| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
   |
Posted - 2007.12.29 00:02:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Wet Ferret
Originally by: Abrazzar
You don't really think they would just remove the T1 drops from the tables and so increase the chance for named drops, do you? They will just replace T1 drops with 'nothing'. Anything else would imbalance things or would require unnecessary time to properly balance. If you need minerals, buy a Mining Laser.
Of course, removing the billions and billions of minerals that come into the market from reprocessed T1 modules won't have any effect at all. 
Of course it would have an effect, it would make it more profitable use that mining laser. 
The influx of minerals from mission loot has been a bane to miners for a long time. It's time we let the miners mine the minerals for a change.
If there is a decreased supply of minerals coming in from reprocessed modules then mineral prices will rise, if mineral prices rise more people will mine, if more people mine then supply will increase to meet demand and mineral prices will fall.
As always, if the value for several minerals goes up the value of others will go down thanks to insurance creating what could be seen as a set basket price that the mineral prices cannot exceed.
Net effect. Miners will be able to sell a greater quantity of minerals on the market quicker, product prices will remain approximately as they are, and mission runners will lose a small degree of profit.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.12.29 00:22:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Dirk Magnum
Good idea, bad idea, or just unneccessary?
I've always felt it best that each profession have sole control over at least one form of product that is in high demand to ensure a degree of balance (as people will migrate between them and maintain at least a degree of balance).
Since named items are gathered by mission runners and ratters (I consider exploration an amalgam of several professions) it comes down, for me at least, to whether you consider these separate professions. Currently I do not.
Ratting only measures up against mission running when one has access to valuable space (around -0.7 or lower) and so many people who would rat are pretty much forced to mission or lose out on profits.
Both share approximately the same skill requirements.
In addition the sole unique resource produced by mission running (LP) is currently a complete mess and it appears CCP have very little idea on how to make it into a more reasonable (while not overpowered) feature.
Therefore removing the NPC'ers ability to be the sole providers of named loot would leave them without any real clout on the market and leave them competing with other professions over named items.
Also, I don't believe manufacturers are in need of any additional product lines, there is a fortune to made in both t1 and t2 production already.
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.12.29 04:00:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Lab Technician071548
It would have been easier, I think, and with fewer unintended consequences, to have simply nerfed reprocessing.
You can't actually see the negative consequences of nerfing reprocessing?
|
Daelin Blackleaf
Aliastra
|
Posted - 2007.12.29 20:25:00 -
[4]
Named cost less due to low demand. The majority of people buying cheap items go directly for t1 without even looking at the named items due to the assumption that they will be more expensive.
If one has the patience to deal with slowly filling orders there is profit to be made in buying named items, reprocessing them, and selling the minerals/manufacturing new items for sale. Not worth an order slot to those who've been trading for awhile but it's a nice way to gather some capital and reasonably risk free.
|
| |
|