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) |
nether void
Caldari Shrapnel Industries
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 23:19:00 -
[121]
I don't know where to put this in the Assembly Hall (no time to search for more than 20 minutes to find a like thread - lol), but man that would be totally awesome if you could somehow link some form of carebear crap to 0.0 sov. It would be awesome to make a better symbiotic relationship there. And I don't mean they have to be in the alliance who holds the space, but even if they just live there and 'affect' sov, that would be even better!
Would be nice if 0.0 alliance space was like a mini-empire, full on pvp zone. |
Ranged Airman
Airman Expedition
|
Posted - 2009.02.04 23:35:00 -
[122]
It's nice to know, but simply stating that missions account for 40% of minerals doesn't mean a whole lot without other sources of data. Amount of minerals per hour of missioning obviously shouldn't match minerals per hour of mining, but without more information regarding this it would be a very bad idea to suggest changing game mechanics without enough data.
Thanks :) |
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente TarNec
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 00:03:00 -
[123]
Changing recycle values on items will crap up current prices and investments thus BAD.
Reduce the drops all across the boards would be a solution, but leaving them static would just prolong a new problem further down the road.
FACT Production should come from mining no matter how boring it may be.. WHo knows if it was made worth it and price and play ended up reflecting that it might not be so bad..
Simply Fix loot tables.
Raise isk rewards on missions.
Make Mining worth the time and effort. An example would be not letting belts be exhausted, but "fought over" Makes scanning and reporting on belts interesting. Let the appearance of encapsuled lucky yields make it more interesting to mine. Change these chances sporadically and to maintain balance. This would be a nice chaotic and underlying method to fix and change distribution, while leaving the main game alone.
Improve profession value, and motivate towards less SOLO work. Increase number of courier orders possible in contracts. Hell even remove limitation all together. Remove initial fee and let it be only % priced and standing adjustable.
Fix slot renting prices..
KICK a little at everything see what flies out the nest..
- Money is Love - Sometimes it just gets bend the wrong ways.
Feed your Brain:
Innovation Thread |
Nadarius Chrome
Celestial Industrial Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 00:36:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Malcanis Convert rat meta 1-4 drops into BPCs
I actually really like this idea, though it would mean that the meta 1/2 BPCs wouldn't be worth anything since the items themselves aren't worth building.
And I can't imagine what my hangar would look like with massive unstackable piles of BPCs littering the place.
And they can't be listed on the market, so people looting them but who don't build would have to sell them on contracts.
Ugh actually there look to be a few issues with that idea. Still, could be worth working on. |
Dors Venabily
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 00:47:00 -
[125]
So exactly what is the problem. Mission runners outnumber miners by factor of what ? 5:1 at least and still the percentage of minerals is almost 50 50 split in case of tritanium???
So basically it takes many times more mission runners to come up with same volume of stuff? Ok no problem here you can also say that one dedicated miners i 5 times as efficient as a mission runner. If something really need to be done is the nerf the npc corps. One idea would be: That any member of npc corp should be only able to fly ships that need skills that you learn on trial accounts after a period of XX example 14 days. Also you need to be in player corp at least 14 days for this counter to reset so when you just join and leave you still stuck in t1 cruisers. This would basically expose all the macroers for war decs if they dont want to run mission in caracals or mine in ospreys. At least for th eperiod of 2 weeks in a month cutting their income drastically. Put a limit if 2 mills sp so noobs have some time to look around would be idea too.
|
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente TarNec
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 00:47:00 -
[126]
It puzzling how most posters seem to make comments solely on their own advantages..
This whole thing is ****ing things up for everyone.
Distribution of Techlevels and their price is wrong.
Either T1 could just as well be removed, which would be kind of sad really imho.
Distribution from T1, T2 to T3 should be a gauss skewed a lot towards T1 for risk assessment and general necessity. Prices should be a whole lot higher on T2 than currently seen. Mineral prices are static because people arent calculating oppertunity cost.. And all of it leads back to peoples insta gratification wants. Someone running missions cant bother with price evaluation of minerals and items.. Unless he is taking unjust advantage of the wrong placed influx of minerals.
I dont really care about who gets hurt by fixing this, even myself.. but it needs to be balanced correctly and according to some real motivation generation..
- Money is Love - Sometimes it just gets bend the wrong ways.
Feed your Brain:
Innovation Thread |
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 01:23:00 -
[127]
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania It puzzling how most posters seem to make comments solely on their own advantages..
I feel like I'm talking to brick wall with you at times.
Here, we'll break it down into its simplest terms so we can avoid the constant straw men you're so loving throwing out there.
Problem - A great majority of minerals, namely low ends come from mission loot
Why is this is a problem - It insures that the risk/reward from empire to null for a miners profession stays broken by suppressing low end mineral prices.
How does excess loot suppress mineral prices? - Because of perfect refine and build ratios on blueprints in demand (IE not the loot) excess minerals of pye, mex, and Noc tend to build up over time suppressing the price.
Why is excess loot also bad for miners? - Just like any supply demand curve it insures LESS people mine as more people mission because mission runners SUPPLY the required items in need.
That it is. You keep straying from topic Caleb with quite a bit of white noise and too be perfectly frank you're dragging this thread into oblivion. |
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente TarNec
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 01:40:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania It puzzling how most posters seem to make comments solely on their own advantages..
I feel like I'm talking to brick wall with you at times.
Here, we'll break it down into its simplest terms so we can avoid the constant straw men you're so loving throwing out there.
Problem - A great majority of minerals, namely low ends come from mission loot
Why is this is a problem - It insures that the risk/reward from empire to null for a miners profession stays broken by suppressing low end mineral prices.
How does excess loot suppress mineral prices? - Because of perfect refine and build ratios on blueprints in demand (IE not the loot) excess minerals of pye, mex, and Noc tend to build up over time suppressing the price.
Why is excess loot also bad for miners? - Just like any supply demand curve it insures LESS people mine as more people mission because mission runners SUPPLY the required items in need.
That it is. You keep straying from topic Caleb with quite a bit of white noise and too be perfectly frank you're dragging this thread into oblivion.
My point is if you gave it a bit of thought is that there is a reason for this inherent flaw.
I am simply trying to get focus on motivation and the underlying issue. If we keep comming up with solutions that will only put a minor patching on a bigger problem. We go nowhere.
Sure I agree on this being an issue, but its very much part of a greater whole and a lack of focused solutions.
Oh and I will keep poking.. At least untill someone close an issue with a solution that makes sense on long term gameplay.
- Money is Love - Sometimes it just gets bend the wrong ways.
Feed your Brain:
Innovation Thread |
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 01:49:00 -
[129]
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania
My point is if you gave it a bit of thought is that there is a reason for this inherent flaw.
I am simply trying to get focus on motivation and the underlying issue. If we keep comming up with solutions that will only put a minor patching on a bigger problem. We go nowhere.
Sure I agree on this being an issue, but its very much part of a greater whole and a lack of focused solutions.
Oh and I will keep poking.. At least untill someone close an issue with a solution that makes sense on long term gameplay.
If you're not a lawyer by trade you might want to think about studying to be one. That was a whole lotta nothing in that post.
What is the underlying issue to you, and to be perfectly frank you should be able to sum it up in less than a few sentences. |
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente TarNec
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 02:24:00 -
[130]
In one then.
Make boring things (to)easy, and fun things (to)hard.
Force people to use a bit more brain and effort, or end up behind.. |
|
EnslaverOfMinmatar
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 02:53:00 -
[131]
i find this worrying too, therefore miners must be exterminated |
Raymon James
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 03:09:00 -
[132]
ok here in a nutshell is the big list of problems with changeing the existing missions
1) income is used to suport PvP and other operations. Right now one of the things CCP does not want is to up the ISK payout on missions and Rats, I have gotten the impresion that was a non starter with them a while back and if anything they want to REDUCE the ISK income(wich is why they did what they did with salvageing for example, and why Drone regions were added (bounty free kills that suply minerals and Salvage) and Wormhole space (bounty free NPCs that provide the raw materials parts salvage and data for bpcs for T3)
2) for some strange reson CCP wants us in bigger ships. Bigger ships mean more minerals/materials need to be produced, more M&Ms needing to be produced means that they need to up the M&M comeing from all activities. if anything they kind of grudgeingly admit that its kind of meh that wrecks drop functional loot all the time but realy dont seem to do mutch to change that balance
3) is it just me or are some of the hinted at changes in Mining and industry going to happen in Wspace?
|
Raymon James
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 03:50:00 -
[133]
Originally by: Confuzer An idea to make more people mine, is to make the roids more interesting.
Like "Your mining lasers cleared an undetected Isogen spot." or "Your mining lasers revealed an artifact in the asteroid."
or "your mining lasers have set off a UXDoomsday bomb obliterating the belt and everything within 150km of it and disableing local in the region for 10000 seconds."
|
Raymon James
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 03:52:00 -
[134]
Originally by: EnslaverOfMinmatar i find this worrying too, therefore miners must be exterminated
I agree their constant AFK mining is driveing down the price of the Minerals I get from missions. |
Clair Bear
Perkone
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 05:01:00 -
[135]
The real problem is missioning is a closed-loop ecosystem. A missioner can be complately 100% self-sufficient. ISK, implants, fittings, guns and ammo. The works. They never have to interact with another human being in any way including the market. NPCs provide for all their needs and wants. In the beginning they loot and sell, but toward the endgame that's not a winning strategy.
That's the problem and IMO major flaw in the game design. Not the relative income of mining with guns (or missiles) vs. mining lasers. Rat loot is 75% of the reason empire mission runners are playing a massively single player game not unlike most Korean fantasy grinders.
|
Raymon James
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 05:56:00 -
[136]
Edited by: Raymon James on 05/02/2009 05:59:44 Edited by: Raymon James on 05/02/2009 05:58:14
Originally by: Clair Bear The real problem is missioning is a closed-loop ecosystem. A missioner can be complately 100% self-sufficient. ISK, implants, fittings, guns and ammo. The works.
you forgot Faction mods and warships.
you also forgot the bit where once you get to a certain fitout you can solo mission run with as little risk as empire mining.
and that at that point, its just as boreing.
to the point where you either quit the game, or start exploring. |
MailDeadDrop
Globaltech Industries
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 05:58:00 -
[137]
Like a few others, I'm *slightly* concerned that CCP's statistics on loot minerals are skewed by mineral compression activities. It would be interesting to know if Chronotis could exclude that activity easily (perhaps by simply excluding Passive Targeter I modules).
Also, substituting BPCs is a non-starter. Because of the extra DB calls needed to identify details on a BPC, introducing alot more of them would surely crater things.
MDD |
GyokZoli
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 08:44:00 -
[138]
You people do forget something.
Nothing will change with the prices of minerals in the long run.
Remove the loot from missions. -> Mineral prices go up. -> More people start mining. -> Mineral prices go down.
|
GyokZoli
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 09:11:00 -
[139]
Edited by: GyokZoli on 05/02/2009 09:11:52 One more thought!
Nerfing hisec activites (including missioning) would just make a lot of people quit playing. Why? Because not everbody can afford that kind of playstyle what lowsec/0.0 needs.
Many people have RL issues preventing them staying in front of the monitor constantly (like myself, I have a 3 months old daughter, and when need arise, I must get up even if I am in a middle of a mission).
So nerf hisec missioning, and I quit EVE, because I can't loose my BS every day due to lowsec pirates. And I am sure there are thousands of players with similar RL issues, and at the end CCP would loose a lot of subscribers.
Moreover, if you make a lot of people move to lowsec, lowsec is going to be even more dangerous, which would make lowsec activities even less profitable (especially mining).
Hisec missioning must stay very profitable, so carebears like me can afford to pay for the shiny new command ship or faction BS and not quit playing because of boredom.
|
Rellik B00n
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 09:21:00 -
[140]
Originally by: Permadocked Panda
The easiest fix is just to cut module refining by at least 25% - don't ever allow a perfect refine and you're better off.
yes that should make all the people that trained a completely useless skill like metallurgy to get scrap metal processing extremely happy.
Originally by: Illioe There's plenty of rock out there to mine, if people are willing to move out of The Forge to get it.
Same old story, this isnt aimed directly at you Ill but its in relation to your quote. Its relevant to all the people posting in the thread tho so im doing big bold:
MORE CARROT, LESS STICK
you used to see hundreds of threads whining about mission runners in general discussion. I think the general consensus reached was that mission runners would move to the most lucrative L3s then quit before risking anything in low or null sec. I think the same applies to most changes. Approach them from a "what incentive can we give?" angle instead of a "how can we make them move?" angle. at its lowest level if you make it worth it on an ISK/hour basis to fly to some system in the ******** of the universe to mine then people will go mine there.
reference: Aesop: the wind and the sun
|
|
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente TarNec
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 10:04:00 -
[141]
In other threads a few discussions on multi targeting an object was bought up..
The idea was basically that some type of limit was added to the number of active targetings on a single target. Combat wise simply using a static limit would caue problems, but the overall idea could really work in the favor of a lot of game mechanics.
In general the more locks the higher the chance to loose the target over time.
This idea would also have a hug effect on macro afk mining, and would basically be able to fix many issues. It would also support the idea of having huge permanent roids as ressources in every belt. In populated roid belts you would not be able to afk because people would target the same roids and you would loose target and have to reset it.
In low populated then afk mining would be possible, and thus 0,0 would get interesting for those mining like this, but it would be at the risk of being attacked.
Personally I think this could pull som people out in low sec and 0,0
- Money is Love - Sometimes it just gets bend the wrong ways.
Feed your Brain:
Innovation Thread |
Forceflow
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 10:20:00 -
[142]
Edited by: Forceflow on 05/02/2009 10:20:56
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania
*stuff about targeting*
I don't see what this would do other than annoy miners and anyone who engages in fleet battle.
|
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente TarNec
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 10:45:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Forceflow Edited by: Forceflow on 05/02/2009 10:20:56
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania
*stuff about targeting*
I don't see what this would do other than annoy miners and anyone who engages in fleet battle.
The target loss would based on chance, adjusted by skill. So as not to nerf combat, but make macroing harder, and maybe add the chance of wiggling out of a gate pin.
|
Carniflex
Caldari StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 11:03:00 -
[144]
If you take into account that drone drops and hauler spawns are also 'loot' then the situation is not that surprising. You kinda imply that this 40% of mins comes from hi sec mission running and refining crap that is a bit misleading making it sound like a bigger problem than it is.
That out of the way, complete overhaul would be ok - ie making so that minerals can come only and only from mining. No drone refineables and no hauler spawns either, if minerals from mission loot refining is removed.
|
Phi Doe
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 11:37:00 -
[145]
I'd support the removal of all/most of the t1 reprocessing junk from mission wrecks. Perhaps a small chance per wreck of getting a meta4 module and the occasional (very small) chance of getting a faction item/bpc would compensate missioners for the loss of minerals.
It's obvious that the drone regions seriously depressed the price of isogen and nocx, perhaps just have the drones drop something none refineable, since I doubt ccp want to put bounties on them. |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 12:57:00 -
[146]
Originally by: TimMc I Maybe make high sec refineries rubbish,
Because that will not affect mining, right?
If the scope is to make mining more competitive that is not the way to go. It it is to get more targets in low sec neither, as much as some people wish that. |
adriaans
Amarr Ankaa.
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 13:11:00 -
[147]
Edited by: adriaans on 05/02/2009 13:12:58 make the rats stop dropping such insane amounts of NON NAMED t1 items and drop ONLY named items instead. boosts t1 manufacturing AND nerfs mission loot refining and doesn't nerf mission running/ratting to hard ;)
edit: or lower loot amount a lot and increase bounites/rewards to compensate... though i think (?) drone stuff contributes way more mins than modules... |
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente TarNec
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 13:13:00 -
[148]
Originally by: adriaans make the rats stop dropping such insane amounts of NON NAMED t1 items and drop ONLY named items instead. boosts t1 manufacturing AND nerfs mission loot refining and doesn't nerf mission running/ratting to hard ;)
Agree.. Remove all T1 from drops..
This would be a rather nice and easy solve..
I would even go so far and say remove almost all recycle value on named and faction items..
|
BlondieBC
Minmatar Ardent Industrial Arcane Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 13:14:00 -
[149]
Originally by: Jackie Fisher Presumably the other 60% comes from Marco Hulks.
Nerf/remove hi-sec NPC refineries.
Definately the way to go. If only high sec refinery were nerfed to 0.0 lvls, say a 15% reduction, it would also help the reward/risk factor of 0.0. |
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente TarNec
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 13:16:00 -
[150]
Originally by: BlondieBC
Originally by: Jackie Fisher Presumably the other 60% comes from Marco Hulks.
Nerf/remove hi-sec NPC refineries.
Definately the way to go. If only high sec refinery were nerfed to 0.0 lvls, say a 15% reduction, it would also help the reward/risk factor of 0.0.
Upside down economy spotted..
Refineries and production should go in high sec, or safe controlled SOV areas only..
If not just more powerbalance screwup imho..
|
|
|
|
|
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 |