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 : ... 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 ... : last (24)

Author Topic

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.04.02 17:22:00 - [511]
 

Originally by: Red Raider
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.


I agree. We don't have data, but I would assume they are using missions run, ships in those missions, drop rate of those ships, minerals from those drops, and some guess at what % get looted vs. despawn.

Just using the reprocessed info would be lame.


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?


The only way that meta 0 begins to consume rather than contribute minerals is if they are virtually eliminating them entirely. From my reading of the dev blog, this is NOT happening. This is a targeted reduction (not elimination) of just the tables (I think BS rat drops) that contribute most of the reprocessed minerals.

On first reading, I too had the knee jerk reaction of thinking they were going to eliminate the drop of many items so that it would be possible to profit from manufacturing them (meaning they would consume rather than contribute minerals). Upon rereading, as well as reading other posts, I'm now convinced this was not the intention at all. The rate of contribution will diminish, but meta 0 is still going to be a contributer not consumer of minerals.



Originally by: Red Raider
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.


Meta 0 has very low demand. Even a SIGNIFICANT decrease in the drop rate, across the board, would still make meta 0 be a contributer rather than consumer of minerals.

So, explain to me how you think minerals would be consumed rather than contributed, without elimination, or atleast across the board near elimination? I thought it an obvious implication, but perhaps I'm just miss infering.

Starnik
Posted - 2010.04.02 17:49:00 - [512]
 

I object to this Blog being called "The Circle of Life." Circle implies things get recycled in a round sort of donut shaped way. Eve's life is more pie slice shaped. You have all these various resources and ISK that appear out of nothing. They get slowly focused down into fewer and fewer items. Until one day, those items get ganked and disappear forever. Very clearly pie, not donut. How can CCP be expected to fix the game if they can't tell the difference between pie and a donut?

Laughing

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.04.02 18:05:00 - [513]
 

Originally by: Starnik
I object to this Blog being called "The Circle of Life." Circle implies things get recycled in a round sort of donut shaped way. Eve's life is more pie slice shaped. You have all these various resources and ISK that appear out of nothing. They get slowly focused down into fewer and fewer items. Until one day, those items get ganked and disappear forever. Very clearly pie, not donut. How can CCP be expected to fix the game if they can't tell the difference between pie and a donut?
Laughing


I think of ISK flow as more of a stream. ISK comes in to combat pilots through bounties and insurance payouts, flows to industrialists, who then use it to buy BPOs, POS structures, POS fuels, corp hangers, now system rents/upgrades, etc.

Of course, minerals are supposed to be the opposite. Industrialists mine and manufacture, then sell to combat pilots that get them blowed up.

Yin and yang making a circle?

Unfortunatly, it is broken in two ways. More minerals coming from rat drops than mining. Insurance payouts for self-destructing ships dumping ISK directly to industrialists. These seem to be addressed, at least partially and perhaps temporarily, by the changes.

Anyway, I wrote a different proposal on this very topic.... Check the features and ideas discussion if interested.


Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.02 18:27:00 - [514]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 02/04/2010 18:30:56
Originally by: Rodarine
Post #510

And you keep exposing your ignorance Rolling Eyes

First of all, as a BPO doesn't decrease in value in being used, there is no cost in using one. It is a fixed asset, and will still be worth the same after you're done. The manufacturing cost are negligible. There's 2+m off your calculation already.

Second... Don't use Jita prices, and especially not the high-ends as they are now (heavy speculation)... Find a nice quiet area where there are lots of macro miners, and place your buy orders for low-ends there. They'll fill them fast... Then you only have to import the high-ends. Make sure there are plenty of manufacturing slots available.
Buying loot form missioners (reprocessed or not) is also an option, thought you'll need to supplement that since the amounts are not optimal.

In general, you can get about 7m profit per ship. One character can produce 6 per day, giving 180 per month. That's ~1.26b per character, multiplied by 3 per account it gives ~3.78b per account. Note that the prices are pre-speculation-bubble.

The amount of hauling you'll need to do varies depending on where you've set up, and it is not negligible, but the profit margin is still VERY nice for absolutely no risk!

The main beauty of it is that you can utilise ALL characters on an account, where for all other activities you can only use one.

Rodarine
Posted - 2010.04.02 18:46:00 - [515]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Rodarine
Post #510

And you keep exposing your ignorance Rolling Eyes

First of all, as a BPO doesn't decrease in value in being used, there is no cost in using one. It is a fixed asset, and will still be worth the same after you're done. The manufacturing cost are negligible. There's 2+m off your calculation already.

Second... Don't use Jita prices, and especially not the high-ends as they are now (heavy speculation)... Find a nice quiet area where there are lots of macro miners, and place your buy orders for low-ends there. They'll fill them fast... Then you only have to import the high-ends. Make sure there are plenty of manufacturing slots available.

In general, you can get about 7m profit per ship. One character can produce 6 per day, giving 180 per month. That's ~1.26b per character, multiplied by 3 per account it gives ~3.78b per account. Note that the prices are pre-speculation-bubble.

The amount of hauling you'll need to do varies depending on where you've set up, and it is not negligible, but the profit margin is still VERY nice for absolutely no risk!

The main beauty of it is that you can utilise ALL characters on an account, where for all other activities you can only use one.


Like I said you are using the best case scenario to reach your figures which is not plausible. If you go to some out of the way hole you wont get the mineral volumes you need. And why BPO?

And again, it is all NPC money, and takes the minerals out of the system, no harm in that, if the builder is clever enough to be bale to buy theminerals at those prices it isnt his fault, it isnt even like it is a scam, he is buying low.

Not to mention if that is how people want to spend their time playing the game so what. It is boring to me thats for sure, but they really arent getting rich. 1.26B a month is nothing actually. And that is your best case scenario. Thats only 42 million a day, and mission runners make that EASILLY per day. With even less risk. Because when was the last time a mission runner lost a ship in a mission?

We can argue and debate it all we want, manufactorers have expences and that insurance money isnt 'free' (unlike mission money which only costs time) the thing that determines their profit is the market. It isnt their fault people will undercut everyone else thus driving prices down. And with no baseline and no real market for ships (now that NPCs wont be supporting the sytem) that is only going to worsen.

PvP losses wont come close to making up the difference that IER accounts for now. So without people building ships who is going to want the minerals? Especially once the speculators all go broke.

If the market set the 'correct' prices for minerals profits from IER wouldnt be nearly as large as they are now, and it would still supply an outlet for those ships (minerals) out of the sytem.

Like I said we can debate it all day, the bottomline is its the markets fault and people selling (which is generally macro miners for the most part) their stuff too cheap. It isnt the IER that is broken, its the oversupply of minerals, which is only going to worsen with that massive sink closed up.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.04.02 18:58:00 - [516]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 02/04/2010 19:00:09
Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Red Raider
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.


I agree. We don't have data, but I would assume they are using missions run, ships in those missions, drop rate of those ships, minerals from those drops, and some guess at what % get looted vs. despawn.

Just using the reprocessed info would be lame.



It is exactly what CCP did when they published that table 18 months ago.

If you look it you will see that it include morphite after all the drone compounds have been moved to another column of the table.

You know some T1 module or ship that has morphite in its BPO?

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.02 19:38:00 - [517]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 02/04/2010 19:44:47
Originally by: Rodarine
Like I said you are using the best case scenario to reach your figures which is not plausible. If you go to some out of the way hole you wont get the mineral volumes you need. And why BPO?

So... let me get this straight....

Because it messes up your argument, I'm not allowed to do things efficiently and optimizing the profit I get???

Yeah, I can see why that makes sense to you Rolling Eyes

Putting it in a short sentence so you can understand: You're wrong!
Originally by: Rodarine
...the bottomline is its the markets fault and people selling (which is generally macro miners for the most part) their stuff too cheap. It isnt the IER that is broken, its the oversupply of minerals, which is only going to worsen with that massive sink closed up.

And the oversupply is exactly what this insurance change will fix. First of all a chunk of the mission minerals will disappear. Second mineral prices will drop like a rock.
They'll KEEP dropping until enough people stop mining and shooting drones that an equilibrium is found between supply and demand.

That CCP should go the full way and remove ALL meta 0 loot, AND change drone goo into something not giving minerals is another matter. Mining should be the only way to generate minerals, because only then can mining be rewarded correctly according to the effort expended.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.04.02 19:58:00 - [518]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
If you look at it you will see that it include morphite after all the drone compounds have been moved to another column of the table.

You know some T1 module or ship that has morphite in its BPO?



Thanks, I'd forgotten that.

However, they stated that they identifed the loot tables responsible for most minerals. I doubt they are going off of reprocess data to identify that.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.04.02 20:04:00 - [519]
 

Originally by: Kerfira

That CCP should go the full way and remove ALL meta 0 loot, AND change drone goo into something not giving minerals is another matter. Mining should be the only way to generate minerals, because only then can mining be rewarded correctly according to the effort expended.



You know, in all the discussions I've read, one of the suggestions I've not seen attacked is the idea of removing all meta 0. Seems easy enough to do. I wonder why it hasn't been done. Is CCP afraid that we'd then have too few minerals?

The DevBlog does say "start" with the tables responsible for the majority of minerals. I wonder if this is a trial for removing all meta 0. IF mineral prices don't explode upwards with the removal of the first phase, then keep removing more?


Red Raider
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.04.02 20:09:00 - [520]
 

Originally by: LHA Tarawa


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).


How is his statement even remotely related to what he quoted from me?


The only way that meta 0 begins to consume rather than contribute minerals is if they are virtually eliminating them entirely. From my reading of the dev blog, this is NOT happening. This is a targeted reduction (not elimination) of just the tables (I think BS rat drops) that contribute most of the reprocessed minerals.

On first reading, I too had the knee jerk reaction of thinking they were going to eliminate the drop of many items so that it would be possible to profit from manufacturing them (meaning they would consume rather than contribute minerals). Upon rereading, as well as reading other posts, I'm now convinced this was not the intention at all. The rate of contribution will diminish, but meta 0 is still going to be a contributer not consumer of minerals.


Thats an assumption since we have no idea how much they are curbing the figures. If you read my statement again I said it will consume them (hopefully). Your reply took my (hopefully) and turned it into fact which is not what I stated. The hope here would be that they curb the drop rates down low enough that production of meta 0 modules is necessary to fill Tech II demand.

Originally by: LHA Tarawa


Originally by: Red Raider
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.


Meta 0 has very low demand. Even a SIGNIFICANT decrease in the drop rate, across the board, would still make meta 0 be a contributer rather than consumer of minerals.

So, explain to me how you think minerals would be consumed rather than contributed, without elimination, or atleast across the board near elimination? I thought it an obvious implication, but perhaps I'm just miss infering.


Meta 0's demand is not as low as you think since it's required to build Tech II which has significant market share in modules. Look at the demand for tech II modules in the QEN. 28k Tech II 1400mm howitzers in December and 37k Tracking Computer II's in December. Thats a lot of meta 0 modules being consumed.

As I have already stated and as CCP has stated in the blog that mission loot should not adversely effect specialist activities that rely upon mineral costs(mining and production). How do you get that they are not reducing it by much out of that statement? My bet is that its a 80-90% reduction in the targeted loot. If for whatever reason they can't seperate reprocessed loot from mineral compression then the safe bet would be to reduce it by 90% and see the effect on those modules being repro'd. If the qty of modules being repro'd only drops by 10% then mission loots effects on the mineral market is slim. Problem is we all know that's not true.

Zendoren
Aktaeon Industries
The Black Armada
Posted - 2010.04.02 20:27:00 - [521]
 

Edited by: Zendoren on 02/04/2010 20:28:04
Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Kerfira

That CCP should go the full way and remove ALL meta 0 loot, AND change drone goo into something not giving minerals is another matter. Mining should be the only way to generate minerals, because only then can mining be rewarded correctly according to the effort expended.



You know, in all the discussions I've read, one of the suggestions I've not seen attacked is the idea of removing all meta 0. Seems easy enough to do. I wonder why it hasn't been done. Is CCP afraid that we'd then have too few minerals?

The DevBlog does say "start" with the tables responsible for the majority of minerals. I wonder if this is a trial for removing all meta 0. IF mineral prices don't explode upwards with the removal of the first phase, then keep removing more?




They are doing it now because they are introducing a new avenue of ISK Generation... Planets.....

CCP did not want to rock the boat until they had another avenue to balance the markets without undue stress to the current status quo in 0.0 with moon goo....

Hope that this clears thing up a little bit!

Red Raider
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.04.02 20:47:00 - [522]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul

You know some T1 module or ship that has morphite in its BPO?



If I do what do I get?

Prototype Cloaking Device

Tale Chaser
Posted - 2010.04.02 20:53:00 - [523]
 

ok, many of the changes i'm ebhind.

anything that boosts mining is win. i quit mining years ago. no need to--even though i build 24/7 ... there's absolutly no need to mine--and it's income is spiteful, for the time invested in training of it. so to that end, nerf to loot table--make it something that DOESNT refine to mins--asside from maybe trit (scrap metal). tags are OK. always need more tags--but that too will kill the faction mods market. going to sell off my mods now while i can, but them in 6 months.

BUT, the insirance tied to maket thing... this could be bad.

CCP has always been of the mind, that insurance provides a floor for mineral prices. prices just cant go lower, than X point, due to insurance.

Tie it to mineral prices, say 100%, but premiums cost 30%, so, you get a payout of 70% on the ship--eventually, all this does, is make the mineral market CRASH.

oh, and it will crash--there will no longer be a bottom. the insurnace premium changes better be long-term calulations, because if its' on the order of a month--we'll end up with a flat-line mineral market. dead. because as insurnace drops, it takes mineral prices with it. there will be NO floor, unless you institute one. it could all end up costing 0.01 isk, if ur not careful, and ships costing nothing.

need a floor. how are you going to institute the floor that curent insurance provides?

imho, this is going to lead to doom.


Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.02 22:24:00 - [524]
 

Originally by: Tale Chaser
CCP has always been of the mind, that insurance provides a floor for mineral prices. prices just cant go lower, than X point, due to insurance.

This is not true.... The floor was an unintended consequence, not a desired design.

The current 'floor' was set when getting enough minerals for a CRUISER was a big deal, and when the ideal mining ship was an Osprey. At that time, minerals were MUCH more valuable in themselves that what you could get from insurance.

Over time mining has been boosted time and time again, bringing down the relative value of minerals until it hit the floor.
Then the minerals marked became completely static. Where it before had fluctuated, it was now tied to the basket insurance payout.

This was not good for the ingame economy, and CCP has over the last year or two removed most/all of the conversion mechanisms between minerals and ISK, and have now finally gotten to the last and biggest one, insurance.

Once that is gone, the EVE market can again flow freely.

Cang Zar
Posted - 2010.04.03 01:58:00 - [525]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Tale Chaser
CCP has always been of the mind, that insurance provides a floor for mineral prices. prices just cant go lower, than X point, due to insurance.

This is not true.... The floor was an unintended consequence, not a desired design.

The current 'floor' was set when getting enough minerals for a CRUISER was a big deal, and when the ideal mining ship was an Osprey. At that time, minerals were MUCH more valuable in themselves that what you could get from insurance.

Over time mining has been boosted time and time again, bringing down the relative value of minerals until it hit the floor.
Then the minerals marked became completely static. Where it before had fluctuated, it was now tied to the basket insurance payout.

This was not good for the ingame economy, and CCP has over the last year or two removed most/all of the conversion mechanisms between minerals and ISK, and have now finally gotten to the last and biggest one, insurance.

Once that is gone, the EVE market can again flow freely.



Not really, it was desired design - or at least intended - we used to have a real mineral price-floor (via npc buy orders) to ensure that mining wasnt a useless profession, but as players always bought ores at higher values, the npc buyorders were never used anyway, so they were removed (and eventually insurance took over the role, as mineral prices began dropping from mining boosts), we'll see how this new floor-less mineral market works out though, I doubt anyone can give any real accurate analysis until we see it.. My current guess, is that the low-end minerals will plummet.

Rodarine
Posted - 2010.04.03 03:51:00 - [526]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
Edited by: Kerfira on 02/04/2010 19:44:47
Originally by: Rodarine
Like I said you are using the best case scenario to reach your figures which is not plausible. If you go to some out of the way hole you wont get the mineral volumes you need. And why BPO?

So... let me get this straight....

Because it messes up your argument, I'm not allowed to do things efficiently and optimizing the profit I get???

Yeah, I can see why that makes sense to you Rolling Eyes

Putting it in a short sentence so you can understand: You're wrong!
Originally by: Rodarine
...the bottomline is its the markets fault and people selling (which is generally macro miners for the most part) their stuff too cheap. It isnt the IER that is broken, its the oversupply of minerals, which is only going to worsen with that massive sink closed up.

And the oversupply is exactly what this insurance change will fix. First of all a chunk of the mission minerals will disappear. Second mineral prices will drop like a rock.
They'll KEEP dropping until enough people stop mining and shooting drones that an equilibrium is found between supply and demand.

That CCP should go the full way and remove ALL meta 0 loot, AND change drone goo into something not giving minerals is another matter. Mining should be the only way to generate minerals, because only then can mining be rewarded correctly according to the effort expended.



So even more people have to quit mining for there to be some sort of equalibrium? it is already mostly macro miners with a very few 'live' people still bothering to mine at all. Which like I said originally, the population will have to be cut in half or people that mine and build and frieghter stuff around will have to quit or do something else. Not very good choices right there.

We will see, but from what I see written it will be a disaster after about 2 weeks.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2010.04.03 06:50:00 - [527]
 

Edited by: Venkul Mul on 03/04/2010 07:02:16
Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Venkul Mul
If you look at it you will see that it include morphite after all the drone compounds have been moved to another column of the table.

You know some T1 module or ship that has morphite in its BPO?



Thanks, I'd forgotten that.

However, they stated that they identifed the loot tables responsible for most minerals. I doubt they are going off of reprocess data to identify that.


I am sure they have identified the "mineral rich" modules and will reduce the change of them being dropped by NPC.

What I was saying is that there is a good risk that CCP will see that the minerals are still oversupplied and that those modules are still reprocessed (as they are often the modules used for mineral compression) and reduce them again and again blindly.

Not seeing any comment by a Dev saying that they have cleared the mineral table of spurious data and reading a comment by a CSM member (Elflord) saying that after Unholy rage and the 0.0 industrial upgrades the numbers have shifted by "a few percentages" make me think that CCP has spent little or no effort trying to get a table cleared from the extraneous data.

So they are following a "try this" approach without a clear picture of the situation.

Originally by: LHA Tarawa
Originally by: Kerfira

That CCP should go the full way and remove ALL meta 0 loot, AND change drone goo into something not giving minerals is another matter. Mining should be the only way to generate minerals, because only then can mining be rewarded correctly according to the effort expended.



You know, in all the discussions I've read, one of the suggestions I've not seen attacked is the idea of removing all meta 0. Seems easy enough to do. I wonder why it hasn't been done. Is CCP afraid that we'd then have too few minerals?

The DevBlog does say "start" with the tables responsible for the majority of minerals. I wonder if this is a trial for removing all meta 0. IF mineral prices don't explode upwards with the removal of the first phase, then keep removing more?



Ok, remove all the meta0 loot, but any suggestion for an alternate drop for drones that will not crash some other market?

Drone modules? There are very few meta1+ drone modules. If you make them drop meta0 we are at the starting point.

Components for the meta drones (faction, augmented and integrated)? Nice stuff, but how big is the market and how fast will it be saturated? and if you push them enough so that they will become cheap they will replace T2 drones.

Isk? Add another isk faucet, not so good.

More salvage and/or T2 salvage? It will crash the normal salvage market and probably the T2 salvage too.

I can't see what you can substitute that will not impact some part of the production chain or make them identical to normal NPC.

Originally by: Red Raider
Originally by: Venkul Mul

You know some T1 module or ship that has morphite in its BPO?



If I do what do I get?

Prototype Cloaking Device


Good find. So 2% of all morphite come from reprocessing Prototype Cloaking Devices?
And can you give us a link to the NPC that is dropping them?

Originally by: Red Raider

Meta 0's demand is not as low as you think since it's required to build Tech II which has significant market share in modules. Look at the demand for tech II modules in the QEN. 28k Tech II 1400mm howitzers in December and 37k Tracking Computer II's in December. Thats a lot of meta 0 modules being consumed.



You have an idea of how incredibly tedious and inefficient is running around to gather the meta0 modules you use for T2 production? you do that only if you have a small production going.

If you produce some large number of T2 items you will have a semi skilled alt using some production slot to produce them in the same location where you produce the T2 stuff.
You get some from buy order but it is secondary to what you produce.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.03 07:44:00 - [528]
 

Originally by: Rodarine
So even more people have to quit mining for there to be some sort of equalibrium? it is already mostly macro miners with a very few 'live' people still bothering to mine at all. Which like I said originally, the population will have to be cut in half or people that mine and build and frieghter stuff around will have to quit or do something else. Not very good choices right there.

You're being inconsistent..... Both of your claims can't be true at the same time!

If it is mostly macro miners and very few live people, then cutting them by half will be a good thing.
Originally by: Rodarine
We will see, but from what I see written it will be a disaster after about 2 weeks.

A few hundred or thousand players emorage-quitting EVE is not a 'disaster'... If it brings the game a free-flowing economy, it is a cheap price to pay. CCP seems to agree:
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Since those days we removed those caps and relied upon the scaled potential supply and demand rates of each mineral source to maintain relative value.

Btw, every single time some player has claimed that "This change will kill EVE!", nothing happened! That claim is the most sure way to make people laugh at you Razz

It should also be mentioned that CCP has far, FAR more data available, and far more experience, than you. They wouldn't have done this on a whim, but are most likely doing it because the ISK faucet of insurance really IS killing the EVE economic balance!

unwitting destruction
Posted - 2010.04.03 11:11:00 - [529]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
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 are suggesting that CCP take a huge risk in that particular test of evidence. If you are right, then the player base will only lose the biggest QQers/Carebears. A couple of thousand people at most (still a massive hit in income from CCP but at least you and 3 other people on this forum will be happy!). On the other hand, that player could be right and the total population drops back down to the 5k playerbase you so crave.

I'm not sure how many people would be happy with the idea of throwing the whole ship aspect out the window and just measuring wallet sizes. And I'm certainly not seeing CCP willing to risk alienating a large base of people so that players who have been here longer with bigger wallets can feel pretty and special, their e-peen growing mightily, in their big ships while new players are relegated to frigates and, when they really want to splurge, cruisers.

Either way, there's not exactly anything to push CCP in that direction. For a game that is so corporation centric, I don't see them making such a reckless business move and risking tens of thousands (possibly hundreds of thousands if more than 10,000 people quit over) of dollars each month.

tosh eebaa
Posted - 2010.04.03 11:20:00 - [530]
 

Originally by: Kerfira

A few hundred or thousand players emorage-quitting EVE is not a 'disaster'... If it brings the game a free-flowing economy, it is a cheap price to pay.


LOL What a selfish thing to say. So, a thousand people quitting ($15,000 a month for CCP or $180,000 a year. that's IF they only have 1 account a piece. If they are multiboxers you are looking at $360,000 a year or more!) is a small price to pay so you can make virtual space monies a little bit faster?

OUTSTANDING

Celia Therone
Posted - 2010.04.03 11:34:00 - [531]
 

Originally by: Kerfira

It should also be mentioned that CCP has far, FAR more data available, and far more experience, than you. They wouldn't have done this on a whim, but are most likely doing it because the ISK faucet of insurance really IS killing the EVE economic balance!


CCP had far more data and far more experience when they announced that T3 cruisers would cost, what was it, 200 million isk each? Now, after some truly monumental changes like the one that cut datacore prices by 99%(!), the hulls alone are running at about 200 million.

You remember what grav sites were like when wormholes first went live? You ended up going into 0 sec space to mine base veldspar.

Maybe CCP are going to get this completely right. If so, then good for them. As a sometime game developer though I have to say that making dramatic changes to multiple variables that all impact on one aspect of the game would fill me with dread. The chances for unintended consequences are high indeed.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.03 11:39:00 - [532]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 03/04/2010 11:52:03
Originally by: unwitting destruction
You are suggesting that CCP take a huge risk in that particular test of evidence.

Thank you for your huge belief in my influence, but I must disappoint you... CCP doesn't do what I say...

THEY are the ones implementing this change, not me, and let me just quote myself here:
Originally by: Kerfira
It should also be mentioned that CCP has far, FAR more data available, and far more experience, than you. They wouldn't have done this on a whim, but are most likely doing it because the ISK faucet of insurance really IS killing the EVE economic balance!

You should also note that no matter what CCP has done in the past that limited certain groups gameplay or income, never has there been mass emorage-quitting. There's been mass emorage, but not any noticeable quitting. That makes your argument pretty laughable.

In fact the opposite has generally happened. CCP has implemented some controversial change, players have emoraged... Within a week after the change people have adapted and in general the game has been in better shape than before the change...
Originally by: tosh eebaa
Originally by: Kerfira
A few hundred or thousand players emorage-quitting EVE is not a 'disaster'... If it brings the game a free-flowing economy, it is a cheap price to pay.

LOL What a selfish thing to say. So, a thousand people quitting ($15,000 a month for CCP or $180,000 a year. that's IF they only have 1 account a piece. If they are multiboxers you are looking at $360,000 a year or more!) is a small price to pay so you can make virtual space monies a little bit faster?

Compared to CCP's 300k+ subscribers, that's not even 1/3rd of a percent... It'll not be even noticed compared to monthly fluctuations. Also read above about game changes in EVE not causing mass quitting...

There may be a risk of a very large group quitting, that being macro-miners/ISK-farmers. If their mining income plummets as minerals drop, they might be the first to leave. I don't think that is a bad thing...

And where do you get that bull about me earning money faster? If anything, I'll earn them slower as I primarily mission for my money, and mission loot is being cut. I may switch to anomalies in 0.0, but loot from them will probably be cut too...

I'm supporting this move because it is the right one. The EVE economy is based on there being a balance between money and resources, and any mechanic that enable the conversion between them (ie. taking one out of the game while putting the other in) is unbalancing the economy.

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.03 11:48:00 - [533]
 

Originally by: Celia Therone
CCP had far more data and far more experience when they announced that T3 cruisers would cost, what was it, 200 million isk each? Now, after some truly monumental changes like the one that cut datacore prices by 99%(!), the hulls alone are running at about 200 million.

So after a few tweaks the ship costs what they said it would cost. Nice!
Originally by: Celia Therone
You remember what grav sites were like when wormholes first went live? You ended up going into 0 sec space to mine base veldspar.

And? How many people emorage-quit over these?

Point being, CCP is doing this for a number of reasons, and those reasons are good ones. Ships were never supposed to be free, and over the last years CCP has consequently removed all/most other ways of converting ISK<->minerals. Now time has come to the last one.
It is a good move as it'll let the markets flow freely and let supply/demand finally regulate the T1 market as it is the T2/T3/rigs market. They work, so there is absolutely no reason the T1 market shouldn't work either.

Andrew Holland
Life. Universe. Everything.
Clockwork Pineapple
Posted - 2010.04.03 13:09:00 - [534]
 

That's great news! The base cost using wildly inaccurate fixed mineral costs always bugged me. Also glad to hear that t1 ship hulls are no longer going to be "free", and that some t2 ship classes may get a much-needed insurance buff.

Can't wait to hear more about planets, though.

ChrisIsherwood
Posted - 2010.04.03 17:51:00 - [535]
 

Originally by: Kerfira
The floor was an unintended consequence, not a desired design.



Is there a link for this? My unsubstantiated opinion is that anyone who had ever played another MMO, or knew some business/econ would have expected a NPC purchase price to set a floor.


Originally by: Rodarine

We will see, but from what I see written it will be a disaster after about 2 weeks.


Unless it is completely unexpected, anything disruptive that can be anticipated, will change the markets prior to the release. E.G., if the general consensus is that minerals or T1 ships will crash after May 18th, they will crash before it - regardless of what actually happens.

Certainly, the IER rates acted as a buffer to limit swings. Unless the mineral prices are much higher, CCP removing the floor will add to mineral volatility. This may not be all bad, but unless CCP are willing to have more frequent intervention into the sandbox, it could let professions get eliminated (hisec non-m*cr* miner) or ship prices get out of line (prevent accessible T2&T3 or w/e).

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2010.04.03 18:31:00 - [536]
 

Edited by: Kerfira on 03/04/2010 18:47:16
Originally by: ChrisIsherwood
Originally by: Kerfira
The floor was an unintended consequence, not a desired design.

Is there a link for this? My unsubstantiated opinion is that anyone who had ever played another MMO, or knew some business/econ would have expected a NPC purchase price to set a floor.

Originally by: CCP Chronotis (dev blog)
However that payment was based on static ship values decided at the launch of Eve when we set the value of all minerals on the market. Since those days we removed those caps and relied upon the scaled potential supply and demand rates of each mineral source to maintain relative value.

Don't think it can be any more clear than that....
There WAS a fixed floor when EVE was (very) young, but they've decided it should be removed a long time ago...
Originally by: ChrisIsherwood
....they will crash before it - regardless of what actually happens.

They can't, at least not by much, since people will still be building ships and committing insurance fraud up until the last moment.... My guess is they'll start dropping maybe a week (probably less) before...

You're also assuming that macro-miners/ISK-farmers will be the only ones mining after prices drop. That is a somewhat strange assumption since ISK-farmers are the ones MOST focused on how much they bring in. If you see a large scale drop in mineral prices they'll either:
  1. Decide mining is still worth it, keep mining, and prices will drop some more
  2. Decide mining is not worth it and switch to missioning/ratting if that pays better
  3. Decide EVE is not worth it and move to another MMO that pays better
My guess is a) for starters, then b) with some of them going c).

Prices will drop, but it'll not be abrupt (the long intervals between revaluations of insurance will ensure that), though the first round will probably be immediate. If insurance is dropped by 30% on the 18th, prices will most likely drop by 30% over the next few days.
Inertia will keep most miners (incl. macroers) going for a while, but eventually enough switch to missions or other stuff and the mineral supply dries up. Prices start going up and more people start mining. It's a classic hysteresis adjustment, and eventually a new equilibrium is found, probably in 3-6 months.
IF the reductions in loot generated minerals are significant, we MAY end up with higher prices once the stockpile is burnt up...

Wild price fluctuations and emoraging will be going on during the adjustment period Twisted Evil

Adrienne Stargazer
Posted - 2010.04.03 20:50:00 - [537]
 

Edited by: Adrienne Stargazer on 03/04/2010 21:03:35
Originally by: tosh eebaa
Edited by: tosh eebaa on 01/04/2010 02:51:35

I love how your answer for everything is "gtfo". It's a like a kid who wants everything done his way or no way at all, without a thought to the consequences of running off everyone who is playing with him. How fun will the game be when you've effectively reduced the number of available pvpers to 10-20% of the current playerbase? And of those 10-20%, only a handful at a time will be willing to go out into lowsec.

Insurance serves as a pvp motivator. Why in the world would people crash headfirst out into 0.0 space if not for insurance? Why in God's name would anyone except the most hardcore miners or large 0.0 alliance miners go out there for minerals? This isn't just a "I hate carebears gtfo" this is a "f*** you PvPers too! I just want to play with my cool toys and don't want to see duplicates flying around the universe!".

Personally? I enjoy this game far too much to watch it get killed off. So far you have been an outstanding salesman for WoW (hell, after reading your post even I was tempted to go pick it up) but I would like to play EVE... and that will only happen if I have people to kill and people who are willing to fly outside of highsec more than once a week.

The increase in ship costs due to the lowsec mineral market completely exploding since no one would be willing to fly out there would result in an even GREATER loss. The majority of players would basically have to carebear their own basic highsec minerals just to pay for the lowsec minerals they would need to purchase some ship beyond frigate.

I appreciate your devotion to WoW that you would not only come and try to kill EVE while screaming all overs its forums that its members should go play it, but we like our game... please leave it alone.


The devs have long been trying to Wow-ize Eve to give it a more universal appeal. You will have a group of old timers in every thread suggesting that the road traveled is more important than the destination. I would have to agree, but it doesn't make sense as a business model. I believe there are several limitations to Eve becoming more mainstream and generating more subs for the Big Dog.

One - The user interface is stupid crazy. Nearly everything is impossible to use at first, but becomes somewhat manageable with practice. This probably overwhelms most neophytes. Exception: I was always quite impressed with the market screen. Room for improvement: Drones, Overview, Ship HUD, Hangar!, Science and Industry, POS Management.

Two - You got no avatar, just a crappy little picture! Can I give my pilot big hooters? This from some comments I received from WoW fans. Incarna will address this need (I could care less).

Three - I have to train for how long? Expect CCP to roll back requirements for more stuff in the future, not just bomb deployment, cloaking, and thermodynamics.

Four - Gameplay issues: server crashes, lag, bugs, etc. The common theme seems to be "I don't have enough time to enjoy this game." Let's make sure unscheduled downtime is at a minimum guys.

Five - I hate to say it, but total death (or "persistent loss") is the largest stumbling block most new players have with EO. When it's gone, it's gone. Likewise, if and when this is changed or tweaked, you will see many dedicated pilots leaving for other MMOs. Immortal Online comes to mind.

Taurin Herock
Posted - 2010.04.03 21:15:00 - [538]
 

This is blog is interesting for several reasons. Thinking through the implications of these changes to mission loot, tag drops and insurance I see a variety of changes that are probably going to be way bigger than the effect of DUSK514.

There will certainly be a price shock for minerals, and gradually miners will fill in the needed supply to meet demand. But the new supply won't come online immediately. It will take some weeks to months while people train up the hulks and develop the trade routes to the industrial centers. So you can see that there's going to be a hulk price spike to get those miners online. Also while the minerals spike happens, ships, ammo, drones and mods will spike in price.

Indirectly I see the drop in loot minerals causing an increase in salvage prices and drop in the prices of faction mods purchased with LP. Consider that with lower value loot, more mission runners will simply blitz missions for bounties and LP. Decreasing supply of salvage and increasing supply of LP items.

The extra pirate faction tags have the potential to tank the tags market, depending on how CCP uses their NPC buy orders. So the exchange of minerals for tags has the potential to be a meager offering for a major ISK loss from minerals.

The modified insurance is more interesting and probably more powerfull on a macro-economic perspective. This will change how corps wage war. It will change how people pvp.

Take the example of the high sec gank of a freighter. With current platinum insurance and a carefully chosen fit, the gang can loose less than 10mill isk for each gankatron used. Get 20 of these and you can pop a freighter and it only needs 200mill in cargo drop to be worthwhile to do this. That's an easy target to find. However if payouts come down to equal the amount of a new ship at best, then each gank you're on the hook for the cost of fitting and the insurance premium. That instantly brings the cost of a gankatron into the range of 50mill or so assuming 100% reimbursement. Now you're looking at freighters with an expected loot drop of a billion isk minimum to break even and cover the ISK lost let alone the sec status lost. So what happens is the number of viable targets goes way down. Now consider the not insignificant difficulty of getting 20 gankatrons going in one group and finding a higher value target. You're rapidly looking at the point of limiting returns where players don't have a critical mass of targets to make it worth their while to try and gank freighters.

Similarly the lower insurance payouts will make corp wars more painful for the victims. The noob carebears with fully insures L4 mission abaddon's will not get as much payout. Sure the decreased payout will effect the aggressors also, but to be honest pvp combat is highly asymmetric. The aggressors rarely aggress unless they are confident they will win.

To be honest, the changes discussed in this blog is mostly a smackdown to high sec mission runners, and a hand out to griefers and miners. Griefers are awarded the option to hurt more when they attack, since insurance doesn't cover nearly as much. And miners earn more from their minerals. While mission runners get less loot, devalued tags, devalued LP items and decreased insurance payouts from pve mistakes or pvp traps all the while paying more for their ships mods and ammo.

Apparently all those people who moan and complain about high sec mission runners making too much ISK have gotten what they wanted. A heavy nerf to mission running. Congrats.

ChrisIsherwood
Posted - 2010.04.03 22:27:00 - [539]
 

Originally by: Kerfira

You're also assuming that macro-miners/ISK-farmers will be the only ones mining after prices drop. That is a somewhat strange assumption since ISK-farmers are the ones MOST focused on how much they bring in.


My guess was that the lower bounds of mining was earning 1/(23*30) of a plex for an hour. Actually, skills mean even if you are just paying for plexes with your mining, you are getting resale value for the skill training you will eventually sell.) A 23x7 miner who earns 0.5% of a plex per hour would generate a net of a couple of plexes per month, which is still a higher income that a couple of billion people. OTOH, how many people would at-the-keyboard mine for under a dime per hour?

You are correct that since the M**** have a choice of software, then whether they mine or mission is determined by which is nerfed more, relative to the other. We really don't know that yet. While whether they leave EVE is determined by the absolute amount of the nerf. I guess the switch from mining to missioning or vice versa or leaving EVE is also a decision the industrialists, carebears, and alts will also be making once the dust settles. And another decision once Dust arrives. :-)

My guess is that long term, the dynamic changes may be positive, but I don't see it having a large impact on subscriptions one way or the other. Unless there is a cool trailer of course. In the short term, how disruptive the changes are and how big the mining and missioning nerfs are will determine whether the number of emoragequit and m***** and alts financially quitting are large or small.

Ruby Xenoshade
Posted - 2010.04.03 23:27:00 - [540]
 

Originally by: Rodarine

So even more people have to quit mining for there to be some sort of equalibrium? it is already mostly macro miners with a very few 'live' people still bothering to mine at all. Which like I said originally, the population will have to be cut in half or people that mine and build and frieghter stuff around will have to quit or do something else. Not very good choices right there.

We will see, but from what I see written it will be a disaster after about 2 weeks.



I'll still be out there mining! I'm one of the very few that enjoys being harassed, can flipped, spam convoed, and accused of being a macro. I derive a perverse sense of worth out of it.


Pages: first : previous : ... 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 ... : 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