| Author |
Topic |
Thirzarr |
Posted - 2009.12.29 08:30:00 - [ 91]
Some people in here should realize a couple of things:
- ganking is not pvp.
It is ganking. Plain and simple. Killing people that cannot fight back - even if they wanted to.
- non consensual pvp is grief
- most players dont want to pvp
Even though eve might not be safe anywhere, have you considered this should mean "you can lose your ship even in pve" in empire space?
So while I do understand that ganking migh be fun to some: there is always a losing person. And the amount of discomfort you cause this person is probably quite severe. Just think of getting gangr*ped in a street and having your c*ck cut off. To them it was all a funny game. |
Liang Nuren |
Posted - 2009.12.29 08:38:00 - [ 92]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 29/12/2009 08:51:05 Originally by: Thirzarr
- ganking is not pvp.
It is ganking. Plain and simple. Killing people that cannot fight back - even if they wanted to.
Ummm... I maybe could buy this. I mean, it's not flying by the seat of your pants, but ok. Quote:
- non consensual pvp is grief
That's just flat false. You can PVP with bullets, with ballots, with the market, with industries, with mercs, with anything. What, are you gonna claim that non consensual market PVP is griefing too? Quote:
- most players dont want to pvp
May I introduce you to a game called "EVE Online" - its a pvp game. Quote:
Even though eve might not be safe anywhere, have you considered this should mean "you can lose your ship even in pve" in empire space?
And in PVP. :) Quote:
So while I do understand that ganking migh be fun to some: there is always a losing person. And the amount of discomfort you cause this person is probably quite severe. Just think of getting gangr*ped in a street and having your c*ck cut off. To them it was all a funny game.
You know, I think you might want to see a therapist about that. Eve is a PVP game... and you're taking it way too seriously. -Liang Ed: My God, my corp is having a field day with this post! |
Hellfury Resurrected
Incura
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 08:51:00 - [ 93]
Edited by: Hellfury Resurrected on 29/12/2009 08:51:29 Originally by: Thirzarr
So while I do understand that ganking migh be fun to some: there is always a losing person. And the amount of discomfort you cause this person is probably quite severe.
HONEY GET MY THERAPIST ON THE PHONE I LOST THE ****ING GAME!1!! |
Hilda B9 |
Posted - 2009.12.29 08:53:00 - [ 94]
I think logging in to the game is consenting to pvp not sure |
Thirzarr |
Posted - 2009.12.29 09:55:00 - [ 95]
Edited by: Thirzarr on 29/12/2009 09:59:08Edited by: Thirzarr on 29/12/2009 09:56:38 Originally by: Thirzarr
- most players dont want to pvp
There. I did not claim eve to not be a pvp game. But I do see that the vast majority of players stay in empire to avoid it. So you might have a pvp game that is played by quite a lot of people because they CAN avoid it. Face it: You would not be happy if forced to pve only. Some people are not happy about being forced to participate in pvp. In the case of eve - thats probably at least 9/10 empire dwellers. It is NOT your job to remind them that this game is not as fun as they want it to be. On the 'losing the game' part... or the 'taking it serious' - actually theres only one thing about playing anyting: Fun. You take away the fun, the game will not be played. THAT simple. And my dear liang - I kindof expected a deeper view on this from your past posts - PvP is not a term that relates to anything where players compete. If you do need me to rephrase the obvious: "A virtual fight in virtual spaceships owned by different players." |
Liang Nuren |
Posted - 2009.12.29 10:33:00 - [ 96]
Originally by: Thirzarr
There. I did not claim eve to not be a pvp game. But I do see that the vast majority of players stay in empire to avoid it. So you might have a pvp game that is played by quite a lot of people because they CAN avoid it.
Strictly speaking Empire only minimizes PVP - it does not eliminate it. And it shouldn't, either. That's why we have war decs, and mercs, and suicide ganks, and contract scamming, and confidence scamming, and corp theft, and can flipping, and many other game mechanics to force PVP in Empire - even in high sec! Quote:
Face it: You would not be happy if forced to pve only. Some people are not happy about being forced to participate in pvp. In the case of eve - thats probably at least 9/10 empire dwellers.
Some of us are not happy if we are forced to PVE at all. But we still do it. Why? Because it's necessary to play the game. Quote:
It is NOT your job to remind them that this game is not as fun as they want it to be.
My job is playing the game as it was intended to be played - which includes piracy. Whether it be in lowsec, 0.0, or high sec. Quote:
On the 'losing the game' part... or the 'taking it serious' - actually theres only one thing about playing anyting: Fun. You take away the fun, the game will not be played. THAT simple.
In the intro tutorial to the game, it advises you to never fly what you cannot avoid to lose - because losses are UNAVOIDABLE in Eve. Quote:
And my dear liang - I kindof expected a deeper view on this from your past posts - PvP is not a term that relates to anything where players compete. If you do need me to rephrase the obvious: "A virtual fight in virtual spaceships owned by different players."
The problem is that Eve is a PVP game. You like to PVP the market or other mission runners or miners or what have you. I like to shoot them. It is the same thing. -Liang |
Thirzarr |
Posted - 2009.12.29 10:45:00 - [ 97]
Edited by: Thirzarr on 29/12/2009 10:55:10
Now there is a post I find more suited to your standards. ;)
There is a huge psychological difference between getting ganked and getting pushed out of the market.
Yes, PvP is supposed to take place even in highsec. And there is a place for it, too. But you cannot, under no argumentation, get around the simple fact that most people dont want to pvp. Especially not, if there is no way in hell for them to win. Just plain NONE. Not even in the most bizarre scenario of a golem with hardeners on ;).
Considering the risk of the gankers (non to loosing the ships and not having a kill) to the losses caused (1 billion isk and up to 10) that kind of ridicules any 'no risk all reward in highsec' argumentations. Now I got lucky and non of my visits to even Jita has ever ended in me being ganked. I got targeted a view times, but I expect it and dont blame anyone for trying. BUT there are people who want to have their concept of fun in this game. Getting ganked ruins it for them.
BTW: I'd rather get ganked by tempests and keep my implants than be ganked by a SB-ship and lose it all ;)
There are basically two 'proper' ways of doing this right: No ganking but 'real' pvp (See above definition regarding this) and making pve so similar to pvp that the ships involved can actually defend themselves. (all this is just my opinion and cannot be called anything considered fact or ultima ratio). I'd love to see the second part happen and then making highsec alot less highsec.
|
Qui Shon |
Posted - 2009.12.29 11:20:00 - [ 98]
Yes, same old threads again. Insurance needs to go, it really, really does.
It's absolutely ridiculous that BS hulls actual cost is next to nil, completely insignificant in almost any context. So called "suicide" ganking, where you lose nothing, is the extreme example of how ridiculous this mechanic is. It's not the only reason, I'd prefer insurance to go away completely even if "suiciding" didn't exist. But popping ships virtually for free despite so called concord protection, is so silly I will call it a broken part of the game.
Like I said last time, CCP had a good opportunity when they decided on changes to concord and insurance, they just went entirely the wrong way, boosting concord but leaving insurance alone. ****ing &¤#¤# stupid decision. Removing it for concord kills is a first step, desperately needed for Eve to recover even a hint of balance between target and ganker for HS.
Suicide ganking as a mechanic is fine, a way to get at NPC empire alts, and it should be part of the game, but it should god damn well not be virtually free of charge or consequence (where insignificant penalties and costs equate to free in practice.)
End insurance. Do it CCP, just ****ing do it already. Make your claim of "harsh consequences" actually have some truth to it, instead of being the pathetic lie it has been for so long. If you are too weak to do that, then ffs at least rework the mechanic so it gives at most a 50% discount on market price in total cost for hull, instead of 90-100%. Though I'd prefer 25%, if 0% is too much to ask for. |
Aethana
Minmatar
Caldari Strike Force |
Posted - 2009.12.29 11:37:00 - [ 99]
Laing, you are an amazing poster--A+ for logic, patience, insight, diction, etc!
I just love reading all your stuff :) |
Dors Venabily |
Posted - 2009.12.29 16:22:00 - [ 100]
Originally by: Otebski
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Let's think about this a moment. Let's suppose that your average 6 month old pilot makes 10M ISK/hr running their L4 mission. This seems a bit generous really.
-Liang
UHM What?!
I am exactly 6 month old. I fly crap race for missions (minnie). Battleships are just a side step for me as i specilize in cruiser sized ships.
When missioning i get at very least (suboptimal mission) 5m per bounty period payment. Up to 10m (for AE, Blockade and other nice ones). So thats between 15 and 30m /h for just bounties. Can finish each mission in at most an hour adding another 5m on top. Doing them in low sec so getting about 12k LP an hour adding some 25m (good lp store). That is between 45 and 60m an hour exluding salvage and looting which i dont bother with.
Again. I am not even specilized in mission running. most of my skills are for cruiser/bc/hac pvp.
I was getting more than 10m an hour doing level 3s in passive cane (oh the painful memeories)
This really I will support removal of the insurance or at least the 3 highest payout types. So a loss of a ship is actually a loss. This has nothing to do with suicide ganks it just really should be removed from the game so the fly what you can afford actually means something. |
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
|
Posted - 2009.12.29 16:55:00 - [ 101]
Originally by: Dors Venabily
Originally by: Otebski
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Let's think about this a moment. Let's suppose that your average 6 month old pilot makes 10M ISK/hr running their L4 mission. This seems a bit generous really.
-Liang
UHM What?!
I am exactly 6 month old. I fly crap race for missions (minnie). Battleships are just a side step for me as i specilize in cruiser sized ships.
When missioning i get at very least (suboptimal mission) 5m per bounty period payment. Up to 10m (for AE, Blockade and other nice ones). So thats between 15 and 30m /h for just bounties. Can finish each mission in at most an hour adding another 5m on top. Doing them in low sec so getting about 12k LP an hour adding some 25m (good lp store). That is between 45 and 60m an hour exluding salvage and looting which i dont bother with.
Again. I am not even specilized in mission running. most of my skills are for cruiser/bc/hac pvp.
I was getting more than 10m an hour doing level 3s in passive cane (oh the painful memeories)
This really I will support removal of the insurance or at least the 3 highest payout types. So a loss of a ship is actually a loss. This has nothing to do with suicide ganks it just really should be removed from the game so the fly what you can afford actually means something.
adn then watchthe influc of new players into low sec and 0.0 drop 10 fold, and then REALLY for first time in eve history eve wil be starting to DIE. Insurance might need adjustments, but just someone really idiotic cannot see how that woudl also bring very bad repercussions to game growth and how that would hurt ccp. |
ipodu21 |
Posted - 2009.12.29 18:24:00 - [ 102]
Originally by: Aethana
Laing, you are an amazing poster--A+ for logic, patience, insight, diction, etc!
I just love reading all your stuff :)
Agreed Laing is pretty cool ... thing is now we should decide what to do with this effing Liang Nuren character... |
NoNah |
Posted - 2009.12.29 21:23:00 - [ 103]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
FTFY.
Semantics. The difference is that it requires skillpoints to make 50 mil an hour, you won't make 50 mil an hour the instant you can complete a level 4 mission with your 1 mil sp char. Quote:
Not sure I follow how serious mission runners making 50M/hr means insurance fraud is 2.5M/ship. Presumably, you're referring to loot from missions injected into the mineral market?
You need 3 minutes per self destructed ship, from undock to undock. 60 / 30 = 20, 50/20 = 2.5m. Quote:
Replacement is something that happens repeatedly..... thus for tech 1 ships with cheap fitting costs skyrocketed.
FTFY. This means newbies get it easier, as they have to pay less the first time for their pve presence - until they can secure a stable income. Surely you're not advocating that PvE contains repetetive loss? It means older players get less blobs of uselessness, and a more varied enviroment. What was the downside again? Quote:
Quote:
Noobs that are aggressive and bold are rewarded by faster and larger income.
Income is hardly the problem here. The problem is that an insurance nerf utterly annihilates PVP. Let me fix the next part of your tirade for you...
Quote:
Noobs that have neglectable attentionspans that are bold and risk their ships in PVP.... will find a more suited game.
Yeah, that reads a bit more like what'll happen.
You were the one bringing income to it as a huge reason to keep insurance in the game. If putting new chars in corp paid battleships with some RR and buffer wasn't cheaper, faster(in terms of SP) and better than pretty much all alternatives, you'd might be able to find someone fitting a smaller ship to keep it cheap. Right now frigates are infinately more expensive than battleships, hullwise. Quote:
Less faucets leading to a slower inflation leading to cheaper wares for noobs.
Quote:
Damage Control II - 600K ISK. Things are already cheap. I mean, I'm sorry, but maybe you missed that we're not having a period of drastic inflation in Eve. Even the econ dev blogs have said the worst that ever happened was extremely slight inflation. You're looking to fix things that simply aren't a problem - and possibly create one where previously one didn't exist.
Damage controls are a very poor example. The tech 2 market has been changing quite drastically over the recent years. I reckon plexes and GTC's are a fair bit better examples. They were rather stable at 150m now they're 300m. ZOMG 100% inflation. I'm not saying inflation is drastic and extreme, I'm saying it's existant, and undesired. The probably best example of this is the average time from Ibis -> battlecruiser/ship for new players. Quote:
Eve is a game where 2% more X on a module is a pretty big deal. T1 is already less attractive.
At equal grounding, of course t1 is less attractive. Yet, fitting any 10m+ module on a t1 ship(bar rigs(granted they're soon to be less than 10m aswell)) is consider insanities. Quote:
Quote:
A more varied spectra of ships as a frigate hull might actually be cheaper to replace than a battleship hull again.
They already are - from hull to fitting to rigs.
There's a profit in losing most tech 1 battleships. Which frigate is cheaper than that? Quote:
More incentive to fly t2 and t3 over t1.
There's already tons of incentive to fly T2 and T3.
Of course there is. Especially since you might aswell loose some t1 ships to make up the money for flying t2 and t3. Now go have a look at average losses of players. What's so wrong on an economy based on supply and demand rather than artificial caps? If no-one can afford to fly tech 1 battleships, they won't face any either. When they introduced insurance some 5-6 years ago, it was for good reason. Now, that reason is no more. |
NoNah |
Posted - 2009.12.29 21:27:00 - [ 104]
Originally by: Hera Ominae
Right now a competent missionrunner makes about 50 mil an hour on his level 4 missions, total. A bit more of he's ambitious, a bit less if he's not.
50 M isk per hour on lvl 4 missions? Suuuuure  With two 50 M SP, pure pvp skilled golems perhaps, but average player isn't fully pvp skilled, and they don't have two fully pvp skilled characters. Not even close. They fly faction bs or normal bs, and make that around 10-20 M ISK per hour at most. Now, ppl are saying that you make easily 60 M ISK per hour with ratting in 0.0? Does your wallet blink often and say 20 M ISK every 20 minutes? No, it doesn't say that. Does it say that you got 10 M ISK every 20 minutes, no it doesn't usually even say that. At these forums, ppl are exaggarating alot their hourly income.
So... bounty is the only income you make out of ratting and missions, huh? I can't really be arsed to find the actual averages for missions, but bounties are something like 30% of the actual income. |
Zill
Friends of Honor |
Posted - 2009.12.29 21:42:00 - [ 105]
Edited by: Zill on 29/12/2009 22:03:13
Edited by: Zill on 29/12/2009 21:52:14
Irony is, you are your own worst enemy's, you know full well CCP will respond when enough of you turn 1.0 etc etc into the old days of Jihad. Thats the reason they changed it in first place. I am gonna laugh when they do something nasty to fix this issue an they will. We all know they will once the complaints come in by the 100s.
Personally I don't get intimidated in a game, if you lads wanna gank, knock yourselves out, but don't come screaming in forums when they nurf you again because it will be your own fault :)
personally I cant really bothered much anymore so I am lucky if I make 20 mil a day latly hehe
As to the case of ganking v griefing etc....
I was a griefer for many years in Daoc an Wow, an you have to realsie how these lads think, they suicide gank for nothing other than the "fun" of making someone miserable. "Most" gankers are younger an see it as cool to grief. it's just how it is. There is no higher reason behind suicidal kills other than to cause pain for others.
I killed lowbes in WoW and Daoc for 2 years every day because I thought it was aiding in the so called "war" lol I was kidding myself, it was pure greifing tactics on my part for the abuse I received. Probably 1 in 10 highsec's who get griefed will quit the game when it happens twice. This is sad, but is also what these guys want.
They look for ways to tell their mates that "dude! I run'z this kid out of the game today, brah" blah blah it happens an there isn't much we can do bout it.
The only really good upside to this stuff is they will ruin their "coolness" fast enough without our help once CCP gets sick of highsec'ers complaining. Dont forget 80% of eve players are in highsec :)
edit, Bounty's......50 mil an hour is easily! possible. Takes me 15-20 mins to run a mish sometimes, getting between 5 an 15 mil bounty's so running 3-4 missions an hour if the agent is good, added to the salvage I get, is easily 50 mil. |
Liang Nuren |
Posted - 2009.12.29 23:30:00 - [ 106]
Originally by: NoNah
Semantics. The difference is that it requires skillpoints to make 50 mil an hour, you won't make 50 mil an hour the instant you can complete a level 4 mission with your 1 mil sp char.
It's hardly semantics when you're preventing "noobs" from playing the game. Quote:
FTFY.
This means newbies get it easier, as they have to pay less the first time for their pve presence - until they can secure a stable income. Surely you're not advocating that PvE contains repetetive loss?
It means older players get less blobs of uselessness, and a more varied enviroment.
What was the downside again?
FACT: Replacing a BC loss will be much more expensive - no matter what you fit on it and no matter how you lose it (PVE or PVP). And I'm not sure what makes you think that more expensive ship losses will make the PVP game less blobby? That is totally not the rational result of what you're suggesting. No, the rational result of removing insurance is that first time PVP prices will go down. But, skyrocketing costs for continuing to PVP will utterly annihilate PVP in Eve. There won't be any more "fit a kestrel/merlin/rifter/punisher and go learn to PVP - and laugh off the losses". What, do you honestly think that nobody loses battleships in missions as they learn to play the game, and do you honestly think that everyone starts Eve has a PVP god? No. So.... what will be the result? In your words.... "noobs" that risk their ships.... will find a more suited game. Quote:
Damage controls are a very poor example. The tech 2 market has been changing quite drastically over the recent years.
The T1 market has stayed stable with the mineral prices, and the named market has stayed mostly stable (prices have varied with boosts and nerfs, of course). Quote:
I reckon plexes and GTC's are a fair bit better examples.
Um, that's a terrible example. Quote:
I'm not saying inflation is drastic and extreme, I'm saying it's existant, and undesired.
That's good, because inflation is "barely existant" according to the last econ dev blog, and Eve has experienced long periods of "vast deflation". Basically, what we have as a hugely successful online economy (seriously - one of the best I've ever seen) ...... and you want to **** up its very foundation. -Liang |
JonnyKay
Gallente
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 00:44:00 - [ 107]
In the effort of avoiding making a new thread, can anyone tell me the current state of the Tempest now (got the 5 day reactivation).
I know from reading this thread that it has been given a huge boost to fleet warfare and suicide ganking... but how does the Tempest hold up in real fights, like small gangs (empire wardecs, or pirating) compared to the other BS now? |
Liang Nuren |
Posted - 2009.12.30 01:06:00 - [ 108]
Originally by: JonnyKay
I know from reading this thread that it has been given a huge boost to fleet warfare and suicide ganking... but how does the Tempest hold up in real fights, like small gangs (empire wardecs, or pirating) compared to the other BS now?
Well, I wouldn't say it was given a huge boost to fleets. I'd say that if your FC is very aware of how to fly with high alpha, it is better than it was. For generic PVP, the Pest is still probably the worst BS. The boosts were all directly to projectiles - which was of course the right way to fix it. But still leaves the Pest and Muninn hanging dry for a while. -Liang |
JonnyKay
Gallente
Capital Construction Research
|
Posted - 2009.12.30 01:22:00 - [ 109]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Well, I wouldn't say it was given a huge boost to fleets. I'd say that if your FC is very aware of how to fly with high alpha, it is better than it was. For generic PVP, the Pest is still probably the worst BS. The boosts were all directly to projectiles - which was of course the right way to fix it.
But still leaves the Pest and Muninn hanging dry for a while.
-Liang
Sad to hear, at least the Typhoon is still good for those lucky/stupid few of us gifted with Minny BS level 5 (lol...) I guess the Tempest will still be good for fleet combat (best over other BS in that field imo). |
Liang Nuren |
Posted - 2009.12.30 01:35:00 - [ 110]
Originally by: JonnyKay
I guess the Tempest will still be good for fleet combat (best over other BS in that field imo).
There's no way the Pest beats out the Apoc.... but maybe the mega. -Liang |
Deb Dukar
Minmatar |
Posted - 2009.12.30 02:31:00 - [ 111]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: JonnyKay
...
But still leaves the Pest and Muninn hanging dry for a while.
hey ... but its great for getting final blows now :D
and it scares the crap out of players when a munin one shots their shield away.
never had so much killmails with my munin since the buff. |
Liang Nuren |
Posted - 2009.12.30 20:40:00 - [ 112]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 30/12/2009 21:16:25And just to reinforce the point: Armageddon1x Armageddon - 46M 7x Megapulse II - 21M 7x IN Multifreq - 8.5M 7x Scorch L - 5.5M 1x 100mn MWD I - 500K 1x MCB II - 1M 1x Disruptor II - 1.2M 1x DC II - .9M 3x HS II - 2.7M 2x 1600 RT - 8.4M 2x ANP II - 1.4M 5x Warrior II - 1.7M 4x Ogre II - 3M 3x Large Trimark I - 60M 1x Plat Insurance - 19.8M TOTAL COST: 181.6MInsurance Payout: 66.2M NET COST: 115.4MAnd that's if you lose the ship. If you keep insuring it again because you don't lose it.... well lets just say that's an obvious ISK sink. And yes, I've had far more insurance run out than I've had pay out. Now, let's pick a frigate. And we'll make it use some really expensive modules that people wouldn't normally use. Rifter1x Rifter - .2M 3x 150m AC II - 2.1M 1x Sm Nos II - 1.8M 1x Catalyzed 1mn MWD - 5M 1x Fleeting Web - 2.4M 1x J5 Disruptor - .1M 1x 200mm RT Plate - .4M 1x DC II - .9M 2x ANP II - .7M 3x Sm Trimark I - 2.7M 1x Plat Insurance - .1M TOTAL COST: 16.4MInsurance Payout: .3M NET COST: 16.1MSo, what was that about it being cheaper to fly battleships than frigs? Even way overpriced Rifters are far far *FAR* cheaper than battleships. I guess nerfing insurance would lead to a more varied PVP battlefield... as we all struggle to fit whatever T1 frig/cruiser we can find.  -Liang |
Psiri |
Posted - 2009.12.31 01:08:00 - [ 113]
Edited by: Psiri on 31/12/2009 01:08:47 Originally by: Liang Nuren
And that's if you lose the ship. If you keep insuring it again because you don't lose it.... well lets just say that's an obvious ISK sink. And yes, I've had far more insurance run out than I've had pay out.
Which isn't really an issue for non-rigged ships (or ships w. non-costly rigs), just unequip them, undock and self-destruct. You get to cash out more than what the ships costs, which helps funding the insurance for your next ship. That's one hell of an expensive rifter too btw, but it's not like you posted it to help your point. |
ol gil
Caldari |
Posted - 2009.12.31 01:13:00 - [ 114]
Liangs just won the thread tbh. Seriously some people dont have a damned clue. |
Nian Banks
Minmatar
Berserkers of Aesir |
Posted - 2009.12.31 05:03:00 - [ 115]
If insurance went then it would be possible for alliances to beat down far more effectively an enemy.
If you don't get a big insurance payout then player/corp/alliance coffers start to run dry if they keep loosing ships. |
InUrJita CheckinUrPrice |
Posted - 2009.12.31 05:21:00 - [ 116]
Edited by: InUrJita CheckinUrPrice on 31/12/2009 05:21:44
In a competitive market with rational participants, sans intervention by an outside party, price invariably equals marginal cost. The marginal cost of production is the cost of renting a factory slot for a single unit + resource costs + BP costs + entrepreneurial profit.
Currently, we have a system of price floors -- insurance -- that keeps prices at the levels considered natural by CCP. Without those price floors, the next "fixed" marginal costs are renting a manufacturing slot and the cost of purchasing a seeded blueprint -- or creating/purchasing a bpo and pimping it out.
The other costs are, again, set by a competitive market. For minerals, the marginal cost of an additional mineral is zero. For missioners, the marginal cost is the cost of the ammo required to secure an additional mineral -- and since ammo is made of minerals plus a cheaply seeded blueprint, we can assume that the marginal cost of one is similar to the marginal cost of the other, and thus very close to zero. This leaves us with a marginal cost at or about zero for the competitive equilibrium for minerals.
We finally have the entrepreneurial profit accruing to the producers, which is a variable amount that we can generally assume would be shed in the interests of actually making a sale.
This leaves us able to comfortably declare that, should insurance be removed, the price of t1 ships and modules would be at or around the combined cost of securing a manufacturing slot plus the cost of securing a blueprint to produce the item in question, plus a small amount of profit accruing to the miners and industrialists.
That's not very much money at all. But that, by definition, is where you'd expect the competitive equilibrium to be. You'd also expect that market to be fairly empty of production, with the majority of stuff produced by individuals who value their time not at all and do it purely for the pleasure. The rest of the market would presumably be in house stuff produced for t2 manufacturers -- who, as should be obvious from the disconnect between t2 insurance and t2 ship prices, exist in a functioning market.
If you really want to see a market that doesn't end up with everything costing peanuts, you'd need higher costs of entry, more marginal costs, and maybe some resources that themselves have a marginal cost of acquisition -- in other words, something that looks a lot like the current t2 market. Otherwise, price floors (or huuuuuugely increased demand) are the only way to absorb the seriously massive levels of overproduction that consistently occur in t1. |
Liang Nuren |
Posted - 2009.12.31 06:55:00 - [ 117]
Originally by: InUrJita CheckinUrPrice
Without those price floors, the next "fixed" marginal costs are renting a manufacturing slot and the cost of purchasing a seeded blueprint -- or creating/purchasing a bpo and pimping it out ... we can assume that the marginal cost of one is similar to the marginal cost of the other, and thus very close to zero. This leaves us with a marginal cost at or about zero for the competitive equilibrium for minerals.
Are you honestly suggesting we're going to see 10M ISK battleships and maintain 100M ISK HACs? Lunacy. Additionally, I think we can plainly see items from the LP store, having no real "marginal cost" associated with LP, still maintains 1500-2500+ ISK/lp. Insurance is the foundation of a fantastic economy in Eve. ****ing with something that works just fine is a very bad idea. -Liang |
Seishi Maru
doMAL S.A.
|
Posted - 2009.12.31 09:49:00 - [ 118]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Originally by: InUrJita CheckinUrPrice
Without those price floors, the next "fixed" marginal costs are renting a manufacturing slot and the cost of purchasing a seeded blueprint -- or creating/purchasing a bpo and pimping it out ... we can assume that the marginal cost of one is similar to the marginal cost of the other, and thus very close to zero. This leaves us with a marginal cost at or about zero for the competitive equilibrium for minerals.
Are you honestly suggesting we're going to see 10M ISK battleships and maintain 100M ISK HACs? Lunacy. Additionally, I think we can plainly see items from the LP store, having no real "marginal cost" associated with LP, still maintains 1500-2500+ ISK/lp.
Insurance is the foundation of a fantastic economy in Eve. ****ing with something that works just fine is a very bad idea.
-Liang
I usually don t agree much with liang, but this is simply undeniable. Insurance is needed and a great asset to the game economy and PSICOLOGY. Things would go terribly south if it simply disappeared. The most that can be required is some adjustment every 6 months or so of the base value of the insurance... but even so a SLIGHT adjustment.... and the extinction of insurance on concord kills |
Qui Shon |
Posted - 2009.12.31 10:32:00 - [ 119]
Edited by: Qui Shon on 31/12/2009 10:31:59 Originally by: Liang Nuren
Insurance is the foundation of a fantastic economy in Eve. ****ing with something that works just fine is a very bad idea.
-Liang
Yeah, it doesn't work just fine though, and virtually free of charge "suicide" ganks are a good example of where it fails, utterly and completely. To the point of exposing this part of the game as broken. It stinks to high heaven. Whatever effect it has on the mineral market that you see as beneficial, can be easily replaced by some other mechanic, like npc buyorders. |
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente |
Posted - 2009.12.31 11:02:00 - [ 120]
Originally by: Thirzarr
Some people in here should realize a couple of things:
- ganking is not pvp.
It is ganking. Plain and simple. Killing people that cannot fight back - even if they wanted to.
- non consensual pvp is grief
- most players dont want to pvp
Even though eve might not be safe anywhere, have you considered this should mean "you can lose your ship even in pve" in empire space?
So while I do understand that ganking migh be fun to some: there is always a losing person. And the amount of discomfort you cause this person is probably quite severe. Just think of getting gangr*ped in a street and having your c*ck cut off. To them it was all a funny game.
Ganking is PVP. Its player interaction. Non concent PVP is not griefing. Its the target being careless of unlucky. If most players do not want PVP, why are they online playing a game that has player interaction as its biggest thing? As for loosing your ship ion PVE, I agree, level 4s are sissy stuff, and I am still waiting for CCP to implement sleeper AI into them (as they said they would do, gradually (like the officer spawns currently got AI)). But PVE can never be a true challenge, the AI is after all just a mechaninc in the game. So player interaction is again the biggest threat, as it should be. "Just think of getting gangr*ped in a street and having your c*ck cut off. To them it was all a funny game." Seriously? An RL comparison to make ganking look more "evil"? Sigh. Of course its not fun to be ganked, but if you do get ganked its likly your own fault, or you are just unlucky. I have been playing for 2 years now, and I have never been ganked, because I play it smart. Originally by: Qui Shon
Edited by: Qui Shon on 31/12/2009 10:31:59
Originally by: Liang Nuren
Insurance is the foundation of a fantastic economy in Eve. ****ing with something that works just fine is a very bad idea.
-Liang
Yeah, it doesn't work just fine though, and virtually free of charge "suicide" ganks are a good example of where it fails, utterly and completely. To the point of exposing this part of the game as broken.
It stinks to high heaven. Whatever effect it has on the mineral market that you see as beneficial, can be easily replaced by some other mechanic, like npc buyorders.
NPC buyorders would be horrible. Takes the focus away compleatly from the player interaction spects of EVE. Its like setting a price on the minreals in stone, and would ruin it for teh guys who do market stuff. (Market stuff in EVE is PVP as well since its largly dominated by player interaction). As for insurace, sure, its easy to gank. So just don't make yourself worth ganking. Easy. Don't fly pineatas around like you where in a happy lala land of no PVP, don't carry billions in T1 haulers, don't afk fly your valuable stuff or spaceil ship. Play smart and prosper. EVE markets itseff as a harsh competetive world where the biggest dog eats the samller ones. Stupid players gets dominated by the smart ones. Its a PVP centric game. The PVE is just here to give us isk and to have sometihng to do a slow day, as well add a bit of flavour to New Eden. |
|
All Channels
Ships and Modules
