EVE Search - Isk sinks, T2 fixing and more

All Channels

Market Discussions

Isk sinks, T2 fixing and more

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.05.21 03:23:00 - [1] As the topic states, from a previous thread. I proposed the idea of only allowing the future T3 to be manufactured in a POS to which another MD goer corrected and proposed that all T2 only be manufactured in a POS build array. So let's discuss since I see a lot of merit in the idea, and allowing a real and very easy added isk sink to the game. Good and bad? I'll weigh in my ideas once the ball gets rolling.
Ariwa Eris Corporation	Posted - 2008.05.21 03:55:00 - [2] Edited by: Ariwa on 21/05/2008 03:57:45 Not a good idea IMO. Forcing people use use a pos every time they manufacture such common goods will discourage 'casual' manufacturing, due to having to manage POSes. Startup costs would be too high, and the risk of getting ganked in low sec also becomes a factor (unless you want to increase your startup costs to include an alt and a bought corporation with high standings). All of this combines to deny T2 manufacturing to all by the well organized and experienced, which is really really bad thing. Casual manufacturing is what sustains a lot of people (Especially PVPers) who won't be bothered running their own corporations and be POS slaves. Secondly, this does not provide much of an isk sink. Even to run a large POS, the isk sink is <25m for an entire month. POSes and mods cost money, but they can be easily resold back for isk.
Rho'varo Diversified Operational Services	Posted - 2008.05.21 04:26:00 - [3] Originally by: Ariwa Secondly, this does not provide much of an ISK sink. Even to run a large POS, the ISK sink is <25m for an entire month. POSes and mods cost money, but they can be easily resold back for isk. POS gear isn't sold 'back' (i.e., to the NPC corporations from whence it came) but rather to other would-be POS-slaves, so the ISK from that initial sale remains effectively drained. Reselling does mean that the ISK from the second buyer is not sunk, though, so if we amortize the initial cost of the POS gear over its expected life (regardless of owner), it truly isn't so much ISK sunk per month. Features & Ideas: Winding Up Learning Skills
ZW Dewitt	Posted - 2008.05.21 04:42:00 - [4] I'd rather see the install costs for all NPC stations greatly increased. That would push more people to setting up POS for manufacturing which would drain more isk (either in the form of POS fuel or the install costs) and promote some semblance of an economy of scale (manufacturing a large number of items at a time would make more sense). It wouldn't force everyone into running their own POS through so the option to continue to use NPC station manufacturing would remain.
MilowFV Echo Heavy Industries	Posted - 2008.05.21 05:03:00 - [5] I can see raising the price for using NPC stations. Aren't these about the same prices they charged when they first were installed/added? I wouldn't make any change on how T2 items can be manufactured. I hate changes to existing item that don't server any really purpose, other then someone randomly though to punish someone that didn't have a POS to use. I can see making T3 item be only buildable in POS or maybe only in POS that are in low sec/0.0 space. That will all depend on if they are still trying to push (entice) folks to spend more time in low sec vs high sec. I personally would like to see T3 items buildable in high-sec when/if they ever show up.
Professor Leech Southern Light Entertainment Black Scope Project	Posted - 2008.05.21 05:03:00 - [6] Edited by: Professor Leech on 21/05/2008 05:04:15 Ariwa raises a good point. Would this raise the time sink bar too high? Would this be a sufficient isk sink? On the flip side should t2 manufacturing be such a casual activity, or should it be "harder". Harder could more specialist skills for production, time sink or some other mechanism. My suggestion would be that instead of having an indirect isk sink for t2 manufacture (npc trade good pos fuel) use a direct isk sink. A direct isk sink could be a higher proportion of npc trade goods required as a percentage of the build cost of t2. This could be expanded again for t3 gear say by having proportion of npc trade goods required. This type of isk sink would operate at t2 level and t3 level. Even if the sink is only say 20% of t2 gear then another 20% at t3 level it knocks a fair bit of isk out of circulation (36% of the cost of a t3 item if my numbers are correct). Then expanding on the suggestion of the Dev for t4 and above. Then if a t4 good had another 20% isk sink then the build cost of t4 would be in the order of 49% isk sink. Now lets say CCP took the cap off the tech system so you could theoretically make a tech infinity item. A t8 module cost would be about 79% (isk sink = (1-(1 - 0.2)^(tech level-1)) isk sink for 20% npc trade goods at each stage of manufacture. This could also be applied to t1 manufacture if necessary and removing rat drops of t1 items would boost the sink effect. These are just some initial thoughts and I don't have a monopoly on good ideas.
Kylar Renpurs Dusk Blade	Posted - 2008.05.21 05:21:00 - [7] Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 21/05/2008 05:22:41 All I gotta say is: No, lets please not create another industry where people say "Well, I mined my isotopes from ice myself, so they must be free" and make T2 pricing ridiculous. Either way, I've harped on plenty of times in the past about how I think T2/T3 should be handled,,, and this most definately isn't it. Improve Market Competition!
Professor Leech Southern Light Entertainment Black Scope Project	Posted - 2008.05.21 05:59:00 - [8] Originally by: Kylar Renpurs Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 21/05/2008 05:22:41 All I gotta say is: No, lets please not create another industry where people say "Well, I mined my isotopes from ice myself, so they must be free" and make T2 pricing ridiculous. Either way, I've harped on plenty of times in the past about how I think T2/T3 should be handled,,, and this most definately isn't it. Well the next generation of "invention" for t3+ could be entirely isk sink based so the costs are apparent to even the most business incompetent inventor. I hate the thinking that "datacores are free" while ignoring the opportunity cost of selling them on the market.
Kylar Renpurs Dusk Blade	Posted - 2008.05.21 06:18:00 - [9] Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 21/05/2008 06:29:06 Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 21/05/2008 06:28:13 Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 21/05/2008 06:20:49 Quote: Well the next generation of "invention" for t3+ could be entirely isk sink based so the costs are apparent to even the most business incompetent inventor. I've heard about invention being changed to be less chance-based and more calculateable in terms of production output. I don't necessarily agree or disagree that this is a good thing. I'm still adamant the progression of tech levels beyond T2 will require either T2 BPOs be removed, or seeded at expensive rates, and I'd prefer the latter. I've heard arguments that seeding T2 BPOs will destroy the invention industry, even if invention is required to create them. True under current invention mechanics, but that just shows how badly the invention/BPO/Tech level progression system needs an overhaul. I'm tired of arguing the points why though. Fundamentally, my reasoning is that T2 BPOs should not be even remotely considered 'collectors items' if they are going to seriously progress the game to higher tech levels. EDIT: To touch on what a reworked system would be,,, invention was always a sub profession to me, at least, that's what it was advertised as IIRC. The focus of invention should be as a utility, not a profit-generator. If T2 manufacturing should be a profit-generator, you get your hands on a BPO, with the proviso that the ways to acquire a T2 BPO cost in the billions of ISK. Would the profits be amazingly better? No, but then again nor is invention generally compared to T1 manufacturing either. But it provides an industry with a high-isk barrier profit generator, which, given the topics floating around these days, seems to be what people want,, something they can sink their ISK into. This'd also help get rid of the ridiculous tag of "collectors items" causing T2 BPOs to hold stupid value. I say 'Stupid' value because people sink their ISK into it "To own a unique piece of EVE",, but serious manufacturers have better things to spend ISK on. Improve Market Competition!
Professor Leech Southern Light Entertainment Black Scope Project	Posted - 2008.05.21 06:38:00 - [10] I agree completely the invention rarity of t2 gear is a broken mechanic and the system needs an overhaul. I originally suggested removing the datacore cap completely. It seemed like a good idea at the time and CCP took it on board and implemented it. The factor I didn't consider is how useless/incompetent the inventors were going to be in an open market. Seeding t2 is not an issue if the invention system is converted to t3+. My general concept for isk sinks is that luxury items should have the highest isk sink component. Despite that I have some interests in production of datacores I ultimately think it's a broken system. Datacores should probably be scrapped and I'm not sure if a replacement R&D system should be used at all. Science skills could be used in a more active role. That would also correct the caldari bias of R&D agents as well.
EBANK Ricdic Eve-Tech Savings n Loans	Posted - 2008.05.21 06:54:00 - [11] Originally by: Ariwa Edited by: Ariwa on 21/05/2008 03:57:45 Not a good idea IMO. Forcing people use use a pos every time they manufacture such common goods will discourage 'casual' manufacturing, due to having to manage POSes. Startup costs would be too high, and the risk of getting ganked in low sec also becomes a factor (unless you want to increase your startup costs to include an alt and a bought corporation with high standings). All of this combines to deny T2 manufacturing to all by the well organized and experienced, which is really really bad thing. Casual manufacturing is what sustains a lot of people (Especially PVPers) who won't be bothered running their own corporations and be POS slaves. I think this reason you posted above is precisely why it should be implemented. People shouldn't think of a manufacturing trade as something they can do on the side. It should be something that requires work and dedication to give good rewards. Right now anyone can chuck a small ammo bpo into an NPC factory and produce their goods for peanuts. Sure they need to train a 6 day skill to have perfect t1 production skills but let's not even go there. I think the following should be done : 1) Increase NPC manufacturing costs considerably and at least double if not quadruple build times when using them. We WANT them to be ineficient so those using POS slots have more benefits (it makes sense, you build your own factories to reduce costs rather than outsourcing or renting others, works the same way in RL) 2) Increase the efficiency of a POS factory. This doesn't mean they need lower mineral costs (we all know how that was exploited when Efficient Assembly Array came out using 25% less minerals). This means things like faster production times, more production slots, maybe only increased efficiency on T2 bpo's (as generally they aren't worth recycling due to long build times and larger price fluctuations than the normal minerals. A few others but can't think of them atm
Qaedienne	Posted - 2008.05.21 09:11:00 - [12] Quote: I think this reason you posted above is precisely why it should be implemented. People shouldn't think of a manufacturing trade as something they can do on the side. It should be something that requires work and dedication to give good rewards. Right now anyone can chuck a small ammo bpo into an NPC factory and produce their goods for peanuts. Sure they need to train a 6 day skill to have perfect t1 production skills but let's not even go there. Manufacturing your own ammo isn't a manufacturing trade. The challenge in manufacturing shouldn't be an artificial hurdle imposed by CCP. The challenge to manufacturing should be the competition, which is what we have today. Besides which, capital requirements are already pretty large for anything beyond cottage industry stuff. Attempting to reduce competition in the market through CCP-imposed penalties to manufacturing will backfire.
Kwint Sommer Caldari Lothian Quay Industries	Posted - 2008.05.21 09:34:00 - [13] Originally by: Qaedienne Quote: I think this reason you posted above is precisely why it should be implemented. People shouldn't think of a manufacturing trade as something they can do on the side. It should be something that requires work and dedication to give good rewards. Right now anyone can chuck a small ammo bpo into an NPC factory and produce their goods for peanuts. Sure they need to train a 6 day skill to have perfect t1 production skills but let's not even go there. Manufacturing your own ammo isn't a manufacturing trade. The challenge in manufacturing shouldn't be an artificial hurdle imposed by CCP. The challenge to manufacturing should be the competition, which is what we have today. Besides which, capital requirements are already pretty large for anything beyond cottage industry stuff. Attempting to reduce competition in the market through CCP-imposed penalties to manufacturing will backfire. Right now you don't have meaningful competition in manufacturing, at least not in T1. With ~6 days of training you have perfect production. The only challenge then is selling it, that's where the competition is. Anyone and everyone can produce at peak efficiency and that is not how it should be. A trial account should not be able to match the efficiency of the best producers in the game. To make things worse, that trial account can manage that efficiency while producing a single batch. Whether you crank out ten-million units or two you use the same minerals per unit and that's not right. It's not about killing competition so much as it is bringing realistic scaling and efficiency to the market. Admittedly, one of the consequences is pushing the little guy out of Jita but the goal is to bring a measure of health back to the market. Purchasing and Shipping Moon Minerals
Robacz Essence Trade Essence Enterprises	Posted - 2008.05.21 09:45:00 - [14] Originally by: Kazzac Elentria As the topic states, from a previous thread. I proposed the idea of only allowing the future T3 to be manufactured in a POS to which another MD goer corrected and proposed that all T2 only be manufactured in a POS build array. So let's discuss since I see a lot of merit in the idea, and allowing a real and very easy added isk sink to the game. Good and bad? I'll weigh in my ideas once the ball gets rolling. I'd say most of T2 BPOs are already running in POS facilities (modules for sure, not sure about all ships though, it requires at least 29% standard profit to make it worth POS production (due to 1.1 material multiplier)), so that wouldn't change much for BPO owners. It would mean trouble for inventors.
Annalynn The Scope	Posted - 2008.05.21 11:48:00 - [15] imo, theres just too much isk idling in the wallets. increasing the taxes and broker fees to at least double or triple would make a nice isk sink. Removing insurance would also drain alot of money out of the market. although this doestnt fix the real problems the whole eve economy is facing at the moment, it would slow down inflation. since invention, T2 modules are now somewhere between 5%-20% margin of a T2 BPO or even loss with invention. i doubt, increasing prices for slot-usage would relax the situation. POS-services for anyone is a good idea but it will be too hard to implement. Just a thought - why not increase production time of T2 BPO's/BPCs by quite abit (double or triple). It would lower the supply and higher the prices.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.05.21 12:32:00 - [16] Originally by: EBANK Ricdic ..excellent suggestions... Excellent post Ricdic, pretty much see eye to eye with you. The only thing I would add is that in order for the system to truly be 'fixed' as it were are a few things. 1. T2 BPOs cannot produce copies, or if they do they result in the same quality as invented BPs. The benefit of owning a BPO being reduced margin.. period or... 2. All copies of any BP result in degradation of the original forcing a true 'sink' into the system as BPs are truly only available from The idea being, I want to remove T2 BPOs without forcibly removing them and force them into production since invention. Eventually with the invent only market on T3, T2 BPOs will devalue and bleed out of the system over time. As truly none of this can really work with the 800lb gorilla that is T2 BPOs in the room. Also. 3. In addition I would also force increased fuel usage as a POS factory begins to reach 100% capacity. 4. Remove the steady rate flow of datacores and put in a build system requiring advanced science and industry skills. Nothing to insane but definately not something anyone younger than 4 months can process. 5. As a corollary to 5 add datacores to faucet from others places. Deadspaces, rats, etc... 6. Remove module drops from rats and put in the same system that drones use. Alloys, waste, etc... 7. Remove all NPC sell orders for everything except blue prints and trade only industry items (quaff, etc..) force the industrialists into the fuel markets. Let us make construction blocks, etc....
MilowFV Echo Heavy Industries	Posted - 2008.05.21 13:23:00 - [17] I just have one question you don't need production efficiency V to get perfect production? I know that from PE IV to PE V takes me over 10 day to train is why I ask not that I am disagreeing with anything said just wondering where that 6 day number came from.
EBANK Ricdic Eve-Tech Savings n Loans	Posted - 2008.05.21 14:47:00 - [18] Originally by: Qaedienne Manufacturing your own ammo isn't a manufacturing trade. I was using ammo as an example. But still why should someone sitting in a station refining a few drops of rat loot be able to produce more efficiently and cheaper than someone with a full POS setup? Quote: The challenge in manufacturing shouldn't be an artificial hurdle imposed by CCP. The challenge to manufacturing should be the competition, which is what we have today. I disagree here. There is no challenge in manufacturing. Everyone is on the same page. I believe what you refer to here is the challenge in selling your product which is marketting, not to be confused with production. With production there are almost zero ways to compete with your fellow player. T2 and POS is slightly different however in most cases (especially with invention now here) POS manufacturing is less profitable due to requirement to account for POS Fuels. Quote: Besides which, capital requirements are already pretty large for anything beyond cottage industry stuff. There's still no competition. You can't produce a product better than me due to having higher quality sources, you can't offer a product with better qualities than mine, and your capital components are identical to mine in every way, shape and form. This is where my hopes lie with Ambulation and the possibilities of T3. Ambulation because it allows you to personalise your production outfit or at least sell by name rather than by number. (however kinda falls under the marketting category) T3 CCP have been speaking about possibly ways to modify outputs etc to produce varied types of modules. Quote: Attempting to reduce competition in the market through CCP-imposed penalties to manufacturing will backfire. Why? It stops the average Joe from being a perfect manufacturer in their spare time. It's exactly what CCP done with the trade system. They added more skills and abilities to the profession and now we see skilled traders are able to benefit more from their chosen profession than someone with all their skill points in spaceship command.
Lord Fitz Antares Fleet Yards SMASH Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.21 14:50:00 - [19] Originally by: Kylar Renpurs I'm still adamant the progression of tech levels beyond T2 will require either T2 BPOs be removed, or seeded at expensive rates, and I'd prefer the latter. Just because you'd like it to be so doesn't mean it has to be so. Quote: my reasoning is that T2 BPOs should not be even remotely considered 'collectors items' if they are going to seriously progress the game to higher tech levels. They're not going to be required to progress the game to higher tech levels, nor will tech 3 necessarily be any better than tech 2 in most situations. It's really simple. You make them both inventable from T1 BPOs, thus T2 BPO owners have no advantage in the T3 market, and the T2 modules are no longer the best 'unlimited supply' modules. The T3 versions maybe require some extra items for the invention process. In this way the T2 BPOs become devalued, but it's not like putting your hand in someones hangar and just taking whatever you feel like. Removal of the BPOs is like suggesting the removal of unique ships, they don't provide great advantage over the altenative, and certainly none worth the cost, but people paid good isk for them and put good effort into obtaining them. Releasing things that are better isn't the same as simply removing them or seeding them on the open market. Invention on the other hand started out a little buggy, the progressed to something serious manufacturers could do, and then went beyond that to something every player and their dog is doing. Higher skill requirements and more time/effort is what is required to make something a worthy addition to the industrialst's game. Making something available for anyone easily will lead to exactly what happened to T1 goods, and is happening now to invention, a hundred thousand players all spending time for only the knowledge that they made something themselves.
EBANK Ricdic Eve-Tech Savings n Loans	Posted - 2008.05.21 15:01:00 - [20] Originally by: Robacz I'd say most of T2 BPOs are already running in POS facilities (modules for sure, not sure about all ships though, it requires at least 29% standard profit to make it worth POS production (due to 1.1 material multiplier)), so that wouldn't change much for BPO owners. It would mean trouble for inventors. I reckon it's a far lower number of t2 bpo's running in POS factories. Most T2 bpo's produce minimal profits and almost none of them are in high enough demand to require super fast building. Most t2 bpo owners these days have considerably sized stockpiles as inventors are always quick to fill in the gaps and undercut their pricing. Therefore as a t2 bpo owner why go to the effort of running a POS, paying a premium for pos fuel, paying a premium on minerals for production, and having the much more advanced logistics of moving all the goods to specific pos hangars when you want to produce another batch. However, I think this may prove or disprove my points listed above. If people aren't utilising POS facilities for the most profitable bpo's in the game then it shows how poor the POS systems in place are. CCP tries getting people to accept risk by pushing us to travel to 0.0 and lowsec and in turn they provide increased reward (higher bounty rats, agents, better roids) however those with POS outfits can be attacked and yet most of their benefits are actually negative aspects. I would love one of the CCP devs one day to run some server statistics to track all the t2 bpo's out there (I am sure they would be tagged in some way) and get some data to show percentages of bpo's under the following categories: Idle In Research In Copy In Production (at station) In Production (at POS) In Production (at outpost) IMO currently npc station production of 98% of t2 bpo's in this game is far cheaper and more efficient (time wise) than POS production. This is what I want to change. Same deal could be said for invention really. Invention in a POS should yield a higher chance to succeed (only has to be minimal) to help convince people to use the POS options. Allow POS owners to publically list their invention slots as well as the rest. Reduce station invention slots considerably (like all the others). Allow the "Players" to handle major supply and demand of these services (production, research, invention) and it opens up viable alternates to the current game. It doesn't promote alts like current research alliances do. It promotes good customer service, players being able to do business with people they like (maybe based on pricing, service quality/name, or on marketing) Ambulation is looking to bring out shops and services in a station. I hope CCP considers building up these POS's to provide these aspects as well, because as I see it, we are so close. The foundation is there, a few tweaks and CCP have created the entry level to ambulation through research, copy, invention, production, t2 production in one fell swoop.
Tasko Pal Heron Corporation	Posted - 2008.05.21 15:03:00 - [21] Originally by: Professor Leech Originally by: Kylar Renpurs Edited by: Kylar Renpurs on 21/05/2008 05:22:41 All I gotta say is: No, lets please not create another industry where people say "Well, I mined my isotopes from ice myself, so they must be free" and make T2 pricing ridiculous. Either way, I've harped on plenty of times in the past about how I think T2/T3 should be handled,,, and this most definately isn't it. Well the next generation of "invention" for t3+ could be entirely isk sink based so the costs are apparent to even the most business incompetent inventor. I hate the thinking that "datacores are free" while ignoring the opportunity cost of selling them on the market. I think discussion of certain perceived problems is ultimately futile. Eve industry is always going to be different from real world industry. The barrier to entry for most forms of production is far lower than any real world equivalent. Players will continue to be able to make every part of important equipment from scratch. People will continue to undervalue their time and remain in markets that would normally scare off new entrants. Most profit making activities in Eve will continue to require some degree of player participation. That's because Eve is a game. I don't get the complaints about invention. To compete properly requires a few months of skills (electronics upgrades, an encryption skill, and at least two science skills all to 5). That's a substantial barrier to entry. That still didn't keep everyone from entering. Normal capital ship production (building the stuff that doesn't require sovereignty) is the same way. It requires a lot of BPs and minerals to do (often in low sec). Maybe a pure isk sink industry would fare better, but I don't see that automatically happening. Currently, we have several high margin industries: jump freighter production, supercap production, high tier moon minerals. As I see it, jump freighters will eventually come down in price, but the other two depend on very scarce resources: sovereignty and rare moon resources. Any industry that remains high margin is going to have a very scarce resource somewhere in there.
Block Ukx KDM Corp Firmus Ixion	Posted - 2008.05.21 15:03:00 - [22] Originally by: Kazzac Elentria As the topic states, from a previous thread. I proposed the idea of only allowing the future T3 to be manufactured in a POS to which another MD goer corrected and proposed that all T2 only be manufactured in a POS build array. So let's discuss since I see a lot of merit in the idea, and allowing a real and very easy added isk sink to the game. I am completely against the idea of increasing the entrance barrier or increasing production costs. Look at capital ships. Return of investment is very low, worse than many T1 ships. Increasing the entrance barrier simply means lower ROI. And the only ones that are going to get hurt by all this are the ones viewing manufacturing as a viable profession. Manufacturers need to keep a closer eye to the market and stop selling below mineral resale value. People need to be educated about the eve manufacturing economy. Otherwise, manufacturing as a business will continue to be a nightmare. Increasing the entrance barrier to manufacturing means only one thing, monopoly. BSAC Mineral Market Manipulation (MinMa) Information Desk
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.05.21 15:04:00 - [23] Originally by: Lord Fitz Invention on the other hand started out a little buggy, the progressed to something serious manufacturers could do, and then went beyond that to something every player and their dog is doing. Higher skill requirements and more time/effort is what is required to make something a worthy addition to the industrialst's game. Making something available for anyone easily will lead to exactly what happened to T1 goods, and is happening now to invention, a hundred thousand players all spending time for only the knowledge that they made something themselves. Which is exactly what some sorta economy of scale would reel back in. Allow those who can put up a POS to afford lower production costs and in the end have cheaper product brought to bear on the market. Set it up so that while yes technically speaking margins are better, they are actually sinking isk OUT of the game to achieve those margins. In essence we want to take the faucet from rats and missions and funnel it OUT of the game instead of the straight shuffling around of it we have now, and in same cases even with extra faucets as in the case of datacores. I could even see this tied into the end all be all end game for industrialists, that of mega production factories. Corporation owned stations in empire space running their own private slots, advertising their once private now public POS slots in that same system for use along with their taxes and fees for interbus ferrying materials people (another sink) between the two. 1. The goal here is to devalue T2 BPOs but still allow some modicum of advantage over invented BPs. 2. Provide industrial scale to the game affording seasoned industrialists a marked advantage over mom and pop operations and weekend warrior builders. 3. Open up new sinks of isk providing ability to sink more isk out of the game
EBANK Ricdic Eve-Tech Savings n Loans	Posted - 2008.05.21 15:04:00 - [24] Originally by: Annalynn i doubt, increasing prices for slot-usage would relax the situation. POS-services for anyone is a good idea but it will be too hard to implement. Why? Considering it's likely to benefit approximately 50% of the population at some time in their gaming career and it opens the door to Ambulation I see it as win/win. Quote: Just a thought - why not increase production time of T2 BPO's/BPCs by quite abit (double or triple). It would lower the supply and higher the prices. Umm, that's a bit too whacky for me to take in atm. Dunno if I like that idea or hate it. I think I hate it but not sure.
EBANK Ricdic Eve-Tech Savings n Loans	Posted - 2008.05.21 15:09:00 - [25] Originally by: Kazzac Elentria 3. In addition I would also force increased fuel usage as a POS factory begins to reach 100% capacity. I feel POS's need a boost. What you are suggesting reads nerf in my book. Hardcore nerf. Quote: 6. Remove module drops from rats and put in the same system that drones use. Alloys, waste, etc... Something I have been pushing for for a LONG time. Let the miners provide the minerals and the producers provide the supply. Let the traders move the supply into the general public's hands. Makes perfect sense to me. Keep the named drops and the occasional T1/basic drops but downsize the normal t1 stuff hardcore, replacing it with drone or whatever else that doesn't turn into minerals when reprocessed. Quote: 7. Remove all NPC sell orders for everything except blue prints and trade only industry items (quaff, etc..) force the industrialists into the fuel markets. Let us make construction blocks, etc.... I am more than happy with this as well. Anything that allows the public to control their economy and environment more is a big plus in my book.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.05.21 15:10:00 - [26] Originally by: Block Ukx Originally by: Kazzac Elentria As the topic states, from a previous thread. I proposed the idea of only allowing the future T3 to be manufactured in a POS to which another MD goer corrected and proposed that all T2 only be manufactured in a POS build array. So let's discuss since I see a lot of merit in the idea, and allowing a real and very easy added isk sink to the game. I am completely against the idea of increasing the entrance barrier or increasing production costs. Look at capital ships. Return of investment is very low, worse than many T1 ships. Increasing the entrance barrier simply means lower ROI. And the only ones that are going to get hurt by all this are the ones viewing manufacturing as a viable profession. Manufacturers need to keep a closer eye to the market and stop selling below mineral resale value. People need to be educated about the eve manufacturing economy. Otherwise, manufacturing as a business will continue to be a nightmare. Increasing the entrance barrier to manufacturing means only one thing, monopoly. Economy of scale.. increasing barriers int he correct places opens up new avenues of trade and building for lower scale builders. Remember I said I wanted EVERYTHING PC buildable
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.05.21 15:15:00 - [27] Originally by: EBANK Ricdic I feel POS's need a boost. What you are suggesting reads nerf in my book. Hardcore nerf. Quote: Perhaps it came out wrong. I was more trying to find a way to sneak a sink into the game. I don't mean anything wild in increased fuel costs. Just enough to sink more than a non utilized station. The benefit from the POS would come in the form of increased production capacity, material usages, etc... We could even mix up fuel types. Have a buildable fuel type that allows the POS to run more efficiently or for longer on less fuel. Akin to turbo engines on higher octane fuel...
EBANK Ricdic Eve-Tech Savings n Loans	Posted - 2008.05.21 15:18:00 - [28] Originally by: MilowFV I just have one question you don't need production efficiency V to get perfect production? I know that from PE IV to PE V takes me over 10 day to train is why I ask not that I am disagreeing with anything said just wondering where that 6 day number came from. I checked some of my characters on Evemon and you are absolutely right. It looks like there is about 15 days to get from PE1 to PE5 with basic implants and some learning skills. However do you consider that acceptable? I can build battleships at the same cost as the person who has been doing it for 3 years and I just finished my trial. My suggestion would be to include new skills for the production chains. Advanced PE to knock off an additional 1% or 0.5% per level to build cost (etc). Hell, let's go one step further. Let's allow you to buy various equipment that assists your operation. CCP can sell it (isk sink). Additional workers who require a salary but halves production time. Have researchers working on the job to reduce build costs or increase efficiency over time. The only negative I see here is that it starts turning a portion of Eve grind skill based which kinda scares me and intrigues me all at once. Most other companies do this but why can't we too. Have it work separate to the normal skills section. Have a new section/tab in char sheet that lists "Professions". Goes up over time and gets harder and harder to raise with different goals as you reach different levels. Building 500 damage controls might get you 5 points but then you find it's a lot harder to go higher without choosing a more advanced product. Maybe at 100 points you find you have the ability to produce with an additional slot etc. That might be just a bit drastic but it's definetly a way I see we can put emphasis on a profession. Hell, PvPrs could have it too. At 100 points they might be provided with a 5% boost to shield cap/speed or something. Why the hell not
EBANK Ricdic Eve-Tech Savings n Loans	Posted - 2008.05.21 15:32:00 - [29] Originally by: Kazzac Elentria Edited by: Kazzac Elentria on 21/05/2008 15:17:41 Originally by: EBANK Ricdic I feel POS's need a boost. What you are suggesting reads nerf in my book. Hardcore nerf. Perhaps it came out wrong. I was more trying to find a way to sneak a sink into the game. I don't mean anything wild in increased fuel costs. Just enough to sink more than a non utilized station. I think you are looking at it the wrong way. It's pointless to nerf POS production just so we can boost a different part of POS production. Rather than nerfing POS production why not nerf station production? Put higher costs to station npc services thereby increasing the isk sink on items that aren't of high cost to the playerbase. I always thought CCP's true intent was to allow Eve to be as player driven as it possibly could be. Why else would alliances be created, for POS's, for the contracts system, or the majority of market items being player seeded? Why would they put in outposts and the likes? Why would they speak of Ambulation. All these things point to a true player run environment. CCP please let the players handle the research, production and invention aspects too. Start removing/reducing your services and allow them to be replaced with ours (supported by CCP so as to allow the general public to utilise without fear).
EBANK Ricdic Eve-Tech Savings n Loans	Posted - 2008.05.21 15:42:00 - [30] Edited by: EBANK Ricdic on 21/05/2008 15:43:20 Originally by: Block Ukx Look at the FreighterÆs market. Entry into Freighter manufacturing is significantly higher than Battleship manufacturing. However, you actually make more selling Battleships than Freighters and the ROI on Battleships is better than ROI on Freighters. I believe there are reasons to this. 1) significantly lower demand than battleships 2) some see freighter production as the next logical step to increase their production enterprises. Anyway the barrier to entry of freighter production from a skill based POV is a small handful of skills, maybe a month worth of training. And the return is almost always going to diminish with size. I wouldn't suggest making it more expensive to produce, just to make it more beneficial to produce when utilising player services and when being specialised in your chosen profession. CCP could release 200 new skills that help reduce costs on all different aspects of production. They could affect all kinds of different areas such as propulsion systems, jump drives, hull manufacturing, wing manipulation, shield generators, etc etc. A bpo could have a section with "affected modifiers" showing which skills affect that ship/module the most. There may only be a measly 0.05% reduction in material cost per level or even less. The point is that the freighter builder may have a years worth of training to have complete efficiency over his chosen product and maybe a 5-10% reduction in production costs as a result. Same deal with anything. Release that many skills and that many variations and suddenly you have actual COMPETITION. Producers have a complete skillset they can choose from. They don't all need level 5 in their chosen product but they choose how much time they want to put into their chosen products or areas of expertise. Frankly I think the above would be sensational. The skills don't have to cost a fortune, time is the true cost here. The entry level barrier is that of time. The end bonuses aren't superb but they allow a specialist in an area to dominate that area and he suddenly isn't involved in production wars with the 20 day old nub with the same efficiency.

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last 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.