open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Nerfing loot drops (yes, again)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Author Topic

Krans Hopeson
Coffee Muggers
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.03.31 18:32:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Krans Hopeson on 31/03/2009 18:55:32
As a trader and manufacturer, I've noted a few problems with the way loot drops are affecting the market.

Almost all T1 and common named modules are in such oversupply that their average prices are well below production cost. Firstly, this doesn't make sense from an RP point of view -- rather than producing a new module (spawning in the loot) the pirates/navies/CONCORD would buy one off market and save money! Secondly, this oversupply makes it feasible to buy up large numbers of modules and reprocess them for minerals.

My proposed fix is as follows: use a dynamic loot table. When a wreck is spawned, the following procedure would be carried out:

  1. Create the list of loot to be spawned according to the current heuristic.

  2. For each item in the list, look up its entry in a "loot feasibility table".

  3. If the entry is missing or over 24 hours old, create a new entry marking the loot as feasible iff the market price of its reprocessed minerals with no skills or standings is less than the loot's market price. Note that this would use the same information currently shown in the market window price history table

  4. If the loot is feasible, spawn it. Otherwise, spawn it with probability alpha, or metal scraps with probability (1-alpha).


alpha is a parameter which allows the "nerf" to be progressively implemented over a period of months rather than being an all-or-nothing change.

This strategy has a number of advantages:

  • Buff to T1 module manufacturing (it's currently an utter waste of time).

  • Buff to T1/named module trading.

  • Nerf to loot mineral faucet.

  • Buff (yes!) to mission ISK income, without adding an ISK faucet.

  • Buff to high-end ore mining.

  • Reduction in hangar clutter.

  • It would not nerf mineral compression using modules.

  • Negligible lag/implications (computational overhead mitigated by region-wide 24-hour loot table cache).


Discuss. Twisted Evil (Note to mods: this post is here because I believe the market implications to be most interesting and/or potentially problematic. Please move it if necessary!)

Turiel Demon
Minmatar
Celtic industries
Posted - 2009.03.31 18:41:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Turiel Demon on 31/03/2009 19:00:10
This does seem like a sensible, dare I say 'logical' idea.

eVaLF
Retirement Retreat
Posted - 2009.03.31 18:48:00 - [3]
 

If they are under build cost buy and refine. Buy and refine.

Krans Hopeson
Coffee Muggers
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.03.31 18:53:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: eVaLF
If they are under build cost buy and refine. Buy and refine.


Yes, I'm aware that this is the best (and only sensible option) under the current loot mechanism, and I do this.

That doesn't mean that it makes sense from an RP perspective, nor that it leads to interesting gameplay opportunities.

Caleb Ayrania
Gallente
TarNec
Posted - 2009.03.31 19:02:00 - [5]
 

Well a minor flaw would be what is refine value?

That change as mineral prices change..

I think it needs to be a numbers game really..

Personally I believe it should use lookup on volumes produced. The lower the number of items produced of that type the lower the chance of a drop.

Oh and I seriously believe higher metas should be reverse engineering possible..

So you could make all meta drops into a BPC w 5 runs. In this case the above would improve, because surpluss items would be made into BPC.

Really all items should be possible to make into a 5 run BPC.. Thus these could either be used in research or to produce said item. Reverse engineering should go in the research slots and thus also help fix a bit of the copy slot imballance..



Sasha Kiki
Posted - 2009.03.31 19:12:00 - [6]
 

Yes because RP is what drives the game.

Krans Hopeson
Coffee Muggers
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.03.31 19:24:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Caleb Ayrania
Well a minor flaw would be what is refine value?

That change as mineral prices change..


Originally by: Krans Hopeson
Note that this would use the same information currently shown in the market window price history table

Mephistocles
Red Frog Investments
Blue Sky Consortium
Posted - 2009.03.31 19:37:00 - [8]
 

I'm not a programming genius, nor do I know the ins and outs of CCP's code, but wouldn't this idea cause a tremendous amount of lag? If I remember correctly the biggest problem they had with Jita was all of the database queries from the market window. If every time a rat pops numerous queries have to occur before the loot is spawned isn't that going to really bog down everything?

Krans Hopeson
Coffee Muggers
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2009.03.31 19:44:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Mephistocles
I'm not a programming genius, nor do I know the ins and outs of CCP's code, but wouldn't this idea cause a tremendous amount of lag? If I remember correctly the biggest problem they had with Jita was all of the database queries from the market window. If every time a rat pops numerous queries have to occur before the loot is spawned isn't that going to really bog down everything?


Firstly, all of the computations for what loot is spawned occur serverside (as currently), so the round-trip latency between a client computer and the server won't come into it. I also pointed out that the overhead could be made negligible by (a) doing the calculations per-region, and (b) judicious use of caching. Don't worry, lag would not be affected positively or negatively! Smile

adriaans
Amarr
Ankaa.
Nair Al-Zaurak
Posted - 2009.03.31 22:40:00 - [10]
 

What i think needs to be done is more SENSIBLE loot drops... seriously BS's dropping frig modules....Rolling Eyes

secondly, less t1 non named, and more named items be dropped instead.



also, you're complaint of t1 manufacturing being completely worthless is false, reaching 50 mill profit -per day- using 10 manufact slots is not too hard with t1 ''crap'', and no i will obviously not tell you what, and yes, it all sells, fast i may add. (mins are even being bought from sell orders), and no it doesn't have a multibillion entry requirement.


also, i don't think reprocessing mods is a prob at all.

and, cheap named is often cost effective for invention, and invention also requires t1 base items to be built usually. and i never find anything on sell orders i can buy to reprocess for isk...:/ sure..buy orders.. but they fill soooooooo slow....:S and thats mainly because people are lazy....

note: all the above based on rens and heimatar region.

and this is from a viewpoint of a mission runner, trader, manufacturer, pvp'er.

Tasko Pal
Aliastra
Posted - 2009.04.01 01:39:00 - [11]
 

I don't see why a dynamic loot table makes any sense in an RP fashion. The problem is that you have NPC factions willing to throw away trillions of isk per hour. Consider how much isk EoM throws away in each Gone Berserk mission. That has to be several billion. Now what's the RP justification for that?

Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Ship Construction Services
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2009.04.01 02:44:00 - [12]
 

Devs made a very general statement about "Mining with guns" and that it's bad. There will be a total mission overhaul in the future.

Maven Deltor
Posted - 2009.04.01 03:39:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Maven Deltor on 01/04/2009 03:39:28
Creating loot tables based on market prices, or market availability is prone to exploitation. I don't want to have to have X sell orders at X price just to insure that I get item X to drop more often. This sort of manipulation of the system WILL happen. And adding this sort of anomaly to the game is probably going to cause more harm to the overall system than the current answer does already.

Good thinking outside the box, but I do not like it, or any idea that ties loot tables to the market.

Amrumm
Rhetorical Devices
Posted - 2009.04.01 11:03:00 - [14]
 

I don't know any hard core lvl4 mission runners that waste their time selling meta 0 loot. It all goes into the recycler. So this will do little for the T1 market.

If looting (combined with salvaging) drops too much in value people will just start speed running missions. IMO the last thing EVE needs is more ISK.

GyokZoli
Caldari
Sanctum of Citizens
Posted - 2009.04.01 12:25:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Krans Hopeson
Originally by: Mephistocles
I'm not a programming genius, nor do I know the ins and outs of CCP's code, but wouldn't this idea cause a tremendous amount of lag? If I remember correctly the biggest problem they had with Jita was all of the database queries from the market window. If every time a rat pops numerous queries have to occur before the loot is spawned isn't that going to really bog down everything?


Firstly, all of the computations for what loot is spawned occur serverside (as currently), so the round-trip latency between a client computer and the server won't come into it. I also pointed out that the overhead could be made negligible by (a) doing the calculations per-region, and (b) judicious use of caching. Don't worry, lag would not be affected positively or negatively! Smile

If you think that thosuands of queries in every seconds would not slow the server down then you are mistaken.

Caleb Ayrania
Gallente
TarNec
Posted - 2009.04.01 14:41:00 - [16]
 

It is very true that the loot drop needs a rather profound overhaul. It is also relevant that any easy solution method will simply bring more weirdness and gamebending..

My suggestion w BPC was also touched upon in the "LONG" thread on the 40% mineral issue. So if you consider the potential of rethinking the BPO and BPC situation in relation to this issue I am sure the idea has a bit of validity.

The loot tables

Loot tables could be dynamically balanced serverside and only at downtime if it used the numbers of production of units. Thus if the influx of a give item is handled by players this item would decreas in drop chance.

Reverse engineering to BPC

All dropped items chould be able to be sacrificed in a reverse engineering process to generate a low run BPC. Since these BPCs would be unresearched and thus low in ME and PE, it would simply be a kind of player takeover of the workings of BPOs. These could also go into the research of T2 but the low ME and PE should then impact the chance of success.

Player BPO takeover

Adding the option to stack BPCs and submit them to a BPO production would make it possible to stop seeding BPOs from npcs. This I believe would benefit EVE economy and player interactions a whole lot, while still under the process retaining the isk sink.

If the players collected something like 2-3 times the max run of a copy they would be able to inject these copies into a research slot to get a resulting BPO from the process. Thus you would have linked the Loot, BPC, and BPO into a cycle that handed over the "control" and insertion of BPOs into the game.

The above is a handover in nature akin to the removal of npc sold shuttles, it does however operate quite differently and focused on a production and isk redistribution level mostly.

It does not devaluate the existing BPO and BPCs or copying business, because the ones in game allready would retain much higher value due to the ME and PE values, especially if the ME and PE is also added to impact the chance of T2 research sucess.

If I am missing some important part of the is sink impact, any numbers and points would be appreciated?


CCP Mitnal


C C P
Posted - 2009.04.01 20:15:00 - [17]
 

Moved to Features & Ideas.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2009.04.01 21:01:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Krans Hopeson
Originally by: Mephistocles
I'm not a programming genius, nor do I know the ins and outs of CCP's code, but wouldn't this idea cause a tremendous amount of lag? If I remember correctly the biggest problem they had with Jita was all of the database queries from the market window. If every time a rat pops numerous queries have to occur before the loot is spawned isn't that going to really bog down everything?


Firstly, all of the computations for what loot is spawned occur serverside (as currently), so the round-trip latency between a client computer and the server won't come into it. I also pointed out that the overhead could be made negligible by (a) doing the calculations per-region, and (b) judicious use of caching. Don't worry, lag would not be affected positively or negatively! Smile


It seem to me that it will add a lot of lag serverside with tons of queries and data to store in the database every second.

Have you a faint idea of the number of mission runners and kills for second? Not counting the ratters and the other random kills in exploration locations and while mining.

Look the time required to view the loot in a wreck and you will have an idea on how not instantaneous the process is even todday. Add other calculations and it will became a nightmare.


Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2009.04.01 21:32:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Caleb Ayrania

If I am missing some important part of the is sink impact, any numbers and points would be appreciated?




The T1 BPO are currently brought from NPC and are one of the big isk sinks removing isk from the game, not only moving them around.

With your idea people will sell/buy NPC dropped BPC (BTW, another server and database increase in load, as the market will need a BPC section, where all the different BPC should be listed (and that would mean 1 run, 2 run, ecc.).

Limiting the BPC market to only contracts would make them mostly useless.

And then where are the science facilities to do the reverse engineering?
It will nerf all the new players incapable of doing that, add queues with a horrible length.






Caleb Ayrania
Gallente
TarNec
Posted - 2009.04.01 22:10:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Caleb Ayrania

If I am missing some important part of the is sink impact, any numbers and points would be appreciated?




The T1 BPO are currently brought from NPC and are one of the big isk sinks removing isk from the game, not only moving them around.

With your idea people will sell/buy NPC dropped BPC (BTW, another server and database increase in load, as the market will need a BPC section, where all the different BPC should be listed (and that would mean 1 run, 2 run, ecc.).

Limiting the BPC market to only contracts would make them mostly useless.

And then where are the science facilities to do the reverse engineering?
It will nerf all the new players incapable of doing that, add queues with a horrible length.






Taking out the BPOs from npc supply is actually going to give them a potentially better value, and create dynamics over time.

There should not be a setup on scc for trading BPCs. They are secondary and contracts market just like that have always been. SO serverside not relevant.

The science facilities are in the research slots usually used for T2. and you might want to take a look at what slots are free, this suggestion kind of balances things out a bit more, and should end be granting control of the whole basis of production into the hand of player activities.

Since making these should not be extremely time consuming. Making a BPC from an item should be similar to producing 5-10 times the actual item. 3 run 5 times production time. Creating the BPO from BPCs should take the same as copying a max run batch from a BPO to BPCs. (or maybe twice that time to balance better)



CrestoftheStars
Caldari
Recreation Of The World
Posted - 2009.04.02 01:39:00 - [21]
 

actually from a RP pov there should be more loot which resembled the modules the rat uses.

that said i think you should go another way around it, remove ALL loot from rats (except officer etc loot) including named, spawn the BPO's for named loot (balanced by price of production) in the normal t1 bpo market.
buff the bounty on rats accordingly (so that the isk you get will not be to deminished, but not so much that it will be greatly increased in isk/hour).

let some lvl 1-2 mission give noobs the ships and modules they need for t1 frigs/cruisers/bc's/bs's (so that they do not ram the head into the extreme prices that t1 would achieve).

at the same time buff the t2 minerals and t1 production amount (as to make sure t1 prices doesn't go to the extreme and to lower the t2 market, since we are becomming more and more players but supply remains the same :/ )

Hariya
Posted - 2009.04.02 16:58:00 - [22]
 

Yes, please reduce the income of the mission running empire population. That is probably the best way to make sure they will never go out of empire or engange in any other dangerous activities, as they have to grind even more to be able to support having losses. Nice way to make the low sec even quieter than it is, and screw up the game.


 

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only