EVE Search - "Alchemy"

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Science and Industry

"Alchemy"

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Warrio Southern Cross Incorporated Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.04 13:19:00 - [1] Is there any information out yet regarding alchemy? What will be the required ingredients, what will be the end result? Where will it be performed? What skills will be needed? Anyone know? sXe
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.11.04 13:34:00 - [2] Good idea, poor actual implementation, misleading/bad/wrong name. "Alchemy" devblog. _ Create a character \|\| Fit a ship \|\| Get some ISK
Warrio Southern Cross Incorporated Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.04 13:38:00 - [3] Thanks, missed that devblog. Sounds a little like CCP is removing monopolies after a few ladies cried about big alliances taking all the good moons. A shame but as someone once said, the squeaky wheel gets the kick. sXe
TrixxOfTheTrade Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.11.04 13:45:00 - [4] From what I read the suggestion looks poor. To do what they seem to propose you would have to run so many POS's that the cost of running them would make it pointless.
cavatess	Posted - 2008.11.04 14:00:00 - [5] Nothing is seeded on the test server as yet- so i cant even test this stuff out. The jist of it all seems to be new very inefficient intermidiate Pos reactions. Eg. find a moon with both Cadmium and Hafnium (or import one or both materials) and then run the new alchemy to make Ferrofluid at 1/20th the effiency of using Dysprosium.
Akita T Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force	Posted - 2008.11.04 14:36:00 - [6] The bad part of the problem is that they're using the rarer "racial" materials as alternatives, and the one paired up with Dysprosium is the Gallente one. Let's just say... it's probably one of the most unfortunate possible pairings. Couldn't they have had, say, a couple of traces of medium-rarity moon minerals AND A LOT OF GASSES OR OTHER JUNK ? But nooooo... pick the RARER racial materials, that's GOT to be a good things... right ? _ Create a character \|\| Fit a ship \|\| Get some ISK
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2008.11.04 15:03:00 - [7] Originally by: Warrio Thanks, missed that devblog. Sounds a little like CCP is removing monopolies after a few ladies cried about big alliances taking all the good moons. A shame but as someone once said, the squeaky wheel gets the kick. It's only going to make alliance space more valuable, and do nothing about the price of dysprosium. Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans CCP is a greedy money chewing monster
Julia Venatrix	Posted - 2008.11.04 15:10:00 - [8] Note Greyscale's addendum in the comments thread. Originally by: CCP Greyscale 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 These "step one" alchemy changes aren't meant to fix the dyspro bottleneck/cartel/whatever - if for no other reason than quite a few players have put quite a lot of time into creating that bottleneck and would like some isk for their effort thank you very much. The changes are more of an upper cap on how profitable cornering the dyspro market can be - and it's still quite a generous cap. As things stand, a 20x material requirement and a 10x time-to-produce (with concomitant overhead costs) mean that alchemy is not commercially competitive with dyspro mining. But it does offer a financially-inefficient method for achieving independence from the vagaries of dyspro supply for alliances who do not control adequate sources of that strategic resource. --- Some days you are the pigeon, and some the statue.
Nekopyat	Posted - 2008.11.04 15:30:00 - [9] Originally by: Warrio Thanks, missed that devblog. Sounds a little like CCP is removing monopolies after a few ladies cried about big alliances taking all the good moons. A shame but as someone once said, the squeaky wheel gets the kick. I kinda see it the other way, suring up existing monopolies by giving them another way to use thier existing territory. This will be a boon to null sec alliances, but I doubt it will be of much interest to anyone else.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.11.04 16:22:00 - [10] Originally by: Lord Fitz Originally by: Warrio Thanks, missed that devblog. Sounds a little like CCP is removing monopolies after a few ladies cried about big alliances taking all the good moons. A shame but as someone once said, the squeaky wheel gets the kick. It's only going to make alliance space more valuable, and do nothing about the price of dysprosium. Well one thing is certain, if you're a builder of Hulks, Macks, and the rest of the Gallente racial T2 component hogs now would be a good time to stock up.

Karen Ichijou	Posted - 2008.11.04 17:28:00 - [11] So this won't have the same effect to dyspro moons as invention did to t2 bpo holders?
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.11.04 17:37:00 - [12] Originally by: Karen Ichijou So this won't have the same effect to dyspro moons as invention did to t2 bpo holders? No. It would take all of the cadmium supply in the game to produce only 20% of all the dyspro supply cap. You'll see a minor blip in decrease for dyspro and a major blip increase for cadmium, and to a lesser degree the other racial links.
Nekopyat	Posted - 2008.11.04 19:34:00 - [13] Originally by: Karen Ichijou So this won't have the same effect to dyspro moons as invention did to t2 bpo holders? The only way we would get that kind of shift is if moon mining were opened up to everyone (either via low-quality POS mining in high-sec, or via moon mining barges). Which, IMHO, would be very cool. I am all in favor of things being MORE profitable in null sec, but I would like to see more of the actual features available in hi-sec.
Bloody Rabbit Jita Miners	Posted - 2008.11.04 20:11:00 - [14] Originally by: Nekopyat The only way we would get that kind of shift is if moon mining were opened up to everyone (either via low-quality POS mining in high-sec, or via moon mining barges). I would just be happy with opening up moon mining in 0.4 systems. As is dreads can get there, siege and pop towers so why not let you moon mine there? Yes I know that its still part of the empire space and you need standings and paper tax thingy but if a dread can siege your tower without war decing you then it should be open for moon mining. As for barge, it would be funny to see that. I would want them to have to go into a "siege mode" aka one hour long mode that can't be broken by the pilot even if logged off. So as to let pirates and protectors come and destroy your ship.
cavatess	Posted - 2008.11.04 21:23:00 - [15] To just throw some very rough figures in here.... (using cadmium prices @ 845isk pu and a medium pos fuel cost at 24M/week) A cadmium moon might go from a "value" of 14M (mineral only) i.e a loss to an approx "value" of 67M (1,680 units of ferofluid or dysporite) i.e a slight profit of around 40M per week (less your logistics costs and the small amount of either mercury or halfnium needed to complete the alchemy) Using alchemy to make the promethium compounds would still make a loss unless promethium doubled from its present price. Better to just sell the minerals of a chrome moon. remember prices are subject to change at any time
Gothikia	Posted - 2008.11.04 21:28:00 - [16] they should just seed lowsec with the rarer minerals... makes more sense and moves more people into low sec that cannot be cartelled by alliances
Warrio Southern Cross Incorporated Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.04 22:45:00 - [17] Originally by: Gothikia they should just seed lowsec with the rarer minerals... makes more sense and moves more people into low sec that cannot be cartelled by alliances All this carebear whining about low-sec not being valuable enough and more features needed in hi-sec is depressing. If you want to get rich and do exciting crap then go to 0.0 and deal with the hot-dropping titans, T2 large bubbles and marauding alliances. If you don't feel that you can deal with this then sit in Jita 4-4 and scam Navy Ravens like everyone else there. sXe
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.11.05 02:23:00 - [18] Originally by: Gothikia they should just seed lowsec with the rarer minerals... makes more sense and moves more people into low sec that cannot be cartelled by alliances Or fix alchemy more into what the AKita, the MD pros and LVV proposed some time back. The same system of being able to use alternate mats, however place the pairings on different sets and not tie them to racial lines. In that way, space which was just barren and had towers with arrays purely for sov purposes (with the array there to recoup some cost) now become that much more valuable. The idea is sound, how it was implemented however is not going to change a single thing. It will however make for some interesting waves for people who trade reactants. So us rich folk are just going to get richer.
Omarvelous Caldari Destry's Lounge	Posted - 2008.11.06 14:44:00 - [19] Originally by: Warrio Originally by: Gothikia they should just seed lowsec with the rarer minerals... makes more sense and moves more people into low sec that cannot be cartelled by alliances All this carebear whining about low-sec not being valuable enough and more features needed in hi-sec is depressing. If you want to get rich and do exciting crap then go to 0.0 and deal with the hot-dropping titans, T2 large bubbles and marauding alliances. If you don't feel that you can deal with this then sit in Jita 4-4 and scam Navy Ravens like everyone else there. I'm going to have to agree with you. High sec does NOT need a financial boost with moon mining. Not when you can run away from war decs and still churn out level 4's. The current system is risk vs reward - deal with it. Sup brosef! Destry's Lounge is looking for a few good drunks - contact me in game.
Braaage Ministry of Craft	Posted - 2008.11.06 15:04:00 - [20] How about seeding Moon Harvesting Array IIs that will help with the current situation rather than Alchemy. -- POSs, Outposts, Exploration, Mining, Invention, Boosters, EA EVE Database, Character Generator & more

TitusFlamininus Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.11.06 19:00:00 - [21] Originally by: Kazzac Elentria Originally by: Karen Ichijou So this won't have the same effect to dyspro moons as invention did to t2 bpo holders? No. It would take all of the cadmium supply in the game to produce only 20% of all the dyspro supply cap. You'll see a minor blip in decrease for dyspro and a major blip increase for cadmium, and to a lesser degree the other racial links. LOL yeah. All of Goon space, for example, would be able to add the equivalent of 3-4 Dyspro moons. The entire implementation is a travesty.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.11.06 19:19:00 - [22] Originally by: TitusFlamininus Originally by: Kazzac Elentria Originally by: Karen Ichijou So this won't have the same effect to dyspro moons as invention did to t2 bpo holders? No. It would take all of the cadmium supply in the game to produce only 20% of all the dyspro supply cap. You'll see a minor blip in decrease for dyspro and a major blip increase for cadmium, and to a lesser degree the other racial links. LOL yeah. All of Goon space, for example, would be able to add the equivalent of 3-4 Dyspro moons. The entire implementation is a travesty. Which is a shame because a much more robust solution would be to place the alternate mats into the R8s and Gasses instead of directly linking what is R16-32 into the R64s That would at least make your .1 through .3 space look THAT much more attractive to budding industrialist corporations and push them out of empire. In the same regard your cartels holding the R64s and R32s if and when they get boosted out and lose space now have a foothold they can fall back into should the need arise. Couple that with sov changes and it would make for a much more dynamic game play environment. To add insult to injury they went ahead and tied the highest demand R64 to the highest demand R32. What insane dev thought that was a good idea was drinking FAR to much that night. We said it down in the Market Discussion forums. If you fly Gallente or produce it in T2, get prepared for an ass raping in price sooner than later.
MailDeadDrop Archon Industries	Posted - 2008.11.06 19:43:00 - [23] Originally by: Gothikia they should just seed lowsec with the rarer minerals... makes more sense and moves more people into low sec that cannot be cartelled by alliances Um, you do realize that the "cartels" hold onto the rare moons now not because they are alliances or are in 0.0, but instead because they can bring sufficient firepower to keep everyone else at bay. Therefore, putting rare minerals in lowsec will only cause the cartels to hold the lowsec moons, too. More rare mineral moons would increase the supply, but that kinda goes against the idea of them being rare... MDD Jump Clones: 8M and NO corp switching
Jacque Custeau Knights of the Minmatar Republic	Posted - 2008.11.06 20:35:00 - [24] 'Alchemy' as it stands now is a red herring and not a practical option. When you make t1 stuff, most of the minerals used to build an item are low ends, and they are plentiful, with only a small amount of megacyte and zydrine. Your typical t1 bpo uses minerals in this ratio (there are exceptions though) 1:4:16:64:256:1024:4096, corresponding to Megacyte:Zydrine:Nocxium:Isogen:Mexallon:Pyerite:Tritanium. Interesting thing about those ratios, they are exactly equal to the NPC buy order price for those minerals when the servers went live, and those are the numbers upon which NPC insurance is calculated. In tech 2 items however, 2 of the rarest moon minerals (promethium and dysprosium) take up a much larger portion of the final product than they should. CCP fixed this in new items like Jump Freighters, but it did not look to changing the make up of what was already out there. This is what needs to be fixed, not adding the 'Alchemy' system in the manner being suggested. I never thought that when I used this term in reference to this problem last year that it would be picked up and implemented so quickly. I was using it to highlight the absurdity of using alternative minerals to fix the problem. -------------------
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.11.06 21:25:00 - [25] Originally by: Jacque Custeau In tech 2 items however, 2 of the rarest moon minerals (promethium and dysprosium) take up a much larger portion of the final product than they should. CCP fixed this in new items like Jump Freighters, but it did not look to changing the make up of what was already out there. This is what needs to be fixed, not adding the 'Alchemy' system in the manner being suggested. I never thought that when I used this term in reference to this problem last year that it would be picked up and implemented so quickly. I was using it to highlight the absurdity of using alternative minerals to fix the problem. Most of us who pushed for the alternate mat fix also noted that for it to work, it would have to place the alternates on the complete opposite end of the spectrum. Fully into the gasses and R8s and done so in such a way that with a fully supplied gas and R8 with R16 line given enough supply you should be able to bypass the R32 and R64 entirely or only have to minimal supply yourself with them. Doing so would again open up a plethora of options inside low sec space and really populate it back up again.
Jacque Custeau Knights of the Minmatar Republic	Posted - 2008.11.06 21:40:00 - [26] Kazzac the reason CCP won't implement that is that they still want a dysprosium moon to be something that is battled over. The alchemy change that CCP implemented will make sure that is still a certainty. What CCP forgets is that Wars have been going on in EvE whether Dysprosium was 80k, 50k, 20k or even before POS's existed in the game. I implore Chronotis to stop the deployment of Alchemy and consider the following changes instead: 1. Change the composition of tech 2 components so less promethium and dysprosium goes into the final product 2. Remove Moon Minerals from all high sec moons, and place them in moons in low sec and null sec that are currently barren. 3. Allow unrestricted moon mining and reaction access to 0.4 space, and remove charter/standing requirements. -------------------
Kylar Renpurs Dusk Blade	Posted - 2008.11.06 23:56:00 - [27] Having not cared much for this yet, I took the time to run some numbers and I'm actually quite impressed with it. For a manufacturer going from moon minerals straight through to T2 products this is a bit '**** on a bull' for them. But for people looking to make some ISK it's actually a good low-cost way for people to manufacture the intermediates for higher-end goods. I ran some numbers using old reaction data I had and this is what I like about Alchemy. On my old prices were: Dysprosium - approx 80000 ISK Hafnium - 1100 ISK Cadmium - 1400 ISK A straight-hourly profit on making ferrofluid was about 340,000 ISK per hour (assuming raw materials are purchased). In my silos are: 320 million worth of Dysprosium, 40 million of Hafnium, Assuming I have stocks to run for a week in a corp hangar you're looking at 2.1 billion of Dysprosium and 280 million of hafnium. With alchemy, the hourly profit of making 10 ferrofluid an hour using the weaker materials is (was, old data still) actually about 290,000 ISK. But the best part is instead of 2.1 billion ISK of Dyspro being stored, I only have to store about 300 million worth of hafnium. Important part being I've gone from a several-billion ISK liability to something probably just under 1 billion, to generate good but not optimal profit. Once again, rate of creating ferrofluid is poor so anyone wanting the ferrofluid for reacting, not sale, will be sorely disappointed. Personally, I look forward to this. Also, logistics are cut in half. Instead of having to buy tons of hafnium and dyspro all the time, I just have to restock Cadmium from wherever, and can refine the hafnium out and reuse it. Me likey! Improve Market Competition!
Joss Sparq Caldari ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.07 01:15:00 - [28] Edited by: Joss Sparq on 07/11/2008 01:23:00 Originally by: Warrio A shame but as someone once said, the squeaky wheel gets the kick. You sound a little squeaky now yourself, Warrio To be serious though, I feel mostly ambivalent to these changes since I haven't been involved in moon mining and reacting for ages - and when I was it bit me somewhere delicate for my efforts due to market flux - so I've also been slightly jaded about the whole thing since then I suppose. I am however resigned to be happy about these changes, if only because that they're introducing something which will at least create opportunities for somebody, somewhere. Whether the changes will really achieve anything worthwhile in the entire economy though, I think remains to be seen by live implementation only.
Warrio Southern Cross Incorporated Southern Cross Alliance	Posted - 2008.11.07 07:42:00 - [29] Originally by: Joss Sparq Edited by: Joss Sparq on 07/11/2008 01:23:00 Originally by: Warrio A shame but as someone once said, the squeaky wheel gets the kick. You sound a little squeaky now yourself, Warrio Where getting a kick = getting my way then sign me up to some squeaking! sXe
Lord Fitz Project Amargosa	Posted - 2008.11.07 10:06:00 - [30] Originally by: Braaage How about seeding Moon Harvesting Array IIs that will help with the current situation rather than Alchemy. No they won't. Go scan some moons. You'll be lucky to find abundance 2 cadmium and I'd be willing to bet no dysprosium moons have 2 abundance. Also, it will do exactly what this version of alchemy does, ie, shift the bottleneck a whole one step to the left. Quote: Kazzac the reason CCP won't implement that is that they still want a dysprosium moon to be something that is battled over. The alchemy change that CCP implemented will make sure that is still a certainty. What CCP forgets is that Wars have been going on in EvE whether Dysprosium was 80k, 50k, 20k or even before POS's existed in the game. Unfortunately as it stands the current implementation actually reduces wars compared to the days of old. Because people are no longer fighting to take space, they're merely fighting to take specific moons, which all in all means less fighting, and less fun fighting. It also means a lot more titans and doomsdays. Originally by: Warrio Originally by: Joss Sparq Edited by: Joss Sparq on 07/11/2008 01:23:00 Originally by: Warrio A shame but as someone once said, the squeaky wheel gets the kick. You sound a little squeaky now yourself, Warrio Where getting a kick = getting my way then sign me up to some squeaking! The squeaky ones have been getting a kick alright, right in the face. Can you think of anything lately that has gone the way that the vocal community wanted it to? The real idea behind 'alchemy' is taking something that is cheap and plentiful and somehow turning it into something valuable. This simply takes something valuable, and through more work than it is worth, turns it into something mildly more valuable. The 'work' part of alchemy makes a lot of sense, having to run a lot more towers for the same output is good. It creates isk sinks, jobs for miners, provides a certain base price for dysprosium (that it couldn't go below because people would just stop making it through alternative methods). But starting from an already quite useful and not all that common material is just a mistake. And one they shouldn't have tried to rush in with as little consultation time as they've given us. Because it's not going to fix anything, and when it invariably has to be removed for the real solution it's going to cause problems. I can't count the number of things still in this game that were poorly implemented and now their removal is never going to happen because it would now cause a heap of trouble. Originally by: CCP t0rfifrans CCP is a greedy money chewing monster



Pages: [1] 2 :: 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.