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 : ... 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 ... : last (24)

Author Topic

Cang Zar
Posted - 2010.04.01 19:42:00 - [481]
 

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.


They used to have npc buy-orders (it's those levels base-price is calculated from atm). Back then basically the "floor" they created was never reached anyway, as there were always player buy orders with higher values out there, so they were removed.

I have little faith in the new dynamic insurance functioning as a basket for mineral prices (because you'll need access to low-cost minerals), it also seems wide open to market manipulation imo (as soon as someone figures out the exact formula used for calculating averages), and will probably make some very space-rich guys even more space-rich.

Imo, npc buy-orders at what CCP thinks is a reasonable income (perhaps even altered dynamically to reflect player prices) could possible go a long way towards making miners not be the red-headed stepchild of all the professions, and it's been that way for a long time.


Originally by: Bellum Eternus

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.


It's a game, not a capitalism simulator.. It's supposed to be fun for the people playing, including the miners/producers/missionrunners/whatevers!

*GASP* "b..b..b..bbbut they're carebears! why should they be allowed to play? Eve is like the iron-man of mmorpgs! it's tough, and ruthless! it's really more like a martial arts or ninja-training, than a nerdy computer game" - yeah, wah, wah, wah.

Kiri Serrensun
Posted - 2010.04.01 19:55:00 - [482]
 

Gravimetric sites with anything less than Gneiss being non-useless? No junk loot? I like the sound of this.

Originally by: Dratic
You can always put a bounty on people


Thanks, I needed a laugh.

Myra Rodan
Minmatar
Borderlands corp
True Reign
Posted - 2010.04.01 20:07:00 - [483]
 

Edited by: Myra Rodan on 01/04/2010 20:16:23
Edited by: Myra Rodan on 01/04/2010 20:12:18
If you are going to make different ships payout different amounts, you should do it more along the way the insurance industry does it.
In the insurance industry, the amount of money coming into the company from selling their insurance, has to be more than the amount of money being paid out due to losses. That is why they make general groups and charge them different rates. New teenage drivers have a much higher accident rate than a married man in his 30s, and are thus charged significantly higher for their insurance.

To translate this into EVE, tackling frigates are as a group way more likely to lose their ships, and might therefore only have a base payout of 10% because they are so much more likely to have to pay for the loss of that ship. The cost of buying improved insurance might be higher instead. Instead of the current system where you get 2 isk back for every 1 isk you spend on better insurance, you might only get 1.5 isk for every 1 isk spent. Either way, you would be able to buy full coverage, but it would cost you a lot more. Covops ships as a group tend to have much longer lifetimes, meaning that the insurance company would be significantly less likely to have to pay for the loss of those ships. They could be rewarded with a much higher base payout, perhaps 60%. Alternatively, they might choose to offer 3 or 4 isk back for every 1 isk spent buying better insurance.

There is also the cost analysis to balance. Ships that have a significantly high cost associated with them (T2 BS, capitals, supercapitals, etc...) would have lower and lower base return rates, or lower rates of return for buying improved insurance, even if the number lost is very low because the cost to the company would still be extremely high, and they don't want to have to ever pay out that much.

I would suggest that you try to get some actual insurance people in on the project to help figure out how to set this up. Set up acturial tables for EVE. This could even break down by specific ships, rather than just ship classes. If a particular ship is frequently used for suicide ganking, for instance, it may have more expensive insurance than other ships of the same class.

There could be insurance against certain types of losses. For example, you could set it so that the improved insurance only pays out if the ship is lost to pirate faction ships, and charge lower interest rates for this insurance because there is less chance of having to pay out, even if the ship is lost. Or even further lower the interest rates for those ships because the company is trying to encourage pod pilots to try to get rid of the pirate scourge. There could be a second level where there is a payout as long as Concord or customs weren't on the killmail, that charges a bit more because of increased risk to the insurance agency. Finally, a third, no questions asked, if the ship is lost you get paid, level of insurance that costs more still.


Edit:
Personally, I think the easiest way to solve the problem is to make there be 2 levels of insurance: Full coverage and No coverage. When you buy Full coverage, and lose the ship, you get the option to claim the insurance, which deposits a packaged ship in the hanger of the station where you make the claim (assuming that the ship is allowed in that system, no spawning capital ships in high sec).
Edit2:
It could be set up so that the ship or the minerals for the ship (assuming perfect ME?) are purchased off the market, in whatever manner seems best (nearest stations first?), thus the goal of improving the income for miners is still achieved

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.04.01 20:08:00 - [484]
 

Originally by: Cang Zar
Why not retain a floor on the mineral basket by having NPC buy price purchases?


It would flood too much ISK into the game, just as insurance is currently doing. The ISK sinks can't keep up.


Originally by: Cang Zar
Imo, npc buy-orders at what CCP thinks is a reasonable income (perhaps even altered dynamically to reflect player prices) could possible go a long way towards making miners not be the red-headed stepchild of all the professions, and it's been that way for a long time.


It pays less because it is more macro-able, multi-box-able, partially-AFK-able.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.01 20:25:00 - [485]
 

Originally by: Myra Rodan
Edit:
Personally, I think the easiest way to solve the problem is to make there be 2 levels of insurance: Full coverage and No coverage. When you buy Full coverage, and lose the ship, you get the option to claim the insurance, which deposits a packaged ship in the hanger of the station where you make the claim (assuming that the ship is allowed in that system, no spawning capital ships in high sec).

Stupidest suggestion in this thread so far.... EVE is ALREADY totally flooded with minerals, and you want to auto-create wast amounts of them in the form of ships with no effort at all?
You'd reduce the mineral demand by 90+%... Rolling Eyes

You should FORGET about real-life analogies when thinking EVE. EVE insurance is NOT there to simulate RL insurance. It is there to encourage people to risk and lose ships. For that purpose, paying out more for the most risky ships to fly makes a lot of sense!
The EVE economy LIVES off ships and things being blown up! More of that is better!

Cang Zar
Posted - 2010.04.01 21:05:00 - [486]
 

Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Cang Zar
Why not retain a floor on the mineral basket by having NPC buy price purchases?


It would flood too much ISK into the game, just as insurance is currently doing. The ISK sinks can't keep up.


Originally by: Cang Zar
Imo, npc buy-orders at what CCP thinks is a reasonable income (perhaps even altered dynamically to reflect player prices) could possible go a long way towards making miners not be the red-headed stepchild of all the professions, and it's been that way for a long time.


It pays less because it is more macro-able, multi-box-able, partially-AFK-able.


So is production, trading, moon-goo reaction-magic, research, invention (in fact, you dont even have to log in for most of those), yet for the individual pilot, those are infinitely more profitable (I know, I'm doing several of those), it's just not a good enough reason for mining to be so ridiculously less profitable than anything else - unless of course, we're not interested in having mining as a viable profession.

Also preemptively, before the "risk-reward"-argument pops up, it's not really any more dangerous ratting in npc 0.0 than it is mining in high-sec.. If you're on the ball, you're not going to get killed, in either case... If you're afking your way through the belts/anomalies, chances are you'll get ganked eventually (ratting in controlled 0.0 is even more risk-free, and 150m/hour in a fully updated system, v0v)

Red Raider
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.04.01 22:13:00 - [487]
 

I like everything proposed even if we don't know what the effects will be. Stability results in complacency and this is definitely going to shake things up one way or another.

First, there have been several claims that the market will be manipulated and those are rubbish. It would take 10's of trillions of isk to effect it even a tiny bit because outliers are excluded from the median average. That's a fact when almost a billion in trit is traded every day. A person or group would have to try and monopolize the majority of the market over a 6 month period. Driving the prices up at heavy cost in liquidity for 3 months to raise the average by over 30% of the median average and back down in the following 3 months in order to commit the fraud. During this time they will be competing against market mechanics of players taking advantage of higher and higher mineral values for the first 3 months and cheaper and cheaper ship costs in the last 3 months. A market with this volume simply can't be manipulated in EVE's current state. The only way to do it is drive out competition and that's impossible to do since they wouldn't be able to adequately control supply or demand. Read the http://ccp.vo.llnwd.net/o2/community/QEN/QEN_Q4-2009.pdfQ4-2009 QEN[/url] if you don't believe me.

Second, insurance should be renamed to "subsidy" and given the actual name of pod pilot expansion subsidy or exodus subsidy or something like that instead of insurance just to stop the idiotic ranting of some folks who simply refuse to accept insurance not functioning like it's real world equivalent in a game where you are an immortal space faring pilot using technology capable of defying the laws of Newtonian physics. Rolling Eyes

Third, meta 0 production will consume minerals (hopefully) due to the need for meta 0 modules in tech II production. The trick is to reduce insurance as an ISK faucet due to the deflationary effects fraud has on the buying power of ISK. We donít need a fixed amount of ISK but an oversupply isnít good for prices in the same way that an oversupply of minerals isnít good for prices so removing a faucet also removes inflation as well as demand but since meta 0 is being reduced then supply is also being reduced and the net effect should be negligible. Though I am admittedly guessing as to whether CCP has even tried to calculate this. Yes I realize that missions are THE faucet but as the player base expands the supply of ISK must also expand or else a few ISK could buy a Marauder and taxes would be crippling. I am sure the good Dr. has probably brought this up to his benefactors more than once.

Fourth, if there is going to be a massive surge in tags that replace meta 0 loot then can we please get more outlets for the tags? I like hiring gankers to fight proxy wars since actual high sec wars are broken and the insurance nerf makes this very costly on top of the fact that many of these agents suffer significant security losses that are tough to recover from. If itís now going to cost me 30 million isk more per hulk gank can I at least get something that I can provide my gankers with that curbs my associated costs ahead of time rather than just selling to an LP store or buying a tiny amount of standing somewhere? I would love for tags to be able to be turned in for LP, Faction Standing, Corp Standing, or Security Standing. I think I am shoot on sight in Gallante space but say I turn in a crap ton of pirate dog tags or half a crap ton of Caldari dog tags to a Gallante agent in low sec to boost my standing with them. Hauling a bunch of objects that pirates would love to get their hands on into low sec is certainly a risk is it not? Do the same for pirate factions so pirates can get brownie points with Guristaís or Serpentis. Do something to keep the cost of tags from crashing due to oversupply.

continued...

Red Raider
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.04.01 22:19:00 - [488]
 

Edited by: Red Raider on 01/04/2010 22:28:29
Edited by: Red Raider on 01/04/2010 22:20:40
Originally by: Mara Rinn

I would suggest though that new characters get 3 instant insurance renewals, which then reverts to one renewal every two months, with a maximum of one ship insured per character at any time - the same kind of timed activity as neural remaps.


This would be a very bad idea simply because it wouldn't stop insurance fraud without programming in massive limitations thus making something much more complicated than need be. I mean whatís stopping a person from taking his day one alt and flying it to null to SD titans for insurance fraud?

If CCP is making a dynamic subsidy system why not simplify it to no insurance or platinum and gear it towards pvp by basing the payout off of the security status of the system the ship is destroyed in(excluding WH space since it's already very safe)? This would mean suicide gankers in high sec would waiting outside Jita 4-4 would get nothing or virtually nothing, yes I understand that neither would the victim(though it could be based on ship type that haulers and such are excluded as they are non-combat ships), providing incentive to find targets of opportunity in lower security as it also lowers the cost without reducing the mechanic to zero functionality for the purpose of logistical warfare and tears.

To back this up for new players create an inverse mechanic based on time in game at a set time. Yes I realize that it's broken, its an example.

Example: Fifth month in game
1.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 50%(-cost of policy)x1
0.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 100%(-cost of policy)x1

First month in game
1.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 50%(-cost of policy)x 2
0.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 100%(-cost of policy)x 2

Second month in game
1.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 50%(-cost of policy)x 1.75
0.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 100%(-cost of policy)x 1.75

Third month in game
1.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 50%(-cost of policy)x 1.50
0.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 100%(-cost of policy)x 1.50

Fourth month in game
1.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 50%(-cost of policy)x 1.25
0.0 subsidy(insurance) payout for tech I hull = 100%(-cost of policy)x 1.25

Seem like a reasonable solution to still keep nubs in the loop while providing the PVP'ers incentive to PVP? It punishes the gankers like the carebears want and most carebears don't insure their ships anyways so they don't have a hell of a lot of room to *****.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.04.01 22:20:00 - [489]
 

Originally by: Cang Zar
So is production


I "make" good money afk with production, IF we ignore the time I have to spend modifying buy and sell orders. Then that time is accounted for, the money ain't nearly so good.

Originally by: Cang Zar
trading


Least afk-able, which is why it pays the best... if done right. And by that I mean constanly watching and adjusting your buy and sell orders.


Originally by: Cang Zar
moon-goo reaction-magic


But you have to anchor you POS in .3 or less, and people like to make those go boom.


Originally by: Cang Zar
research

10K an hour per slot is max I could make selling T1 BPCs or researched BPO. Pathetic.


Originally by: Cang Zar
invention


Have you actually compared the price of the T2 BPCs on contract to the cost of datacores, POS operation, etc. Only slightly better than ME and PE research, and then only bacause it requires so many more skills.

Originally by: Cang Zar
yet for the individual pilot, those are infinitely more profitable (I know, I'm doing several of those), it's just not a good enough reason for mining to be so ridiculously less profitable than anything else


What? 7-10 million an hour, per account, and can be done on 2 or 3 accounts concurrently, pretty easily, WHILE doing all those other things. I sure would like to know what you are manufacturing that makes that profit look ridiculously less profitable.


Originally by: Cang Zar
- unless of course, we're not interested in having mining as a viable profession.



I am, which is why I've suggest the need to have it less macro-able, multi-box-able, partially AFK-able.


LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.04.01 22:25:00 - [490]
 

Originally by: Red Raider
Third, meta 0 production will consume minerals (hopefully) due to the need for meta 0 modules in tech II production. The trick is to reduce insurance as an ISK faucet due to the deflationary effects fraud has on the buying power of ISK.


Nope. This is not an across the board removal or even reduction of meta 0. This is a targeted reduction in the drop rates of the items that were contributing the most to reprocessed ISK. So, when I farm Angel's Extavaganza L4, I'm going to expect 1 or 2 1400mm arty instead of 3 or 4 (hyperbole).

Red Raider
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.04.01 22:37:00 - [491]
 

Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Red Raider
Third, meta 0 production will consume minerals (hopefully) due to the need for meta 0 modules in tech II production. The trick is to reduce insurance as an ISK faucet due to the deflationary effects fraud has on the buying power of ISK.


Nope. This is not an across the board removal or even reduction of meta 0. This is a targeted reduction in the drop rates of the items that were contributing the most to reprocessed ISK. So, when I farm Angel's Extavaganza L4, I'm going to expect 1 or 2 1400mm arty instead of 3 or 4 (hyperbole).



Please stop saying this you are making yourself look stupid because it says it literally in the dev blog that this is exactly what they are doing. You are parsing words trying to look smart.

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
We identified a core set of loot tables which are responsible for contributing to the majority of the NPC loot sourced minerals and these are the first ones we want to adjust with Tyrannis, reducing the quantity of the Tech 0 items being dropped and substituting it with a variation of scrap metals or tags, for example. There will still be the same amount of Tech 1 meta 1-4 modules being dropped and these will still act as mineral faucets if you desire a source of minerals still from NPC combat.

Cang Zar
Posted - 2010.04.01 23:05:00 - [492]
 

Originally by: LHA Tarawa
I "make" good money afk with production, IF we ignore the time I have to spend modifying buy and sell orders. Then that time is accounted for, the money ain't nearly so good.

Least afk-able, which is why it pays the best... if done right. And by that I mean constanly watching and adjusting your buy and sell orders.



Trading is in no way the "least" afk-able, trading you can leave unattended for weeks and it'll still bring you in huge amounts of isk. If you stick to really big volumes (and have the wallet to back it) logging in twice a week and setting your buy/sell orders (twice a day is better, but far from necessary) is more than enough. Btw, miners generally need to sell their stuff too, it's not just the production guys.

Anyway.. I'm not saying this because I'm opposed to making mining less macro-able at all. But you're quite simply wrong when you say that mining is more afk'able, multi-boxable and macro-able than most other professions.. People just keep harping on about miners, because they dont notice the contract-bots and trade-bots. For research, invention, production, you dont even need bots because the system is already automated, you spend so little time actually doing it, that it's barely worth mentioning (unless you're doing your own hauling or something). Mining could be like that, fly out to a belt.. Drop a mining pod, come back a few days later and pick it up with ore (PI prolly) but it isnt.. You actually have to sit at your computer, and be logged on, huge disadvantage compared to trading, production, research, invention.

Yeah, having npc-buy orders probably isnt the best idea for keeping mineral prices up, but whatever.. Perhaps CCP know what they're doing and everything will turn out great.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.01 23:14:00 - [493]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 01/04/2010 23:18:21
Originally by: Red Raider
Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Red Raider
Third, meta 0 production will consume minerals (hopefully) due to the need for meta 0 modules in tech II production. The trick is to reduce insurance as an ISK faucet due to the deflationary effects fraud has on the buying power of ISK.

Nope. This is not an across the board removal or even reduction of meta 0. This is a targeted reduction in the drop rates of the items that were contributing the most to reprocessed ISK. So, when I farm Angel's Extavaganza L4, I'm going to expect 1 or 2 1400mm arty instead of 3 or 4 (hyperbole).

Please stop saying this you are making yourself look stupid because it says it literally in the dev blog that this is exactly what they are doing. You are parsing words trying to look smart.

While I think Tarawa is extrapolating a bit too much from what Chronotis wrote, his basic interpretation (ie. not all Meta 0 stuff is removed) seems to be essentially correct.

I think there'll be restrictions to other things than battleship sized modules.

What I did was look into my 'Refine' can which contains loot from missions which I'll refine at some point. It contained loot from about 15 L4 missions or so, with a reasonable spread between the different ones.
I then looked at how much the BS sized stuff was in relation to everything else:

Mineral volume: 65%
Mineral value: 63%

Note that I've had a lack of Mercenary missions lately, so there's a bit less cruiser sized loot than I normally see on average. I would also tend to loot all BS, but not always all of the rest.

The main reason all Meta 0 loot should be removed is simple: It is unfair competition to manufacturers, and especially the small modules are unfair to manufacturers who're just starting up (ie. newbies). The greater EVE economy would be better off if PLAYERS built all basic T1 items!
That L4 income needs a huge whack with the nerf bat is another reason, but loot doesn't make a very significant part of L4 income anyway.

Dex Timor
Valklear Guard
Posted - 2010.04.01 23:34:00 - [494]
 

Originally by: Nick Bete
Oh, and why don't you go and play something more suited to your temperament?


This is very funny. I read that a lot of devs and veteran players actually played this (and its predecessor). Rumor has it that the game you linked and eve have something in common. In both games there is a meaningful death-penalty. Both games disregard common game developper advice. Both games can be frustrating to newcomers. (At least I was quite frustrated from having to watch others play for 3 minutes or more, after I had died 20 seconds into the round.)

To stay on topic:

I liked the proposal made by one poster to only insure industrial / mining ships. Both of those ship types are more difficult to defend. This could have the positive side-effect of having more Battle-badgers / Bait-hulks and less carebear ragequit whine-posts.

The other proposal I liked: Instead of 100% insurance payout if 30% premium was paid up-front. Pay 70% and don't ask for a premium.

But I wouldn't mind insurance removal. (Well actually I would, but I could adapt ... I hope)


Rodarine
Posted - 2010.04.02 00:38:00 - [495]
 

If anyone bothered to use a calculator they would see that insurance fraud wasnt that big an isk income. All it was was a trade off, minerals for ISK.

Since there is no other real faucet for the minerals then what better way than the insurance fraud people were doing?

The only thing that made the builders rich were the prices they were paying. Noone had to sell those minerals to them for such low amounts.

That is the one thing people in this thread fail to realize. There is an absolute ceiling to what people can get now, it is fixed, based on old numbers surely, but since trit is 50% more than that formula calls for (3 versus 2 per unit or was), and is the highest proportion of the minerals needed it takes a big chunk out of the profit right there.

Insurance fraud wasnt nearly the ISK making machine everyone thought it was. They just happened to believe all the stories people told about it. But anyone with a spread sheet and a calculator can figure out just what these guys were averaging per ship. The only question was how many manufactoring slots could they run and could they really get all the mineral necessary every time they opened up to keep a perpetual assembly line going?

Either way without that ship sink there has to be a new way for the builders to make money from the stuff they manufactor.

So while some people didnt like IER it wasnt nearly as profitable as people make it out to be, and it supplied a reliable and steady form of ISK (while 'destroying' the perpetual faucet of minerals) that helped support a lot of different interests in the game.

Will have to wait and see what happens, but I am not very optimimstic that this will work and benefit the masses.

Guttripper
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2010.04.02 00:45:00 - [496]
 

Edited by: Guttripper on 02/04/2010 00:46:47
To diverge off the path a moment, after years of reading the forums, there have been two opposite points always stated as how the game is (or should be):

- "If you can not make x amount per hour / day / week / etc., then you're playing the game all wrong."

- "If there is no insurance pay out for PVP ship destruction, then PVP will be doomed since nobody will be able to afford it."

So which point has (had) more weight in the overall game?

Edited due to a typo...

Rodarine
Posted - 2010.04.02 00:52:00 - [497]
 

Edited by: Rodarine on 02/04/2010 01:00:17
Also one other point, if insurance payouts are going to be factored by market price averages, what is stopping corps from selling each other billions of Trit back and forth for 100 per unit and manipulating the average up to a stupid number? Then getting that inflated average price and then blowing them up. Even at only a 75% payout if they manipulate the numbers enough with just a few trades will it matter? Unless of course their is a ceiling or a cellar, which is exactly where we are right now.

Jonaaz Dsz
Gallente
Posted - 2010.04.02 05:52:00 - [498]
 

Overall, I like the ideas presented with the blog.

I like the removal of Meta0 from drops, as I see it - that would stabilize the Tech1 market. Perhaps instead of just only shifting to metal scraps for drop, increase the salvage. That would still give a feeling of achievement and require some work. In turn I see it driving the salvage prices down, which in turn would either make rigs profitable or reduce the price of rigs.


Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.04.02 06:14:00 - [499]
 

Originally by: Red Raider
Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Red Raider
Third, meta 0 production will consume minerals (hopefully) due to the need for meta 0 modules in tech II production. The trick is to reduce insurance as an ISK faucet due to the deflationary effects fraud has on the buying power of ISK.


Nope. This is not an across the board removal or even reduction of meta 0. This is a targeted reduction in the drop rates of the items that were contributing the most to reprocessed ISK. So, when I farm Angel's Extavaganza L4, I'm going to expect 1 or 2 1400mm arty instead of 3 or 4 (hyperbole).



Please stop saying this you are making yourself look stupid because it says it literally in the dev blog that this is exactly what they are doing. You are parsing words trying to look smart.

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
We identified a core set of loot tables which are responsible for contributing to the majority of the NPC loot sourced minerals and these are the first ones we want to adjust with Tyrannis, reducing the quantity of the Tech 0 items being dropped and substituting it with a variation of scrap metals or tags, for example. There will still be the same amount of Tech 1 meta 1-4 modules being dropped and these will still act as mineral faucets if you desire a source of minerals still from NPC combat.




Quote:
We identified a core set of loot tables which are responsible for contributing to the majority of the NPC loot sourced minerals and these are the first ones we want to adjust with Tyrannis, reducing the quantity of the Tech 0 items being dropped and substituting it with a variation of scrap metals or tags, for example. There will still be the same amount of Tech 1 meta 1-4 modules being dropped and these will still act as mineral faucets if you desire a source of minerals still from NPC combat.


Probably Tarawa is right.

The problem is that CCP will remove most of the items used for compression and then (as compressions will still be used) say "Doh! there are still to many of those modules and reprocessed minerals, nerf again."

So long as they will not get a clear picture of how much of those mineral from "reprocessed loot" come from compression items and reprocessed ships/T2 this whole change is based on imaginary numbers.

Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2010.04.02 08:29:00 - [500]
 

CCP, please be aware that you're potentially opening a huge can of worms here.

The biggest issue I see with the devblog is the lack of consistency.

Right now, the insurance system, while flawed, is consistent. You'll get a (flawed) mineral value payout for every shiploss that is consistent across the board.

The flaw here is that the insurance payouts are based on fixed mineral values. This makes insurance inherently flawed as you can then game the system (IE, purchase Tier3 BS to self-destruct for insurance fraud). It also means that T2 and T3 ships get excessively small payouts as moon material values were set to unrealistically low figures.

Fixing insurance so that insurance is based on actual mineral values is a good thing. This allows insurance to be consistent with actual market values. I see no issues with this.

The problem is when insurance values for T2 ships are set arbitrarily. As was suggested, an interceptor would get a higher insurance payout than a stealthbomber, for instance. Exactly why is that? Is it because interceptors are considered more expendable? To me, it sounds like we're going to have to rely on devs, who may or may not even play the game, to decide for us what role our ships should have. I'm sorry, but that is giving me flashbacks of the Zulupark carrier nerf.

EVE has always been about the devs giving us the tools, then it's been up to us (the players) to decide how to use them. This has sometimes resulted in tactics and setups that have been unconventional and outrageous, and tactics that have been surprisingly brilliant. Inconsistent and arbitrarily set insurance payouts will work against that, as the devs are telling us to not use our ships the way we want or we'll get less insurance.


On the subject of supercapitals, the general feeling is that these ships should hurt when you lose them, right? Alright, let's see. A titan costs 45 bil in minerals, another 10 bil for a BPC (or equivalent value if you buy the BPO), further costs for the POS to build it in, oh heck let's say 60 bil for the ship. Add another 10-30 bil in fittings. Total, 70-90 bil. Insurance payout is 20 bil. What's the problem there? Changing the insurance payout to 1-10% is laughable. At that point, you might as well do away with insurance alltogether.

Now, this has certain effects. For one thing, it will reduce supercap proliferation, as players may become slightly reluctant to purchase/build these ships in the first place. This is only a small reduction however, as I imagine most players who have the ISK will get one regardless. It may also cause less supercaps deployed on the battlefield. This means that less supercaps will be killed, which actually increases supercap proliferation.

The biggest problem though, is that this is an arbitrary decision on the devs behalf. If supercaps already cost a fortune to lose (as we've demonstrated above) and changing of insurance payouts might mean that LESS supercaps die, aren't we missing the plot? Wasn't the supercap changes intended in part to get more of them out on the battlefield to fight and be lost?


My personal feelings is that insurance payouts need to be reduced. It's an unnecessary isk infusion into the game that harms the economy, as well as a huge mitigation on the cost of war - war SHOULD be costly! Insurance needs to be more consistent and less arbitrary. Setting insurance to actual mineral values is a good first step, but it needs to be followed up by an overhaul of the entire insurance system. There should be a point, for instance, to use less than platinum insurance. Or, as has been suggested, do away with insurance levels altogether and give everyone a base payout - and keep in mind that losing 60% of your shipvalue for a carrier or marauder still hurts a lot more than losing a cruiser.

Just... make it consistent. And less arbitrary.


Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.04.02 08:49:00 - [501]
 

Originally by: Pallidum Treponema


Just... make it consistent. And less arbitrary.




Or... you could remove it all together...

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.02 09:48:00 - [502]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 02/04/2010 09:56:05
Originally by: Rodarine
If anyone bothered to use a calculator they would see that insurance fraud wasnt that big an isk income. All it was was a trade off, minerals for ISK.

Just a little piece of advice.... People think you're stupid when you expose your ignorance this blatantly Laughing
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema
Just... make it consistent. And less arbitrary.

Or... you could remove it all together...

Best solution, but will not be used. There are simply too many players who'll cry in their sleep over their lost precious virtual internet space game money Sad

At the very least there should be no insurance on supercaps, though a 1-10% insurance payout may rub the salt so much more into the wound that it is useful. Caps too should have little if any insurance...

I would prefer something like this:
T1 Frigates: 100% insurance
T1 Destroyers: 80%
T1 Cruisers: 60%
T1 Battlecruisers: 40%
T1 Battleships: %20%
T1 Capitals/Supercapitals: 0%
T2: 0%
T3: 0%

A progression like that will still support newbies, but'll gently introduce them to rising 'real' cost of ship losses. It'll mean that some of the smaller ship classes will start to get used again as losing a Battleship will start hurting again.
Much better and much more consistent. People will STILL be using Battleships/T2/caps/supercaps, but the loss will hurt, and killing one of either will be something you can be happy about. Those highs and lows are what makes the game worth playing!

Merouk Baas
Gallente
Posted - 2010.04.02 10:58:00 - [503]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
[...] but the loss will hurt [...] Those highs and lows are what makes the game worth playing!


You can roleplay being hardcore if you want, but the bottom line is that the amount of loss through the death penalty affects how big the playerbase is. CCP seems to have decided that the death penalty is currently a bit light, and skewed, but I think they'll treat it as a very sensitive thing to adjust.

How does your decreasing insurance payout curve fit in with the fact that the most used ships are battleships? You're simply promoting the use of frigates, and adding yet one more reason why nobody should use capital ships, T2, and T3. T3 are already expensive, they make you lose skill points, same job can be done with T2 or T1, and now you want to nerf the insurance too. Great, might as well remove them from the game; CCP should add more varieties of T1 frigates instead of trying to advance the tech trees.

Velov
Creative Destruction
Posted - 2010.04.02 11:25:00 - [504]
 

Greets Chron.. great ideas. I'd like to throw in a bit on the insurance system, if I may.

Quote:
The possibility even exists to remove manual insuring of ships and simply cover all ships by default or even to give corporations bonuses to insurance coverage. Interesting changes are coming to insurance with Tyrannis. If you have an opinion on this or a good idea for tweaking the insurance system

I like this idea, but at the same time I'm hesitant. I think it would draw a lot more people(thinking of noobs w/ fresh pampers here) into pvp if they didn't stand to lose *everything* they poured into that poor rifter/stabber/cyclone/cane/pest/etc. Giving them a mandatory return on their losses curbs the pain a bit, without completely devaluing the kill for the victor.

One spin I would put on the insurance system is a varied payout dependent on the territory in which a ship is lost, keeping in mind the political situation of one's corporation and/or alliance, ie. war-decs.

For example, assuming no active war-decs, ships lost in..

Hisec.. low risk, high payout.
Lowsec.. moderate risk, moderate payout.
Nullsec.. high risk, low payout.
Worm holes.. very high risk, very low payout. (maybe not, but I'll throw it in for the example's sake)

Assuming active war-dec(s).. medium risk, medium payout to override across the board between the parties involved only. This seems most suitable since they enable all parts of space. This would make a war-dec worthwhile in both empire and 0.0 by enabling aggression in empire, as always, and subsequently lowering insurance returns in hi-sec, leveling with low-sec, and increasing them in 0.0. Nice trade-off imo, maybe slightly biased toward the aggressor. More ship-specific restrictions can still be weaved in based on class and role as you already discussed.. suicide gankers, tacklers, ninjas, t1 vs t2 vs t3, etc.

Rundown..
- Payout outside a war-dec: lowest(worm holes?), low(nullsec), moderate(lowsec), high(hisec), and none(hisec, suicide gank)
- Payout within a war-dec: moderate(worm holes?), moderate(nullsec), moderate(lowsec), and moderate(hisec)

YARRRR!!

Hairy Honey
Posted - 2010.04.02 12:29:00 - [505]
 

Why have insurance NPC run at all? Why not make the insurance player run? A player corporation can offer insurance dictate the premiums, deductibles and so on while receiving financial backing from which ever faction they are aligned with. The the insuring corp runs lots of missions and is involved in factional warfare it receives 80 percent plus or minus 10% of the base cost of the ship. The insuring corp can set who is eligible for insurance based on sec status, standings or whatever. The pilot can also shop around for the best deal. I am sure a similar setup could be devised for pirate factions as well giving pirates an equal opportunity for high risk behavior. It just seems simply nerfing an element of the game seems a bit uninspired.

CEO Saffron
Posted - 2010.04.02 12:56:00 - [506]
 

Edited by: CEO Saffron on 02/04/2010 13:09:30
Its stating the obvious but interdictors need at the very least 60 percent insurance as well as hics

Dictors should be the highest of all really.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.02 13:15:00 - [507]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 02/04/2010 13:20:53
Originally by: Merouk Baas
Originally by: Kerfira
[...] but the loss will hurt [...] Those highs and lows are what makes the game worth playing!

You can roleplay being hardcore if you want, but the bottom line is that the amount of loss through the death penalty affects how big the playerbase is. CCP seems to have decided that the death penalty is currently a bit light, and skewed, but I think they'll treat it as a very sensitive thing to adjust.

So you claim... I prefer to see some evidence other than what a single player claims... Rolling Eyes

You're essentially saying that a game that doesn't give people highs and lows is better than a game that does! By the last numbers released by CCP, people play EVE for an average of 7 months before leaving. The people who ups that average doesn't give a damn about losses... ISK is ridiculously easy to come by after all!

Most likely, the people who quits because they get a slightly lower payout on insurance would have quit soon anyway...
Originally by: Merouk Baas
How does your decreasing insurance payout curve fit in with the fact that the most used ships are battleships? You're simply promoting the use of frigates, and adding yet one more reason why nobody should use capital ships, T2, and T3. T3 are already expensive, they make you lose skill points, same job can be done with T2 or T1, and now you want to nerf the insurance too. Great, might as well remove them from the game; CCP should add more varieties of T1 frigates instead of trying to advance the tech trees.

It fits very well! The biggest non-specialised T1 ship (the Battleship) should NOT be the most used ship! It should be a luxury... something you would be proud of flying, and something worth destroying!
What is happening is that the variety in EVE combat has been narrowed down to T1 BS/BC's, T2 and caps/supercaps. This effectively removes a large chunk of the ships that SHOULD be actively used, but isn't because the bigger ones are too cheap to lose.

I also don't believe you've ever flown T2 in combat... Nobody cares about the cost of them (at least below command ships)! They're throwaways... You fly them because they're effective (and because they're an epeen enhancer)!
They generally don't get insured, and the standard payout is not noticeable anyway... Lowering it to a round 0 will not change their use (as it is pretty damn close to 0 now anyway)...

Sunn Hunn
Posted - 2010.04.02 13:38:00 - [508]
 

Setting fixed payout for ships will be very good - no headache with updating insurance. Set it like 70% for BS, 80-90% for T1 capitals - there is plenty of isk in absolute value, and counting with loss of cap mods, capital loss hits on wallet pretty good. Also remove clone upgrades - just charge proper sum for death, we already have a good way to lose SP - T3 ships. For those who do not want insurance at all - no problem, make for them an option at insurance office, refusal of payment, people should have a choice how to play EVE Razz

Red Raider
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.04.02 16:38:00 - [509]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul

Probably Tarawa is right.

The problem is that CCP will remove most of the items used for compression and then (as compressions will still be used) say "Doh! there are still to many of those modules and reprocessed minerals, nerf again."

So long as they will not get a clear picture of how much of those mineral from "reprocessed loot" come from compression items and reprocessed ships/T2 this whole change is based on imaginary numbers.



I can only understand this argument based on the fact that we do not have access to the statistics but I seriously doubt that they are including modules that were manufactured, never placed on the market, and then reprocessed. Not to mention it's very likely that they know exactly how many modules drop and are basing the adjustment on that and not on anything else. It's only prudent to exclude certain values and despite the constant whining on the forums about CCP screwing up they have rarely done so on TQ. They did exactly what they wanted to do whether people liked it or not doesn't make it a mistake. Anything is possible but it's highly unlikely IMHO.


Originally by: LHA Tarawa


Originally by: Red Raider
Third, meta 0 production will consume minerals (hopefully) due to the need for meta 0 modules in tech II production. The trick is to reduce insurance as an ISK faucet due to the deflationary effects fraud has on the buying power of ISK.


Nope. This is not an across the board removal or even reduction of meta 0. This is a targeted reduction in the drop rates of the items that were contributing the most to reprocessed ISK. So, when I farm Angel's Extavaganza L4, I'm going to expect 1 or 2 1400mm arty instead of 3 or 4 (hyperbole).


How is his statement even remotely related to what he quoted from me? Not to mention it being parsing words because he is falsely promoting the idea that I and others thought this is a removal of meta 0 products, which has yet to be claimed in 17 pages of reading, and then spouting the obvious that everyone has been discussing for 17 pages. It's a completely and totally irrelevant statement and has no contextual relation to the quoted passage at all.

Rodarine
Posted - 2010.04.02 17:19:00 - [510]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
Edited by: Kerfira on 02/04/2010 09:56:05

Just a little piece of advice.... People think you're stupid when you expose your ignorance this blatantly Laughing


No I just know how to multiply and think for myself.

For example Rokhs. The IER of choice for most people. Insurance payout of 165.0 Million, Insurance Cost of 49.5 million, Net ISK into system 115.5 million. MAny peopel know that. At ME 50 the required Mineral amounts are....

trit: 10804692
Pyer:3178934
Mex:667791
Iso:169365
Nocx:12416
Mega:3035

Now you start plugging in mineral prices and that starts giving you profit margins. Higher trit and pyer prices wil effect that margin more than Mega and Zyd will. Even though the base price (price insurance is based upon) of mega and Zyd is astonmically higher than the market price. But trit is also higher compared ot that base price.

With market prices the last week or so being one average:

trit 2.92
Pyer 7.43
Mex 30.15
Iso 54.6
Nocx 80.5 (gone up this week)
Zyd 1150 (up this week)
Mega 2100(up this week)

Mixing in a calculator, and you see that the price to build a Rokh in materials is 109124108. Add in the cost of the BP, and the manufactoring slot coast and youre close to 112 million per ship. So at those prices I listed youre looking at 3.5-3.75 million per ship profit. Now obviously prices people pay may vary, so that is what effects their profit margins obviously. If someone has to pay 2.97 to get enough trit to keep production rolling non stop that eats up half a million profit right there. Or if they get trit for 2.85 they make more. That is the nature of it.

Besides it is an NPC supported market so what does it really matter? If the miners or refiners sell for more then the profits are just dividid up a little bit. And if the competiton is there for the builders (which it was) then some guys wont have all their slots filled, and thus wont be maxing out their profits.

But that is what competition and 'capitalism' is all about. But low, sell high. Build cheap sell expensive. The particulars about how a ship os detroyed can be discussed all you want. But destroying those ships wasnt that huge a profit. Sure if a guy could make 250 a day at 3.5 million profit he could theoretically make 875 million a day. But 250 ships even with a ME 50 is 2.7 billion units of trit alone. He better have a ot of suppliers running trit to him to have that much coming in every day. Not to mention all the pyer, which would be 795 million units there as well.

Plus these builders didnt always have cash on hand especially if they were "big" operations, they wuld obviously get a big influx every 5 hours or so depending on their PE. So always having ISK available to get the very best deal wasnt always possible.

See that is where theory, and reality get blurred. People will use a calculator sometimes and see big numbers, but they fail to take it the logisitics of it all and also fail to realize that people couldnt always get all their slots filled either by lack of funds, lack of mineals, lack of slots, or maybe even running out of BPs.

So while people can claim or think because someone has the ability to make 250 ships a day, the reality is they probably will make half that many, and if they can get that many materials their profit margins are going to suffer because they had to compete with someone else.

But even so I guess 100 ships at 1.5 million profit per would be 150 million ISK a day. But running level 4 missions and salvaging and refining along with high social skills can net 10-20 million a mission. So depending on length of missions making 150 million there is just as possible too I guess.

Problem is the new change the Mission runners will still get huge NPC ISK, while builders lose it and are goign to rely solely on players to spend their money to make anything.

BTW I dont IER I just sell minerals.


Pages: first : previous : ... 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 ... : 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