Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ris Dnalor
Minmatar Ex Cruoris Libertas
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 01:54:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Ris Dnalor on 20/11/2008 01:55:02 I've read that eventually CCP wants to add another stage of production between minerals and the final products for Tech 1 construction, much like Tech 2 is currently. I truly despise the complexity of Tech 2 production and, in fact, it has kept me from bothering with it, as there are currently many more efficient ways to spend time to make isk. I'm sure no one will care about my opinion, but I think this is a truly horrible idea.
Make the advanced technologies as complicated as you like, but seriously where's the isk return to make this added complexity worthwhile for Tech 1 items? Yes, I also read that they will be removing most or all of the loot drops from npc rats. This could make the demand for tech 1 items increase in some cases, but actually if you go to Jita and check the market many of the meta 1 items and some of the meta 2 items are already cheaper than standard tech 1 items and in some cases much cheaper.
Since you've announced this, I'm sure it will probably happen. I have some questions. will you delete the old Meta 1-4 items as you've done with secure cans, bookmarks, and now eve-mails? or will they become uber rare? or perhaps meta 1-4 will become constructable as well?
More info would be nice as this will affect a great many peoples gaming experience.
Ris Dnalor
--
Quote: "Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand; it never has and it never will." -- FREDERICK DOUGLASS
|
Kessiaan
Minmatar Army of One
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 02:07:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Kessiaan on 20/11/2008 02:08:00 There's actually an article in the latest EON about this.
Quote: There is some talk of transposing Tech II-style resource requirements into the Tech I market, so that building ships will require components rather than a simple shopping list of materials. "It makes sense," says Chronotis. "It has benefits since the production becomes a little more realistic where you must first take a primary resource and refine it, then manufacture a component which goes on to be part of the assembly of your ship. The process also has the benefit of opening new markets for smaller corps to specialize in, providing these components whilst allowing for more sensible upgrade options in the future. We are looking at the feasibility of Tech I components, but are not committed to delivery them until we have looked considerably harder into the idea."
The rest of the article talks about such things as removing mission loot (Chronitis seems to agree that mission loot is driving down mid-grade mineral prices, which is exactly the opposite of what I've heard on these forums recently), allowing players to build various meta levels of Tech I items (or possibly completely custom Tech I items via the modular system you seem to dislike so much), some stuff that's already officially announced and/or implemented (storefronts, alchemy), and other off-the-wall stuff we'll probably never see in game (Interbus, corp-issued currency, etc)
|
Irulan S'Dijana
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 02:57:00 -
[3]
Sounds good to me. More chances to get a production line type thing going, good for corps. |
Gamer4liff
Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 03:33:00 -
[4]
As somebody who produces T2 regularly, I hope they are joking. They should save it for T3. T1 is T1 because it's base, basic, minerals go in, ship comes out, what could be more pure and simple? |
Souvera Corvus
Gallente SPORADIC MOVEMENT FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 03:38:00 -
[5]
Rant on/
To me it sounds as if they're making it unecessarily complex.
There are enough instances of time-intensive industrial practice in EvE in any case without adding a further layer to the process. POS deployment, production, invention, research and mining already draw significant time penalties when compared to other things a player can do (shoot people).
T2 production, especially ships, is a drawn-out tedious process that results in negligible return for producers who aren't part of the 0.0 cartel. Introducing a similarly tedious process for T1 production would have the effect of lowering margins whilst increasing prices. ( I produce T2 modules and ships)
The changes to NPC's dropping loot would I hope, mean that player wrecks would also not drop loot. After all if we are to plead 'realism' for some of these changes then I would also hope that we can have consistent realism.
This would have a knock-on effect for piracy and PvP as the already scant margin to be had from such activities would disappear.
I have a suspicion that its CCP knee-jerking in response to players whinging about high-sec somehow appearing to be unbalanced. After all I've only recently started to see mutterings from 0.0 industrialists (especially drone regions) whinging about falling mineral prices in Empire and lo and behold we have a CCP employee holding forth about how the vast majority of the playerbase will be made to suffer for their crimes of not joining the 0.0 lag-fest by having rat drops taken away from them.( yes I do live in low-sec/0.0 so I have no axe to grind on that count. I also PvP.)
This was contradicted recently by another CCP employee who stated that their in-house economist felt that rat-drops had a negligible effect on mineral prices. The politics of 0.0 has a greater pull than the economics in CCP I guess.
So in short, the changes that Ris details here would be a disaster in my humble opinion. On top of the quite frankly awful QR 'patch' (Its not really an expansion and the nerfs don't bother me but the crapola performance does) I find this sort of stuff irritating.
So a plea.
Stop messing about with the game for long enough to fix the myriad of crappy and annoying glitches that have emerged as a result of QR and accept that lag is something your reponsible for and have to deal with.
And focus on other things than nerfing high-sec. Its getting old and quite honestly there are much bigger things you might be looking at. (in my opinion )
Rant off/
|
ShardowRhino
Caldari Legion 0f The Damned
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 03:45:00 -
[6]
Um, can you provide a link to the source your referring to? If its an EON article then i have no clue as to what was said.
Going off of the OPs comments, i would hate to see T1 become as complicated as T2. However I would like to see T1 become more then it is now. So if CCP was going to alter T1 construction, they should allow the manufacturer to make Meta grade items by putting more effort into it. Without making T1 production MORE then it is now then the complexity really shouldn't be increased.
Now about the 2nd poster's comment about CCP suggesting that loot is causing a flood of mid range minerals, I gotta laugh at that. All CCP needs to do is look back at how things were BEFORE the drone regions were introduced with their NPCs chock full of minerals. Zydrine and Nox dropped fast after the drone regions were introduced, I guess a lot of people headed out there to mine jaspet and such??
|
Kessiaan
Minmatar Army of One
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 03:51:00 -
[7]
Originally by: ShardowRhino Um, can you provide a link to the source your referring to? If its an EON article then i have no clue as to what was said.
EON #12 page 42
|
Jason Edwards
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 04:00:00 -
[8]
Thing is... if they do go for this. They really have to balance it so those who have spent resources and everything to research their Raven bpos to very high efficiency levels. That they continue to keep that efficiency.
and no... not any of this me-4 is perf me kind of stuff. |
Kessiaan
Minmatar Army of One
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 04:06:00 -
[9]
I suppose instead of editing my above post to include a big block of manually-copied text, I should have put it in a new post.
But I didn't, and I'm lazy, so I'm not moving it. Instead I am putting this totally pointless reply in here that simply serves to tell people to scroll up a bit if they already replied / read this thread prior to my edit. |
Dirk Magnum
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 04:19:00 -
[10]
If they don't remove meta 0 T1 loot from missions, and cut it back from rats, adding another layer to T1 production is a bad idea IMO. You already can't compete in price with low-meta, so what gives with wanting to make it HARDER to make T1?
|
|
Master Han
The Blue Dagger Mercenery Agency The Covenant Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 04:20:00 -
[11]
Originally by: ShardowRhino Going off of the OPs comments, i would hate to see T1 become as complicated as T2. However I would like to see T1 become more then it is now. So if CCP was going to alter T1 construction, they should allow the manufacturer to make Meta grade items by putting more effort into it. Without making T1 production MORE then it is now then the complexity really shouldn't be increased.
Being able to make meta items would be very sweet for T1 producers. But I would hate to see it a guaranteed meta output. Make the process chance based.
Adding an Advanced Production tab to existing BPOs listing the items for the creating a Meta grade item. On the job window make an extra drop down menu that would allow you create the advanced version (simple yes or no choice for Advanced Production). The job would always return at least a low level meta item (not T1) and have a 5% base chance at the best version. New skills for Advanced T1 Production and another for increasing chance of a better level meta item.
|
Tortun Nahme
Minmatar Umbra Synergy
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 04:26:00 -
[12]
they are also going to make it so you need to hire complete player crews, to operate your weapons you need 10 indiviuals for the gun crew, engines take 5, webs 12 and so on
Fallout thinks im cute! I think so anyway |
Solareni
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 04:26:00 -
[13]
If they remove loot from mission rats, where would the named version of T1 stuff come from. Also would this affect officer spawns? Replace the existing drops with BPCs?
Dropping BPCs for officer spawn and named loot would be good for the industrial base but hurt the mission runners and ratters who would not be able to rake in as much ISK due to adding another level of production before good items hit the market.
|
Eireach Protus
Caeco Empire
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 04:49:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Master Han
Originally by: ShardowRhino Going off of the OPs comments, i would hate to see T1 become as complicated as T2. However I would like to see T1 become more then it is now. So if CCP was going to alter T1 construction, they should allow the manufacturer to make Meta grade items by putting more effort into it. Without making T1 production MORE then it is now then the complexity really shouldn't be increased.
Being able to make meta items would be very sweet for T1 producers. But I would hate to see it a guaranteed meta output. Make the process chance based.
Adding an Advanced Production tab to existing BPOs listing the items for the creating a Meta grade item. On the job window make an extra drop down menu that would allow you create the advanced version (simple yes or no choice for Advanced Production). The job would always return at least a low level meta item (not T1) and have a 5% base chance at the best version. New skills for Advanced T1 Production and another for increasing chance of a better level meta item.
This.
|
Dirk Magnum
Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 04:52:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Solareni If they remove loot from mission rats, where would the named version of T1 stuff come from. Also would this affect officer spawns? Replace the existing drops with BPCs?
Only meta 0 T1. All named stuff would remain the same. Faction, officer, and deadspace are hypermeta T1 and don't really count.
Definitely do not replace any drops with BPCs.
|
CHAOS100
Black Plague.
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 04:56:00 -
[16]
Well CCP has to add new 'features' aka time sinks, otherwise the game would be far too unrealistic, right? Obviously, building a frigate should take a month or more, it is far too unrealistic to be built in a day. Battleships should take just under a year. Titans at LEAST 2-5 years would be more realistic. --------------
|
Mika Meroko
Minmatar Crayon Posting Inc
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 04:56:00 -
[17]
need... more.. production lines....
if T2 become like T1....
(yeah, 20 wont be enough..... guess is time to train up the 3rd alt...)
Originally by: CCP Atropos I pod people because there's money to be made in selling tears.
|
Solareni
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 04:56:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Dirk Magnum
Originally by: Solareni If they remove loot from mission rats, where would the named version of T1 stuff come from. Also would this affect officer spawns? Replace the existing drops with BPCs?
Only meta 0 T1. All named stuff would remain the same. Faction, officer, and deadspace are hypermeta T1 and don't really count.
Ah, thanks!
|
Neesa Corrinne
Rogue Shadow Squad Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 04:57:00 -
[19]
As if T1 frigs, destroyers and cruisers aren't already useless enough, now they're going to be useless and cost more to produce.
Brilliant!
|
Ancy Denaries
Caldari Solaris Operations
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 07:06:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne As if T1 frigs, destroyers and cruisers aren't already useless enough, now they're going to be useless and cost more to produce.
Brilliant!
*rolls on the floor laughing* |
|
Tippia
Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 07:18:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne As if T1 frigs, destroyers and cruisers aren't already useless enough, now they're going to be useless and cost more to produce.
Setting aside for a moment that you're quite wrong about them being useless, why would they cost more to produce?
No sig for me, thankyouverymuch. |
Hsallie
Gallente Irongate Incorporated
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 07:26:00 -
[22]
Am i the only one that have a relative simple solution to this problem ?
How about just drasticly reducing the reprosess value of the mods dropped in missions, that way you can still get your meta loot to sell but you wont get an abundance of minerals to drive the industrials out of buisness. |
Max Hardcase
Art of War Exalted.
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 07:48:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Tippia
Originally by: Neesa Corrinne As if T1 frigs, destroyers and cruisers aren't already useless enough, now they're going to be useless and cost more to produce.
Setting aside for a moment that you're quite wrong about them being useless, why would they cost more to produce?
More people in the production scheme = more people wanting their % markup. And % over % adds up.
|
Souvera Corvus
Gallente SPORADIC MOVEMENT FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 08:00:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Hsallie Am i the only one that have a relative simple solution to this problem ?
How about just drasticly reducing the reprosess value of the mods dropped in missions, that way you can still get your meta loot to sell but you wont get an abundance of minerals to drive the industrials out of buisness.
The industrials aren't being driven out of business, its just those in the drone regions who are whinging about falling mineral prices, think high-sec missions are responsible (they're responsible for pretty much everything these days) and want CCP to stick their big nerf bat in the mix.
Its the industrials in high-sec who get the few high-ends they can out of re-pro that the whingers are targeting, they'd far rather the high-sec boys buy their drone re-pro at a much higher price.
There's not a lot to be made out of mission re-pro as it is, not even in low-sec L4's. The belief that getting rid of NPC drops will provide anything other then a boost to the 0.0 monopoly is ridiculous. (and I live in low-sec-0.0 so again I have no real axe to grind, it just makes no sense to ask players devote even more time to a process that delivers ever smaller margins. |
Ballista III
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 08:00:00 -
[25]
the question to ask CCP is:
whats wrong with the current system?
unless they make it so loots only drop from lowsec rats, then i am all for it!!!!!!! |
Tippia
Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 09:38:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Tippia on 20/11/2008 09:42:27
Originally by: Max Hardcase More people in the production scheme = more people wanting their % markup. And % over % adds up.
So in fact there is nothing to say that the prices will increase, seing as how it's completely optional to add more people to the process.
Originally by: Ballista III the question to ask CCP is:
whats wrong with the current system?
I wasn't at the roundtable, but the description I got was that the current system more or less eqates T1 equipment with piles of minerals. Get good enough skills (and BPs) and you can convert between the two 'til the cows come home and never lose a thing. This causes all kinds of silly side-effects such as ore compression through production and loot-mining.
If this system was put into place, they could attack both problems by making sure there's no longer a 1:1 relationship between the final product and the minerals that go into creating it due to the intermediary steps. Also, instead of having NPCs drop tons of ready-made modules, they could start dropping components instead — some of which are a bit more uncommon than others, and which are required to build the meta 1-4 items.
In other words, it would ensure that all the stuff is actually produced, rather than harvested from NPC wrecks.
No sig for me, thankyouverymuch. |
Mithfindel
Gallente Gariushi Foundation
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 09:44:00 -
[27]
As a note, even if there's an extra phase on production, it doesn't mean that the end result takes more time or costs more.
Let's see. Mineral numbers are improvised, but should get the idea. Assume that you're currently constructing 10 T1 cruisers, each taking 100k of mineral A, 20k of mineral B, 10k of minerals C and 1k of mineral D. Constructing one takes two hours, so total sum is 20 hours.
In the possible component-based model, constructing each ship takes an hour, but it requires a propulsion module, shield generator, drone bay and some armour plates plus some minerals. Constructing the propulsion, shield generator and the drone bay takes 15 minutes, and the armour plates take a total of 15 minutes, totaling one hour. Total construction time one hour. Mineral use can stay the same. However, let's say that if you have a BPC for a faction cruiser, you drop in one extra shield generator, and can build that, instead. And so on. If we take this to modules, constructing a railgun might need a barrel, a capacitor unit, and a targeting unit. Now, drop in an extra targeting unit and you have a chance to make a meta level gun.
Also, as hinted, if there's people who abhor the "bigger" tasks, they could concentrate on building the modules and market those. In the best case there might be possible to make small modifications on the ships, which would allow branding.
|
KhaniKirai
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 11:45:00 -
[28]
logistics take time. More components= more time spent= more factory slots needed.
It also gets less relaxing and since this is a game, people will stop doing it.
|
Andres Talas
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 11:59:00 -
[29]
The difficulty people dont want to talk about is the vast majority of the player base just doesnt want to mine minerals.
For example, in the last 30 or so hours of play, hanging out in Curse ratting in a Vexor, chasing reds, being chased by reds and occasionally even shooting at reds, I've seen *one* miner. And he abandoned it after minutes when a red came in system.
On the other hand, I've "mined" about six cruisers worth of minerals, plus about a cruiser worth of fittings I'd actually use. This isnt counting the nine million units of trit etc from a hauler spawn.
And this in a reasonably protected safer than lowsec system with absolutely untouched mineral belts up to Hegberdite.
There's four solutions - macro miners, NPC mining, minerals via loot drops or making mining more fun.
And making mining more fun isnt anywhere near easy - you could make it more interactive and chance based, but at the end of the day this could disrupt macro-mining, and that would do really, really bad things to EvE's economy (PvPers, I'll simplify this. You can have macro-miners, missioners and cheap ships, or no macro miners, nerfed mission runners and fly around in cruisers. Your call).
|
Tippia
Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2008.11.20 12:04:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Tippia on 20/11/2008 12:05:46
Originally by: KhaniKirai More components= more time spent= more factory slots needed.
This is a huge assumption. Why would it require more time? Why would it require more factory slots?
Sounds more like it would give you more options in how you want to spend your time and resources: you'd be able to parallelise tasks to a much higher degree if there are slots available, thus reducing the time spent on certain steps of the process. You'd also be able to distribute your production to where there are slots available to a higher degree.
However, those are just options — there's nothing that says you couldn't just produce everything in the same pipeline in the same time it takes to create the final product today.
No sig for me, thankyouverymuch. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |