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

Cyclops43
Posted - 2010.03.18 22:56:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: Kyra Felann
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.

The main problem with the BPC suggestion is that it breaks the 'story' behind the wreck/loot mechanic. 'Loot' is modules surviving from a wreck that was mounted in it before it blew up. Why should pirates or freedom fighters run around with BPC's in their ships, and why would they be the only things surviving?

Meta-0 items are the big part of the problem as the higher meta levels refine for much less minerals. Just removing M-0's will probably be enough while not completely breaking the fiction behind the game. The 'story' could simply be that the NPC's didn't go for using basic stuff as the Meta-1+ are more efficient...

Illectroculus Defined
No Bull Ships
Posted - 2010.03.18 23:14:00 - [122]
 

Actually if you stop and think about what would be involved in replacing all drops with 'broken meta' drops you'd realise it's a whole lot of work for the devs. Basicly new items need to be added to the DB for every existing meta item, all the loot tables need adjusted and then we need a new type of manufacturing path added to the blueprint system, and of course facilities that work with this manufacturing path.

Deyionu
The Maverick Navy
Posted - 2010.03.19 00:49:00 - [123]
 

I really like the idea that meta 1-4 items being BPC's. For your RP aspect make each faction/race drop parts that are needed to make race specify meta items. For instance Amarr you have a chance to get this new salvage that helps focus crystals with the needed bpc and parts you have a meta 4 Mega Beam (tech 1 parts, salvage and npc goods). On how you get the bpc either have the "boss" from missions drop them or as random mission reward from the agent. I think this would strongly put the mineral market into the hands of the miners and get rid of the whole reprocess issue we have from mission runners.

NoNah
Posted - 2010.03.19 00:53:00 - [124]
 

Gasp, I entirely missed this change. And all I can think is "finally".

Of course it's not the solution I'd want to see, but hey, evolution!

Just seeing how everyone else are doing it, I figured I'll share my idea of how it 'should' be.

1. Drastic nerf to missions.
This is pretty much done in two ways. Remove meta 1 loot. Remove highsec level 4's.
2. Remove insurance, period.
3. Segregate minerals between sec status. Make sure you need minerals from, high, low and 0.0 space to build a ship. Wormholes would most likely be in a similiar spread.
4. Gradually remove static belts. Multiply the number gravimetric sites by a large number. Preferably with more random effects, such as spawns, gas clouds, such.

Most of the steps on their own are somewhat useless. But as a package, I can't really see why it wouldn't work. Problem is how massive the change is, and there's no real way of testing it out, other than through speculation and theories.

Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2010.03.19 01:11:00 - [125]
 

Originally by: Jack bubu
PAAANNIIICCCC!!!!




This.

Also, isn't CCP Chronotis the guy who said he was creating a mining revamp over 2 years ago? This should be good.

Cid Mutation
Posted - 2010.03.19 02:50:00 - [126]
 

One of the thing they should do also is to make module looted from wreck damaged.
So you got to repair it before you sell or reprocess. It would be a pain in the ass to keep in your hangar but it would minimized a little bit the reprocess mineral coming from loot

Block Ukx
Forge Laboratories
Posted - 2010.03.19 03:59:00 - [127]
 



Insurance Exchange Rate (IER) is a symptom of a broken game mechanics. The root of the problem is behind the mining mechanics which has caused an oversupply of minerals that will continue to outpace demand. I suggest CCP puts some effort in developing ways to properly address supply and demand issues. The changes I've seen in sisi suggests they are simply altering the IER rate. This alone will not solve the real problem the game is facing.


Ave Volta
Perkone
Posted - 2010.03.19 05:32:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Block Ukx

Insurance Exchange Rate (IER) is a symptom of a broken game mechanics.



This is really the key point in all of this. A change to insurance payout simply effects a symtom of a larger issue of oversupply. I would assume though that CCP understands this, so this change may be part of a larger set of upcoming changes that we don't fully understand yet.


Hrodgar Ortal
Minmatar
Ma'adim Logistics
Posted - 2010.03.19 06:37:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: Block Ukx


Insurance Exchange Rate (IER) is a symptom of a broken game mechanics. The root of the problem is behind the mining mechanics which has caused an oversupply of minerals that will continue to outpace demand. I suggest CCP puts some effort in developing ways to properly address supply and demand issues. The changes I've seen in sisi suggests they are simply altering the IER rate. This alone will not solve the real problem the game is facing.




It isn't mining mechanics that are broken.
It is mineral supply, somewhere around half of all minerals come from other sources than mining. So the problem is more likely the fact that reprocessing mission or ratting loot yields FAR FAR FAR to high amounts of minerals.
Mining should be the primary source of all minerals. Make it so first then start tweeking the other things.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2010.03.19 06:44:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: RJ Nobel

If mining were the sole source of minerals you would be correct. Mineral prices would eventually equalize at a very low, but manageable price point. Mining would exist as a low-income "side" profession, similar to hi-sec exploration.

However, mining is not the only source of minerals. Reprocessing of mission loot produces a significant source of minerals as a by-product of mission-running - an activity that is completely unaffected by mineral prices or changes to the insurance system. 0.0 alliances are also producing a significant mineral stream as they mine for sov. upgrades. These minerals will continue to flood the market even at 0.01 ISK/unit prices. End result? Mining for profit becomes a myth, the Eve economy goes through massive price deflation, and mineral prices become a volatile trailing indicator to mission-running/0.0 alliance activity.



You assume that mission runners would keep looting if loot prices would crash. I mean if you can take next mission and get let's say 25 mil / h why would you loot if looting would net you only 8 mil / h ?

And 0.0 alliances would lose isk moving minerals to market if mineral prices drop below certain value so no you would not see minerals on market at 0.01 isk. You do not do afk freighter runs to jita from 0.0.

Mecinia Lua
Galactic Express
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.03.19 07:09:00 - [131]
 

Originally by: Sunn Hunn
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.


I support this idea.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.03.19 07:30:00 - [132]
 

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


How's it coming along?

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.03.19 07:37:00 - [133]
 

Originally by: Akita T

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".



And on this we also agree. But the "RAGE" is not constructive or useful. All it does is promote the "well screw those guys, everything we do just makes them mad" attitude. Especially when it comes from someone as influential as yourself.

I REALLY hope that CCP aren't just going to put in a flat reduction in the nominal IER mineral values unless it's a very temporary place-holder for a more sophisticated system.


Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
Posted - 2010.03.19 09:47:00 - [134]
 

Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 19/03/2010 10:11:21
Quote:

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.



The same should also be applied to missioning (unlike mining, it floods EvE with minerals AND ISK), you were less supportive about that, though.



Quote:

I find mining boring as hell, and thoroughly unrewarding. I can totally see why people would stop caring and macro it up.



Mining needs an heavy apparent nerf.

Make it and ice mining hard to macro.
I still see at least 2 x 23/7 MEGA macros in a system I sometimes go to get some ice. It's like 5-10 ships with the same name, playing like the open source macro does.

I estimate about upwards of 2M of undue isotopes pushed "in the system" *per ship*, *per week*. And this just by one macro runner.


Then make the causes of oversupply reduced:

- perma respawns have to go away again.
- exhumers and barges have to yield 1/3 of today and the other ships also in a proportional way to that.


This because the 30k EvE players are still 30k players.
Plus 270k of hi sec dwellers who bring in production but NO 270k PvPers to consume what's produced and gathered.

This brings in an innatural and deadly proportion of overflow in everything.

So, the 270k "bears" have to produce below or equal to what the 30k "active" (as in consuming stuff, ie via PvP) need.
Only below that thresold the "nerf" becomes a buff, as minerals become valuable enough to be worth gathering, even at reduced volumes.

Any other solution that is not an eye opener and causing drastic changes is going to be just a band aid.



Edit:

another important issue is scalability.

The elder kind of players is a dying breed, it's vastly easier that a new player is a carebear than in the past.

This means that we have to expect a scenario like:

Today: 30k players, 270k bears
Tomorrow: 40k players, 400k bears
Past tomorrow: 100k players, 1.2M bears (!)

with an upward divergence of heavy materials users vs heavy materials producers, the latter increasing at a quicker pace than the former.

The new system has to deal and scale with this. Otherwise it's doomed to fail.

HeliosGal
Caldari
Posted - 2010.03.19 09:56:00 - [135]
 

leave mining as is bring insurance back in line with mineral prices - or perhaps a weekly adjustment based on say average mineral prices across the board make it more dynamic

Esk Esme
Caldari
Smack Crack and Pot
Posted - 2010.03.19 11:15:00 - [136]
 

why change insurance at all tbh??

becouse a few whineing bear's cry over ganking and insurance scam well these same bear's will cry alot harder and more with the base price droped on insurance cousing a knock effect to price of minrials also most t1 non named items due to build cost beeing lowerd

mins already hit hard with dronelands/ihubs/wh's working as intended probly lol

why not concentrate on something that needs fixing hmm maybe lag

my english sux sue m8

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.03.19 11:18:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 19/03/2010 10:11:21
Quote:

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.



The same should also be applied to missioning (unlike mining, it floods EvE with minerals AND ISK), you were less supportive about that, though.




What? Shocked

Did you mean to reply to someone else? You're seriously trying to assert that I, Malcanis, dont want to see missioning made more difficult and dangerous?

PS the rest of your post was pretty bad too.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.03.19 11:25:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: Esk Esme
why change insurance at all tbh??

becouse a few whineing bear's cry over ganking and insurance scam well these same bear's will cry alot harder and more with the base price droped on insurance cousing a knock effect to price of minrials also most t1 non named items due to build cost beeing lowerd

mins already hit hard with dronelands/ihubs/wh's working as intended probly lol

why not concentrate on something that needs fixing hmm maybe lag

my english sux sue m8


Because I want cheaper fighter bombers for my Nyx.

FakeEdit: And a cheaper Nyx.

Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission
EVE Trade Consortium
Posted - 2010.03.19 11:59:00 - [139]
 

Originally by: Lani Sun
Originally by: DigitalCommunist

If I could make changes:

- no insurance on capitals of any sort, period
- no basic 40% payouts in 0.0
- 3 policy options only, not based on coverage level but coverage duration (3 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks)


Youre a carebear right?

How about instead not allowing insurance in hisec at all or whilst the ship is in hisec.



I don't support his suggestion at all, but it at least makes sense - in opposite of yours.

Where would an insurance insure your ship? In a save place (high sec) or a place where your ship will most likely been blown up?

Try insuring a house against bad weather in a hurricane zone. Or against water in a flood zone ...

Snorre Sturlasson
Posted - 2010.03.19 13:25:00 - [140]
 

Each ship is constructed with a minimum of minerals. So why not making a price index of the minerals, so that the insurance payout and the insurance price depending on the index?

Afra Raven
Posted - 2010.03.19 13:35:00 - [141]
 

Edited by: Afra Raven on 19/03/2010 13:36:05
As i see it the main problem was and is Players and Goldsellers using macros. Some mentioned it already, the macroing will move to where the ISK gain to risk is minimum.
Mining was the way for some time, now macroing is moving to Belt ratting, Mission running.
And if you check out lowsec system with LvL 4 Courier Agents, donīt be surprised to see Indus floating around in heavy numbers and acting like robots. You can shot them all day long (and i did that) no one cares, there is too much ISK in it.
A mate wrote a Petition immediatly when we recognized the macroing, nothing happened. It maybe that CCP had problems to proof what was obvious, but to prevent that you need proof, CCP has to stop macroing at all.
There are a lot of suggestion out there to stop macroing or at least make it very difficult, i would love to see CCP implementing that and my guess is we will see prizes going up to the roof.


Hentuku
Posted - 2010.03.19 14:27:00 - [142]
 

Originally by: Afra Raven
Edited by: Afra Raven on 19/03/2010 13:36:05
As i see it the main problem was and is Players and Goldsellers using macros. Some mentioned it already, the macroing will move to where the ISK gain to risk is minimum.
Mining was the way for some time, now macroing is moving to Belt ratting, Mission running.
And if you check out lowsec system with LvL 4 Courier Agents, donīt be surprised to see Indus floating around in heavy numbers and acting like robots. You can shot them all day long (and i did that) no one cares, there is too much ISK in it.
A mate wrote a Petition immediatly when we recognized the macroing, nothing happened. It maybe that CCP had problems to proof what was obvious, but to prevent that you need proof, CCP has to stop macroing at all.
There are a lot of suggestion out there to stop macroing or at least make it very difficult, i would love to see CCP implementing that and my guess is we will see prizes going up to the roof.




Agreed.... instead of fixing the real issue, we are trying to fix symptoms caused by the botters.

CCP should try to intelligently solve this problem.

Develop a Turing test for eve.


Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.03.19 15:24:00 - [143]
 

Originally by: Snorre Sturlasson
Each ship is constructed with a minimum of minerals. So why not making a price index of the minerals, so that the insurance payout and the insurance price depending on the index?


Rumour has it that that's exactly what they're doing. The reason that people are getting excited about such a change is that it remove the price floor that's been propping up mineral prices. Thus, in the absence of other changes, the income of the individual mineral producer is likely to fall considerably.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.03.19 16:30:00 - [144]
 

Originally by: Hrodgar Ortal
Originally by: Block Ukx


Insurance Exchange Rate (IER) is a symptom of a broken game mechanics. The root of the problem is behind the mining mechanics which has caused an oversupply of minerals that will continue to outpace demand. I suggest CCP puts some effort in developing ways to properly address supply and demand issues. The changes I've seen in sisi suggests they are simply altering the IER rate. This alone will not solve the real problem the game is facing.




It isn't mining mechanics that are broken.
It is mineral supply, somewhere around half of all minerals come from other sources than mining. So the problem is more likely the fact that reprocessing mission or ratting loot yields FAR FAR FAR to high amounts of minerals.
Mining should be the primary source of all minerals. Make it so first then start tweeking the other things.


One of the problem is that you are founding your opinion over data that are 18 months old and with 3 big mining buff in between: WH space, increase respawn rate of tritanium and the new belts in 0.0 spawned by the industrial index.

That is a shaky foundation.

We need up to date information before passing judgment. I hope the new Dev blog will have them. if not, support this: [Request of informations] Sources of minerals.

If we get 40 or so supporters there is a chance the CSM will ask CCP to give the informations.

Ariane VoxDei
Posted - 2010.03.19 17:37:00 - [145]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
One of the problem is that you are founding your opinion over data that are 18 months old and with 3 big mining buff in between: WH space, increase respawn rate of tritanium and the new belts in 0.0 spawned by the industrial index.

That is a shaky foundation.

That and as I recall, we never got to to bottom of how much of the alleged 40% was purely modules sources from loot or in fact any refining result that was not:
1) drone compounds
2) ore / compressed ore.
And this again comes from the fact that there is/was no reliable way to track whether something is purposebuilt for compression (passive targetter I's, 100MN AB I, for example).
There might be data about how much loot is spawned into wrecks, but far from every L4 runner loot their missions, so that is not a very reliable stat, other than to say it is less than the spawned potential.

Quite another thing, sometimes ships get melted down as well - the gray area between the price not being high enough to ensure, but still lower than the mineral cost, making it worthwhile to melt and sell or use the minerals. (btw that gap is something the insurance change has the potential to close).

If those kind of refines were lumped in with the "loot" category, that would skew the number even further in favour of inflating the boogeyman image - which is essentially just drawing attention away from other things and various wailing fairies who are free to do missions but refuse and want welfare (and failing that, they want missions nerfed in pay, moved to low/wspace and made impossibly hard).
You know, along the lines of "nothing to see here, look at the paper tiger missions instead".

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2010.03.19 17:56:00 - [146]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul


We need up to date information before passing judgment. I hope the new Dev blog will have them. if not, support this: [Request of informations] Sources of minerals.

If we get 40 or so supporters there is a chance the CSM will ask CCP to give the informations.



This tbh. Everyone who is remotely interested in mining, industry or the EVE economy should support Venkul's proposal. We desperately need up to date data if this is to be discussed in any meaningful way.

ISellThingz
Posted - 2010.03.19 18:54:00 - [147]
 

Where's that dev blog Evil or Very Mad

JitaPriceChecker2
Posted - 2010.03.19 19:16:00 - [148]
 

Originally by: ISellThingz
Where's that dev blog Evil or Very Mad

SencneS
Rebellion Against Big Irreversible Dinks
Posted - 2010.03.19 19:26:00 - [149]
 

It's pretty simple here... The market is over supplied, Stop using buy orders as a determinative factor for demand!

It it NOT demand for usage. Buy orders for 2.1B units in Jita is NOT a good representation of demand for minerals that are used to make finished goods. Too many people trading in Minerals along with the massive supply ability has broken this aspect of. Traders gobble up hundreds of millions of units of Trit and Pyerite just so they can resell them at cost + broker fee + Tax + 4% profit. The issue is that those hundreds of millions of units purchased and sold don't make finished goods.

I would like CCP to ignore the purchased and sold amounts of minerals and look at minerals that are USED for manufacturing items. That is the real demand. Then look at how much minerals are being supplied.. If Supply is much greater then real demand, that needs to be fixed, not what is on SISI at the moment.

RootEmerger
Posted - 2010.03.19 20:38:00 - [150]
 

Originally by: Illectroculus Defined
Actually if you stop and think about what would be involved in replacing all drops with 'broken meta' drops you'd realise it's a whole lot of work for the devs. Basicly new items need to be added to the DB for every existing meta item, all the loot tables need adjusted and then we need a new type of manufacturing path added to the blueprint system, and of course facilities that work with this manufacturing path.


actually that's just a few db queries, a couple of man-work days at most - the major work would be the flavor text, not the db work...


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