Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 17:17:00 -
[1]
IÆd like to see a comprehensive review of moon-mining in Eve online. At present the fixed distribution model of moon minerals leads to static gameplay in 0.0 as good moons will always be good moons and it encourages alliances to bunker down and turtle to protect the good holdings and regions while caring precisely nothing about bad moons and bad regions.
Would CCP ever consider introducing erosion of minerals on moons? û a system where eventually rare moons will be ômined outö and it will be necessary to rediscover alternative sources and re-establish the POS and equipment at new locations? (Maybe rough timescale for ômining outö a fresh mineral vein would be 2-3 months)
Would CCP be prepared to randomize the process of allocating rare minerals to moons? Perhaps once a particular moon is ômined outö another source of rare minerals is allocated to another moon somewhere else in eve? (this could even be done by classes of moon, ie that the re-allocation would go to the correct class but anywhere in space) And obviously youÆd need to adjust the numbers to ensure that you factor in exploration time and instability into the number of moons needed to support current industry levels.
Would CCP be prepared to change the current fixed regional distribution models to a regional bias (weighted random chance) distribution of minerals û ôfresh ore veinsö?
(I know the original intention was to have certain types of moons in certain regions and for alliances to have to trade and cooperate to exchange these things to drive politics - but it doesnÆt work that way in practise and certain moons are isk-printing machines, other moons are largely worthless in the current model.)
Dysposium Moons = 220m isk per day. Atmospheric Gas Moons =156k isk per day.
Would CCP be prepared to shake up politics and over-stabilized borders in 0.0 by having the rare moons (that are worth mining) get mined out and get randomly respawned in other regions (that will need conquering if existing profit and supply domination is to be maintained)?
We have a suspension of disbelief issue with previously undiscovered rare mineral veins spawning in new regions obviously, but itÆs not much worse than the endless mineral production of moons in hugely industrialized sectors. What I see with the moon mineral distribution mechanics is a chance to spark real wars in 0.0 again û real conflicts aimed at fiscal domination and maintaining control of a vital resource. ItÆd also give more value to the exploration profession (actually finding respawning moons) and bring some much needed balance across the regions. ItÆs quite senseless that there are only a handful of really good regions in 0.0 and lots of bad ones.
IÆm a great believer that Eve should have the ability to provide some lucky breaks to players prepared to do the leg work and take the risks and the principle that BoB and RA could randomly lose some Dysposium Moons that respawn in the middle of Syndicate or Providence frankly makes me smile with the anticipation of virtual bloodshed. Make 0.0 exciting again! Spark wars over moon minerals and regionally-diminishing resources. Make the economic distribution system a little more dynamic and watch war and politics get more interesting û everybody wins.
Now these are very early thoughts, and a broad proposal that basically says ôCan we look at making moon mining more interesting and dynamic?ö
What do people think?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 17:17:00 -
[2]
IÆd like to see a comprehensive review of moon-mining in Eve online. At present the fixed distribution model of moon minerals leads to static gameplay in 0.0 as good moons will always be good moons and it encourages alliances to bunker down and turtle to protect the good holdings and regions while caring precisely nothing about bad moons and bad regions.
Would CCP ever consider introducing erosion of minerals on moons? û a system where eventually rare moons will be ômined outö and it will be necessary to rediscover alternative sources and re-establish the POS and equipment at new locations? (Maybe rough timescale for ômining outö a fresh mineral vein would be 2-3 months)
Would CCP be prepared to randomize the process of allocating rare minerals to moons? Perhaps once a particular moon is ômined outö another source of rare minerals is allocated to another moon somewhere else in eve? (this could even be done by classes of moon, ie that the re-allocation would go to the correct class but anywhere in space) And obviously youÆd need to adjust the numbers to ensure that you factor in exploration time and instability into the number of moons needed to support current industry levels.
Would CCP be prepared to change the current fixed regional distribution models to a regional bias (weighted random chance) distribution of minerals û ôfresh ore veinsö?
(I know the original intention was to have certain types of moons in certain regions and for alliances to have to trade and cooperate to exchange these things to drive politics - but it doesnÆt work that way in practise and certain moons are isk-printing machines, other moons are largely worthless in the current model.)
Dysposium Moons = 220m isk per day. Atmospheric Gas Moons =156k isk per day.
Would CCP be prepared to shake up politics and over-stabilized borders in 0.0 by having the rare moons (that are worth mining) get mined out and get randomly respawned in other regions (that will need conquering if existing profit and supply domination is to be maintained)?
We have a suspension of disbelief issue with previously undiscovered rare mineral veins spawning in new regions obviously, but itÆs not much worse than the endless mineral production of moons in hugely industrialized sectors. What I see with the moon mineral distribution mechanics is a chance to spark real wars in 0.0 again û real conflicts aimed at fiscal domination and maintaining control of a vital resource. ItÆd also give more value to the exploration profession (actually finding respawning moons) and bring some much needed balance across the regions. ItÆs quite senseless that there are only a handful of really good regions in 0.0 and lots of bad ones.
IÆm a great believer that Eve should have the ability to provide some lucky breaks to players prepared to do the leg work and take the risks and the principle that BoB and RA could randomly lose some Dysposium Moons that respawn in the middle of Syndicate or Providence frankly makes me smile with the anticipation of virtual bloodshed. Make 0.0 exciting again! Spark wars over moon minerals and regionally-diminishing resources. Make the economic distribution system a little more dynamic and watch war and politics get more interesting û everybody wins.
Now these are very early thoughts, and a broad proposal that basically says ôCan we look at making moon mining more interesting and dynamic?ö
What do people think?
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 17:34:00 -
[3]
See also: Moon mineral/gas Originally by: Adeptus mecanicus
my suggestion is to make the minerals/gasses in moons possible to deplete, that it will spawn anew at a random site in eve wll make moons that has dysprosium (well the rare ones) hard to monpolize and gives any alliance a shoot of getting dibbs on one fore a given time. it also will make smaller alliances in lets say empire go to war in more frequent rate over good moon's, also it will make the bigger ones less powerfull since their cash cow's are on the move
PS: also think that goes fore Booster/synth booster sites
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 17:37:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Serenity Steele See also: Moon mineral/gas Originally by: Adeptus mecanicus
my suggestion is to make the minerals/gasses in moons possible to deplete, that it will spawn anew at a random site in eve wll make moons that has dysprosium (well the rare ones) hard to monpolize and gives any alliance a shoot of getting dibbs on one fore a given time. it also will make smaller alliances in lets say empire go to war in more frequent rate over good moon's, also it will make the bigger ones less powerfull since their cash cow's are on the move
PS: also think that goes fore Booster/synth booster sites
Thanks Serenity - yep I missed that one. Good to link the issues.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 17:59:00 -
[5]
Right value ratio?
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Dysposium Moons = 220m isk per day. Atmospheric Gas Moons =156k isk per day.
This ratio (1:0.0007) is comparable with Megacyte@3800 <> [email protected] ratio of 1:0.0009, so the price differential is in line with other game scarcity. The comparison is only rough as Megacyte can be refined from NPC loot drops as well - so it is more difficult to control supply.
Increased warfare?
Originally by: Jade Constantine What I see with the moon mineral distribution mechanics is a chance to spark real wars in 0.0 again û real conflicts aimed at fiscal domination and maintaining control of a vital resource.
I don't think this argument holds up: Fixed/limited resources and the fight for said resources sparks wars, as we see for access to 0.0 space and outposts. Depleting moons enable entities to "wait out" the period of time for the minerals to expire and key trying to "Strike gold".
As you state, having the minerals move about or deplete would benefit the exploration profession by placing emphasis on roaming/intelligence gathering as moons deplete.
Balance Considerations - For depletion to have a significant effect on static territorial control, the randomisation of new minerals would need to be across the universe, otherwise region controlling alliances would simply re-scan their (controlled) space, creating nothing more than annoyance - The supply/duration of the moon minerals would need to be dispplayed in the client (eg. Tower management control) to determine the longevity of each moon - Quantities could be randomized as well as existence.
Related Impacts Alliances investing in outposts (30bn isk) are often placed for optimal logistics to/from moon minerals as much as asteroid fields and COSMOS. To randomise minerals would reduce the value of investment in outpost construction redundant.
Idea: Variable supply/ration/efficiency in moons To take the comparison with Ore minerals vs. Moon minerals, an alternative could be to enable all moons to have some ratio of a particular mineral, much the same way that roids have a ratio of minerals.
Then each moon would not only have mineral types, but a specific extraction ratio or efficiency. What was chosen to mine is determined by the efficiency. If Dysprosium becomes excessively expensive on the market, maybe it is still worth extracting it from a moon with 0.25 efficiency ratio for Dysprosium.
|
Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 18:00:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Thanks Serenity - yep I missed that one. Good to link the issues.
A more clear explanation you gave here anyway
|
Tiger Delivery
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 18:25:00 -
[7]
How can the data be randomized without a dev revealing where the next good moons will be to his corporation, like it has happened with many things in the past?
|
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 18:30:00 -
[8]
I definitely agree with the overall premise of the OP. "Static" (almost) anything in an MMO is bad. It should be part of MMO Design 101 to avoid that at all costs. Essentially it leads to camping which I have never seen be a good thing in a multiplayer game.
I'd like to offer an alternative as well. Not because I think it is necessarily a better model but as food for discussion. I haven't thought through all the implications of either way and this is the place to do just that.
The one problem I see with the OP is we are still left with a fixed amount of resources and as such things like a Dysprosium moon will still be hugely valuable and an Atmospheric Gas moon near worthless. You are just moving it about some so no one group gets an easy monopoly. Also, a fixed amount of moon mins means the system is not responsive or flexible to growth within EVE. When there were only an average of 20,000 players online they need less minerals than when the average doubled to 40,000. If you have the same fixed supply prices ramp up accordingly.
So, as an alternative how about every moon has every moon mineral available (bear with me before flipping out)? Different moons will have different amounts available of each resource. So, as an example, a moon that currently provides 100 Atmospheric Gas/hour could also provide 0.1 Dysprosium/hour. The Moon Miner must choose one or the other. On the flip side what today would be a Dysprosium moon may provide 100 Dysprosium/hour or 2 Evaporate Deposits/hour.
In this fashion you allow for flexible production of resources. Ordinarily moon mining the Dysp on a moon that generates 1/hour would not be economically viable and better to go with the abundant resource. But if prices go crazy like they are for Dysp then other moon miners may find it profitable to go after the more scarce resource.
This would also likely raise the price on some of the low ends some as people stop mining gases and start mining dysp.
I should note different moons would have all sorts of varying amounts of this or that. Nothing hard and fast so one moon might give 100 Dysp/hour while another might do 50/hour and another might do 10/hour and another 0.1/hour. Have things all over the board and of course the "good" moons would largely remain in 0.0 and be suitably rare.
Opinions?
-------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Hermia
Steel Daggers Sev3rance
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 18:34:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Tiger Delivery How can the data be randomized without a dev revealing where the next good moons will be to his corporation, like it has happened with many things in the past?
We cant go through life expecting corruption.
This idea is definealy worth exploring
|
Joe Starbreaker
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 19:00:00 -
[10]
I like that there are strategic resources in EVE and that alliances and corporations can know where they are and fight over them.
I do agree that the earnings are way out of whack, but I don't think the solution is to make minerals move around randomly. Instead, maybe the devs should just seed more Dysprosium moons to cause the price to fall.
EVE is a big place and it should be possible for a small alliance (200-300 people) to stake out a little industrial foothold of its own. The small number of Dysprosium moons, coupled with the importance of that mineral, means that large alliances can, and should, monopolize them.
---------------- [insert signature here] |
|
Joe Starbreaker
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 19:05:00 -
[11]
To clarify, I don't have anything against large alliances. Nevertheless, a game like EVE should favor the underdog at least a little, or things will get stagnant and suck. Dysprosium moons and Cosmos Radar complexes that can be farmed for billions weekly are a problem because they provide an absurd amount of low-effort income to help the "rich get richer".
There should be more opportunities for up-and-coming powers to get resources. Those resources shouldn't be as valuable as the ones that the big powers own (otherwise big powers wouldn't have any reward for holding territory) but the difference shouldn't be a factor of 100 or 1000!
---------------- [insert signature here] |
Imperator Jora'h
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 19:10:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker Instead, maybe the devs should just seed more Dysprosium moons to cause the price to fall.
To my mind that is a very poor way to go about things. Essentially you are having CCP decide where Dysp prices should be and manually fiddling with supply to moderate prices.
Managed economies = bad. Didn't work well for communist/socialist governments and no reason to suspect it'd make sense here.
-------------------------------------------------- "Of course," said my grandfather, pulling a gun from his belt as he stepped from the Time Machine, "there's no paradox if I shoot you!"
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 19:25:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Tiger Delivery How can the data be randomized without a dev revealing where the next good moons will be to his corporation, like it has happened with many things in the past?
Randomly determined by a computer, not "randomly" determined by a dev. The dev can save them some moon probes, but that's it.
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h I definitely agree with the overall premise of the OP. "Static" (almost) anything in an MMO is bad. It should be part of MMO Design 101 to avoid that at all costs. Essentially it leads to camping which I have never seen be a good thing in a multiplayer game.
I'd like to offer an alternative as well. Not because I think it is necessarily a better model but as food for discussion. I haven't thought through all the implications of either way and this is the place to do just that.
The one problem I see with the OP is we are still left with a fixed amount of resources and as such things like a Dysprosium moon will still be hugely valuable and an Atmospheric Gas moon near worthless. You are just moving it about some so no one group gets an easy monopoly. Also, a fixed amount of moon mins means the system is not responsive or flexible to growth within EVE. When there were only an average of 20,000 players online they need less minerals than when the average doubled to 40,000. If you have the same fixed supply prices ramp up accordingly.
So, as an alternative how about every moon has every moon mineral available (bear with me before flipping out)? Different moons will have different amounts available of each resource. So, as an example, a moon that currently provides 100 Atmospheric Gas/hour could also provide 0.1 Dysprosium/hour. The Moon Miner must choose one or the other. On the flip side what today would be a Dysprosium moon may provide 100 Dysprosium/hour or 2 Evaporate Deposits/hour.
In this fashion you allow for flexible production of resources. Ordinarily moon mining the Dysp on a moon that generates 1/hour would not be economically viable and better to go with the abundant resource. But if prices go crazy like they are for Dysp then other moon miners may find it profitable to go after the more scarce resource.
This would also likely raise the price on some of the low ends some as people stop mining gases and start mining dysp.
I should note different moons would have all sorts of varying amounts of this or that. Nothing hard and fast so one moon might give 100 Dysp/hour while another might do 50/hour and another might do 10/hour and another 0.1/hour. Have things all over the board and of course the "good" moons would largely remain in 0.0 and be suitably rare.
Opinions?
It needs to be a bit less touchy than that, but I like the principle. If you want to avoid stasis directly, have the supplies on each moon increase while not mined and decrease while mined(and a Dysprosium-heavy moon will gain back Dysprosium faster, say). Of course, if you do that it'll push everything a lot closer to equality than it is now, but it'd be an automated way of decreasing stasis while not screwing over people who have been fighting for Dysprosium too heavily. ------------------ Fix the forums! |
Joe Starbreaker
|
Posted - 2008.05.31 20:10:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Imperator Jora'h
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker Instead, maybe the devs should just seed more Dysprosium moons to cause the price to fall.
To my mind that is a very poor way to go about things. Essentially you are having CCP decide where Dysp prices should be and manually fiddling with supply to moderate prices.
Managed economies = bad. Didn't work well for communist/socialist governments and no reason to suspect it'd make sense here.
My problem with Dysprosium moons and the cosmos radar sites isn't quantitative, it's qualitative. If they were a little bit rarer and a little bit more profitable, they'd be fine. Just as kernite gives people a reason to go to lowsec, and crokite creates an incentive to hold sovereignty in some 0.0, so the most valuable moons should reward people for fighting for them. The problem is they're so special that a few wealthy powers are able to monopolize them and milk them for ridiculous amounts. They're a class of game content that isn't really available to everyone.
EVE should have bad moons, fair moons, good moons, and great moons. People would be rewarded for defending the great moons, but others whose moons are merely "good" would have a chance of one day dislodging the established powers. EVE shouldn't have bad, poor, fair, okay, and super-awesome-unbelievable-instawealth-iskfountain moons.
---------------- [insert signature here] |
Czanthria
Ad Astra Vexillum
|
Posted - 2008.06.01 00:15:00 -
[15]
I think that something should be done about moon materials, etc. but not this proposal.
I don't think there is a problem with various 0.0 regions being more valuable (permanently) than others. The high value areas are where the big boys play and the low value areas are where people start out. Similar to the progression from high sec to low sec to 0.0 in general. The issue I see is that the rarity of a moon material isn't a good gauge of it's value because of the reactions and uses of that material.
Dysprosium, Promethium, Neodymium and Thulium are all of the same rarity and one would expect that they would be of the same approximate value, much like low sec ores are similar in price but not exactly the same. Currently, Dysprosium is twice as expensive as Promethium and almost 50 times as expensive as Thulium. This is because Thulium is only used in producing 1 (per race) T2 component (which is only used in ships) whereas Dysprosium is used in producing 5 (per race) T2 components.
I believe CCP should look into balancing the uses of the various materials such that their price is more reflective of their rarity rather than simply which things they produce and which other materials they must combine with to produce them.
The rarity system for moon materials is completely broken and making moons move around won't fix that.
And btw, make abundance of moon materials useful in some way... -- Knowledge is Power! |
Thorradin
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.06.01 00:48:00 -
[16]
In short, no, I disagree Jade, you've got a good thought, but perhaps a better idea would be this:
All moons are given a greatly increased number of materials that can be mined, however this can vary from 2 (meaning double what you get now, if you use a T2 harvester if/when they are released), to 0.1, which would give a 10% yield.
You would have alot more moons bearing rarer minerals, but in smaller amounts, and to prevent moon mining from being complete overkill, you would have a limit on the number of moon harvesters that could be present, or you would start getting severely diminished returns (on all harvester) if you have more than 2, maybe 3, at the moon.
For example:
Star Fraction POS #12 is currently at a moon with 2 atmospheric gases, and 1 platinum, harvesting both. My change comes into being, now your moon also has 0.8 cobalt, 0.5 technetium, and 0.3 dysposium.
You stop harvesting the gases, and begin harvesting the dysposium, but you only get 30% as much, due to a 0.3 content in the moon. You then decide to gather technetium as well, however the 3rd harvester causes a reduced income of each harvester total (stacking penalty) and you receive 10% less from each harvester (now getting only 27% the dysp).
IMO, that would be better, as even the 'crappy' moons would have some value, and if people flood the market with valuable materials like dysp, they'll find themselves possibly changing their mining setup to collect something else for better profit.
|
Jeirth
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:24:00 -
[17]
Got my support, I'd like to see Eve continually changing, static resource placement doesn't support that.
|
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 13:31:00 -
[18]
Yeah I'm aware my proposal is a bit rough chaps. I'd definitely like to see more ideas coming on the issue and if somebody does come up with a killer proposal that does what we want to see here then I'll be very happy to support it.
CSM Manifesto 2008 | Destroy Outposts! |
Jeirth
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 14:00:00 -
[19]
Weird idea, remove pos. Give us moon mining ships, that have pos size shields when in deployed state, put sov on a different system, randomise the amount of resource in a moon, when a resource is depleted it respawns in another random moon within the region (or somewhere in eve for that matter). Also give us research ships and manufacturing ships, all of which require some fuel in order to do their jobs in deployed state. The isk sink generated by having to continually rescan to find the good moons helps the economy by removing some of the isk flow. Static defences become useless, alliances and corps have to move around as the resources move, or else accept they dont have a guaranteed income from the moons in their area, thus promoting roving gangs and patrols and allowing for ninja moon mining. Titans could become mobile stations, given a deployed state. PvP increases as the migrating corps/Alliances rub up against each other in pursuit of resources that move around. Exploration characters get more employment, scanning a systems moons on contract, or selling the results of a system scan.
|
Nariana Verex
Oberon Incorporated Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 14:17:00 -
[20]
This would become more of a hassle than anything, and I think randomizing would lead to -more- moon mining and the collapse of all prices. Think about it.
If a corporation wants to have a better chance of finding Dysprosium in their systems, they simply have to mine every moon. Which over-saturates the market and causes prices on non-rare moon materials to plunge even further than they are now, as every moon mining company has an extreme surplus.
The erosion of deposits of materials on moons is not the answer, I believe. I think the answer is partially going to be making the lower end materials more valuable by increasing how many products that can be made with them [Make NPC trade goods buildable, woooo] or decreasing the amount per cycle rare materials can be extracted by. Much like how you can get thousands of tritanium from a single cycle, but only a few dozen Megacyte in the same span of time.
Sorry Jade, not signed.
Do the right thing. Don't leave shuttles in space. |
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2008.06.06 14:19:00 -
[21]
I offer this as an idea for lessening the impact of static moon mining and add my general support to this issue. -------- Ideas for: Mining Clouds
|
Nick Bison
Gallente Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Intrepid Proprietary Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 00:29:00 -
[22]
I believe that any overhaul of moon-mining "must" include opening up moon mining in 0.5 and 0.6 - as I understand this was a feature of the game a few years back but was removed as part of the (now failed) program to force people into 0.0 space.
With Dyspo (and the other top 3) moons netting the Uber-Allainces billions of ISK a month per moon, where is the major harm in allowing the small research corps using the crappy moon-materials in HiSec to help offset the cost of their POS's?
|
J Kunjeh
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 01:36:00 -
[23]
100% supported! I think instead of respawning, a terraforming element could be introduced where if you had the skills you could "re-seed" the moon with X chance of certain mineral veins being recreated. Now, I don't know much about terraforming, so I might just be talking out my behind, but it was a thought that popped into my head as I read the OP.
|
Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 02:01:00 -
[24]
long thread is long
_
THE APPRENTICE || mineral balance || nanofix
|
Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 02:14:00 -
[25]
I like the general idea of making it randomized, but it is pretty rough, and serenity has some good points. Also, open up moon mining in .4 at least (currently it is .3 or below, right?). While it needs some serious refinement and consideration, it gets my support.
|
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 03:22:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Toman Jerich on 13/08/2008 03:22:42 To minimize the macroeconomic disruption caused by any change like this, the total number of high-value moons should increase to compensate for the "flux time" after a high-value moon has vanished and before it has been rediscovered and mined.
If this is not done, then the quantity of high-value moon minerals on the market will decrease in proportion to the ratio of the average length of time that it takes to relocate a high-value moon to the duration of the high-value moon.
Don't try to spin this suggestion as "Wah don't take away my moon-mining profits." The income from high-value moons is determined entirely by market demand right now. The demand remains the same (or grows) regardless of what the supply does, so the average of miner's profits won't be affected.
As an aside, this would work out great for GS. GS holds sooo much worthless space. If the distribution of high-value moons becomes more even across space over time, it can't help but improve our space over the long run.
|
Kahega Amielden
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 03:31:00 -
[27]
Good ideas. Also, +1 for CSM activity in the forum.
|
Xtreem
Knockaround Guys Inc. Exxxotic
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 03:38:00 -
[28]
a good idea, but it would rise the price in T2 modules/ships as the moons would assumably need to be rescanned, re setup on each move, perhaps the person who has the moon originally gets a heads up to its new location in an attempt to resecure if possible.
also the cost of scan probes would rocket, even thought i own 3 med-high moons, i like this idea
|
Gabriel Darkefyre
Crystal Ship
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 12:00:00 -
[29]
Not a bad Idea, though there would be several kinks that need to be worked on.
For those saying that It would lead to less conflict, I disagree. Once you set up a Moon Mining POS you're enemies are not going to want to let you have the income from that, even if they can't hold the moon themselves. So, Fast Raiding Parties hitting the Moon Miners to disrupt operations are always going to be a threat.
Likewise, say Alliance A and Alliance B both manage to locate the same new deposit just inside Alliance C's Territory. Suddenly Alliance C's Territory becomes a battleground with 3 Alliances fighting it out for control of the New Resources all trying to push the other two Alliances back far enough to be able to set up their own Mining POS and Defend it.
As a result, the limits of Alliance control become a lot more Fluid with the borders shifting almost daily across the map.
|
Junkie Beverage
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.13 13:07:00 -
[30]
before they even consider this they need to make both moon scanning and pos setup/teardown less pointlessly soul destroying
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |