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 : ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... : last (24)

Author Topic

ChrisIsherwood
Posted - 2010.03.31 17:19:00 - [391]
 

Edited by: ChrisIsherwood on 31/03/2010 17:34:55
Will there still be non-platinum insurance? and why? I can understand not insuring but don't see why you would insure for less than platinum?

At the least, while you are in this code, would you make platinum the default on the dialog box?

Although the no premium idea seems best - getting 70% is financially the same and simpler than paying 30% to get 100%.

Illectroculus Defined
No Bull Ships
Posted - 2010.03.31 17:22:00 - [392]
 

So we're getting tags and scrap instead of meta-0 loot - while we're looking at loot tables any chance we could get back Pirate Logs and Civillian afterburners? What about Meta-x Basic modules?

And why make scrap metal drop inside the wrecks, why not just bump the amount received from salvaging?

BTW - I'm really happy to read this blog, glad to see it's not just the standalone insurance changes that were going to set us on the road to the mineralpocalypse on their own, there's at least a decent hope that all this will balance out.

L'Petit Object
Posted - 2010.03.31 17:26:00 - [393]
 

Changes sound great!

And obviously, yes, remove insurance buying system completely. Take the button off the screen, don't offer any of it. In the mail that offers you the IBIS, also have a "Thank for your service in the Caldari/Amarr/etc., State/Empire/etc., We are sorry to hear of your loss, and blah blah blah.

This is one of those things that is tedium vs. intricacy.
Tedium: must do it always, fill out the paper work, same result every time, always do the same thing. Of course I'm going to insure for platinum, I'm a new char and I operate in lowsec: 165 million for 41 million isk is called free money. The ship will be lost, duh.

There is nothing dynamic about fiddling around with insurance. The only people who don't buy it are weird, and the only people who buy less than platinum are either broke or ignorant.

So, yes, remove it.
And the clone update thing too. Jump clones are interesting, but the quality of my clone? ISK sink for death? but payout for death? could link insurance payout to skillpoints, or might as well.

payout=(median+avg value/2)xSP/10mil. The SP/10mil could be tweaked to never be greater than one, I don't know what the word would be for that. Older players are rewarded less for losing ships. Woo! Screw you older players =P. But you're usually rich as hell and so it won't matter to you.

Desperately need a mini-game for mining. Like scanning, or whatever. Make it dynamic and interesting. The norm is bad because you get macro miners, and its bad because its not entertaining at all. If doom predictors for mineral prices are correct, then this could be vital.

Amaurotique
Posted - 2010.03.31 17:39:00 - [394]
 

Edited by: Amaurotique on 31/03/2010 17:45:46

Quite a frightening patch. Considering the mechanics behind the economy and how volatile it is, as well as looking at 14 pages of people all coming to different (and often very valid) conclusions based on the exact same facts... this leads me to believe that the majority of this patch is going to be set on guesswork and theoretical data. The problem is that if things don't work the way CCP intends and they can't re-patch (or possibly roll back if it hurts the economy too badly) the game to a state where a large majority of players are screwed out of being able to do what they enjoy, EVE could lose a LOT of players. :( Having come from Shadowbane (a now defunct hardcore PVP MMO that was outstanding) where constant game-breaking changes eventually drove off the majority of the players leaving on the most devoted of fans, I fear the same might happen to EVE. Going through all the previous patch notes... I have to say this is the biggest change EVE has seen and certainly has the possibility of being the most destructive.

In any case, I wouldn't mind seeing the removal of premium purchases and instead the payout simply kicked down to an appropriate level. That and clone upgrades are two completely pointless mechanics that are not only irritating but serve as a great way to get people to quit playing if they forget to keep up with them. And in a pvp oriented MMO, I'd like to see as many faces around to pew pew as possible, if ya don't mind. >_> YARRRR!!

On a side note- to all the people saying that getting rid of insurance would make pvp better, blah blah... just wait. If they get rid of insurance than only the most hardcore of PVPers and the players with the most money will stick around. Take a look at how large the EVE map is. Now imagine, if you had your way, that map being populated by <5000 people. :-P I learned a long time ago that it helps to cater, just a little, to the carebears (so long as it doesn't change the purpose of the game away from PVP) as in the end our enjoyment is based a great deal on how many people are available to fight. What's the point of an amazing fight and loss mechanic if you have to fly for 5+ hours to find just 1 person to kill?

Banlish
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas.
Posted - 2010.03.31 17:46:00 - [395]
 

Edited by: Banlish on 31/03/2010 17:48:13
Edited by: Banlish on 31/03/2010 17:46:37


Personally I'd like to see insurance removed utterly. It makes no sense whatsoever and has been one of the reasons the game markets are so messed up.

I apologize that many people in the game are usually 'broke', but tech 2 and tech 3 should in cure a loss when you get blown to bits. There's a reason people aren't all flying these ships and going crazy.

Battles shouldn't be 'everyone' gets a chance to fly everything. They should have to work for it, and work more then a few minutes. If someone can't figure out how to make a few hundred mill in a night once or twice a week shouldn't be catered to and 'hand held'. This isn't WoW after all using the best ships means you 'might' get more kills, do more damage and be a terror on the killboard of you enemy. It should be a blow to my wallet when it's lost and make me debate using the thing like a beater car I buy for $750.

I used to think insurance was a good thing, after I think 5 months in game that was no longer the case and I haven't insured even my capitals in a year or two. There's just no point and this ISK GENERATOR in the game should be REMOVED.

Make combat mean something, you can't fight blob warfare via the servers currently. You CAN reduce the blob a bit by getting people off the front lines via economic warfare. Please bring that BACK to the game. Give a reason for people to learn how to make money and take off those training wheels.

Respectfully

-Banlish


EDIT: removed some color.

unwitting destruction
Posted - 2010.03.31 17:50:00 - [396]
 

Edited by: unwitting destruction on 31/03/2010 17:53:54

Originally by: Banlish
Edited by: Banlish on 31/03/2010 17:46:37


Personally I'd like to see insurance removed utterly. It makes no sense whatsoever and has been one of the reasons the game markets are so messed up.

I apologize that many people in the game are usually 'broke', but tech 2 and tech 3 should in cure a loss when you get blown to bits. There's a reason people aren't all flying these ships and going crazy.

Battles shouldn't be 'everyone' gets a chance to fly everything. They should have to work for it, and work more then a few minutes. If someone can't figure out how to make a few hundred mill in a night once or twice a week shouldn't be catered to and 'hand held'. This isn't WoW after all using the best ships means you 'might' get more kills, do more damage and be a terror on the killboard of you enemy. It should be a blow to my wallet when it's lost and make me debate using the thing like a beater car I buy for $750.

I used to think insurance was a good thing, after I think 5 months in game that was no longer the case and I haven't insured even my capitals in a year or two. There's just no point and this money sink in the game should be REMOVED.

Make combat mean something, you can't fight blob warfare via the servers currently. You CAN reduce the blob a bit by getting people off the front lines via economic warfare. Please bring that BACK to the game. Give a reason for people to learn how to make money and take off those training wheels.

Respectfully

-Banlish


EDIT: removed some color.


I'd agree with you except that I would prefer not to put the population of EVE through a "weeding" process like that. Something that drastic could lead to a very LARGE portion of the EVE community leaving. If they do ever remove the insurance mechanic, I hope they at least reduce the number of available systems in the game to make up for the decrease in the game community. I wouldn't mind only the niche crowd remaining so long as they are easy to find and I don't have to hop 50 jumps to find 1 out of 3000 online players lol

Edit: I'd also like to avoid having to become a complete carebear just to fund weekly pvp. 0_o

Banlish
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas.
Posted - 2010.03.31 18:04:00 - [397]
 

Originally by: unwitting destruction
Edited by: unwitting destruction on 31/03/2010 17:53:54

Originally by: Banlish
Edited by: Banlish on 31/03/2010 17:46:37


Personally I'd like to see insurance removed utterly. It makes no sense whatsoever and has been one of the reasons the game markets are so messed up.

I apologize that many people in the game are usually 'broke', but tech 2 and tech 3 should in cure a loss when you get blown to bits. There's a reason people aren't all flying these ships and going crazy.

Battles shouldn't be 'everyone' gets a chance to fly everything. They should have to work for it, and work more then a few minutes. If someone can't figure out how to make a few hundred mill in a night once or twice a week shouldn't be catered to and 'hand held'. This isn't WoW after all using the best ships means you 'might' get more kills, do more damage and be a terror on the killboard of you enemy. It should be a blow to my wallet when it's lost and make me debate using the thing like a beater car I buy for $750.

I used to think insurance was a good thing, after I think 5 months in game that was no longer the case and I haven't insured even my capitals in a year or two. There's just no point and this money sink in the game should be REMOVED.

Make combat mean something, you can't fight blob warfare via the servers currently. You CAN reduce the blob a bit by getting people off the front lines via economic warfare. Please bring that BACK to the game. Give a reason for people to learn how to make money and take off those training wheels.

Respectfully

-Banlish


EDIT: removed some color.


I'd agree with you except that I would prefer not to put the population of EVE through a "weeding" process like that. Something that drastic could lead to a very LARGE portion of the EVE community leaving. If they do ever remove the insurance mechanic, I hope they at least reduce the number of available systems in the game to make up for the decrease in the game community. I wouldn't mind only the niche crowd remaining so long as they are easy to find and I don't have to hop 50 jumps to find 1 out of 3000 online players lol

Edit: I'd also like to avoid having to become a complete carebear just to fund weekly pvp. 0_o



Even a single frigate with a single scrambler can help blow a 2 billion+ isk ship to pieces. That shouldn't be a 'oh darn, I'll just get a new one' EVER. If they want an easy experience they should learn to make isk passivily (Trading, Manufacturing, Researching, or EVE should introduce a few more ways for players to make isk with for planning. Like plantary mining,... oh wait.

I'm not saying we should punish players, I'm saying that everyone being 'equal' is a stupid thing in a game such as EVE. If I work really hard with my character and setup something to make me a few billion a month, I damn well don't want a player who plays 25 hours ONCE to keep pace with me. Why? He can insure his ship and basically never have to do anything 'work' wise for months if he wants YET he'd still be able to fly battleships over and over again. Now they want to extend that to tech 2 & 3? No.

If super capitals aren't going to be giving out much of anything then neither should the people down the chain. Yes CCP will have to balance it against their income sheet and people 'might' leave, OR it'll create an environment where people who hate that everyone is equal will come here to do something. EVE going down the road of 'Everyone should be equal and use all ships, and never take losses is a dangerous road right into mediocrity. When everyone can do everything you get that Starwars scenario where everyone could be Jedi and the game broke and died. Why are we at ALL following that model?


LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.31 18:06:00 - [398]
 

Originally by: Amaurotique
this leads me to believe that the majority of this patch is going to be set on guesswork and theoretical data. The problem is that if things don't work the way CCP intends and they can't re-patch (or possibly roll back if it hurts the economy too badly) the game to a state where a large majority of players are screwed out of being able to do what they enjoy, EVE could lose a LOT of players.


Most of the changes appear to be meta data based, so they can constantly be tweaked without a true patch.

"start" with reducing the meta 0 drops of the few tables responsible for most of the changes. Mineral prices start to crash, they can just make another meta data change to further reduce rat drops. Soon, not just BSs will be dropping scrap instead of loot. BCs, CRs, even frigs. Instead of 50% reduction in drop (pure hypothetical) they could make it a 75% reduction. 90% reduction. Heck, with just meta data changes, they could take drops of items to 0, enabling T1 manufacturing of that item.

Further changes to drone poo.

Further changes to minerals from 0.0 and low ores.

And of course, the big one... insurance. They are not going to update the prices on a regular basis, and they are going to "trim" the transactions. What is to say they can't "fudge" the numbers to prevent the floor from falling out from under insurance.

And, with the dynamic ship class multiplier, they just need one ship class to pay back more in insurance than minerals to again enable the insurance exchange floor under the basket. It won't take long for the hard core macroers to figure out the way to convert their minerals into ISK.

Obsidian Hawk
RONA Corporation
RONA Directorate
Posted - 2010.03.31 18:08:00 - [399]
 

Ok now my 2 cents.

I like it.

now the question is, how are insurance rates going to be determined?is it going to be from an overall market value of ships. IE average between the 65 different regions in eve, or are you going to collect ship average values from empire space?

Personally it should be taken from averages in empire space so jackasses in 0.0 space dont inflate the insurence by selling billion isk battleships and battlecruisers.

next point.

platinum shoudl cover 80% of the hull value, that includes tech 2 and tech 3 and basic capitals. As anyone who actually flies tech 2 and tech 3, your modules can often cost up to the full value of the ship, i know the modules on my carrier and the fighters are worth just as much as my carrier itself. for those who dont fly capitals let me give you a good run down of costs

carrier ~650 million
10 fighters ~ 200 million
60 misc drones - 20-80 million
faction smartbombs 30-89 million
dark blood heavy neuts 80-90 million each
faction / dedspace invuln / eanm 100-350 million
capital reppers 20 million each
rigs - 45 million
isotopes - 10 million

So yes, we need our capital insurence for basic capitals. Anyway moving on

Super capital insurence. eh 50% i mean you have to give them something for having the balls to go out onto the field with an officer fit super cap.

loot drops
reduce the meta 0 drop rate by 90%

compounds
25% reduction in refine output.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.31 18:11:00 - [400]
 

Originally by: unwitting destruction
Edit: I'd also like to avoid having to become a complete carebear just to fund weekly pvp. 0_o


Here is the rub... What is the fear of removing insurnace? Removing the floor under mineral prices. What would the result of that be? Falling ship prices.

As long as bounties are not reduced, that means LESS mission running or ratting to get the the ISK needed to replace your losses.

I keep hearing how it is macros that dump too many minerals onto the market. In that case, we NEED to let mineral prices crash, if nothing else, to get rid of the macros.

Players that don't macro will just have to pick a profession that is less macro-able. OR, better yet, CCP will have to get a lot more serious about going after macros so that non-macros can make a living at it.

unwitting destruction
Posted - 2010.03.31 18:15:00 - [401]
 

Originally by: Banlish



Even a single frigate with a single scrambler can help blow a 2 billion+ isk ship to pieces. That shouldn't be a 'oh darn, I'll just get a new one' EVER. If they want an easy experience they should learn to make isk passivily (Trading, Manufacturing, Researching, or EVE should introduce a few more ways for players to make isk with for planning. Like plantary mining,... oh wait.

I'm not saying we should punish players, I'm saying that everyone being 'equal' is a stupid thing in a game such as EVE. If I work really hard with my character and setup something to make me a few billion a month, I damn well don't want a player who plays 25 hours ONCE to keep pace with me. Why? He can insure his ship and basically never have to do anything 'work' wise for months if he wants YET he'd still be able to fly battleships over and over again. Now they want to extend that to tech 2 & 3? No.

If super capitals aren't going to be giving out much of anything then neither should the people down the chain. Yes CCP will have to balance it against their income sheet and people 'might' leave, OR it'll create an environment where people who hate that everyone is equal will come here to do something. EVE going down the road of 'Everyone should be equal and use all ships, and never take losses is a dangerous road right into mediocrity. When everyone can do everything you get that Starwars scenario where everyone could be Jedi and the game broke and died. Why are we at ALL following that model?




That's fine and all as long as you understand the ramifications of turning this game into "work" for people who don't want that. I suppose in the end I'd learn to cope with what you are saying, understanding that I have to labor in this game the same as I do in real life... but that is because I enjoy PVP and this is one of the very few niche pvp games available. However, I don't like the idea of losing the people who want to PLAY and RELAX as opposed to work. There is a lot to be said about making certain tasks worthwhile to perform, but at the same time there is more to be said for not losing a large portion of the game by turning it true hardcore.

Either way, though, as I said earlier: as long as they reduce the number of systems to match the number of players left over after that change so that I can still find people to fight with easily enough, I'll keep playing till I run out of isk. :) But if they made that change and left the universe the size that it is (so you could end up with more systems than total players) I'm fairly certain I wouldn't be able to keep playing lol.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.31 18:17:00 - [402]
 

Originally by: Obsidian Hawk
now the question is, how are insurance rates going to be determined?is it going to be from an overall market value of ships. IE average between the 65 different regions in eve, or are you going to collect ship average values from empire space?


Answered in the intial blog.

"ship insurance will now revalue itself periodically based on a trimmed mean of the ship's manufacturing materials global market weighted average prices."

Not the price of the ship. The price of the raw goods used to manufacture the ship, and yes, across all regions.

In this case, Galatic would be a much better adjetive than Global... but I can let that go.


Originally by: Obsidian Hawk
loot drops
reduce the meta 0 drop rate by 90%



Read the blog again. This is not an across the board reduction of meta 0 drop. It is targeted at the "core set of loot tables which are responsible for contributing to the majority of the NPC loot sourced minerals".

The BSs will drop scrap instead of large turrets, but the frigs and cruisers will still be flooding the markets with small and medium meta 0 loot.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.03.31 18:21:00 - [403]
 

Originally by: Fearless M0F0
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


You were really drunk as there was the pop-up warning.

It was there already 4 years ago when I started playing.

unwitting destruction
Posted - 2010.03.31 18:22:00 - [404]
 

Originally by: LHA Tarawa

OR, better yet, CCP will have to get a lot more serious about going after macros so that non-macros can make a living at it.


That's what I would like to see. Rather than punishing PvP players in the hopes that it will either A) Force ship prices down or B) Make enough people quit that the game eventually closes, it would be nice to see more mechanics put into the game to stop macroing while not making mining completely unbearable. There is a lot to be said about drunk mining, so all I ask is that they don't go with one of the previous suggestions of involving math questions in the process. >_>

Perhaps a small box that appears when your activation is 70% complete that is made up of 4 squares, where one square is randomly lit up each activation and you must click that square. If you click the wrong one it turns off the auto-reactivation of your miner so that you have reactivate it. By doing this, macroers couldn't just make the mouse click randomly hoping to hit one of the square and if they pre-plan to fail and have the macro click the activation button, they might accidentally get it right and shut down their miner. =D

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.03.31 18:40:00 - [405]
 

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.


Scrap metal produce tritanium. So it reduce veldspater value, pushing people to mine different rocks, and the "different rocks" are being buffed in low sec-0.0.

Beside the programming reasons it is one of the usual "push miners in unsafe zones" attempts.

Almost certainly it will have the same result of the past attempts.

Cang Zar
Posted - 2010.03.31 18:40:00 - [406]
 

Originally by: Banlish

Even a single frigate with a single scrambler can help blow a 2 billion+ isk ship to pieces. That shouldn't be a 'oh darn, I'll just get a new one' EVER. If they want an easy experience they should learn to make isk passivily (Trading, Manufacturing, Researching, or EVE should introduce a few more ways for players to make isk with for planning. Like plantary mining,... oh wait.

I'm not saying we should punish players, I'm saying that everyone being 'equal' is a stupid thing in a game such as EVE. If I work really hard with my character and setup something to make me a few billion a month, I damn well don't want a player who plays 25 hours ONCE to keep pace with me. Why? He can insure his ship and basically never have to do anything 'work' wise for months if he wants YET he'd still be able to fly battleships over and over again. Now they want to extend that to tech 2 & 3? No.

If super capitals aren't going to be giving out much of anything then neither should the people down the chain. Yes CCP will have to balance it against their income sheet and people 'might' leave, OR it'll create an environment where people who hate that everyone is equal will come here to do something. EVE going down the road of 'Everyone should be equal and use all ships, and never take losses is a dangerous road right into mediocrity. When everyone can do everything you get that Starwars scenario where everyone could be Jedi and the game broke and died. Why are we at ALL following that model?




So, what you're saying is that losses should mean something for everyone - except for those that have the skillpoints/industrial-setup/lottery-BPOs and isk already? So in addition to having fewer skillpoints, less understanding of game-mechanics, noobs also need to fly rifters to be able to afford to pvp? Gee, that sounds SUPER fun for the new guys.

Clue-bat; it's already like that.. The change you're proposing is only going to make it even MORE like that. Some people can afford to lose literally thousands of recons and hacs, faction fitted, new guys can afford the fittings/rigs for maybe a couple of battlecruisers - this is a very favorable situation for the wealthy/skillpoint-heavy players.

You're proposing making this (already pretty significant) effect worse... We could just do away with all the ship-stuff instead though, and just measure wallets, and decide who wins EVE by that, sound cool?

Making losses matter even more, to those that it currently actually matter to (new/poor guys) is about as horrible an idea as I've seen on eve-o, since I started reading here - bad idea in terms of practically anything, from bringing in new players, to filling up low-sec, to having more than 10% of the players give a **** about what happens in 0.0, to stabilizing the economy, to incentivising a move to 0-sec.

Eve is not going down any mediocrity-roads, because t1 ships are insurable, and your star wars analogy is completely ridiculous, it's not even close to being the same thing, it's not even in the ball-park, gimme a effing break.


(just for the record, I'm not saying isk shouldnt matter.. I'm saying it matters ALOT now, and if anything imo it shouldnt matter more)

Jarne
Caldari
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations
Posted - 2010.03.31 18:41:00 - [407]
 

Two comments:

1.) Why not just remove meta 0 modules from loot drops and set the reprocessing results of higher meta (>0, except T2) modules to zero? Meta modules cannot be produced, thus this removes the competition between mining and looting.

2.) Regarding the new insurance system, wouldn't this make some sort of speculation possible? Like, building/buying ships cheap, insuring them, then driving the price of some high end minerals up, waiting for the insurance payout to adapt (i.e., rise), than destroy all the ship for insurance? Admittedly, I can't think of any way to circumvent this, except by paying out minerals as insurance (which would again make mining less profitable probably) or by remembering the insurance payout at the time a ship is constructed (which is impossible because ships only get "unique" the time they are assembled, and this can be done at any time the owner choses)...

Syrous Tlesta
Posted - 2010.03.31 18:46:00 - [408]
 

Originally by: Cang Zar
Originally by: Banlish

Even a single frigate with a single scrambler can help blow a 2 billion+ isk ship to pieces. That shouldn't be a 'oh darn, I'll just get a new one' EVER. If they want an easy experience they should learn to make isk passivily (Trading, Manufacturing, Researching, or EVE should introduce a few more ways for players to make isk with for planning. Like plantary mining,... oh wait.

I'm not saying we should punish players, I'm saying that everyone being 'equal' is a stupid thing in a game such as EVE. If I work really hard with my character and setup something to make me a few billion a month, I damn well don't want a player who plays 25 hours ONCE to keep pace with me. Why? He can insure his ship and basically never have to do anything 'work' wise for months if he wants YET he'd still be able to fly battleships over and over again. Now they want to extend that to tech 2 & 3? No.

If super capitals aren't going to be giving out much of anything then neither should the people down the chain. Yes CCP will have to balance it against their income sheet and people 'might' leave, OR it'll create an environment where people who hate that everyone is equal will come here to do something. EVE going down the road of 'Everyone should be equal and use all ships, and never take losses is a dangerous road right into mediocrity. When everyone can do everything you get that Starwars scenario where everyone could be Jedi and the game broke and died. Why are we at ALL following that model?




So, what you're saying is that losses should mean something for everyone - except for those that have the skillpoints/industrial-setup/lottery-BPOs and isk already? So in addition to having fewer skillpoints, less understanding of game-mechanics, noobs also need to fly rifters to be able to afford to pvp? Gee, that sounds SUPER fun for the new guys.

Clue-bat; it's already like that.. The change you're proposing is only going to make it even MORE like that. Some people can afford to lose literally thousands of recons and hacs, faction fitted, new guys can afford the fittings/rigs for maybe a couple of battlecruisers - this is a very favorable situation for the wealthy/skillpoint-heavy players.

You're proposing making this (already pretty significant) effect worse... We could just do away with all the ship-stuff instead though, and just measure wallets, and decide who wins EVE by that, sound cool?

Making losses matter even more, to those that it currently actually matter to (new/poor guys) is about as horrible an idea as I've seen on eve-o, since I started reading here - bad idea in terms of practically anything, from bringing in new players, to filling up low-sec, to having more than 10% of the players give a **** about what happens in 0.0, to stabilizing the economy, to incentivising a move to 0-sec.

Eve is not going down any mediocrity-roads, because t1 ships are insurable, and your star wars analogy is completely ridiculous, it's not even close to being the same thing, it's not even in the ball-park, gimme a effing break.


(just for the record, I'm not saying isk shouldnt matter.. I'm saying it matters ALOT now, and if anything imo it shouldnt matter more)


I couldn't agree more. :) Well said.

Mashie Saldana
Minmatar
Veto Corp
Posted - 2010.03.31 18:53:00 - [409]
 

Originally by: EdFromHumanResources
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.

Even if the ships will be cheaper they will still cost more than just new fittings to replace. Today the _only_ cost associated with a ship loss is the fittings and with some market-fu you can even get that covered by the insurance.

TheLostPenguin
Posted - 2010.03.31 19:03:00 - [410]
 

Originally by: unwitting destruction
Originally by: LHA Tarawa

OR, better yet, CCP will have to get a lot more serious about going after macros so that non-macros can make a living at it.


That's what I would like to see. Rather than punishing PvP players in the hopes that it will either A) Force ship prices down or B) Make enough people quit that the game eventually closes, it would be nice to see more mechanics put into the game to stop macroing while not making mining completely unbearable. There is a lot to be said about drunk mining, so all I ask is that they don't go with one of the previous suggestions of involving math questions in the process. >_>

Perhaps a small box that appears when your activation is 70% complete that is made up of 4 squares, where one square is randomly lit up each activation and you must click that square. If you click the wrong one it turns off the auto-reactivation of your miner so that you have reactivate it. By doing this, macroers couldn't just make the mouse click randomly hoping to hit one of the square and if they pre-plan to fail and have the macro click the activation button, they might accidentally get it right and shut down their miner. =D


With regards to this and various other suggestions that part of the way to tackle the macroers (that we all know to be a large part of the mining problem) is to introduce some sort of minigame to keep your strips running has a large flaw:anything that revolves around relatively simple colour/shape patterns can be macroed w/o too much extra effort. Ok its not something everyone can set up, but writing your macro to deal with these measures is a one-time only task for the macroer unless CCP were to constantly keep revising them (which I REALLY don't see happening). Really to make this idea work it needs to involve moderately complex geometry/patterns that it will be much harder for software to parse, whilst not being a complete nightmare for the poor old drunk miners to keep track of (and drunk miners are a good thing, they screw up in the funniest ways Very Happy ). Don't get me wrong I'm all for measures to counter macromining and would be happy to see something along these lines implemented PROPERLY, but I guess CCP have recognised the major headache in trying to balance something like this and have just given up the idea as likely to achieve nothing bar annoying genuine players Sad.

Only thing is I don't think this goes far enough as it is with respect to removing melted loot as a source of minerals, but at least it's a start and clear indication that CCP recognise this is one of the problems needing addressing.

Banlish
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas.
Posted - 2010.03.31 19:05:00 - [411]
 

Originally by: Cang Zar
Originally by: Banlish




So, what you're saying is that losses should mean something for everyone - except for those that have the skillpoints/industrial-setup/lottery-BPOs and isk already? So in addition to having fewer skillpoints, less understanding of game-mechanics, noobs also need to fly rifters to be able to afford to pvp? Gee, that sounds SUPER fun for the new guys.

Clue-bat; it's already like that.. The change you're proposing is only going to make it even MORE like that. Some people can afford to lose literally thousands of recons and hacs, faction fitted, new guys can afford the fittings/rigs for maybe a couple of battlecruisers - this is a very favorable situation for the wealthy/skillpoint-heavy players.

You're proposing making this (already pretty significant) effect worse... We could just do away with all the ship-stuff instead though, and just measure wallets, and decide who wins EVE by that, sound cool?

Making losses matter even more, to those that it currently actually matter to (new/poor guys) is about as horrible an idea as I've seen on eve-o, since I started reading here - bad idea in terms of practically anything, from bringing in new players, to filling up low-sec, to having more than 10% of the players give a **** about what happens in 0.0, to stabilizing the economy, to incentivising a move to 0-sec.

Eve is not going down any mediocrity-roads, because t1 ships are insurable, and your star wars analogy is completely ridiculous, it's not even close to being the same thing, it's not even in the ball-park, gimme a effing break.


(just for the record, I'm not saying isk shouldnt matter.. I'm saying it matters ALOT now, and if anything imo it shouldnt matter more)


Wow, go a tad more off the deep end about isk.

Here's a simple fix, make insurance only useable for the first 18months of a characters life. Problem solved. And people saying "but what if I buy a character that's older" if you can afford a character you can afford insurance.

EVE isn't meant to be 'easy mode' what your spouting sounds tremendously like WoW. If you want an 'easy' game where you don't have to try, simply go play it.

And no it ISN'T like that here. We even have IPO's and business models where people sell ships below insurance cost for others to self destruct en-mass to commit insurance fraud.

And to think the 'new/poor' guys are going to be so hurt, boo effing hoo. Go to ANY 0.0 region now with a corp and make piles of isk per hour running anoms with corpmates. I hear of tons of corps daily making 200 to 300 mill in tax alone because their pilots are making so much.

Yet, you want to keep training wheels going for people that refuse to learn some basic methods to make isk. No, sorry, get a freaking clue you can make money in so many ways it's LITTERALLY disgusting. Keeping one int the game that is so easily fixed is just adding to that stupidity.

Even new players that sit there for a few months (which the game forces them to with almost no skill points) most learn how to make isk. But no, lets focus on the players that are perpetually poor, barely play, barely put in any time, don't support their corp or anything reasonable. Yes, lets FOCUS on them because Johny plays-once-a-month-for-an-hour should be catered to. No. God damn no, I've seen really dumb replies in my day, but yours is the worst. Isk is filtering down on the player base like crazy, ship fraud is stupidily high, and the mineral markets are pushed down because of so much 'extra' isk in the market. No, your right, lets continue to reward players for nothing and make risk almost non-existant. That's a MUCH better path. Smash yourself in the face with your own Clue-bat it might work on you.

Jason Rebourne
Posted - 2010.03.31 19:21:00 - [412]
 

The problem with changing a whole system it effects things going forward. I am sure the people that are in love with the changes ro dont want insurance or dont want this or that already have it or are capable of still gettingit easilly. What about going forward and the new people thatmight want to lay the game? Put them even further behind the 8 ball by putting the peopel who can make these things in charge of setting the market prices and more than likely setting them so high so that a new player may become discouraged?

Everything is about perspective, and from reading a lot of the comments that is really obvious. And the fact that people all can come to so many different conclusions from all the same facts shows that this wont work, or people are good at spinning things to make them work in their little realm of perspective. Niether of which is probably a positive.

What I know is that for the past few months this game has seen a lot of growth and a lot more players playing it than ever before. Coincidence? Probably not. So what I see is that the IER 'exploit' created a semi-stable and still competitive market.

Builders had a constant and predictable source of income, albeit NPC supported but nonetheless. And miners and researchers had a cosntant demand for their ore, minerals and BPs. So while some see IER as a bane, I see it as a sort of necessary evil, a way to help support an economy that isnt nearly as clever as people think it is.

So while osme of the changes may help a little it will still come down to supply and demand. Supply will not be an issue over supply will especially if the macro miners arent addressed. Demand is goign to be the big question mark. Where will thedemand be? Most larger corps will be self sufficient, but it is the general market and traders that will have to really look for a demand somewhere. And while people will say competition is good or thinning out the competition is good. I somehow dont think CCP wants to lose subscribers in order to balance their economy. Which may actually happen if this turns out like more thana few people think.

Like I said I dont think it is a coincidence that there are more people playing now than ever. And that people have more to do now than ever simply because the market and economy are thriving. Has nothing to do with the prices per unit, that is immaterial, but the fact that the demand for many things is still there. And that there is still a profit to be made despite people thinking items are 'too cheap' or 'too expensive'. Those things arent guaranteed with the changed suggested here.

Time will tell thats for sure,and some peopel will adapt, others wont. I just hate to think the game might lose people, which may snowball, if the changes made effect their perspective enough as to make them think the game isnt worth playing anymore.

Becaue these are some wide sweeping changes that effect the major playing aspect of the game...PvP, trade/economy, manufactoring, mining, and mission running. So that is a large swath of people that are goign to be effected. And thus it will take a concerted effort from all of them to adjust accoringly. I just am not sure that will happen.

Icee Fae
Posted - 2010.03.31 19:28:00 - [413]
 

I am glad to see something is being looked at and possibly done to fix some issues.

Suicide Ganking and Self-Destruct in my should equal no insurance payouts. To be honest, getting rid of an insurance program will work for me too.

As for setting a floor, that is going to be impossible to determine until we know the patch info. If they do nerf the suicide ganking and decrease insurance payouts, this will limit the number of ships needed and will decrease the need for minerals all together. Also changing the drone region and NPC drops also effects this, but not as big as the insurance fraud.

In my opinion, if we want to stop the macro miners or at least hurt them, lets make the mac and hulk low-sec and 0.0 operation only along side the Rorqual. That will hem up the market a lot and keep mineral values high, increase or maintain the need for miners. Just a simple idea.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.03.31 19:28:00 - [414]
 

Originally by: Cang Zar


So, what you're saying is that losses should mean something for everyone - except for those that have the skillpoints/industrial-setup/lottery-BPOs and isk already? So in addition to having fewer skillpoints, less understanding of game-mechanics, noobs also need to fly rifters to be able to afford to pvp? Gee, that sounds SUPER fun for the new guys.

Clue-bat; it's already like that.. The change you're proposing is only going to make it even MORE like that. Some people can afford to lose literally thousands of recons and hacs, faction fitted, new guys can afford the fittings/rigs for maybe a couple of battlecruisers - this is a very favorable situation for the wealthy/skillpoint-heavy players.

You're proposing making this (already pretty significant) effect worse... We could just do away with all the ship-stuff instead though, and just measure wallets, and decide who wins EVE by that, sound cool?

Making losses matter even more, to those that it currently actually matter to (new/poor guys) is about as horrible an idea as I've seen on eve-o, since I started reading here - bad idea in terms of practically anything, from bringing in new players, to filling up low-sec, to having more than 10% of the players give a **** about what happens in 0.0, to stabilizing the economy, to incentivising a move to 0-sec.

Eve is not going down any mediocrity-roads, because t1 ships are insurable, and your star wars analogy is completely ridiculous, it's not even close to being the same thing, it's not even in the ball-park, gimme a effing break.


(just for the record, I'm not saying isk shouldnt matter.. I'm saying it matters ALOT now, and if anything imo it shouldnt matter more)


What a joke. You would have never kept playing this game if you had to endure what it was like 2-3 years ago.

What if fitting your fleet sniper ship with T2 425mm railguns cost you 140m ISK? What if a cap recharger II cost you 28m ISK? What if a local hull cargo expander cost you 35m ISK? What if T2 EANMs cost you 11m ISK each? T2 Ballistic Controls? T2 Invulnerability Fields? 20-30M each. And this was before we had cheap/effective Tier 2 BCs like the Drake and Hurricane to PVP with.

INSURANCE DIDN'T PAY YOU TO LOSE YOUR SHIP THEN EITHER.

You don't have it hard. The noobs these days don't have it hard. It's not "already like that".

PVP, particularly using T2, has never been cheaper, easier or less costly than it is right now. A loss is nearly meaningless. A few million ISK at best. Get a clue.

Remove insurance.

Nick Bete
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.03.31 19:29:00 - [415]
 

Originally by: Banlish

EVE isn't meant to be 'easy mode' what your spouting sounds tremendously like WoW. If you want an 'easy' game where you don't have to try, simply go play it.

And no it ISN'T like that here. We even have IPO's and business models where people sell ships below insurance cost for others to self destruct en-mass to commit insurance fraud.

And to think the 'new/poor' guys are going to be so hurt, boo effing hoo. Go to ANY 0.0 region now with a corp and make piles of isk per hour running anoms with corpmates. I hear of tons of corps daily making 200 to 300 mill in tax alone because their pilots are making so much.

Yet, you want to keep training wheels going for people that refuse to learn some basic methods to make isk. No, sorry, get a freaking clue you can make money in so many ways it's LITTERALLY disgusting. Keeping one int the game that is so easily fixed is just adding to that stupidity.

Even new players that sit there for a few months (which the game forces them to with almost no skill points) most learn how to make isk. But no, lets focus on the players that are perpetually poor, barely play, barely put in any time, don't support their corp or anything reasonable. Yes, lets FOCUS on them because Johny plays-once-a-month-for-an-hour should be catered to. No. God damn no, I've seen really dumb replies in my day, but yours is the worst. Isk is filtering down on the player base like crazy, ship fraud is stupidily high, and the mineral markets are pushed down because of so much 'extra' isk in the market. No, your right, lets continue to reward players for nothing and make risk almost non-existant. That's a MUCH better path. Smash yourself in the face with your own Clue-bat it might work on you.


Smash YOUR self with the elitist, arrogant attitude bat. Oh wait....

Not everyone is a hardcore, full-time uber player like yourself, sitting in a fat-assed, established million toon blob alliance. Not everyone wants to play as you do. Not everyone views Eve as some kind of litmus test for intelligence, perseverance, fortitude, or e-peen size as you apparently do. It's a FREAKING GAME dude. Most of us play it for a few laughs, to hang with friends, to kill a couple hours here and there enjoying a pretty well thought out sci-fi GAME. And if you seriously believe that CCP wouldn't love to have the kinds of sub numbers that Blizzard does, you're totally naive or completely delusional.

Keeping Eve an entertaining, less grinding, fairly uncompromising vision of a harsh future reality while not totally alienating the more casual subscriber (of which there are much larger numbers of that you'd likely acknowledge) doesn't need to be contradictory. It only seems to be that way in the minds of players like yourself.

Soleil Fournier
StarFleet Enterprises
Systematic-Chaos
Posted - 2010.03.31 19:35:00 - [416]
 

I will be less likely to deploy my Nyx in combat with the nerf to insurance.

I mean really, are we seeing supercaps being deployed in a whole lot of fights right now? I've mostly only seen them deployed in gank situations. While a few have gone down, for the most part they weren't taken down in the capital fleet fights that they're expected to be deployed in, they're being killed because the supercap got ganked solo.

There needs to be more reward to deploying supercaps into a fair-fight capital engagement before you go nerfing insurance.

Lenaras
Posted - 2010.03.31 20:06:00 - [417]
 

Originally by: unwitting destruction
Originally by: LHA Tarawa

OR, better yet, CCP will have to get a lot more serious about going after macros so that non-macros can make a living at it.


That's what I would like to see. Rather than punishing PvP players in the hopes that it will either A) Force ship prices down or B) Make enough people quit that the game eventually closes, it would be nice to see more mechanics put into the game to stop macroing while not making mining completely unbearable. There is a lot to be said about drunk mining, so all I ask is that they don't go with one of the previous suggestions of involving math questions in the process. >_>

Perhaps a small box that appears when your activation is 70% complete that is made up of 4 squares, where one square is randomly lit up each activation and you must click that square. If you click the wrong one it turns off the auto-reactivation of your miner so that you have reactivate it. By doing this, macroers couldn't just make the mouse click randomly hoping to hit one of the square and if they pre-plan to fail and have the macro click the activation button, they might accidentally get it right and shut down their miner. =D


First I will agree that CCP should go after macros but that is a whole different issue. You seem to be missing the point behind this. You feel that PVE & PVPers are being shafted by this; I feel its equalizing things out. The Devs have stated that mission runners supply a HUGE load of minerals and that in turn lowers the prices of minerals on the market. This is the main reason (though not the only reason) mining sucks for miners. Now I personally donít know the exact numbers but it must be large enough that CCP feels it is a serious issue. As we all know CCP doesnít do anything unless they feel they have no choice and even then it takes years.

You have people that train months (if not years) to be great at 1 thing in the game. Some picked mining, some picked combat, some picked etc etc. Iím sure you wouldnít want some miner to earn loyalty points like a mission runner because he mined a belt or 2 by themselves. They would in turn flood the markets with navy ammo/ships etc while making loyalty points less valuable for you mission runners as EVERYONE would be raking them in. Thatís whatís happening by mission runners reprocessing tons of loot.

Maybe CCP should make mission pay better to help compensate for less refinable loot. Maybe they should give more loyalty points. Maybe they should raise bounties on mission NPCs. Maybe all of the above.. I donít really know. PVE/PVPers would be much better at answering that question. What I do know is that a first and big step to helping miners is to make loot less valuable for mission runners.

Now as far as having a popup window for mining is just stupid (no offence). If they implement this I want a popup for you mission runners that you need to answer some CCP trivia question before you can fire your weapons. 1 wrong answer and your guns donít fire for 5 min. Ok thatís stupid, I know, but it proves my point. Now someone will say Ďbut youíre only mining, what would it matter?Ē Well to be honest I watch TV, listen to music, browse the forums, scratch my butt and all kinds of other stupid stuff while mining. Mining is boring, this is why most people HATE it and I enjoy it. I relax while doing it and donít want to be on my toes every moment to answer to CCPs macro cops. If I wanted to be glued to the screen I would be in 0.0 fighting someone for some amusing reason and having a blast doing it.

You want to get rid of macros? Make more players into GMís or make a new role for a large number of players. Call them Macro Hunters MHís or something not so silly soundingÖ Give them a title, a cool little ship and a little bit of power in EvE. Maybe they canít directly ban anyone but the will have the ability to jump like a GM, popup a chat window to get you to talk to them and let them know youíre there. No response, they turn it over to a GM (if they canít warn and or ban themselves). They donít need to have a seat at some council or anything like that. Trust me guys, you will have no shortage of people willing to fly around catching macros. If you need to, give them loyalty points, ISK or PLEXs as rewards. Itís simple and yet brutally efficient. Build it and they will come!

Cang Zar
Posted - 2010.03.31 20:22:00 - [418]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus

What a joke. You would have never kept playing this game if you had to endure what it was like 2-3 years ago.

What if fitting your fleet sniper ship with T2 425mm railguns cost you 140m ISK? What if a cap recharger II cost you 28m ISK? What if a local hull cargo expander cost you 35m ISK? What if T2 EANMs cost you 11m ISK each? T2 Ballistic Controls? T2 Invulnerability Fields? 20-30M each. And this was before we had cheap/effective Tier 2 BCs like the Drake and Hurricane to PVP with.

INSURANCE DIDN'T PAY YOU TO LOSE YOUR SHIP THEN EITHER.

You don't have it hard. The noobs these days don't have it hard. It's not "already like that".

PVP, particularly using T2, has never been cheaper, easier or less costly than it is right now. A loss is nearly meaningless. A few million ISK at best. Get a clue.

Remove insurance.


I did play 2-3 years ago, I even played 5 years ago imagine that! (had a break somewhere in the middle, so actual playing time is probably 4 years). So yeah, I endured.. And that's exactly the key word, endured. I have plenty of isk and my income stream is big enough to handle what I do now (I'm not mega-rich, but I have a couple of bil in assets and stuff).

However, unlike you (apparently) I think the game has gotten progressively better over the years, and the fact that new guys can actually participate meaningfully in pvp (not just loltacklers in rifters) is a great thing, and more importantly that it ISNT just your wallet that determines your success in pvp. Also, unlike you (apparently) I can comprehend that the game doesnt solely revolve around what I personally think is fun, and my personal ideas of what it should be like. Gee, other people like having a chance as well? and they also like different things about the game!?! who would've thunk?!

Besides that you people apparently have no clue about what fittings cost (a few mil? lol, decent fittings for a BC costs 20-25m, which I'll give you isnt a whole lot to the rich and mega-rich, but a hell of a lot to a guy running level 3-4s in a non-pimped mission ship, and a fortune to the poor single account miners - wait.. are you counting t2 ships? because you must be crazy if you're doing that).

And removing insurance? Have you really not thought of the consequences? Are you just in "durrr, insurance is for carebears, down with insurance!"-mode? Or are you out to screw the miners as well as the newbies? Minerals would plummet hopelessly low, taking t1 ship prices with them - albeit the relative cost of hulls would probably go up a bit (as it's zero now) they would still drop like a rock.

That's a great plan dude, no wait, better plan. Let's just everywhere but 0-sec "no-fun, no-isk"-zone and then the 'oh so very high risc' (beepbeepbeep sarcasm) 0.0 can be the "isk-fountain, funtime/party"-zone.. That'll be GREAT, great for the game, great for all the players.

Good on you if you want the old days back, when only the vets could afford to fly the good/fun ships and fits.. Awesome, I for one, think it's a horrible idea, and I sure as **** dont think that eve would be as successful as it is today, if they game was still like that.

Bisba
Nevermind mkII
Posted - 2010.03.31 20:47:00 - [419]
 

I'm probable stupid, but if you take the global average mineral prices for insurance pay out, can all the big alliances in 0.0 then not manipulate the insurance pay out by making sure all minerals there being sold are sold very high? Just wondering......

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.31 20:56:00 - [420]
 

Originally by: Lenaras

You have people that train months (if not years) to be great at 1 thing in the game. Some picked mining, some picked combat, some picked etc etc.


If they were concerned about profit per hour, then they should have picked a profession that could not be done AFK, since AFK-ability is the primary factor in profitability, and it will continue to be regardless of many changes CCP makes, unless they remove player driven market forces... and honestly, that would make the game SUCK!



Originally by: Lenaras

What I do know is that a first and big step to helping miners is to make loot less valuable for mission runners.


So, mineral prices increase, making it more profitable to macro mine and multi-box, meaning more macro and multi-box miners, until they again drive prices to the insurance exchange floor... whereever CCP lets that fall to.

Originally by: Lenaras

Now as far as having a popup window for mining is just stupid (no offence). If they implement this I want a popup for you mission runners that you need to answer some CCP trivia question before you can fire your weapons.


You miss the point. The ability to AFK, multi-box, and macro is the reason mining pays less. It is the reason it will ALWAYS pay less.

If you want mining to pay better, then the ONLY solution is for CCP to make some mechanism, ANY mechanism that makes it harder to macro, afk and multi-box.


Originally by: Lenaras

You want to get rid of macros? Make more players into GMís or make a new role for a large number of players. Call them Macro Hunters MHís or something not so silly soundingÖ Give them a title, a cool little ship and a little bit of power in EvE. Maybe they canít directly ban anyone but the will have the ability to jump like a GM, popup a chat window to get you to talk to them


Doesn't address the semi-AFK ability or the multi-box ability. Doesn't prevent new bots from popping up as fast or faster than they are banned.

The insurance floor is actually a giant firehose through which virtually unlimited ISK has been entering the game. If CCP wants to limit the ISK, they are going to have to limit the insurance. If they limit the insurance, mineral prices and profit for miners are going through the floor, UNLESS they can come up with some way to make it more interactive so that it is harder to macro, do semi-AFK, and multi-box.

As for making the same macro defeating measures also apply to missions... Heck yes. Before I go through the accel gate into a mission, I have to read some obscured text or answer some non-bot-able trivia question... sure.


Pages: first : previous : ... 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 ... : 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