of components?" is yes. Our current long term view is indeed that certain materials like dysprosium and promethium are somewhat limited and we should investigate possible options for boosting the output in some way or decreasing their demand. To share some of our oberservations from looking in depth at moon minerals to start some discussion: To start with, a focus in the specific current main problem: Dysprosium & Promethium vs. Thulium and Neodymium It is particularly interesting when comparing dysprosium and promethium to the other two equally rare moon materials thulium and neodymium which have much lower demand rates and much lower moon occupancy. This indicates one possible avenue for us which is to switch some of the demand between them which can be done at any of the stages of the component manufacturing process. Reactors and Sensor Clusters Reactors and sensor clusters both require either hypersynaptic fibers, ferrogel or fermionic condensates which require dysprosium or promethium in turn. Some of you may of noticed with jump freighters we changed the ratio of armor plates to reactor or sensor clusters in the blueprints for example and part of the aim of this was to reduce the reliance on the most limited advanced materials whilst scaling the costs appropriately for capital sized vessels and their components being similarly sized. This related change also brings another possible solution which is to revisit the ratio of 'cheaper' advanced materials to the reactors and sensor clusters in all tech II ships as an alternative which is to lower demand and increase subsequent demand for less cost-effective moons currently. More wider observations: Moon material distribution and 'mud'! Mud is the technical term we use to describe the model distribution of moon materials, it is much like panning for gold, lots of mud and very few nuggets. However this is fundamentally different to traditional asteroid ore and minerals where we require large quantities of common materials and less of the rarer ones. With moon mining we require very little of the mud like atmospheric gases since the scaling of common to rare material comes at the complex reaction stage rather than the initial extraction stage such as in the case of ore mining and tech I demand. This does present some other possible avenues of change by making the 'mud' useful which is introduce new reactions which require lots of mud and produce some quantity of the advanced materials. Complex moon materials and constant supply Several ideas both here and internally have mentioned more complex distributions of moon materials which moons both having a limited supply or regeneration rate of the materials and being more complex in their structure such as every moon having some mud, some metal and a portion of rare materials so instead of one to four constant products, you get a varying supply rate and much more diverse supply range. Summary Most of this is my own opinions and nothing is set in stone (usual disclaimer) but it would be nice to see what everyone thinks of moon mining and component supply and what you would like the future to hold for it.

Caligulus Eve University Ivy League	Posted - 2007.12.13 00:16:00 - [26] Altering the build material requirements to lay the burden across a broader range of existing materials is the way to go. Not only does this reduce the bottle-neck but it also reduces the impact of a short term stoppage of a specific moon mineral impacting the entire market. Further more it spreads the wealth around a little more which means more money to go shooty-shooty with which makes EvE go round. ------------------------------------------------- ** Name ONE thing that your windows comp can do that my MAC cant ** Right click.
diskONE Caldari Macabre Votum Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.12.13 01:25:00 - [27] i like the idea of having moons produce small amounts of the rare metals, etc. This would give greater amounts of dyspourium and promethium in the system, while preserving the rare moons that have an abundance of the rarest metals. I think that would be a great thing to do with moon mining ____________________________________________
Braaage eXceed Inc.	Posted - 2007.12.13 01:32:00 - [28] How about starting by seeding Tech II moon Harvesters, they been in the database for so long but for some unknown reason never seeded. -- eve-guides.com All about POSs, Outposts, Exploration, Mining, EVE Database + much more!!
Kylar Renpurs Dusk Blade	Posted - 2007.12.13 01:53:00 - [29] Quote: ...would be a knee-jerk response at best as to whether or not the answer to the question, "Do we need to increase supply rates of components?" is yes. Thank god the Dev's realise that :) Some pretty cool ideas there though. Complex moons would be interesting, though what would happen with existing moon setups? They'd suddenly start manufacturing stuff in addition to the 100 of X they get every hour? Or they'd suddenly get less than 100 X every hour. Either way, if that became the solution a few peoples plans would suddenly skew. Improve Market Competition!
Arric Rohr The Knights Templar Pure.	Posted - 2007.12.13 02:52:00 - [30] Having items with a fixed, limited supply is a problem in any MMO. CCP clearly recognized this with the T2 bpo's, and introduced invention to counter it. The original bpo owners can still make money, which they deserve, but newer players who weren't even around when most of the bpo's were distributed can get in the T2 production game through a different channel. This is a Good Thing. So, I would suggest addressing moon mining in a similar way. Here are some wild hair ideas, none of which might work, but show the way to how I think the issue be resolved... 1) Have moons produce variable output. You have to keep scanning them, maybe with a POS mounted scanner. Materials can be found, mined, then run out, perhaps to be found again. After all, moons are big. 2) Introduce moon material gathering to the exploration system. Lost moons, I like the sound of it. Have them stay around long enough to put up a POS, or create a limited mining platform. 3) Open up high sec moon mining. Still, all the good moons have been discovered, and people are waiting for this to be done. So maybe not so good. 4) Introduce planet mining. How, I have no idea. I'll edit if I can come up with more. By the way, I do some moon mining to a limited extent, and would do more if there was more mystery to it. Every moon in the two regions my alliance lives in has been scanned. What fun is that? AR Where do I get one of those cool signatures?

Karanth Gallente Eve's Brothers of Destiny Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2007.12.13 02:59:00 - [31] Change anything, and people will have to react. Most of the time, it's with whining, but meh. Still, making moons generate random amounts of rarer stuff would be cool. Maybe make it so that you can set your harvester to "random". That way, of the available materials, it will pick one, and mine it for that cycle, following the current rules of mining, i.e. no doubling up harvesters on one material. Silos will need a change, so they can handle random output. I know there is about a dozen, but one more that can have anything put in could do the job. All that's left... There is only one sig hijack that matters, the orginal and only member of the hijack squad. me. -Eris. ps Black russians are better then beer. Well, there's not many of us left! -Rauth
Br0wn 0ps	Posted - 2007.12.13 03:30:00 - [32] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Good Stuff I think the more appropriate approach to this problem would be to finally release a new version of moon miner...the Moon Harvesting Array II. This harvester would be able to withdraw 200 units per cycle of the material indicated by the moon scans, but would also be able to drill deeper into the moon and extract a variable amount and type(s) of other materials that are not part of the moon's abundant materials, with each cycle or day's materials being different. This amount would be stored in the array itself and manually delivered to it's destination (hangar, silo, etc.). The frequency of ultra-rare could be adjusted to what game design feels necessary from extraction/utilization reports.
Admiral Nova Strike Team Nova	Posted - 2007.12.13 03:37:00 - [33] It looks like there is still alot of capacity in the low end carbides / sylramic fibers etc. The Jump Freighters make great use of this, if other ships were more armor plate heavy it would certainly make a difference.
Benvie Benvie Enterprises	Posted - 2007.12.13 07:38:00 - [34] I think allowing many materials to come from any moon would be a bad idea. A large motivator for territorial control is control of the resources. If you get rid of that motivation then it takes a lot of oomph out of territorial control.
Tyr Zewa Caldari MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2007.12.13 07:43:00 - [35] Adding reactions, that reacts two moon minerals (100 each/hour) to a next tier moon mineral would help alot, balancing the cost and supply for this could be done in many way. - Requires a Reactor Array, not doable in Medium ones (higher fuel cost for the pos) - Only allow it from "fresh" harvested minerals, so the reactor has to be on the same pos - Add a new type of Reactor for it, that requires alot of resources -> Large Tower -> more fuel - Make it require sov (boosting 0.0 moons, which have higher logistic costs, making low tier minerals not worth the effort) It's nice to see that you're taking up some of the problems the limited number of dysp + promethium moons causes. Out of interest, how many Dyps and Promethium moons are out there, and how many are being harvested?
Yiasa KronDair	Posted - 2007.12.13 12:13:00 - [36] Edited by: Yiasa on 13/12/2007 12:16:22 Edited by: Yiasa on 13/12/2007 12:15:38 Clearly the easiest fix is to; - Double the ammount of adv. material you get from an advanced reaction (per hour) - Half the volume of the adv. materials half factor can ofcourse be replaced by another factor This way; - Logistics don't become more trouble some then they alreaddy are as the volume that needs to be moved stays the same - No need to change existing infrastructure, no need to restructure posses. - Small chance of possible new bugs that crop up. - Easy fix, only a few attributes on existing items need to be changed, no need to rebalance adv. material requirements for t2 components. - Altough this fix ill cause overal income from moon mining to drop it won't change the value between different moons such that the "gold nuggets" stay gold nuggets - Fast deployment possible KronDair's Shipyard Sales
Captain Agemman Minmatar Legio Ultra	Posted - 2007.12.13 12:36:00 - [37] Doubling the output pushes the problem further down the road. It doesn't fix the scalability problem of the current moon harvesting mechanic. Short/Mid-term bandaid: - switch the rare moons in 0.4+ with unused moons in 0.0 - 0.3 Then, something like additional random output. You get 100 of what you really want an 10 of something else. Alternatively, 50 random and nothing else.
Hardigeen	Posted - 2007.12.13 12:37:00 - [38] How hard would be to open 0.4 systems to moon mining/reactions and why are they currently off limits? I think that would be the easiest and best solution to increase supply of moon minerals. I don't think that will help lower the price of high end minerals like Dysprosium, but it would provide short term price relief until you come up with another solution. I like the idea of tech 2 Moon Harvesters extracting high ends in some smaller amounts from any moon.
Sphene	Posted - 2007.12.13 13:11:00 - [39] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Moon material distribution and 'mud' Mud is the technical term we use to describe the model distribution of moon materials, it is much like panning for gold, lots of mud and very few nuggets. However this is fundamentally different to traditional asteroid ore and minerals where we require large quantities of common materials and less of the rarer ones. With moon mining we require very little of the mud like atmospheric gases since the scaling of common to rare material comes at the complex reaction stage rather than the initial extraction stage such as in the case of ore mining and tech I demand. This does present some other possible avenues of change by making the 'mud' useful which is introduce new reactions which require lots of mud and produce some quantity of the advanced materials. ... easy solution ... use mud in higher quantities for new composants .. use new composant for T3 :)
Helison Gallente Times of Ancar Pure.	Posted - 2007.12.13 13:13:00 - [40] Just increasing the output of existing Dysp/Prom moons won¦t do much good. I think there are 2 possible ways to go: 1. Increase the number of sources of Dysp/Prom 2. Reduce the useage of Dysp/Prom and increase the useage of lower materials. ad 2. I personally would prefer this solution, but it isn¦t really easy. If you change the dysp/prom useage in reactions, it might complicate reactions at all and might crash existing POS-networks. Reducing Ferrogel/Fermionic Condensates in components isn¦t easy either, as you only need one of these anyway. The easiest solution would be to change the useage of components, but even this might bring problems for some items. The best solution would be one, where CCP doesn¦t have to regulate again later, when the market changes. This would be possible with a dynamic system with depleting supplies. But this dynamic system would also need much more programming work.


CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2007.12.13 13:17:00 - [41] Some nice ideas, regarding ship based moon mining of moon fragments or the like. There are no current plans in this area as any such ship-based moon mining rate would quickly dwarf the starbase supply rates even if it was as low as 10 units an hour for example. It would generally lead to a bad place of starbases having no role. Also regarding planets - we have other plans for those, but it is very possible we would use some of the common moon materials in the terraforming processes such as silicates and atmospheric gasses, Whilst also allowing some method of turning terran materials into moon materials perhaps. Though its too early to say anything other than its an idea we are looking at.


CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2007.12.13 13:31:00 - [42] Originally by: Helison 2. Reduce the useage of Dysp/Prom and increase the useage of lower materials. ad 2. I personally would prefer this solution, but it isn¦t really easy. If you change the dysp/prom useage in reactions, it might complicate reactions at all and might crash existing POS-networks. Reducing Ferrogel/Fermionic Condensates in components isn¦t easy either, as you only need one of these anyway. The easiest solution would be to change the useage of components, but even this might bring problems for some items. The best solution would be one, where CCP doesn¦t have to regulate again later, when the market changes. This would be possible with a dynamic system with depleting supplies. But this dynamic system would also need much more programming work. Any overhaul would be to try and accomplish as many goals as possible at once other than simply increasing supply. You are quite right in that we are unlikely to mess with current reactions themselves as starbases are fickle things when it comes to changes as we are all sadly acutely aware. It is more likely that any change will be at the beginning of the process with extraction rate or the end with ship/module component requirements, unless we create new avenues to get between the two like new reaction lines. Each option like any will have pros and cons which we have to weigh, but a simple band aid fix wont really do either. We would rather spend more time to overhaul the system once so it is more future proof and also an improvement upon the existing system than have to continuously revisit it.

Sphene	Posted - 2007.12.13 13:52:00 - [43] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Each option like any will have pros and cons which we have to weigh, but a simple band aid fix wont really do either. We would rather spend more time to overhaul the system once so it is more future proof and also an improvement upon the existing system than have to continuously revisit it. Yes but you are free to add more reaction in the market without changing anything in the POS system. if for exemple you create a new reaction formula 10000 silicates + 100 hafnium = 50 ferrofluid In order to avoid some monopoly situation on some matTrials. We can understand that there is perhaps not only one way to obtain a material.

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2007.12.13 14:36:00 - [44] Originally by: Sphene Yes but you are free to add more reaction in the market without changing anything in the POS system. if for exemple you create a new reaction formula 10000 silicates + 100 hafnium = 50 ferrofluid pretty sure I covered that in this line: Quote: unless we create new avenues to get between the two like new reaction lines.

Aelena Thraant Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.13 15:32:00 - [45] My idea to fix the problem.... A new pos module - Collider - A module that collides more common moon materials into less common moon minerals. An example would be: Dysprosium Collision 100 - Atmospheric Gases 100 - Hydrocarbons 100 - Cobalt Produces 25 units of Dysprosium per hour All the numbers and components could be changed, but my thoughts were use the more common moon materials to make some of the rare moon materials.
Daerkannon Shimmerscale Gallente Paxton Industries Paxton Federation	Posted - 2007.12.13 15:34:00 - [46] Well if they choose to release tech 2 harvesters I hope they also release tech 2 towers. My poor Caldari towers are all maxed out on CPU and have no room to fit a tech 2 harvester. --- Honest officer, the dwarf was on fire when I got here! Can't find a mechanical engineering agent? Need a non-Caldari Navy agent? http://www.eve-agents.com/ for all your agent needs!
Jacque Custeau Knights of the Minmatar Republic	Posted - 2007.12.13 15:59:00 - [47] Originally by: Aelena Thraant My idea to fix the problem.... A new pos module - Collider - A module that collides more common moon materials into less common moon minerals. An example would be: Dysprosium Collision 100 - Atmospheric Gases 100 - Hydrocarbons 100 - Cobalt Produces 25 units of Dysprosium per hour All the numbers and components could be changed, but my thoughts were use the more common moon materials to make some of the rare moon materials. This sounds an awful lot like turning lead into gold, and I don't think that would be good for the economy either. -------------------
Sphene	Posted - 2007.12.13 16:21:00 - [48] Originally by: Jacque Custeau This sounds an awful lot like turning lead into gold, and I don't think that would be good for the economy either. that s a good point ... i think CCP need to fellow the path of invention (which is not so bad) There is the easy way to obtain T2 ... via BPO and the hard way via invention (hard way because you need skills, copy, interface and luck) In order to introduce new reaction as "regulator" the cost of the new reaction must be quite high. The aim of the new production is not to reduce price of Isotope near 0 but to avoid high prices. My idea is to have a new mini profession a kind of "Chemistry Master" who will be able to transform element at high costs. It will include new skill perhaps a new reactor ... and if you are smart an interaction with R&D agents :) From an economical point of view the chemist should be profitable only when a final material is considered in shortage (which means high price) The chemist in this situation is not a Meterial producer but a price regulator.
Arric Rohr The Knights Templar Pure.	Posted - 2007.12.13 16:55:00 - [49] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Some nice ideas, regarding ship based moon mining of moon fragments or the like. There are no current plans in this area as any such ship-based moon mining rate would quickly dwarf the starbase supply rates even if it was as low as 10 units an hour for example. It would generally lead to a bad place of starbases having no role. Also regarding planets - we have other plans for those, but it is very possible we would use some of the common moon materials in the terraforming processes such as silicates and atmospheric gasses, Whilst also allowing some method of turning terran materials into moon materials perhaps. Though its too early to say anything other than its an idea we are looking at. I can understand the issue of ship based mining overwhelming supply, but if it was exploration based you could probably limit the new sources the same you do encryptors and the like. Planets was just a thought, although I'm glad to hear you do have plans for them. Although supply of t2 and the market is important, I can't emphasize enough that it is also important to make the sure that any changes don't: 1) Make the rich get richer. Some of the output increase ideas here would do just that. 2) Increase the channels for players to get in to high end moon material mining. I realize it's an "end-game" activity, although that phrase should have no meaning in an MMO, but at the same time limiting a game activity to what must be no more than a handful of players is frustrating for the rest of us. One issue with EvE is although there is great breadth of play options, in many cases there is not enough depth. Missions for example, getting the same one 3 times in a row. Thousands of systems, many of them identical and no real reason to visit. The same rats appearing in the belts forever. Moon mining falls into the same category... thousands of moons, most of them useless. Must stop before I go to far off track... AR Where do I get one of those cool signatures?
Oortog Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2007.12.13 17:15:00 - [50] Golden opportunity here to change many aspects of EVE and fix them for the better. What would happen if instead of giving yet another golden nugget to the 0.0 alliances...we keep current assembly requirements intact and increased the supply-side with a very daring, interesting and bold move that would be fun, challenging and could result in hours and hours and hours of interesting logistics and tactics? Take a look at low-sec systems and unused moons.. boost them to carry the rarer materials. What would this accomplish? 1) move the carebears in empire out a bit, into unused space. 2) give the pirates some JUICY targets. 3) Promote more interaction with the carebears and mercinary corps 4) The more courageous carebears who want this will need to grow some teeth. 5) The PvP in these areas would be absolutly a blast! Think of the tactics and logistics! I could go on and on. The 0.0 alliances have enough to keep them out there... high-bounty ratting, rare ores, complexes, etc etc etc. Time to pay low-sec back. Give them the rares...give them something to fight for.. give the pirates a plethora of targets.... make the carebears earn some meat... I mean.. EARN some meat. Whole new types of alliances will spring up. It would make things very interesting.

Lanfeer Caldari	Posted - 2007.12.13 18:41:00 - [51] i have just started in the last few weeks mining and reacting ferrofluid. i reject all of the above ideas for the next 6 months thank you
Bruno Bonner Gallente Lutin Group Acheron Federation	Posted - 2007.12.13 19:40:00 - [52] I've been thinking about this, and the easiest most balanced way to improve things is to seed a number of "empty" (as in having no minerals at all) moons in 0.0 with Dysprosium and whatever other rare moon minerals are needed. There is currently a limit to the ammount of Dysprosium it can be produced. Increasing that limit will trigger a increase in the overall reaction-chains that can be operated, and therefore in the quantities of all moon minerals from basic to rares. It is an availability issue that can be easily fixed in my view. Consider it as just placing more gold nuggets in between the mud. Bruno ------ aka BinderAJ
Narni	Posted - 2007.12.13 19:47:00 - [53] Originally by: Oortog 1) move the carebears in empire out a bit, into unused space. 2) give the pirates some JUICY targets. 3) Promote more interaction with the carebears and mercinary corps 4) The more courageous carebears who want this will need to grow some teeth. 5) The PvP in these areas would be absolutly a blast! Think of the tactics and logistics! 1. No. 2. Why? 3. Hmmm, it's often carebears that hires mercenarys already.. 4. No, they just join some pvp-alliance. 5. PVP is boring, and have been from day 1 of POS warfare.
William Ortega	Posted - 2007.12.13 22:23:00 - [54] Originally by: Narni Edited by: Narni on 13/12/2007 19:47:55 Originally by: Oortog 1) move the carebears in empire out a bit, into unused space. 2) give the pirates some JUICY targets. 3) Promote more interaction with the carebears and mercinary corps 4) The more courageous carebears who want this will need to grow some teeth. 5) The PvP in these areas would be absolutly a blast! Think of the tactics and logistics! 1. No. It's a reason some space is unused. 2. Why? 3. Hmmm, it's often carebears that hires mercenarys already.. 4. No, they just join some pvp-alliance. 5. PVP is boring, and have been from day 1 of POS warfare. Thank you Narni, Your insightfull and helpfull comments are an inspiration to us all.
Argenton Sayvers	Posted - 2007.12.13 23:26:00 - [55] Edited by: Argenton Sayvers on 13/12/2007 23:29:58 Disclaimer: I have some stakes in this issue, and dont claim otherwise. This is your chance to finally get things right. For the first time ever, there are things in space actually worth fighting for. People fought over space before, simply because its a game with lasers and starships. But people logged in their industrial or mission running empire alts when they needed ISK. Complexes are a different matter - you didnt actually need controll, just a farmer team at downtime. Now you have the opportunity to make t2 about moons, and controll of ressources. Ressources that can be fought over, that create tension and conflict. Unlike 20 alt accounts running hundreds of jobs. While shooting yet another Guristas Fleet in 0.8. Bottlenecks like dysprosium and promethium will create situations where war is desirable. Where control of 0.0 actually means something. Not just a "hollyday resort" where rich industrialists recover from the burden of civilisation. Of course, you can just "increase supply". Make every moon mine 10x. Seed the moon mimerals on market. After all, the masses want cheap t2 for everyone. And eve is about getting what you want right away, or at least after 20h of afk 100% safe empire ISK grind, right?
William Ortega	Posted - 2007.12.14 00:13:00 - [56] Originally by: Argenton Sayvers Edited by: Argenton Sayvers on 13/12/2007 23:29:58 Disclaimer: I have some stakes in this issue, and dont claim otherwise. This is your chance to finally get things right. For the first time ever, there are things in space actually worth fighting for. People fought over space before, simply because its a game with lasers and starships. But people logged in their industrial or mission running empire alts when they needed ISK. Complexes are a different matter - you didnt actually need controll, just a farmer team at downtime. Now you have the opportunity to make t2 about moons, and controll of ressources. Ressources that can be fought over, that create tension and conflict. Unlike 20 alt accounts running hundreds of jobs. While shooting yet another Guristas Fleet in 0.8. Bottlenecks like dysprosium and promethium will create situations where war is desirable. Where control of 0.0 actually means something. Not just a "hollyday resort" where rich industrialists recover from the burden of civilisation. Of course, you can just "increase supply". Make every moon mine 10x. Seed the moon mimerals on market. After all, the masses want cheap t2 for everyone. And eve is about getting what you want right away, or at least after 20h of afk 100% safe empire ISK grind, right? Mostly agree with you on this. Space should be worth fighting for and with as much money as can be made in empire afk missions and drone **** there should be a reason why 0.0 is more lucrative than others. On the other hand I did like the idea of making low sec more attractive (couple of posts up). As it is right now, low sec is dead. Don't get me wrong there can be plenty of pew pew in low sec, especially in systems leading to 0.0 entrance choke points, where major alliances, mercs, little bit of pirates duke it out. But that is mainly spill over from 0.0 wars and there is no real attractive reason to really "live" in low sec. As I said there are systems like that, but most other low sec systems are quiet backwaters: ratting there is not worth it (wrt to mission running or 0.0 ratting), mining is a joke, etc. Previous attempts by CPP to move people to low sec failed reasonably spectacularly: lvl 5 missions do not offer enough reward v.s. risk, booster manufacturing never really took off (even though it has been around for a while now). Maybe if they moved some really sexy and lucrative profession exclusively to low sek (e.g. chemist mixer as proposed little bit above) they can finally find a siver bullet for low sec. Empire industrialists would come out to low sec to make mad $, pirates would come out to steal some mad $, plenty of pew pew, reduced bottlenecks... fun stuff
Arric Rohr The Knights Templar Pure.	Posted - 2007.12.14 00:13:00 - [57] Originally by: Argenton Sayvers blah, blah, blah That sounds great in principle, but in practice it's just silly. Do you have any idea how much isk you can make by controlling one of these moons? Does a billion a week or more sound right? Do you have any idea how much defensive infrastructure you can put in place for a billion a week, not to mention little greedy merc corps you can hire? These moons are not going to change hands, take that as a given and work on your "ideas," such as they are, from there. AR Where do I get one of those cool signatures?
William Ortega	Posted - 2007.12.14 00:24:00 - [58] Didn't a whole bunch of them change place very recently due to the war in the south?
Argenton Sayvers	Posted - 2007.12.14 01:34:00 - [59] Edited by: Argenton Sayvers on 14/12/2007 01:36:13 Originally by: Arric Rohr Does a billion a week or more sound right? Are you joking? A billion per week? I know plenty of solo players who make that PER DAY. In the safety of empire. Defensive hardware is useless once MC shows up. No POS defense in the world is going to stop even one of those pet alliances noone ever heard of. When a POS is under serious attack, you need players, dozens, maybe hundreds, to defend it. How many players do you need to make one billion per week? 4 casual mission runners will be enough. OF course, you may be refering to cynojammers wich is something a bit more complicated, as its an entirely different type of problem. Lets put it that way - i didnt put them into the game ... Obviously, POS warfare needs to be evaluated and rebalanced as well. As for lowsec - everything that boosts lowsec is good by default. However, i think moon mining fits perfectly into territorial control, which again fits perfectly with 0.0 empires. Lowsec needs something more "YARR", though obviously, there are worse things you could do.
Verite Rendition Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2007.12.14 01:36:00 - [60] Originally by: Arric Rohr Originally by: Argenton Sayvers blah, blah, blah That sounds great in principle, but in practice it's just silly. Do you have any idea how much isk you can make by controlling one of these moons? Does a billion a week or more sound right? Do you have any idea how much defensive infrastructure you can put in place for a billion a week, not to mention little greedy merc corps you can hire? These moons are not going to change hands, take that as a given and work on your "ideas," such as they are, from there. AR A billion a week doesn't go as far as you'd think. Sure it's profitable, but then you need cap ship fleets to defend your moons from the next guy that wants a billion a week, and pay people to do all of the logistics work, etc. Living in 0.0 is expensive, it sounds profitable on paper but it it's not so much once you need to pay for everything you have to do to live in 0.0. ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map

Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2007.12.14 09:21:00 - [61] Originally by: Jacque Custeau Originally by: Aelena Thraant My idea to fix the problem.... A new pos module - Collider - A module that collides more common moon materials into less common moon minerals. An example would be: Dysprosium Collision 100 - Atmospheric Gases 100 - Hydrocarbons 100 - Cobalt Produces 25 units of Dysprosium per hour All the numbers and components could be changed, but my thoughts were use the more common moon materials to make some of the rare moon materials. This sounds an awful lot like turning lead into gold, and I don't think that would be good for the economy either. As someone else has mentioned, invention is the model that would be followed here. Mining the dysprosium directly should always be the more efficient method, the "alchemy" option should be inherently inefficient, and offer a viable alternative only when direct mining supply is significantly lower than required. A few people have been mentioning keeping high-end moons valuable as a driver for territorial control. Adding alchemy would not necessarily disrupt this. The problem with relying just on the restricted number of high-end moons is that if you never increase the supply, prices just spiral upwards until it strangles the very market it's feeding. If you rely on manual adjustment of the moon supply by CCP, it then becomes impossible to predict the direction of the market, so people would be wary of investing longer term effort in such moons in case CCP chose that point to pull the rug out from under them and seed the minerals in more moons. It also relies on the correct judgement of the market by CCP, and prompt and constant adjustments. It also makes things very difficult if market conditions change and it would be necessary to reduce the number of moons in order to maintain the prices of the rares - it would be hard to justify who's moons got nerfed. Adding an alchemy option adds a market-driven control to prevent prices spiralling too high, while maintaining the rare mineral moons as significantly more valuable than the others. It also gives a supply element that can shrink as well as grow, allowing much more flexibility. It's especially suited to bridging gaps in mining supply that will be inevitable if significant conflict is generated around ownership of the rare moons. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Wayward Hooligan Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2007.12.14 09:25:00 - [62] Originally by: Arric Rohr Originally by: Argenton Sayvers blah, blah, blah That sounds great in principle, but in practice it's just silly. Do you have any idea how much isk you can make by controlling one of these moons? Does a billion a week or more sound right? Do you have any idea how much defensive infrastructure you can put in place for a billion a week, not to mention little greedy merc corps you can hire? These moons are not going to change hands, take that as a given and work on your "ideas," such as they are, from there. AR I think we could get you whatever moon you wanted for the right price. Once you get your pos on it, it's upto you to defend but we can free it up. I wonder if Shamis would be into that after BoB dies in a fire... . .. WELP! .. .
Hardigeen	Posted - 2007.12.14 09:37:00 - [63] Originally by: Matthew Originally by: Jacque Custeau Originally by: Aelena Thraant My idea to fix the problem.... A new pos module - Collider - A module that collides more common moon materials into less common moon minerals. An example would be: Dysprosium Collision 100 - Atmospheric Gases 100 - Hydrocarbons 100 - Cobalt Produces 25 units of Dysprosium per hour All the numbers and components could be changed, but my thoughts were use the more common moon materials to make some of the rare moon materials. This sounds an awful lot like turning lead into gold, and I don't think that would be good for the economy either. As someone else has mentioned, invention is the model that would be followed here. Mining the dysprosium directly should always be the more efficient method, the "alchemy" option should be inherently inefficient, and offer a viable alternative only when direct mining supply is significantly lower than required. A few people have been mentioning keeping high-end moons valuable as a driver for territorial control. Adding alchemy would not necessarily disrupt this. The problem with relying just on the restricted number of high-end moons is that if you never increase the supply, prices just spiral upwards until it strangles the very market it's feeding. If you rely on manual adjustment of the moon supply by CCP, it then becomes impossible to predict the direction of the market, so people would be wary of investing longer term effort in such moons in case CCP chose that point to pull the rug out from under them and seed the minerals in more moons. It also relies on the correct judgement of the market by CCP, and prompt and constant adjustments. It also makes things very difficult if market conditions change and it would be necessary to reduce the number of moons in order to maintain the prices of the rares - it would be hard to justify who's moons got nerfed. Adding an alchemy option adds a market-driven control to prevent prices spiralling too high, while maintaining the rare mineral moons as significantly more valuable than the others. It also gives a supply element that can shrink as well as grow, allowing much more flexibility. It's especially suited to bridging gaps in mining supply that will be inevitable if significant conflict is generated around ownership of the rare moons. I have to agree with this. Having other source of high ends in lesser amounts would keep the prices in check preventing what is at the moment, the same way Invention is preventing price monopolies of tech 2 ships and modules that tech 2 BPO owners used to hold. Moon mining will still generate a nice amount of isk per month for the high end moon owners, but they will not be able to price gauge.
Feyd Darkholme Caldari	Posted - 2007.12.14 10:34:00 - [64] Whatever, but something should be done to offset the price hikes. I don't want to charge insane prices for my Tech2 products, but even with me manufacturing from advanced materials up (theoretically to cut production costs so I can pass those savings onto consumers), but the prices on many advanced materials has risen so much I have no choice. Hey I like making a good profit as much as the next entrepreneur, but if the prices keep going up it's going to be worse than it was before to buy T2 items... ---------------
Mestoth Minmatar Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2007.12.14 11:26:00 - [65] as a member of an alliance deep in 0,0; i do have to ask the question; Why are moons in +ve sec space able to harvest moon mins (especially the GOOD oneS). With the current return on Ice products in 0,0 and the extra logistical burden, i would think you would have distributed the moon mins more along the same line as Arknor etc. I mean having Ark in Jita would probably be viewed as a bad thing. I know im upsetting some people with 0.3 sec moons etc, but really, i can udnerstand why in 0.3 space you can get dyspro, in apparantly the same % chance as you can in 0,0! Why run a tower in 0,0 if there is no reward! (ie zydrine to empire trade)
Simariliia Spartan Industries Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.12.14 11:38:00 - [66] Edited by: Simariliia on 14/12/2007 11:38:50 as I tryed to point out in another tread withabout same focus: as pos network owner..I would say, even it sounds like a great plan been able to invent any type of moon minerals, it alrdy sux refuling 7-8 poses, and I cant see I looking farward to fuel even more of em to be able to do the same. as everyone and their sister gonna pop up a moon mining pos at everysingel moon to "invent" dysprosium and such stuff. even I doesnt mine any High class, I mine mid class, and one of the reason Im able to run a entire complex reaction chain on my own... was because I was lucky enough(unlucky for the previous owners),, to find a good system where It was about everything I needed. However...I had to fight for it....had to take down 3 poses, and currently I got prob 5-6 billion laying in space in faction towers and equipment. that EVERYONE can simply knock down. unlike t2 production which relativly safe, exept for high sec sucide gankers popping ppl with t2 bpos or insane amouth of datacores in their cargohold, moon mining is a very risky. therefor it seems unfair that ccp gonna nerf our income(or increase our workload to be able to earn the same), and thats comming from a non dysprosium or promethium owner. ¿ -------Made in Thailand---- -------Living in Norway----
Blazde 4S Corporation Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.12.14 13:50:00 - [67] I'm really interested to see a situation where wars are fought over the best moons. Dysprosium/Promethium moons are about getting there now. Just yesterday I heard about an incident over a moon in the north with one alliance bullying another to give it up and a war possibly resulting. I'm sure it's happened before but it's the first real incident I've heard about. The trouble is that there's an absolute top limit on supply which we seem to be approaching, while demand just keeps growing. After a certain point demand cannot stimulate new supply. So what's needed is an alternate but very costly way to extract/produce/synthesise Dysprosium and Promethium (or any other material that becomes so limited) so supply can increase or contract in response to prices without the value of existing sources dropping. Think oil supplys in real-life, as the price increases new, more difficult to extract sources become economically viable. Imo Dysprosium and Promethium prices need to rise a bit more yet to really catalyse some nice wars, and I'd also like to see Thulium and Neodymium get as valuable so we have a few more moons to fight over. Quite whether the increase in t2 prices that that implies is a good thing or not I don't know. I wouldn't complain much personally, we've lived with very high t2 prices before. The difference is, prices would be more balanced accross different items. And I guess t3 needs some thought soon too Any solution that turns the moon value distribution into a boring homogenous grind would truly suck. There is, atm, very little incentive beyond pride for alliances to conquer lots of space. Rare moons are a real opportunity to change that. _
iNOX Gallente	Posted - 2007.12.14 14:29:00 - [68] There are only 2 quite simple solutins of this problem.The 1st one is to make more moons with rare metals the other one just to boost output in reactos for adv.materials or combine 2 solutions. Other decisions which here have been offered potentially can cause more problems with balance and more bugs.
Sabahl Minmatar Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.12.14 14:42:00 - [69] Here's a hybrid of a couple of ideas already floated in this thread. It merges the idea of a second type of mining array with the "mud" principle, but will allow the prime moons to retain their value. Have the second type of mining array, henceforth called a Mining Array II, capable of pulling out a small amount of a random element from the "mud" moons every cycle. The justification would be that moons carry smaller seams of minerals which the standard, inefficient arrays can not zero in on and extract in any meaningful amounts. The quantity of the amount mined could be dependent upon the material discovered. For instance, instead of 100 units of hydrocarbons the Mining Array II may pull out 5 dysprosium, 10 mercury, 20 cadmium, 40 scandium or 80 hydrocarbons. have a new material mined every cycle (if the game can be made to randomise outputs easily) and suddenly you have a reason for everyone to begin mining the mud planets properly. The net result is that you have a 1/20 chance of producing 1/20th of the standard output of a normal high end material moons. Or in other words, you get to increase the output of high end materials by the equivalent of new one moon for every 400 existing low spec moons mined in this way.
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2007.12.14 14:43:00 - [70] Originally by: Simariliia Edited by: Simariliia on 14/12/2007 11:38:50 as I tryed to point out in another tread withabout same focus: as pos network owner..I would say, even it sounds like a great plan been able to invent any type of moon minerals, it alrdy sux refuling 7-8 poses, and I cant see I looking farward to fuel even more of em to be able to do the same. as everyone and their sister gonna pop up a moon mining pos at everysingel moon to "invent" dysprosium and such stuff. even I doesnt mine any High class, I mine mid class, and one of the reason Im able to run a entire complex reaction chain on my own... was because I was lucky enough(unlucky for the previous owners),, to find a good system where It was about everything I needed. However...I had to fight for it....had to take down 3 poses, and currently I got prob 5-6 billion laying in space in faction towers and equipment. that EVERYONE can simply knock down. Well, the whole idea of making alchemy more costly and more work is so that the moons themselves are still valuable. Producing dysprosium via alchemy shouldn't be at all profitable until prices rise to the point where dysprosium moons are already very valuable assets, and worth fighting over. The ability to produce dysprosium using a single tower and simple mining array would still be very valuable compared to requiring several towers, reactors and all sorts that still only provide an inefficient way of producing it. Yes, as with all new features, everyone and their dog will have a go at creating dysprosium at first. But it won't take long for them to revert back to their previous activities once they realise they're haemmoraging isk in the attempt. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.

Jacque Custeau Knights of the Minmatar Republic	Posted - 2007.12.14 15:19:00 - [71] I understand that those advocating the "alchemy" option (lead->gold)are saying it will be an inefficient process, but that still does not make it a good solution. What happens when there is a morphite shortage? do we come out with a Morphite BPO that converts other minerals into Morphite? No we wouldn't, because that would be unfair to the mercoxit miners. I don't have any dysprosium moons, but I am against radical changes like boosting output. What I like about the moon minerals and reaction chains now is that from start to finish it is a very complex process. I am yet to meet anyone who owns an entire chain of POS's that mines the minerals, reacts them twice (simple and complex) and then builds t2 components. The investment in POS's, the logistics needed to maintain them and shift materials about, and the man hours involved in supervision are astounding. The current system lends itself to lots of different middle men, like myself, who can make money without moon mining at all. I hope any system that Chronotis comes up with does not make it easy for everyone to own the entire process from start to end. -------------------
Sphene	Posted - 2007.12.14 15:24:00 - [72] Originally by: Jacque Custeau I understand that those advocating the "alchemy" option (lead->gold)are saying it will be an inefficient process, but that still does not make it a good solution. What happens when there is a morphite shortage? do we come out with a Morphite BPO that converts other minerals into Morphite? No we wouldn't, because that would be unfair to the mercoxit miners. I don't have any dysprosium moons, but I am against radical changes like boosting output. What I like about the moon minerals and reaction chains now is that from start to finish it is a very complex process. I am yet to meet anyone who owns an entire chain of POS's that mines the minerals, reacts them twice (simple and complex) and then builds t2 components. The investment in POS's, the logistics needed to maintain them and shift materials about, and the man hours involved in supervision are astounding. The current system lends itself to lots of different middle men, like myself, who can make money without moon mining at all. I hope any system that Chronotis comes up with does not make it easy for everyone to own the entire process from start to end. I agree but there is a lot of difference between minerals and moon materials. If the mud would be as usefull as it is for minerals, we will not have this problem.
Sphene	Posted - 2007.12.14 15:25:00 - [73] Originally by: iNOX There are only 2 quite simple solutins of this problem.The 1st one is to make more moons with rare metals the other one just to boost output in reactos for adv.materials or combine 2 solutions. Other decisions which here have been offered potentially can cause more problems with balance and more bugs. IMHO the worst solution ... too much moon too much materials and price crash ... If you have enough meterials for the moment ... the same pb appears 6 month later ...
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2007.12.14 16:28:00 - [74] Originally by: Jacque Custeau I understand that those advocating the "alchemy" option (lead->gold)are saying it will be an inefficient process, but that still does not make it a good solution. What happens when there is a morphite shortage? do we come out with a Morphite BPO that converts other minerals into Morphite? No we wouldn't, because that would be unfair to the mercoxit miners. If there were a mercoxit shortage, the price would rise, and more people would mine mercoxit. I would be surprised if we are anywhere near the capacity of the mercoxit roids. Even if we were, the nature of asteroid and moon mining is also fundamentally different, which means there are options open to you for mercoxit that you don't have with moons. If you want to add more mercoxit, you can do so by simply adding more mercoxit to existing belts (or just increasing the respawn rate to achieve the same effect). Because this has zero effect on the yield per unit time of mining mercoxit, it does not unbalance mercoxit mining income compared to other activities. Also, because each belt still contains the same percentage of the total mercoxit in the universe, you have not devalued the belts, so you have avoided nerfing the importance of holding it as territory (which you would have done if you had added new belts). You can't do the same thing with moons. Increasing the amount of material in the moon would directly boost the income per POS possible by mining that material (assuming advanced mining arrays were released to allow you to take advantage of it), unbalancing it relative to the other levels of moon minerals (beyond what was already designed into the rarety tiering). Putting the matieral into more moons would devalue existing moons, negatively impacting on the driver for territorial control. The trick is finding a way to increase the supply of moon minerals that does not increase the yield of any individual moon miner, but at the same time does not devalue the rare moons. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Netacq	Posted - 2007.12.14 17:16:00 - [75] Edited by: Netacq on 14/12/2007 17:20:36 Edited by: Netacq on 14/12/2007 17:17:13 make the occurancy of materials dynamic: new material can be found, some sources should exhaust --> prevents static empire in 0.0 and in LowSec (let the alliances move around for ressources...; let it the peoples scan and explore) --> you (CCP) are able to steer the amount of deployed material (!!) --> lifetime of sources 6 month..1 year countinously extraction (certain amounts of materials; amount is scannable) Nice idea: - wars after successful exploration :) Bad solutions: 'mud'/combinations: forces the creation of static empires without any interaction to other regions
Kaaii Caldari Kaaii-Net Research Labs	Posted - 2007.12.14 18:00:00 - [76] ===== Several ideas both here and internally have mentioned more complex distributions of moon materials where moons both have a limited supply or regeneration rate of the materials and more complex structure. Such as every moon having some mud, some metal and a portion of rare materials so instead of one to four constant products, you get a varying supply rate and much more diverse supply range. ========== I too an not in favor of the alchemy option/solution. Its a cheap fix in my opinion. We've had enough of those lately. Its time for some "long" thinking.... There are several points above, bit pretty good, and not so good. The thing with moons as others have pointed out, is there is a finite amount able to be delivered to the market, via the time mechanics a harvester takes to pull out a certain material. As I will state the obvious too, and point out theres not enough x for y when building z now, we can either bear the costs associated with it (not buy, or buy high) or replace the supply, modify it, or add too it. Id prefer a modification, if it were me deciding. The very nature of moons being big lumps of stuff in space lends it self very well to being able to find smaller lumps in the big lumps. History has shown instances of people finding "veins" of goodies long after thousands of people have tread over the very same ground, or even harvested from it. I favor this approach. I would propose- Advanced surveys: Where the owner of a pos at a moon, could anchor a structure that delves deeply into the core of the moon, looking for new resources. As above poster stated maybe trace ammounts, and at a large cost in both module and time (grid/tf) where you would have to do this in lue of anything else on the pos. Then, "geologists" are deployed (fueled like charters) where in the material can be harvested, as long as you have suffecient "skilled people" to maintain the advanced mining procedures. Maybe make them moon material based, dysp geologists, chromium etc Whatever, make them npc sold, costly, but worth it.(new skills?) Sort of like exploration probing. It should be very laborous so that it is balanced with those who own "pure" material moons, but not so that it wouldn't supplement a short supply. ala invention) This way, it doesn't detract from the pure owners (too much?), and lets (a possibility anyway) of "some" rarer moon minerals into a market that is weak, at a substantially higher cost. ...... Theres really a lot of ways to handle this. I'm all for thinking about it a lot first though, and getting A LOT of player input, before a drastic change ins implemented. Having been on the receiving end of more than a few in my 4 1/2 years here, I can safely say, im quite tired of putting a huge some and effort into something and have its very core changed, 180 degrees... According to Oveur, existing LSAA's already anchored will stay there. kieron Director of Community Relations,
Fenderson Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2007.12.14 18:27:00 - [77] whatever solution is decided upon, it needs to be infinitely scalable, like invention. invention has no ceiling on overall supply. what we need for moon mins is some kind of system where supply is infinitely expandable. this should be done by adding some kind of mechanism whereby any moon (or any moon that fits certain conditions, like sec status) can be made to produce high-end materials. it should be difficult enough that the currently existing high-end moons should retain alot of value, but they should also be accessible enough to keep prices from going insanely high. i also really like the idea of depleting supply. overall game-wide supply should not deplete, but individual mineral deposits should deplete over time. the overall effect of this would be that if a particular region was being mined more than others (most likely by a well established and powerful alliance), the available supply in that area would be gradually shifted to less used regions, until the heavily used areas are no longer viable and the residents are forced to move on, and probably fight a territory war in order to acquire a new source of moon mins. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Oh dear, how about we all calm down a bit instead?
Axaeli Gallente Shadewraith Cargo and Industry	Posted - 2007.12.14 18:36:00 - [78] What about the possibility of scripting moon miners? A moon miner with no script loaded is in the default "focused" mode, which mines the standard 100 units of the targeted material. A script for "mudding" allows you to dredge the currently available material for a much smaller amount of the next tier up. The material dredged is based on the currently targeted material. For instance, you have a moon with Hydrocarbons and Tungsten. You could set up the moon miners to pull these materials as usual, producing 100 of each. Or, load the mudding script into the miner pulling Hydrocarbons, and it instead generates 10 Titanium. Load the script into the miner pulling Tungsten, and instead get 10 Platinum. With the introduction of T2 moon miners, you could take this one step further, with an "advanced mudding" script. Then, say you'd get 100 Hydrocarbons, or 10 Titanium with a standard script, or 1 or 2 Chromium with an advanced script. Maybe say a scripted T2 miner can only mine a single material, but gets a better ratio to balance it (this mainly to ease programming difficulty with "with if you want different scripts for the two materials it's mining"). Of couse the numbers are just for demonstration of the concept, the actual ratios would have to be figured out to keep it from being too powerful, but not completely worthless. The ratios would probably also have to be different based upon tier to keep benefits/penalties even across the board.
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2007.12.14 19:35:00 - [79] Originally by: Kaaii "Geology" idea An interesting idea, and certainly one worth considering. However, once you delve deep into it, in terms of what it does, it's not fundamentally different to alchemy. Alchemy takes the output from low-end moons, and transforms it into a smaller amount of high-end moon output, at a significant cost. Geology would just move the conversion process one step earlier, allowing you to effectively temporarily convert the moon itself to a high-end moon with lower yield and higher running costs. Both methods, at the most basic level, allow you to sacrifice low-end moon stuff and isk to get high-end moon stuff. Of course, there are some differences. Alchemy could be more responsive to market changes, as existing stocks of lows could be converted to high-ends in large quantities if required. Provided there are alchemical reactions between all the minerals and everything else, it would ensure that the different tiers of minerals remained in their intended relative values, within the boundaries of the costs of the alchemy process, and the moon mineral supply would not saturate until the capacity of all types of moon combined was reached. Geology, on the other hand, would allow a "secondary distribution" into the same moons, limiting each moon to certain geology options. This would open up "bad-good" moons with a poor primary material, but a good Geology material. However, that system would likely be less responsive to the market, as you'd only get the new output after the POS hardware is changed over, and then only at the slow rate. It's also going to hit the limit earlier, when the combination of primary and secondary capacity combined is reached for an individual material. It's swings and roundabouts, and I certainly don't find your alternative objectionable. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Dianabolic Reikoku Band of Brothers	Posted - 2007.12.14 19:44:00 - [80] Edited by: Dianabolic on 14/12/2007 19:45:33 erm, explain once again why you think you "need" to increase the number of components entering the market? I certainly agree that promethium and dysprosium are imbalanced (and have been from the start due to the number of comps they are used to build), but the general statement that "we need more comps" is based on what? Won't that, again, make everything so ultimately cheap that there is no penalty to death, just like t1 became? Reikoku Diplomatic Forums

Argenton Sayvers	Posted - 2007.12.14 19:59:00 - [81] Originally by: Dianabolic erm, explain once again why you think you "need" to increase the number of components entering the market? Dont be suprised. There are people who think its a good idea to have LP shops offer State Ravens for LP. Carebear minds just want "infinite scaling". Conflict over finite ressources - that causes hurt feelings (and the possibility to lose).
Arric Rohr The Knights Templar Pure.	Posted - 2007.12.14 20:03:00 - [82] Edited by: Arric Rohr on 14/12/2007 20:06:49 Edited by: Arric Rohr on 14/12/2007 20:05:23 I guess what I would really like to know is how many moons there are of each type. Where they are, are they distributed equally across the galaxy, etc. Not specifics, but in general terms, maybe in an Economic Report. I've been told, by someone who has been in the T2 production game since the outset, that there are only 4 of each of the two most valuable. This is hearsay, but some level of verification would be nice. With that information, I think a better decision making process could be enabled. I'm not advocating taking the existing moons away from anyone, but as I've said before I think the idea of certain aspects of the game being off limits to all but a very few players is counter to the idea of an MMO. I'm not talking about casual players here, I'm talking about players with a significant investment in the game. Another entry point in to this market, even one as difficult and fraught with frustration like invention, would be a good idea in my book. To those who say just fight for them, I would assume that the existing moons are already in the hands of Big Alliances, (perhaps even my own.) The only people who could take them would be other Big Alliances, and that really doesn't solve the issue, it just changes the cast of characters. I realize many of you may not agree with me. That's cool with me. If the concept doesn't work for CCP that's cool too, it's just my opinion. AR Have to respond to this: "Carebear minds just want "infinite scaling". Conflict over finite ressources - that causes hurt feelings (and the possibility to lose)." It's not the idea of conflict, it's how much of the player population is even able to participate in that conflict. Where do I get one of those cool signatures?
Jacque Custeau Knights of the Minmatar Republic	Posted - 2007.12.14 20:04:00 - [83] Originally by: Dianabolic Edited by: Dianabolic on 14/12/2007 19:45:33 erm, explain once again why you think you "need" to increase the number of components entering the market? I certainly agree that promethium and dysprosium are imbalanced (and have been from the start due to the number of comps they are used to build), but the general statement that "we need more comps" is based on what? Won't that, again, make everything so ultimately cheap that there is no penalty to death, just like t1 became? I have to more or less agree. I think that high costs of minerals are not a huge issue, because people are still buying those minerals and churning out Fermionic Condensates, Ferrogel...etc and generating a profit. Any reaction chain will have its share of middlemen generating income. So Dysprosium/Promethium do not only generate profit for the moon miners, but for everyone in the vertical reaction chain (omg new eve term?? VRC). Invention corrected a situation where someone got a t2 bpo through the luck of the draw. While t2 prices have gone up and will continue to go up since trinity, it is because costs have gone up as opposed to increased profits. There is no draw in moons, there is probing, setting up a POS, defending it. It can be taken from you at any time when sufficient force is applied. -------------------
Kaaii Caldari Kaaii-Net Research Labs	Posted - 2007.12.14 20:15:00 - [84] Originally by: Dianabolic Edited by: Dianabolic on 14/12/2007 19:45:33 erm, explain once again why you think you "need" to increase the number of components entering the market? I certainly agree that promethium and dysprosium are imbalanced (and have been from the start due to the number of comps they are used to build), but the general statement that "we need more comps" is based on what? ....... Won't that, again, make everything so ultimately cheap that there is no penalty to death, just like t1 became? Yes it would...and it wouldn't be good, as you point out. And i don't think the majority here are advocating mass supplies of "whatever-the-de'jour-de-month-component" is. I think most would agree its the "throttle" on which the items reach the market (for whatever price they might be). I have no problem buying high priced items, if I feel I can make a little bit on it later down the chain, its all relative. What I think (and i may be wrong) the main issue here is, is that even with all the universes "best" moons pumping out product 24/7, they still could not keep up with the supply of base materials needed for the newer items being introduced. Re: coolness factor, for diving that if nothing else. I like having high prices, when im selling, and low when Im buying, just like everyone else. I just think we need to be "able to buy" at whatever price, to produce whatever, as opposed to having no supply at all. My idea above, while poorly stated, leans towards a "throttling" component of pos manufacturing/mining, where a pos owner is (forced?) to commit to a certain path/material, accepts a very long lead time, is aware that the market may shift before his/her products come to market, and makes plans accordingly. I am not in favor of anything "instant" to balance, for lack of a better word, the supply vs demand. According to Oveur, existing LSAA's already anchored will stay there. kieron Director of Community Relations,
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2007.12.14 20:33:00 - [85] Originally by: Argenton Sayvers Carebear minds just want "infinite scaling". Conflict over finite ressources - that causes hurt feelings (and the possibility to lose). Infinite scaling and scarcity are not mutually exclusive. The industrialists certainly do not (or should not) want infinite scaling without scarcity - it's the scarcity that gives these things their value. An infinitely scalable, infinitely common item is just as useless as an unscalable so-rare-its-unobtainable item. The key is that the infinite scaling method should be sufficiently costly and time consuming that it will not be viable to generate enough via that route to push the item down below it's intended scarcity (because if you decrease scarcity, you'll decrease price too, to the point where the process becomes unprofitable). Because that's the key here. Every item is designed to have a certain level of scarcity. Allowing it to become more scarce by keeping the supply fixed as demand increases produces just as broken a situation as if you allow it to become too common. Any method to make supply scalable should have an in-built means to maintain a given level of scarcity. Once you achieve that, the argument about the appropriate scarcity for an item becomes a separate point to what method you're going to use to achieve the scaling. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Kaaii Caldari Kaaii-Net Research Labs	Posted - 2007.12.14 20:43:00 - [86] Well said, I certainly couldn't do it , but, thats what I was driving at.... I hope the devs keep reading this thread too, I have high hopes here.... According to Oveur, existing LSAA's already anchored will stay there. kieron Director of Community Relations,
Fenderson Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2007.12.14 21:41:00 - [87] Originally by: Argenton Sayvers Originally by: Dianabolic erm, explain once again why you think you "need" to increase the number of components entering the market? Dont be suprised. There are people who think its a good idea to have LP shops offer State Ravens for LP. Carebear minds just want "infinite scaling". Conflict over finite ressources - that causes hurt feelings (and the possibility to lose). heres why it is necessary. the current system, supply is forever set at a particular cap. we all know that demand is constantly rising, as more people join the game, more people train for t2 ships, etc. if demand continues to rise and supply cannot rise (per the current system) then prices will just continue to rise infinitely, until only the richest few players in the game can afford the good stuff. nobody is saying that an infinitely scalable system is one where the resource becomes totally commonplace. it should take a lot of resources to access alternate sources, and the only reason it should ever be viable is if the price for that resource has become high enough through normal supply alone. in other words, we want those resources to still be very scarce, but also have the supply be infinitely scalable. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Oh dear, how about we all calm down a bit instead?
Fenderson Einherjar Rising	Posted - 2007.12.14 21:45:00 - [88] i know real world analogies are basically irrelevant, but the oil industry is a great analogy. when prices of oil rise to insane levels like what we have today, new sources that were previously too expensive to extract suddenly become viable. once those alternate sources are exploited to the point where the price has significantly dropped, the alternate, more expensive sources are no longer viable and the industry goes back to its usual means of (lower cost) production. Originally by: CCP Wrangler Oh dear, how about we all calm down a bit instead?
Argenton Sayvers	Posted - 2007.12.14 23:31:00 - [89] Originally by: Matthew Infinite scaling and scarcity are not mutually exclusive. They dont need to be. Obviously, you want a system that wont break down when eve has 350k people online on an average Sunday. I do understand (and in some cases support), the concept of scaling ressource aviability, the problem is - it should not be linear. And the other problem is - when you can "do it yourself", the incentive for conquest is no longer really there. Because no matter how expensive you are going to make it, getting 100 people in dreads together and focussed will take 100 times more "resource". There needs to be something that can only be obtained by taking it from others. Obviously, one could impliment a scaling system that is based on the currently aviable moons - ie t2 harvesters that cost a lot. This way, there will be risk / reward (more income / lots of ISK anchored in space), and moons are still worth enough to start wars over it. This idea is not developed enough, so i dont claim its the way to go. However, i know that spreading something over the entire playerbase just cheapens the entire system. Look at invention - NOT fitting t2 is stupidity, no longer a trade-off consideration. The entire "investment / oligopol" gameplay got removed, and t2 became commonplace. With enough effort*, everyone can produce as much t2 as he wants, so there is no point in clever long-term plots to create monopols or restrict supply for essential combat products. Most "normal" people didnt like the Cov-Ops cloak situation, but i think that it ultimately enriched gameplay.
Dravin Dread	Posted - 2007.12.14 23:51:00 - [90] Chronotis, Please ask Kieron about a document titled "Civilian Drive" that he received in November. You may find some useful ideas there that also opens a path to planets that can satisfy the long term goals. I'll not post it here as it is rather long. dd

Svengali MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2007.12.15 00:07:00 - [91] Two things need to be addressed by a moon mineral change. Existing dysp moons need to retain value to spur wars over minerals (ie user generated content). Also, like the T2 BPO design, it would be nice to have a fixed price adaptive release valve on moon mineral prices. It would also be nice to generate more user generated content possibilities, like small scale wars in 0.3 between smaller corps. A good price to really get the dysp wars going would be somewhere around 100k. Already at ~50k some tension is being created. I think the alchemical way provides this. It should take a number of large POS, on the order of 4 to produce the output of 1 small dysp moon (though soon to be all beefed up to 1 large im sure). This adds the fixed cost of each POS + the time/cost for fueling and moving and various logistics. This would take it out of the single person realm and into the small industrial corps. If the alchemical reaction takes a special reactor that can only be in 0.3, then scanning for those would allow small pVp outfits to start to squabbles with the corps turning the water into wine. If other materials become overly scarce, add more alchemical reactions. So, it can provide tension and gameplay for the high-level hardcore gameplay as well as providing gameplay for smaller outfits just getting into the meat of the pVp game in low-sec. With the original benefit of providing a soft cap to the cost of equipment.
Manfred Rickenbocker	Posted - 2007.12.15 02:23:00 - [92] I am going to put my hat in the realm of the MUD theory. It has all the good applications that CCP is looking for. First off, only very few people have touched on one really important fact: profit. Why open moons in high-sec and .4 space (in the current distribution) when it is not profitable to mine there? It is actually more realistic to have a tower mining just the raw material of the moon, then having to use some method to refine it. This raw material would have the chance for more valuable stuff depending on the real security where it is harvested from. Furthermore, you could gear your production supply so that it only finds the valuable materials only. While you may be getting more valuable mud to refine, your quantities of the valuable stuff will be proportionally lower than those of lower security space. Fundamentally, this solves the problem: infinitely scalable supply, and POS owners will gear their production towards what is most profitable or they need, as opposed to what they are limited to by availability. There are two shortcomings to this: Implementation will be a pain because you have to include different kinds of mud for different security space. Maybe make the mud value dependant on where you refine it? With jump freighters, people can hide a 0.0 POS and ship low-sec mud into 0.0 for the benefit. Second shortcoming would be a bounce in supply. With dedicated moons out of the picture (maybe grandfather a few in?) the quantities for certain materials will get out of skew until the prices stabilize. This could take over a month. What this does offer is scalability: manufacture what you want/need, different cool POS modules, maybe adding in an exploration element to increase yield? ------------------------ Exploration: A discipline for those who have a lot of time, don't want to put in a lot of effort, and have a high tolerance for mental anguish.
Hardigeen	Posted - 2007.12.15 03:54:00 - [93] Originally by: Dianabolic Edited by: Dianabolic on 14/12/2007 19:45:33 erm, explain once again why you think you "need" to increase the number of components entering the market? I certainly agree that promethium and dysprosium are imbalanced (and have been from the start due to the number of comps they are used to build), but the general statement that "we need more comps" is based on what? Won't that, again, make everything so ultimately cheap that there is no penalty to death, just like t1 became? I don't think death in T1 has no penalty due to the fact that T1 is cheap. T1 can be expensive, battleships for example. There is no punishment due to insurance covering the full cost of T1. I would think twice taking T1 battleship into the fight if I didn't know insurance will pay for the new one.
Trivas NQX Innovations Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.15 05:23:00 - [94] Originally by: Jacque Custeau I understand that those advocating the "alchemy" option (lead->gold)are saying it will be an inefficient process, but that still does not make it a good solution. What happens when there is a morphite shortage? do we come out with a Morphite BPO that converts other minerals into Morphite? No we wouldn't, because that would be unfair to the mercoxit miners. What happens when there is a shortage of Mercoxit is more people start mining it!!!! The reason that people are advocating this idea is that more people cannot mine the rare moon materials, as only one POS may be anchored at a given moon and only a select few moons have the materials in question and that the output of a moon mining array is fixed. There is a limit to the production of these rare moon materials that does not exist with the roid materials. Thus some way of producing more to meet market demands is needed; more players will alway increase the demand (more players can fly t2 ships and thus want them) but if the supply remains constant then the price will always increase until its out of control!! I don't understand why the idea of needing a way to make supply more closely match demand, which will always increase and thus so must supply, eludes so many people.
Admiral Nova Strike Team Nova	Posted - 2007.12.15 05:27:00 - [95] The amount entering the market doesn't need to increase an easy way, just like T2 BPOs, the caps have been removed via BPCs, a non-fixed but at greater cost way needs to come into the other end of it. Short term though they could probably do some balancing of requirements (Prometium could be removed from Ferrogel in favour of one of the lesser used reactions) - (Promethium is used twice in Ferrogel) I don't think they can make many more changes to the reactions than that short term, other reductions would have to come by changing the proportion of required materials in T2 production. (More low ends less high ends).

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2007.12.15 10:36:00 - [96] Originally by: Kaaii I hope the devs keep reading this thread too, I have high hopes here.... Absolutely, tis' why I replied the first time round because it is something we are looking at internally and we are interested in getting opinions and feedback on the subject from all player perspectives out there and starting a discussion on the topic.

Cergorach Amarr The Helix Foundation	Posted - 2007.12.15 11:13:00 - [97] I'm curious, are there still moons out there that are capable of producing Dysprosium/Promethium and do not have a POS anchored? If so, how many? If the above question is no, then it might be a good idea to add moons that have that capability. I think it's a bad idea to change moons that are already available, and if done it should be announced so that folks that scan moons (I'm not one of those) don't know where to start or end scanning. Increasing output of moons just makes those specific moons more valuable (creating another T2 BPO situation). The easiest way is to seed new planets with new moons, as is evident in our own solar system, new planets will get discovered in time (might be able to add a few planets this way to eve). The other way is to introduce a few new solar systems in eve. You might even make some interesting events out of these... These kinds of things (moons/solar systems) really need to scale better to the amount of active accounts.
Cail Fortestan Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.15 11:42:00 - [98] The scalability issue is key here for a long term fix. Exploration is already there as a scalable mechanism. The discovery rates can be tweaked in the background without upsetting lots of people. Exploration of "hidden" moons could be done at random sites like current exploration sites, or the "hidden" bit could be at existing moons using a random discovery of a new, limited rare item. Adding a new mini profession into the mix (akin to Hacking/Archaeology sounds the right way to go). Idea #1 : So, here's how I see one route : 1. New mini profession allows additional chance of finding limited supply of rare item when scanning a moon. (maybe with additional modules for extra boost) 2. Erect POS, mine the rare item. 3. When the rare item runs out, take down POS and ship results to market. 4. Rescan moons at some time in the future when the rare item may respawn elsewhere in the system/constellation/region. Idea #2 : A further idea would be for a char to retain some knowledge of the moons scanned and increase chance of finding a rare item (or reduce cost) on rescanning. IMHO, the in-game system should retain knowledge of moon scanned, a bit like bookmarks. Idea #3 : Make new reactions available to convert mud into gold, but require them to use a catalyst. Reaction easy to get hold of, POS easy to setup, etc. The Catalyst is discoverable through exploration. Example : I find 100 units of "Dysporite Catalyst" at an exploration site. I load this into my Simple Reactor as a catalyst and add (e.g.) Silicates and Hydorcarbons. Catalyst is used up at the rate of 1 unit per hour. Once the catalyst runs out, reaction stops. 1. This is scalable - more explorers = more catalyst. 2. Allows the "little guy" to do a bit of ninja production (or just to sell the catalyst. 3. Allows tweaking of drop rates as needed. 4. Doesn't interfere with main moon mechanics.
Cail Fortestan Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition	Posted - 2007.12.15 11:48:00 - [99] On the T2 production side, T2 component production rates need to be looked at. Currently it takes one alt almost fulltime producing T2 components just to keep up with one command ship blueprint production. With the introduction of T2 BSs, it needs several alts producing full time to keep up with production. Any reduction in component production time would be very useful.
benzeb Caldari Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.12.15 13:49:00 - [100] Edited by: benzeb on 15/12/2007 13:52:10 Your proposition are really enormous in term of time playing Cail, moon scanning is very long and installing pos manufacturing too.We need something more strong than an exploration system of each moon. 1. I think perhaps some moon harvesters how scrap all it cans in the moon, moons would have few quantity of other products, not only 100 of something or nothing, like in reality for the uranium extraction in the worlds, but it will have a problem with the actual silo system if there is too much variety by moon. 2. Or a new module like a nuclear fusion reactor(third type of reactor) what can transform simple atoms(witch can be common gazes) in heavy metal(witch can be per exemple promethium, dyspro, etc). So the reverse of the fission. The first will need a rescan of all your sector moon, we perhaps need the bpo of the survey probe. The second could be like the invention system give a T2 possibility industry for the deep space 0.0.

Braaage eXceed Inc.	Posted - 2007.12.15 17:30:00 - [101] I bought 12 million tungsten carbide material for our first Ark, how long is that supply gonna last.... not long me thinks. -- eve-guides.com All about POSs, Outposts, Exploration, Mining, EVE Database + much more!!
Miranda Duvall Gallente Khaos Tech	Posted - 2007.12.15 17:43:00 - [102] Originally by: Cail Fortestan On the T2 production side, T2 component production rates need to be looked at. Currently it takes one alt almost fulltime producing T2 components just to keep up with one command ship blueprint production. With the introduction of T2 BSs, it needs several alts producing full time to keep up with production. Any reduction in component production time would be very useful. This may actually be the intention of CCP: It will become increasingly difficult for a sigle person to do an entire T2 production chain, therefore teamwork is stimulated. You can either get your corp/alliance members to take over part of the production chain, or buy components from dedicated component producers. This way more PEOPLE are involved, instead of just more manufacturing lines for 1 character, or several ALTS/CHARACTERS of the same perrson. I for one applaud initiatives where you are forced to team up. More oppertunities for all! (not just for 1 person) My Skills -Invention HowTo
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2007.12.15 22:47:00 - [103] Originally by: Admiral Nova The amount entering the market doesn't need to increase an easy way, just like T2 BPOs, the caps have been removed via BPCs, a non-fixed but at greater cost way needs to come into the other end of it. Short term though they could probably do some balancing of requirements (Prometium could be removed from Ferrogel in favour of one of the lesser used reactions) - (Promethium is used twice in Ferrogel) I don't think they can make many more changes to the reactions than that short term, other reductions would have to come by changing the proportion of required materials in T2 production. (More low ends less high ends). The problem with trying to balance demand between materials at any level of the chain, is that as the game goes forward, the modules at the top of the chain are going to get more and less popular depending on other balance changes, FOTM etc, shifting demand all the way down the chain. If you reconfigured the requirements to result in the desired distribution of demand, I guarantee that in 6 months it would be completely skewed again. The only way to avoid this would be to have every item require every material in your desired ratios - at which point you may as well only have one material at each rarity level and simplify the chain massively. Or, you could do a broader adjustment that just sees the total at each rarity level the same for each module, and introduce "silver into gold" reactions that allow you to convert materials within the same rarity tier. But that would still beg the question of what the point was of having more than 1 material in each rarity tier. And the "Tech 1.5" items (e.g. probes requiring hypersynaptic fibers) would also be a sticking point there. The other alternative is to have a means for the supply chain to compensate across rarity levels in order to conform to the shape of demand. Which is what ideas like Alchemy or Geology do. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Gnulpie Minmatar Miner Tech	Posted - 2007.12.16 08:38:00 - [104] A %-based distribution of materials for each moon. Now we have moons which can have several materials and each of the materials can have several abundancies. But for each moon the moon material is either there or not (0% or 100%). What I think would be better is a %-based distribution. a) Having a full list of all materials in the moon. Some materials should be abundant (>25%) and some should be very rare (<1%). b) You could set up your miners then what they should mine and the amount you get is based then on the abundancy. For example if a moon miner could extract 400 units per hour and you have an abundancy of 25% you get 100 units - same as now. But if you choose to mine the ultra rare material (0.25%) you only get 1 unit! All is up to you what you mine then and why. c) Abundant moons would be still the most profitable moons of course (100+ units per hour). But you have chance to mine other, more rare, stuff (1 unit per hour only for example). d) Nothing would be changed in the wealth distribution and the valuable moons will be still worth to fight over. At the same time, small corps and entreprneurs would have a better chance to become independent - if they want. It would also imply some fuzzy price cap on the prices (upper AND lower) because at a certain price-level people will start to switch the moon harvested materials. e) More divesity can be created in the moon material distribution. Nowadays a moon of abundancy 1 ALWAYS is the same. With described changes a moon with 25% abundancy of a material can still differ greatly from other 25% moons because the distribution of the other materials can differ vastly - it is a big differency if you have 0.25% or 2.5% dys!
NocturnalDeath Umbra Congregatio Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2007.12.16 09:13:00 - [105] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Originally by: Kaaii I hope the devs keep reading this thread too, I have high hopes here.... Absolutely, tis' why I replied the first time round because it is something we are looking at internally and we are interested in getting opinions and feedback on the subject from all player perspectives out there and starting a discussion on the topic. Please don't change anything... Let the market sort itself out. Ship prices are WAY too low in my opinion. No I don't own a high end moon :( If I wanted one bad enough I would go take somebody elses, and in my opinion that is what this game is about.
Catherine Plume	Posted - 2007.12.16 11:30:00 - [106] Edited by: Catherine Plume on 16/12/2007 11:38:19 Edited by: Catherine Plume on 16/12/2007 11:35:52 1) The system is excellent as it is, it worked for years, there is no need to change the output of reactions for advanced materials, and no need to change the quantites of advanced materials to build a T2 component (or even a capital T2 component) 2) Low-Sec is not populated enough 3) we need more of some raw materials without grieving the moon miners which make a good profit from their hard defended moons 4) market price regulation by players is the best way to balance things (offer/demand) my idea (Moon ninja mining) a big probe (>100m3), which is sent like the other moon probes . Before to lauch a probe a small menu allows to select which material will be searched on the surface of the moon. So the probe is fired to a POS'less moon, it lands, and starts to probe the surface in the search of veins of small amounts of the selected materials for a few days (let's say 3 days) it's chance based so after these 3 days the probe sends a message : - There's nothing usefull on that moon, I self destruct - I've found xxxx (200 to 1999) units of the selected material, come to the moon for a pickup - I've found 2000 units of the selected material, my cargo bay is full, come to the moon for a pickup Then the player has to use an industrial fitted with a new module : some kind of laser wich is used to transport the materials from the robot on the surface to the cargohold at an increased rate. The laser is not hard to fit but requires a big amount of energy to run so the industrial has to use cap booster and charges to make it run. It transfers at the rate of 200 units per minute to the indus cargohold, so the pilot has to take a risk, standing near to a moon for a little while. Once transfered, he stil have to make it back to a safe place to store or to sell the collected materials sorry for my poor english, I hope that this idea to port ninja mining will seduce some people in the Dev's team edit : different quality of probes, for different success chances (like decryptors in the invention system) edit 2 : the quantity of simultaneous active robots on different moons is skill based : 5 at level 5 one robot per moon per pilot at once
Admiral Nova Strike Team Nova	Posted - 2007.12.16 12:51:00 - [107] Originally by: Cail Fortestan On the T2 production side, T2 component production rates need to be looked at. Currently it takes one alt almost fulltime producing T2 components just to keep up with one command ship blueprint production. With the introduction of T2 BSs, it needs several alts producing full time to keep up with production. Any reduction in component production time would be very useful. Pretty sure this is the intention, CCP have been increasing production times across the board to get more players involved in the supply chain. It would be helpful if they could remove the wastage from the component assembly array though. It would help speed things along a little.
Admiral Nova Strike Team Nova	Posted - 2007.12.16 12:58:00 - [108] One of the issues with having single valuable moons is that people fight over the moons themselves, hitting them into reinforced etc, disrupting supply. If the 'area' had more valuable moons instead of just 1-2 it would spread that out so that it wouldn't be as easy to cut off. And make taking the territory more worthwhile than just skirmishing.
diskONE Caldari Macabre Votum Imperial Republic Of the North	Posted - 2007.12.16 14:59:00 - [109] i guess i have come full circle. I would rather keep the moon extraction the same. With the rares becoming truly rare(dysporium and promethium), people are defending them better, and wars are breaking out to get them. I think that this is a good thing in eve, rather than you just sitting comfortably and not worrying about them, because it wasnt worth the isk to attack them. Now everyone with a rare moon better be prepared and able to withstand attacks from other parties ____________________________________________
Celeste Coeval The Gosimer and Scarab	Posted - 2007.12.16 15:03:00 - [110] Originally by: Lara Dantreb Dysprosium : 60000 pu atm reactors cost now 50000 isks to produce. say hello to the good old time when Cerberus and Ishtars worthed 250 Mil because it's coming again and soon, nothing will stop the process, a cartel controls Dysprosium prices and it's gonna kill something in the production process FINALLY, conquerable "bpo's" Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.

ragewind Caldari VersaTech Interstellar Ltd. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.16 16:00:00 - [111] increase the supply of moons producing minerals will help and will allow for a wide spared of player to get involved in this trade. the alchemy idea is a really cleaver and logical idea and well worth introducing will help with the uses and value of lower level moons they just are not mined due to there low value. the idea of using exploration to introduce a supply of mineral is also an idea that is fighting with the game and the luck of the game. though the idea of finding a "moon" in an exploration site is unrealistic and just wont work, we can change these to dungeons like we currently have were there was an angel station that mined out an asteroid or a commit possibly bring in some other random factions too the "7 pirates" or drop a caldari navy fleet in to deep gariters space so it makes it more interesting and fitting with the idea of the factional war fair. then once you have killed of the holding faction you can loot there storage area ect and take what they had. no need for newer players to have to get a pos and mine it or get odd skills ect just adds a chance elerment to the suply taking pos to exploration sites to mine could end up being a way of exploiting the pos system.
Admiral Nova Strike Team Nova	Posted - 2007.12.16 16:15:00 - [112] Originally by: diskONE i guess i have come full circle. I would rather keep the moon extraction the same. With the rares becoming truly rare(dysporium and promethium), people are defending them better, and wars are breaking out to get them. I think that this is a good thing in eve, rather than you just sitting comfortably and not worrying about them, because it wasnt worth the isk to attack them. Now everyone with a rare moon better be prepared and able to withstand attacks from other parties I've scanned three 0.0 regions and not found any Dysprosium / Promethium. On the other hand one region I know has six..... I figured on the basis of my scans there was about 10-12 in the whole game. In many ways they're like 10/10 plex's when they were static. I'd rather see a more even spread rather than one region getting such an advantage. After all, one region like that is much easier to defend.
Niki Silver Ethereal Imperium	Posted - 2007.12.16 20:22:00 - [113] Please no random or chance based moon mining / reacting. The cost and logistics are just too expensive and complicated to take away consistency / production rates. Dysprosium and Promethium are required for too many reactions and too frequently. Ferrogel even uses promethium twice ffs. I understand that ccp prefers to make a change at the beginning or end of the process rather then disrupt the reactions but honestly they need to. Simply increasing production rate of existing moons really isn't much of a solution. There are still too few of them and when the area they are in becomes contested production halts. Build of materials for T2 components needs an overhaul. They should be more like T1 ships and modules in the sense that the ratio of 'commons' to 'rares' that goes into making them is proportional in value. aka your ship uses a lot of trit and a little bit of zyd, but the base price value of the trit and zyd are nearly equal, they are proportional. The build of materials for T2 components look like they were just pulled out of a hat. A thorough and balanced overhaul of T2 component BoM would REQUIRE a thorough and blanced overhaul of reactions to also be done. We have reactions like ferrogel using dysprosium and promethium twice, while the equally rare neo and thul is hardly used at all, and when they are used, its in reactions that also use dysp and prometh. wtf. The base price / consumption distribution model used in T1 production works just fine. Lower value stuff used in high volume, higher value stuff used in lower volme, each of them contributing a proportional value to the output. Proportions for T2 production are all out of whack. It's not just the T2 components but the T2 items themselves. T2 Battleships using 4000 reactor/sensor cluster and 6000 plate instead of 1000 reactor/sensor and 10000 plate. Or something more along those lines. The T1 model works because a ship uses 2500+ times as much trit as it does mega, but the overall value of them is nearly the same (base price wise) The T2 model doesnt work and creates bottlenecks because the stuff is using too much high end and not enough low end. And the high end stuff is rediculously expensive while the low end stuff is all but worthless. CCP there is a lot more to be done here then simply adjusting moon output or tweaking around with the BoM on T2 component prints. Moon distribution and potential output needs looked at. Simple Reactions need looked at. Complex Reactions need looked at. T2 component BoM needs looked at. And finally, the BoM of every T2 item in the game needs looked at. Don't even consider adding random materials or making them deplete or some other silliness. That disrupts the 'need for speed' and it makes moon prospecting too risky to be worth doing. The cost of equipment and fuel to operate a pos is a constant, the volume of a given material it can produce needs to remain constant as well. Side note to the 'doing it half arsed" miners/reactors out there. There are three parties involved in this process. Moon Miners, Rectors, and T2 Producers. Moon miners mine and sell raws. Reactors buy raws and turn them into advanced. T2 Produces buy advanced and turn them into the T2 components they need to build thier **zle. Don't be a dumb ass and buy raws, turn them into some crappy simple reaction and then put it on the market to sit and collect dust. Real reactors buy raw and produce advanced. And for the moon miners, just mine the raws and bring them to market so the reactors have a supply. Comin across a moon and goin oh wow I can mine and react on the same moon is pointless unless you are going to see it through to an advanced. Again, reactors buy raws and produce advanced. Please don't waste raws by reacting into a nonexistent simple reaction market. See it through to advanced or gtfo of reacting. You are not helping, just wasting. Ethereal Imperium [E-IMP] is recruiting!** Please visit our webpage for more information.
Omanda Incomey	Posted - 2007.12.16 20:45:00 - [114] If actually collide arrays what can transmute minerals will be introduced it would be better to let transmutations only from the same rarity rack. I e you shouldnt be able make dysprosium of hydrocarbons but should be able to make it of promethium, neodymium or thulium. Also there should be some multiplier like, 100 units of thulium can be turned only to 50 or 75 units of dysprosium to do not let the prices became absolutley same for all minerals of same rarity rack.
ragewind Caldari VersaTech Interstellar Ltd. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2007.12.16 22:58:00 - [115] one thing for sure that wont work is T2 moon miners they will increase supply but it will only make the rich richer as they will still control the market
MajorScrewup	Posted - 2007.12.17 06:11:00 - [116] Edited by: MajorScrewup on 17/12/2007 06:14:41 Maybe one route would be to make the invention of a tech2 ship component reflect some of the qualities of the bpc. People using ME0 BPcs would end up with the -5ME runs, adding to the cost of T2 components. Those who bought and researched their T1 ship BPOs to a decent level would get decent T2 BPcs' from copies of these researched originals. E.g. A Dominix BPc with ME20 with successful invention, would output a Sin BPC with ME4/5. Of course there will be tweaks all along the supply chain from moon-mining / reactions etc... I believe that each stage should be boosted/expanded on. Why give in one area and not all?
Fleske NED Holdings	Posted - 2007.12.17 08:58:00 - [117] Just enable ME and PE research on T2 BPC. Players will find a balance between research time (cost) and components cost. Don't make it cheaper just get more players involved.
Tyr Zewa Caldari MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service	Posted - 2007.12.17 11:24:00 - [118] The more i think about it, the more i see an issue with the rarity. r64 moon minerals are all supposed to have the same value, to make that happen we simply need new reactions. Adding a new ferrogel reaction based on neodymium and thulium and promethium would quickly balance the value of the four r64 minerals. Same should be done for every other reaction, add a second way to get to it. It takes away the uniqueness a bit yeah, you could as well rename all 4 moon minerals to GenericRarity64 on the other hand it's one of the easiest ways to help the market, and it'll add alot of dynamics, because to maximise your profit, you'll have to switch to the lowest price moon mineral etc.
Fatsam Madhatters Inc. Enuma Elish.	Posted - 2007.12.17 12:26:00 - [119] It seems that all posters in this thread are taking as read that T2 metals are at their maximum rate of supply. Is this actually the case? I would say it probably is though, I canÆt imagine half dozen dysprosium moons not being mined in some region for example. I think there are several approaches: -Alchemy: changing other low value items into rare metals. This would essentially set a fixed price for the metals depending on how many POS are required to make x amount of a metal, as fuel prices are fairly stable by and large. This would need a base price for these metals fixing. As this would introduce more POS and reactions, this is only more time spent on boring POS stuff. -Change advanced reactions: allowing other intermediate reactions to create advanced materials to remove the bottlenecks sounds good, as it wouldnÆt require any extra probing and allow existing resources to be exploited. -Exploration: finding celestial objects with finite moon resources that can be mined somehow sounds like a good way to introduce extra supply. -Adding extra rare metals to currently barren planets: Would be ok I would say, but require rescans of every moon in eve pretty much. -Changing moon resources to finite levels and with subsequent random distribution them: would require a lot of scanning and moving POS about. Although attractive in principle the moon scanning and POS anchoring mechanics are far too cumbersome for this in my opinion. It really depends on what ceiling CCP want to introduce for T2 parts though. I think making the other 1/64 metals reactions substitutable for Promethium/Dysprosium based reactions seems like the best way forward, with some exploration based metal harvesting possible too.
Artmedis Valben Gallente Lobster of Babel	Posted - 2007.12.17 13:52:00 - [120] Lets try having it simple. 1) New reactions: this is a good way to balance the ultra rares. New reactions that are more efficient, and are less reliant on one of the ultra rares. Give a role to Thul and Neo... (increases the number of super valuable moons). 2) Exploration, have sites where you can get moon material drops from silos and such. Have them rare at the beginning at least, so they won't unbalance things. (Adds to supply. If too common: devaluates moons) 3) Alchemy (as an invention approach) is viable, but has to be very costly, only really viable when materials are ridiculously expensive. Lets say at current moon material prices, something akin to dysprosium costing 2-3 times what it does now. It would make it possible to supply the market even if all the ultra rare moons had their POSes in reinforced mode more often than not, which I guess would be the case if dyprosium cost in excess of 200k per unit. (caps the price on ultra rares to some extent). 4) T2 Moon Harvesting Arrays (invention only?), 100% more output, 100% more CPU and grid. Basically One t2 on the most precious material or 2xT1 on two materials. (makes the moons more valuable). I guess all of the above could be implemented one step at a time. But I advocate options that allow a lot of room for ultra rare moons to become super valuable territorial war targets. Just make it so that there are alternative/expensive sources if these moons tend to be incapaciated. Selling: PERFECT PRINTS T2 SHIPS

Manfred Rickenbocker	Posted - 2007.12.17 14:59:00 - [121] Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 17/12/2007 15:25:04 Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 17/12/2007 14:59:51 Originally by: Niki Silver Please no random or chance based moon mining / reacting. The cost and logistics are just too expensive and complicated to take away consistency / production rates. ... Don't even consider adding random materials or making them deplete or some other silliness. That disrupts the 'need for speed' and it makes moon prospecting too risky to be worth doing. The cost of equipment and fuel to operate a pos is a constant, the volume of a given material it can produce needs to remain constant as well. This is true on many levels. The logistics in maintaining a POS are massive, and the results are diminishing more and more. Setting up a POS for profit and actually turning one (particularly with ice prices skyrocketing, another thing that may need to be looked at) are two separate tasks. It may be that current T2 supplies are undervalued, however increasing a static supply is also not a viable solution. Bandaging something does not fix the root cause. I agree with an earlier post though: maybe exploration is a way to handle this? Space is really really big. It is also good to note that alchemy is NOT a good solution. If there was a reaction that converted Tritanium into Megacyte, there would not be any reason to leave high-sec space. ------------------------ Exploration: A discipline for those who have a lot of time, don't want to put in a lot of effort, and have a high tolerance for mental anguish.
Matthew Caldari BloodStar Technologies	Posted - 2007.12.17 16:15:00 - [122] Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker If there was a reaction that converted Tritanium into Megacyte, there would not be any reason to leave high-sec space. That would dpeend entirely on the Tritanium to Megacyte conversion rate allowed by the reaction. If you needed 2500 trit to make one unit of mega, current mineral prices would price that unit of megacyte at around 7500 isk per unit. Compare to current market price of megacyte. Decide how many people would take that option. Of course, if megacyte ever got to 7500 isk (assuming trit prices don't move), it would become a useful option. But that would only happen if demand had so outstripped supply that the reacting supply was needed to keep things vaguely sane. Besides, there are fundamental differences between the supply model of asteroid-mined minerals and moon-mined metals as I have already detailed elsewhere. ------- There is no magic Wand of Fixing, and it is not powered by forum whines.
Manfred Rickenbocker	Posted - 2007.12.17 20:05:00 - [123] Edited by: Manfred Rickenbocker on 17/12/2007 20:06:05 Originally by: Matthew Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker If there was a reaction that converted Tritanium into Megacyte, there would not be any reason to leave high-sec space. ... (stuff) ... as I have already detailed elsewhere. Yes, I read that. By my comment, I meant more to bring moon mining more in line with how traditional materials are produced, and alchemy does not fit that view. As stated in one of my previous posts, I am a fan of the mud switch. Not for all moons mind you, but more for the generic moons that currently do not contain ANY good materials. A mining POS can be set up on those, and people can react for specific materials they would want, albeit at poor efficiency. While this is not necessarily useful for market price, it brings demand down because component producers can set up a multi-purpose POS to fill any holes in their supply chain. Part of the price factor comes with transporting the materials to market hubs. I, personally, would not mind paying a little bit more if it were safer and more convenient to obtain the materials I would want when I want. ------------------------ Exploration: A discipline for those who have a lot of time, don't want to put in a lot of effort, and have a high tolerance for mental anguish.
Fitz VonHeise The New Order. United Connection's	Posted - 2007.12.17 21:35:00 - [124] Edited by: Fitz VonHeise on 17/12/2007 21:42:52 Originally by: Blazde There is, atm, very little incentive beyond pride for alliances to conquer lots of space. Rare moons are a real opportunity to change that. If you leave the system the way it is prices on Dysprosium will continue to go up. Then attacking these moons become financially viable. When that happens the product will not be getting to the market and the price will start to skyrocket in a never ending circle as more people attack any Dysprosium moon they see. No one will want to build the new Tech II ships or even the old ones as no one will want to pay the price. You will have a glut on the market of ships no one can afford.... as they will not want to take the chance on getting it killed off in PvP. And even if they do buy them they will not use them for fear of loosing them. So very soon everyone will be back to shooting each other in Tech I ships as this is the only thing they can afford to loose. Except those Alliances who own the Dysprosium/Promethium moons and can hold on to them. There does need to be multiple solutions to this issue. 1. Open up level .4 systems to moon mining. 2. Seed advance moon mining modual with some way to moon mine smaller amounts of other types of minerals at a higher cost. (still keeps the normal Dysprosium/Promethium moons valuable... but will keep the market from exploding higher) 3. Change what items now need Dysprosium/Promethium to a different material to reduce the amount of Dysprosium/Promethium needed in production. Services I Provide: Caldari Factional Standing Increase ò Alliance Creation ò The Thieves Of EvE ò My Links
Xthril Ranger hirr Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2007.12.17 23:32:00 - [125] moons are not yet valuable enough to go to war for , so we still need the prices to go up. More reasons to fight wars is good. . you'll never jump alone
Fitz VonHeise The New Order. United Connection's	Posted - 2007.12.17 23:40:00 - [126] Originally by: Xthril Ranger moons are not yet valuable enough to go to war for , so we still need the prices to go up. More reasons to fight wars is good. Tell that to this alt: wts info on rare moon mins ( takeovers ) Services I Provide: Caldari Factional Standing Increase ò Alliance Creation ò The Thieves Of EvE ò My Links
Hardigeen	Posted - 2007.12.18 05:53:00 - [127] Its funny what Devs (Hammerhead and Zulupark) had to say when asked the question regarding tech 2 materials and moon minerals. They just had no idea .....
Manfred Rickenbocker	Posted - 2007.12.18 14:57:00 - [128] Originally by: Xthril Ranger moons are not yet valuable enough to go to war for , so we still need the prices to go up. More reasons to fight wars is good. I beg to differ. Moons are pretty much the only thing to squabble over in low-sec. The only reason 0.0 doesnt necessarily go to war over moons is because they are most likely distributed in such a manner that they all have access to necessary resources. More on topic however is the shortage of minerals, and going to war over them wont help production one bit. ------------------------ Exploration: A discipline for those who have a lot of time, don't want to put in a lot of effort, and have a high tolerance for mental anguish.
Fitz VonHeise The New Order. United Connection's	Posted - 2007.12.18 19:43:00 - [129] Originally by: Xthril Ranger moons are not yet valuable enough to go to war for... Another view: Originally by: Jezala expect the next 3 months to be just as busy with the large contracts coupled with an increase in POS destruction contracts. Link As people fight over Dysprosium moons productions will be halted again and again making this resource less available... driving prices up.
tilt sedron Caldari M'8'S Frontal Impact	Posted - 2008.01.07 18:29:00 - [130] Rising prices for high end moon minerals will finally increase the attraction for 0.0 from a financial point of view. Many entrepreneurs in EVE will be able to confirm, that it often has been easier to earn money in empire (high sec and low sec) than in 0.0 All the efforts, risks, and costs of 0.0 and the necessity to fight for your region have never really been properly appreciated. So I think it will be highly benefitial for EVE, if prices for 0.0 moon minerals are rising. And it is completely fair, that those who manage to gain and hold sovereignty of those high end solar systems, and spend many billions for war equippment, receive a proper reward. This will boost the economy and will make EVE more interesting from an economic and political point of view.

Ione Hunt 0utbreak	Posted - 2008.01.07 18:43:00 - [131] A lot of Dysprosium moons aren't exploited yet due to wars, that limits production, and increases prices of advanced materials dependent on Dysprosium (or Dysporite). EVE has a very cool market that mostly regulates itself. Let supply/demand find its balance after the changes before you cry for a CCP god invention! Don't like paying a lot for Dysprosium? Then you have to make an effort and claim such a moon for yourself. Jump freighters and a lot of T2 ships have a good profit, so you should be able to work for it. Moon mining and reactions can be hard work, so it's only fair if they get some of that profit as well. Just pass on the profits to your T2 ship customers, it'll still sell...it's easy to make ISK in this game anyway. _______________
Admiral Nova Strike Team Nova	Posted - 2008.01.08 02:11:00 - [132] Originally by: Xthril Ranger moons are not yet valuable enough to go to war for , so we still need the prices to go up. More reasons to fight wars is good. Dysprosium and Promethium are the only 2 moon minerals worth fighting over, the rest well, sure if you expect it to be a total pushover. But those 2 are on a totally different pay-scale to all others.
Tairon Usaro The X-Trading Company Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2008.01.08 12:52:00 - [133] 1. moonmin-prices are not the primary measure for shortage, since they only reflect the short term ratio between supply and demand. The only true parameter is total percentage of exploited moons. So we do not have a problem if prices sky rocket with the introduction of new items/ships if only 70% of the available moons for a specific min are exploited ... but we do have a problem for min where the exploitation goes to >95%, since there is no chance to increase supply any further. 2. I like the increase of extraction as a tool for evening out the differences and shortages, BUT it should definately be, what i call effort-triggered and asympotically capped, therefore selfadapting => Say hello to Extraction Booster's for Moon-mining Harvesters II Moon-mining Harvester II has CPU and PG requirements making the POS vulnerable and more or less unusable for anything else. Moon-mining Harvester II setting has a module called "Capacitor" that determines the efficacy of the Harvester. 100% Capacitor = 400 units/h, 88% = 200 units/h, 75% = 100 units/h, 50% = 50 units/h, 0% = 25 units/h (base rate) The capacitor needs to be recharged with cap charges. maybe it's really cap boosters, maybe its a new cap charge, but in any case it's loot ! total Capacitor is lets say 100.000. Cap-depleation of the Moon-Mining Harvester II is linear degressing starting with 5000/h for 100% cap, 4000/h for 75%, 3000/h for 50% ... 1000/h base rate close to 0. The asymptotic effiency is making POS maintaining for this specifc module a daily obligation. if you do not maintain it its much worse than the conventional one. don't nail me on the numbers, but you get the idea of the concept => This module is not changing the territorial aspects of moon-mining, because the module is high risk to deploy in low sec due to limitation in POS defense and only reasonable in well secured 0.0 systems It links POS-logistics with PvE by introducing two effort-proportional mechanisms (i.e. supply with cap charges by PvEers, effort proportional efficacy by frequent POS maintenance). The two effort correlators (time of maintenance per day, supply with cap charges from PvEers) make it extremly difficult to yield the maximal extraction rate thus it self-adapts to temporal market supply shortages. ________________________________________________ Some days i loose, some days the others win ...
Shoot thesecondary	Posted - 2008.01.14 16:08:00 - [134] Sorry i'm posting with a noob alt, i've suspended my accounts for a month over the holidays :P With my main i was the POS director for Firmus Ixion for the last 6 or so months, in charge of the minimum setups for all alliance POS's, obviously POS's can only do so much and the damage and tracking calculator i built for POS's showed me that there is no way for a POS to ever have enough DPS to kill a DN (besides if the pilot is dumb enough to stray into a neut).. aside from that though i also specialized heavily in Advanced Reactions to fund my training for caps. I think the best way to deal with this problem of a shortage of materials is pretty simple.. a new type of reaction BP and a new type of reactor, a Fusion Reactor, as simple as it may sound (as similiar to that person that said we should make a collider), fusion reactors fuse atoms together into heavier atoms, i believe we should be able to turn the simpler materials into the heavier ones, for example you have a Fusion Reactor (call it what you want but for now this will do), it takes up the same amount of CPU and PG as a Advanced Reactor so you can't run heaps of them, using a reaction BP and the required raw materials you could turn materials into other materials, for example, say 1000 Atmospheric Gases and 1000 Evaporate Deposits makes 100 Dysprosium, just an example, input amounts would need tweaking to make it not overly profitable, say make the whole cost of running the reaction maybe 5k a unit or something, that of course would depend on the cost of those input materials, or maybe make it just a little bit harder, say Atmospheric Gases and Vanadium or some other metal, something moderately rare, which means every man and his dog can't just setup a Fusion Reactor in low sec and pump out Dysprosium from Atmospheric Gases and Evaporate Deposits, although that may not exactly be a bad thing either, supply and demand will dictate how much is needed, i mean if everyone starts producing that eventually it will become unprofitable to do so.. You's have the exact same setup as a normal tower you would have setup for the Advanced Part of a reaction, only thing is you'd have to top up the input silo's reasonably often as they'd be chewing large amounts of Atmospheric Gases and Evaporate Deposits, but that could be a fall off of doing that type of reaction. This is the simplest way i can think to make supply and demand dictate the amounts of each material being created and also means that the amount created isn't finite like it is now, won't need constant increasing by the Dev's either and gives the gases much more use (making any semi useless item in eve more useful is a good thing imho).
Alexi Kalashnikov Rat Lovers Anonymous GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.01.26 01:39:00 - [135] I totally disagree with a "reserve" of a mineral and then the moons empty's, because it takes huge amounts of time to scan the moons and that. If the scan time was instant and the probes were SUBSTANTIALLY lower. I, and many other moon miners, like the ability to mine moons until we're dislodged by a bigger and more powerful entity: that's the way it should be.
kerston INC	Posted - 2008.01.26 03:26:00 - [136] Originally by: Niki Silver Please no random or chance based moon mining / reacting. The cost and logistics are just too expensive and complicated to take away consistency / production rates. Dysprosium and Promethium are required for too many reactions and too frequently. Ferrogel even uses promethium twice ffs. I understand that ccp prefers to make a change at the beginning or end of the process rather then disrupt the reactions but honestly they need to. this and everything said in this post is what i, as a chain moon miner who has some decent moons belives, t2 doesn't need to be different than t1 in therms of materials base and so on, therefore there is more veldspar than arkonor, therefore it should be the same as there are atmospheric gases on almost if not all of the bloody systems across 0.0 while i have never met a prometh moon.
Dal Thrax Multiverse Corporation	Posted - 2008.01.26 05:53:00 - [137] Originally by: tilt sedron Rising prices for high end moon minerals will finally increase the attraction for 0.0 from a financial point of view. Many entrepreneurs in EVE will be able to confirm, that it often has been easier to earn money in empire (high sec and low sec) than in 0.0 All the efforts, risks, and costs of 0.0 and the necessity to fight for your region have never really been properly appreciated. So I think it will be highly benefitial for EVE, if prices for 0.0 moon minerals are rising. And it is completely fair, that those who manage to gain and hold sovereignty of those high end solar systems, and spend many billions for war equippment, receive a proper reward. This will boost the economy and will make EVE more interesting from an economic and political point of view. From what I've been able to see moon material distributions are random. The ratio of good moons:junk is no higher in 0.0 then low sec. It just feels like there are more good moons as fairly monolithic alliances control them as opposed to the chaos that is low sec. I expect that part of the problem is that the random distribution resulted in more Dysposium moons in high sec then in low sec / 0.0. I remember hearing somewhere that a couple of the moon in Jita would be great if you could only mine them. (That said I expect that Jita real estate is probably still worth it). Dal Sig? I don't need no stinking sig...
Zorland Minmatar Detinus Republic	Posted - 2008.01.26 13:13:00 - [138] Originally by: Ione Hunt A lot of Dysprosium moons aren't exploited yet due to wars, that limits production, and increases prices of advanced materials dependent on Dysprosium (or Dysporite). EVE has a very cool market that mostly regulates itself. Let supply/demand find its balance after the changes before you cry for a CCP god invention! Don't like paying a lot for Dysprosium? Then you have to make an effort and claim such a moon for yourself. Jump freighters and a lot of T2 ships have a good profit, so you should be able to work for it. Moon mining and reactions can be hard work, so it's only fair if they get some of that profit as well. Just pass on the profits to your T2 ship customers, it'll still sell...it's easy to make ISK in this game anyway. That's easy for you to say when you are sitting on at least 2 Dysprosium/Promethium moons. And while everyone has to pay billions to buy some of the Promethium/Dysprosium for production, all you have to do is empty the silo once in few days and get billions in your wallet. Moons as it is are just another static complex, and few of you that own them certainly wouldn't like to see that easy money maker taken away.
Cedori Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2008.01.26 23:09:00 - [139] I also think, and I might be boo'd for this, that new T2 BPO's need to come out for things. With existing ships it's an interesting balance. Invention brought the cost down to a reasonable level. The people doing the inventing were still making money, while the people with BPO's were still making money, but were able to produce more ships that helped balance supply and demand. This meant the the price stablized at a point that was fairly reasonable as far as profits go for all involved, as well as getting a larger number of ships out in the market. With the ships produced solely by invention however, the supply is limited by the very nature of the process, and even if the demand is only as high as it is for ships produced both by invention and BPO's, the more limited supply drives up prices. Obviously, there would need to be a new way of generating the BPO's, and there doesn't need to be a large number of them. But having a few BPO's in the game helps to balance supply and demand. That said, it really is needed that the moon materials get balanced again. The moons were seeded when there was only T2 BPO's, and the server population was less then 1/2 what it is today. As the game population continues to grow, and as newer players continue to skillup and get into T2 ships, then the demand for said ships will continue to increase. This will increase the selling price. This post represents the views of me, myself, and I. Nothing said should be attributed to my corp or alliance, otherwise I might be whipped with a strand of wet-spaghetti!
Ris Dnalor Minmatar Ama-gi	Posted - 2008.01.27 00:40:00 - [140] I have an evil idea. Introduce a skill that would require Thermodynamics Lvl 5. Call it Moon Mining Overheating or whatever you want. This skill would allow you to sit next to a Moon mining array and have it run at a higher pace than normal. Moon miners have to have some loss due to efficiency, maybe this would reduce that. However you want to explain it, allow people to sit at the pos and cause more moon minerals to be produced. This would require an additional source of 'fuel' as well. Probably coolant. you would have to feed the coolant in every xx minutes, which would be frequent enough to prevent someone from being afk and performing this procedure. this would provde a boost in supply ( you can set whatever % boosts you want ) while still requiring someone to be actively playing. This doesn't solve a scalability problem though does it? ;( hmmm i'll get back to ya on that one. -- No love for the Matari

Barwinius Ars ex Discordia	Posted - 2008.01.28 23:01:00 - [141] Originally by: Fitz VonHeise Except those Alliances who own the Dysprosium/Promethium moons and can hold on to them. Isn't that the point? If you want the high end moons come and take them... There has to be some financial perks to 0.0!
MEEEEOOOOOWWWW	Posted - 2008.01.29 04:26:00 - [142] Edited by: MEEEEOOOOOWWWW on 29/01/2008 04:26:50 ive noticed a stablization in the T2 material market atm. and yet i see the price of HAC's recons and interceptors drop in price slightly due to bigger competition. so T2 material prices have "doubled" and are "out of control" as some would say where as the prices for the items in common use such as T2 cruisers are decreasing in price amazes me then. Competition is everywhere and will keep the prices stable. Its only the teir 2 BS's and jump freighters that are expensive to build as the inventors arnt using the best me decryptors and hence requiring so much more in materials. and over the last 3 weeks ive seen Dys drop in price by approximatly 11k per unit
Kylar Renpurs Dusk Blade	Posted - 2008.01.29 05:23:00 - [143] Exactly. And you know why it's stabilized? Because there was never any issue with the price of T2 components. An increase thanks to the release of T2 BS was expected, prices wildly fluctuated as market speculation on the patch ensued, and now prices are settling at sustainable levels. And to be honest, prices haven't actually doubled, although in most cases this is the case. If you look at the T2 component market, the distribution of cost has simply changed, Most notably are Microprocessors, which are sitting at about 8.5k, and are still manufacturable at a profit, as opposed to thrusters which now struggle to turn a profit at 35k per piece. Personally this environment where there's great variance in the price of items is great, instead of an environment (like the one of old) where everything was around 10-15k each (except reactors), adds a bit more variety to things. The great doomsday of T2 which everyone predicted never came. Personally, the only effect it had on me was to double my profit for one month, and cause me some available capital issues when I needed to cash out for two weeks manufacturing rather than one. Profit levels are normal, production levels are normal, production costs are increased but hey, I planned for that. Carry on, nothing to see here. Improve Market Competition!
Carniflex Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.01.29 06:32:00 - [144] I like the idea of 'alchemy' process and new miners able to extract 'deep' moon minerals. Perhaps it would also be possible to use somekind of 'mining crystals' similar to strip miners in new moon miners modulating thus output into desired direction. In implemantion of this I do believe, that moon mining should be the most predictable part, while alchemy process might be more propability based. Moon mining crystals should break eventually, as it would create small additional market. In implemation of alchemy it should not be possible to use only common minerals to get high end products, it would make more sense to use smaller quantities of 'deep' moon minerals in the process. One of possible directions to go would be to allow 'alchemy' only in 0.0 player owned outposts, perhaps even needing specific outpost upgrade if prevention of market flooding is really needed.
Zarin	Posted - 2008.01.29 12:03:00 - [145] Originally by: MEEEEOOOOOWWWW Edited by: MEEEEOOOOOWWWW on 29/01/2008 04:26:50 ive noticed a stablization in the T2 material market atm. and yet i see the price of HAC's recons and interceptors drop in price slightly due to bigger competition. so T2 material prices have "doubled" and are "out of control" as some would say where as the prices for the items in common use such as T2 cruisers are decreasing in price amazes me then. Its only the teir 2 BS's and jump freighters that are expensive to build as the inventors arnt using the best me decryptors and hence requiring so much more in materials. and over the last 3 weeks ive seen Dys drop in price by approximatly 11k per unit The sale price of dysprosium this week is about 33% more than last week. A Dysprosium moon is now worth almost a billion isk per week, wars can and already have been fought on these in both high and lowsec. Jump Freighters have infact been using the best ME decryptors, as you save up to a BILLION isk in build cost by using the best ME decryptor. Because you get no more runs by using the max chance decryptor, the BPCs are cheap enough that it is substantially cheaper to use the best ME decryptor. It's still around 4 bil isk of moon minerals (down from about 5.5 at its peak though, mostly the lowends have dropped back to where they were). As for much of the T2 ship market, alot of ships up for sale at the moment are being sold at a loss by inventors, becuase they could have sold their materials last week for more than the built ship this week. But as they see the price of materials dropping they rush to offload their produce. Also, in Trinity the invention cost of smaller ships decreased, as well as the following drop in datacore prices means that the invention component of T2 production is much cheaper. The fact that alot of T2 ship are no cheaper than they were is testament to the fact that the reduced invention cost has been completely eaten up by the increased build cost. Pretty much all moon materials now are within a few % of where they have been traditionally (there was always some fluctuation). Dyprosium and Promethium on the other hand are fortune making moons. And yes there are plenty of 0.0 regions that have ZERO of these, while there are lowsec regions that have 2-3 and 0.0 regions that have 10 :o They are certainly not evenly distributed. TBH I think getting that much out of a single moon is eve on easy-mode, and more and more these are being taken by bigger and bigger entities, who grow to the size that no new entity will EVER be able to take them on.
Captain Havoc Caldari Dark Centuri Inc.	Posted - 2008.01.29 13:44:00 - [146] I really think we have a problem with reactions as a whole, i made spreadsheets about 6 months or so ago that did all the calculations involved with advanced reactions, i recently made some for all the simples as well, at the moment the prices are so bad that there is no simple reactions worth doing and only a few advanced ones, and even then the time it takes to recover the initial isk spent to setup the whole reaction process on the last few decent ones is about 3-5 months depending if your mining some of your materials yourself or not. TBH i've closed down production of the advanced material i was making as it was no longer profitable, i'll be starting another reaction and i'll bet i'm not the only one. Dark Centuri Inc. POS Director FIX POS Logistics Coordinator
Kaaii Caldari PixelJuice Design Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2008.01.30 11:37:00 - [147] And now, according to this , we will have 10x as many "runs" (for freighters anyway) competing for the same moon mins already in short supply... Could you dev owning dysp moon ppl please just wallet spawn the cash instead of laundering it into game where "nobody" seems to notice...? According to Oveur, existing LSAA's already anchored will stay there. kieron Director of Community Relations,
Lord Fitz	Posted - 2008.01.30 15:02:00 - [148] Originally by: Kaaii And now, according to this , we will have 10x as many "runs" (for freighters anyway) competing for the same moon mins already in short supply... Could you dev owning dysp moon ppl please just wallet spawn the cash instead of laundering it into game where "nobody" seems to notice...? Not 10x the runs, prod limit 10, so that if you use the +9 decryptor you get 10x the runs, but with 0.6x the chance (instead of now as it's no advantage). Of course moon materials are already so expensive that the waste from using that decryptor, or even the +4 1.8x decryptor will NOT be worthwhile, the +1 1.2x decryptor will be the sweet spot, especially since even that will double invention output, increasing demand for the adv materials. Of course people will be foolish and invent using the more wastage decryptors, just as they currently are, so yeah, that will increase demand.
Ewina Acoma	Posted - 2008.01.30 16:52:00 - [149] Having a great moon is a powerfull advantage. It is like having a tech 2 bpo, big vessels, specials items. These advantages are valuables. Why do you want to destroy them ? Pos are valuable and can be taken. Perfect toys ! Yes, greater alliance can have all of that. Yes, they are more powerfull. Do we need to destroy a great toy for this reason ? I think we must add new toys to allow other people gains other advantages. We haven't to level all by the lowest. We haven't to level all at all. I don't want to have the same than every other pilot. I want a lot of way, and be able to choose my way. It's good and funny there is a dysprosium Cartel, it's others cartels which is lacking ( like rarest booster, blackmarket, pleasure hubs... ) Ps : I want my cartel too !
Shidhe Minmatar The Babylon5 Consortuim	Posted - 2008.01.30 17:22:00 - [150] There are probably too few moons producing Dysprosium and Promethium - and that is an invitation for a cartel to set up. Moving demand a bit wont fix that - as long as they are needed and the cartel stands firm, they make huge amounts. In RL mining as the price goes up, more previously uneconomic sites become economic. This could be implemented by 1/2 concentration moon materials - ones that mine at half the rate. Sprinkle a few rares around moons at 1/2 concentration, or less, and you get some sort of price stability - normally they will not be very profitable to mine, but they will get mined when the price rises.

Reachok Amarr Tres Hombres	Posted - 2008.01.30 23:01:00 - [151] I've read some very good, and equally complex ideas so far. My proposal is as follows: 1) Leave all moons currently being mined alone. 2) Introduce an algorithm that would say every 30 days calculate the chances of a "dead" moon suddenly having minerals. This would be subject to region wide distribution algorithms as well, to keep one region from becoming high mineral rich while and adjacent region "dies out". 3) All moons that currently have minerals, but are not actively being mined or have a POS anchored near them could have a similar algorithm as number 2 above, but might also create a "dead" moon or increase it's worth. Or even change nothing. The minerals would follow current distribution restrictions currently in place i.e. - Dysprosium in low/null sec, none in high sec. 4) Allow moon mining in high sec, with the addition of allowing reactions to be done in high sec space. The current POS restrictions with regards to placement and standings would remain unchanged. Okay, I'll try to be brief here. #1 insures current production stays the same, and would not be affected by #2. #2 means that dead moon you scanned last month may be worthwhile this month. Scanning dead moons of territory you've recently lost but didn't care about might reveal a very desirable moon now very much worth fighting over. It would slowly increase dysprosium moon availability up to a preset cap based on market and production trends. #3 would introduce a gambling aspect to the moon mining crowd. Moon X has very lowball minerals, not really needed, but I COULD mine it, or wait 30 days and see if it improves. It may stay the same, change to better or decrease to worse value. It also means someone else could be sneaking in when you're not online and checking it, discovering it's now a high value moon and taking it before you log on the next time. #4 should balance T2 prices out by allowing low end moon minerals and reactions to be made on the cheap, while not bothering at all the high end reactions. Remember, any Joe can anchor a POS in 0.3 space or lower. High sec POS require grinding for standings to get one set up. So you shouldn't see overnight price drop or an instant increase in availability of low end T2 components. It would kill current low end T2 manufacturers of course, at least at first until the rush of new players to the POS market discovers the huge pain running a POS solo can be. However, any of the more complex ideas previously stated will likewise affect a certain group of POS owners and T2 manufacturers. Lastly, for a background story, or reason why suddenly a seemingly "dead" moon now has minerals: The probe results are determined by the landing site on the moon. Just like our moon has titanium deposits concentrated near the surface in a couple of places, Eve moons would likewise have dead spot that would be seemingly worthless to mine if the probe landed in one of these areas. The algorithms that will be used to determine whether dead or existing moons with minerals with no POS anchored nearby would need to be tweakable by the devs. Perhaps an interface they would punch in numbers based upon market trends. Something that would not for instance require a major patch to fix if moon mineral distribution is not just right for an area. Also, the 30 day period could be made longer or shorter or even be a random number generated between 30 to 90 days.
Verite Rendition Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.01.31 01:34:00 - [152] Originally by: Shidhe There are probably too few moons producing Dysprosium and Promethium - and that is an invitation for a cartel to set up. Moving demand a bit wont fix that - as long as they are needed and the cartel stands firm, they make huge amounts. Considering that these moons are spread all about the universe, you won't see any cartels. You can't get the kind of power/resource concentration needed to make one be effective. ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
Salmandi Deritro	Posted - 2008.01.31 12:29:00 - [153] Originally by: Reachok Edited by: Reachok on 31/01/2008 11:18:19 I've read some very good, and equally complex ideas so far. My proposal is as follows: 1) Leave all moons currently being mined alone. 2) Introduce an algorithm that would say every 30 days calculate the chances of a "dead" moon suddenly having minerals. This would be subject to region wide distribution algorithms as well, to keep one region from becoming high mineral rich while and adjacent region "dies out". 3) All moons that currently have minerals, but are not actively being mined or have a POS anchored near them could have a similar algorithm as number 2 above, but might also create a "dead" moon or increase it's worth. Or even change nothing. The minerals would follow current distribution restrictions currently in place i.e. - Dysprosium in low/null sec, none in high sec. 4) Allow moon mining in high sec, with the addition of allowing reactions to be done in high sec space. The current POS restrictions with regards to placement and standings would remain unchanged. Okay, I'll try to be brief here. #1 insures current production stays the same, and would not be affected by #2. #2 means that dead moon you scanned last month may be worthwhile this month. Scanning dead moons of territory you've recently lost but didn't care about might reveal a very desirable moon now very much worth fighting over. It would slowly increase dysprosium moon availability up to a preset cap based on market and production trends. #3 would introduce a gambling aspect to the moon mining crowd. Moon X has very lowball minerals, not really needed, but I COULD mine it, or wait 30 days and see if it improves. It may stay the same, change to better or decrease to worse value. It also means someone else could be sneaking in when you're not online and checking it, discovering it's now a high value moon and taking it before you log on the next time. #4 should balance T2 prices out by allowing low end moon minerals and reactions to be made on the cheap, while not bothering at all the high end reactions. Remember, any Joe can anchor a POS in 0.3 space or lower. High sec POS require grinding for standings to get one set up. So you shouldn't see overnight price drop or an instant increase in availability of low end T2 components. It would kill current low end T2 manufacturers of course, at least at first until the rush of new players to the POS market discovers the huge pain running a POS solo can be. However, any of the more complex ideas previously stated will likewise affect a certain group of POS owners and T2 manufacturers. I like this suggestion I am presently just getting into the whole moon mining thing (I have one small Technicium POS). We do need to work on the prices etc for especially Dyprosium and Prom - demand is exceeding supply and will continue to do so. The above suggestion has the benefits of not affecting existing poses (notoriosly difficult and always seems to end up bugged) but increasing the supply gradually. Such a change however is relatively easy to implement, requires work from players and allows balancing of such supply and demand by ccp simply by tweaking the algorithms. A couple of things though: 1) There has to be some sort of security status link to abundance - ie more of the rare moons in 0.0 than in 0.3 in the same way more high value spawns/minerals 2) The moon scanning probes should like all the other probes be able to be player made (atm there are no available BPOs) 3) Industrial goods and radioactives used in poses should also be able to be manufactured by players, their present NPC status limits pos logistics considerably (which alongside the Carrier Hauling Nerf which may or may not have been needed) are already a problem (especially given the cost and rarity of jump freighters and Rorquals. IMHO it is illogical to say we can manufacture Titans, all T2 ships and mods etc in 0.0 but not some robotics or oxygen.
Promithius Amarr Subach-Tech Warp to Desktop	Posted - 2008.01.31 18:48:00 - [154] firstly i want to say i do not have any pos's mining anything I dont think anything should be changed, the whole point of eve is player driven gaming , the market fulxes and changes depending on how manny people want what your selling, the reason the price of dysprosium and promethium is so high is not due to a demand from ts ship construction , its because all the POS's in fountain (of which 22 mined dysprosium and 17 mined promethium) were previously ond by bob and there friends have been being destroyed systematically , figures 18,000 or a moon material a week 18,000 x 22 = 396,000 a week x4 = 1,584,000 dysprosium a month 18,000 x 17 = 306,000 a week x4 = 1,224,000 promethium a month that have been taken out of the market due to this fighting , give it a few weeks and the new owners of the moons will start shipping it back to jita and the problem will resolve itself. i honestly don't see why CCP should intervene to fix an economic issue which is created by a player driven conflict (which is the whole point of eve) I will however agree that seeding t2 harvesters would be good way of increasing supply to accommodate the increased demand for the t2 ships (still i don't blame this solely for the increase in price ) before you call me hypocritical.
Maryn Akroti	Posted - 2008.02.01 16:50:00 - [155] Originally by: Verite Rendition Originally by: Shidhe There are probably too few moons producing Dysprosium and Promethium - and that is an invitation for a cartel to set up. Moving demand a bit wont fix that - as long as they are needed and the cartel stands firm, they make huge amounts. Considering that these moons are spread all about the universe, you won't see any cartels. You can't get the kind of power/resource concentration needed to make one be effective. Not strictly true. Some regions have more than others. 319-3D Dysprosium 31X-RE Dysprosium 8-YNBE Dysprosium 9GNS-2 Dysprosium A-ELE2 Dysprosium F-TE1T Dysprosium KEE-N6 Dysprosium PR-8CA Dysprosium T-IPZB Dysprosium YQX-7U Dysprosium 3-DMQT Promethium 39P-1J Promethium 5-CQDA Promethium D-3GIQ Promethium D-W7F0 Promethium J-LPX7 Promethium JP4-AA Promethium MKD-08 Promethium PR-8CA Promethium Q-02UL Promethium QC-YX6 Promethium T-IPZB Promethium W-KQP1 Promethium Are there any other regions that are even close to this density. Someone was REALLY lucky when the database was seeded.
Siri Blue Gallente Arachnea Phoenix Battalion Phalanx Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.02 00:52:00 - [156] Any news on this issue? Re-Introduce Non-ISK-Mission rewards, please.
Verite Rendition Caldari F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus	Posted - 2008.02.02 13:47:00 - [157] Edited by: Verite Rendition on 02/02/2008 13:48:04 Originally by: Maryn Akroti Originally by: Verite Rendition Originally by: Shidhe There are probably too few moons producing Dysprosium and Promethium - and that is an invitation for a cartel to set up. Moving demand a bit wont fix that - as long as they are needed and the cartel stands firm, they make huge amounts. Considering that these moons are spread all about the universe, you won't see any cartels. You can't get the kind of power/resource concentration needed to make one be effective. Not strictly true. Some regions have more than others. 319-3D Dysprosium 31X-RE Dysprosium 8-YNBE Dysprosium 9GNS-2 Dysprosium A-ELE2 Dysprosium F-TE1T Dysprosium KEE-N6 Dysprosium PR-8CA Dysprosium T-IPZB Dysprosium YQX-7U Dysprosium 3-DMQT Promethium 39P-1J Promethium 5-CQDA Promethium D-3GIQ Promethium D-W7F0 Promethium J-LPX7 Promethium JP4-AA Promethium MKD-08 Promethium PR-8CA Promethium Q-02UL Promethium QC-YX6 Promethium T-IPZB Promethium W-KQP1 Promethium Are there any other regions that are even close to this density. Someone was REALLY lucky when the database was seeded. I can name another region with 21 Dys/Prom moons, so Delve's not that big of an outlier (although you are correct that not all regions get as many good moons). But that also means that those 21 moons are a drop in the bucket of the total, it would easily be 5% at most of the high-end moons in the game, that's way too small to make a cartel with. ---- FREE Explorer Lead Megalomanic EVE Automated Influence Map
Zarin	Posted - 2008.02.02 15:29:00 - [158] Originally by: Verite Rendition I can name another region with 21 Dys/Prom moons, so Delve's not that big of an outlier (although you are correct that not all regions get as many good moons). But that also means that those 21 moons are a drop in the bucket of the total, it would easily be 5% at most of the high-end moons in the game, that's way too small to make a cartel with. I can name 3 other 0.0 regions with 0 of any of them :( They are not distributed close to evenly. Fountain is very good so is Delve, you can churn out a titan a month between them :o Some regions just didn't get that kind of luck (to even have one )
Racheal Gannon Hellbenders	Posted - 2008.02.03 08:16:00 - [159] This maybe be too much reward than risk, but maybe CCP can open up 0.4 security rating systems to moon mining and reactions? Maybe require a t2 moon miner or reactor to use in the 0.4 space. Just seems like and awful waste of moons mins in those security places. Plus this will open up more space for people trying to get into the business and do not command a fleet to bump other people out. Just an idea, -R
Braaage eXceed Inc. eXceed.	Posted - 2008.02.03 11:23:00 - [160] After watching the markets for some time, nothing needs doing, no shortage and everything continues to tick along. -- eve-guides.com All about POSs, Outposts, Exploration, Mining, Invention, EVE Database + much more!!

Zorland Minmatar	Posted - 2008.02.06 05:50:00 - [161] So when do you think you will do something about Dysprosium/Promethium? Demand is again outpacing supply and price is running wild disrupting industry due to imbalance before and after introduction of tech 2 battleships and capital ships.
DeadWeight Minmatar Botox Bandits	Posted - 2008.02.06 13:12:00 - [162] Originally by: Braaage After watching the markets for some time, nothing needs doing, no shortage and everything continues to tick along. This is a venue for rational and objective discussion. Your two liner not only contributes nothing to the discussion, but is motivated by the fact that your corp and your allies hold on to a few Dysprosium moons in Stain.
PR0JECT 2501 Section Nine	Posted - 2008.02.06 14:37:00 - [163] Firstly, i'm typing this quickly at work, so all you guys who are a real hit with the ladies, please don't flame my spelling etc. There seems to be abit of debate as to whether any kind of boost is necessary, all i'm going to comment on is how to do it if it is to be done. The answer seems simple as it is a problem similar to one that used to face eve; T2 BPO's. This was that they where basically isk printing devices, with not enough of them to keep prices at a reasonable lvl, and therefor bad for inflation. Whereas T2 bpo's could be held on to and never given up, or taken, at least moons can be taken by force. However, they're only likely to be taken by some large alliance run by the kind of power mad geek that will amass wealth way beyond their ability to use it, simply for its own sake. What was the solution to T2 bpo's? Invention. This worked wonders for the market, and made the game much more fun, with more people able to generally afford to play the game to the best of the skill ability with the T2 prices reduced to build cost + enough % profit to make it worth it, rather than what ever evil price the bpo owners kept the market at. So, we need a similar solution for the rare moon minerals, as they are being price fixed to a very high lvl. Fortunately alot of the other more common minerals are being mined more and have become cheaper, which kind of averages it out a bit, but still, its getting worse. This calls for something chance based that can be done in high sec, and does not need a large corp/alliance to achieve. My idea is this; Alchemy To keep it as complex as T2 manufacturing, i think it should have 2 lvl's; the first being a type of invention to get a bpc that allows you to react common moon minerals together in a POS into rarer ones. This should use a new type of reactor anchorable in high sec, that can take strange bits of deadspace junk found via exploration as well to improve variables in the reaction. The 2nd lvl of chance after the initial invention would be that the reaction would have a risk of stopping or failing and ruining the batch on its hourly cycle. The deadspace items could be used to decrease/alter the risk in various ways. Also the amount of the final product produced would vary depending on what type of reaction bpc used, and possibly also chance. This would all have to be balanced so the materials used make it a bit more expensive than just mining the stuff, the added expense would be the time and attention it would need to keep going (time you could be spending mining/mission running etc, so counts as an expense) I'll admit i havent waded through the 6 pages of this post, so appologies if anyone has already suggested something similiar - the kudos is all yours.
Roemy Schneider BINFORD Solidus Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.06 15:05:00 - [164] Originally by: DeadWeight Originally by: Braaage After watching the markets for some time, nothing needs doing, no shortage and everything continues to tick along. This is a venue for rational and objective discussion. Your two liner not only contributes nothing to the discussion, but is motivated by the fact that your corp and your allies hold on to a few Dysprosium moons in Stain. he's kinda right though; lately, prices for advanced materials have stagnated. the carbides and sylramic fibres have been dropping. my interpretation on these is more people jumping onto the bandwagon there - those are the "easier" reactions. fermionic condensates may have undergone an upward correction the past few days, but the previous decline has been steady - it is back up to the value it had two months ago. the other stuff with dysp, prom or both in it (ferrogel & hypersynaptic fibres) may have slightly risen since early december, but it's far from the "we're all gonna die" direction implied in some of these posts here. i'd say more dysp/prom moon owners do the reaction stuff themselves now, leaving the raw material market slightly dry and causing "ugly" prices there - and lots of rrom for manipulation appearantly (no there's no cartel... just a few rich market veterans doing market-pvp) the initial bump is (long) over - invention around T2 BS and especially j-freighters has improved due to people learning from their mistakes (ME -5 copies... this might get ugly again with the weird idea about 10run t2 freighter bpc there) but yeah, the initial problem stays: static supply vs a slightly growing player base and the SP inflation in it. unless there will be more (big/capital) T2 ships coming up, this shouldn't be such an evil trend upwards. it does make territorial warfare more rewarding but the spread really seems to be imbalanced (impass will probably stay the "safest" region that way :D - well... in every way...) question is; how much of this is desired...? again: if no new T2 ships will get introduced, prices will not get too ugly. - putting the gist back into logistics
SpaceSlag Dragons Of Redemption Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.06 20:06:00 - [165] Easy fix: Allow players to online multiple harvesters mining the same moon for the same material. Market will even out. To counter, make POS towers 175% the value they are now. OR Possibly seed T2 moon harvesters? Become a pirate without fear of death!
Akira2501	Posted - 2008.02.06 20:07:00 - [166] A lot of people are using invention as a business, and as long as the supply of moon materials cannot be monopolized but just a couple corps, I see no problem with the laws of supply and demand increasing the cost of T2. That said, Invention was originally designed to provide low volume manufacturing for internal corp needs. To this end I would propose a ship-based moon miner with internal processing of materials, and open high-sec moons for these ships. I envision this being a very low volume process, designed for internal use materials. If corps weÆre to decide to focus on this full time, it would be profitable, but they would never be able to match the output of a POS-based moon mining operation in low-sec.
SpaceSlag Dragons Of Redemption Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.02.06 22:30:00 - [167] Edited by: SpaceSlag on 06/02/2008 22:31:40 Originally by: Akira2501 A lot of people are using invention as a business, and as long as the supply of moon materials cannot be monopolized but just a couple corps, I see no problem with the laws of supply and demand increasing the cost of T2. That said, Invention was originally designed to provide low volume manufacturing for internal corp needs. To this end I would propose a ship-based moon miner with internal processing of materials, and open high-sec moons for these ships. I envision this being a very low volume process, designed for internal use materials. If corps weÆre to decide to focus on this full time, it would be profitable, but they would never be able to match the output of a POS-based moon mining operation in low-sec. I love this idea! Then previously said larger Alliances in 0.0 or low sec can instantly put forth the cash (resulting in said gold rush) to buy/make these new ships and hog all high-sec moons themselves. We do have puppet corps in other alliances that are merely our alts, but benefit one bottom line. If change were to happen, then macro-miners change from mining regular asteroids to mining moons, then T1 ships will increase and thus raise the price of everything and not just T2 items. I would definitely go for this as high-volume miners in 0.0 of high-end minerals will profit from this like it was 2004. Additionally, our POSes just keep on ticking. Become a pirate without fear of death!
Fitz VonHeise The New Order. United Connection's	Posted - 2008.02.07 18:29:00 - [168] Edited by: Fitz VonHeise on 07/02/2008 18:44:30 Originally by: Verite Rendition I can name another region with 21 Dys/Prom moons, ... Please list the moon locations. Others would like to know them too.
Manfred Rickenbocker	Posted - 2008.02.08 16:14:00 - [169] Moon mining in high-sec with a POS should NOT be allowed. Why? When someone grinds their standing up to be 5+ with an empire, they can drop a large POS and noone will EVER BE ABLE TO CONTEST IT. You cant get a dread into empire to assault it, and with a proper setup any sizeable BS force will be absolutely shredded. Any alliance able to contest these towers will do so and therefore make them even further impossible to take. If you are worried about cartels controlling mineral prices, this will be it. As I said earlier, Alchemy would be nice, but the problem is you should not have a tritanium into megacyte equation because thats not realistic. If alchemy were to work, it'd have to use a separate resource all together (which I would like). The entire purpose would be to give an alternate means to obtain the mineral at increased cost to offset supply constraints as demand is theoretically uncontrollable. You can tweak demand by changing necessary minerals, but that will only go so far as to have people produce more and crashing into the demand wall again. Supply would also be controllable by fractional deposits in moons, but that also might require people to rescan every moon in Eve. ------------------------ Exploration: A discipline for those who have a lot of time, don't want to put in a lot of effort, and have a high tolerance for mental anguish.
Myrdyr	Posted - 2008.02.08 17:57:00 - [170] Loyalty points for moon minerals == good game. Please post constructively. ~Saint

Shidhe Minmatar The Babylon5 Consortuim	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:28:00 - [171] Originally by: SpaceSlag Easy fix: Allow players to online multiple harvesters mining the same moon for the same material. Market will even out. To counter, make POS towers 175% the value they are now. OR Possibly seed T2 moon harvesters? The first is a really bad idea - the mega-rich become mega-richer, and the price fixing (whether done at source or at Jita by market manipulation) continues. We need more sources, not bigger sources. Seeding T2 harvesters would be nice, but it wont help this problem.
Doppleganger Minmatar Band of Builders Inc. Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2008.02.08 18:45:00 - [172] Originally by: Zorland Originally by: Ione Hunt A lot of Dysprosium moons aren't exploited yet due to wars, that limits production, and increases prices of advanced materials dependent on Dysprosium (or Dysporite). EVE has a very cool market that mostly regulates itself. Let supply/demand find its balance after the changes before you cry for a CCP god invention! Don't like paying a lot for Dysprosium? Then you have to make an effort and claim such a moon for yourself. Jump freighters and a lot of T2 ships have a good profit, so you should be able to work for it. Moon mining and reactions can be hard work, so it's only fair if they get some of that profit as well. Just pass on the profits to your T2 ship customers, it'll still sell...it's easy to make ISK in this game anyway. That's easy for you to say when you are sitting on at least 2 Dysprosium/Promethium moons. And while everyone has to pay billions to buy some of the Promethium/Dysprosium for production, all you have to do is empty the silo once in few days and get billions in your wallet. Moons as it is are just another static complex, and few of you that own them certainly wouldn't like to see that easy money maker taken away. I dont know if the distribution of rare moons has changed over the last yr or so but it use to be like empire ores. Some could only be found in certain areas. Right now the area I know of that was richest in dysprosium moons is still involved in a large war so of course the supply is going to drop as moon mining poses are blown up repeatly. I would suggest to anyone suffering from the price of dyspro to go down there and getting yourselves a share of the pie.
Uncle Mo	Posted - 2008.02.19 11:13:00 - [173] Originally by: Myrdyr Loyalty points for moon minerals == good game. Could it be this simple? I'd love to turn in my now worthless LP's for moon mins. LP's could be traded in for special 'faction' reactions to produce some of the rarer materials. Better yet, make the level V missions worth moon points (MP's) which would redeem for moon materials. Corps would have to do low sec missions to recieve them, pirates would have more targets. Pleanty of opportunity for paridy here.
Hohne Antares Fleet Yards SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.02.19 14:23:00 - [174] Looks like most reactions that don't involve dysprosium or promethium are returning to their pre-trinity levels. (Huge pickup in the supply of carbides and sylramic fibers, crashing some to levels below what they were 6 months ago). Ferrogel and Fermionic Condensates still remain quite high.
Hardigeen	Posted - 2008.03.21 06:05:00 - [175] Is this thread dead now? The price of Dysprosium is at all time high, 72K per unit. Thats 500-600% more then it used to be few months ago. Tell us CCP, where is the limit ????? Is it really fair for Dysprosium moon owners to earn billions every month doing nothing while we (producers) get paid less and less for all the work ?????
Darth Felin Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.03.21 13:22:00 - [176] Originally by: Hardigeen Is this thread dead now? The price of Dysprosium is at all time high, 72K per unit. Thats 500-600% more then it used to be few months ago. Tell us CCP, where is the limit ????? Is it really fair for Dysprosium moon owners to earn billions every month doing nothing while we (producers) get paid less and less for all the work ????? There is some things to consider. First is RA that attack and take dysp moons across the EvE. Second one is that it seems that most moon owners do reaction themselves and do not sell raw materials. I am at work now so i can not check if Ferrogel and other reactions price have same price increament but I bet it is not true.
Uncle Mo	Posted - 2008.03.25 06:47:00 - [177] There's very little Dysp. for sale. Is it just me or does it seem like CCP is waiting for the new Stellar Counsil to form before any changes are made.
Bambi Existentialist Collective	Posted - 2008.03.25 12:15:00 - [178] We have seen mnay of these price peaks sice EVE went live, every time there is a new batch of ships / technology released the higher end materials sky rocket. Who hear remembers mega and zyd at well over 10,000 is each? When morph came in it was 50-60k a unit, it sellted down until the mass of t2 ship production came in, then it flew up again. Same thing with advanced materials, each time a batch of new T2 ships are released prices jump up for a few months then settle down again. Seems like lots of people here seem sore as they cant produce the entire production line on thier own. Dont get me worng I would like my own personal supply of ferrogel and fermionics but as a solo player its not gonna happen. Even paying todays inflated Jita prices for materials you can make a good 40-60% proffit on most things. If you cant you're building the worng stuff. I must say I do like the idea of LP for materials, maybe only from industrial corps, I mean no Ferrogel from Gal Navy Agents, we dont want Dodixie any more crowded with mission farmers. The way LP rewards are now you vcan almost put an ISK value on LP at 1000 ISK per LP. Make Ferrogel 20 LP a unit etc. This would enable small corps and solo players access to a limited supply of Advanced Moon Materials. I dobt very much you will ever see a reseeding/redistribution of moon materials, I am sure they were not supposed to be evenly spread around the universe, there should be areas with higher value materials and those without anything. Texas has lots of oil, Iowa doesnt (as far as I know)... EVE is dead, long live EVE!
128th ABC123 Eve Liberation Force Sylph Alliance	Posted - 2008.03.28 13:37:00 - [179] Some of the comparisons being made here on these forums between rl oil market and the eve dysprosium market are laughable.. Just some things to take in account: -New Oil Fields and Ways to extract oil are constantly being found. -Deep Sea Drilling (Shell), Coal Liquification (China), Alaskan Upgrader (USA striping oil rich topsoil and extracting oil.) -There are alot of different "grades" of Oil. Most often defined in ultra light, light, heavy etc. This determines the range of products that can be refined out of the oil. The most wanted is the heavy oil as it has the largest range of products, open up your first year chemistry book to see a refining column and what products come out. Most of the "light" oil fields have been charted for over 70 years and have only recently become affordable or interesting to drill with the higher oil prices. -Alternative fuel is not a myth and it will be replace fossil fuel in time. -Oil production is not staggering and ALOT of new projects are final stages of completion or being started (refineries, platforms, FPSO's etc.) We are NOT running out of Oil and supply can keep up with Demand. As oil is such an important commodity it is good that their is a governing organ that does have an influence on the supply and the price. Please don't see it as a conspiracy but as a safekeeping of something more people should be seeing the profits of The biggest factoring behind the oil is the world economy requiring more and more, economies like China are absorbing large quantities of resources, not only oil but for instance timber. Every Chinese person that has suddenly seen his welfare grow over the last 3 decades now wants a wooden floor in his house etc etc. (the Complet Island of Borneo is being cut down for the Chinese lumbermarket... ) Maybe some principles of supply and demand can be compared but for the rest... Please: NONSENSE.
Abrazzar Equilibrium Inc. FOUNDATI0N	Posted - 2008.03.28 13:53:00 - [180] Maybe add clouds as a additional means to gather raw T2 materials. This would make aquiring the materials more fluid and not fixed to a limited number of moons that can be monopolized by a handful alliances and with a control mechanism for the available amounts, it won't upset the market balance too much. -------- Ideas for: Mining Clouds

Thorradin State War Academy	Posted - 2008.03.28 14:55:00 - [181] Not sure if this was mentioned yet, but what about T2 salvagers, possibly a special ship too, that would let people recover T2 components, not just rig parts, but maybe you recover X of A and Y of B?
clone 1 Laughing Leprechauns Corporation	Posted - 2008.04.16 10:36:00 - [182] Originally by: CCP Chronotis We do agree that the demand for components will only increase due to invention removing the limiting factor of a fixed original blueprint supply and new tech II ships being introduced. This has warranted a fresh look at the moon mining and construction component processes which has been ongoing for a while since we first confirmed we were introducing so many new ships and also making some big changes to invention which have lead to a very in-depth look at the industry from top to bottom. So 4 months later , what do YOU think now? -------------------------------------------------- The Angels Have the Phone Box
Ambien Torca	Posted - 2008.04.16 12:00:00 - [183] Originally by: 128th ABC123 -New Oil Fields and Ways to extract oil are constantly being found. -Deep Sea Drilling (Shell), Coal Liquification (China), Alaskan Upgrader (USA striping oil rich topsoil and extracting oil.) -There are alot of different "grades" of Oil. Most often defined in ultra light, light, heavy etc. This determines the range of products that can be refined out of the oil. The most wanted is the heavy oil as it has the largest range of products, open up your first year chemistry book to see a refining column and what products come out. Most of the "light" oil fields have been charted for over 70 years and have only recently become affordable or interesting to drill with the higher oil prices. -Alternative fuel is not a myth and it will be replace fossil fuel in time. -Oil production is not staggering and ALOT of new projects are final stages of completion or being started (refineries, platforms, FPSO's etc.) We are NOT running out of Oil and supply can keep up with Demand. As oil is such an important commodity it is good that their is a governing organ that does have an influence on the supply and the price. Please don't see it as a conspiracy but as a safekeeping of something more people should be seeing the profits of The biggest factoring behind the oil is the world economy requiring more and more, economies like China are absorbing large quantities of resources, not only oil but for instance timber. Every Chinese person that has suddenly seen his welfare grow over the last 3 decades now wants a wooden floor in his house etc etc. (the Complet Island of Borneo is being cut down for the Chinese lumbermarket... ) Eventually supply won¦t keep up with demand when we are talking about oil, supply is finite. New sources of oil give less usable energy per energy used to get it to usable form in the first place which means you need lots more production compared to conventional one to get similar amount of energy out of it. And oil/NG can do so much work per gallon that nothing can replace it either into forseeable future. Solar is closest but we also have a energy storage problem. Until that is worked out and suitable infrastructure and vehicles for it are deployed we are heading towards financial implosion and resource wars which will cut down oil price, until demand picks up some and then we run into that same wall again. Government won¦t save anyone ultimately [maybe themselves ) and shame on people who think they will. Oil production is almost completely nationalized already and this will guarantee diplomatic problems between "producer" and "consumer" as producers find themselves barely capable of producing oil for themselves let alone for outside sales.
Carniflex Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.04.16 12:07:00 - [184] Originally by: Ambien Torca Eventually supply won¦t keep up with demand when we are talking about oil, supply is finite. New sources of oil give less usable energy per energy used to get it to usable form in the first place which means you need lots more production compared to conventional one to get similar amount of energy out of it. And oil/NG can do so much work per gallon that nothing can replace it either into forseeable future. Solar is closest but we also have a energy storage problem. Until that is worked out and suitable infrastructure and vehicles for it are deployed we are heading towards financial implosion and resource wars which will cut down oil price, until demand picks up some and then we run into that same wall again. Government won¦t save anyone ultimately [maybe themselves ) and shame on people who think they will. Oil production is almost completely nationalized already and this will guarantee diplomatic problems between "producer" and "consumer" as producers find themselves barely capable of producing oil for themselves let alone for outside sales. Aye. You need a lot of dreadnaughts to kick someone off from sweet moon.
Shintai Gallente Balad Naran Orbital Shipyards	Posted - 2008.04.16 12:48:00 - [185] Besides the things up to review. As an extra thing, not standalone. How about change all the invention BPCs to a default of ME 0 instead of -4. Abstraction and Transcendence: Nature, Shintai, and Geometry
Midas Man Caldari Dzark Asylum	Posted - 2008.04.16 15:50:00 - [186] My .02Isk. A new tier to mining. Bring out a miner that is the next step on from Exhumers. Allow it only to be used in True 0.0 (Risk/Reward). It will be able to surface mine a moon obviously needs to be an empty or friendly Moon. It will collect 1 Moon ore per 5 min cycle. you require 12 moon ores and a Moon ore refining array to turn it into Tech 2 Mats. By using some Refining Upgrade you will be able to stipulate which material to harvest from the raw moon ore. Abundance of each will be based on rarety. Total value of the refined products should be balanced around 50 mil. therefore atm noone would do it because mining other things is more profitable. If moon minerals become short in supply their value will increase and so more miner's would switch to moon mining. eventually covering the extra demand and collapsing material prices to a point where other mining becomes more profitable again. I think this would allow supply to grow with demand but not affect current POS mining. If farmer jumped on the band wagon then they would need to take on the risk of living in 0.0 not going to happen IMO. their are corps that target farmer in sec space so farmers in 0.0 would be their dream.
Tasko Pal Heron Corporation	Posted - 2008.04.17 02:31:00 - [187] Originally by: Midas Man I think this would allow supply to grow with demand but not affect current POS mining. If farmer jumped on the band wagon then they would need to take on the risk of living in 0.0 not going to happen IMO. their are corps that target farmer in sec space so farmers in 0.0 would be their dream. There were stories of isk farmer corps operating in the southern parts of 0.0. Apparently, the war there drove most of them off. So I don't think it's a stretch that they figure out how to get a piece. But a large fat ship like this macromining moons in 0.0? Not going to last.
Midas Man Caldari Dzark Asylum	Posted - 2008.04.17 09:22:00 - [188] Originally by: Tasko Pal Originally by: Midas Man I think this would allow supply to grow with demand but not affect current POS mining. If farmer jumped on the band wagon then they would need to take on the risk of living in 0.0 not going to happen IMO. their are corps that target farmer in sec space so farmers in 0.0 would be their dream. There were stories of isk farmer corps operating in the southern parts of 0.0. Apparently, the war there drove most of them off. So I don't think it's a stretch that they figure out how to get a piece. But a large fat ship like this macromining moons in 0.0? Not going to last. I wasn't thinking about a particularly large ship. Similar in size to existing barge's/exhumers. Moon ore would be quite large like other 0.0 Mats so one would only be able to farm small amounts and i would hope its balanced as I stated above so that it self gouverns ie if wars are fought over a dyp moon and so supply goes down and price goes up then it would be feasable to mine it but if everyone and there dog started mining it it would be more profitable to mine the traditional ore's. And if you thin about it who would be willing to macro mine moons if you end up at a moon that you didn't scan first you quite easily could be pawned by POS's so Macro mining moons i think would be a big risk.
Ranges XxTiggerxX Corp DeStInY.	Posted - 2008.04.17 19:20:00 - [189] Just in case anybody gives a damn, i made this thread about a possible way to create a variable moon material income; Moon mining ships? The basic idea is to; 1) allow for a variable (and therefore scaling) supply of moon materials 2) allow for better integration of PVP & mining 3) allow for economic warfare in lowsec and 0.0 4) NOT take moon material production away from the lowsec / 0.0 inhabitants (last part is my opinion, some people disagree) Assuming anybody cares, please reply in the thread i linked to.. I doubt i'll be following this thread very much... :)
Sadist Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2008.04.30 21:22:00 - [190] Hahahhaha this thread is hilarious. It's like the people of oil-poor countries got together and started praying to the ground: MOAR OIL OUTPUT PLX. òòòòòòòòòòòò Quote: - Numbers alone do not win a battle - No, but I bet they help.

RoboM	Posted - 2008.05.01 11:04:00 - [191] my 2isk The situation between T2 BPOs and high grade moons is not comperable. The problem with T2 BPOs was transparency and also that you could have the BPO safe in an NPC station and manufacture/copy 24/7 without anyone been able to do anything about it. Everyone in principalcan find out which moons have good material and try to kick the owners out. Having said that the rl oil situation provides us with a viable/realistic solution from keeping the prices from skyrocketing. As many ppl mentioned when oil becomes very expensive fields that are not easy to drill become economically viable. Also in WWII when Germany was faced with oil shortages they started producing oil industrialy. The process was very inefficient and the cost in resources was great but they had no alternative. The EvE equivalent of this would be to introduce new reactions and skills that would use expensive POS modules training intensive skills (a chemist-proffession)and lower grade moon materials to produce higher grade ones. The whole process would still be innefficient and require a lot of training and expensive POS mods but it would be viable only when rare materials become astronomically expensive or a corp/allliance that doesn't own a dysp or prom moon decides to try to be self sufficient. Cheers RoboM
Moose Lee	Posted - 2008.05.02 20:09:00 - [192] Ideas for moon mineral acquisitions. First idea: It seems there is a wide open possibility for the (the 1-4 meta items) that everyone has sitting in their hangar. What makes them more special? It's not because of mineral amounts, because often they reprocess to much less than the meta 0 item. Why not make them have small amounts of advance minerals or the components for T2 modules. By refining the modules it would of course destroy them, which would also help reduce stress on the database by clearing out modules that people have in their hangar and have no real use for, or are sitting on the market forever. This is especially true for the 1-2 meta lvl items. With the 3-4 lvl items people will have to choose if it is better to reprocess them, use them, invent with them or sell them. Second idea: Have the drones drop small amounts of advanced moon mins or an "alloy" that has them. The drones are flying all over the place they might as well be mining moons too. Third idea: When you destroy a NPC tower or battle station in missions what are they doing sitting there (except to cause you grief), why not have a chance to drop a little bit of moon minerals. This could also be added as a specific exploration mission with an NPC tower near a moon. I think these ideas would give a boost, with just a little modification to the "loot tables" in the database, as opposed to having new ships, new mining mechanics added, etc. and could be easily changed if it hurts the market too much.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.06.11 22:59:00 - [193] Originally by: CCP Chronotis Posted - 15/12/2007 10:36:00 Originally by: Kaaii I hope the devs keep reading this thread too, I have high hopes here.... Absolutely, tis' why I replied the first time round because it is something we are looking at internally and we are interested in getting opinions and feedback on the subject from all player perspectives out there and starting a discussion on the topic. Half a year later... any progress ?
Oakrayven Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2008.06.12 00:27:00 - [194] Originally by: Akita T Originally by: CCP Chronotis Posted - 15/12/2007 10:36:00 Originally by: Kaaii I hope the devs keep reading this thread too, I have high hopes here.... Absolutely, tis' why I replied the first time round because it is something we are looking at internally and we are interested in getting opinions and feedback on the subject from all player perspectives out there and starting a discussion on the topic. Half a year later... any progress ? yes, its tentativly schedualed for release soon (tm)
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.06.12 01:53:00 - [195] Originally by: Oakrayven yes, its tentativly schedualed for release soon (tm) Next Neversday, you say ?
Valle Deelite	Posted - 2008.08.05 22:19:00 - [196] Edited by: Valle Deelite on 05/08/2008 22:22:41 One thing that I hope the devs don't discount in their thinking is the spectre of farming and RMT. If you get people defending dyspo moons because their real livlihood depends on it it will basically make them unobtainable for anyone who isn't willing to play the game as if... well.... their real livlihood depended on it. At the end of the day, it needs to remain a game, not a job, and those who want to play a game shouldn't be competing with those for whom it's a job. There should be resources in the game worth fighting over, especially for those who choose to live in 0.0 space for the thrill of territorial conquest, but in my opinion, those things should not lend themselves to AFK (moons) or macro-friendly (fixed ore belts) farming. I think some care should be taken too not to reach a point in 0.0 where entrenched power blocks approach invincibility because of their economic power. A few years ago wars of attrition were fought where one side ultimately lost because it went broke trying to support the war effort. I'm not sure that's even possible now. I think most of the major power blocks could replace their fleets more or less as fast as they could blow them up and never run out of steam. This could lead to a situation where 0.0 stagnates and becomes a series of endless (and pointless) "lets just do damage" campaigns because dislodging one of the major players from their space just isn't possible anymore.
Abrazzar	Posted - 2008.08.05 22:43:00 - [197] I'll throw in my idea of a Moon Prospection Post. It's a POS module that allows to procure additional, random, limited and dynamically changing moon materials. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Carniflex Caldari StarHunt Fallout Project	Posted - 2008.08.06 09:04:00 - [198] Next major patch (other than ambulation) was supposed to be for industry. I have high expetations for that, but I doubt that beans get spilled before fansfest. Perhaps something on lines presented here will make it also.
Lopin Acheteur Project Amargosa	Posted - 2008.08.06 11:26:00 - [199] Originally by: Sadist Hahahhaha this thread is hilarious. It's like the people of oil-poor countries got together and started praying to the ground: MOAR OIL OUTPUT PLX. Yeah, becuase it's not like there is alternatives to oil or anything ? If oil did a price rise on this scale it wouldn't be used for fuel within a few years as it would be totally replaced in almost every single industry with the alternatives that DO EXIST in real life, but are more expensive. In Eve, those alternatives simply don't exist at any cost.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [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.