Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Mr Manufacture
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 17:36:00 -
[1]
Everyone knows the high-end moon situation in eve is quite ridiculous and encourages uber-blobs and static powerblocs.
CCP removed static high-end complexes to stop singular entities controlling them. They introduced exploration and most agree its been a real success and introduced a viable mini-profession.
So why the static moons with INFINITE promethium/dysprosium. Surely logic would dictate that any resource you mine is finite in quantity. It will run out at some point.
The idea is simple.
MAKE MOON MINERALS FINITE. Once the moons have been depleted, the resource respawns at another random moon.
Clearly you want a substantial amount of mining (perhaps up to one month worth) so make it worthwhile, but this will encourage surveying as a profession and 'spread the wealth' around 0.0 preventing one or two uber-blocs controlling mass ISK making.
|
Rob Eagle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 17:39:00 -
[2]
They already addressed this by adding Alchemy.
|
Firkragg
Blue Labs Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 17:41:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Firkragg on 09/12/2008 17:44:53 no for many many reasons
1) having the moons static and having everyone know where they are forced fights over their ownership
2) making the gathering of moon mins harder will increase the time sink that pos already are to even more irritating levels
3) this would send prices sky rocketing as supply will drop like a rock.
4) even if they did do this the same entities which control moons now will still control them.
oh yeh and that alchemy ****, forgot about that.
|
Mr Manufacture
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 17:41:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Rob Eagle They already addressed this by adding Alchemy.
yeah cos thats fixed the issue at hand - static ISK machines with infitinate production capability
alchemy has frankly done nothing - for proof look at dysp/prom prices
|
Karille
Gallente Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 17:42:00 -
[5]
There needs to be something to fight over don't you think?
|
Mr Manufacture
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 17:43:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Firkragg no for many many reasons
1) having the moons static and having everyone know where they are forced fights over their ownership
2) making the gathering of moon mins harder will increase the time sink that pos already are to even more irritating levels
3) this would send prices sky rocketing as supply will drop like a rock.
4) even if they did do this the same entities which control moons now will still control them.
supplies would not drop because the whole system can be balanced
frankly when you mine a resource, you expect production to end at some point, I can't mine copper in one mine forever, sooner or later it runs out and i need to locate new resources
clearly the system can be tweaked and my idea is a basic outline which can be developed
people made the arguements you made about high-end static complexes, but their removal was very good for the game and few dispute that now
|
Mr Manufacture
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 17:44:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Karille There needs to be something to fight over don't you think?
like all of 0.0 space? not just a few 'good regions'?
|
Rob Eagle
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 17:45:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Rob Eagle on 09/12/2008 17:49:12 You wouldn't find this a problem if you owned Dysprosium moons. This is just a jealously thread.
I think it was was Naal Mornos sig but;
Originally by: Naal Morno Once I thought T2 BPO Lottery is a problem... Then I've become a part of problem and I relized that previously I was just plain jealous.
|
Karille
Gallente Sharks With Frickin' Laser Beams
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 17:46:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Mr Manufacture
Originally by: Karille There needs to be something to fight over don't you think?
like all of 0.0 space? not just a few 'good regions'?
If it's all the same why would that cause less stagnation?
Envy is a great catalyst for conflict. You seem angry so that must be pretty close to home.
|
Firkragg
Blue Labs Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 17:47:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Mr Manufacture
Originally by: Firkragg no for many many reasons
1) having the moons static and having everyone know where they are forced fights over their ownership
2) making the gathering of moon mins harder will increase the time sink that pos already are to even more irritating levels
3) this would send prices sky rocketing as supply will drop like a rock.
4) even if they did do this the same entities which control moons now will still control them.
supplies would not drop because the whole system can be balanced
frankly when you mine a resource, you expect production to end at some point, I can't mine copper in one mine forever, sooner or later it runs out and i need to locate new resources
clearly the system can be tweaked and my idea is a basic outline which can be developed
people made the arguements you made about high-end static complexes, but their removal was very good for the game and few dispute that now
Stuff dropped from plexs though isnt used in the production of every single t2 item in the game though. Also your arguement about copper is dumb since ive yet to see any copper mine the size of a moon. Also fighting over regions tends to happen even if they are rubbish but its the good moons which serve as flash points giving the biggest fights.
|
|
HankMurphy
Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 17:50:00 -
[11]
Edited by: HankMurphy on 09/12/2008 17:53:32
Originally by: Firkragg no for many many reasons
1) having the moons static and having everyone know where they are forced fights over their ownership
2) making the gathering of moon mins harder will increase the time sink that pos already are to even more irritating levels
3) this would send prices sky rocketing as supply will drop like a rock.
4) even if they did do this the same entities which control moons now will still control them.
1) it would definitely put ppl off their feet. i dont buy that answer, if worthless moons gave way to 'discovered veins' and gold mines dried up... it would encourage further competition and create MORE combat.
2) awww... lots of work for billions upon billions a month? what a terrible thing that would be
3) markets always balance themselves out. if they stayed overinflated it could just as easily be an argument of building requirements not supply distribution.
4) probably. edit: see also the move from static plexes to moving plexes. same ppl get them, just requires more work. but it does at least give way to more opportunity for another to put their foot in the door. i cant see how that could be considered a bad thing.
I like the idea. Hell, with new exploration, these minerals could be obtainable not just through moon mining, but through rare asteroid mining (of course requiring a new type of laser/crystal/whatever. just throwing stuff out there.) That would offset the supply drop at least somewhat? ---------- Seasons Greetings and have a Happy Alvis Time |
Khandara Seraphim
StarHunt Fallout Project
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 18:40:00 -
[12]
current moon system is the only thing keeping "emergent nations" that CCP (and me) loves so much alive.
without any reason to hang on to your 'homeland', all the major 0.0 players will just become wandering nomads.
not that wandering nomads arent cool, but every alliance shouldnt be one.
|
Lady Aja
Caldari Ore Mongers Black Hand.
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 18:50:00 -
[13]
OP is a moron.
If you make it finite as you want it to be. then supply and demand will bottleneck and cause prices to sky rocket. If X ( Supply ) is outweighed by Y ( demand ) then its pretty obvious. and we will be back to the days of t2 bpo's and isk printing machines.
if anything ccp should make them more abundant. more supply is less demand. less demand means better prices on t2 items.
so stop trolling.
|
Louis DelaBlanche
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 19:04:00 -
[14]
Edited by: Louis DelaBlanche on 09/12/2008 19:06:04 Rather than artificially limit supply, id rather they artificially limit demand by rebalancing T2 components. Though id imagine making more moon minerals valuble would just mean the rich get richer since itl almost inevitably be the same groups taking control of the resources. I personally dont like what Prom & Dysp seem to have done to 0.0 EVE. But thats just the way the games evolved n theres nothing that really can be done about it, at least not without seriously changing both market & strategic dynamics of the game.
|
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 19:09:00 -
[15]
Copypasta from a recent thread:
Originally by: Abrazzar While moon mining is currently too static, the moons should have a fixed base value that makes them worth fighting for. A method to add more dynamism would be my idea for Moon Prospecting Posts that add depleting moon material deposits to the moons.
The static moon material deposits can be considered big enough that they can be mined indefinitely. Considering they can be found by a single quick scan of the moon and not through elaborate prospecting methods this being the case can be easily assumed.
It's coming up every week, heh.
-------- Ideas for: Mining
|
Amy Wang
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 19:18:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Firkragg Edited by: Firkragg on 09/12/2008 17:44:53 no for many many reasons
1) having the moons static and having everyone know where they are forced fights over their ownership
2) making the gathering of moon mins harder will increase the time sink that pos already are to even more irritating levels
3) this would send prices sky rocketing as supply will drop like a rock.
4) even if they did do this the same entities which control moons now will still control them.
oh yeh and that alchemy ****, forgot about that.
1) yes, however then you would still fight over owning the space as more space means more chances to get nice minerals, would actually give the big void a point, it is a big waste of space (pun intended) when big power blocks wipe out entire regions for their high end moons leaving behind a wasteland
2) well nobody says you have to put a large deathstar on it to mine stuff, use a small tower with a miner, a bit over 1hour to set up, so not a valid point really, makes it more attackable indeed especially with smaller forces but that means more fun no?
3) for a brief period maybe, but people will adapt to the new system, CCP could even regulate mineral supply by adjusting spawn rates behind the scenes
4) true, but "ninja mining" high ends would at least be an option then
5) alchemy is pretty useless, it has not affected prices at all really, 20:1 ratio is simply not good enough and apart from that the ones controlling high ends also control most lower ends (see 4) so the impact is limited anyway
6) it totally would require an overwork of the tedious moon scanning system into a much faster one like exploration, wouldnt be hard
|
Blastil
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 19:23:00 -
[17]
Stagnant power blocs are a serious problem.
Anyone who thinks that emergant nations can get a foothold in 0.0 space without being a pet alliance for two to three years is an idiot. Once your a pet alliance, you have to break away to claim your own space, more than just a handfull of moons and one or two systems. It is not in the best interest of alliances like BoB to let their pets get big heads, and claim their own space near them. Sooner or later, they'll split off and forge their own space, and when they do, you don't want them anywhere near your home systems.
The reason behind the stagnant nature of 0.0 is simply Dusprosium/promethium moons. Once an alliance finds a few of these, they simply don't care any more. They posess the neccisary materials to churn out capital blobs, and T2 fit BS's and HAC's till the cows come home. They no longer have ANY logistical issues with their ship supply.
Will altering the dysprosium/promethium moon make up hike up capital and T2 ship prices? HELL YES. Is this a bad thing? HELL NO! I am all for reducing Capital blobs, and making high-end ships expensive. Its to the point where I can finance my capital ship investment by spending 30 dollars and selling ONE 30 day GTC. This is a SERIOUS problem! Capital ships should be more expensive than they are. When a cap ship gets into the fight, everyone BS sized and lower is going to insta-pop. Its that simple. that's cool, but the balance in terms of availability is off too much! In our corp of 20-30 guys, more than 10 can fly capital ships, and 9 of them actually own one!
Making T2 expensive, and reducing capital ships will give 0.0 space to breath again. It will open up territory, and make large alliances like BoB actually have to worry about their power bloc, instead of claiming sov 5, and mining the **** out of moons untill cash flows out of their eyeballs.
While finite moon production may or may not be the answer, something has to change about stationary Dysprosium.
|
Sebea
Bottomfeeders Science and Research
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 19:45:00 -
[18]
Originally by: HankMurphy LOOK MA, IVE NEVER HAD TO SET UP A DEATHSTAR BEFORE!
|
Sebea
Bottomfeeders Science and Research
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 19:48:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Amy Wang
2) well nobody says you have to put a large deathstar on it to mine stuff, use a small tower with a miner, a bit over 1hour to set up, so not a valid point really, makes it more attackable indeed especially with smaller forces but that means more fun no?
Your really not this silly are you?
The moon generates billions a month, and you want to put a small tower on it?
Why not just give the money away, cause its basically what your saying.
The large tower is the only thing that really protects the moon now when your fleet isn't around, unless you expect alliances to baby sit the moons 23/7 with a fleet.
|
Sally Bestonge
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 19:51:00 -
[20]
You do realize people can blow up your pos? and it causes conflicts to hold the most valuable ones? like the point of this game?
|
|
Mr Manufacture
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 20:03:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Lady Aja OP is a moron.
If you make it finite as you want it to be. then supply and demand will bottleneck and cause prices to sky rocket. If X ( Supply ) is outweighed by Y ( demand ) then its pretty obvious. and we will be back to the days of t2 bpo's and isk printing machines.
if anything ccp should make them more abundant. more supply is less demand. less demand means better prices on t2 items.
so stop trolling.
lol... your point is more valid as a critique of the current fixed supply, static moon system
to counter your very weak 'point' - a non-static spawn-based system is dynamic and can be balanced, unlike now
you can spawn more random minerals if prices spiral out of control, its a much better way to manage supply into the game than a fixed and static amount of moons
it gives more flexibility to what is currently a rigid system
those who argue it would create bottlenecks either don't know how the current fixed-supply system operates (because it a more valid criticism of the current static system), or are trolling
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 20:06:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Rob Eagle They already addressed this by adding Alchemy.
They put a bandaid on a severed artery.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
EnslaverOfMinmatar
Yarsk Hunters DeaDSpace Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 20:11:00 -
[23]
Go play Total Annihilation / Supreme Commander before making threads like this. uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ ƃuıpɐǝɹ ǝɹɐ noʎ
|
Mr Manufacture
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 20:13:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Mr Manufacture on 09/12/2008 20:16:27
Originally by: Sebea
Originally by: Amy Wang
2) well nobody says you have to put a large deathstar on it to mine stuff, use a small tower with a miner, a bit over 1hour to set up, so not a valid point really, makes it more attackable indeed especially with smaller forces but that means more fun no?
Your really not this silly are you?
The moon generates billions a month, and you want to put a small tower on it?
Why not just give the money away, cause its basically what your saying.
The large tower is the only thing that really protects the moon now when your fleet isn't around, unless you expect alliances to baby sit the moons 23/7 with a fleet.
oh noes, a fight! how is that a bad thing?
by adding a changing and dynamic element to the game, you add to the fun factor, you don't take it away
the industrial alts of large static powerblocs such as NC/GBC may dislike this idea... organisations with a solid grip on local high end moons like PL might also dislike this idea
I see that as a ringing endorsement of the idea
space holding alliances are MORE LIKELY to find the good minerals, but lowsec corps have a chance too, hell the whole system suddendly becomes more equitable and accessible
its frankly ridiculous that a few powerblocs can churn out capblob after capblob, losing hundreds of dreads without blinking, simply because they hold some static moons of infitite high-end supply which miraculously never deplete
this way, fledgling alliances could 'farm' lowsec to help build up resources prior to a move to 0.0 and a challenge to an established space holder
its not the whole solution to the static powerbloc problem, but its part of a possible solution
it makes sense
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 20:14:00 -
[25]
Originally by: EnslaverOfMinmatar Go play Total Annihilation / Supreme Commander before making threads like this.
Why, what relevance do they hold to EVE?
You go play Pong and ponder this before throwing out random suggestions without even the briefest explanation what it's about.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Molly Mayhem
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 20:15:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Mr Manufacture
Originally by: Lady Aja OP is a moron.
If you make it finite as you want it to be. then supply and demand will bottleneck and cause prices to sky rocket. If X ( Supply ) is outweighed by Y ( demand ) then its pretty obvious. and we will be back to the days of t2 bpo's and isk printing machines.
if anything ccp should make them more abundant. more supply is less demand. less demand means better prices on t2 items.
so stop trolling.
lol... your point is more valid as a critique of the current fixed supply, static moon system
to counter your very weak 'point' - a non-static spawn-based system is dynamic and can be balanced, unlike now
you can spawn more random minerals if prices spiral out of control, its a much better way to manage supply into the game than a fixed and static amount of moons
it gives more flexibility to what is currently a rigid system
those who argue it would create bottlenecks either don't know how the current fixed-supply system operates (because it a more valid criticism of the current static system), or are trolling
Note to OP, CCP didn't design EVE to provide YOU with the minerals YOU want.
l2p.
|
Berious
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 20:15:00 -
[27]
Space socialism
|
EnslaverOfMinmatar
Yarsk Hunters DeaDSpace Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 20:16:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
Why, what relevance do they hold to EVE?
You go play Pong and ponder this before throwing out random suggestions without even the briefest explanation what it's about.
Go play it. uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɹnʇɐuƃıs ʎɯ ƃuıpɐǝɹ ǝɹɐ noʎ
|
Mr Manufacture
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 20:18:00 -
[29]
3 troll replies with no substance in a row
keep going you might drown out the valid points raised by everyone else
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 20:23:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Berious Space socialism
It's a game, it's meant to promote fun, pre-determined factors doesn't do that very well and no-one probing moons anymore 'cause they've all already been done once and never ever needs to be probed again is a wasted piece of the game.
If by socialism you mean incentive for everyone without a rich uncle to continue playing then hell yes! If you're of the notion that it would be cramming high end moons down the throats of people not doing anything to help themselves improve, then I guess there will so many more fat targets to attack won't there?
This argument is dynamic vs static. Think about it long and hard, what kind of EVE do you want?
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |