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 : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (24)

Author Topic

DigitalCommunist
November Corporation
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:04:00 - [241]
 

1-10%? Seriously? I mean, goddamn.. and here I was trying to maintain a five year long delusion about coding errors and legacy systems. brb green tea, yoga and sexting 0verkill

Jerid Verges
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:10:00 - [242]
 

Thank you CCP for nerfing drone regions and mission loot. Mins need to come primarily from MINERS. As it stands now high end mins are primarily coming from Drone regions.

I'm going to hold onto my loot now and reproccess after Tyrannis.

Bellum Eternus
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:10:00 - [243]
 

Originally by: DigitalCommunist
You're still allowing supercapital insurance coverage?

YOU'RE STILL PAYING OUT COLD HARD ISK FOR MOTHERSHIP AND TITAN LOSSES?

That is some seriously limp-wristed, soft-footed, no-******* development.

KINDLY, MAN THE EFF UP, CCP.

No insurance of any sort on Capitals or Supercapitals, period. No basic payouts, no coverage, no safety nets, nothing, nada.

MAKE IT SO.

Yours lovingly,
DigitalCommunist
Chairman of the Supreme Council for Carebear Exterminatus


Pretty much. I mean, what happened to HTFU? Just get rid of insurance entirely. HTFU CCP.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:12:00 - [244]
 

Originally by: Quesa
-There has been a great call for a super-dense veld,


And, in my opinion, it is a VERY bad idea. It uses game mechanics rather than player choice to lock in higher profits for 0.0. Game mechanic driven game = BAD! Player driven game = GOOD! If trit pays so little then don't mine it.

Besides, they are removing insurance as the means of easily converting minerals into ISK. They are removing the floor under the value. Super dense veld would simply drive the price to .01 all the faster. It would pay just as poorly, you'd just have to figure out how to move 10x as much.

LtCol Laurentius
Caldari
Digital Fury Corporation
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:13:00 - [245]
 

Originally by: Kuseka Adama
Originally by: LtCol Laurentius
Originally by: Nick Curso
Edited by: Nick Curso on 30/03/2010 15:09:29
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
The flip side of that would be the risk adversity argument, that some would risk them less because of this.




People wouldn't use them at all because of this. I think like viper said where is the logic in nerfing the one ship class where a respectable amount of ISK is lost in its loss. Not to mention the massivly expensive fittings they need. Unless ofc u want to see t2 fitted super carriers and titans.
Has it also been considered how much of a time sink it is to build super caps from a non ISK perspective such as compression time/hauling/build time etc. In some cases ppl have worked for years to get these ships and contrary to the myth don't have 100's of bils in the bank after the ship purchase. To be punished with next to no insurance payout meaning you have to start from scratch again.

Seems like a bit of a crazy plan to me maybe its time to look away from the numbers and actually consider the other requirements of getting a ship like that and think to yourself "Is this really fair?"


Its about high time CCP does something about the riddiccolous number of supercaps in the game. Currently EVE is heading towards "Titans Online". I believe this change will reduce the attractiveness of them, hopefully (in time) making them the truly unique flagships they were allways meant to be.


Try never seeing them in space. I wanted to make a Nyx the flagship of our group and i had the plans on paper almost complete i was nearly ready to propose the project. I cant justify it now. Not now not if we grow to 1000 players. Your talking a 50 billion hit in Supercarriers. Flat out. 50 billion. Your talking about a hit that an alliance will have a VERY hard time recovering from if they get a bad FC or CCP nodes go out. Like i said in my last post. These changes effectively price smaller outfits out of the supercap market. Titans online isn't good, i agree there. Pricing smaller outfits out of the super cap game entirely however just aint right. I cant think of many outfits able to justify an expenditure of this nature without some kind of reimbursement. With the 5 bill at least you had something to get off the mat with if something went wrong. Now? I wouldnt touch them with a 10 foot pole. Enjoy.


Which is exactly my point. These ships SHOULD be out of reach of the smaller entities. Right now everyone and their grandmother flies f*** titans. If there was 20 titans in the entire game I would be totally fine with it. Why? Because too many of these things are gamebreaking. Using titans to flybyshooting and instapopping carriers is just riddicoluos.

Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:14:00 - [246]
 

The billion isk question seems to be: Will mineral prices go up or down because of these changes?

My money is on the higher valued minerals going up while the lower valued minerals going down, but I'd have to see the new alloy refine values to make a good call.

Great changes, good dev blog. A slight frown on using T2 insurances prices to fix the tech moon and increased t2 prices problem you caused. A bigger frown on the suicide ganking comment. If these changes come as advertised, this will be a gigantic nerf to suicide ganking and you will see a substantial decrease in the amount of suicide ganking which is fine.

What I like the best is that these changes have the possibility of completely destroying the market and causing people to panic. I like it Cool

mishkof
Caldari
Dirty Denizens
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:20:00 - [247]
 

No on the capital insurance, yes on everything else.

Bodega Cat
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:23:00 - [248]
 

Anyone else see whats really going on here?

Metal scraps will be moved by the freighter load down to 0.0 to plug the veldspar shortage!


All kidding aside, I do want to make a point about insurance as an "isk sink" mentality people subscribe too.

It's not really a good one anyway, rich players don't go around saying "man i'm sooo rich, i'm going to insure every ship i've ever owned at every station today cause i just have soooo much money and i need a place to dump it all". In fact, they usually do the opposite, they don't even bother at all.

You want isk sinks, just ask CCP for panda bear shaped drones, and paint jobs for ships for people with disposable income to buy! LAWWLZ

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:26:00 - [249]
 

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
On this topic: what are people's thoughts on removing insurance premiums altogether. We looked at and will continue to look at this in the future speculatively as its not a huge step to account for premium removal now and cause less pain for you folks in remembering to insure your ships.

In this case you would then only get a single payout per ship always on death with caveats in the future which might affect this like concordokken for example and never need to insure the ship.

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




If it only makes since to insure ALL ships, then one less step would be nice. On another stupidly pointless task we always have to do that could use being removed is updating your clone. But I don't want to side step too much.

Polaris Lumine
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:26:00 - [250]
 

Unlike many I agree with the insurance changes to T3. It doesn't include subsystems which still means it stings but the insurance payout is not a slap in the face either. I think it's right that it strikes a balance so that certain ships are not kept only to the rich in eve when pvp'ing. Totally crap that they will virtually never be used in most pvp engagements atm because the risk rarely makes it worth it.

I'll be interested in seeing how profound an effect these changes will have on the market.

Cinori Aluben
Minmatar
Gladiators of Rage
Intrepid Crossing
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:28:00 - [251]
 

Edited by: Cinori Aluben on 30/03/2010 21:43:04
First of all, I applaud your hard work coming up with a multi-faceted solution to a very complex issue. Note that by tweaking and fixing a number of small issues, very large positive results to your game are derived. The trick is finding the right equation of small issues.
Beyond all other things noted, changes to mission loot also helps to *slightly* reduce the superiority of L4 missions in isk/hr to all other activities in eve [aside from market]. Continue this trend.

I am also a supporter of death-by-concord paying ZERO in insurance, but also (and I've not seen it noted yet here) - self-destructing a ship should pay ZERO in insurance. These should each be considered a "breach of contract", and thereby negate the insurance contract.

Additionally, a factor that plays into your mineral value equations here: you need to rethink your reseeding timer on high-sec asteroids. You recently halved them (without telling us until way after btw), but this is way oversaturating the market with macro-miner obtained tritanium. Put these back to downtime only, allow for some 'roid PvP once again between mining groups, expansion into other systems for roid belts, and the rebalancing of supply of low-end mins.

I am running for CSM this term, along just these lines: Fixing the little things first. - It takes 5 small things to make a disaster. This devblog is proof of the validity of that stance.


Edit: -- I also agree with titans & supercarriers getting no insurance.
-- In response to the Q about insurance premiums: Probably good to have (2) Tiers, a "Basic" insurance, and a "Premium" insurance, instead of the multiple tiers that exist currently. I also like the suggestion given to have an "extension" available when the insurance runs out - a smaller payment/time. Isk sink is necessary to balance out faucet.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:31:00 - [252]
 

Originally by: Vaal Erit
The billion isk question seems to be: Will mineral prices go up or down because of these changes?

My money is on the higher valued minerals going up while the lower valued minerals going down, but I'd have to see the new alloy refine values to make a good call.



I agree that it is a tough call at this point.

Loss of insurance as an easy and infinate means of converting minerals to ISK will take the floor out from under the basket. We know insurance was setting the floor, we don't know what volume of minerals were being converted to ISK via intentional loss for insurance payout.

From the blog:
"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"

My guess is, these are the BS rat drops. Most people run L4 and those drop large items that refine into mass quantities of minerals. I expect we'll see just as many small and medium modules being reprocessed, but fewer large. How much fewer? No hint.

Coule be 80% reduction in the mods that were providing 80% of the minerals for a net 64% reduction in minerals coming from rat drops.

Could be 50% reduction in the mods that were providing 60% of the minerals for a net 30% fewer minerals coming from loot.

So, the blog doesn't tell us how many minerals were being removed via insurance, and it deosn't tell us how many fewer minerals will be coming from rat drops.

My gut tells me that unless CCP gets better at discovering and banning macros, any reduction in minerals from loot will quickly be overwhelmed by new macro miners. My gut tells me that we're going to see minerals constantly chasing the new floor, however low CCP lets that floor go with their periodic resets of insurance payout.


Typhado3
Minmatar
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:32:00 - [253]
 

Very nice change solves a few problems in eve currently.


suicide ganking:
I think this will fix a bit of it, could use slightly more tweaking but this balances the isk risk pretty well. However there is another problem here that needs to be dealt with and that's the -10 sec status people still suiciding in high sec. Honestly most people view sec status as a mark of a carebear or a pirate not as a punishment from concord. This really needs concord involved in stopping these people, leave factional navies for the FW people (and drug smugglers).


Mining:
I still think mining needs a rework to make it more interesting and potentially more profitable. I believe the best way to do this is allow users to scan for more rare ores while having to mine through some lower ores to get them. This allows empire miners to stay afk while 0.0 miners who are already alert watching local can actively participate, it will also means you'll bring in more of a spread of minerals that will encourage building in 0.0 and lessen market saturation for high ends. But I'm patient enough to wait till you've got DUST and incarna out till miners get some love and I'm sure you can come up with better ideas.



FAKE EDIT: did I make it in before the Akita T?

Catherine Frasier
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:37:00 - [254]
 

Originally by: DigitalCommunist
No insurance of any sort on Capitals or Supercapitals, period. No basic payouts, no coverage, no safety nets, nothing, nada.
This.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:40:00 - [255]
 

Originally by: Cinori Aluben
Additionally, a factor that plays into your mineral value equations here: you need to rethink your reseeding timer on high-sec asteroids. You recently halved them (without telling us until way after btw), but this is way oversaturating the market with macro-miner obtained tritanium.


If macros are the problem (and I agree they are), then go after them hard. Reducing the availability of high-sec ores will just crush the non-macros as we can't always be on right after down-time to suck up a share of the mins before they are gone.

Reduce the high-sec mineral respawn, and the only one that gets highsec ore are the macros.


Grarr Dexx
Amarr
Kumovi
The G0dfathers
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:40:00 - [256]
 

Down with insurance!

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:49:00 - [257]
 

Originally by: Ran Khanon
Only thing I wonder is this: Already a lot of the Meta 0 items are much more valuable than their meta 1-4 counterparts, wont nerfing their droprate drive up their prices even more?


Meta 0 are frequently worth more than meta 1 and sometimes meta 2 because both are being purchased by someone that is going to melt them for the minerals. Meta 0 melt to more minerals, so are worth more.

So, to answer your question, they are likely to remain locked to the mineral prices. What happens to mineral prices, we don't know.

ISellThingz
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:53:00 - [258]
 

Originally by: Vaal Erit
The billion isk question seems to be: Will mineral prices go up or down because of these changes?


My guess would be that overall mineral prices are going to crash heavy. There's simply too many minerals on the market. What was now being used for building ships with the sole purpose of blowing them up is going to stockpile on the market driving the prices down. God knows how low.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.30 21:59:00 - [259]
 

Originally by: Cinori Aluben
Beyond all other things noted, changes to mission loot also helps to *slightly* reduce the superiority of L4 missions in isk/hr to all other activities in eve [aside from market]. Continue this trend.


Impossible. (well, unless they can make other professions as hard to AFK as missions.)

In a player driven market, AFK-ability will always be a major driving factor in profit per hour. I can make 20 million an hour running L4s, but won't be able to do much of anythign else. Or I can make 7 million per hour mining... per account, and can easily run 3 accounts, and I still have the ability to monitor my research jobs, deliver and kick off manufacturing jobs, do remote buy and sell orders.

Nerf L4s too much and you just make more people switch to multi-account mining and manufacturing until you drive the proft from those even lower... and once again L4s will pay much more than anything else (other than trading, which is the one thing that requires even more constant attention than mission running).


Cute Joe
Posted - 2010.03.30 22:03:00 - [260]
 

Cute Joe approves of these changes. You may now implement them on Tranq

Cute Joe gives a hug to CCP

Sian Kine
Posted - 2010.03.30 22:08:00 - [261]
 

Edited by: Sian Kine on 30/03/2010 22:09:47
Edited by: Sian Kine on 30/03/2010 22:09:03
Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker

Why replace loot drops with scrap metal?
Will there be any thought put towards reducing the volume of scrap metal so that it can be efficiently looted?



1. it is better to drop something in reward terms even if it is not worth everyone's time to loot.
3. It is already a good volume/trit ratio currently, was boosted a while back in these terms



Scrap metal is stupid and bulky and everyone hates it.

Nobody missions in a hauler or freighter, so nobody has space for scrap metal, however good you may feel the volume/trit ratio is.

Given that you yourself have admitted that to most people it's not worth looting don't you think there's a case to be made for either looking at the volumes again or dropping something that is worth looting instead?

Cyclops43
Posted - 2010.03.30 22:10:00 - [262]
 

Originally by: Zions Child
Thank you CCP, for listening to our speculations and magic crystal balling, and actually making a concerted effort to change everything that needs to be changed.

+1 For loss of Meta 0 loot
+1 To more insurance on T2 Ships
+1 To less insurance on Supercaps, if only because it might slow or stop the inevitable progression to stupid fleet battles where if you dont have a titan you're screwed...

CCP, it's good to know you listen to us, and consider what we ask of you!

I told you you were running off half-****ed with your scare stories Razz

To refresh your memory, look here...

Mkah Mvet
Duolith Systems
Posted - 2010.03.30 22:12:00 - [263]
 

re: capital insurance
This will consolidate the power to the bigger power blocs more and more. If you don't own a titan you won't be able to fight those who do have them, and you won't be able to defend valuable resources you need in order to be able to afford a titan.
re: T2 insurance
Increase in T2 insurance means increase in T2 prices meaning increase in moon goo prices, meaning more power to the big blocs.
re: floating insurance payouts
Fixed insurance payouts keeps mineral prices up by enforcing a minimum value of a ship. Floating insurance payouts means the mineral prices will float do their 'natural' state, which is down. Very very far down. We're looking at a crash of the mineral market which means miners will quit mining or quit playing altogether until mineral prices rise back to where they are now. It means the only people who can afford to mine are those with well skilled hulks. CCP, you'll be exchanging a large portion of game subscriptions for market balance. If I were a developer, the impact on the business income would mean it wouldn't be worth it to me. But my income tends to come from mission running, so the only way I'd be affected is by the disrespect it would show for your customers.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.30 22:14:00 - [264]
 

Originally by: Sian Kine

Scrap metal is stupid and bulky and everyone hates it.

Nobody missions in a hauler or freighter, so nobody has space for scrap metal, however good you may feel the volume/trit ratio is.

Given that you yourself have admitted that to most people it's not worth looting don't you think there's a case to be made for either looking at the volumes again or dropping something that is worth looting instead?


Anything worth looting would be dropped in such high quantity, that soon it would not be worth looting.

The whole POINT of dropping scrap is to drop something that already doesn't have any value.

tla s'hpyt
Posted - 2010.03.30 22:14:00 - [265]
 

Can you guys fix clone insurance now pls?

Don Pellegrino
Pod Liberation Authority
HYDRA RELOADED
Posted - 2010.03.30 22:18:00 - [266]
 

Most people seem to do not realize that reducing the insurance payout on supercaps is NOT an isk sink.

It will cost more to the individual player/corp/alliance to lose it, yes, but it doesn't remove isk from the game, just minerals. It will reduce the isk added into the system by paying less for the loss, that's all. So stop using that "it's an isk sink" argument, people! Cool

Bladacticus
SOL Industries
Black Thorne Alliance
Posted - 2010.03.30 22:18:00 - [267]
 

forgive me if these points have already been made, but I didn't have time to read through all 9 pages...

My problem with Insurance as it is now (and how it looks like it will be) is that it seems to be based on the material value of the ship. Which to most of us, is a meaningless value. The insurance should be based on how much the ship itself is worth. I don't manufacture the ships myself, I buy them off the market. I'm pretty sure the material value of my CNR is much less than what I paid for it (or at least much less than the average market/contract value). I know that the goal is to make losing your ship cost you SOMETHING, especially for the larger, more valuable ships, but I think that the in-game insurance should be more like real-life insurance... you pay a monthly (weekly? daily?) amount to keep your ship insured, and upon destruction of said ship, you receive the percentage of the value of the ship that you paid for in your 'policy.' So, for example, you can insure your ship for 25%, 50%, 75%, or 100% (maybe even 125%, 150% etc to recover the cost of lost fittings, etc.), each level costing more per month. So, you may be able to recover 100% of the value of your Titan, for example, but you will have paid a butt-load in insurance...

Of course you might have to implement, some sort of time limitations or whatever to prevent people getting insurance, then purposely getting their ship blown up to profit from the insurance, but I think modeling it after a more real-world system of insurance would bring this aspect of EVE more into line of what is strived for in other aspects of the game.

LHA Tarawa
Posted - 2010.03.30 22:26:00 - [268]
 

Originally by: Mkah Mvet
Increase in T2 insurance means increase in T2 prices meaning increase in moon goo prices, meaning more power to the big blocs.



Really? The one example the Dev gave was a Vagabond, which if I recall correclty costs 100 million ISK totally unfit (150 million+ well fit and rigged) will now pay 30 million instead of 12 million.

Is that really enough extra demand to cause an uncontrolled upward spiral in prices?




Originally by: Mkah Mvet
re: floating insurance payouts
Fixed insurance payouts keeps mineral prices up by enforcing a minimum value of a ship. Floating insurance payouts means the mineral prices will float do their 'natural' state, which is down. Very very far down.


I think they are hoping that the reduced minerals from loot will offset the minerals no longer being used up for insurance payouts.

Notice the wording of the loot drop.

"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"

First ones.....

I think they will continue to reduce drops until they establish some supply and demand balance at a reasonible price.

Or... more likely. Try, but have all efforts swamped by macro-miners.

Eventually, however, if prices do fall far, far down, then even the macros will go away and no one will bother to loot and M0-M2.

Solo Player
Posted - 2010.03.30 22:30:00 - [269]
 

Edited by: Solo Player on 30/03/2010 22:54:31
While I'm obviously late to this party to have my opinion considered by the Devs, I quite frankly can't believe what I've just read.

- changes to minerals without mention of the long-promised mining overhaul (you know, the one that actually makes mining challenging/exciting/intercative?)
- changes to insurance to make losing most ships more negligible, not taking into account who has insured and then lost the ship or how/why?

Since you've not touched these areas in ages, I get the clear impression that you do not intend to address the (other) problems there for a long while yet. Please reconsider and do it right in one go. There are a lot of excellent ideas and proposals on this readily found on the corresponding forums and almost any of them seems to me a lot more satisfying than what you intend.

I especially had my hopes dashed with the insurance changes here. Don't buy into the "not enough insurance to chance expensive ships on the battlefield" argument. Players simply won't be able to afford NOT deploying them if their strategic advantage merits the risk.
Instead, why not adjust premiums and/or payouts depending on sec status, previous performance, service length, etc.? I simply don't see the logic of rewarding players who lose their ships more often than others. Clearly this should be the other way around. Let Pend insurance keep at least a semblance of working for profit instead of supporting certain playstyles the devs consider the "right" and "important" ones.
If you fear noobs will lose to much with the destruction of their first cruiser, there are other ways to avoid this by employing measures targeting especially young players.

Or (quite as good) just remove the whole bloody insurance thing altogether and make sure newbs still have ships to buy that they can afford to lose in some other way.

Bodega Cat
Posted - 2010.03.30 22:33:00 - [270]
 

One thing is for certain, mineral prices are going to drop.

My major question is their going to be anything in place to encourage the percentage of players in the base that consider themselves REAL miners (even if its half afk)to continue to bother with it at all while macro'ers work from the opposite direction and completely trivialize anyone willing to put in that REAL effort through sheer force of 23/7 scripted oversupply?


Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : 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