Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Corstaad
Minmatar Vardr ok Lidskjalv Pirate Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 05:38:00 -
[31]
Best Mining ship in EvE is a CNR. My alt funds alot of my pvp but if I was really interested in mining/ manufacturing that where my finger would point.
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 06:11:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Corstaad Best Mining ship in EvE is a CNR. My alt funds alot of my pvp but if I was really interested in mining/ manufacturing that where my finger would point.
That is true unfortunately. So I think that doing 'something' about minerals coming from loot might go a great way towards making mining as profession more 'worth it'. What got me flared up was proposal to remove/reduce bounties and give something else instead without granting fixsed 'exhange cource' (as nexsus chip NPC buy orders were for example for LP), as that in my opinion would reduce buying power of characters who rely on that as their main source of income (as I do). Even if the initial 'stuff' exchange cource would be finetuned to represent current level it would decline fast if it's not as liquid as isk (ie, you could spend that 'stuff' to buy your next HAC for example) when people would try to convert it to something liquid they can use to cover their regular expencses.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 10:44:00 -
[33]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Doc Extropy
I hate the idea of removing bounties. Money HAS to come from somewhere and some people hate looting / salvaging.l
Oh, I agree. There has to be SOME degree of money coming into the game. But right now it's just way too much.
How about cutting the bounties in half and replacing it with loyalty points? The "value" should be about the same but it won't let so much isk into the economy, which is bad for everybody.
Here is what you have to consider. The more isk that is being put into the economy, the less isk/hour you make. But if we replace the direct isk faucet with a way of distributing isk by giving people something they can trade for isk, it would make a much more interesting economy without hurting the players.
I don't want to make mission runners think that they will get less out of their mission running. I just want to not have their activities hurt the economy.
But it is exactly what you are asking.
Reduce the bounties, replace the difference with LP worth the same. And then who will police the LP value so that it stay at the current level?
Both the Lp store and T2 invention market have proved that there is a lot of people that equate "time spent to get a item to = 0 cost (i.e.: if I don' pay isk it cost nothing)".
So as those people think that any value you get from LP is good as they are "free" will crash the value LP in no time.
End result, you would have cut the reward without compensation.
Then there is the "little" problem of belt rats. If the bounty on them isn't changed at the same time the reward would become unbalanced, if it is changed 0.0 will have cash flow problems.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 11:01:00 -
[34]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis ... or increasing demand by finding more ways for people to die (and ofc having fun doing so and being able to replace their ships) and allowing for natural consumption. ...
Little problem, you increase the ways to die: the fist ships/players that would be hit are those that love to pimp the ships with high metaitem modules and rigs.
If the prospective is to lose 1 ship every week, or pimping it 1 every month, people looking at the prices will probably go for losing on 100 million isk ship (with 80 millions recovered through insurance) than losing a 400 million ship with rigs and faction items every month (and still getting back 80 millions from insurance).
It will boost the market of T1/named items, but nerf the high end markets (faction) and the rig market.
If somehow the balance was moved so that T2/faction fitted ships have way higher survivability it would make it a have/have not situation where those with large wallet could make ships almost indestructible, and the other will have a high attrition rate.
Not easy to balance.
|
Pwett
Minmatar QUANT Corp. QUANT Hegemony
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 16:24:00 -
[35]
People who fly a 400 million isk ship and who are not prepared to lose it have their own problems. This is not a function of t1 drops.
If bounties were actually lowered or there were increased LP rewards that would actually lower faction costs yet more.
I hate to break it to some of you people, but faction prices are what t2 prices where about 2 years ago. But now there's so much more money in EVE that faction fits are easily affordable by the general population. _______________ Pwett CEO, Founder, & Executor <Q> QUANT Hegemony
|
Altaree
Red Frog Investments Blue Sky Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 16:39:00 -
[36]
This idea would completely annihilate a currently valid trader/industrial career path. That is the buying of stuff from mission runners for reprocessing. Please proceed with GREAT caution.
Blue Sky |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 18:25:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Pwett
If bounties were actually lowered or there were increased LP rewards that would actually lower faction costs yet more.
I hate to break it to some of you people, but faction prices are what t2 prices where about 2 years ago. But now there's so much more money in EVE that faction fits are easily affordable by the general population.
Maybe it was unclear but that is one of my points. Faction will decrease in prices (even what is not in the LP stores) simply because the number of people with the isk to buy it will decrease. But I am not sure at all it si a good thing.
Originally by: Pwett People who fly a 400 million isk ship and who are not prepared to lose it have their own problems. This is not a function of t1 drops.
Here you have missed the point totally. If rewards are reduced as i was suggested, changing the in LP that will become fast almost worthless, people that can afford to lose a 400 million ship (and so people that fly one) will be greatly reduced in numbers, both for PvP and PvE.
|
Karanth
Gallente Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 18:35:00 -
[38]
Mission runners can gain other sources of income than loot drops. Ratting and mission running should never have become more lucrative than mining when it comes to mineral acquisition. Even if rats only drop metalevel loot, and much less of it, you couldn't currently make that, so that both groups have something different.
|
Haradgrim
Tyrell Corp INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 19:09:00 -
[39]
It would make sense to remove loot from missions and rats to increase the demand for minerals and player built modules (and thus minerals). If you allow for those two conditions, the "core" industry of EVE becomes more profitable and interesting for the "Industrialists."
Now at the same time if you were to increase mission rewards and/or bounties; the same capsuleer's whose demand for modules will be forced to turn to industrialists for their goods (increasing the health of the market place) and do so with the income required to do so.
My only caveat is, if your going to make t1 stuff stop dropping. It should be possible to build named modules. --
Originally by: CCP Oveur ...every forum whine feels like a baby pony is getting killed
|
Elhina Novae
Amarr Destruction Reborn CORPVS DELICTI
|
Posted - 2008.07.07 23:27:00 -
[40]
Edited by: Elhina Novae on 07/07/2008 23:28:35
Originally by: Jei'son Bladesmith As a mission runner/loot reseller myself, i wouldn't be opposed to reducing the lot drops, but increasing the value of said drops, so we go from "oh boy. another 2,000 m3 of crap i gotta unload" to seeing "oh boy! theres something in that wreck! BONUS!"
It WOULD reduce income so a bump to the rat's bounties would be nice (or again drop more valuable but fewer items so the ISK value of the loot is about the same)
also it would reduce the minerals we have (from reproc'ing crap loot) tho that's not necessarily a bad thing - high sec miners could easily (and I think gladly) pick up the slack.
I am new into industrialism myself but this idea is good.
Wouldn't it be possible to simply keep the bounties as they are, and instead have rats give less loot? Also only named modules (Meta 2-4), remove T1 (Meta 1) modules completely from loots and now they are only available from BPO/BPCs.
Personally, it would be better if we got less loot and make named modules worth more, since many give the same effect as T2 with reduced fittings, they should in turn be hell of alot more expensive (imo).
Some missions, just give way too much loot, Gone Berserk comes into my mind. Reduce loot drastically and keep the bounties!
I am myself a missionrunner, salvaging/looting every mission so I would take a hit from this (unless LP gets upped??), but I think it would be worth it for a more stable economy.
EDIT: Forgot one of my points completely. Level 4 missions and loot, can easily make you cross mining of the list of things to do since you can get loads of minerals from the loot you get from mission, salvaging. Somebody set up us the bomb |
|
Divad Ginleek
Gallente Gateway Industries House of Mercury
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 00:39:00 -
[41]
Since so many people seem to be convinced that this is a "PVP" game and not a sandbox where you can do what ever you want, good or evil.
I propose that we close out the market and the silly concept of money completely. make everyone pick their class and ship type when they create their character, and every time they die, they respawn in a station in a fully fitted ship with enough ammo to last a while.
oh wait... they already have that. its called Every-First-Person-Shooter-In-Existence. lol.
/sarcasm
on a serious note. YES! take T1 drops out of the game completely. Take everything that can be produced with a BPO out of the NPC drop table. There are plenty of named items to take up the slack, and most of them are better anyway. This increases sell prices for T1 producers, and increases sale prices for named T1 items. good for industrialist and PVErs. PVPers can either have corp/alliance mates build their stuff, or pay more. remember the concept of risk vs. reward?
Besides, i think the idea is that PVPers should have some industrial/mining skills as well to build their own stuff. thats why there are no skill classes in EVE. every character can learn everything.
::insert witty signature here:: |
Kyra Felann
Gallente Noctis Fleet Technologies
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 03:41:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Divad Ginleek Since so many people seem to be convinced that this is a "PVP" game and not a sandbox where you can do what ever you want, good or evil.
I propose that we close out the market and the silly concept of money completely. make everyone pick their class and ship type when they create their character, and every time they die, they respawn in a station in a fully fitted ship with enough ammo to last a while.
oh wait... they already have that. its called Every-First-Person-Shooter-In-Existence. lol.
<sarcasm>Yeah, because there's no way you can have a PvP sandbox. The only PvP games in existence are FPSes.</sarcasm>
Eve is a sandbox, and almost everything you can do is or can be competitive. As in, players competing against other players. ie: PvP. Mining is competitive. Trading is competitive. Manufacturing is competitive. It's all PvP. Even missions, ratting and exploration--arguably the only actual PvE in the game--can turn into PvP very quickly.
So yes, it is a PvP game, but that doesn't mean it's just about pew-pew. It's a sandbox driven by player competition.
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 03:41:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Qaedienne on 08/07/2008 03:41:04 All the mission runners who complain about losing money because T1 drops might be removed need to remember that salvaging was a huge addition of income for them, with no offsetting loss/risk.
Right now mission running generates all of the commodity types except ships, plus most of the cash in the game. That's unbalanced, and it hurts the manufacturing side of the game.
The EvE manufacturing market is stunted because of the flood of T1 gear coming out of missions exceeds demand by itself. This needs to be fixed.
|
Carniflex
Caldari Fallout Research Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 09:24:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Qaedienne Edited by: Qaedienne on 08/07/2008 03:41:04 All the mission runners who complain about losing money because T1 drops might be removed need to remember that salvaging was a huge addition of income for them, with no offsetting loss/risk.
Loot drops were 'rebalanced' when salvage was introduced as far as I'm aware.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 09:34:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Divad Ginleek
on a serious note. YES! take T1 drops out of the game completely. Take everything that can be produced with a BPO out of the NPC drop table. There are plenty of named items to take up the slack, and most of them are better anyway. This increases sell prices for T1 producers, and increases sale prices for named T1 items. good for industrialist and PVErs.
Wanna bet that if it is implement that will no be the result?
No T1 drops while "named items to take up the slack" will mean a little more named drops (at the current value) to compensate for the absence of T1. Net result will be that named loot will lose value and sell for less while most players will buy directly named loot, skipping totally the T1 items. At least for some metalevel there is already a overabundance of named loot.
I am already buying some T1 low metalevel module for reprocessing as they sell for less than the mineral content. Increase the drop rate and it will become even worse.
At the same time mineral prices will become a bit higher as most of the minerals from reprocessed loot will disappear (some will still be produced by reprocessing named loot).
So most of the T1 market will be the T2 builders that need T1 items in the production, but they (generally) already have the T1 BPO of the item and the skills to build them with little wastage, so most of them will build directly the needed items.
So I think that most T1 market will simply disappear, barring some specific item like ballistic controls or shield booster amplifier whose named versions drop rarely or never from rats.
It could be interesting to see this idea implemented but don't hope it will increase the return for T1 production.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 10:35:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Corstaad Best Mining ship in EvE is a CNR.
Well, how about a CNR shooting at hauler spawns?
I frequently hear of people with vast piles of minerals in 0.0 and low sec that are just sitting there, untouched, because no-one can be bothered to move them. Zzz research towers Direrie NEW: Liekuri
20:1 low-end compression |
Fennicus
Amarr 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 11:36:00 -
[47]
Really, there are three ways around this:
The first would be to keep the T1 items dropping - if you removed them I can guarantee you will upset a vast number of players. If the game needs more ISK sinks, fine, add fuel or crews or some generic ship maintenance mechanism (where I pay X ISK every Y missions to keep flying my battleship). There are plenty of good ideas being thrown around for how this could work. Module durability also falls under this umbrella (perhaps CCP should ask everyone else who make MMO games how they implement such a system) but it's quite an unpopular system with the players: "having to farm so you can raid" would translate into "having to farm (even more) so you can PvP".
The second would be for the T1 items that drop to be damaged, as they are in PvP. You have to pay to repair them and the reprocessing yield could be lowered, either globally or through damage. This would of course drive up prices and introduce quite a substantial ISK-sink into the game.
The third could be to drop module-component-items as already suggested here, such as with rogue drone commander drops. Merging this with current salvaging could be a nice feature - to be honest, the concept of rig-material is silly (if I can manufacture ships myself, why can't I make the intact armor plates?) as is the requirement to have 1 or 2 dedicated modules equipped to do it. Reducing this to a new salvage module, which tractors & dissects wrecks into constituent components over a short period of time, would be hawt. But, the chances are that doing this will lead to a glut of components on the market, possibly hurting mineral prices quite a lot, unless you required a mineral cost on top (to fill in the 'gaps') and were able to make these meta-components yourself.
Personally, I think the second idea would be the win. It doesn't make mission runners feel like they're losing out, but forces them to make slightly more intelligent choices about what they do with their loot; it's also more realistic.
|
Molock Saronen
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 12:21:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
No T1 drops while "named items to take up the slack" will mean a little more named drops (at the current value) to compensate for the absence of T1. Net result will be that named loot will lose value and sell for less while most players will buy directly named loot, skipping totally the T1 items. At least for some metalevel there is already a overabundance of named loot.
No, it wouldn't. Because as LaVista said, the amount of income from missions is to large already. Compensating with more named stuff defeats the principle. So no adjusting 'named' items drop rates. Just removal of unnamed stuff.
Originally by: Venkul Mul
I am already buying some T1 low metalevel module for reprocessing as they sell for less than the mineral content. Increase the drop rate and it will become even worse.
Exactly. So no increase in droprates.
Originally by: Venkul Mul
At the same time mineral prices will become a bit higher as most of the minerals from reprocessed loot will disappear (some will still be produced by reprocessing named loot).
You mean mining will be a viable occupation again? GREAT!
Originally by: Venkul Mul
So most of the T1 market will be the T2 builders that need T1 items in the production, but they (generally) already have the T1 BPO of the item and the skills to build them with little wastage, so most of them will build directly the needed items.
T1 uses minerals, T2 hardly does. And those T2 producers will still have to get those minerals so, they can a) go mine themselves, b) by the minerals, or c) they buy the T1 stuff directly form someone who does put the work in to get the minerals and build the T1's.
Originally by: Venkul Mul
So I think that most T1 market will simply disappear, barring some specific item like ballistic controls or shield booster amplifier whose named versions drop rarely or never from rats.
See previous.
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 13:25:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Carniflex Loot drops were 'rebalanced' when salvage was introduced as far as I'm aware.
Hmmm, I dont recall that being the case and I was running missions when that patch came out. If they did rebalance the drops it was marginal, where as salvage proceeds are a big portion of mission income.
|
Cory Sopapilla
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 13:33:00 -
[50]
Originally by: LaVista Vista Removing T1 loot drop is a dream of mine. ... So remove bounties and replace it with something that will make mission runners life as easy(I know it will upset some people to remove the bounties, but the economy cries every time a rat is blown up).
Holy crap Batman! Only players who already have a base amount of ISK to start could play unless they mine if you do this.
How would a new player get learning (and other) skillbooks, ammo, new gear, ships, etc if you remove the loot AND the $$ for kills? Don't say salvage or mining because they can't afford the skillbooks or salvagers yet and only have a civilian mining laser with a rookie ship cargohold.
|
|
Gimpslayer
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 14:22:00 -
[51]
scale t1 drops back and up the chance of getting t2 salvage components off t1 wrecks.
|
Elhina Novae
Amarr Destruction Reborn CORPVS DELICTI
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 15:25:00 -
[52]
Remove all T1 drops that can be created with a Blueprint, and make named mods drop less. Somebody set up us the bomb |
Pwett
Minmatar QUANT Corp. QUANT Hegemony
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 15:32:00 -
[53]
Yeah, the point is to remove meta 0 drops.
They went half way there by removing them from npc shops, but the fact that they can still be farmed is a bit silly. _______________ Pwett CEO, Founder, & Executor <Q> QUANT Hegemony
|
Arik VanClaw
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 16:44:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Cory Sopapilla
Holy crap Batman! Only players who already have a base amount of ISK to start could play unless they mine if you do this.
How would a new player get learning (and other) skillbooks, ammo, new gear, ships, etc if you remove the loot AND the $$ for kills? Don't say salvage or mining because they can't afford the skillbooks or salvagers yet and only have a civilian mining laser with a rookie ship cargohold.
While I think things are fine as is, half my income comes from the loot I steal from other people's missions, the rest from the salvage. But to Cory's point, perhaps a happy medium could be reached by only reducing loot drops in lvl 4 missions? That would leave rookies a chance at getting into the game without being forced to mine.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 17:15:00 -
[55]
It if and at the same time terrific how the "I hate people doing missions" crowd like to cite LaVista post like it was the ultimate solution of all woes in eve, but at the same time cutting away pieces so to tailor it to make it say what they want.
Originally by: LaVista Vista Removing T1 loot drop is a dream of mine. I don't find it likely quite yet. We need an equal way of balancing the reward.
I would personally like to see the whole loyalty store concept expanded. Remove ISK-faucets in mission by removing bounties. But equally "liquid" types of rewards should be made available. Loyalty points could be that thing, but the type of items that comes from these stores are, by definition, scarce resources. So they shouldn't be THAT common either.
So remove bounties and replace it with something that will make mission runners life as easy(I know it will upset some people to remove the bounties, but the economy cries every time a rat is blown up).
And then make away with all T1 loot drops. Replace it with rig-ish types of components that should be used in production of named variants of modules. But make the components needed for malkuth/arbalest/high-end variants, drop-able in low-sec only.
I realize it's quite a change. But well.
They all forget the bolded part and instead have started another of the "nerf missions" campaigns. You suffer so much for envy? and of what too? that someone can like missions and get isk from them at the same time?
The most shocking part is that no one of you seem to think beyond the initial effect of your proposed changes. You all know (or at least should know) that the opening of the drone regions was the greatest reason of the drop in mineral prices and you are suggesting a change of similar or larger magnitude without a thought of what would be the long term effect.
If you have a proposal try to explain it well, not stick to some pre packaged slogan. "Nerf mission they are the origin of all bad things" is not a solution, it is a system to breck the actual status quo in EVE without a thought on the consequences.
|
Alrich
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 17:23:00 -
[56]
hope you guys realise that noone is going to buy t1 stuff... even if they can manufacture them. the only reson people buy them now is to refine them. the low-end meta items are often sheaper (sp?)
|
Elhina Novae
Amarr Destruction Reborn CORPVS DELICTI
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 17:33:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Alrich hope you guys realise that noone is going to buy t1 stuff... even if they can manufacture them. the only reson people buy them now is to refine them. the low-end meta items are often sheaper (sp?)
Newbies that don't have level 4-5 skills for the T2 equipment? Removing the regular T1 that can be made from blueprint could actually make T1 production worthwhile? Reducing the drop of 'named' T1 items would also make them rise in price. Perfect. Somebody set up us the bomb |
Pwett
Minmatar QUANT Corp. QUANT Hegemony
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 17:43:00 -
[58]
There are two arguments in this thread.
Arguments from people who would like to see less NPC involvement in the markets.
-and-
Arguments from people who are scared of change. _______________ Pwett CEO, Founder, & Executor <Q> QUANT Hegemony
|
Belatu Cadro
Minmatar Kinda'Shujaa
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 17:54:00 -
[59]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Doc Extropy
I hate the idea of removing bounties. Money HAS to come from somewhere and some people hate looting / salvaging.l
Oh, I agree. There has to be SOME degree of money coming into the game. But right now it's just way too much.
How about cutting the bounties in half and replacing it with loyalty points? The "value" should be about the same but it won't let so much isk into the economy, which is bad for everybody.
Here is what you have to consider. The more isk that is being put into the economy, the less isk/hour you make. But if we replace the direct isk faucet with a way of distributing isk by giving people something they can trade for isk, it would make a much more interesting economy without hurting the players.
I don't want to make mission runners think that they will get less out of their mission running. I just want to not have their activities hurt the economy.
The problem with this is that the same people who currently undercut on the market and reduce profits on almost all production items to as little as 1% or less will, do the saem with LP.
If you double the LP recieved from missions, it's likely that the value of LP's would halve, quadruple them and you will probably see a them worth less than a quarter of what they are now, the mentality in EVE of making a quick buck is just too deeply imbedded.
|
Alrich
|
Posted - 2008.07.08 18:13:00 -
[60]
for t1 production to be profitable we need to stop all items, including meta-items to stop dropping, and instead drop rig-like components and make it possible to invent those named modules too
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |