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 : ... 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 ... : last (24)

Author Topic

ChrisIsherwood
Posted - 2010.04.01 04:48:00 - [451]
 


There is so much compalints with people thinking EVE insurance should be related to insurance. If you are makeing all these changes, why not rename insurance? Save us all the ongoing comments about RL, risk-based insurance which do not seem too relevant to CCP's goals for "insurance." It would no longer distract players and discussions.

If you are going to address payouts of insurance after being Concorded (I hope you do), then why not address it as part of all these extensive, interrelated changes rather than waiting six months. or 12. or 18. Industry does not get a lot of attention from CCP. Who know how long it will be till industry gets some attention again?

Insurance currently servers two purposes: and the devblog doesn't really address the mineral floor price as much. Will reduced mineral supply and no floor cause mineral prices to rise or fall? Who knows? My guess is prices fall and the % of miners who are m*cr*s will rise and I could easily be wrong. Is there any floor other than when the price drops enough for humans to be too bored and m*acr*s to not be able to earn a plex. Is there anything to prop minerals before 30*23 hours of mining won't buy a plex? Is there a sandbox? If trit falls to 0.1, is CCP ok with that? Or will CCP adjust hidden parameters to keep prices in a zone? If so, why not use public buy orders instead of non-public parameters.

Have you considered one-time mineral orders at launch? Steady state, miners may be fine if in Decemeber trit is 1 ISK but they can buy a Hulk for 90m. (April Hulk owners may not be as sanguine. ) But until things settle down, at launch it would seem prudent to not have a lot of minerals, ships, or items in production. Perhaps some pre-announced one-time May 18th NPC mineral orders could act as a short term buffer to prop up the April/May industry while having no long term impact on the market. I could be unique, but my April plans to buy a Hulk and freighter and/or Orca are on hold. I don't see having enough information to make a decision before the end of June. I just wanted to know if any thought been given what these comprehensive changes will do for the next couple of months as people react? Uncertainty reduces economic activity.


Opinions re ^^:

Obviously, removing insurance payouts on self-destruct would not change the IER, just add an extra haslle to getting the incsurance payment.

Any software that can m*cro mine, will be able to respond to chat and dialog boxes better than I can. Unless the CAPTCHA clicking is quite sophisticated, it probably can outclick me as well.

I stongly agree with the sentiment that tedious in no way means sophisticated. Skilllessly clicking a few extra dialog boxes just wastes time.

Kuolematon
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
Posted - 2010.04.01 05:08:00 - [452]
 

So 100% for T1, 40% for T2 and then 100% for T3? Isn't that kinda moot?

Should it be 100% for T1, 75% for T2 and 50% for T3. Why punish someone who just got to T2 and doesn't have skills for T3??

Ai Mei
Starfish Operating Syndicate
Posted - 2010.04.01 05:24:00 - [453]
 

ok after this post it no longer constructive feed back, its reading lulz now.

Nick Bete
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.04.01 05:26:00 - [454]
 

Originally by: Banlish


Full time uber player? No.
Player that figured out the 'passive' way to make isk? Yes.

If your casual and only want to play 1 or two hours per month, no problem WoW awaits such an 'awesome' player as yourself.
I don't give a crap what you think of my attitude, people that worked for years and years to be able to get awesome ships should be able to use them. And I don't mean the 'gifts' of t2 bpo lottery and stuff like that. I work hard for my isk, every day for around an hour I changing buy/sell orders. Why should someone who plays once per month or so be given a level playing field. They don't have to be in 0.0 by any means, nor should they get the best ships unless they SAVE for it.

This isn't a communist game, just because your here or whatever doesn't mean you have the ability to or even intelligence to get the same ships as others. If that was the case we'd all be on sisi roaming around in titans and other super caps. And no it's not 'that way' for players like myself.

We worked hard for our 'toys', I've never owned a super cap, and even with something like 5+ years in the game I know I probably never will. Why? Because I am still pretty casusal, I have a life and wife, I can't afford to play 15+ hours per week. Yet I STILL am able to get a few billion per month pouring in. People shouldn't be 'assisted' by insurance because they can't figure out the basics of making money. It's rewarding laziness. If I can make 3 bill a month pretty passively, ANYONE can.

But no, lets have it so casual players that don't play more then a few hours per month are welfared along so that the pile of players (more then YOUR likely to admit to) that work hard are hindered by lower mineral prices because of it, or blobs are stupidly huge because EVERYONE can have piles of good ships with little to no effort.

Yeah that sure makes me want to play. In real life it'd be like everyone having and driving a Ferrari, it's not special when everyone and their brother can have it with no effort. Part of the joy of having something that almost no one has is EARNING it. I guess you don't or can't understand that, but many people in the game do. Some people love having a titan because they EARNED it, same with Mom pilots etc etc. Yeah it's a game, but making it so everyone can fly the same exact same ships with only a few hours played per month goes against the whole reason many of us are here this is a sandbox it isn't supposed to be a welfare program/game.

Enjoy WoW if that casual playstyle is what you want, some of us play games for a challenge not because we feel we're 'entitled' to everything.


Spare me the Ayn Rand crap. I don't feel I'm entitled to anything. It's bitter elitist guys like you who have that market cornered.

Nowhere did I mention anyone getting something for nothing. Insurance (and the other game balance concessions that CCP makes) are in place in order to make this GAME playable and enjoyable, because after all, IT'S A GAME. You old-school guys need to get over yourselves. TQ isn't your personal sandbox. Just because when you started it took a year mining, scratching, fighting, walking barefoot uphill in the snow or whatever just to get into a cruiser doesn't mean a damned thing. The fact that things are in some ways simpler now just means that the game changed. Maybe you should think about changing with it. But I guess you'd like to rewind the game back to 2004 when there were 5k online.

When Hillmer writes me an email telling me that casual players aren't welcome, that my credit card will be declined as payment because I'm not awesome like you, then I'll leave. Until then.....I'll be right here, thanks.

Oh, and why don't you go and play something more suited to your temperament?

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.04.01 06:00:00 - [455]
 

Originally by: Kuolematon
So 100% for T1, 40% for T2 and then 100% for T3? Isn't that kinda moot?

Should it be 100% for T1, 75% for T2 and 50% for T3. Why punish someone who just got to T2 and doesn't have skills for T3??


Because T3 pay only for the core hull, not the subsystems.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.01 07:20:00 - [456]
 

Originally by: Leocadminone
Originally by: CCP Fallout
CCP Chronotis outlines changes to minerals and ship insurance that will be coming in Tyrannis in his newest dev blog.

So while you're messing with insurance, are you going to FINALLY make the change announced in a dev blog almost 2 YEARS AGO about "remove insurance payout for those killed by CONCORD"?

After this change, there'll probably not be any need to do so...

Suicide ganking only really became significant when the effective loss became close to nill.... Now the effective loss will increase again, and suicide ganking will drop again.

If you can suicide a battleship at a cost of 1-2m (or free), you start seeing the pattern of now, where people in a BS just randomly shoot a hauler without even scanning it. That'll only happen rarely after this change.

What'll happen is that suicide gankers will go back to scanning ships before they gank. At that point, the insurance payout becomes largely irrelevant. It will simply be a matter of finding someone who is stupid enough to have over 50 million in his T1 hauler, and use two Thorax to pop him....

There's no need to put any further penalties on suicide ganking. Even high-sec empire should contain a small element of danger, and that is what suicide ganking will become after this change, a small element of danger!

Bodhidauruma
Posted - 2010.04.01 07:29:00 - [457]
 

In general I worry that removing the artificial floor for ship prices will cause a crash in mineral prices since the supply is so great and will be for a long time. Here is what I would do to help alliviate the problem and balance out proffesions a bit:

- Up the mineral requirements to build equipment.

- Have high sec, low sec, regular null sec, worm holes, missioning and drone regions all produce unqiue minerals that are found in no other manner and that are all needed in the manufacture of ships and equipment. So for example, low sec would be the only source of a certain type of mineral and thus there would be huge incentives to mine there. Since the risk would be great compared to high sec, so would the reward. This would keep all the different playing experiences viable activities and have a more realistic risk/reward balance.

- When a ship is repaired in a station this should use up minerals. Either allow players to sell minerals to NPCs at market average price or allow players to set up ship repare installations services. Or maybe seperate from "repair" make all ships require "maintinance" on a fairly regular basis and have this process use up minerals.


Not about mineral prices, but

- If concord is on your kill mail, no insurance payout.

- If you self-destruct, no insurance payout.


Just seems fair.

Aera Aiana
Amarr
Posted - 2010.04.01 07:58:00 - [458]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
What'll happen is that suicide gankers will go back to scanning ships before they gank. At that point, the insurance payout becomes largely irrelevant. It will simply be a matter of finding someone who is stupid enough to have over 50 million in his T1 hauler, and use two Thorax to pop him....


Right, but you wouldn't be doing it alone in a zerocost battleship. You'll have to coordinate multiple ships and you'll have to make sure the target is worth it.
Cutting insurance for suiciders would effectively increase the amount of stuff you can put into your T1 hauler before you need to worry too much about someone blowing you up.

That would be a good thing since 50M is pretty much nothing, especially if you have to consider that for the owner of that stuff, it's not 100% profit. More like 10-25%, depending on the margin between source and target. To have to be on edge while hauling stuff for a couple of peanuts through highsec is pretty ******ed.

Originally by: Kerfira
There's no need to put any further penalties on suicide ganking. Even high-sec empire should contain a small element of danger, and that is what suicide ganking will become after this change, a small element of danger!


I think the whole concept of blowing yourself up to get something is pretty stupid from an RP perspective. Not that I'm an RP-player, but I do think gamemechanics should make some sort of sense on an RP level. If somebody choses to blow up his body, it would have to be for a strong reason, like a really valuable cargo and not just a couple million ISK.

unwitting destruction
Posted - 2010.04.01 09:37:00 - [459]
 

Edited by: unwitting destruction on 01/04/2010 09:40:36
I hate suicide ganking because you can't fight back. IF that was changed then I would be happy to- basically, even if you bring a BS to guard your hulks he can't do anything until they initiate the pew pews, and by then it's too late. If suicide ganking is going to be allowed (and in some respects encouraged), a true pvp element needs to be added rather than just leaving it as a griefing element. Right now suicide ganking is similar to CPP saying "randomly, upon mining laser activation, your hulk might explode for no reason and there is nothing you can do about it. This may never happen to you, or it may happen to you a lot. Who knows. Have fun with that". If they came up with a way for the attacker to be attacked first without Concord response (and not just by the target but rather anyone in the target's fleet or corp), that would be a completely different matter and actually be a fun element to add to the game.

Or add a new flag called the "Suicide Ganker" flag. You gank someone- you're now specially flagged a type of red for the next couple of days to warn people that they are in trouble. I mean, if you can't pre-emptively attack or get help from a fleet member until it is too late, you could at least let the poor saps in mining barges have a chance to gtfo.

Dratic
Muppet Ninja's
Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
Posted - 2010.04.01 11:31:00 - [460]
 

Originally by: unwitting destruction
Edited by: unwitting destruction on 01/04/2010 09:40:36
I hate suicide ganking because you can't fight back. IF that was changed then I would be happy to- basically, even if you bring a BS to guard your hulks he can't do anything until they initiate the pew pews, and by then it's too late. If suicide ganking is going to be allowed (and in some respects encouraged), a true pvp element needs to be added rather than just leaving it as a griefing element. Right now suicide ganking is similar to CPP saying "randomly, upon mining laser activation, your hulk might explode for no reason and there is nothing you can do about it. This may never happen to you, or it may happen to you a lot. Who knows. Have fun with that". If they came up with a way for the attacker to be attacked first without Concord response (and not just by the target but rather anyone in the target's fleet or corp), that would be a completely different matter and actually be a fun element to add to the game.

Or add a new flag called the "Suicide Ganker" flag. You gank someone- you're now specially flagged a type of red for the next couple of days to warn people that they are in trouble. I mean, if you can't pre-emptively attack or get help from a fleet member until it is too late, you could at least let the poor saps in mining barges have a chance to gtfo.

You can always put a bounty on people thats a sort of flag. Suicide ganking will never be a situation where you can fight back players bring enough to make sure you pop.
If they buffed hulks hitpoints that'd help but instead of one maelstrom alphaing you it'd be 2 or 3. What makes me laugh is that potentially the price of all these ships will go down so even if ccp were to remove insurance for concord pay out for some targets it'd still be worth it.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.01 12:03:00 - [461]
 

Originally by: Aera Aiana
Post #458

My example with the 50m hauler cargo and the two Thorax was WITHOUT any insurance! It was simply there to illustrate that removing insurance for CONCORD kills wouldn't make any real difference!

The main difference will come from the 'zero' to 'something' cost increase coming from this change to insurance. Going from 'something' to 'something more' will not have much effect.

Besides, given how utterly easy it is to avoid getting suicided when flying even a T1 hauler, there is no need to make it even more difficult to do so. High-sec is not total-sec, and anyone who flies his hauler stupidly SHOULD be at risk of being killed, even if only carrying 50m.....


Big Badaboom
C3 Tech
Rally Against Evil
Posted - 2010.04.01 13:15:00 - [462]
 

After reading the first 10 pages or so, of this thread, I am curious...

While I do welcome the increased incentives for miners, I get disappointed about CCP's evading the real question: What about "the you-know-which insurance issue"... we all know what is mentioned, it's one of the most commonly raised concerns related to insurance (Check this thread, check the posts titled something with insurance, check the forums about griefing)

It took God knows how many posts mentioning the suicide gankers insurance reward posts, before CCP Chronotis finally, came with a lame and vague statement "Not within the scope of this expansion, not within this timeframe, it will cost, but it won't change the mechanics"...

I just want for CCP to be honest, for once, and give the real truthful answer to the question: What is the purpose of paying out insurance for crime punishments?

we all know, that in real life, if you damage your car, while intoxicated, or otherwise breaking the laws, the insurance companies will NOT pay out insurances. The requirements for being eligible for insurance is that you did yours to stay within the frame of the laws. Why is that different here?

Now, if CCP would come out and say "We want you guys to kill each other more", or "We support the griefers", or "Of course, I play a griefer myself", or "We don't believe it happens that much", or "it's good for economy of our friend alliances", or whatever they can say, do it - don't ***** around, with lame vague excuses, come up with some guts, and an official statement about this, please.

Leocadminone
Posted - 2010.04.01 13:48:00 - [463]
 

Originally by: Mecinia Lua
Long past time we got rid of meta 0 items in the loot tables.

This will be beneficial to both miners and builders I think.




If the initial values they have up on Sisi right now are even close to accurate, mining will be dead as an occupation in a few months OR LESS.

The CURRENT system has a NET payout of 70% of the "base value" of the ship after buying Platinum level insurance, which ends up being very close to 100% of the CURRENT mineral pricing for that ship.
Current Sisi GROSS payouts are about 30% lower across the board, indicating that the GROSS payouts no will take the cost of the insurance itself into account and therefore you're only going to be getting appx. 70% of the value of your ship back with Platinum insurance.

It is possible that they have not implimented their "balance" mechanics on Sisi yet and those current values are not going to be the final "starting point", but it currently looks quite grim for mining as a way to make enough money to matter.


The other problem - and this is INHERENT to the whole system - is that the only reason that the 7 "low" minerals cost as much as they do is that the current Insurance system props them up - if the basket gets much below insurance NET payout value, folks start buying ships up to blow them up for profit. Without this "floor", mineral prices are going to drop a LOT to the point that nobody will bother mining, except mabey a few macro-miners - at which point mineral pricing MIGHT start going up some, but that will still be limited due to stuff getting reprocessed for minerals.



I've seen a lot of gankers talk about how Mining supposedly is no risk all reward - well, in FACT it is fairly high risk since you're always a ganker target, and the rewards are poor. This change will just make the rewards WORSE, while having ZERO effect on the risk (gankers usually use small groups of destroyers, even if they had NO insurance at all ganking would be a very cheap occupation).


Based on what I've seen about this change, it appears to be one of the WORST ideas CCP has ever come up with (right down there with their so-called "smart windows" in the client that always want to bounce into very bad spots instead of staying where they are PUT).


The basic idea might be in line with their "make the economy player-driven" but the implimentation looks more like a "screw the players that actually want to BUILD things, help the gankers" idea.

Leocadminone
Posted - 2010.04.01 13:53:00 - [464]
 

Originally by: Big Badaboom


While I do welcome the increased incentives for miners




Where are these "increased incentives for miners" at? All I'm seeing in this blog is a mechanic that will fairly quickly SHAFT miners, with the only real questions being HOW FAST and HOW BADLY.

Kharamete
Amarr
Posted - 2010.04.01 14:25:00 - [465]
 

Originally by: Leocadminone

Where are these "increased incentives for miners" at? All I'm seeing in this blog is a mechanic that will fairly quickly SHAFT miners, with the only real questions being HOW FAST and HOW BADLY.


You are forgetting something. T1 mods will become a mineral sink now - I don't know how big or how extensive. But a lot of t1 meta 0 modules will be removed from the market, and will have to be produced by players.

As it is now, I don't know of anyone that actually makes t1 mods. I would suspect that most of the t1 mods you find on the market are from mission loot.

t1 meta 0 mods are required for t2 production as well. I would suspect that most t2 producers buy the t1 mods off market. Before the change, all the isk went to the mission runners putting the loot on the market. That isk will now go to t1 producers.

The t1 producers is going to have to buy minerals to produce, or mine the minerals themselves.

How big this effect will be, I don't know today. We'll have to see. But I'm convinced that t1 loot from the moment the changes are introduced will go from being an isk faucet, to being a mineral sink.

space dementia
Posted - 2010.04.01 15:06:00 - [466]
 

One other thing i don't think has been mentioned, is the fact that all the insurance plans only last for 12 weeks and some of the hi-sec care-bears keep ships for longer than that it seems a shame to be forced to self destruct your ship just because your insurance ran out maybe a move towards a more realistic insurance scheme with premiums etc... and different time plans for those who take care of their possessions and those who just blow them up lol

Nick Bison
Gallente
Bison Industrial Inc
Posted - 2010.04.01 15:24:00 - [467]
 

Some good discussion. Most cool.

One thing comes to mind though. It has been repeatedly brought up about removing any insurance payout to gankers (CONCORD or station guns on Killmail).

I have been the victim of ganking in the past (hey, I was new and stupid) however I do NOT support the complete removal of insurance payout for gankers as i do believe they are a necissary part of HiSec to keep us carebears on our toes.

Perhaps just a modifier to the payout would be more appropriate (and easier), say:

if killmail contains CONCORD and/or Station-Gate Guns, insurance payout get's a x 0.5 modifier ?

Satchmo T'aint
Posted - 2010.04.01 15:31:00 - [468]
 

Originally by: Nye Jaran
Edited by: Nye Jaran on 30/03/2010 14:46:19

Really disappointed to see that the devs continue actively supporting terrorism within Eve by leaving intact insurance payouts on ships attacked by Concord (read: suicide ganking).


carebear tears... the most potent reactor fuel known to man

Stephente
Posted - 2010.04.01 15:46:00 - [469]
 

This isn't going to revive the T1 market. Nobody uses T1 modules anymore. And the ones that do can buy the meta 1 (or higher) equivalents for half the price. Meta 0 modules are for reprocessing, that's it. This will not be changing.

Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
Posted - 2010.04.01 15:53:00 - [470]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
If mining were the only way to get minerals (instead of mining with guns a la drone regions and loot drops) and the mineral respawn rates were more tightly controlled so as to reduce the overall availability of materials (see T2 production and pricing) then we could easily see a revaluation of minerals and all of a sudden mining becomes a profitable activity again.


For the 'bots that log in right after down time and suck up all the 'roids. Anyone that has to leave for work as the system is booting back up (I live in AZ, and DT ends about 5AM here) there simply would not be any rocks to mine.

Hard limits on resources is the exact wrong thing to do for this game. It promotes exclusivity where an elete few that started playing first have a vested interest in keeping noobs out.

I got mine, so please hop in a frig and come out to null where I live in my moon mining POS that throws off 1 billion a week with little effort, so I can repeatedly kill you... sure, fun for those that have been playing for 4 years. No so much fun for the noob.

Universal availability and level playing field where it is the effort you put in, not control of the special, lopsided, supply constrained resources that provide imense competative advantage that determines results is what the game needs.




*sigh*

Then why not come up with a way to mine that reduces/eleminates the ability to macro mine?

I've been a long supporter of more interactive and engaging mining. The reason I don't run missions or mine is because they're horribly horribly boring. If I could hop in a mining ship and sneak through lowsec and scan out some amazingly valuable ore and then swoop in and mine it as fast as I could while trying to avoid being discovered/caught, I might actually do it.

I'd like to see a system where player skill changes the yield per time so that if an AFK miner may produce 1km3 of ore per minute an actively engaged miner with some practice (think the learning curve for using probes as an example) could produce 10-20x as much ore in the same amount of time.

I have tons of ideas and suggestions about how to fix the problems Eve has with macros. I don't see anything coming from you as far as suggestions go. I'm all ears if you have something positive and productive to contribute.


So..... Mini-games while mining? I smell pogo getting some shares of CCP! ROFL

Kharamete
Amarr
Posted - 2010.04.01 16:09:00 - [471]
 

Originally by: Stephente
This isn't going to revive the T1 market. Nobody uses T1 modules anymore. And the ones that do can buy the meta 1 (or higher) equivalents for half the price. Meta 0 modules are for reprocessing, that's it. This will not be changing.


You do know that you need t1 meta 0 mods for t2 production, right?

Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
Posted - 2010.04.01 16:55:00 - [472]
 

If tags are going to be dropped more often then the Data Center missions need to be advertised more so that demand for the tags (on market) will go up!

In the case of faction tags being dropped.... we need data center missions for the pirate factions! If not, the tags will remain mostly useless... unless I'm wrong and there are uses for faction tags other then getting caught by port anchorites and the navy.

Matalino
Posted - 2010.04.01 17:26:00 - [473]
 

Originally by: Kuolematon
So 100% for T1, 40% for T2 and then 100% for T3? Isn't that kinda moot?

Should it be 100% for T1, 75% for T2 and 50% for T3. Why punish someone who just got to T2 and doesn't have skills for T3??
Insurance covers only the cost of the ship. With T3, the ship is only a small portion of the cost: subsystems are mandatory and are not included in the insurance payout. So realisticly the payout for Tech 3 is proportionally the similar to the payout for Tech 2.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2010.04.01 17:40:00 - [474]
 

Quote:
The other problem - and this is INHERENT to the whole system - is that the only reason that the 7 "low" minerals cost as much as they do is that the current Insurance system props them up - if the basket gets much below insurance NET payout value, folks start buying ships up to blow them up for profit. Without this "floor", mineral prices are going to drop a LOT to the point that nobody will bother mining, except mabey a few macro-miners - at which point mineral pricing MIGHT start going up some, but that will still be limited due to stuff getting reprocessed for minerals.


Current mineral prices are dictated by two factors actually. Insurance payout and availability of minerals from other sources... those other souces being compounds from the drone regions and reprocessing of rat loot.

The insurance floor is being removed incrementally, this is true, but you are overlooking the fact that the other sources of minerals are being sharply curbed/adjusted. This is the reason why these two seemly disparate topics (mining and insurance) have been presented in the same blog. You just need to connect the dots.

Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
Posted - 2010.04.01 17:45:00 - [475]
 

I am all for removing insurance premiums all together if you don't just end insurance

The whole notion of insurance on war ships feels crappy to me.

I don't like the idea of buying it because it doesn't make sense from a role playing perspective, but of course I don't want to be a stooge and not get a benefit others are getting. Get rid of the premium tedium and I can hold my nose and collect the payout without being forced to buy in to a dumb concept.

TAGs: don't increase them.. so few are valuable as they are it would remove the "lottery" excitement of getting a decent one and would burden us with more crap thats worth under 100k hardly worth the time clicking on for people who've played over 6 months


I'm not confident that you've calculated the material basket well enough to make up for the consumtion based on insurance fraud by manufacturors and traders. I blow up ships all the time that I buy on the market. Its ok to get rid of that practice but that sort of thing might make for 40% of current ship destructions now and would vastly change the demand for materials... making mining obsolete if there's a complet glut.

I don't think the changes you're making in drops is suficient to make up for the loss of demand from eliminating insurance driven destructions

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.04.01 18:13:00 - [476]
 

Originally by: Zendoren


So..... Mini-games while mining? I smell pogo getting some shares of CCP! ROFL


1) Anything to stop macro mining.

2) You have a better idea?

Diomedes Calypso
Aetolian Armada
Posted - 2010.04.01 18:26:00 - [477]
 

In the post above I said I don't like the notion of a company actually insuring ships going out to combat from a role playing perspective but that I do buy insurance and blow up ships.

The second case is such a contrivance to me that its not even remotely like insurance but purely a mechinic to sell a ship to concord.

Why not retain a floor on the mineral basket by having NPC buy price purchases ? I actually have an idea how to make that dynamic to keep prices flutuacting and spread out player activties from the hub regions,, but I'll post that elsewhere.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.04.01 18:44:00 - [478]
 

Originally by: Kharamete

You are forgetting something. T1 mods will become a mineral sink now - I don't know how big or how extensive. But a lot of t1 meta 0 modules will be removed from the market, and will have to be produced by players.


You need to reread the post. They are not eliminting things from the drops. They are reducing the drop rates of the items that we're providing the majority of minereals.

So, if rats were dropping 1 billion 1400mm arty before, and 10 were being used by players, then they were adding 90 trillion trit into the game. Now they'll reduce the drop to 100K, meaning they'll only be adding 9 billion trit into the game.

This change is NOT going to enable T1 manufacturing or T1 mods it into a drain instead of a faucet. It simply reduces the flow of minerals from drops. They are turning down the faucet.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.04.01 18:52:00 - [479]
 

Originally by: Diomedes Calypso
In the post above I said I don't like the notion of a company actually insuring ships going out to combat from a role playing perspective but that I do buy insurance and blow up ships.

The second case is such a contrivance to me that its not even remotely like insurance but purely a mechinic to sell a ship to concord.

Why not retain a floor on the mineral basket by having NPC buy price purchases ? I actually have an idea how to make that dynamic to keep prices flutuacting and spread out player activties from the hub regions,, but I'll post that elsewhere.


Your suggestions are the worst of the worst.

You want essentially 'free' 'insurance', and you WANT mineral price floors through NPC buy orders.

Please stop posting.

Free market economy: win. No ship subsidies from CCP: win.

Syrous Tlesta
Posted - 2010.04.01 19:22:00 - [480]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Diomedes Calypso
In the post above I said I don't like the notion of a company actually insuring ships going out to combat from a role playing perspective but that I do buy insurance and blow up ships.

The second case is such a contrivance to me that its not even remotely like insurance but purely a mechinic to sell a ship to concord.

Why not retain a floor on the mineral basket by having NPC buy price purchases ? I actually have an idea how to make that dynamic to keep prices flutuacting and spread out player activties from the hub regions,, but I'll post that elsewhere.


Your suggestions are the worst of the worst.

You want essentially 'free' 'insurance', and you WANT mineral price floors through NPC buy orders.

Please stop posting.

Free market economy: win. No ship subsidies from CCP: win.


Says the person who was pushing for no insurance so that the game can return to its original 5k player base.


Pages: first : previous : ... 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 ... : 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