Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Agnostos Theos
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 22:59:00 -
[481]
Originally by: Gaogan Do you live in some funny little opposite world? If you decrease the trit in modules, that will lower the supply, and drive the price up.
*sigh* Your assuming supply would change dramatically, as you yourself said you can mission for the minerals in a BS but you need to buy a lot more trit. Hence most the trit supply must come from come from mining. Reducing the trit in moduals reduces the net amount of trit in the game, not the future supply of trit.
If an advance in technology (advanced tritanim forging - reduces trit required in T1 production by 10% per level) means I need half as much of the most expensive production component in a process do I
A: make a profit on future production as my overheads have decreased.(not truely feasable long term because market forces will create competition. Competition increase will drive prices down)
B: Reduce my prices relative to production costs. (ROFL)
C: buy twice as much of other production components and produce twice as much.(limited by infrastructure and investment capital)
In eve, as in RL, the answer is usually a mix of the above but the 'knock on effects'in a free market definitely indicate a greater investment in production infrastructure which further increases demand for raw materials and the logistics of getting them to the right place.
Rather then hear tunnel vision excuses as to why miners want to make more income I'd like to hear from those in production (something I've had very little experiance with in game) as to what sort of competition this would create in both the market at large and for the available production sites. While people argue about relative risk/gain motives of mining and missioning they forget the single most profitable past time requiring the least amount of time is market speculation. Increased production, however achieved, produces greater risk in the market and larger differentials on market investments. This in turn should increase the interactions between market speculators and merc pilots too, as by financing wars in competitors market hubs, destabilising the area and making production there a greater risk, they can actually influence the products available in game in different areas and thus improve demand in their own center of operation. Of course I'd like to hear from some of our multi-trillionares on that. Is the market really a form of PvP as you claimed.... do you guys invest in bankrupting competition or is it just a matter of them with the most wins ?
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.04.22 23:50:00 -
[482]
Given the prevalence of posts in the general balance thread over in Game Dev. that would like to see the profitability of level 4 missions reduced i suspect mineral drops from reprocessing loot to be a continuing issue for discussion.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep. I am always here. Watching. Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal it does get progressively longer.
|
Royaldo
Gallente Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 02:11:00 -
[483]
I am not worried. I used to be, then I got over it.
My main concern has and always will be, that is until ccp eventually bats it, npc corps.
|
Qaedienne
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 04:20:00 -
[484]
Why is your main issue NPC corps? They seem to be just background noise...
|
Homefries
DiXie NorMous ConStruction
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 06:54:00 -
[485]
Without knowing the numbers behind the 40% vs 60% percentages, all arguments are dumb.
How many mission runners and missions contributed to these percentages? How many miners are we talking about and how long were they mining? As others have pointed out, what percentage of loot was drone stuff?
From what I've seen, there are a lot more people running missions instead of mining. Thus, if we're talking about comparing the recycled results of--for example--1000 mission runners versus a couple of dozen miners, we might have a reasonable argument that more recyclable loot needs to drop from missions, not less.
|
EVEHelpisSeriousBusiness
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 12:10:00 -
[486]
Originally by: Homefries Without knowing the numbers behind the 40% vs 60% percentages, all arguments are dumb.
How many mission runners and missions contributed to these percentages? How many miners are we talking about and how long were they mining? As others have pointed out, what percentage of loot was drone stuff?
From what I've seen, there are a lot more people running missions instead of mining. Thus, if we're talking about comparing the recycled results of--for example--1000 mission runners versus a couple of dozen miners, we might have a reasonable argument that more recyclable loot needs to drop from missions, not less.
Quoting this because it's important, without knowing how many miners and/or mission runners were included in the data this whole business is pretty pointless.
I'm also going to stress, again, that ****socking in front of your PC to drag ore from your hulk to a can/orca-cum-jetcan is about the most boring online experience I can think of. Anyone who wonders why there are more minerals coming from mission *****s than miners needs to remember that.
Imagine trying to convince your non ******ed friends to play EVE and showing them how awesome it is to mine in your hulk, would they subscribe or slap you?
|
Samroski
|
Posted - 2009.04.23 12:32:00 -
[487]
Originally by: EVEHel****eriousBusiness
Originally by: Homefries Imagine trying to convince your non ******ed friends to play EVE and showing them how awesome it is to mine in your hulk, would they subscribe or slap you?
Never thought of it that way. Must put this to test! (has to be one of the funniest things written in MD recently)
|
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
Amarr No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.04.26 02:50:00 -
[488]
Originally by: Homefries Without knowing the numbers behind the 40% vs 60% percentages, all arguments are dumb.
How many mission runners and missions contributed to these percentages? How many miners are we talking about and how long were they mining? As others have pointed out, what percentage of loot was drone stuff?
From what I've seen, there are a lot more people running missions instead of mining. Thus, if we're talking about comparing the recycled results of--for example--1000 mission runners versus a couple of dozen miners, we might have a reasonable argument that more recyclable loot needs to drop from missions, not less.
Or that mining needs a fundamental change to attract more players, instead of merely supplanting an entire profession.
Posts by Ruze Ahkor'Murkon and Ruze |
Frenden Dax
Dax Acquisitions
|
Posted - 2009.04.26 03:39:00 -
[489]
Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Or that mining needs a fundamental change to attract more players, instead of merely supplanting an entire profession.
This is EVE, remember. The nerfbat is used to solve all problems. Mining has needed improvement for YEARS, but will CCP ever fix it? You tell me.
|
Ricdic
Caldari Tleilex Developments Dara Cothrom
|
Posted - 2009.04.26 04:18:00 -
[490]
I don't have time to read the last 488 posts. When is CCP going to stop T1 loot dropping from NPC's? Have they given an ETA?
|
|
Ruze Ahkor'Murkon
Amarr No Applicable Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.04.26 06:11:00 -
[491]
Originally by: Frenden Dax
Originally by: Ruze Ahkor'Murkon Or that mining needs a fundamental change to attract more players, instead of merely supplanting an entire profession.
This is EVE, remember. The nerfbat is used to solve all problems. Mining has needed improvement for YEARS, but will CCP ever fix it? You tell me.
This is EvE. If you boost one person, you invariably nerf someone else. The systems are too interconnected not to have it happen. So whatever you want to call it, nerf or buff or your momma's apple pie, it equates to the same thing.
Posts by Ruze Ahkor'Murkon and Ruze |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.04.26 07:07:00 -
[492]
Edited by: Malcanis on 26/04/2009 07:09:01
Originally by: EVEHel****eriousBusiness
Originally by: Homefries Without knowing the numbers behind the 40% vs 60% percentages, all arguments are dumb.
How many mission runners and missions contributed to these percentages? How many miners are we talking about and how long were they mining? As others have pointed out, what percentage of loot was drone stuff?
From what I've seen, there are a lot more people running missions instead of mining. Thus, if we're talking about comparing the recycled results of--for example--1000 mission runners versus a couple of dozen miners, we might have a reasonable argument that more recyclable loot needs to drop from missions, not less.
Quoting this because it's important, without knowing how many miners and/or mission runners were included in the data this whole business is pretty pointless.
I'm also going to stress, again, that ****socking in front of your PC to drag ore from your hulk to a can/orca-cum-jetcan is about the most boring online experience I can think of. Anyone who wonders why there are more minerals coming from mission *****s than miners needs to remember that.
Imagine trying to convince your non ******ed friends to play EVE and showing them how awesome it is to mine in your hulk, would they subscribe or slap you?
The weird thing is, people seem to like mining. I don't get the attraction myself, but even new players seem to be attracted to the idea.
Go figure.
EDIT: And really, it's not like missioning is any more exciting. Come to think of it, the big attraction of mining - apart from the idea of being sulf-sufficient - is that it needs minimal attention. You can, with sufficient skills, do other stuff, like manage market orders and research/manufacturing jobs while you're doing it.
|
Jagga Spikes
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.04.26 10:15:00 -
[493]
Originally by: Malcanis ...
The weird thing is, people seem to like mining. I don't get the attraction myself, but even new players seem to be attracted to the idea.
Go figure.
EDIT: And really, it's not like missioning is any more exciting. Come to think of it, the big attraction of mining - apart from the idea of being sulf-sufficient - is that it needs minimal attention. You can, with sufficient skills, do other stuff, like manage market orders and research/manufacturing jobs while you're doing it.
yeah, new people really like mining. but when they stop being new, they mostly stop mining, too. should industry base consist of new people (with low skills), handful of enthusiast (with multiple accounts), AFK players, and macro miners?
between minimal attention required and minimal payoff (per account) in mining, doesn't surprise me where minerals come from.
|
PaddyPaddy Nihildarnik
Gallente H A V O C
|
Posted - 2009.04.26 11:33:00 -
[494]
Edited by: PaddyPaddy Nihildarnik on 26/04/2009 11:35:12 All grinding is boring, thats why its called grinding. Its a suitable 'punishment' for the want of a better word for loosing/needing resources. If it was super-duper fun filled candy land then proportionately the enjoyment in pvp would be reduced for alot of players.
Simply put, most people enjoy pvp so much because losses hurt- and hurting people online probably provides the driving emphasis to play for most of us.
Now back to the mission vs mining debate. Given that after enough missions the lvl of attention being greater does not equal it being more enjoyable. In fact most mission runners will agree that its about maximization of profit- not enjoyment. Hence why we see patterns like 'blitzing' and faction setups far in excess of what is needed, but what produces perhaps 5-10% more efficiency. Less time missioning= more isk or more time to pvp.
Given the above, if mining was to far surpass mission running in isk/hr then more people would gyrate over to mining. Less time grinding, more time doing x.
I think you would still see people mission run- but not because it's more enjoyable, it would be due to another efficiency calculation- skill assignment. Becoming a good mission-runner isnt that far away from being a good pvp skillpoint wise(player skill is entirely a different argument). Becoming efficient at mining however bears absolutely wasted isk and skill points in terms of a pvp char.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.26 13:46:00 -
[495]
An information we are really missing is how much of the minerals were produced reprocessing coupling arrays and other POS modules before the late 2007 change.
Sure, today 40% of the minerals come from reprocessed loot. But in the past how much were produced reprocessing NPC sold items?
Mining has really diminished or simply what was produced before reprocessing NPC sold items now is produced reprocessing NPC loot drops?
I know LaVista Vista and Omber Zombie have asked that question to CCP, but so far we have seen no reply.
It is hard to evaluate what has happened and what has changed without the data.
|
LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
|
Posted - 2009.04.26 13:59:00 -
[496]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Sure, today 40% of the minerals come from reprocessed loot. But in the past how much were produced reprocessing NPC sold items?
It's unreasonable to assume that the data is from 2 years back. My guess is that it's collected over the period of a week.
|
Linda Fortuness
No power to red unicorns
|
Posted - 2009.04.26 15:45:00 -
[497]
yesterday night i had an idea how do solve the "mats came from loot"- and !the high-moon-mats"-problem at once. didnt thought about further yet, but here it is:
why not have a chance to get moonminerals from mining (even in highsec). lets say there is an item which is able to find some traces of dyspro&co in big asteroids (lets say veldspar), then just put an skill for it in, so the china-guys have some work to train for this. this makes mining more profitable and gives a gives a small rise of moon-mineral amount (which is indipentend of the big alliances).
from the "reality" aspect its easy posible that there is some moondust in asteroids, its just a technical thing to get it.
dont have good english skills, hope you can figure out, what i want say ;)
|
PaddyPaddy Nihildarnik
Gallente H A V O C
|
Posted - 2009.04.26 18:59:00 -
[498]
Originally by: Linda Fortuness yesterday night i had an idea how do solve the "mats came from loot"- and !the high-moon-mats"-problem at once. didnt thought about further yet, but here it is:
why not have a chance to get moonminerals from mining (even in highsec). lets say there is an item which is able to find some traces of dyspro&co in big asteroids (lets say veldspar), then just put an skill for it in, so the china-guys have some work to train for this. this makes mining more profitable and gives a gives a small rise of moon-mineral amount (which is indipentend of the big alliances).
from the "reality" aspect its easy posible that there is some moondust in asteroids, its just a technical thing to get it.
dont have good english skills, hope you can figure out, what i want say ;)
Thats actually not too bad an idea. Especially if the dynamics of mining is changed somewhat. The only thing I can think of thats a problem with it is that atm, high moon goo prices provides incentive for people to pewpew over them, and at the same time is making sure that t2 prices are increasingly expensive, again providing nice isk sinks.
I might be alone here, but I think that higher not lower moon goo prices is what we should be aiming for to increase diversity/isk sinks.
And by higher I dont mean speculative or manipulated prices such as the current dyspro pricing- i mean solid, mean average producing an increase to t2 components in the region of 10-20% more expensive.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.26 19:31:00 -
[499]
Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Sure, today 40% of the minerals come from reprocessed loot. But in the past how much were produced reprocessing NPC sold items?
It's unreasonable to assume that the data is from 2 years back. My guess is that it's collected over the period of a week.
Or you have failed to comprehend the question or my English is worse that I think.
I would like to know what was the quantity of minerals produced reprocessing POS modules 2 years ago (% and possibly absolute numbers too) to confront the number with what is reprocessed today.
I suspect that there was a large quantity of minerals produced through NPC sell orders. So the quantity of mineral produced reprocessing loot modules today is a symptom, not a cause.
I.e. even in the past a large percentage of the minerals was coming from reprocessing, what has changed is the origin of the reprocessed material and his mineral composition.
If that is true the problem is not the loot giving too much of this or of that, but the mining activity not covering the request and never having covered it.
|
Tsual
Minmatar Iikhelahii khulemah'lal
|
Posted - 2009.04.26 21:50:00 -
[500]
Edited by: Tsual on 26/04/2009 21:53:53
Originally by: Linda Fortuness yesterday night i had an idea how do solve the "mats came from loot"- and !the high-moon-mats"-problem at once. didnt thought about further yet, but here it is:
why not have a chance to get moonminerals from mining (even in highsec). lets say there is an item which is able to find some traces of dyspro&co in big asteroids (lets say veldspar), then just put an skill for it in, so the china-guys have some work to train for this. this makes mining more profitable and gives a gives a small rise of moon-mineral amount (which is indipentend of the big alliances).
from the "reality" aspect its easy posible that there is some moondust in asteroids, its just a technical thing to get it.
dont have good english skills, hope you can figure out, what i want say ;)
You should add it to the specific feature and idea discussion about mining changes.
I'm wondering what the quotient of highsec/(low + nullsec) is.
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.04.27 09:09:00 -
[501]
Originally by: Tsual Edited by: Tsual on 26/04/2009 21:53:53
Originally by: Linda Fortuness yesterday night i had an idea how do solve the "mats came from loot"- and !the high-moon-mats"-problem at once. didnt thought about further yet, but here it is:
why not have a chance to get moonminerals from mining (even in highsec). lets say there is an item which is able to find some traces of dyspro&co in big asteroids (lets say veldspar), then just put an skill for it in, so the china-guys have some work to train for this. this makes mining more profitable and gives a gives a small rise of moon-mineral amount (which is indipentend of the big alliances).
from the "reality" aspect its easy posible that there is some moondust in asteroids, its just a technical thing to get it.
dont have good english skills, hope you can figure out, what i want say ;)
You should add it to the specific feature and idea discussion about mining changes.
I'm wondering what the quotient of highsec/(low + nullsec) is.
~1:3
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2009.04.27 17:58:00 -
[502]
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Omber Zombie
Instead of the current reecycling system, why not change t1 module recycling so that it only produces trit - use the original mineral values to figure out how much trit you would get i.e. pyr = 4trit, iso = 8trit, etc.
Already replied some time ago from CCP: currently they can't have a item with 2 different material requirements.
So a item can give back a % of the material that are in his blueprint but not a different composition.
that would be very bad database design.
however I would think that it would be trivial to make it a calculated field....
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2009.04.27 18:00:00 -
[503]
Originally by: Clair Bear My first reaction was "Only 40%?" But I guess not everyone loots their L4s. And from my time in 0.0 I *know* not everyone loots their belt rat kills either.
Removing all loot drops from NPC kills is the only way to go. Drones should drop moon minerals, and rats should drop BPCs for their named and faction items. Problem solved.
and I should get wooden shields for killing angry looking butterflies too.
now if only salvaging level 4s gave out some dyspo.
|
Shadarle
|
Posted - 2009.04.27 20:06:00 -
[504]
I've advocated for the removal of all T1 drops from loot tables for years... it will never happen, the whines will be too great.
|
Petyr Baelich
Taggart Transdimensional Virtue of Selfishness
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 00:21:00 -
[505]
Originally by: Shadarle I've advocated for the removal of all T1 drops from loot tables for years... it will never happen, the whines will be too great.
Hey look! Shadarle is back. WB, shad.
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2009.04.28 00:56:00 -
[506]
I'm just wondering how much of the "reprocessed loot" is actually "compressed minerals".
|
Tyndmyr
|
Posted - 2009.05.01 02:47:00 -
[507]
I'm bored at work so...I actually read all 17 pages, and god, a lot of you can't be bothered to finish the first couple posts before spamming the same questions and ideas as everyone else.
First off: I dunno why everyone has gotten into a giant missioning vs mining chest thumping competition. Both are necessary, both have lots of players, and an imbalanced supply of minerals is annoying to both sides. Mission runners would probably prefer not to have to hunt on the market to get the right mineral ratio, and miners get frigging bored with staring at veldspar rocks all day.
Solution to imbalance of minerals: Change the mineral balance received by mission runners. Make all the crap modules require more trit, and less to none of the high end stuff. This keeps the mission runners from griping to high heaven, solves the balance issue, and as a side benefit, makes it a lot easier for industry noobs to build things.
As to which professions deserve better rewards...thats an entirely different topic. That said, low sec should always be more rewarding that hisec. If for no other reason, to punish the farmbots. Im all for making mining more challenging/skill intensive for the same reasons. Make it tough for them, introduce extremely rare high end implants to give actual players an edge. Many miners are probably a wee bit bored of staring at lasers by this point anyhow, a few new goals and more activity would be a welcome relief.
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.05.01 12:20:00 -
[508]
Originally by: Shadarle I've advocated for the removal of all T1 drops from loot tables for years... it will never happen, the whines will be too great.
I think at this point, the clamor for reform from here, the science and industry boards, a game dev who understands this and actually reads the MD forums (waves at Chronitus), along with very obvious relational changes in prices in game which match what the previous three entities have said.
...I just think the time is now and its pretty obvious that something has to and will be done.
/and WB you swarthy forum dog, you knew you couldn't stay away |
Delkin
Amarr Shadow Raiders
|
Posted - 2009.05.01 12:41:00 -
[509]
CCP are being very naughty, they just quote some figure and the band of zealots grab and run with like its written in stone, as stated before and by others without some figures from previous times like when shuttles and starbase items were sold by npc there is no way anyone can draw a conclusion.
I am guessing if other snapshot points were used we would see possibly 80-90% if trit coming from npc goods, this would be why other minerals held their price and mining kernite/omber/highends was the fotm, when you could just buy that trit from npc's you only needed highends it wasn't worth mining veld, now you cant get enough of it.
Mission loot could be adjusted "this item was badly damaged" "it yield a fraction of the minerals" or just remove T1 loot and drop named.
If this is part of CCP plan to keep resources limited while the numbers online have gone up 4 fold to force the players out as resources fade why dont they just say so, they didnt mind removing the ice from high sec like jita. At least say what the vision is, to quote some meaningless figures without some further evidence to show a trend. I think the percentage of minerals from reprocessing has probably fallen dramaticaly thats why trit is at an all time high.
Mining does need a boost if only to correct the figures quoted and a big boost, hints its getting a make over are good but if volume of mission loot was key to boosting miners why hasn't the price of trit fallen as all these mission runners repro loot and fill the market with trit, removing T1 loot is one thing but how the hell does mining replace that trit as it stands now?
|
Vampri
Caldari Veritable Industries
|
Posted - 2009.05.01 17:37:00 -
[510]
Missions themselves are the problem. They are a profession lacking supply limitations. Rats seems to have an infinite supply of ships and parts to drop and loot? Why do belts get depleted but the spawning of rats never ends?
Missions represent a huge flaw in attempt at realism. Think about this, say every single player in EVE switches to mining. What happens to the supply of asteroids? Does every single player have equal rate of return? No, belts become deplete and players have to scour every system for more rocks until the time/reward ratio is near zero.
What about missions? Every single player does missions. They do all the missions at agents, and move on to the next station with more agents. Every single player gets the same opportunities for the same rewards on every mission. They don't have to compete for it, they all get it.
That's why players mission. There's no competition, there's a steady income that is unaffected by market conditions, and there's plenty of agents that you couldn't visit them all before they provide more missions.
Mining only needs adjusted to accommodate an increase number of miners and missions need to have finite limits placed on it. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |