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) |
Dani SP
Rupture Farms Mining
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 13:19:00 -
[151]
We need more yield! And bigger dense veldspar rocks!!11!
|
Super Whopper
I can Has Cheeseburger
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 13:34:00 -
[152]
I would like to remind everyone here that rat loot was nerfed a while ago and yet agents were boosted. There is no incentive for anyone to move out of Empire when they can earn decent money running missions. CCP were warned of this problem when they boosted agents but didn't listen. But this doesn't solve the problem of mission running as opposed to mining. The problem, as I see it and have already mentioned, is not mission running but mining.
What is the point of mining veldspar when the rock is going to disappear in less than two cycles? The amount of time it takes to move around and haul reduces income so greatly it's just not worth the time unless you're mining in a frigate. Mexallon is more attractive as it might take three cycles to mine a large rock. I mentioned this several pages ago, rocks need to be boosted, veldspar with 100k veldspar isn't even worth the time. Miners are better off mining Ice and that is what the macroers are doing.
So, macro miners are not the problem here either because not many mine rocks, they are all mining ice. Ice may have devalued but it's better earning 5m per hour and never having to move than earning 10 and moving every three minutes because your income will end up being about five anyway.
Mining needs an overhaul and nerfing loot isn't going to solve the problem. What it will do is create a shortage. While the majority of the posters can whine how boring mining is I love it and hate missioning. Also I don't live in Empire so this discussion doesn't actually even have a lot to do with my personal income. However, that doesn't mean I need to be entirely selfish and only think of what I mine as opposed to think of the broader problem.
So, I propose the following simple things: - increase rock size - nerf missions - hire more GM's (this however won't have a short-term effect)
No matter how it's turned and twisted, the fact that mission running is far more profitable than mining in Empire is unacceptable.
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 13:40:00 -
[153]
So after this threadnaught what have we learned.
Loot needs to go and mining needs a boost.
Basically what most sane people here have been saying for awhile now. |
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente TarNec
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 13:50:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria So after this threadnaught what have we learned.
Loot needs to go and mining needs a boost.
Basically what most sane people here have been saying for awhile now.
Exactly.. So flames, trollings etc aside.. The conclusion is what Kazzac said..
|
Mr Horizontal
Gallente KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 13:56:00 -
[155]
Some notes/ideas:
Segregate sources 1. Controversial one here, but except Trit (which should be abundant everywhere regardless), have certain minerals come from specific sources. ie Drone regions which have a bias to Nox and Zyd, make it even more so (probably change Nox to Mex or something low end, so they have 1 high end, 1 low end), and the roid ores balance the other minerals. This means that a specific profession will 'control' a resource, and thus if there's an imbalance, players will be motivated to undertake that profession. Yes if no one mines a particular resource, there will be undersupply, the price will skyrocket - but players will react and resupply.
2. Morphite can be got through missions, as you do get occasional plush compound in an Empire mission. Just remove all possibility for Morphite to be extracted from Empire space, even if it is 1%. There should only be 2 ways to get Morphite: recycling a T2 item and from Mercoxit. Nothing else.
Meta items 1. Remove T1 loot from missions. Just do it already - only have named items, and let producers supply the entire T1 market.
2. Make meta items even more important in invention - this way people will think twice before recycling a meta item. Potentially also even use multiple items in a job?
Macroeconomic view 1. Spawns and drops really should be dynamically linked to the total sink/faucet totals. Basically if there's a glut of supply, reduce the spawns, if too much ISK is being sunk out, spawn more. This creates an inflation/deflation control and finally provides Eve with something vaguely related to Monetary policy.
2. Also EyjoG's price indexes should be provided in game - even if it's just a once-a-day DT update. It's important to know how the economy is doing as a whole.
Insurance Insurance... right now, if it wasn't for trit being so high, virtually every ship could be built, insured, and self-destructed and the person would make money... it's in dire need of a serious overhaul. Fix it already.
Standings In a lot of the CSM notes, the tl;dr; is that PvE and missions really are too important and relevant to other mechanics due to it being the most significant way of changing standings. It really shouldn't be. For example refining should be simply how often you've used that refinery, not based on standings from doing a mission.
Also I've personally never liked derived standings. Standings with any faction really should be a direct consequence of your actions. If you're a Caldari mission runner and purposely avoid missions that have Gallente spawns, that should be your choice, and even though you gain standings with Caldari, you shouldn't lose standings with Gallente, unless you do stuff that directly upsets the Gallente, like for example FW.
Standings should happen from any and all activities you do. If you do all your S&I jobs in a certain NPC corp's station, you gain standings. The same with refining. Or how much trading you've done with that faction. Killing NPCs of an opposing faction should lose you standings with that opposing faction. Not gain you standings with your own. Storyline missions as they do, should gain faction standing.
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 14:44:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Mr Horizontal
Standings should happen from any and all activities you do. If you do all your S&I jobs in a certain NPC corp's station, you gain standings. The same with refining. Or how much trading you've done with that faction. Killing NPCs of an opposing faction should lose you standings with that opposing faction. Not gain you standings with your own. Storyline missions as they do, should gain faction standing.
Agreed, it should even extend to market orders.
If I as a trader am constantly throwing millions of isk into the hands of a few brokers within say Perkone's pockets... why would they not give me some standings (and a discount) and by proxy put in a small good word for me for the Caldari. |
Caleb Ayrania
Gallente TarNec
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 14:57:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Originally by: Mr Horizontal
Standings should happen from any and all activities you do. If you do all your S&I jobs in a certain NPC corp's station, you gain standings. The same with refining. Or how much trading you've done with that faction. Killing NPCs of an opposing faction should lose you standings with that opposing faction. Not gain you standings with your own. Storyline missions as they do, should gain faction standing.
Agreed, it should even extend to market orders.
If I as a trader am constantly throwing millions of isk into the hands of a few brokers within say Perkone's pockets... why would they not give me some standings (and a discount) and by proxy put in a small good word for me for the Caldari.
It might even make sense to let market activities, pilots in space, pilots docked, and missions completed define security level of a system. Especially if SOV could have npc/concord enter and police their space if security is maintained.
Then negative effects would be pilots podded and ships destroyed..
|
Tasko Pal
Heron Corporation
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 15:28:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Originally by: Mr Horizontal
Standings should happen from any and all activities you do. If you do all your S&I jobs in a certain NPC corp's station, you gain standings. The same with refining. Or how much trading you've done with that faction. Killing NPCs of an opposing faction should lose you standings with that opposing faction. Not gain you standings with your own. Storyline missions as they do, should gain faction standing.
Agreed, it should even extend to market orders.
If I as a trader am constantly throwing millions of isk into the hands of a few brokers within say Perkone's pockets... why would they not give me some standings (and a discount) and by proxy put in a small good word for me for the Caldari.
Interesting idea, but I think the standing gain from market orders should fall far short of what you'd gain from missioning. Maybe cap it at 5.0 or even less.
|
Raymon James
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 16:00:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Super Whopper - hire more GM's (this however won't have a short-term effect)
EVE already has the highest ratio of staff to player base of the top 30 MMOs with ~1.3 GM or staff employee per 1000 players
the second closest recently braged that they now have 1 per 3,000 players.
you need to get into the mini mmo market to find a ratio thats higher, and usualy thats 1 developer + vol staff for < 1000 players.
and even then MMOs do have a problem with Developer bloat where it gets to the point where people dont realy know what other people are doing.
|
Kazzac Elentria
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 16:12:00 -
[160]
Originally by: Tasko Pal
Interesting idea, but I think the standing gain from market orders should fall far short of what you'd gain from missioning. Maybe cap it at 5.0 or even less.
Ohh absolutely.. I wasn't looking for anything other than a small gain really, and even then I'd not only cap what you can gain on it but also put some sort of decay on it. |
|
bff Jill
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 18:20:00 -
[161]
Give mining ships a special ore only cargo hold that eliminates the need for jet mining=p
I enjoy mining in eve, but its always annoyed me how you have to go about doing it, not just 'go out and mine' but use multiple ships and if you want to be efficient multiple alts to do it. Im sure these things annoy other people more than me, enough to keep them from becoming miners in the first place.
To counter the boost this could have on bots, actually start banning macroers =P
|
joan arcangel
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 18:36:00 -
[162]
Originally by: Super Whopper I would like to remind everyone here that rat loot was nerfed a while ago and yet agents were boosted. There is no incentive for anyone to move out of Empire when they can earn decent money running missions. CCP were warned of this problem when they boosted agents but didn't listen. But this doesn't solve the problem of mission running as opposed to mining. The problem, as I see it and have already mentioned, is not mission running but mining.
dont forget that most of the ccp players are pvpers and have to earn isk like us to pvp i wonder how many mission run ?
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 20:35:00 -
[163]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis To give more precise data as the 40% was a figure I used as an overall average was 'of the top of my head' during the meeting taken from the data below.
This was the one month split for all items reprocessed measured mid-august to mid-september 2008.
|| Mineral || Ore% || Loot% || Drone Compounds% || ||-----------||------||-------||------------------|| || Tritanium || 46% || 43% || 11% || || Pyerite || 29% || 60% || 10% || || Mexallon || 30% || 59% || 11% || || Isogen || 21% || 56% || 23% || || Nocxium || 18% || 32% || 51% || || Zydrine || 43% || 18% || 40% || || Megacyte || 44% || 39% || 16% || || Morphite || 77% || 1% || 22% ||
* Ore is minerals from the asteroid ores * loot is modules, ships, charges, drones for example. * drone compounds are loot items from rogue drones
However, whatever conclusion you draw from those stats, be careful as it does not tell you much really such as how many people were mining or running missions. The number of people running missions is massive compared to number of miners and the source per person much lower overall however it is a large diffuse source. It is a similar story for anytime a player encounters the rogue drones.
The ongoing discussion we are having internally is really around the point of to what degree a specialist profession like mining should be adversely affected by another career path where this forms only one part of their total reward/income pool.
Nothing is happening on this front for Apocrypha but feel free to discuss this and I'll keep tabs on discussion as it is an interesting topic.
Beside the important point of the rapport between number of miners/number of mission runner, there is another part of that table that bother me:
|| Mineral || Ore% || Loot% || Drone Compounds% || ||-----------||------||-------||------------------|| || Morphite || 77% || 1% || 22% ||
That 1% of morphite don't come from the drone compounds in missions (they are in column 3). They come from reprocessed market product.
So how big is the quantity of reprocessed items under "loot" that don't came from mission loot but from items brought on market at a price lower than build price?
I would say that, based on that morphite, something that can be recovered only from reprocessed T2, it is a significant quantity.
Very interesting numbers, but we wpuld need more data if possible.
|
BlondieBC
Minmatar Ardent Industrial Arcane Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 21:01:00 -
[164]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis To give more precise data as the 40% was a figure I used as an overall average was 'of the top of my head' during the meeting taken from the data below.
This was the one month split for all items reprocessed measured mid-august to mid-september 2008.
|| Mineral || Ore% || Loot% || Drone Compounds% || ||-----------||------||-------||------------------|| || Tritanium || 46% || 43% || 11% || || Pyerite || 29% || 60% || 10% || || Mexallon || 30% || 59% || 11% || || Isogen || 21% || 56% || 23% || || Nocxium || 18% || 32% || 51% || || Zydrine || 43% || 18% || 40% || || Megacyte || 44% || 39% || 16% || || Morphite || 77% || 1% || 22% ||
* Ore is minerals from the asteroid ores * loot is modules, ships, charges, drones for example. * drone compounds are loot items from rogue drones
.
This chart shows the issue with low sec profitablity due to low nocx and zydrine. In drone alloys, the nocx should be swapped for tritanium, this would help fix the riduculous price of trit. |
Strom Nekth
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 22:57:00 -
[165]
I don't think that simply removing Tier 1 loot is a good solution at all. It completely screws over newbies as they wont get a good supply of modules that they can experiment with and use when they are poor and don't even know what modules are available.
Also it breaks immersion. It's ridiculous when I spend ten minutes blowing up a disused star gate and get nothing, not even metal scraps. Now you want most ship kills to be that way too?
I think that diverting a portion of the bounty on rats to purchasing those tier 1 components from the market would make a lot more sense. Those items have to come from somewhere, why shouldn't some of them be purchased from players? |
Drab Cane
Mining Emporium inc.
|
Posted - 2009.02.05 23:50:00 -
[166]
I think Strom has a valid point, about loot drops helping beginning players.
Loot drops for level 1 missions should probably not be messed with (much). That will keep a supply of ammo/mods available where they aren't being produced, and keeps pricing low where they are being produced.
Loot drops from higher level missions should definitely (perhaps gradually) be reduced. There is just a huge oversupply of T1 loot items.
Realize, that players are extremely ingenious, and they will 'game' any system or economy to maximizes their perceived reward. Ultimately, the 'perfect' game will maximize the personal rewards of the vast majority of players (can't make everyone happy).
I think CCP has done an incredible job of giving players a diverse game world that allows both new and veteran players to play (often) side by side. Sure, loot drops needs to be adjusted, but lets not lose sight of how well the current game system works. These calls for 'overhauling' the game seem shortsighted and, well, frightening.
|
Cor Aidan
Imperium Forces Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 00:12:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Super Whopper
No matter how it's turned and twisted, the fact that mission running is far more profitable than mining in Empire is unacceptable.
I'm not sure I understand the worldview which results in such a conclusion. Should all "professions" be equally profitable? Dubious, as that means externalities would be required to force the equality.
So assuming that some professions should be more lucrative than others, how do you pick which ones should be more lucrative?
People here tout "risk vs reward" quite often, but what is the metric for risk?
Aside from this, if you search hard you can find another thread where I asserted that no matter what happens to distributions of items, miners will always, in aggregate have less isk income per unit time than mission runners, because all the isk generated from missions must be used not only to purchase mineral-based goods but also insurance, skill books, and other NPC goods. So this means if you have A isk available from mission runners, and they spend B isk on NPC items, this means that there will only be A-B isk available to pay for minerals. (I've eliminated trade and PVP from this equation, because trading creates neither isk nor minerals; in fact, both those activities actually destroy isk and minerals through market fees and ship loss - although PvP is odd because of insurance).
All changing the current distribution of mineral production is likely to do is drastically change the "quality of life" of pilots. Any changes should ensure that the number of man-hours to obtain some fixed basket of goods stays the same for a constant population. I would accept a change that reduces the amount of time to get goods (e.g., technological improvements boost productivity) but except for something like massive war, a reduction in "quality of life" is not desirable. Normal forces which increase stress, like increased population, increased PVP, etc. should rightly make things cost more, but The Invisible Hand tweaking things to make life difficult is probably not the way to go. |
Xianthar
STK Scientific The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 01:57:00 -
[168]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis To give more precise data as the 40% was a figure I used as an overall average was 'of the top of my head' during the meeting taken from the data below.
This was the one month split for all items reprocessed measured mid-august to mid-september 2008.
|| Mineral || Ore% || Loot% || Drone Compounds% || ||-----------||------||-------||------------------|| || Tritanium || 46% || 43% || 11% || || Pyerite || 29% || 60% || 10% || || Mexallon || 30% || 59% || 11% || || Isogen || 21% || 56% || 23% || || Nocxium || 18% || 32% || 51% || || Zydrine || 43% || 18% || 40% || || Megacyte || 44% || 39% || 16% || || Morphite || 77% || 1% || 22% ||
* Ore is minerals from the asteroid ores * loot is modules, ships, charges, drones for example. * drone compounds are loot items from rogue drones
Anyone know where hauler spawns fit in this chart? they make up the vast majority of trit and pyr used in 0.0 in my experience.
|
W3370Pi4
Caldari Lords Of Kaos
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 02:51:00 -
[169]
I wish Dr Eyjog could tell us the financial impact it would have if CCP were to change something like that
_______ Join the "Legit Trading" Channel ◘Monitored WTB◘WTA◘WTT◘WTS◘Contracts◘Trade ADs◘◘ Scam free channel◘ |
Agrilad
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 05:33:00 -
[170]
Originally by: CCP Chronotis To give more precise data as the 40% was a figure I used as an overall average was 'of the top of my head' during the meeting taken from the data below.
This was the one month split for all items reprocessed measured mid-august to mid-september 2008.
|| Mineral || Ore% || Loot% || Drone Compounds% || ||-----------||------||-------||------------------|| || Tritanium || 46% || 43% || 11% || || Pyerite || 29% || 60% || 10% || || Mexallon || 30% || 59% || 11% || || Isogen || 21% || 56% || 23% || || Nocxium || 18% || 32% || 51% || || Zydrine || 43% || 18% || 40% || || Megacyte || 44% || 39% || 16% || || Morphite || 77% || 1% || 22% ||
* Ore is minerals from the asteroid ores * loot is modules, ships, charges, drones for example. * drone compounds are loot items from rogue drones
However, whatever conclusion you draw from those stats, be careful as it does not tell you much really such as how many people were mining or running missions. The number of people running missions is massive compared to number of miners and the source per person much lower overall however it is a large diffuse source. It is a similar story for anytime a player encounters the rogue drones.
The ongoing discussion we are having internally is really around the point of to what degree a specialist profession like mining should be adversely affected by another career path where this forms only one part of their total reward/income pool.
Nothing is happening on this front for Apocrypha but feel free to discuss this and I'll keep tabs on discussion as it is an interesting topic.
I suddenly have an itch to take that data and apply it to my old ore spreadsheet. And then normalize it where a minimum of 60% of all mins come from mining. Then see what the ore cost per m3 distribution looks like. (Basically apply a multiplier to mineral amts by type in ore and see what happens to the price distribution.)
Ah heck it'll relax me some so I'll tell yall if something interesting results. |
|
joan arcangel
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 06:07:00 -
[171]
I wonder how much omber and kern mined is used as storyline rewards?
I know most of the 2 ore's i mine normally gets put into storyline station at good profit to me
|
Nadarius Chrome
Celestial Industrial Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 07:55:00 -
[172]
Originally by: Super Whopper No matter how it's turned and twisted, the fact that mission running is far more profitable than mining in Empire is unacceptable.
Lol, that's absurd. |
Carniflex
Caldari StarHunt Systematic-Chaos
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 08:58:00 -
[173]
Interesting numbers. I see however that that hauler spawns were not counted anywhere. An average 0.0 system what is properly 'farmed' for hauler spawns will yield approx 40 mil / trit per day (approx 1.5 spawns per day on average). Granted, that information is few years old, but I have not heard about any major changes to hauler spawns since that.
As 'loot' is defined as any (except drone alloy) reprocessing activity, then it's not as bad as I suspected as far as mission running mineral yield goes. Big part of the low ends number is caused quite likely also by mineral compression users. Regardless of it been nerfed few times in the past, it's still sensible thing to do as trit and pyer are just too bulky to be moved in any significant quantities in uncompressed form.
Now about missions and minerals. I'm not opposed to changes in that regard as long as 'nerf-hi-sec-missions' crowd is not putting their hand into my cookie yar in that sense that something would just outright be removed without replacing it with something else roughly as valuable. I'm ofc not very emotional about loot in missions as I rarely loot preferring usually to maximise my isk/h instead (it's already not sensible to loot in most missions for the competent mission runner).
|
Sashman Cole
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 11:02:00 -
[174]
The rise of the casual gamer in Eve is precisely because Empire represents safety and reward without the sheer waste of time involved in lowsec and 0.0. The idea of scouting gates, mounting guard on mining missions and running patrols just to keep an area playable are pointless to a casual gamer. The 0.0 politics and the egomaniacs that run a lot of the corps and alliances on 0.0 is another big minus. I'm not going to sit in front of my computer waiting for fifteen hours watching someone put a POS up.
Empire thrives because a small independent corp can have it's niche, does not have to toe a party line, does not need to be online 23/7 and above all does not have to get the c*** kicked out of it every time it steps into unknown territory. Forget ISK/rewards, distribution percentages and all the rest: a lot of the endgame is a waste of time because the best you're going to be is a foot soldier in someone else's army and for a lot of us that simply doesn't appeal. We do enough of that making a living in the real world.
If you're really, utterly determined to make a change and address the "problem" of loot completely remove loot drops and salvage from all missions and rats everywhere and replace with an equivalent amount of isk.
The Empire runners and ratters everywhere have all the cash they want but then depend on others for their minerals. If you have too many people running missions/ratting you'll get price inflation which will tempt more people into mining and manufacturing. Push all kit into player manufacture.
Nerfing missions, removing rewards and general Empire player punishment might well please the 0.0 hardcore but my predictions would be:
1. A lot of casual gamers would log off: Eve is a game not a lifestyle. 2. A proportion who didn't would head for low-sec and 0.0, get ganked to death and give up. TBH that party wouldn't last too long. 3. Most of the survivors would plague the "elite" brigade with their "comedy fail fits" and their noob insistence to do things "their way". Military experts would start whining like the plague about the falling standard of Eve players and proliferation of T1 frigates in 0.0. 4. It wouldn't surprise me if the same military experts ragequit in protest at the influx of "idiots". 5. The macro miners who aren't interested in anything but macro mining would flourish. |
Forceflow
Gallente Center for Advanced Studies
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 11:19:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Sashman Cole If you're really, utterly determined to make a change and address the "problem" of loot completely remove loot drops and salvage from all missions and rats everywhere and replace with an equivalent amount of isk.
We'll have problem where 'salvage', as we know its meaning, is gonna come from then. Furthermore T3 is gonna be fueled with sleeper drops so I don't that working out. Remove some drops: yes. All: I don't think so.
Replacing everything with ISK is gonna be such a massive ISK tap that is going to draw even more people to do mission. We'll be looking at MASSIVE inflation and your isk is gonna drop in value such that you might be worse off than before, since your buying power is going to drop in relation as well.
Too much of this and we might start to see barter trade being the norm in eve. .
Originally by: Sashman Cole
The Empire runners and ratters everywhere have all the cash they want but then depend on others for their minerals. If you have too many people running missions/ratting you'll get price inflation which will tempt more people into mining and manufacturing. Push all kit into player manufacture.
T1 and T2, I agree. mass production of faction and officer gear sounds rather wrong to me.
Originally by: Sashman Cole Nerfing missions, removing rewards and general Empire player punishment might well please the 0.0 hardcore but my predictions would be:
1. A lot of casual gamers would log off: Eve is a game not a lifestyle. 2. A proportion who didn't would head for low-sec and 0.0, get ganked to death and give up. TBH that party wouldn't last too long. 3. Most of the survivors would plague the "elite" brigade with their "comedy fail fits" and their noob insistence to do things "their way". Military experts would start whining like the plague about the falling standard of Eve players and proliferation of T1 frigates in 0.0. 4. It wouldn't surprise me if the same military experts ragequit in protest at the influx of "idiots". 5. The macro miners who aren't interested in anything but macro mining would flourish.
1. I would consider eve a way of life. You don't play for years if it wasn't. 2. Frankly I think not. This group is just not risk-adverse but afraid of it. We might see more people leaving eve or actually joining low-sec but most of them will just stay in hi-sec with reduced rewards. 3/4. Can't comment on this. Just gonna put: 'can't please everyone'. 5. They're still going to be a problem. The new dynamic belts should fix this.
|
Sashman Cole
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 12:24:00 -
[176]
Replacing all loot in missions and rat drops would cause inflation but it also creates a dynamic mechanism which can be solved by players increasing supply. No balancing is required: let the players sort it out in the big sandbox out there.
Q: Too much of this and we might start to see barter trade being the norm in eve. A: I'm betting supply would increase before inflation took hold.
Q: We'll have problem where 'salvage', as we know its meaning, is gonna come from then. A: Drop all salvage from player ships: vital tech components now originate from combat, making battlefield salvage a proper profession. No more ninja salvage complaints from mission runners.
Q: Furthermore T3 is gonna be fueled with sleeper drops so I don't that working out. Remove some drops: yes. All: I don't think so. A: CCP has to seed T3 somewhere, it might as well come from a new area of space than be tacked on to an existing mechanic but that can change.
Q: T1 and T2, I agree. mass production of faction and officer gear sounds rather wrong to me. A: If you limit the production of faction and officer gear to specific regions (by putting region specific resources in) and hike the cost of making these items you've solved the problem and given people a very big reason to fight for and maintain presence in a region. 0.0 becomes a profit centre: after all nations squabble over their regional assets (Champagne anyone?).
To answer some questions though: 1. I would consider eve a way of life. You don't play for years if it wasn't. A: The average Eve account life (dug it up from an early economic report)is 7 months, so you're the exception not the rule. Nice to see people staying that long and I hope you're enjoying yourself. 2. Frankly I think not. This group is just not risk-adverse but afraid of it. We might see more people leaving eve or actually joining low-sec but most of them will just stay in hi-sec with reduced rewards. A: A casual gamer has limited time. The loss of time is far more important than the loss of a ship; even if you're good at something too big a loss of time puts you off. Say you play for three hours a week, if losing a ship means six hours play to recover the cost of that ship, you don't take the risk because you lost two weeks of playtime. If you're a hard core player the loss of six hours is less than a day's work, so the mechanism of time loss works in favour of hard core players.
Gerrymandering existing mechanisms and tweaking loot is complex, replacing loot with isk is simple.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 12:50:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Sashman Cole Replacing all loot in missions and rat drops would cause inflation but it also creates a dynamic mechanism which can be solved by players increasing supply. No balancing is required: let the players sort it out in the big sandbox out there.
Q: Too much of this and we might start to see barter trade being the norm in eve. A: I'm betting supply would increase before inflation took hold.
Mission loot scale well with the number of players, mining don't scale well with the number of players. Currently we are near enough to the max number of miners in high sec, no one in his right mind will mine in 95% of the low sec systems, people in 0.0 will mine only the high ends.
Quote:
Q: We'll have problem where 'salvage', as we know its meaning, is gonna come from then. A: Drop all salvage from player ships: vital tech components now originate from combat, making battlefield salvage a proper profession. No more ninja salvage complaints from mission runners.
Welcome to the 1 billion T1 rig.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 12:53:00 -
[178]
Edited by: Venkul Mul on 06/02/2009 12:53:32 Important question to CCP Chronotis:
there is a table equivalent to the one you showed us from before the removal of the shuttles from market (and possibility from before the change of the other NPC modules that were refined for low ends)?
Without that an evaluation of the current data is missing some key point. |
Chigger Troutslayer
The Intergalactic Federation Sex Drugs And Rock'N'Roll
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 14:11:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Nadarius Chrome
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.
They might not be totally worthless. I could see them being useful to a 0.0 industrialist. Say someone living in Angel NPC space might be interested in the BPC's for Lasers and Hybrids. Better than T1 and cheaper than T2 without the need for invention and T2 components which can be hard to come by in 0.0 if your not in a big alliance. Its often easier to just import the T2 mods anyway. Sure the Meta 3 and 4 would be worth more, but I can see having some cheap BPC's laying around to manufacture when you need a few of some module in a hurry.
In general I think the remove T1 loot drops from missions and drop BPC's for meta items instead idea has merit. Also if you did the same for 0.0 rats, I think there would be a bigger need for industrialists out there. Sure have the sporadic hauler spawn like there is now (finding a rat with 25M Trit is always fun), but in general if the supply of minerals from rat loot was cut off you would need to have miners in your space gathering it if you don't want to import it. |
Billy BadBottom
|
Posted - 2009.02.06 22:16:00 -
[180]
I have the answer. It came from an old commercial
first guy: You're peanut butter is in my chocolate! second guy: You're chocolate is in my peanut butter!
Both the mission runners and the miners want to play the game, have fun, probably get rich. I propose a new mining area that has a greater reward for miners, but a higher risk like big, fat nasty rats. The risk/reward for PVE players is below. It IS a massively MULTIiplayer game after all.
Example Overview pops a stray METEOR. Players check info and it says 3/10. PVE players go to kill something, miners go to mine. The PVE players get no action/no reward until the miners start mining. The more miners that dogpile the meteor, the more the rats come - maybe spawn "from". PVE players get current loot from rats. Too much mining may spawn too many rats that overwhelm the PVE 'defenders', too 'little' mining and the defenders move on for bigger game. Both get rewarded more by risking together.
The variations, cooperation, and fun run a good breadth and depth too.
CCP said, "The ongoing discussion we are having internally is really around the point of to what degree a specialist profession like mining should be adversely affected by another career path where this forms only one part of their total reward/income pool."
Let chocolate be chocolate, and peanut butter be peanut butter, but when you put them together let it be peanut butter chocolate goodness. One of many Reeses commercials
|
|
|
|
|
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 |