|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
   |
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:55:00 -
[1]
This sounds very sub-optimal compared with what Chronotis was throwing around months ago. You're not removing the bottleneck at all, you're just shifting it a whole 1 pace to the left until we come up with the same problem again in 3 months time, and then you get another 12 months to fix it.
Contrary to what people are saying, this is still 1 step in the right general direction, and ISN'T going to make 0.0 less valuable but more, because most of it is filled with these 'alternate' moons which largely at the moment aren't all populated. It is simply going to require more people to fully utilise, instead of the current situation where a single person can manage a 200b/month network.
 Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans
CCP is a greedy money chewing monster
|
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 05:24:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Aprudena Gist
Edited by: Aprudena Gist on 27/10/2008 18:57:29
Originally by: Lord Fitz
This sounds very sub-optimal compared with what Chronotis was throwing around months ago. You're not removing the bottleneck at all, you're just shifting it a whole 1 pace to the left until we come up with the same problem again in 3 months time, and then you get another 12 months to fix it.
Contrary to what people are saying, this is still 1 step in the right general direction, and ISN'T going to make 0.0 less valuable but more, because most of it is filled with these 'alternate' moons which largely at the moment aren't all populated. It is simply going to require more people to fully utilise, instead of the current situation where a single person can manage a 200b/month network.
The only people that can hold that many moons are alliances and war happens because of them if you dont think there are huge costs associated with holding the moons then your crazy. Most wars in 0.0 happen over moons/space Or Grudge matches because we just dislike the other side.
You don't actually need to have many people in the area though, you can simply take the good moons then rent the rest out to pets, because 99% of the value is in a handful of moons per region. Now only 80% of the value will be in those moons (ooh big deal like that's really going to stop the fighting that was already rampant when they had 10% of their current value). But the other 20% of the value you will need to actively hold the space for. Which means that you will need more than one or two people to do the work of extracting value from that space, opening the possibility that large alliances won't be able to control everything with a couple of people. This is why Goons and BoB are the most upset. You won't be able to extract the full value from your space, with a limited number of people, even though the value of the space you hold, will go UP, since the 'alternate' materials come from 0.0 mostly anyway.
R16's were a bad choice, because they're already used 100% or more with other reactions. R8's would have been a far better choice. I can assure you that R8's are only exploited a fraction (since less than half of them currently 'can' be exploited due to the already limited R16's) While most R16's will already be exploited (albeit not all due to changes in territory). |
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 05:28:00 -
[3]
Originally by: A Sinner
dyspro and promethium prices going down ? \o/ BOB nerf
Dyspro might go down 20%, but their cadmium moons will go up in value more than enough to compensate. It's in no way a nerf to any 0.0 space, it just will require more towers to exploit. (which in most regions are already there anyway).
Given that it will require more than a handful of towers though, will make it less attractive to own space that is at opposite ends of the map. However under the current scheme Dyspro isn't going to go down all that much so the change will be negligible. |
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 05:45:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Trading Bunnz
Steps should have been taken to address the discrepancy in valuation between the moon materials.
Given that you bought up a heap of the other R64's I can understand why you think that ;)
Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans
CCP is a greedy money chewing monster
|
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 06:54:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Trading Bunnz
bought r64's was simply because the *logical* solution is to make these scarce resources more useable and balanced.
Not really it would have just bought a few months more time before we ended up with the same problem.
Quote:
Allow r8's to replace r16's, allow r16's to replace r32's, allow r32's to replace r64's. Additionally or alternatively, allow r64's to replace r64's.
Doing all of these might make some sense. I think there needs to be some consideration the Dyspro is the most valuable high end, and Cadmium is going to be one of the most in demand R16's due to hulks / anshars etc. So making those two related is a fairly large mistake. (What's the bet that the regions with the most dysprosium also have the most Cadmium ?)
A full solution would mean that ALL have eventual alternatives, I would have thought this would be more logical to do at the advanced reaction stage as there will be more flexibility there. This would mean that nothing, not even an R16 or R8 could ever be a single bottleneck beyond a certain price. (which should be substantial, but no where near what it is now.)
Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans
CCP is a greedy money chewing monster
|
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 13:52:00 -
[6]
Originally by: CCP Greyscale
Actually, that's not a restriction of the reaction system - the inputs and outputs can be entirely arbitrary, subject to certain limitations based around universal batch sizes that necessitated the extra step of refining the unrefined product. The reason there's no 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium reaction is that at that rate you could fit five hours of Cadmium into a silo at default capacity, and we came to the conclusion that that wasn't a reaction that many people would want to use.
Somehow a reaction that requires 10x the towers is preferable to a reaction that just requires a few more silos, a bonused tower and more frequent emptying ?
Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans
CCP is a greedy money chewing monster
|
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2008.12.12 12:22:00 -
[7]
I am really disappointed that this was introduced like this, because I get the feeling that the way to fix this will be now ignored, because it would inconvenience the 5 people using Alchemy.
The input should be cheap as to be almost free. The costs should be almost all in amount of POS fuel required to produce it and effort, and then tweaked so that it is worth doing at a level that makes dysprosium moons valuable but not game destroying. You should have reason to fight over SPACE not just single moons.
|
|
|
| |
|