open All Channels
seplocked Test Server Feedback
blankseplocked Insurance changes working as intended on test?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8

Author Topic

CCP Soundwave


C C P Alliance
Posted - 2010.03.17 19:55:00 - [91]
 

CCP Chronotis is working on a dev blog about insurance which should detail the how's and why's.

Jack bubu
GK inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.03.17 20:29:00 - [92]
 

PAAANNIIICCCC!!!!


Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.03.17 21:48:00 - [93]
 

Originally by: Jack bubu
PAAANNIIICCCC!!!!




LOLZ

Jarnis McPieksu
H A V O C
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2010.03.17 21:52:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Jack bubu
PAAANNIIICCCC!!!!




Confirming this. Lining up a stock of T1 hulls for (insured) self-destruction before patch, dumping mineral stockpiles to the market.

Unless CCP somehow magically constraints mineral supply by a huge amount, mineral prices will crash to the new soft floor set by the insurance payout of T1 ships. Yay, cheaper disposable T1 ships!

(Awaiting the devblog and the magical fix that will somehow prevent this. Not holding breath.)

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:21:00 - [95]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
CCP Chronotis is working on a dev blog about insurance which should detail the how's and why's.


Looking forward to reading this. I hope you guys have taken the opportunity to do this properly and not just taken the easy route.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:28:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Akita T


THIS CHANGE IS ONE OF THE MOST HORRIBLE POSSIBLE CHANGES YOU COULD POSSIBLY MAKE.
.



Unless of course you don't really care about artificially maintaining mineral producer income levels at the expense of people who want to use minerals, and you do care about stemming some of the unbelievably vast ISK inflows. Then it's a fine change.

Rather than rant unsubstantiated abuse, have you considered making suggestions to increase mineral sinks, tighten up mineral supply and generally calming down.


Or perhaps you have a mining alt or two lobbying your main's posts here...? Wink A little stockpile of minerals, maybe? That might be more likely, as you've never been overly concerned with mining income in the past.




Quinn Tokimeki
Caldari
NOVA TECH
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:29:00 - [97]
 

OMGZ I just panicked... I soldz all my stockz for 1isk a item! Rolling Eyes

Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
Discord.
Posted - 2010.03.17 22:37:00 - [98]
 

Edited by: Mahke on 17/03/2010 22:39:38
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Akita T


THIS CHANGE IS ONE OF THE MOST HORRIBLE POSSIBLE CHANGES YOU COULD POSSIBLY MAKE.
.



Unless of course you don't really care about artificially maintaining mineral producer income levels at the expense of people who want to use minerals, and you do care about stemming some of the unbelievably vast ISK inflows. Then it's a fine change.

Rather than rant unsubstantiated abuse, have you considered making suggestions to increase mineral sinks, tighten up mineral supply and generally calming down.


Or perhaps you have a mining alt or two lobbying your main's posts here...? Wink A little stockpile of minerals, maybe? That might be more likely, as you've never been overly concerned with mining income in the past.






Except the change is bad beyond FUBARing miners. t1 insurance is THE major equalizer between new and/or poor player and the old rich (in addition, it lets the old rich do even more pvp than otherwise if they want to go that route).

The change is bad for balance, its bad for new players, and its bad for pvp.

P.S. Not arguing for my own interest here: I've pretty much wrapped up destroying or selling all my spare fraud battleships and would be happy to have insurable t2 ships. I just don't think this is good for the game.

edit: if you're reading this CCP fix the technetium bottleneck FFS.

Turiel Demon
Minmatar
Celtic industries
Posted - 2010.03.17 23:00:00 - [99]
 

Originally by: Mahke

edit: if you're reading this CCP fix the technetium bottleneck FFS.


There is no bottleneck, it's just 30k/unit, no bottleneck in sight, requires no CCP attention what so ever... concentrate on minerals now Twisted Evil

Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2010.03.18 00:56:00 - [100]
 

So right now we have too many minerals being produced, and too few being consumed naturally. The solution to this is to make T1 ships more expensive to lose(yes, cheaper in Jita price, but more expensive to lose with platinum insurance)? I really hope you're going to hit the supply of minerals in a way other than just destroying mining as a profession. I don't mine myself, but this offends my sense of economics. Off the top of my head, remove meta 0 item drops from rats, and consider switching to named item BPCs. I've long said that change needs to wait for a big enough corresponding change to make it not wreck the economy - well, I think you've found it.

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2010.03.18 02:28:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Mahke
Edited by: Mahke on 17/03/2010 22:39:38
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Akita T


THIS CHANGE IS ONE OF THE MOST HORRIBLE POSSIBLE CHANGES YOU COULD POSSIBLY MAKE.
.



Unless of course you don't really care about artificially maintaining mineral producer income levels at the expense of people who want to use minerals, and you do care about stemming some of the unbelievably vast ISK inflows. Then it's a fine change.

Rather than rant unsubstantiated abuse, have you considered making suggestions to increase mineral sinks, tighten up mineral supply and generally calming down.


Or perhaps you have a mining alt or two lobbying your main's posts here...? Wink A little stockpile of minerals, maybe? That might be more likely, as you've never been overly concerned with mining income in the past.






Except the change is bad beyond FUBARing miners. t1 insurance is THE major equalizer between new and/or poor player and the old rich (in addition, it lets the old rich do even more pvp than otherwise if they want to go that route).

The change is bad for balance, its bad for new players, and its bad for pvp.

P.S. Not arguing for my own interest here: I've pretty much wrapped up destroying or selling all my spare fraud battleships and would be happy to have insurable t2 ships. I just don't think this is good for the game.

edit: if you're reading this CCP fix the technetium bottleneck FFS.


Its clear you don't understand the underlying concepts here.
PVP is not going to be affected. Prices are merely going to fall to the new insurance 'floor' - whatever the (Platinum payoff - platinum premium) ends up being. Which means that insurance fraud will continue to occur and PVP with T1 ships will continue to be nearly free and insurable.


Seth Ruin
Minmatar
Ominous Corp
Circle-Of-Two
Posted - 2010.03.18 02:34:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
So right now we have too many minerals being produced, and too few being consumed naturally.

Yes, and the core of the problem, believe it or not, isn't mining. It's mission/rat loot reprocessing. I forget the exact percentage, but I recall reading in one of the QENs that the majority of minerals used throughout EVE come from reprocessed modules, not ore.

Mahke
Aeon Of Strife
Discord.
Posted - 2010.03.18 02:56:00 - [103]
 

Originally by: Herr Wilkus
Originally by: Mahke
Edited by: Mahke on 17/03/2010 22:39:38
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Akita T
quote pyramid goes here







Its clear you don't understand the underlying concepts here.
PVP is not going to be affected. Prices are merely going to fall to the new insurance 'floor' - whatever the (Platinum payoff - platinum premium) ends up being. Which means that insurance fraud will continue to occur and PVP with T1 ships will continue to be nearly free and insurable.




See what you're doing here? you're making an assumption: that the price of the mineral basket will always be at the insurance fraud level if there is one.

Way back when, minerals were often significantly over insurance value (I hear it was even worse before I started playing. There is NO RULE stating that it will be so.

There are 3 scenarios:

a) natural prices above insurance "floor" -- supply/demand (+ the other factors that occasionally effect eve markets like manipulations, I-mined-it-its-free, etc.) results in prices above insurance value: insurance value does not impact prices except insofar as it stimulates or ******s pvp demand and willingness to lose ships in stupid/fun ways.
b) natural prices at or slightly below the "floor" -- same as above
c) natural prices significantly below the "floor" -- supply/demand/magic results in prices below the floor: prices rise towards, but not over,the floor (up to where its not worth builders bother to fraud.

Right now (since the trit change) we are in state (c) -- this is NOT a constant and there is NO guarentee we will still be in state (c) or even (b) if the floor is dropped. This is the fatal flaw in your statement; there is no way of knowing if we'll return to (c) or (b) just at the new level (unless you assume that most minerals in EVE are created by macros, in which case the problem is much bigger than simply insurance)

In fact, its really hard to predict accurately where we'll end up; but, as much as (c) is bad for the game for people not frauding BS (massively inflationary and people just don't like it), being too far in the (a) direction results in pvp becoming unsustainably expensive for new/casual/poor players.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.03.18 04:17:00 - [104]
 

Yeah, we've been in (c) for about 6 months now (mostly thanks to the Veldspar respawn rate buff, but several other factors before and even the most recent sov system change "helped" along).
We had been over in (b) for a little over 2 years before that, maybe even 3 years before (drone regions, w-space).
The situation in (a) is more or less the situation we had at start of EVE until mining barges and then exhumers came around, transitioning us to (b) slowly but surely... let's call that situation (a1), because it was actually pretty damn good for miners back then.

Dropping the insurance level will very likely catapult us back into (b) before sliding slowly back towards (c) with just lower miner income, lower priced T1 ships (but similar PvP loss cost) and not much else, but if the insurance level keeps getting adjusted, we might end up with situation (a), but not the nice (a1) we had at the start, but with a (a2) version that's not bad, but completely horrible for miners.

Originally by: Malcanis
Rather than rant unsubstantiated abuse, have you considered making suggestions to increase mineral sinks, tighten up mineral supply and generally calming down.
Or perhaps you have a mining alt or two lobbying your main's posts here...? Wink A little stockpile of minerals, maybe? That might be more likely, as you've never been overly concerned with mining income in the past.

Actually, I have been pretty concerned with mining-related activities, have been for the past 3 years or so. I've had multiple attempts of talking some sense into CCP, even tried via the CSM, nothing worked. I have merely let it go as "not worth bothering with anymore", until now.

I find mining boring as hell, and thoroughly unrewarding. I can totally see why people would stop caring and macro it up.
The last time I actually bothered mining was well over 2 years ago, and even back then it was just for half an hour or so. I can fly a Hulk, never bought one on TQ though, my largest mining ship is a Retriever (not even a Covetor), and it's barely seen any use at all ever since I bought it.

I would be highly surprised if my total mineral "stockpile" value comes even close to half a percent of my total NAV.

So, no, absolutely no "hidden agenda" here, just thinking of the consequences people playing will end up suffering.
It's _not_ unsubstantiated abuse just because you're not aware of the "substance" behind it Wink
I'm a bit past making suggestions and calming down, if 2-3 years of making suggestions and being (relatively) calm wasn't enough, hasn't helped one bit, quite the opposite... so, at "5 before midnight", they won't be helping either. Hence, the "abuse".

Broderick Cahal
Posted - 2010.03.18 05:06:00 - [105]
 

Just require players to make all the POS mods and sov stuff

Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari
Sane Industries Inc.
Posted - 2010.03.18 05:26:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Jarnis McPieksu
Originally by: Jack bubu
PAAANNIIICCCC!!!!


Unless CCP somehow magically constraints mineral supply by a huge amount, mineral prices will crash to the new soft floor set by the insurance payout of T1 ships. Yay, cheaper disposable T1 ships!

Or they could increase mineral consumption... Perhaps introduce mineral devouring space-whales in the winter expansion that you can raise from small baby whales into mega-rorquals; let's call it Whale Interaction.

Shoukei
Caldari
Boobs Ahoy
Posted - 2010.03.18 06:32:00 - [107]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
CCP Chronotis is working on a dev blog about insurance which should detail the how's and why's.


Dear CCP, WE SALUTE YOU!

Sunn Hunn
Posted - 2010.03.18 09:03:00 - [108]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto

remove meta 0 item drops from rats, and consider switching to named item BPCs.


+100500 this :) bpcs, tags, named items with minerals in them near zero, etc.

Hentuku
Posted - 2010.03.18 10:39:00 - [109]
 

Edited by: Hentuku on 18/03/2010 10:41:05
Finally a response from CCP on this! Smile

So everything gets cheaper? Miners get less isk for minerals?

Ultimately is this deflationary?

Or will it counter act the inflationary aspects of the removal of the NPC isk sink. Once those NPC items are manufactured by players post the next expansion.




Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2010.03.18 10:55:00 - [110]
 

Edited by: Zey Nadar on 18/03/2010 10:56:41
Originally by: RJ Nobel

I hope and expect that the insurance changes on SISI are just a small part of CCP's overall plan to rebalance the mineral economy. Planetary interaction seems to be the perfect opportunity to introduce new mineral sinks and rebalance the overall system.



Isnt planetary interaction more of a mineral faucet? I remember seeing this nocxium mentioned in the planet scans even though the system is a mess currently and you cant really tell whats it going to be like in the end. Maybe CCP feels they need to lower the prices of minerals because planets will maybe allow a more afk way of getting minerals..

Personally I see the biggest losers in any of these changes to be the starting players who wont be able to make income by mining..

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.03.18 11:03:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Yeah, we've been in (c) for about 6 months now (mostly thanks to the Veldspar respawn rate buff, but several other factors before and even the most recent sov system change "helped" along).
We had been over in (b) for a little over 2 years before that, maybe even 3 years before (drone regions, w-space).
The situation in (a) is more or less the situation we had at start of EVE until mining barges and then exhumers came around, transitioning us to (b) slowly but surely... let's call that situation (a1), because it was actually pretty damn good for miners back then.

Dropping the insurance level will very likely catapult us back into (b) before sliding slowly back towards (c) with just lower miner income, lower priced T1 ships (but similar PvP loss cost) and not much else, but if the insurance level keeps getting adjusted, we might end up with situation (a), but not the nice (a1) we had at the start, but with a (a2) version that's not bad, but completely horrible for miners.

Originally by: Malcanis
Rather than rant unsubstantiated abuse, have you considered making suggestions to increase mineral sinks, tighten up mineral supply and generally calming down.
Or perhaps you have a mining alt or two lobbying your main's posts here...? Wink A little stockpile of minerals, maybe? That might be more likely, as you've never been overly concerned with mining income in the past.

Actually, I have been pretty concerned with mining-related activities, have been for the past 3 years or so. I've had multiple attempts of talking some sense into CCP, even tried via the CSM, nothing worked. I have merely let it go as "not worth bothering with anymore", until now.

I find mining boring as hell, and thoroughly unrewarding. I can totally see why people would stop caring and macro it up.
The last time I actually bothered mining was well over 2 years ago, and even back then it was just for half an hour or so. I can fly a Hulk, never bought one on TQ though, my largest mining ship is a Retriever (not even a Covetor), and it's barely seen any use at all ever since I bought it.

I would be highly surprised if my total mineral "stockpile" value comes even close to half a percent of my total NAV.

So, no, absolutely no "hidden agenda" here, just thinking of the consequences people playing will end up suffering.
It's _not_ unsubstantiated abuse just because you're not aware of the "substance" behind it Wink
I'm a bit past making suggestions and calming down, if 2-3 years of making suggestions and being (relatively) calm wasn't enough, hasn't helped one bit, quite the opposite... so, at "5 before midnight", they won't be helping either. Hence, the "abuse".



*sigh*

We have the situation we do now because it is insanely easy and (in hi-sec and to a certain extent w-space) safe. All the mining "buffs" of the last 3 years have all been to the same effect: ENCOURAGING MACROS

If you want to help miners, make mining difficult and dangerous.


It sounds like a paradox as first glance, but it's really not. It's the only way to make mining worthwhile as income or gameplay.

Well, apart from instituting ever-increasing NPC buy orders for players to compete against, of course - but that really does kick new PvPers in the shorts.

rubico1337
Caldari
Mnemonic Enterprises
Posted - 2010.03.18 11:12:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: CCP Soundwave
CCP Chronotis is working on a dev blog about insurance which should detail the how's and why's.


LET THE MINERAL-GEDDON COMMENCE!

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2010.03.18 12:24:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
We have the situation we do now because it is insanely easy and (in hi-sec and to a certain extent w-space) safe. All the mining "buffs" of the last 3 years have all been to the same effect: ENCOURAGING MACROS

You're not saying anything to contradict anything I ever said Wink
On this part, we completely agree.

As for the rest... well, to a degree, true, that would be one of the possible solutions, or at least part of a better, larger, more complex solution.
I am totally down with differentiating between easily AFKable mining (bad) and more dangerous but higher yield (not just higher income) mining that would encourage people to actually want to pay attention... but you can do that in several different ways.
For instance, you could change the mining system itself (some ways to increase yield by doing something that can't easily be macroed) or changing the ore respawn quantities/qualities (even as going so far as to move ALL asteroid belts into the exploration system, but giving at least barges a way to explore without probes for the lower-quality ones).
You know, stuff like that.

Other parts of the solution would be encouraging more combat (so that mineral demand goes up heavily), so that would translate into making 0.0 much more attractive to be in (ISK-wise), and spreading the attractive parts around as much as possible, instead of concentrating them too much in some spots (which just encourages blobbing, which actually leads to less combat in the long run on average)... but not spread them too far so that every area is almost the same, then again you have no incentive to take any space, since, well, just about any space would do fine.

And that's just mentioning a few of the ideas that I had been tossing around for a good while now... because there are more.

You could duplicate the entire NPC production chain over into blueprints too - get BPCs for POS structures (and any other space-borne structures we have or will have) from LP shops at very low LP costs but high ISK costs, and include quite a bit of minerals into their build process. Heck, if you want, you could make it so they can only be manufactured "on-planet" and with the help of some planet-only resources, but it doesn't need to be that way, regular station manufacture will do just fine too (and you still keep some of the ISK sink part in the BPC ISK cost).
Alternatively, something completely novel as far as the ISK sink part goes - heavily ramp up station manufacture slot fees (I'm actually thinking orders of magnitude here, say 200k to start a build job and 30k per hour) and tweak build times a little bit to compensate for the upcoming price changes (especially on ammo).
This will also have the side-effect of promoting highsec POS use.
In turn, you could have highsec POS anchoring be ISK-fee-based instead of charter based - or, instead, just ramp up charter ISK cost in LP shops for the same end effect.
Last but not least, you could make it so corps could actually donate ISK to empires to raise "effective" player corp standings with the NPC empire so that highsec POS anchoring becomes easier. Make it even so that you can put POSes in 1.0 systems, but at much higher ISK costs (be it in actual rental fees or in heavily increased charter cost if you also buffed charter ISK cost from 0 to something noticeable).

And I could go on and on on what you COULD do.
But so far, CCP has only even hinted at one thing, and one thing alone they want to do.
And that thing, alone by itself, if changed while nothing else changes, that could be a disaster.
Just because it's a "stopgap measure" it's not an excuse.
I'd LOVE to see that promised devblog, and I would love it even more if in there they will say WHAT ELSE are they doing alongside this insurance change, but I'm pretty certain it will only be the insurance change and nothing else.
And hence, the "rage".

Turiel Demon
Minmatar
Celtic industries
Posted - 2010.03.18 12:55:00 - [114]
 

That idea of making meta 1-4 items made into BPC's has some merit, hadn't even thought of anything like that - good thinking Smile

Herr Wilkus
Posted - 2010.03.18 14:25:00 - [115]
 


Yes, its an assumption, but I believe that 'true' mineral value is far below the current 'supported' price. How much, I'm sure that someone at CCP has it figured it out, but I don't have that kind of information at my fingertips.

If CCP simply reset their static insurance payouts, my guess is that T1 mineral values are FAR below the 'insurance fraud' value, and they don't have a 'fix' for the oversupply problem yet.

If CCP installs a dynamic insurance system which adjusts to market conditions - I reckon the actual equalibrium isn't too far off - or they have something up their sleeves to spur demand.

I still think that increasing incentive for suicide ganking would help out a lot, by damaging supply and increasing carnage (demand.)
ISK for sec-status exchange, to allow -10s to freely roam hisec again for a price.
Or maybe even double insurance payout for Concord kills. Razz


Dylan Chan
Gallente
The Maverick Navy
IT Alliance
Posted - 2010.03.18 15:46:00 - [116]
 

I always thought that the insurance system made no sense and was only there to artificially set the mineral prices.

For Insurance to be more fun/realistic.. base it on sec status. the lower your sec status the higher the price you pay until you can only get Insurance from 0.0 rat stations. The Higher it is, the lower your premium maybe even a larger pay out for "Good Drivers".

Mono Loco
Posted - 2010.03.18 17:02:00 - [117]
 

make it player run Cool

HeliosGal
Caldari
Posted - 2010.03.18 21:11:00 - [118]
 

Originally by: Mono Loco
make it player run Cool


that might be to a bridge to far at the moment

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.03.18 21:53:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: Mono Loco
make it player run Cool


Uh yeah, since it's inherently loss-making, that's not ever going to work.

Kyra Felann
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.03.18 21:54:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: Turiel Demon
That idea of making meta 1-4 items made into BPC's has some merit, hadn't even thought of anything like that - good thinking Smile


It makes so much sense, I have to wonder why it hasn't been implemented. The mission-runners (of which I am one when I have the patience) might complain, but they have it far too easy as it is.

The other option I've heard is that NPCs would drop damaged modules that can be repaired into named modules, using minerals or something in the process.

I think if nothing else, NPCs should stop dropping T1 meta-level 0 items.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8

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