open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: The Circle of Life
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 ... : last (24)

Author Topic

EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.03.31 14:27:00 - [361]
 

Edited by: EdFromHumanResources on 31/03/2010 14:30:04
So what will CCP do when the market begins to freefall as floating insurance prices that are linked to min cost drop since insurance costs are literally the only thing keeping mineral prices in check at this time?

I mean im down for cheap everything under the sun but I also have hordes of isk stocked up, be fun to play TQ like its sisi for me.

Btw for those who don't see a problem in this, when loss becomes irrelevant this game becomes WoW in space where killing a player means no more inconvenience than a few minutes of your time.

Manuka
Posted - 2010.03.31 14:39:00 - [362]
 

Originally by: Karonys
Originally by: Trimutius III
Idea

Add crew to loot tables instead of Meta 0. Like ships will drop people, that could be sold later on...


I like this idea a lot. It serves the same game mechanics function as dropping metal scraps, but it adds a little background story type flavor to the game. All the ships in this game that are larger than frigates are supposed to have non-capsuleer crews, but you never see anything about them in game.

I would personally also like to see a "crew size" listed in the attributes of a ship, even if it has zero in-game effect, but I digress.

Now what would happen if you reprocess the dropped crew members.....


EVE had crew drops in the beginning, but then the crews saw that capsuleers would reprocess them, and even if they survive the blast, they would commit suicide before being reprocessed.

Cang Zar
Posted - 2010.03.31 14:43:00 - [363]
 

If the extra tags are there to compensate for the value of the meta 0 drops.. It looks like high-sec missioning wont get touched at all, how much income do the meta 0 drops actually contribute to an average mission runner? 10%? (keeping the mission income where it is, is a good thing imo - I havent heard a "nerf high-sec" argument that made sense yet, and I've heard alot. I heard alot of boost low-sec arguments that made plenty sense though)

Anyway, I think t1 hulls costing basically nothing, is a good thing for eve in general, sure it means that it's mainly your character-skills that determine when you jump into a battleship or battlecruiser for pvp, it also that means that there are alot more big ships around these days than there used to be (the "good ol' days" to some), I dont really get why that's a problem, but whatever, imo it's not a bad thing. Isk loss is still dependent on what you fly (it's just the mods/rigs that dictate loss)
I honestly believe that the current insurance mechanic means more people are making the jump from high-sec carebear to pvp-noob.
The pros/rich fly t2 ships and fit faction stuff and have an advantage over the noobs/poor that way, but those that are more conservative with their pvp habits (and isk-losses), can get a taste and dont have to lose a bundle just to try it out or being entirely useless and actually get to fly something fun.

I think alot of people tend to forget just how poor you actually are when you start out, and dont have friends/network/whatever to help you out, fully insurable t1 ships goes a long way to compensate for that in my (ever so) humble opinion.

I really, really hope the mineral changes doesnt kill off mining completely, despite never having the heart for it myself (as I mainly grief high-sec), I think it should be a viable profession (on par with atleast level 3 missioning imo, preferbly somwhere between running 3s and 4s).

On the question of suicide ganking and insurance, I think removing the insurance if concord is on killmail is a fairly bad idea.. It'll probably do a little, but not much. I'd much rather like to see industrials made harder to suicide gank (++ armor/shields). And no, I dont mean it should be made impossible, but atleast it should require some small amount of *effort*, as it is now.. industrials are just complete noob-traps, noone with experience and in their right mind, would fly one with even slightly valuable cargo. I believe their were meant as a way for the newer players to haul around stuff maybe try out being haulers themselves, not just a surefire way of losing everything you've managed to accumulate in one fell swoop.

It's kinda hilarious how many people in this thread are convinced that only their way of playing the game should be enjoyable (or rather, should be the only way of playing the game), seems like alot of people are more busy with suggesting changes that would ruin other peoples enjoyment of the game, rather than pushing for stuff that'll actually make their own playstyle more fun (well, obviously the people who get enjoyment of ruining other peoples game, should have their niche as well.. doing it by suggesting changes and having ccp do it for you, will only lower the available targets for you to grief, but whatever).

gfldex
Posted - 2010.03.31 14:53:00 - [364]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

To give you some data: 75% of ships that were insured were platinum. Most ships were not insured with only battlecruisers, battleships and dreadnoughts being the most insured groups as a % of the total for each group.



How many of those 75% had any fittings on them? The whole discussion here in this thread is mood because we don't know how many ships are blown up to take advantage of the basket price of minerals and therefore defining the value of ISK relative to minerals.

That's in fact the main question. Does insurance payout for tec 1 ships define the basket price for minerals? If the answer to that question is "yes", tinkering with the insurance system is not only speculative but pure guess work. If you get that part wrong you can drive the income of a highsec miner down to the income of a ice miner.

Removing the mineral gain from tec 1 items might put a lot of stress on the highsec belts. It might offset the negative impact of a lower insurance payout (if there is any) or it might overshoot and make trit and esp. pyerite insanely expensive. As a result the value of all other mins will drop. With all consequences that might have. Right now the drop of meta 0 items makes quite a lot of the income from shooting NPCs in 0.0. If you fool around with those loot tables you might drive more ppl back to highsec (I will do just that or go for lvl5 missions.) because thanks to the LP reward NPCs in missions have kind of a double bounty. Is that your wish?

For CONCORD insurance, the problem lies not in the insurance payout but in the sec status hit. If you dwell in 0.0, fixing your sec status is not only fairly easy but even makes you quite a lot money. So even if you go unlucky and none of your targets drops anything, you will still be making some ISK while regaining your sec status. Hence the sec status hit is meaningless. That problem could be solved by scaling the bounty payout by the players sec status. Would make a few pirates unhappy ofc (those that don't run lvl5 missions.)

You and others stated that raising the price of a ship will disencourage ppl from using them. If that is true why where ppl buying Vagabonds for 450MISK? Or to qoute Torfi: "Balancing over price doesn't really work.".

Linda Flamewalker
Posted - 2010.03.31 14:54:00 - [365]
 

Originally by: Jimu Orgas

I didn't say it well: what I meant is not to increase the drops of Meta 1 to 4, but rather just to drop nothing rather than scrap metal.


They said earlier in the in the threat that due to how it works they cant just have it drop nothing so needed it to drop something or meta 1 to 4 would just drop a lot more. I dont know programing more then 10 print "hello" 20 goto 10 so i cant comment more.. but scroll back was on one of the early pages i think.

Ramman K'arojic
Posted - 2010.03.31 14:58:00 - [366]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
[quote=Matalino


How often will insurance costs/payouts be updated?

While a change in payout affect insurance that has already be purchased? For example if I pay 3mil to buy platinum insurance of 10mil, and the payout drops to 8mil before my insurance runs out, would I get the 10mil that I originally purchased, or would I only get the 8mil payout? If the payout increased to 12mil would I get the higher payout?




The insurance value changes occur semi-periodically, currently we are looking at between one and three months.

We have changed the insurance quote text to stress the payout is now estimated rather than fixed to answer the second question.



Why use an estimated rate - rather would not it be better to say that I have an agreed value of my ship and thats the insurance I am paying for it. Why should the customer be held responsible for devaluation?

Whilst on the subject: A cool 'feature' that would not be hard to develop be able to select the number of weeks desired with the insurance declining longer you go out.

If you wanted to be fancy the scales would not have to be the same for each class of ship. eg a T2 HAC may have a predicted life of 5 weeks so to insurance it for 10 weeks may not cost significant more, and even less (per week) for 20 weeks; this would be very different for a transport ship whos predicted life span is 12 weeks thus insurance for 26 weeks would scale roughly in line with the 10 week hac etc.


As for the payouts. Glad your looking at the risk profile of a given ship; Makes sense and about time.
Would that not denote that T2 industrial ships (inc Mac / Hulk / Orca?) have 80% return (20% rich bastard tax) as they are decidely non-combat linked.

Other combat ships are harder to classify. But generally speaking bigger the ship greater the payout - as they are supposedly the 'centre' of the fleet' and thus supposedly protected the most.

Ramman

Fearless M0F0
Incursion PWNAGE Asc
Posted - 2010.03.31 15:05:00 - [367]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether.



<tl;dr>keep insurance, removing payout if killed by CONCORD is bad idea</tl;dr>

In my first two weeks in this game, I didn't have a clue on how to make isk. Ran missions, ratted belts and mined for hours until I could buy my first cruiser (Vexor). I had a few beers to celebrate while salvaging around belts when I fat fingered F3 (Gun) and F4 (Tractor) on somebody's wreck (damn overview moved when targeting)... CONCORD didn't like that Laughing

I was devastated and in shock for losing 2 weeks of hard work. Then i remembered I had insured the cruiser so bought another vexor and recover most fits from wreck. Insurance was the only thing that kept me playing, there was no way I was going to grind another 2 weeks to get another cruiser Evil or Very Mad



EdFromHumanResources
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2010.03.31 15:10:00 - [368]
 

If you remove insurance for concord kills let us bribe concord to look the other way(Act as if the sec of the system is that of a lower sec system down to .5)

Cang Zar
Posted - 2010.03.31 15:13:00 - [369]
 

Edited by: Cang Zar on 31/03/2010 15:13:09
Originally by: Fearless M0F0
Originally by: CCP Chronotis

On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether.



<tl;dr>keep insurance, removing payout if killed by CONCORD is bad idea</tl;dr>

In my first two weeks in this game, I didn't have a clue on how to make isk. Ran missions, ratted belts and mined for hours until I could buy my first cruiser (Vexor). I had a few beers to celebrate while salvaging around belts when I fat fingered F3 (Gun) and F4 (Tractor) on somebody's wreck (damn overview moved when targeting)... CONCORD didn't like that Laughing

I was devastated and in shock for losing 2 weeks of hard work. Then i remembered I had insured the cruiser so bought another vexor and recover most fits from wreck. Insurance was the only thing that kept me playing, there was no way I was going to grind another 2 weeks to get another cruiser Evil or Very Mad



inb4

B..b...but, you ignored the pop-up warning you about concord! You deserved to lose your ship!


(hint: it doesnt matter, people would still leave)

inb4

B..b..b..but then they shouldnt play eve, it's supposed to be harsh and cruel and people die!

(hint: oh wtf, nevermind you'll never get it)

Fearless M0F0
Incursion PWNAGE Asc
Posted - 2010.03.31 15:27:00 - [370]
 

Originally by: Cang Zar

B..b...but, you ignored the pop-up warning you about concord! You deserved to lose your ship!



popup warning? wat popup warning? Shocked, there was no popup 2 years ago when I was noob... and I was pretty drunk too Laughing

- Removing insurance if killed by CONCORD is a bad idea: noobs make mistakes and will quit before their trial is over.
- Removing insurance if self-destruct is nonsense: I just get corp-mate to blow my ship or go to lvl 4 mission with no tank Rolling Eyes

Zathi Shaitan
Illiteracy Combatants
Posted - 2010.03.31 15:31:00 - [371]
 

Reimbursement changes are "only" 4 years late.
So, rejoice, they are finally doing what was asked a trillion times. *snicker*

You want me to clap or something?

Zathi Shaitan
Illiteracy Combatants
Posted - 2010.03.31 15:34:00 - [372]
 

Originally by: gfldex
in this thread is mood



"moot".

Dude, the "T" is not even near the "D".

Deej Montana
Caldari
Outbound Flight
Posted - 2010.03.31 15:37:00 - [373]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha

Making less roids to cap the daily faucet AND making them hard to macro is a very functional way to nerf macros.
The real players won't have much difficulty moving around and respond to changing dynamics, be it comets or whatever.



Oh really? Nice idea in theory I guess, but it's not like there's enough profit (not to mention how horridly DULL it would be) to justify moving a fleet of Hulks and Orcas around from system to system looking for some belts that haven't been mined out.

Please remember folks, this is a GAME. There are many people, me included, who pop on for an hour or two an evening to relax and have fun. These kinds of schemes don't add to the enjoyment, they only make Eve more like a second job that you pay $15 a month to participate in. The last thing I want to do is spend half of my limited game time staring at the back of my Orca waiting for it to align and warp as I fly all over hell and back to find a spot to set up a mining op.

Illectroculus Defined
No Bull Ships
Posted - 2010.03.31 15:38:00 - [374]
 

Originally by: Bado Sten
In general I think it looks great, but will there be a reseeding of asteroid belts in 0.0 to ensure that some high-end minerals are available for building? Now getting enough of this is dependant on processing meta0 loot

I live 50/50 in a Stain NPC 0.0 system and a Metropolis 0.2 system. Currently the low-sec empire system has actually way better mining than the 0.0 system with regards to getting zydrine.


Stealth NPC 0.0 space nerf incoming!
If you want those high ends in any quantity you're going to need to start scanning down grav sites, or maybe Wormholes with grav sites. If you live in some space where you can actually claim sov then the system upgrades can keep you supplied with high ends from grav sites, otherwise it's going to be a lot more hit and miss.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.31 16:01:00 - [375]
 

Originally by: Vanir Waelcyrge
The reduction in meta0 drops have a nice positive side effect in making the production of these items more worthwhile.


Wrong. Read the blog again. It is tweaks to the drop rates of the items that provide the majority of the reprocessed minerals... I read this as large BS rat drops. You'll get fewer 1400mm arty and fewer mega lasers, but reads to me like you will get just as many small cap boosters and shield extenders.




Originally by: Vanir Waelcyrge
But replacing them with scraps is a bit silly.


Read his later answer. It is a way of limiting this to a meta data change instead of a code change.



Originally by: Vanir Waelcyrge
I find it strange that insurance companies are accepting the constant loss of money. They should go bankrupt and disappear from the market.


Again, read the blog. Insurance is a game mechanic designed to encourage PVP by reimbursing a portion of the loss. Ignore the role play and focus on the intended effect.

Originally by: Vanir Waelcyrge

I propose a reduction in the amount of minerals needed for building ships. This reduction could be tailored to whatever the default payout is supposed to be for different ship types. This will lower the cost of the ship you are buying instead of the ship you will buy next.


Don't even need to do that. Just remove the insurance floor under the basket of minerals, prices will crash, and the ships will be cheaper. If bounties are left alone, then PVPers would have to do a lot less ratting/missioning to buy the ships. (or, actually, the same amount as now since they only have to pay for the fit and rigs now).


Quesa
D00M.
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.03.31 16:08:00 - [376]
 

Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Quesa
Horrible idea.

Look at it this way. Just about every step you take in the direction of removing steps that a pilot takes in preparing for battle, cheapens the game and removes risk.


Been playing the game for over 5 years now. I can honestly say having to go thru the process of insuring ships did not add the experience of my game play. It is a tedius process and unnecessary.

I would not miss it one bit if they got rid of the premiums and it was automatically done. Just like having to update your clone is a ******ed feature. It should be simply removed from the game.


It's all part of the risk of playing the game.

If you die, you need to go through a few steps to insure your investments don't vanish in front of your eyes. This game is founded upon little annoyances which when you put them all together make for a wildly popular game due to those extra steps and chance for real loss.

This thread is filled with people who want more for nothing. They want more insurance and don't want to pay for it. They want a stop to suicide ganking without even realizing that suicide ganking will take place even without insurance payouts.

Most people are too stupid to see how some of these changes will globally effect this game, whether positive or negative, and choose to give/hold support based on what they think will be cool for them in the next few months. While this thought process is cool when developing their own pilot/corp/alliance/space, it is not the process I wish for the developers to listen too.

Most of the people in this thread want to cheapen the game and turn it into a tropical island where everyone holds hands. When in reality, this game rose to it's popularity through vindictiveness, treachery, jealousy, misery and blood. If you want to play a game where there is no loss, go here.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.31 16:09:00 - [377]
 

Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha

EvE is in the awful situation where to the 30k players we got 270k pure farmers. A dead weight only useful because they bring in RL money.
If EvE was a real sandbox, you'd have somewhat less than 270k farmers, let's say 50% and 50%.



In all honesty.... What's it to you? Assuming you are a 0.0 player, what do you care if there are 30K total players, all of them in 0.0, or if there are 300K players with only 30K of them in 0.0?

DeODokktor
Caldari
Dark Templars
The Fonz Presidium
Posted - 2010.03.31 16:14:00 - [378]
 

Wow...
The insurance system sounds great..
I wish it would apply in real life...

Veyron only 9.99 per month to insure, and this accident only cost you 24.99 out of pocket..

or, you can be one of those sad bastages and drive something like this that cost 399.95 a month and an extra 89.99 out of pocket to fix!!! ....


As for minerals, I have a much easier solution....
INTRODUCE REFINING DELAYS, and only allow at most, 1 refining job to take place!!...

If it takes someone an hour to refine drone products, 2 hours to refine real items, and like 2 mins to refine raw ores... well... HMM.....

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.31 16:16:00 - [379]
 

Originally by: TheBlueMonkey
I'm hoping that you have removed Meta 0 from the loot table as well as reducing the amount loot dropped removeal rather than just saying "don't drop Meta 0 any more" and letting the other meta levels fill it's place.


Read the blog. Reduction in the drop rate of the items that were the source of the majority of reprocessed minerals. This is NOT an across the board removal, or even across the board reduction in the rate of meta 0 drops. It is a TARGETED reduction in the items that reprocessed into the most minerals.

Kenelm Winslow
Posted - 2010.03.31 16:16:00 - [380]
 

I realize that I'm very new to EVE, but this topic is interesting. I haven't had a chance (or time) to read every response to this thread, but I was wondering if it would make sense to tie insurance payout to sec status as well as ship cost. This, I think, would at least make it so a suicide gank would have to be against a valuable target, and not just rely on insurance to cover the loss.

I don't think this would be a huge change, but would be a small step in the right direction.

skye orionis
Posted - 2010.03.31 16:20:00 - [381]
 

Originally by: DeODokktor

As for minerals, I have a much easier solution....
INTRODUCE REFINING DELAYS, and only allow at most, 1 refining job to take place!!...

If it takes someone an hour to refine drone products, 2 hours to refine real items, and like 2 mins to refine raw ores... well... HMM.....

Introduce a new skill for multiple jobs for the people that really need to refine lots.
Then rebalance refining rates in NPC stations, I've never understood why the Caldari Navy have 50% refine capability while some of the mining corp stations only get 35%, this should be reversed, then the mission runners will have to deal with extra loot management logistics (want perfect refine in hi-sec? then you need to grind standings with a mining corp) or just take the hit on their mineral return.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.31 16:23:00 - [382]
 

Originally by: Wod
So, buy a cheap ship in region A.
Fly it to 0.0 where the markets are much higher.
Insure said ship
???
Profit.



Nope. Insurace will be based on Galaxy Wide weighted average mineral prices. It will cost the same and pay the same no matter where you buy the insurance or lose the ship. AND, it will always pay less than the cost of the minerals in the ship.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.31 16:29:00 - [383]
 

Originally by: Jimu Orgas

I didn't say it well: what I meant is not to increase the drops of Meta 1 to 4, but rather just to drop nothing rather than scrap metal.


I understand what you meant, but read CCP's answer as to why they added scrap. Adding scrap limits the needed change to just meta data. This is much easier to do, much easier to code, and FAR, FAR less likely to introduce bugs.

I agree, dropping nothing would be better than dropping scrap, from a player POV. No need to fly over to an empty wreck, but it is going to suck flying over to a wreck that has stuff in it, only to discover the "something" is nothing but scrap. But, that is a code change, not a meta data change.

Coding effort is ALWAYS a significant factor in determining what gets changed.

Nick Bete
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.03.31 16:35:00 - [384]
 

Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Vaerah Vahrokha

EvE is in the awful situation where to the 30k players we got 270k pure farmers. A dead weight only useful because they bring in RL money.
If EvE was a real sandbox, you'd have somewhat less than 270k farmers, let's say 50% and 50%.



In all honesty.... What's it to you? Assuming you are a 0.0 player, what do you care if there are 30K total players, all of them in 0.0, or if there are 300K players with only 30K of them in 0.0?



Cause Vaerah's one of the usual suspects who always shows up in those "carebear vs hardcore 0.0" threads who thinks everyone should play the game the same way she does.

Hey guys, newsflash: Just 'cause you may be good at pressing F1-F8 and read Battleclinic that doesn't make you smarter, faster, more hardcore, sexier etc. So you're good at playing a niche videogame. Freakin' yay. Get over yourselves you bigots.

Why is it that you never see the "carebears" trying to force mining/missioning/trading or moving to high sec on everyone else? It's because we don't give a damn how you choose to play, that's why. Also, you hard types seem to expend an awful lot of energy thinking about all us who are so "beneath" yourselves. Maybe it's all of you who need to HTFU?

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.31 16:36:00 - [385]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources

So what will CCP do when the market begins to freefall as floating insurance prices that are linked to min cost drop since insurance costs are literally the only thing keeping mineral prices in check at this time?


My guess is that they'll continue to reduce the rate of meta 0 drop. Fewer and fewer minerals coming from loot. More and more things not dropped by rats means more things for T1 manufacturers to build to drain mineral supply.

Eventually... we can hope, no loot drops at all. Make meta 1-4 come from invention. All minerals come from miners (and drones) and all modules come from players. NOW that is a player driven sandbox.

If we get to that point, and prices of minerals are still falling, then CCP should just let them drop until there are fewer people mining.

Zoraida
Posted - 2010.03.31 16:36:00 - [386]
 

Edited by: Zoraida on 31/03/2010 16:48:57
I think one of the biggest downfalls of mining and minerals, is mineral compression.
I have not taken the time to read every post in here, so please excuse me if i say
something that has already been mentioned.

I think mineral compression/reprocessing should be looked at, and a significant change
made. Rorquals, and compressed veldspar etc should be the norm for moving large quantities
of low ends, rather than tractor beams, capital parts, or ammo etc.

I think, that when you reprocess, you should immediately lose at least 25-50% of the minerals
of the minerals it took to make the item in the first place. One thing you could also do,
to get rid of any cap on pricing, is add a tag to items, such that if they are seeded vs purchased,
you get an even smaller amount of minerals returned on a reprocess.

This way you can avoid having people buying shuttles or some such from a npc to reprocess for
XXX minerals. I haven't done this, and it could be changed (and probably is by now), but I think
this could help. Of course, some balance will have to be applied, as prices would go up quite a bit
for ships etc.

I do like the idea of changing the mineral composition of roids to some extent, as long as you don't
overcompensate the high ends, with the low ends or vice versa.

edit: forgot about sizes... if you can fit X amount of Y in a container, how in the heck when you reprocess,
does it suddenly take up 3x-10x the amount of space?!

Lord's Prophet
Totally Abstract
O X I D E
Posted - 2010.03.31 16:51:00 - [387]
 

NPCs don't even sell shuttles anymore. Not since like 2k8. There's no way to get minerals from NPCs now except for insurance return -> market Rolling Eyes

Zoraida
Posted - 2010.03.31 16:58:00 - [388]
 

Ok, i didn't realize that :) I haven't bought one since way before then!
That explains why mineral costs have gone up a bit since i last remembered.
I quit for a while, and since Ive been back, pretty much been in 0.0 the whole
time.

Vhedrish Nell
Posted - 2010.03.31 17:09:00 - [389]
 

From the blog, "...reducing the quantity of the Tech 0 items being dropped and substituting it with a variation of scrap metals or tags."

And what will the scrap be used for if not to refine into minerals? And tags? Tags are one of the things that I consider very broken about this game, and for much the same reason mission loot refining "breaks" mineral prices. Their value is largely a consequence not of how challenging the ship that dropped them is, but the frequency of that ship's occurrence in missions. Of course it's not tags themselves that are broken; rather how they're used in the LP stores. Remove tags as a requirement for LP turn-ins and simply have NPC demand to give them worth.

Zoraida
Posted - 2010.03.31 17:18:00 - [390]
 

Originally by: Vhedrish Nell
From the blog, "...reducing the quantity of the Tech 0 items being dropped and substituting it with a variation of scrap metals or tags."

And what will the scrap be used for if not to refine into minerals? And tags? Tags are one of the things that I consider very broken about this game, and for much the same reason mission loot refining "breaks" mineral prices. Their value is largely a consequence not of how challenging the ship that dropped them is, but the frequency of that ship's occurrence in missions. Of course it's not tags themselves that are broken; rather how they're used in the LP stores. Remove tags as a requirement for LP turn-ins and simply have NPC demand to give them worth.


my point is not to get rid of reprocessing for minerals. My point is to have a loss from doing so...
if it takes 100 tritanium to make X, when you reprocess X, you should not get back that 100 - station tax. I think it should be more like 75 less any station taxes, or skill related decreases. So with perfect skills, you might be looking at 75% of original - taxes.


Pages: first : previous : ... 9 10 11 12 [13] 14 15 16 17 ... : last (24)

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