EVE Search - Reactions in my Salvage?

All Channels

Market Discussions

Reactions in my Salvage?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.12.06 18:03:00 - [1] Its more common than you think Missed this little gem during the week of thanksgiving So anyone else reading into this that they want to introduce compression problems to salvage as well?
Tasko Pal Heron Corporation	Posted - 2008.12.06 19:42:00 - [2] So how would that work, you take a zillion broken widgets and somehow turn it into a few orders of magnitude less unbroken widgets? Reaction sounds kind of weird. Would it work in a station factory?
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2008.12.06 20:13:00 - [3] this sort of approach by CCP really makes me cry Seems just as short sited as the whole alchemy thing they introduced for moon poo. That same mentality of CCP's towards placating the whiners when it comes to cost, is partially what provoked me to start my trit thread yesterday. Quote: So anyone else reading into this that they want to introduce compression problems to salvage as well? Hmm, not sure about that. What I do see is that they want to make t2 rigs so prevalant that they become common. I really miss the days when T2 in all its forms was the exception as opposed to the rule. --
Tesal Red Frog Investments Blue Sky Consortium	Posted - 2008.12.06 23:37:00 - [4] This was in a thread about "why are T2 rigs overprice". I don't think this will fix the problem of "overpriced" rigs. I am not a fan of the alchemy process and do not want to see it expanded the way they proposed it. The problem with this is, to truly reduce costs by changing the supply source in order to see a cost savings, you are doomed to fail unless you change it to something where there actually is an excess supply. This doesn't do that, so it doesn't solve supply problems. It doesn't even have much of a load balancing effect. I see a lot of downsides for producers, and not much benefit. I think most producers will see this as a nerf.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.12.07 00:36:00 - [5] I read into the thread that m3 volume changes in addition to be able to change certain salvage items into their respective T2 components. Based on previous actions from CCP, I cannot possibly fathom anything than the following. Lower salvage is now assigned respective m3 numbers of increased volume, T2 salvage is assigned similar. Specific BPOs are seeded to allow the building of T2 salvage from T1 salvage parts. Obviously all of the above is conjecture, but when you compare past actions for mats in industry you can pretty much plot the direction this is going to take.
Tesal Red Frog Investments Blue Sky Consortium	Posted - 2008.12.07 04:43:00 - [6] Originally by: Kazzac Elentria I read into the thread that m3 volume changes in addition to be able to change certain salvage items into their respective T2 components. Based on previous actions from CCP, I cannot possibly fathom anything than the following. Lower salvage is now assigned respective m3 numbers of increased volume, T2 salvage is assigned similar. Specific BPOs are seeded to allow the building of T2 salvage from T1 salvage parts. Obviously all of the above is conjecture, but when you compare past actions for mats in industry you can pretty much plot the direction this is going to take. My understanding from the link was they weren't talking about changing salvage sizes, rather were floating the idea of changing rig sizes. Perhaps having frigs have a different class of rig when compared to BS or capital ships, much like frig guns use small ammo and capital ship use capital ammo is more the direction they were referring to. The materials for a rig built for a frig being much less then a rig built for a cap ship.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.12.07 06:00:00 - [7] Originally by: Tesal My understanding from the link was they weren't talking about changing salvage sizes, rather were floating the idea of changing rig sizes. Perhaps having frigs have a different class of rig when compared to BS or capital ships, much like frig guns use small ammo and capital ship use capital ammo is more the direction they were referring to. The materials for a rig built for a frig being much less then a rig built for a cap ship. Which denotes changes in salvage sizes
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2008.12.07 08:01:00 - [8] Edited by: Treelox on 07/12/2008 08:03:06 Originally by: Kazzac Elentria Originally by: Tesal My understanding from the link was they weren't talking about changing salvage sizes, rather were floating the idea of changing rig sizes. Perhaps having frigs have a different class of rig when compared to BS or capital ships, much like frig guns use small ammo and capital ship use capital ammo is more the direction they were referring to. The materials for a rig built for a frig being much less then a rig built for a cap ship. Which denotes changes in salvage sizes No, I think that the individual salvagable items will stay the same volume(size) that they are now. What I do think they are aiming for, at least my interpatation, is that there will be a change in the construction requirements. For example a rig that uses burnt circut boards, might use 20 for a frig/destroyer, 40 for a cruiser/BC, 60 for a BS and 80 for capital ship version(s). *Disclaimer* the scaling in the above example is just pure BS, and not to be taken as what it will be, might be or should be. Now what might change, is the size of built rigs, with the rigs for the ships scaling up in size dependant on the size ship they fit into. ---edit added last sentence --
ofstrife	Posted - 2008.12.07 09:26:00 - [9] Explain to me how this is a good idea? You'd significantly increase the demand for T1 salvage (I assume), driving up the price of T1 rigs. On top of that, you'd be decreasing the cost for T2 rigs, but by a relatively small amount as the process has got to be really inefficient. Supply will go up, but so will demand, probably keeping prices roughly approximate. I'm not an economics major, but I'm not seeing any real upside to adding more alchemy to the game. Kind of like the current alchemy processes, maybe mildly useful to correct any huge market imbalances, but mostly useless.
Rho'varo Minmatar Diversified Operational Services	Posted - 2008.12.07 11:25:00 - [10] Originally by: ofstrife You'd significantly increase the demand for T1 salvage (I assume), driving up the price of T1 rigs. On top of that, you'd be decreasing the cost for T2 rigs, but by a relatively small amount as the process has got to be really inefficient. Supply will go up, but so will demand, probably keeping prices roughly approximate. I can see how demand curve for T1 salvage might move up if it has a new use in a T1 to T2 "reaction", but why would the demand curve for T2 rigs change due to a change in the supply of T2 salvage? Would such a change not simply tend to push the equilibrium point down the demand curve to a lower price and higher volume for T2 rigs? Please help me understand your hypothesis: Are you suggesting that an increase in price for T1 rigs might push some people to T2 rigs? Or just that demand for T2 rigs is growing anyhow and so a slight increase in supply will not have much impact?
ofstrife	Posted - 2008.12.07 19:36:00 - [11] I was thinking that an increase in the T2 salvage used to make T2 rigs would decrease their price, increasing the demand. Perhaps I shouldn't post on MD late at night anymore. I'll leave supply and demand curves to those who actually understand them from now on.
Rho'varo Minmatar Diversified Operational Services	Posted - 2008.12.07 21:04:00 - [12] Originally by: ofstrife I was thinking that an increase in the T2 salvage used to make T2 rigs would decrease their price, increasing the demand. Ah, I think I see: probably just a matter of terminology: I was suggesting that demand would stay the same, but that more of the demand would actually be met. For an illustration of what might happen to the supply curve for T2 rigs here, Wikipedia offers a helpful chart. You can see how a shift in the supply curve tends to lead to a change in quantity (Q) and price (P), even with no change in demand.
ofstrife	Posted - 2008.12.07 23:45:00 - [13] Yeah that seems fair. I guess it's hard to predict what the demand will be for the t2 rigs because we don't know what it will cost to make them under a new system. I'm sure they won't be cheap, but it's still a silly idea at best.
Lo Lightshard Insurrection Inc Tygris Alliance	Posted - 2008.12.08 01:33:00 - [14] I think both these points have been made above but I wanted to add my interpretation of this issue as there's some confusion in this thread. It takes the same amount of salvage to make, say, a CCC rig regardless of where it is ultimately fitted -- be it a Frigate or a Titan. Since the benefits and drawbacks are usually percentage based (and a Titan is harder to take down than a Frigate ) there is a cost/benefit imbalance. From what I understand CPP are proposing the introduction of ship type dependant rigs (i.e. a Frigate CCC and a Titan CCC) which will be made up of either a different number or a different mix of salvage thus introducing ship type dependant rig pricing. CPP are also discussing salvage conversion (not compression). Presumably this will result in (for exapmle) a number of T1 Smashed Trigger Units being converted into T2 Trigger Units. Depending on the conversion ratio this will change the price of T2 rigs; I can only imagine that the goal here is to reduce their price (it will probably drive up the price of T1 rigs in the process). [IMA6E REMOVED]
Tesal Red Frog Investments Blue Sky Consortium	Posted - 2008.12.08 01:39:00 - [15] Edited by: Tesal on 08/12/2008 01:41:09 Originally by: ofstrife Yeah that seems fair. I guess it's hard to predict what the demand will be for the t2 rigs because we don't know what it will cost to make them under a new system. I'm sure they won't be cheap, but it's still a silly idea at best. *already said so I will edit the first part out The creation of small rigs that only use a few rig bits, could kill demand for those bits, crushing the price or it could have the opposite effect, with everyone fitting rigs all the time driving up demand. Speaking as a trader though, I don't see how it is manageable to have that many rig types, S/M/L/XL for each rig in both T1 and T2 version. Thats a bit crazy, it would outstrip ammo in the number of BPO you would need to produce and invent them all. Unless you have tycoon trained, you wouldn't arrive at the number of trade slots you would need to sell them all and buy materials. My gut tells me that they will look at this and come up with a new idea. I don't think this is a workable solution. Especially as it does nothing to fix the rig types that are broken/useless.
Rho'varo Minmatar Diversified Operational Services	Posted - 2008.12.08 01:52:00 - [16] Originally by: Tesal I don't see how it is manageable to have that many rig types, S/M/L/XL for each rig in both T1 and T2 version. Thats a bit crazy, it would outstrip ammo in the number of BPO you would need to produce and invent them all. I don't think this is a workable solution. I agree that it would be very complicated, and perhaps too much for a single person to manage comfortably, but is there any reason that any one person would need to take it on by themselves? Surely across the building and retailing communities there would be more than enough people to handle the various parts of this collection?
Tesal Red Frog Investments Blue Sky Consortium	Posted - 2008.12.08 02:03:00 - [17] Originally by: Rho'varo Surely across the building and retailing communities there would be more than enough people to handle the various parts of this collection? Maybe a group could handle it. 500 BPO seems like too many to me though.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.12.08 05:15:00 - [18] Originally by: Rho'varo Originally by: Tesal I don't see how it is manageable to have that many rig types, S/M/L/XL for each rig in both T1 and T2 version. Thats a bit crazy, it would outstrip ammo in the number of BPO you would need to produce and invent them all. I don't think this is a workable solution. I agree that it would be very complicated, and perhaps too much for a single person to manage comfortably, but is there any reason that any one person would need to take it on by themselves? Surely across the building and retailing communities there would be more than enough people to handle the various parts of this collection? The problem however, is that invariably a single best fit setup will always be found and the best rigs for that fit will become the highest demand with the lesser rigs falling to the wayside of obscurity. Imagine if you were, if ammo were divided across factions and again divided across mats for those factions. Its a clusterfark of epic proportions waiting to happen
Tasko Pal Heron Corporation	Posted - 2008.12.09 22:40:00 - [19] Originally by: Tesal Edited by: Tesal on 08/12/2008 02:10:25 Edited by: Tesal on 08/12/2008 02:07:00 Originally by: Rho'varo Surely across the building and retailing communities there would be more than enough people to handle the various parts of this collection? Maybe a group could handle it. 360 BPO seems like too many to me though. edit Thats with S/M/L/XL sizes. So why should a single trader be able to trade all riggings? Something I'm confused by is what happens to older riggings and BPOs? How are they planning to handle what's already out there? Can't grandfather all that in.
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2008.12.09 23:11:00 - [20] Originally by: Tasko Pal Something I'm confused by is what happens to older riggings and BPOs? How are they planning to handle what's already out there? Can't grandfather all that in. Yeah I cant see any way of implementation that wont be a huge mess, and anger a fair few folks. -- Chribba's LoveQuest 17:00hrs Dec. 20th (Prizes!!)
Darin Raltin Amarr Two Brothers Mining Corp. Kraftwerk.	Posted - 2008.12.09 23:34:00 - [21] Edited by: Darin Raltin on 09/12/2008 23:34:33 Well even more so than the unsold rigs, it would be very interesting to see what they do with the rigs already fit. If they arbitraily rollover the old rigs to size whatever, then all the existing ships that are rigged but are the wrong hull size will get penalized for it. Part of me thinks that the current t1/t2 BPO's might be the "top level" and then they will add layers underneath it, kinda like what they did with Synth boosters. I mean, I can understand the notion behind wanting the price of t2 rigs to fall since they are essentially only fit on capitals and t2/faction bs's. IMO the low price of rigging bpo's, their 8 minute base production time, and the presence of calibration on t1 frigates suggests to me that they had orginally intended rigs to be used on everything but the reality was that no one would salvage the material at those prices.
Kazzac Elentria	Posted - 2008.12.10 13:42:00 - [22] Originally by: Tasko Pal So why should a single trader be able to trade all riggings? Something I'm confused by is what happens to older riggings and BPOs? How are they planning to handle what's already out there? Can't grandfather all that in. Thats a great question, one I didn't even think of. Do they ** a whole lot of people off and just unfit the rigs like they handle implants? Or do they change all existing rigs to a base level, and let people decide if they want to destroy and refit with a larger rig class type? Do all existing BPOs get changed to that base frig level for instance (again **ing a whole LOT of people off)? I agree with the assumption that no matter what they try and implement, its going to be an ugly ugly mess.
foobarx	Posted - 2008.12.10 23:50:00 - [23] Let me be the dissenter and say I like the idea. T2 rigs aren't that much better than T1, but the price difference is enormous. It's kind of silly to have a whole class of items beyond the reach of players like that.
Treelox Amarr Market Jihadist Revolutionary Party	Posted - 2008.12.10 23:57:00 - [24] Originally by: foobarx Let me be the dissenter and say I like the idea. T2 rigs aren't that much better than T1, but the price difference is enormous. It's kind of silly to have a whole class of items beyond the reach of players like that. Same can be said of all t2.... I suppose you support true communism too. -- Chribba's LoveQuest 17:00hrs Dec. 20th (Prizes!!)

Pages: [1] :: 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.