EVE Search - T2 Cap Ships and Dys/Prom Moons: Not Possible

All Channels

Market Discussions

T2 Cap Ships and Dys/Prom Moons: Not Possible

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Fitz VonHeise The New Order. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.12 23:43:00 - [1] Edited by: Fitz VonHeise on 12/04/2008 23:44:09 (I appoligize if someone has already brought this up.. but I've been thinking about this for the past week) The way the game has progressed is that CCP moves towards all types of T2 ships. The JF is the first of the T2 Cap ships. The market is unable to accomidate building just these ships (with other T2 ships). Imagine now T2 cap ships for every race and type of cap ship. There isn't enough moon minerals to sustain building these ships. CCP will HAVE to fix this issue before they can allow other T2 cap ships into the game.
Karanth Gallente Eve's Brothers of Destiny Free Trade Zone.	Posted - 2008.04.12 23:53:00 - [2] How do you propose they fix it? Many of the ways I've seen proposed would make bigger problems, or not wok.
Tiswas	Posted - 2008.04.13 01:03:00 - [3] Alchemy. Turning useless moon minerals into useful ones. Kind of a invention for high end moon minerals. I don't know just thought I throw that our there.
Elias Riikonen Aliastra	Posted - 2008.04.13 01:05:00 - [4] So T2 ships and dys/prom would be more valuable then, and there'd be more fighting over good moons. I guess that's one valid way for the universe to work. There are scarce resources in the real world as well.
Erah	Posted - 2008.04.13 01:21:00 - [5] I really don't see this as an issue. T2 ships will just be rare and expensive as they are supposed to be.
FastLearner Fury Holdings Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.04.13 01:44:00 - [6] Originally by: Fitz VonHeise Edited by: Fitz VonHeise on 12/04/2008 23:44:09 (I appoligize if someone has already brought this up.. but I've been thinking about this for the past week) The way the game has progressed is that CCP moves towards all types of T2 ships. The JF is the first of the T2 Cap ships. The market is unable to accomidate building just these ships (with other T2 ships). Imagine now T2 cap ships for every race and type of cap ship. There isn't enough moon minerals to sustain building these ships. CCP will HAVE to fix this issue before they can allow other T2 cap ships into the game. I disagree. You appear to be starting from the assumption that T2 should be so common-place and cheap that everyone uses it all the time. If more demand for moon-mins is introduced then the obvious result is rising prices. Those lead to less demand - and a new equilibrium state gets reached - one where T2 costs a bit more and isn't used to the extent it is now. Dumbing the game down by introducing more resources whenever they become scarce enough to be worth competing for isn't necessarily the way Eve has to evolve.
Peri Stark Gallente Blue Labs Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.04.13 01:54:00 - [7] We should not depend on CCP to "magicly" produce new resources to match advances in technology. ================================================ Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you! Vote Peri Stark for the CSM.
IonHammer Minmatar Black Avatar Lost Sheep Domain	Posted - 2008.04.13 02:05:00 - [8] my empire pos is on a promethium moon, i thought it would be a good choice if the yulia convention on mining was ever changed. Hint hint. Still there is ample supply just that its all controlled by cartel's so the price stays high. 0.0 warfare is expensive they got to get isk from somewhere to keep all those sov pos's up.
Kylar Renpurs Dusk Blade	Posted - 2008.04.13 02:16:00 - [9] Ferrogel is the lowest I've seen it in ages. Methinks it's still no issue, just a lot of manipulation going on at once.
Kwint Sommer Lothian Quay Industries	Posted - 2008.04.13 05:20:00 - [10] Supply and Demand. Add more demand and to a limited supply and you'll see prices go up to compensate. T2 use to cost a lot more and EVE ran just fine. If they introduce T2 capital ships we'll see a return to something near those prices so I don't really see the problem. Substantially higher mineral prices would make ME and thus BPO's matter a lot more which would be a turn for the better. If anything T2 is too cheap and common these days.... Purchasing and Shipping Moon Minerals
Robacz Essence Trade Essence Enterprises	Posted - 2008.04.13 07:36:00 - [11] I agree with others, it would be only good if price of moon materials and releated T2 products went up. CCP should not mess with the economy this way... maybe introduce some expensive POS upgrades to increase moon output by few %s, but adding moons or changing other moons is just silly. These moons are strategic resource, they should not magically spawn around everytime price of material X exceeds price Y.
Cergorach Amarr The Helix Foundation	Posted - 2008.04.13 08:01:00 - [12] Originally by: Robacz CCP should not mess with the economy this way... maybe introduce some expensive POS upgrades to increase moon output by few %s, but adding moons or changing other moons is just silly. These moons are strategic resource, they should not magically spawn around everytime price of material X exceeds price Y. While I agree that it shouldn't be linked to the price, I think it should be linked to active population (be that accounts or characters). If you have a resource in game that produces a maximum of x per hour and there are only y places in the universe your supply becomes limited with no possibility of expansion to cater to a larger population. The question becomes, when does the population of Eve become large enough to warrant such a resource expansion. I don't think that changing moons is a good idea, adding moons I prefer (call them newly discovered celestial phenomena (new planet at the edge of a system with a few moons). I think it would be an even better idea if a whole new region was found. It might draw some more people to 0.0...
Marcus Tedric Gallente Tedric Enterprises The Star League	Posted - 2008.04.13 08:12:00 - [13] Relatively soon you'll be able to Moon Mine in 0.4 That will effectively be adding more moons. There will be more supply. I build Anshars just fine - T2 Component prices just affect the price I have to charge is all.
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2008.04.13 08:20:00 - [14] Originally by: Marcus Tedric Relatively soon you'll be able to Moon Mine in 0.4 Linkage to this?
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.13 12:14:00 - [15] Originally by: Peri Stark We should not depend on CCP to "magicly" produce new resources to match advances in technology. Well. in EVE we can't develop alternate technologies to those in game. In RL when a resource is too costly or unavailable we can search for an alternate production technique, alternate materials. Sometime the resulting item is not so good, sometime it is even better. In eve we are limited at what the Developer allow us to use and to the techniques the game allow. So we depend on the Dev to allow alternate production methods (for example changing some reactions to use the other, less used, rarity 64 moon materials).
zacuis Great Big Research	Posted - 2008.04.13 14:46:00 - [16] actually the t2 cap ships use quiet small amounts of the dysro/ prom complex reactions they tend to use huge amounts of carbides and the low end stuff so i think the op it totally wrong on this score.
Fitz VonHeise The New Order. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.13 17:25:00 - [17] Originally by: zacuis actually the t2 cap ships use quiet small amounts of the dysro/ prom complex reactions ... There are ship builders here who have handy spreadsheets that calcuate the amount of materials used for various ships. Perchance they might use the JF's as an example of how much a cap ship might use and then extrapolate the amounts used for the other types of cap ships. Then mulitply that by the thousands of people that are going to want one. I really do believe this will be an issue. I have found just 12 Dys moons in all of low sec. I have paid (and have a standing challange to all if they know of any more) 100m for any Dys moon location in low sec. I have found only 12 moons. I know there are much more in 0.0 but 12 mooons in all of low sec is not a whole lot. I submit that unless CCP changes the amount of Dys in the game or the amounts needed to make T2 ships in general that the price of Dys could rize well past 200-300k per. What would that do to the price of every T2 ship made?
Fitz VonHeise The New Order. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.13 17:35:00 - [18] Sorry just looked at the price of Dys. (I haven't recently). Make that Dys could rise to even 400-500k per.
Dal Thrax Multiverse Corporation Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2008.04.13 20:01:00 - [19] Originally by: Kwint Sommer Supply and Demand. Add more demand and to a limited supply and you'll see prices go up to compensate. T2 use to cost a lot more and EVE ran just fine. If they introduce T2 capital ships we'll see a return to something near those prices so I don't really see the problem. Substantially higher mineral prices would make ME and thus BPO's matter a lot more which would be a turn for the better. If anything T2 is too cheap and common these days.... Faction also use to cost a lot more. There are competing products now, unlike in the past.
Melinda Bettin	Posted - 2008.04.13 20:39:00 - [20] Every day when I wake up I ask God to seed more oil fields (especially under my property). There are more and more machines in the world which require oil, but there isn't enough oil to sustain these machines! God will HAVE to fix this issue before he lets any more machines into the world.
Sarmea Moon Gallente The Graduates Brutally Clever Empire	Posted - 2008.04.14 13:05:00 - [21] Originally by: Melinda Bettin Every day when I wake up I ask God to seed more oil fields (especially under my property). There are more and more machines in the world which require oil, but there isn't enough oil to sustain these machines! God will HAVE to fix this issue before he lets any more machines into the world. Actually, new fields are still being discovered. New ways to pull it up as well. It's now financially viable to process the oil sands in Canada, if not environmentally ideal. One day we will be able to drill deep enough, that there might actually be some under your property 3 miles down. Of course, in most states you don't own what's under your property, just ask the guys in Montana whose property is being destroyed by the gas companies:) We also have synthetic oil. I use it in my car. We have alternative technologies that don't rely on oil as well.... English doesn't borrow from other languages. It follows them down dark alleys, coshes 'em, and rummages in their pockets for loose bits of grammar.
Shar Tegral	Posted - 2008.04.14 13:09:00 - [22] Hmmmm... whose logic hammer is stronger... so hard to decide... STOP IT... you make me head hurt! To Shar -verb: 1 - To say what you mean. 2 - To say what it means. 3 - To say something mean.
Lex Alandar	Posted - 2008.04.14 16:52:00 - [23] OK, since this is being dragged off topic, I thought I would contribute in that direction... Extracting from the oil sands may fit the definition of "financially viable", but that's just deflecting from the fact that ripping oil out of dirt is quite simply a 'last resort'. I can't see why anyone would extract two barrels of oil for the cost of one barrel of oil if there was other options. As far as the topic goes...the parallels are pretty amazing. Only the most powerful corporations and alliances hold prom/dys moons, and I have personally witnessed wars fought over the possibility that one side held such a moon. Any form of expansion, whether it be mining array upgrades, new moons, etc. would only further benefit those who are already in control of this market. The best idea in here so far, is to add reactions that can turn the less useful minerals into useful ones. This would expand the supply, while making it possible for smaller corps and alliances to have their place.
Cergorach Amarr The Helix Foundation	Posted - 2008.04.14 16:56:00 - [24] How about a similar mechanic as Invention? Use Moon materials to generate a reaction and based on skills and equipment used the is x% chance that it turns into the desired material.
Tasko Pal Heron Corporation	Posted - 2008.04.14 17:09:00 - [25] Originally by: Lex Alandar OK, since this is being dragged off topic, I thought I would contribute in that direction... Extracting from the oil sands may fit the definition of "financially viable", but that's just deflecting from the fact that ripping oil out of dirt is quite simply a 'last resort'. I can't see why anyone would extract two barrels of oil for the cost of one barrel of oil if there was other options. I think "first resort" is more accurate since that is the first thing they've actually done with the oil sands. If you're making ample profit, it doesn't really matter how hard it is to do. Second, my take is that a reasonable approach is to introduce higher tech moon mining equipment and seed moons with resources that can only be mined with the new equipment (just like oil, new techniques means you can get at minerals that you couldn't before). Sure it might benefit more the current cartels, but I don't see a reason to change the status quo.
Roemy Schneider BINFORD	Posted - 2008.04.14 17:23:00 - [26] Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.
Random Elite Caldari Immortalis Inc. space weaponry and trade	Posted - 2008.04.14 17:30:00 - [27] Ive been thinking about this for a while myself, In my mind haveing resources that can be fought over and cause wars is a good thing, its what eve is all about after all, problem is right now one moon is generating enough isk to buy a fully fitted dread per week at least and i think thats a little to much. One idea i came up with was to keep the moons as they are where each moon has its available materials that are abundent therefore are mined at the rate of 100 units per hour as they are now, but to add to that, each moon could conatain trace elements of other materials, and to get these as mentioned before you need perhaps a special harvesting array and the amount gathered per cycle can be more random fluctuatiing between say 1 and 25 units per hour. This way the moons that have dysprosium/promethium or whatever are still valuable assets but the price of the items can be kept more inline whith other materials and not spiral out of control as they are now. Just my thoughts on the matter anyway
Lorravan	Posted - 2008.04.14 18:01:00 - [28] This is similar to the system I have been kicking around in my head. I think ideally each moon should have the other minerals present at varying abundance levels from .001-.10. To mine these would require a special module that cannot be active at the same time as a moon harvester. This would result in yields from 1 unit per 10 hours to 10 units per hour depending on abundance. As the price of dys increased it would then become financially viable to mine lower and lower abundance levels until the price leveled off. This would make it similar to the oil sand situation, as long as the price is high it is worth mining. The extraction costs are then controlled by the cpu and pg requirement to run the module. Thoughts?
Fitz VonHeise The New Order. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.14 18:43:00 - [29] Originally by: Lorravan I think ideally each moon should have the other minerals present at varying abundance levels from .001-.10. To mine these would require a special module that cannot be active at the same time as a moon harvester. This would result in yields from 1 unit per 10 hours to 10 units per hour depending on abundance. I like it.... There actually is a thread that I responded to where the Devs actually talked about the fact they were also thinking about this issue and what to do and asked for our input into the change. I will attempt to find that thread.
Kwint Sommer Lothian Quay Industries	Posted - 2008.04.14 19:20:00 - [30] Originally by: Roemy Schneider That gets my vote, to be quite honest. In the real world, when a resource sees as high a demand as dysprosium is getting you start finding substitutes/ways to produce it synthetically (aka. coal to oil) and you start tapping low yield reserves. Hence, moons should have low abundances of the rarest materials added and CCP should finally introduce T2 moon miners in order to extract them. Between those two things we'll finally have elastic supply. Purchasing and Shipping Moon Minerals
Myrdyr	Posted - 2008.04.14 20:11:00 - [31] Dysprosium is not expensive enough if it is still being sold on the open market. Working as intended IMO. Please post constructively. ~Saint
Fitz VonHeise The New Order. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.14 22:46:00 - [32] Originally by: Myrdyr Dysprosium is not expensive enough if it is still being sold on the open market. Working as intended IMO. You have missed the point. Other then the JF there are no T2 cap ships. If CCP were to try to put Cap ships in for each class of ship and race there would not be enough to go around. And probably then you would not see it sold on the open market.... or if it was it would be 5 times or more what it is today.
Ava Santiago Minmatar	Posted - 2008.04.15 00:55:00 - [33] Originally by: Fitz VonHeise Originally by: Myrdyr there would not be enough to go around. And probably then you would not see it sold on the open market.... or if it was it would be 5 times or more what it is today. And the economists response is.. this is a problem how? Resources would be allocated to those who were willing/able to pay the most for them. (Alliance warfare to control the resources in this case would be considered a form of payment.) In other words, this change would not be any different from normal economics - especially since it would create geo-political conflict. Concord doesn't provide consequences. Concord provides insurance payouts.
Mips Nig DarkStar 1 GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.04.15 01:11:00 - [34] I would absolutely love this. I'd be so rich it's not even funny.
Myrdyr	Posted - 2008.04.15 01:42:00 - [35] Originally by: Fitz VonHeise You have missed the point. I'm pretty sure one of the two of us hasn't, actually. Anyway, the real solution, as I've said before in other threads, is to make moon minerals available in the LP store. Preferably only from low sec/0.0 LP stores.
Kwint Sommer Lothian Quay Industries	Posted - 2008.04.15 01:47:00 - [36] Originally by: Myrdyr Originally by: Fitz VonHeise You have missed the point. I'm pretty sure one of the two of us hasn't, actually. Anyway, the real solution, as I've said before in other threads, is to make moon minerals available in the LP store. Preferably only from low sec/0.0 LP stores. No, no it isn't. I'm fine with their being ways to earn them from NPC's but the LP store would largely fix its price and that's not what this economy needs. It needs elastic supply to prevent insane price fluctuations but not a ceiling which is essentially what the LP store would create.
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2008.04.15 06:24:00 - [37] Edited by: Treelox on 15/04/2008 06:25:06 i doubt that it will really matter, I expect that any T2 combat Cap ships that CCP introduces will not be better "pewpew" vessels, instead they will be very niche ships so demand will be very low. Even more niche than JF's are to T1 Freighters. I especailly stand by this, after having seen all the dev's whine in the latest round of video interviews during the last tourney, about how Cap Ships have become to prevelant and are ruining the game, more than they had expected. --
Kwint Sommer Lothian Quay Industries	Posted - 2008.04.15 07:09:00 - [38] Since you brought it up, here's my thoughts on what to do to fix capital ships: I would love to see Carriers changed to conform to BSG lines. Basically, you have 3 types of carriers. 1) the Battlestar Galactica type that can lay down some serious defensive fire to protect itself from missiles and fighters (basically smartbombs) but it relies on its fighters to take out other ships. It has some heavy missiles which it could use to good affect against enemy capital ships and structures but for anything smaller it needs it fighters. 2) the Battlestar Pegasus type that has much heavier offensive weapons but seems to emphasize fighters less. This type would have heavier hitting weapons and rely on its fighters less for dps, it can directly kill a BS but struggles to take down smaller things using only its guns/missiles. 3) the logistics carrier, strong defenses but has no weapons beyond a few fighters and smartbombs. Maybe just call dreadnoughts 2's and make a small and a big version of 1, akin to current carriers and motherships. Then introduce 3's as their own class. Given their new power 1's would have to cost more, you could probably make some sort of deal where NPC's will trade 3 current carriers for one small 1 or something and motherships would just be directly changed into big 1's. All capital ships should loose their ability to warp, they would be jump drive only. Their jump drive should have to be "spun up." Once spun up they can jump instantly but it takes about 10 minutes to get spun up. While it's spinning up/spun up it draws a modest amount of cap (nothing ship-breaking but weakening one's tank a fair bit). The ships can only be held down by HIC's. However, the ships jump drive can be "targeted." When its targeted most of the damage goes to the ship but some seeps through and damages the drive. Once it takes 50% damage it goes off line and can't be spun up. It is fairly quickly repaired using a small amount of nanopaste and can be repaired while under fire but even if they do get it back to 50% or more it still has to spend 10 minutes spinning up. Thus, capital ships that want to go into battle (assuming a HIC doesn't lock them down) will either have to quickly jump away or live with a substantially weakened tank and if they see their jump drives taking damage quickly they'll either have to jump away or commit to see things out to the end. Also, make capital ships able to jump drive to celestial objects and stations/celestial objects in neighboring systems without a cyno. However, if you do it without a cyno you will land some random distance and direction away from your objective that depends on your distance. In system jumps should be around 100km. A couple light years should be 1000's of kilometers. Also, doing this still results in a cyno icon appearing right where you jump in on everybody's maps and they can still jump right to you. Also, you'll now have to wait, say, half the spin up time before you can jump again. I don't know what to do with Titans but I always pictured them more as mobile stations than anything else.... Combine with some fixes to sovereignty and large-scale 0.0 combat might actually be fun, (page 2 coming) Purchasing and Shipping Moon Minerals
Kwint Sommer Lothian Quay Industries	Posted - 2008.04.15 07:10:00 - [39] Goal: The purpose of a game is to have fun. Any revision to sovereignty mechanics should further the aim of making the game more enjoyable. This can be done by increasing the diversity of 0.0 activities, including helping to break up the blob, encouraging a greater variety of players in 0.0, allowing smaller alliances to influence sovereignty and the economies of sovereign powers, and encouraging a greater variety of PVP engagements. What is Sovereignty?: Sovereignty represents the economic and military control of systems, constellations, and regions. It also gives goals for alliances, and gives them something significant to fight over. Sovereignty should give benefits to those that have it, such as better intelligence and reduced fuel costs, but also require effort to maintain. Tying sovereignty to any one activity or objective is too limited, and will encourage players to sink as many ships and resources as possible in to that one objective. Proposal: If sovereignty was gained and lost through a variety of activities, this will encourage and reward a variety of play. Such activities would include POS ownership, outpost ownership, gate control, mining, and collecting NPC bounties. Some details will need to be worked out, but this is a general starting point to work from. Sovereignty Points: A point value would be tied to the various activities that influence sovereignty. This will also allow the system to be dynamic, and subject to periodic tweaks, without having to be completely revised to be adjusted. If you have more then 51% of the sovereignty points (SP) within a system, you hold sovereignty on the system, and get your alliances name on the system. Systems without a clear majority are considered contested. Holding sovereignty of all systems in a constellation give you constellation sovereignty, and all constellations within a region gives you regional sovereignty. The SP you have are reduced by a percentage each downtime, possibly cut in half, and the sovereignty percentages are adjusted. The purpose of reduction is to prevent an alliance that has held a system for a year of having an overwhelming number of SP that a new comer could never compete with. Any alliance with any percentage of sovereignty will be able to view the current percentages of control, and what has scored points for those percentages. This information is only available after each downtime, so that it cannot be used to immediately reveal threats to sovereignty. Sovereignty Activities: The following activities yield SP: Gate Control: Camping a gate for an hour gives you control of that gate, which yields SP each hour. Control of the gate may also allow you to establish gate monitors which will provide intelligence about gate activity. I personally don't see to much need for sovereignty linked gate guns, but if they exist, you would have to control the gate to establish them. I strongly object to tying sovereignty to gate control alone, as gate camps are already the most common PVP battle, and the idea is to encourage diversity of play. POS & Outposts: POS ownership yields SP each day, the bigger the POS the more the SP. However, this will not be an overwhelming number of SP, so that spamming POS or blobbing enemy POS is not the be all end all of sovereignty. Having your POS put in to reinforced mode will cost you SP, as will having your control tower destroyed. Outpost control will also yield SP each day, and losing an outpost will cost you SP. Bounties: Collecting bounties also gives your alliance SP in the system. This will allow PVP alliances to feel that they are not wasting time with ratting and complexes, and will give an incentive to go in to someone else's space and ôstealö their rats. Drones will also have an SP value in line with bounty based NPCs. Mining: Harvesting a systems asteroids yields SP. This will encourage 0.0 alliances to admit and protect dedicated miners, and encourage a greater variety of players in 0.0. Page 3 coming Purchasing and Shipping Moon Minerals
Kwint Sommer Lothian Quay Industries	Posted - 2008.04.15 07:13:00 - [40] PVP Combat: Although it would be nice to give and take away SP for PVP ship kills, any gains have to be kept to a minimum to prevent people from gaming the system, such as by building ships, giving them to an alt, insuring them, and then letting them get blown up to score SP. Also, someone could have an alt join an enemy corp to get their ship blown up 20 times, and cost the enemy alliance SP. SP can be rewarded for PVP kills, but it has to be small enough that economics prevent this from being a viable method of disrupting sovereignty. However, you could probably allow large "kill points" for ships that can't be properly insured, which is to say T2 ships. Overview: This system will allow smaller gangs to disrupt a larger alliances sovereignty, which will encourage a greater variety of engagements, and let the little guy stick it to the man without getting blobbed by 100 ships every time they do so. Tying sovereignty to 5 gates instead of POS is a step in the right direction, but why not go hog wild, and tie sovereignty to as many activities as possible? To hold sovereignty you have to control who operates in your space, so there is still a reason to gate camp your entrances, but it is not the only thing to do to influence sovereignty, so it is less likely to encourage a blob. The sovereignty changes I stole (with some alterations) from a guy on SHC but I still support them enough to present as my own. Purchasing and Shipping Moon Minerals
Venkul Mul Gallente	Posted - 2008.04.15 09:21:00 - [41] Originally by: Kwint Sommer Originally by: Myrdyr Originally by: Fitz VonHeise You have missed the point. I'm pretty sure one of the two of us hasn't, actually. Anyway, the real solution, as I've said before in other threads, is to make moon minerals available in the LP store. Preferably only from low sec/0.0 LP stores. No, no it isn't. I'm fine with their being ways to earn them from NPC's but the LP store would largely fix its price and that's not what this economy needs. It needs elastic supply to prevent insane price fluctuations but not a ceiling which is essentially what the LP store would create. The LP store will create a floor, not a ceiling (people will buy from the LP sore if the LP to isk conversion ration was favorable against other LP offers, so currently above the 1.000 isk for LP that is the best offer in high sec). But it is still a bad idea.
Fitz VonHeise The New Order. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.15 12:16:00 - [42] Edited by: Fitz VonHeise on 15/04/2008 12:17:51 Originally by: Fitz VonHeise There is a thread where the Devs actually talked about this... CCP Boost output for adv.materials Read at bottom of first page.
Myrdyr	Posted - 2008.04.15 14:11:00 - [43] Right, because the only way to implement rewards in the LP store is at a fixed cost... Please post constructively. ~Saint
Fitz VonHeise The New Order. SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.15 14:36:00 - [44] Well here what CCP Chronotis said: "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 observations from looking in depth at moon minerals to start some discussion: To start with, a focus in the specific current main problem: Dysprosium and 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 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. 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..."
Lord Fitz Antares Fleet Yards SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.04.16 02:55:00 - [45] Originally by: Kylar Renpurs Ferrogel is the lowest I've seen it in ages. Methinks it's still no issue, just a lot of manipulation going on at once. Hate to tell you, but manipulation is possible, to create spikes (as seen a week ago when it rose 8,000 isk/unit), but long term price hikes as seen with Dysprosium, are not the result of manipulation, they're the result of the fact that when it hit 10,000 isk/unit supply topped out, but demand kept growing, so there was only one way for the price to go and that was up. Manipulation results in an eventual crash, where the manipulators cash out. Then it should fall to at or usually below previous levels. This isn't happening. So while manipulation might be responsible for 10% here or there of the price at times it has nothing to do with the long term price rises. It's pretty common knowledge the supply is finite, and very close to 100% tapped (but for small gaps where moons are fought over, because everyone knows where they are). But the demand is not. Just as happens in real life, when a price rises enough people find alternatives, CCP haven't yet revealed this alternative, undoubtably it is more expensive to make, but more common. If it wasn't for the changes CCP made to invention, and the growing player and ship base this wouldn't be an issue, it's only an issue because of changes that CCP made, it's foolish to suggest that they can't make changes to fix issues they created by making changes !
Tasko Pal Heron Corporation	Posted - 2008.04.17 02:24:00 - [46] The LP store idea is terrible. There's no reason that a NPC corp would have better access to those minerals than player corps. And if you look at LP store items, they don't sell raw materials. Finally, it moves things away from having players provide the resources that grease Eve's economy. Instead I think the idea of secondary minerals that take greater effort and/or special tools to mine is awesome. It just makes sense. With high mineral prices, of course methods will be developed for mining the trace amounts of high end minerals that can appear in moons.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]

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