Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Infinion
Caldari Retribution Enterprises Hedonistic Imperative
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 03:07:00 -
[121]
I appreciate the fact that the dev team has come up with a boost to the supply chain of certain moon materials. This will give smaller corporations and newer players a chance to compete with larger scale player corporations who have access to rare moons. I have not had much experience with moons myself but I can see that there is a great deal of speculation floating around in this thread about how it will negatively effect the moon material economy. Why not just sit back and wait until there is clear evidence of changes being seen on the market instead of hammering on them before anything has occurred yet? If it is a serious problem then CCP will do what they need to rectify it and restore balance to the changes.
also 0.0 has more than just moons in case you have forgotten.
|
Gamer4liff
Caldari Metalworks THE INTERSTELLAR FOUNDRY
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 03:07:00 -
[122]
Edited by: Gamer4liff on 28/10/2008 03:14:40 This will help, but it doesn't quite allow everyone to participate in the same way invention does. It would be nice to be able to mine Highsec moons, even at a severely reduced rate.
Also yes, for god's sake find other ways to get moon minerals, through exploration or something. If the average player can increase the supply somehow the problem will be null.
|
Lygos
Amarr Aiges Anos
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 03:45:00 -
[123]
Edited by: Lygos on 28/10/2008 03:45:54 This is a very sad day, but the real fault for failing to make productive use of a system of scarcity lies with us players.
Eliminating competition over scarcity is perhaps only the death knell of the hope that one single MMO out there could allow a player base to rise to new heights of complexity and competition by virtue of their own spontaneously organized efforts.
Enjoy your cheaper T2, your grind, your reluctant infrequent targets and your lack of respectable competitors. Perhaps not all is lost, but certainly any movements toward a radical departure from the current state of affairs have been pushed back by several years.
This was a truly excellent griefing CCP. There are few who would dangle the promise of genuine scarcity in the eyes of starving gamers for two years, and then snatch it away in a single patch when things start to get interesting. Well played. When you kill hope, it leaves a scar. |
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 05:24:00 -
[124]
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 -
[125]
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 -
[126]
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
|
blkmajik
ZiTek Deepspace Explorations
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 06:13:00 -
[127]
this is a good start, albeit an odd approach. but a bigger problem that might needs to be addressed at some point is the variance between demand of various moon minerals in overall t2 module & ship production. For example, with ships, technetium is used almost twice as much as any other r32 mineral (24.6:1 ratio to thulium, vs 15.8:1 for mercury, 3.9:1 for hafnium, and 2.1:1 for caesium). With r64s, Neodium is in the same boat, at 26.8:1 compared to thulium (prom is 4.5:1 and dyspro is 3.4:1. thulium is always used the least). This isn't an easy problem to fix. a simple solution would be to redistribute the build reqs of t2 components. That won't make you a popular dev ;) Why such discrepancies? Being that the mins are racial, doesn't that give holding sov in one race's space an inherent advantage over others? |
Trading Bunnz
Equatorial Industires Dark Taboo
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 06:19:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Lord Fitz Given that you bought up a heap of the other R64's I can understand why you think that ;)
I can understand that perception but its not really relevant to the discussion and I've tried to steer away from advocating change that directly improves my immediate wallet balance. The discrepancy exists across both r64's and r32's. This change pushes that discrepancy down to r16's now as well, with Cadmium moons being worth far more than any of their counterparts. The reason myself, and others, bought r64's was simply because the *logical* solution is to make these scarce resources more useable and balanced. They dont need to be in perfect harmony, but they do need attention.
Regardless of any "perceived" need to rebalance the value of the moon materials, the change as stated is still terrible for all the reasons listed above by myself and others. If they are going to do alchemy, do it fullscale. 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. |
Lord Fitz
Project Amargosa
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 06:54:00 -
[129]
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
|
Daan Sai
Polytrope
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 07:14:00 -
[130]
Wow, a really excellent design decision! This is exactly along the lines that were discussed some months ago on the inability of the fixed technology system to allow for innovation.
The parallel with invention is a good one.
Bravo
Daan
|
|
Fulber
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 08:14:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Lord Fitz
Originally by: A Sinner dyspro and promethium prices going down ? \o/ BOB nerf
Dyspro might go down 20%
Might. Instead of having two towers, a dyspro miner and a ferrofluid reacting tower, you'll need twenty cadmium miners, two or three unrefined ferrofluid reacting towers, and a means to refine it. Roughly twenty more towers. Have fun. |
FireFoxx80
Caldari E X O D U S Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 08:50:00 -
[132]
Just a thought, wouldn't it be better to allow a second avenue for injecting these materials into the economy?
What about gas cloud harvesting (currently boosters), planetary ring mining, comet mining (SOON), and so on. Some way to allow smaller mining operations or individuals to gather these resources would open up a whole secondary market (albeit at much more man-hours/inefficiency when compared to moon mining).
What I do the rest of the time - Vote for a Jita bypass! |
Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 09:19:00 -
[133]
another fail for CCP ... I wonder if they can come up with anything usefull before year end.
the only 2 dev blogs of interest were the Orca and the performance blogs. all the other anouncements are more or less flawed or failures ... |
Cergorach
Amarr The Helix Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 09:52:00 -
[134]
I can only say that I find Alchemy interesting. Mostly because it lowers the bar for high end moon minerals, but also because it removes the exclusivity of the high end moons (which is a good thing imho).
I agree with people that 0.0 (or high/low sec for that matter) need something to fight over. But unique resources that are used in daily used items isn't it, while things like that happen in the real world, EVE is a game and people play it to have fun. It isn't build to be a RL economy simulator! If 0.0 needs something to fight over concentrate more (non-unique)resources in a few systems.
|
zzCoins
Caldari Decorum Inc Tygris Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 11:25:00 -
[135]
"With the new reaction, you'll take 100 hafnium and 100 cadmium to make 100 unrefined ferrofluid, which can then be refined down to give 10 ferrofluid and 95 hafnium."
With the new method a single simple reactor is replaced by
10 reactors making unrefined ferrofluid 10 reactors turning that into proper ferrofluid
so 20 times as many reactors are required, hence 20 times as many POS
Converting 20 common material into 1 rare may be OK, but if 20 tims as many POS are required, then you might as well not bother. |
TheBlueMonkey
Gallente UK Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 11:36:00 -
[136]
I'll admit that I skipped everything past page 1, sorry if this has already been covered.
I see what you're going for and it'd be an interesting work around for a situation. I can see the minerals needed to create the high ends being monopolised by some and then the bottle neck just shifting along a stage.
This also negates my main issue with the Empire\0.0 balance at the moment. That being, where's the real incentives to go to 0.0?
If this goes through then it'd be a reasonable assumption that later on successive bottlenecks will be dealt with in a similar manor right down until you're using Tritanium as a starting block.
If I had sway of the decision I would accept a bottleneck between 0.0 and empire.
Create a new region and seed it with more dysprosium and promethium moons, some kind of stared hub region rather than the usual pipe systems that I see. Make it so it's incredibly difficult to defend.
Or make a number of smaller systems appear throughout 0.0 that have dysprosium and promethium moons in them.
I love production, it's what does it for me, I love watching the market and numbers.
Simplifying and making things easier doesn't make sense to me. It sounds boring, I enjoy number and complexity.
And yes, implementing alchemy does seem like an easy solution to me.
I'd like to believe that my tiny peep would make a difference but I'm a pesemist :P
My views are my own and are not those of my corp\alliance --
If there's no profit to be made you need to travel further afield.
|
Trading Bunnz
Equatorial Industires Dark Taboo
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 11:56:00 -
[137]
Originally by: zzCoins "...10 reactors turning that into proper ferrofluid...
Except the word "refine", rather than "react" is used in the devblog. Which introduces a whole raft of other issues doesn't it? :)
Regardless, this solution will only be utilised where towers are already being used for something else, as it adds nearly 60k/unit to the cost of ferroflud/dysporite just in additional fuel requirements, without factoring in any material costs. Given current costs for these mats, using dyspro and prom, range around 40k/unit, I'm not sure what will be achieved.
Sov moons on Cadmium mines can be used to churn out ferrofluid/dysporite, thats an advantage. But if Cadmium does stage a remarkable price rise, owners are probably likely to avoid the logistical issues and just stick a miner on instead. FRPB Shares in Default |
akirahayase
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 12:07:00 -
[138]
Interesting ... if they wanna change why not change the whole moon mining process to cut something from the plan .
Like that the moons can get depleted after a while ,would make 0.0 and low sec way more interesting .
I have found it always strange that a moon can give forever moon minerals and never get depleted ,like rl mining amine goes depleted once right ?
Ow yes this is alt lol to be safe ,coz lots op ppl will disagree especially those who have the best moons atm ..
|
Nomakai Delateriel
Amarr Shadow Company Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 12:59:00 -
[139]
Originally by: akirahayase I have found it always strange that a moon can give forever moon minerals and never get depleted ,like rl mining amine goes depleted once right ?
Keep the perspective in mind. We've been mining for less than 5 years. There are plenty of mines IRL that kept going for at least a century. While the mining methods in EVE are probably a lot faster it is an entire moon we're talking about here.
______________________________________________ -My respect can not be won, only lost. It's given freely and only grudgingly withdrawn. |
Vigilant
Gallente Vigilant's Vigilante's
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 13:42:00 -
[140]
There is easier solution, add more moons to the existing systems. Make it some cosmic evevt or somthing !
Or, a bit mor controversial, let high security moons be mined by ships or POS's at reduced rate.
I know both ideas are just to logical/ crazy :P
|
|
Evil Zeb
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 13:51:00 -
[141]
is there a plan to add more minerials to all the empty moon out there?
|
Vigilant
Gallente Vigilant's Vigilante's
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 13:55:00 -
[142]
Originally by: Evil Zeb is there a plan to add more minerials to all the empty moon out there?
Good question also...too many dead moons out there, with limited amount of scanning I have done it silly to have so many non-performing moons.
|
Sar'tosa
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 14:14:00 -
[143]
I don't see how this is really going to help, I need to run 10 times the amount. So if i get this right, i have to use 10x the amount of material, plus that equals out to 10x the amount of time. The whole while paying for Pos to run.
Oil companies are always looking for more places to drill for oil. Add more moons. This 10x the min/time varient will die a mean and nasty death.
|
Sar'tosa
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 14:20:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Evil Zeb is there a plan to add more minerials to all the empty moon out there?
And that would be the best idea. |
brinelan
Caldari Victory Not Vengeance Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 14:50:00 -
[145]
Let us mine high security moons at a reduced rate, and base the rate on sec status if thats what it takes to balance it out. This just seems to be adding too much complexity to the system.
Of course the easiest thing to do is to change the requirements of some items to use some of the other r64's that are in less demand, or have the other 2 r64's combine in a 2:1 or 4:1 ratio to make dyspro/promethium. --------------------------
Some days you're the bug, some days you're the windshield |
TheBlueMonkey
Gallente UK Corp Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 15:22:00 -
[146]
Originally by: brinelan Let us mine high security moons at a reduced rate, and base the rate on sec status if thats what it takes to balance it out. This just seems to be adding too much complexity to the system.
This would just further remove the incentives to go into 0.0
T2 items and high end minerals should be harder to get in empire. --
If there's no profit to be made you need to travel further afield.
|
Myrdin Potter
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 15:30:00 -
[147]
What confuses me about the new blog is that a reaction would output 2 different items? Reactors output into only one silo now (they accept multiple inputs but only one output). That makes the use of the word "refine" interesting.
If you can refine in a station, then the number of extra towers goes way down and this is a more interesting solution.
Myrdin
|
Arkady Sadik
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 15:39:00 -
[148]
I really, really, really like this idea - it basically keeps the rarity ratio the same for the final product, but distributes the required items over a larger area of space. I especially like that CCP doesn't just go out and fix the problem by pouring in more resources, but by allowing the market to fix itself. Just increasing the amount of dyspro moons would have been a half-assed solution, this is a really nice solution for the problem.
When more shortages become apparent, we will then see more ways to "circumvent" them.
Two questions, though:
Quote: Let's take ferrofluid as an example. Currently it takes 100 hafnium and 100 dysprosium to make 200 ferrofluid. With the new reaction, you'll take 100 hafnium and 100 cadmium to make 100 unrefined ferrofluid, which can then be refined down to give 10 ferrofluid and 95 hafnium. The final ratios at the end of the process see you using 100 cadmium and 5 hafnium to create 10 ferrofluid, per cycle. The proportion of hafnium stays the same, but the amount of cadmium is 20 times the amount of dysprosium you'd normally use per unit, and it takes ten times longer to make 1000 units of ferrogel.
Wouldn't it be easier to just create a reaction to turn 100 Cadmium and 100 Cadmium (no, that's not a typo) into 10 Dysprosium? Leaves the remaining chains intact, doesn't introduce "unrefined" materials, introduces only 4 new reactions, and all in all looks a bit simpler. What am I missing?
Quote: 100 unrefined ferrofluid, which can then be refined down to give 10 ferrofluid and 95 hafnium
I take it "unrefined ferrofluid" is a new item? What does "refined down" here refer to?
|
Clansworth
Burning Sky Labs Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 15:53:00 -
[149]
I feel right now that moon mining is just entirely TOO cut and dry. My proposed changes:
Change moon material abundance to a fractional value, instead of just an integer. Moon Harvesting the materials slowly drops their abundance, while the unmined slowly raise in abundance (to a limit). Harvester's yield is affected by the abundance number, so as the 'well dries up, you get less water'. Periodically, as materials are used up, they are replaced with a different material, which will slowly develop over time. CCP would be able to tweak on the regrowth rates, as well as the rarity rates for spawning new types, to adjust/manipulate the flow.
Moon Prospecting would become useful again. Monopolies would diminish (some). Those holding large amounts of space would still have the advantage, but would actually have to work for it, by periodically scanning down moons for new finds. The fractional nature of the yields would lead to more trading of raw materials, allowing the small timer moon miners to take part in the bigger picture.
POS Personal Storage |
|
CCP Greyscale
|
Posted - 2008.10.28 17:17:00 -
[150]
On reflection this probably wasn't made sufficiently clear in the blog: this is step one. The goal for this initial release of the Alchemy concept was to make the minimal necessary change to relieve some of the pressure from the system. We'll be watching how things pan out and seeing where the system reaches equilibrium, and then deciding if there should be a second step and, if so, what it should be. The scope is, therefore, intentionally limited. For the same reason, we deliberately avoided changing or supplementing existing dependencies between intermediate and advanced materials, or switching up which high-end raw materials are used in which intermediates. Changing these dependencies would have an extremely large impact on existing producers in terms of logistics and so on.
Some other things:
- Note that in terms of fiction, as it was brought up briefly from a couple of different angles, despite the name this is not transmutation. Instead it's simply utilizing different raw materials for the same product. There's a reasonable parallel here with biofuel, I think, although more in terms of running diesels on pure chip fat rather than the 5% ethanol fuel or whatever.
- The use of the word "refine" in the blog is, as pointed out by some other players in this thread, used because that's exactly what it means. Unrefined materials need to be refined, in a refinery. Currently this will only work in station refineries; if there's a need to extend this to starbase refineries we can add that in future but the inefficiencies would seem to make it something of a lost cause.
- The 20:1 figure is roughly approximate, with the emphasis on roughly
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |