open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked For those saying freighters WOULDN'T ruin the economy. You were wrong
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9

Author Topic

Entity
X-Factor Industries
Synthetic Existence
Posted - 2005.08.10 11:24:00 - [211]
 

Hey, I have an idea! Let's change "ohnoes!" to "ohroes!" Twisted Evil


Olivin
Gallente
Aquarium
Posted - 2005.08.10 11:48:00 - [212]
 

Originally by: Sessho Seki

No matter what capacity the ship has, the trade route’s potential profits are unaffected in any way as the trade route itself determines how much will be sold and how much will be bought for profit to be made on. If the Battleship earned more bounty off a kill than a cruiser, that would be unfair indeed, thankfully, but the freighter can’t make any more off the trade route than is there to make in any other size ship. If you made a zillion trips in shuttle on a trade route, or just 1 trip in a freighter, the amount bought/sold and the prices of the orders are 100% unaffected in any way what so ever by your capacity, as the game couldn’t possibly care less if you are in a freighter or a frigate.



Trade route ( both NPC and PVP) profit come from the capital you can invest, haul capacity and speed, which allow you calculate if trade route even profitable in the first place. Since your intellect is limited, I will give you an example:

You have 1 billion isk:
We making 10% profit margin
I have a freighter.
You have a shuttle.
----------------------------------------

In 1 trip I can transport 1 billion worth of goods which takes me 1 hour.
In 1 trip you can transport 1000 worth of goods which takes you 10 min.

I can make 100 million in on hour
You can make 6 thousand in one hour.


There are no any other ship in game which has 50 times advantage in primary function. (Your example with Mark V is not valid because it has only few per cent advantage.) The only reason freighters have huge capacity, is because they need to haul dread components and outposts. Both dreads and outposts are in 0.4 and below.

Anyway, freighters will be nerfed one way or another. Maybe they will stay in empire, but devs will make them impossible solo, or will add fuel costs. I don't care what is it, but some penalties must be implemented.

Olivin

Snakes
Posted - 2005.08.10 11:56:00 - [213]
 

Edited by: Snakes on 10/08/2005 11:56:12
Moaners try this out:
-Get in a shuttle
-Find a good trade route
-Buy up all the goods you can at the cheapest prices and erode some of the margin
-Put all the goods back on the market at the last price you paid
-Freighter arrives and buys all the stock from you and still makes a heathy profit
-You make a healthy profit for sitting on your fat arse in your shuttle
-You find something else to moan about.

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2005.08.10 12:15:00 - [214]
 

Originally by: Snakes
Edited by: Snakes on 10/08/2005 11:56:12
Moaners try this out:
-Get in a shuttle
-Find a good trade route
-Buy up all the goods you can at the cheapest prices and erode some of the margin
-Put all the goods back on the market at the last price you paid
-Freighter arrives and buys all the stock from you and still makes a heathy profit
-You make a healthy profit for sitting on your fat arse in your shuttle
-You find something else to moan about.



Almost.
What would actually happen is the frieghter owner pusts in a bid for 1,000,000 units of the good at the lowest price and waits for it to be filled by NPC supply.
When the order is full they haul it.

Do it in lots of places and you are always hauling as orders fill.

Snakes
Posted - 2005.08.10 13:30:00 - [215]
 

Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Snakes
Edited by: Snakes on 10/08/2005 11:56:12
Moaners try this out:
-Get in a shuttle
-Find a good trade route
-Buy up all the goods you can at the cheapest prices and erode some of the margin
-Put all the goods back on the market at the last price you paid
-Freighter arrives and buys all the stock from you and still makes a heathy profit
-You make a healthy profit for sitting on your fat arse in your shuttle
-You find something else to moan about.



Almost.
What would actually happen is the frieghter owner pusts in a bid for 1,000,000 units of the good at the lowest price and waits for it to be filled by NPC supply.
When the order is full they haul it.

Do it in lots of places and you are always hauling as orders fill.


Hmmm, every one of those orders will require a massive outlay of capital and will take a very long time to fill, or in fact may never fill as regular traders or other freighters take advantage by buying at the prevailing market price rather than the low point. Let me know if you observe different though.

Maybe the final result will be a mixture of both behaviours depending on the number of traders on each route and the price of the asset.

Sessho Seki
Posted - 2005.08.10 14:01:00 - [216]
 

Originally by: Olivin
If you don't have support by majority of this forum whiners, you probably saying something right. Didn't you know that? LOL


LMAO!!! So now you’re saying I have to have the support of a bunch of idiots that don’t know what they are even whining about, or the twits that are just angry that a smarter and better player beat them to PRECSELY what they had intended to do themselves.

How about this, I’ll make a deal with you, if CCP and/or Oveur come in here, and say in no uncertain terms that Freighters aren’t to be used for trading, THEN I will consider that you actually have a singular form of support. Until then, a gaggle of imbeciles whining that someone is doing better than they are is hardly a unified front, and not a single one of you has supported your silliness.

You are most certainly TRYING to say something, but all that seems to come out is:

“WAAAAAAAA” followed by you attempting to make moronic comments and completely avoid supporting your stupidity with any sort of logic, proof, support, facts, truth, or anything of substance.

Originally by: Olivin
Take a deep breath, Matilda. Nobody hold anything against ultra-hauling abilities.


ok, so you have nothing against ultra-hauling capability, yet here you are crying like a baby that people are using them. So it’s not the capacity, it’s the use of that capacity???

Please do clarify your basis of nonsensical argument so we can dissect how imbecilic your argument is piece by piece.

You say that freighters weren’t intended for hauling which is intimately linked to trading as you must haul what you intend to trade, then you renege on that: “Second of all, nothing wrong about moving "material from station to station"”

You suggest that freighters weren’t intended as traders, and make “claims” that Oveur says they aren’t to be used for trading? Yet it is clear that Oveur, CCP, and common logic very clearly take the opposing view to you. But you insist that you aren’t in the wrong?

The people who MAKE THE GAME made the vessel to have enormous capacity and have a specific limitation of station-to-station transport of material only. Now do please go out on a limb (no pun intended to the current circumstances) as to just what many players would be using a freighter for in “station-to-station transport”.

By the way, if you have to think on that for more than an instant, then you REALLY have some other issues to work out the “very complex” issue of a large capacity ship being used to move a large amount of items and quite possibly for TRADERolling Eyes

Sessho Seki
Posted - 2005.08.10 14:01:00 - [217]
 

Originally by: Olivin
I know for a fact that Oveur HIMSELF has said that freighters are not for farming safe trade routes in Empire. I believe it was in one of dev chats.


curious that you make such statements, yet don’t back it up… If you know this for a fact, yet you don’t present it for observation, you do realize that is what is typically viewed as a lie. I’ve supported my argument, and Oveur himself has clearly defined freighters as “These are the new ultra-haul class of ships in EVE”, now do please clarify, why would Oveur go to the effort to say it’s basically the Omega of hauling, yet according to you, it’s not allowed to be used on a trade route in empire.

Also, don’t say it’s “farming” the trade routes, that shows how little you understand of trade, as you CAN’T farm trade routes, all you can ever do is buy when the price is low enough to make profit on, and sell when the buy orders are high enough to provide that profit. Farming implies that you can make the route more valuable than the programming sets it at by repeatedly performing it BUT TRADE ROUTES HAVE SET LIMITS, which means you can’t “farm” it as it’s only going to give out however much it is set to yield before it very quickly falls off of profitability or even goes into the negative-profit potential, once you reach that point all you can do is let it be and let it naturally regenerate over time just like mining an asteroid belt. So please Olivin, just because you haven’t a single shred of support other than your own vacuous skull’s feeble minded emanations of nonsense, don’t try to bolster your argument with your own ignorance of the matter.

Originally by: Olivin
You have: t1 and t2 industrials which are perfectly capable to do what you just described.


You took the bait, hook, line, and sinker!

THANK YOU for bringing up that Tech 1 and Tech 2 industrials “are perfectly capable to do what you just described” now I can ask another question of you:

IF you are so adamant about your “freighters + trade routes is wrong” nonsense, then please explain away how you are for Industrials doing the identical thing?

Either way, the result is the same, a potentially bought out market for a trade item, and potentially vast profits made. So we come back to it being a matter of the ship doing the task that you are against. But you say “Nobody hold anything against ultra-hauling abilities”. So in between backpedaling sessions, what do you do for fun?

You can’t have it both ways, Industrials can and do perform the identical task, and thus resulting in the identical effect(s), and everyone typically uses the Industrials over a frigate/cruiser/battleship because an industrial holds so much more. Now Freighters hold much more than industrials and it’s suddenly the apocalypse??? I think not.

Olivin just admit that you’re a whining troll that you’re not at the top of the heap anymore in an industrial for trading. You now have to either go where you won’t be competing directly with a superior player, or find a niche of your own to avoid the competition. But either way, it’s not the ship, it’s not the capacity, and it’s not even the running of trade routes you’re here whining about, it’s all too apparent that you’re only here whining because you want to have anyone that’s clearly better than you nerfed to your impotent level rather than you getting off your lazy behind and bringing yourself up to their level.

Olivin
Gallente
Aquarium
Posted - 2005.08.10 14:18:00 - [218]
 

Originally by: Sessho Seki

LMAO!!! So now you’re saying I have to have the support of a bunch of idiots that don’t know what they are even whining about, or the twits that are just angry that a smarter and better player beat them to PRECSELY what they had intended to do themselves.



I didn't say that, - you did.

Originally by: Sessho Seki

How about this, I’ll make a deal with you, if CCP and/or Oveur come in here, and say in no uncertain terms that Freighters aren’t to be used for trading, THEN I will consider that you actually have a singular form of support. Until then, a gaggle of imbeciles whining that someone is doing better than they are is hardly a unified front, and not a single one of you has supported your silliness.



Can you read? I never said that Freighters aren't to be used for trading. Let me repeat it one more time, since you obviously have comprehending disability:

I am against ship which is 50 times better in it's primary function than any alternative without any penalty applied to balance this advantage.
You can pick up penalty of your choice:

1. Restrict freighters to 0.4 and below ( like other capital ships)

OR

2. Make it impossible to fly solo ( like other capital ships)

OR

3. Make it impossible to use instas while flying freighter

OR

4. Make it expensive to operate by utilizing fuel cost or docking/gate charges ( similar to other capital ships)

Originally by: Sessho Seki

You are most certainly TRYING to say something, but all that seems to come out is:

“WAAAAAAAA” followed by you attempting to make moronic comments and completely avoid supporting your stupidity with any sort of logic, proof, support, facts, truth, or anything of substance.



Are you hallucinating again?

Originally by: Sessho Seki

ok, so you have nothing against ultra-hauling capability, yet here you are crying like a baby that people are using them. So it’s not the capacity, it’s the use of that capacity???



Where have you see me " crying like a baby"?

Olivin

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2005.08.10 14:50:00 - [219]
 

I have come to the conclusion that Sessho Seki is as crazy as a box of frogs.

Olivin
Gallente
Aquarium
Posted - 2005.08.10 14:53:00 - [220]
 

Originally by: Sessho Seki

THANK YOU for bringing up that Tech 1 and Tech 2 industrials “are perfectly capable to do what you just described” now I can ask another question of you:
IF you are so adamant about your “freighters + trade routes is wrong” nonsense, then please explain away how you are for Industrials doing the identical thing?



Industrials limited capacity naturally prevents "isk printing". It will take 100 industrials to do the 1 freighter job in terms of the capacity.
Can you point at any other ship so overpowered that you need 100 ships fleet to compete with it?

As I understood NWO, freighters capacity needed to construct outposts, transport capital ships construction components and generally improve 0.0 logistics. Caravans of 1-2 freighters and escort from 0.0 to border Empire systems and back sounds perfectly logical and cool. Similar caravans throurgh shorter, but dangerous low security route from one region to another also nice way of doing things.

Roaming solo afk freighters filled with consumer electronics doesn't sound like CCP intentions or does it? Regional Empire markets based on pure import, instead of the local industrial hubs development doesn't sound cool at all. Removing almost any chance for new players ( low on SP and isk) to compete in hauling/trade business in Empire doesn't sound right to me either, especially after CCP nerfed lvl4 missions rewards which were an ultimate isk source in secure space.

Olivin

Sophie Mae
Posted - 2005.08.10 15:04:00 - [221]
 

Originally by: Sessho Seki


perhaps you have not heard, but the reward by volume is identical, thus your entire argument is nullified.



However, the reward by volumn isn't the issue. The issue is the amount of isk per hour that can be extracted from NPCs. The BS in your example can't significantly extract any more isk per hour from high sec gate rats than the crusier or frigate. Therefore by using the overkill of the BS's combat power on high sec rats you are not increasing the reward. However, this doesn't hold true when extracting isk from NPC trade routes as the freighters cargo capacity overkill allows it to effectively extract 50 times the reward (isk) from the NPCs.




Quote:

No matter what capacity the ship has, the trade route’s potential profits are unaffected in any way as the trade route itself determines how much will be sold and how much will be bought for profit to be made on.



Yes but it was impratical if not impossible for anyone in a single hauler to ever fully extract those profits from the NPCs due to the limitations of the cargo capacity. With freighters it is now possible for a single player to farm/mine/extract all of those potential profits 50 times more effeciently. This has made it possible for the first time for a single player to extract all the potential profits from an NPC trade route.

Now I am not saying this is wrong per se, just making the point that given that the devs have in the past tried to limit these types of easy isk generators and in fact created more isk sinks, that maybe this was an unintended consequence of freighters. If this turns out to be the case, you can expect to see either freighters or the NPC routes nerfed.

Quote:

If the Battleship earned more bounty off a kill than a cruiser, that would be unfair indeed, thankfully, but the freighter can’t make any more off the trade route than is there to make in any other size ship. If you made a zillion trips in shuttle on a trade route, or just 1 trip in a freighter, the amount bought/sold and the prices of the orders are 100% unaffected in any way what so ever by your capacity, as the game couldn’t possibly care less if you are in a freighter or a frigate.



But since it is impossible to make a zillion trips in a frigate, your argument has no practical merit. Practically speaking a freighter can make 50 times more isk per hour off the NPCs than a hauler. That is fact, the only question that remains is whether this was an intended or unintended consequence of the freighter implementation. I tend to lean towards the belief that it was probably a minor oversight that will end up being corrected with a patch. I hope that when they do make this ajustment they do it in a limited fashion, such as, just reducing the volumns on the NPC routes with the highest potential for profit in high sec that could only realisticly have been realized by a single player with the capacity overkill of a freighter. Thus NPC trading in high sec would remain a viable profession for new player but freighters can still be used for all the other cargo capacity tasks that I feel they were originally intended for. They would also still have NPC routes with high profit potential in low sec. To me this is the best of both worlds.


Vanesa Garcia
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2005.08.10 15:23:00 - [222]
 

Dear Sessho Seki,

Can you explain what is the purpose of your moaning and over speculative statements?

Trader Klyde
Gallente
Posted - 2005.08.10 16:06:00 - [223]
 

Everyone needs to step away from their PC for a minute and take a deep breath. Calling names etc only serves to enflame people.

I for one, would like to see those calling for the almighty "Nerf Bat of Doom" to swing on freighters to please reconsider and instead suggest alternatives for the markets.

There's far too much of this nerfing going on already and it needs to stop. I have faith that CCP before designing these huge haulers probably discussed ramifications on areas of game play they would be used in... Hence "station to station", which prevents anyone from using them for mass mining ops, or dropping huge cans of ammo for battles, etc.

Lets face it folks, there are limited numbers of players able to buy or build these things. The few that can will be able to damage a limited area market, and those that can't afford one will just have to move to another area or dabble in a different trade good.

Always demanding CCP to nerf things is bad. It's better to not give people something, than to give them something and then take it away through nerfing. It's really getting to become quite a trend here, every time something new is brought into the game that makes it fun, a few run to these forums and demand ner***e of the highest order. Not good, not good at all.

When freighters were first announced, everyone was happy and saying "Freighters FTW"... now, everyone is saying they are ruining the game. WTF? Comeon guys, there has to be solutions that don't always require the "Hindsight" solutions that only a nerf bat can fix.

And no, I don't own one. For what they cost and looking at my wallet, I never will either. Neutral

H Zandramus
Aliastra
Posted - 2005.08.10 17:32:00 - [224]
 

FFS ...

Buy yourself a freighter and shut the hell up.


Sessho Seki
Posted - 2005.08.10 17:32:00 - [225]
 

Originally by: Olivin
As I understood NWO, freighters capacity needed to construct outposts, transport capital ships construction components and generally improve 0.0 logistics.


enough said, AS YOU UNDERSTOOD it.

Thank you again for reneging on what you’ve previously said, apparently you were absolutely confident in what you had interpreted, but that is just the problem, you interpreted it which is unnecessary, as basic logic can and will provide the explanation you need. Now you aren’t so certain, and we’re still awaiting your supporting evidence that Freighters were not intended for trade. First you “know for a fact”, now it’s “as I understood”, well it’s painfully obvious that you don’t understand the first thing about what your rambling about.

YOU ARE A WHINER! This guy beat you out of a trade route by being BETTER THAN YOU! For heaven’s sake, be a man, straighten up, and move on! Good grief, if you are THAT JEALOUS of him and his capability, don’t demand CCP nerf him, get off your lazy behind and do something about yourself!

CCP saw the need for a new and ever larger capacity of hauler. The limitation you say it needs is most certainly there, it’s station-to-station only, this means that Industrials are now going to be the ideal ship for THAT purpose, Industrial work. They are no longer trade vessels of the highest order, and THAT is why you are here whining and crying like a little baby.

You see, the problem you have is that you know you’re being a fool but now you’re so involved with your idiotic stance that you don’t even know how to run away from it without the brand of “twit” being etched into your forehead forever.

Originally by: Olivin
Roaming solo afk freighters filled with consumer electronics doesn't sound like CCP intentions or does it? Regional Empire markets based on pure import, instead of the local industrial hubs development doesn't sound cool at all.


well that’s mighty odd, because that is precisely what CCP has done, and they have been talking about and working on Freighters since Exodus launched (November ’04) and formally began information on them in January, yet in 8 months of development it just slipped their mind and they accidentally let freighters do trade routes???

[sarcasm]After all, in at least 7-8 months of working on them CCP wouldn’t put it together that a big ship, with a big cargo hold, might be used to move big amounts of trade goods, perish the thought![/sarcasm]

NOW extended the distance between many locations that used to be a universal hub (cough*yulai*cough) but now there are more scattered hubs of a lesser grandeur but still filling the role as a centralized location for inter-regional commerce. Indeed entire regions are becoming ever more dependent on imports than ever. Isogen poor regions are seeing spikes in the already high price of Isogen since it’s now an even longer trip to get some. And indeed, if a trade good sells low in region XYZ but sells well in region ABC, then you will see travel to it to some extent to discover the inter-regional trade benefit and fulfill it for the player’s personal gain.

Originally by: Olivin
Removing almost any chance for new players ( low on SP and isk) to compete in hauling/trade business in Empire doesn't sound right to me either, especially after CCP nerfed lvl4 missions rewards which were an ultimate isk source in secure space.


you mean Iteron 5 runners, (quite possibly like yourself?) with a million SP’s in Gallente Industrial alone Rolling Eyes

Nice attempt to make a heart felt plea for the little guy, but you’re shoveling so much now it’s getting up to your eyeballs!

IF the newer players want to trade they most certainly still can, they can trade on the many items this person either isn’t bothering with, or they can trade in the area’s their competition is not in, or they can even go into trading materials. For you to suggest that the little guy is some how getting worked over here is just plain false and ignorant.

Sessho Seki
Posted - 2005.08.10 17:33:00 - [226]
 

The only thing you’re getting beaten out of is a commodity you got beaten to fair and square. He bought it legally in every way, he moved it legally, and he sold it legally.

If you can’t wrap your feeble mind around that, then there is nothing more for you Olivin.

Originally by: Vanesa Garcia
Dear Sessho Seki,

Can you explain what is the purpose of your moaning and over speculative statements?


Dear Vanesa Garcia,

Since you obviously can’t read currently, I have ordered you a copy of “hooked on phonics”, you should be up and reading in a couple months.

Miri Tirzan
Caldari
Clan Korval
Posted - 2005.08.10 17:38:00 - [227]
 

The truth of the matter is the freighter does not let a player buy more, buy for less, or sell for more. That is trade. The freighter just let a player move more in less time. That is the truth of trade.

So, post your buy orders and post your sell orders.... but quit compaining that someone can move more stuff than you can at one time. Moving the stuff is not the trading, the buying and selling is and nothing is stopping you.

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2005.08.10 18:21:00 - [228]
 

Edited by: Avon on 10/08/2005 18:22:24
Originally by: Miri Tirzan
The truth of the matter is the freighter does not let a player buy more, buy for less, or sell for more. That is trade. The freighter just let a player move more in less time. That is the truth of trade.

So, post your buy orders and post your sell orders.... but quit compaining that someone can move more stuff than you can at one time. Moving the stuff is not the trading, the buying and selling is and nothing is stopping you.


That is true to a point Miri, but you don't consider how long your capital is tied up.

Tying up one billion isk on trade goods, expecting it to be liquid again in a month or so, is a serious consideration.
Tying it up for less than a day is far more acceptable.
Frieghters give you that power.

What I object to is not the increased earning potential of these things, but the very real knock on effect it has to traders in general.
It isn't like the bogus "mining barge vs bantam" arguements. In that situation the frigate pilot does not earn less because other people fly barges. Even if his favorite asteroid belt gets mined out he has literally tens of thousands to choose from.
The same is not true for traders. Finding a good route with a reasonable isk/m3/hr payout is tough. If it gets tied up it is gone, sometimes for months. You cant just hop to the next station and do another, it is more complicated than that.

Bobby Wilson
Gallente
Posted - 2005.08.10 18:25:00 - [229]
 

Originally by: Nyxus
Quote:
Theres only one small problem with your intended solution - if you ban frieghters from hauling trade goods - then the vast quantities they are intended to haul for outpost construction and POS fuels will be invalidated and hence the major use for them crippled although not all together out of the picture...


Set all NPC Trade Items so they can't be compressed by planck compression or they are destroyed. Set all freightors to planck compression similar to a secure can.




The NPC tradegoods needed for an outpost amount to about 750K m3. It's crazy to expect ppl to hual all that from empire in industrials.

BW

Bobby Wilson
Gallente
Posted - 2005.08.10 18:28:00 - [230]
 

Originally by: Vilsix
Originally by: MOS DEF
Originally by: TIO 101
how many suicide kessy's would it take to kill a freighter >:]

Rephrase: How long would the server node last before breaking down while you try this?
Laughing


How many Gankageddons would you need?


Using BSes to kill a freighter in high sec without a war dec would be unlikely to pay for itself. Perhaps the occasional freighter is carrying tens of billions in tradegoods or whatever, but many are only carrying a few hundred million worth of stuff and wouldn't pay for ship replacement.

That's also not to mention that many items carried by freighters are 10K or even 100K m3 in size, and are hard or even impossible (in the case of the 100K m3 stuff) of being recovered even if they aren't destroyed in the blast.

BW

Bobby Wilson
Gallente
Posted - 2005.08.10 18:29:00 - [231]
 

Originally by: Blind Fear
NPC trade runs need to disappear. They do absolutely nothing for the economy and are simply disruptive and unbalanced.

They have needed to disappear for a very long time, but now it's somewhat more urgent.


Bingo. Still such an obvious point. Obviously too many ppl with a vested interest in making easy isk this way...

BW

Olivin
Gallente
Aquarium
Posted - 2005.08.10 19:19:00 - [232]
 

Originally by: Sessho Seki

enough said, AS YOU UNDERSTOOD it.
Thank you again for reneging on what you’ve previously said, apparently you were absolutely confident in what you had interpreted, but that is just the problem, you interpreted it which is unnecessary, as basic logic can and will provide the explanation you need. Now you aren’t so certain, and we’re still awaiting your supporting evidence that Freighters were not intended for trade. First you “know for a fact”, now it’s “as I understood”, well it’s painfully obvious that you don’t understand the first thing about what your rambling about.



OMG, please stop this phrase-mongering. lol

Originally by: Sessho Seki

YOU ARE A WHINER!



Better to be a whiner than a hysteric moron.

Originally by: Sessho Seki

This guy beat you out of a trade route by being BETTER THAN YOU! For heaven’s sake, be a man, straighten up, and move on! Good grief, if you are THAT JEALOUS of him and his capability, don’t demand CCP nerf him, get off your lazy behind and do something about yourself!



Where this come from and why should I jealous of anybody? Besides, nobody beat me out of trade and my trade/haluer alt successfully land me another 500 mill of profit during this debates.

Originally by: Sessho Seki

CCP saw the need for a new and ever larger capacity of hauler. The limitation you say it needs is most certainly there, it’s station-to-station only, this means that Industrials are now going to be the ideal ship for THAT purpose, Industrial work. They are no longer trade vessels of the highest order, and THAT is why you are here whining and crying like a little baby.



I am sorry for your disabilities. Here, have a cookie.

Originally by: Sessho Seki

You see, the problem you have is that you know you’re being a fool but now you’re so involved with your idiotic stance that you don’t even know how to run away from it without the brand of “twit” being etched into your forehead forever.



I don't have any problems, but you obviously have and many. First of all, you talking about something which you have very little clue about and second of all
you keep making fool of yourself by spiting absolutely nonsense comments, upper case screaming and Webster quotes.

Originally by: Sessho Seki

Originally by: Olivin
Roaming solo afk freighters filled with consumer electronics doesn't sound like CCP intentions or does it? Regional Empire markets based on pure import, instead of the local industrial hubs development doesn't sound cool at all.


well that’s mighty odd, because that is precisely what CCP has done, and they have been talking about and working on Freighters since Exodus launched (November ’04) and formally began information on them in January, yet in 8 months of development it just slipped their mind and they accidentally let freighters do trade routes???



Well, they did accidentally let freighters be able to transport dreads, so I won't surprise if the forgot to nerf many other aspects of a freighters in secure Empire space.

Originally by: Sessho Seki

NOW extended the distance between many locations that used to be a universal hub (cough*yulai*cough) but now there are more scattered hubs of a lesser grandeur but still filling the role as a centralized location for inter-regional commerce. Indeed entire regions are becoming ever more dependent on imports than ever. Isogen poor regions are seeing spikes in the already high price of Isogen since it’s now an even longer trip to get some. And indeed, if a trade good sells low in region XYZ but sells well in region ABC, then you will see travel to it to some extent to discover the inter-regional trade benefit and fulfill it for the player’s personal gain.



True, if inter-regional routes were through not secure space, but now it's just another afk time sink. And regional development based on the regional (local) industry, not imports. Globalisation 101. LOL

Olivin

Olivin
Gallente
Aquarium
Posted - 2005.08.10 19:23:00 - [233]
 

Originally by: Bobby Wilson
Originally by: Blind Fear
NPC trade runs need to disappear. They do absolutely nothing for the economy and are simply disruptive and unbalanced.

They have needed to disappear for a very long time, but now it's somewhat more urgent.


Bingo. Still such an obvious point. Obviously too many ppl with a vested interest in making easy isk this way...



Yes, that could be a partial solution if NPC trade was not a second (after mining) income source for a newcomers. But, according to this logic, NPC should all disappear from the belts and complexes all together with agents and missions.

Olivin

Vilserx
Posted - 2005.08.10 19:27:00 - [234]
 

Originally by: Bobby Wilson
Originally by: Vilsix
Originally by: MOS DEF
Originally by: TIO 101
how many suicide kessy's would it take to kill a freighter >:]

Rephrase: How long would the server node last before breaking down while you try this?
Laughing


How many Gankageddons would you need?


Using BSes to kill a freighter in high sec without a war dec would be unlikely to pay for itself. Perhaps the occasional freighter is carrying tens of billions in tradegoods or whatever, but many are only carrying a few hundred million worth of stuff and wouldn't pay for ship replacement.

That's also not to mention that many items carried by freighters are 10K or even 100K m3 in size, and are hard or even impossible (in the case of the 100K m3 stuff) of being recovered even if they aren't destroyed in the blast.

BW


Exactly, that's what I mean. (sorry, posted with an alt before)

The argument that some people have mentioned, previously in the thread, that you can just 'gank the ship' as a way of adapting isn't true.

Olivin
Gallente
Aquarium
Posted - 2005.08.10 19:28:00 - [235]
 

Originally by: Bobby Wilson

The NPC tradegoods needed for an outpost amount to about 750K m3. It's crazy to expect ppl to hual all that from empire in industrials.



The outpost building requirements is crazy anyway and you still need industrials to fill paltform with set amount of minerals and commodities. I can't see how freighter can help in that and what it have to do with secure space in Empire.

Olivin

Olivin
Gallente
Aquarium
Posted - 2005.08.10 20:11:00 - [236]
 

Edited by: Olivin on 10/08/2005 20:12:36
Originally by: Miri Tirzan
The truth of the matter is the freighter does not let a player buy more, buy for less, or sell for more. That is trade. The freighter just let a player move more in less time. That is the truth of trade.


Ok, imagine you and me in an airline business and competing for the NY-LND route. You have Boing 747 "jumbo" Jet and I have Challenger 604. You can carry 500 passengers and I can carry only 10 passengers. Magically we have same maintenance cost, pilot, landing strip and fuel requirements. The only advantage I have in this scenario is an initial low investment cost, but in case of the same maintenance expenses it's irrelevant, because you have 50 times capacity advantage and in theory making 50 times more profit then me and more importantly you have an ability ( because of your capacity) to satisfy the travelling demand and I don't. You can fly everyday, take all passengers in one trip and compensate their crappy economy class meal by reducing price per ticket, which effectively puts me out of business. In such scenario there are no room for cooperation, because you don't need me with my pathetic Challenger 604

But, as soon as you introduce a little reality into above sugar coated scenario, -- situation will became completely different. For example, if your maintenance expenses are relative to your capacity and size, then you can't fly until you fully loaded and you can't stay in hangar without business. You suddenly need small guys like me, so we can carry your passengers from all other the place and you pick them up and transport to the galaxy far far away.

Olivin

Demarcus
Killjoy.
Posted - 2005.08.10 20:29:00 - [237]
 

If you can't prove a point in 8 pages you don't have a point. Rolling Eyes

Crushing Abyss
Posted - 2005.08.10 20:58:00 - [238]
 

Originally by: Olivin
Originally by: Bobby Wilson
Originally by: Blind Fear
NPC trade runs need to disappear. They do absolutely nothing for the economy and are simply disruptive and unbalanced.

They have needed to disappear for a very long time, but now it's somewhat more urgent.


Bingo. Still such an obvious point. Obviously too many ppl with a vested interest in making easy isk this way...



Yes, that could be a partial solution if NPC trade was not a second (after mining) income source for a newcomers. But, according to this logic, NPC should all disappear from the belts and complexes all together with agents and missions.

Olivin


Exactly.

Sure, get rid of NPC trade. To be fair, lets take it to the next logical level. Require all PCs to buy water, clothing, food, seeds, soil, electronics, repair parts, metal plating, glass, plastics, etc etc - ship and personal upkeep items. The more ships and other items you own the more "upkeep" items you should need to buy. POS's would require a ridiculous amount of goods to buy regularly. Require hiring of maitenance personal, logistics, trip planners, etc etc. New crafting skills would be required, i.e. farmer and assembly line worker to convert PC time -> goods. Yay sounds fun.

What? Doesn't sound fun? It's all about how much realism in the game you want to deal with. NPC trade is a valid gameplay choice. If the PC market is not changed to fully take up the slack of demand (thereby creating absurd ISK sinks for everyone) it should not be removed.

Sessho Seki
Posted - 2005.08.10 21:41:00 - [239]
 

Originally by: Olivin
Better to be a whiner than a hysteric moron.


Fortunately then in your case you are both, so you have your bases covered.

Originally by: Olivin
Where this come from and why should I jealous of anybody? Besides, nobody beat me out of trade and my trade/haluer alt successfully land me another 500 mill of profit during this debates.


ahhh, so it’s ok for YOU to make 500 million, but anyone else making 500 million is not ok?

They are doing it every bit as legitimately, you’re just a moron that wants to chisel down anyone else doing as well or better.

Originally by: Olivin
First of all, you talking about something which you have very little clue about and second of all
you keep making fool of yourself by spiting absolutely nonsense comments, upper case screaming and Webster quotes.


oh so close moron, but you say my comments are nonsense? Yet I support my argument with CCP’s own words and stance on the matter, you however lie like the idiot you are and babble completely unrelated things to slink away from how much of a fool you are and how you have not even the slightest comprehension of the matter at hand.

Originally by: Olivin
Well, they did accidentally let freighters be able to transport dreads, so I won't surprise if the forgot to nerf many other aspects of a freighters in secure Empire space.


actually moron, they didn’t “accidentally” do it, they did it quite on purpose to allow the potential transport of ANY ship in a freighter, but when the additional concern of Empire based Dreadnought wars came to mind was another concern and it was dealt with.

Now, if you weren’t such a colossally ignorant spud of a human being (and that is indeed a disgrace to where the species is headed to include you among us) you would also note that they were “adjusted” the day before launch on Singularity so that even with perfect skills only 2 of the freighters could haul any ship (Charon and Obelisk), and to then be consistent and not allow any freighter that ability the whole line was adjusted after the Cold War launch so that they all shared that limitation so people couldn’t move their dreadnoughts freely in Empire space.

You will also note, since you were so eager to over look it on your own, that not so much as one person even had a freighter yet, much less a dreadnought when this was done, so changing data that no one can even apply is hardly a true nerf as it effected NO ONE.

Now since you are so happy to mire yourself in your stupidity, perhaps you will be so kind as to stop being a fool and explain yourself.
Originally by: Olivin
True, if inter-regional routes were through not secure space, but now it's just another afk time sink. And regional development based on the regional (local) industry, not imports. [Globalization] 101. LOL


Hold on, now before NWO it was perfectly acceptable for SHORTER and perfectly safe interregional travel, but NOW ONLY NOW is it not ok? And do you honestly think that every hauler running those jumps was just glued to the monitor? Good lord Olivin, did you take dunce lessons or something? Because the level of incompetence you display is simply unnatural, I simply am constantly surprised by just how foolish you can be.

You say that regional development is based on local industry, then refer to Globalization?!? (at least SPELL IT RIGHT if you’re going to lie about it TWIT)

Perhaps you didn’t know this, because you haven’t known one thing thus far, but Globalization is DEPENDENT on interregional trade and development, otherwise it would be “regionalization” not “globalization”, God almighty, did your parents drop you a lot as a child?

Sophie Mae
Posted - 2005.08.10 22:13:00 - [240]
 

Edited by: Sophie Mae on 10/08/2005 22:13:53
Originally by: Sessho Seki

actually moron, they didn’t “accidentally” do it, they did it quite on purpose to allow the potential transport of ANY ship in a freighter, but when the additional concern of Empire based Dreadnought wars came to mind was another concern and it was dealt with.



Semantics. They DID "accidentally" or "unintentionally" code the freighter implementation to allow for dread wars in high sec. As I understand it you are saying that they delibratly (i.e. no accident) coded freighters to carry all ships and then belatedly realized the potential for Empire based dread wars that this delibrate design decision lead too. Thus it is correct that they didn't accidentally code freighters to allow for the transportation of dreads, but that they hadn't considered all the consequences of that design decision and corrected it later.

What I believe many are trying to tell you is that they believe that CCP may have also overlooked the effect freighter would have on the economy with NPC trading, and that this may be another instance of a delibrate (i.e. non-accidental) design decision that has an unintended consequence that ought to be addressed in the same fashion that the transportation of dreads issue was.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9

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