open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked CRITICAL issue : the risk/reward balance of minerals and moonstuff
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

Author Topic

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.06.13 17:14:00 - [1]
 

Original thread.
At this moment, the thread is 11 pages long and still going.

Short version

Problems : the lack of alternative means of manufacturing anything in EVE, combined with a much too perfectly working market and the good old human greed has completely denaturated the originally intended balance of prices for minerals (and therefore, potential income from mining depending on system security) and moon materials (therefore, causing dysp/prom moons to be worth shedloads and rest nearly worthless).

And WHY would this be a problem ? Because the risk and effort HAS to be balanced with reward proportionally.
In the case of ore, the average-risk one has become worthless compared to the no-risk one, and the high-risk one is barly more profitable compared to the nearly no-risk one.
In the case of moons, the effort and investment required to operate a certain moon as mining moon is nearly identical regardless of moon, yet the rewards range from a nearly complete loss for low-value moons (keeping in service only to offset fuel costs for sov purposes) to a disproportionately high profit (measured in billions monthly per moon, potentially ten billion in the near future).

Proposals - either one of the alternatives below or any combination of them from just one to all, in varying degrees could be acceptable :

* slowly/constantly tweaking the blueprint/reaction inputs requirements so that they require less of the over-evaluated materials and more of the under-evaluated ones
* adding alternative blueprints/reactions which use a lot more "currently undervalued" materials, with very little or even none of the "currently overevaluated" ones, which would output the same (or virtually identical) products
* for moons, revamping extraction on a "per concentration" basis, with most (if not all) materials present in each and every moon, just with different rates of extraction
* for minerals, a multitude of sub-solutions, ranging from a revamp of drone alloy drops (no more abundance of highends and lack of lowends), or rethinking ore make-up (in terms of refining yields) or even a total revamp of the mining system (all ore available everywhere, just with different concentrations - i.e. different extraction rates for various ores, depending on system security).


The issue is not so much the fact that SOMETHING needs to be done, but the fact that it needs to be done FAST, because it's been "badly broken" for at least a year, and mildly broken for almost a year and a half.

In other words, that this issue needs urgent attention, no matter what the chosen alternatives are (because there's plenty).

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force

Posted - 2008.06.13 17:14:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 03/07/2008 02:35:41


BREAKING NEWS UPDATE !!!
First CSM representative support
Exclamation

___

Lame need to post again to express support to own issue : check
___

JUST TO AVOID A LOT OF CONFUSION

I DO NOT care which exact "solution" or combination of possible solutions is getting picked.
I only care about the CSM (and therefore hopefully CCP too) acknowledging that we DO have a problem, understanding why the problem exists, and picking a REALISTIC solution.

Since the introduction of the drone regions and invention (the first triggers of the current crisis), nearly all subsequent changes CCP introduced related to these two separate (but similar) problems have made things worse, with a handfull of exceptions.
The exceptions (the only good changes) were the removal of some megacyte and addition of some mexallon in one of the more valuable drone alloys fairly recently, and the "revamp" of decryptor bonuses and distribution method (which made invention slightly less wasteful, but still not decent enough to even come close to a ME-researched BPO).

IF YOU AGREE THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE BROUGHT FORTH TO CCP BY THE CSM,
don't forget to check the "Check here if you want to give your support to the idea/discussion going on" box in your post!

If your post doesn't show a Please visit your user settings to re-enable images. under your name, you forgot to check it.


It doesn't matter if you agree with ANY of the PARTICULAR solutions listed in here.
It just means you WANT the CSM to talk about the issue and POSSIBLE solutions to the devs at CCP.


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.06.13 17:21:00 - [3]
 

While modifying supply of roid minerals might be a good idea, modiying the use of moon minerals probably isn't.

Why? Because moon minerals high price is good for promoting PvP. Moons need to be valuable to support people wanting to take and hold them.

The real problem is that supply will always be pegged to the highest demanded moon minerals. And the answer is to add more reactions. These reactions turn one moon mineral into another moon mineral at a certain rate.

This means that you can lock the relative values of moons and as demand increases, less efficient moons become more productive to exploit.

More moons of varying high values means more fighting over these moons.

More fighting over these moons is good.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.06.13 17:33:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 13/06/2008 21:16:34

This issue has been touched from several different directions over the course of the thread.

Right now, we have a guesstimated 200 Dysprosium moons worth a bit over 6 bil a month, another guesstimated 200 Promethium moons worth around 2.5 bil a month on the "insanely valuable" side of the spectrum.
On the other side of the equally-rare spectrum, we have pretty much the same number of Neodymium and Thulium moons, which are barely worth around 100 mil each monthly.

The higher the "bottleneck" materials go, the lower the rest go, until they can go down no longer, then overall T2 prices go up as dysp/prom keep going up too.
Kind of nasty...

But if you balance the requirements of all "equally rare" materials, you make them all almost equally valuable... and as you add alternative means to obtain components, you correct the relative value of those components (depending how much more compared to base are needed)... while the overall demand keeps increasing (heck, actually, it increases a lot more early on after their introduction, since lower T2 prices due to more "junk" materials being used up to increase supply promote consumption, until a new balance point is reached, where overall demand is higher with relative moon material prices relatively balanced, no more almost-4-orders-of-magnitude differences).

Jove X
True Slave Foundations
Shaktipat Revelators
Posted - 2008.06.13 17:36:00 - [5]
 

/signed

Kazzac Elentria
Posted - 2008.06.13 17:48:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Kazzac Elentria on 13/06/2008 17:48:05
/signed

Brainless Bimbo
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.06.13 18:01:00 - [7]
 

NO NO NO, Atika, you get your butt handed to you in one thread and then you start the same one in a differnet location.

Come on, its your perception, you put it perfectly the world that is Eve.... "perfectly working market and the good old human greed"

Free market with limited resource = Monopoly and PROFIT$$$$$

It cost as much to deep mine tin, copper or lead as it does gold, commodity price is different, but cost is the same to produce, gold has more profit but there's a lot less available to mine, its easy to strip mine Bauxite and Iron Ores, Coal and Tar sands, but different availabilities and prices .... get the picture..... so try to think of your all minerals and moon products in this way, it will take the strain off your brain.
You could also think about Oil from Saudi Arabia that costs 10$ to produce and Oil in the North Sea that costs 30$ to produce, same price on the world market, but one has high risk and low reward, thats an effect of the free market.

There has to be supply limits, thats why Zydrine is more expensive than Trit, but they are also used in different ratios 10K trit, 250 Zydrine, there is no under or over valued minerals, there is just supply availability, that sets the price and supply is set by players not CCP.

Alliances could dump huge amounts of High Ends on the markets, but they don't want to, its not in thier interests is it, America doesn't go out handing out F-16's or high end cryptography to everyone do they, its not in thier interests.

All CCP do is provide us with a REAL Model to play with, any Risk/Reward is relative and not real world type, but what really governs eve for the vast majority is Action taken/Fun derived, you forget that infulence all the time even though its the driver behind new eden.

Kazzac Elentria
Posted - 2008.06.13 18:10:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Brainless Bimbo
...stuff.



Your sorta missed the point and that's okay.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.06.13 18:12:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Brainless Bimbo
It cost as much to deep mine tin, copper or lead as it does gold, commodity price is different, but cost is the same to produce, gold has more profit but there's a lot less available to mine, its easy to strip mine Bauxite and Iron Ores, Coal and Tar sands, but different availabilities and prices .... get the picture..... so try to think of your all minerals and moon products in this way, it will take the strain off your brain.

Wow, how convenient.
How about applying the very same argument to the minerals in EVE and see how your own analogy dictates that Tritanium should be a lot cheaper than it is, and Megagyte a lot more expensive.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.


Quote:
All CCP do is provide us with a REAL Model to play with, any Risk/Reward is relative and not real world type, but what really governs eve for the vast majority is Action taken/Fun derived, you forget that infulence all the time even though its the driver behind new eden.

You're arguing exactly the same thing I'm arguing, but you are seemingly completely ignorant of the history and motives for the changes that have been happening in the past year, year and a half.

And this PRECISELY why CCP MUST intervene to fix what THEY have broken in the first place by altering the supply side for minerals, and the demand side for moon materials.

Tarminic
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.06.13 18:14:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Akita T
* slowly/constantly tweaking the blueprint/reaction inputs requirements so that they require less of the over-evaluated materials and more of the under-evaluated ones

Seems like a kind of inefficient solution, to be honest. I think that there are better ways that this can be done, especially your other points.

Quote:
* adding alternative blueprints/reactions which use a lot more "currently undervalued" materials, with very little or even none of the "currently overevaluated" ones, which would output the same (or virtually identical) products

Absolutely agreed.
Quote:
* for moons, revamping extraction on a "per concentration" basis, with most (if not all) materials present in each and every moon, just with different rates of extraction

One suggestion I made on SHC is to make moon materials dynamic, though at a very slow rate. As in, a material that is mined slowly gains a chance of being removed from moon and spawned at another unoccupied moon elsewhere (within the region or within a certain distance in lightyears). This would create different hotspots for alliances to fight over and makes it a bit harder for heavily entrenched alliances to hold onto high-value moons.

Quote:
* for minerals, a multitude of sub-solutions, ranging from a revamp of drone alloy drops (no more abundance of highends and lack of lowends) or rethinking ore make-up (in terms of refining yields) or even a total revamp of the mining system (all ore available everywhere, just with different concentrations - i.e. different extraction rates for various ores, depending on system security).

I would be all for any of those solutions, though I the last part may be a bit difficult to implement.

Overall, definitely supported.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.06.13 18:16:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Tarminic
the last part may be a bit difficult to implement

Linkage
One possibility.

Frecator Dementa
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2008.06.13 18:29:00 - [12]
 


Brainless Bimbo
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.06.13 19:24:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Brainless Bimbo on 13/06/2008 19:43:07
Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Originally by: Brainless Bimbo
...stuff.



Your sorta missed the point and that's okay.
recap of OP;

Problems:
A true Free Market is too unforgiving on the losers.
Only one BPO for a given end product, don't patents suck?
Mining Income across the board is effected by Martket forces (cos its a free market)
OP thinks null sec is riskier than highsec for miners, when one is open the other reserved for Alliance members (different lvl's of competition) and Concord don't make ship calls if attacked, and rats are bigger and scarier.

Why:
Because PERCEIVED higher risk by the OP has a need by the OP for greater reward.
The low end mineral ores also are the most needed ores, so more ppl mine them.
People mining high end mineral ores aren't able to squeeze a high enough price (only Anknor is sole 0.0).
Reprocessing brings too much high end minerals on to market so killing drone swarms provide high income with low risk to a solo player.
Moon mining costs are the same as the same equipment is used to mine no matter what is collected, OP thinks thats wrong.
That the Rarity value of a moon mineral has no inherent added value and those that control high end moon limit production supplies to others to make excess profits as its a free market system that allows them to abuse thier position of having the investment needed to mine those high end moons.

Proposals:
All Minerals to be created Equal.
All goods to have several BPO's of differing qualities of imput and output attributes.
Moon mining to be made all materials in one moon to make all materials Equal.
Rewriting the mineral make up of drops and roids and linking them to sec status, so 1.0 give only 100% veldspar and 0.0 just gives 100% anknoor and sores changes to give multiple minerals (but that already exists) on a sliding scale, the same to be applied to moons all materials just variable % of them.

OP thinks its a issue as doesn't like a free market with all its abuses and changes in price, demand, availability, ownership and lots of stuff that effects the risk reward ratios and them and how they make ISK.



i think i get the gist of it.

Kazzac Elentria
Posted - 2008.06.13 20:24:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Brainless Bimbo

i think i get the gist of it.


No.. your really don't. And I'm not going to bother trying to explain it either.

Brainless Bimbo
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.06.13 20:27:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Originally by: Brainless Bimbo

i think i get the gist of it.


No.. your really don't. And I'm not going to bother trying to explain it either.
Cos YOU Can't

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.06.13 20:32:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Brainless Bimbo
Cos YOU Can't

No, because it has been explained, several times, in different ways, and yet you still stay true to your name.

Brainless Bimbo
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.06.13 20:42:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Brainless Bimbo
Cos YOU Can't

No, because it has been explained, several times, in different ways, and yet you still stay true to your name.

Ah so it was you posting as an alt (Kazzac Elentria) up there!

Kazzac Elentria
Posted - 2008.06.13 20:47:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Brainless Bimbo
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Brainless Bimbo
Cos YOU Can't

No, because it has been explained, several times, in different ways, and yet you still stay true to your name.

Ah so it was you posting as an alt (Kazzac Elentria) up there!


Ohh yes.. definately brainless this one is

CydonianKnight
THE IRIS
Pandorum Invictus
Posted - 2008.06.13 20:51:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
While modifying supply of roid minerals might be a good idea, modiying the use of moon minerals probably isn't.

Why? Because moon minerals high price is good for promoting PvP. Moons need to be valuable to support people wanting to take and hold them.

The real problem is that supply will always be pegged to the highest demanded moon minerals. And the answer is to add more reactions. These reactions turn one moon mineral into another moon mineral at a certain rate.

This means that you can lock the relative values of moons and as demand increases, less efficient moons become more productive to exploit.

More moons of varying high values means more fighting over these moons.

More fighting over these moons is good.


And what about those who cant afford or have huge capital fleets at their disposal ?

But yes reactions sound good, but would imbalance surely....

Brainless Bimbo
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.06.13 21:15:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Kazzac Elentria
Originally by: Brainless Bimbo
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Brainless Bimbo
Cos YOU Can't

No, because it has been explained, several times, in different ways, and yet you still stay true to your name.

Ah so it was you posting as an alt (Kazzac Elentria) up there!


Ohh yes.. definately brainless this one is

No i just don't get it, look all BPO's are freely available everywhere at NPC and POS stations, minerals are available everywhere, Science and Industry lines are everywhere, so what is the gripe with "the lack of alternative means of manufacturing anything in EVE" why?, you don't need one, there is lots of un used capacity, materials about, do you see that?

Price at the start of anything is never the eventual price, that is driven by market forces on raw material and production costs as well as demand and supply of the product, the same goes for original ratios. Eve can never be linked to the stated base price and thier differentials as thats not a player driven game/market. The Risk / Reward ratio factors also have to change just because players interact and effect everything in the game, by our interaction we deviate from the base that CCP set, everything changes, thats the way the game was made to be imho, everything is player set, the lower the sec status the more so thats true.

To stay within any set parameters makes this game static (may as well play civ or x), we pay to play a dymanic experience, that's effected by what players do no matter how much it pi$$es us off or how wrong we think it is.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.06.13 21:34:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Brainless Bimbo
No i just don't get it, look all BPO's are freely available everywhere at NPC and POS stations, minerals are available everywhere, Science and Industry lines are everywhere, so what is the gripe with "the lack of alternative means of manufacturing anything in EVE" why?, you don't need one, there is lots of un used capacity, materials about, do you see that?

Lack of ALTERNATIVE manufacture options means you can't use less tritanium in exchange for some other mineral to build a shuttle, a frigate or even a capital ship, no matter what else you're trying to use instead of tritanium.

In other words, "item A" always gets manufactured from x units of tritanium, y units of pyerite, z units of mexallon and so on (assuming PE5 and perfect ME blueprint, of course).
What we propose would be to have an ALTERNATIVE blueprint for "item A" that would use up less tritanium but more pyerite, same count of mexallon and a bit of megacyte, for instance.
And this is just one EXAMPLE of what I mean.

Quote:
Price at the start of anything is never the eventual price, that is driven by market forces on raw material and production costs as well as demand and supply of the product, the same goes for original ratios.

Prices of minerals which in turn are influenced by the insurance payout of ships and relative ease of availability of each individual mineral.
Minerals are usually needed in reverse ratios corresponding to their base prices, so if somehow all minerals would be equally easily available in terms of ISK/hour spent gathering them, then the base price ratios would be maintained.
But since highends are relatively much more abundant value-wise due to mission loot, drone alloy drops and higher base ISK/hour income of 0.0 mining, yet lowends (especially tritanium) no longer have a reliable alternative cheap source, the pressure of "I want to earn as much as possible" drives tritanium prices up a lot more, relatively speaking, as the highends are driven down.
As a result, due to the way ore value was initially spread, lowsec ore becomes nearly worthless, and 0.0 ore decreases strongly in value compared to intended initial value... but at the same time, Veldspar (and other tritanium-rich ores that also contain traces of the minerals least affected by this) become insanely more valuable compared to the intended base value, throwing the entire mining revenue out of whack.


Quote:
The Risk / Reward ratio factors also have to change just because players interact and effect everything in the game, by our interaction we deviate from the base that CCP set, everything changes, thats the way the game was made to be imho, everything is player set, the lower the sec status the more so thats true.

Everything is NOT player set. It's only in your imagination where it appears to be so.

Yes, you do the leg work allright, yes, you may profit from various fluctuations every now and then, yes, for a while, you can influence the market and so on and so forth.
But the long-term, wide-area averages are completely set in stone the moment changes to the static data are made. And nobody but CCP can change that data. The only thing you can do is adapt to the new status quo faster.

One CAN partially predict the equilibrium prices whenever a change is made by CCP, but one can totally and easily predict the DIRECTION of changes whenever CCP changes one thing. The only remotely questionable thing is just how strong the deviation will be, not the direction.

Mia Morningstar
Posted - 2008.06.13 22:23:00 - [22]
 

/signed

Brainless Bimbo
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.06.13 23:49:00 - [23]
 

Umm can i substitue rubber for eggs when i make you that omelette. /sarcasm

Look i understand your argument but it's just loading the database with more crap for limited utility in the game, mineral composition of an item as long as minerals are in plentiful supply (even if not acquired) poses no problem it is only a player perception of under or over supply. As a side note i think a shuttle made out of zydrine would get poped just because its made out of zydrine for fun, do different races ships of the same class get made from the same material requirements atm, i've never looked, you have, do they?
There is no real need for player made alternative goods we have the meta lvl Tech 1 drops from NPC's (the BPO's of which would be a good way to implement your idea though), there are more than enough mission runners to manufacture them to fill demand with their guns etc..


Yes price is dependent on availability and regulation, Veldspar being driven up in price (in relative terms) just means not enough people are giving Chribba competition (probally out of respect) for veldspar roids, miners can mine anything, if more profit is in veldspar mine it, If your null sec alliance needs high ends then buy it in, don't mine it, have your miners strip high sec veldspar for profits while they can as the market will change to reflect the fact that your not mining high ends but lots of high sec low ends or go farm drones. There are ways to mitigate if you think about it without changing basic minerals and goods mineral compositition, if you can't do an action because your risk is to high in that system/constellation/Region, you have the power to change it if you want it enough.

I see nothing wrong with ores being worthless, thats the free market at work, if farming drones gives better profits, farm drones, if veldspar mining prints ISk do it, less risk more reward is better for profits isn't it. That the mechanics are not as you want to preceive does not mean its broken or the sky is going to fall on us, risk reward is also market forces at work, if you can't profit do something different, if you don't think you earn enough do something different, if you think the risk is to high for the reward do something that fulfills your critera, someone will fill your niche quickly enough.

CCP code in Minerals and Moon Materials (Static Data), they require us to mine them and we don't mine more than 20% of them so thats not an argument that holds water. Drops from drones and NPC's are limited by numbers of missions that can be run, hours spent ratting etc both of which fluxiates daily according to players desires, a random generator to provide the drops, again CCP don't set a limit in stone.

Pang Grohl
Posted - 2008.06.13 23:49:00 - [24]
 

Particularly the alternate composition blueprints for T2 components (not sure about T1 needing this treatment). Done right this kind of change could be added as top-end industrialist content.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.06.14 00:18:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 14/06/2008 00:43:37
Originally by: Brainless Bimbo
stuff

No, you still don't get it.
The EXACT same item (in terms of market tab, attributes and so on, even if it's a separate item for reprocessing purposes) but obtained from DIFFERENT blueprints needing other types/amounts of materials.

So, right now you have only a "Caldari Shuttle Blueprint - Mark I" which under perfect conditions needs 2500 tritanium to build one Caldari Shuttle that reprocesses into 2500 tritanium.
In the future, you could have a "Caldari Shuttle Blueprint - Mark II" which under perfect conditions needs, say, 500 tritanium plus 625 pyerite to build one Caldari Shuttle (for all intents and purposes not related to reprocessing identical to the Caldari Shuttle from the Mark I blueprint) that would reprocess either into the same 500 trit + 625 pye (in case you keep separate item IDs but somehow merge them in the market tab) or into the original 2500 tritanium.
Personally, I prefer this second option, no separate IDs, and reprocessing into "Mark I" version, if at all.
The base value of trit is 2 ISK per unit, pyerite 8, so the base price of a shuttle (via "Mark I" blueprint) is 5000 ISK.
The alternative "Mark II" blueprint needs a base value of 6000 ISK in minerals, but is still only worth the same 5000 ISK for insurance purposes, and, in case no separate IDs are used at all, refines into same 5000 ISK of base value of materials, even if the base value of minerals you used in its construction was 20% higher.

And this is just the simplest example, using only one single alternative build method.
Depending on ship race, size, module type or anything else, the manufacturing alternatives could follow some clear rules of replacement (how much percentage of what mineral value converted in what other mineral value and so on)... as long as some form of replacement is available for most items, and covers (overall) all possible mineral-to-mineral replacements.


P.S. It doesn't even have to be this way for ships, especially since you have the reprocessing issues that can lead to pretty nasty side-effects. This part of the proposal works a lot better with non-refineables (i.e. T2 components).

Brainless Bimbo
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.06.14 00:48:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Brainless Bimbo
stuff

No, you still don't get it.
The EXACT same item (in terms of market tab, attributes and so on, even if it's a separate item for reprocessing purposes) but obtained from DIFFERENT blueprints needing other types/amounts of materials.

So, right now you have only a "Caldari Shuttle Blueprint - Mark I" which under perfect conditions needs 2500 tritanium to build one Caldari Shuttle that reprocesses into 2500 tritanium.
In the future, you could have a "Caldari Shuttle Blueprint - Mark II" which under perfect conditions needs, say, 500 tritanium plus 625 pyerite to build one Caldari Shuttle (for all intents and purposes not related to reprocessing identical to the Caldari Shuttle from the Mark I blueprint) that would reprocess either into the same 500 trit + 625 pye (in case you keep separate item IDs but somehow merge them in the market tab) or into the original 2500 tritanium.
Personally, I prefer this second option, no separate IDs, and reprocessing into "Mark I" version, if at all.
The base value of trit is 2 ISK per unit, pyerite 8, so the base price of a shuttle (via "Mark I" blueprint) is 5000 ISK.
The alternative "Mark II" blueprint needs a base value of 6000 ISK in minerals, but is still only worth the same 5000 ISK for insurance purposes, and, in case no separate IDs are used at all, refines into same 5000 ISK of base value of materials, even if the base value of minerals you used in its construction was 20% higher.

And this is just the simplest example, using only one single alternative build method.
Depending on ship race, size, module type or anything else, the manufacturing alternatives could follow some clear rules of replacement (how much percentage of what mineral value converted in what other mineral value and so on)... as long as some form of replacement is available for most items, and covers (overall) all possible mineral-to-mineral replacements.

NO I do actually understand that version of your reasoning, but its a waste of database as i said, it just makes miners make slightly different choices, or mission runers do differnt stuff with thier drops, or market players hedge different commodities.

Look face reality, Insurance will be nerfed long before CCP would entertain your perceived problem and its cure, why? well its a overall reduction in server load whilst your idea increaces server load as it requires lots of code to implement and space to store etc. An Insurance nerf also would render all you say invalid as the alledged base price would cease to exist like its cap which went when NPC reprocessable goods began dissappearing. The free market would take over and the real value of minerals would be shown and maybe the roid belts and drop ratios/items will be tweaked by DR E and CCP to restore time / risk / reward balance in all 3 sec lvl's to whats apporiate.

Basically in its crudest terms all your saying is lets make stuff with what ever (and slow the server down) while making a new sink for minerals to fall into when reprocessing a percentage of stuff.

Brainless Bimbo
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.06.14 01:08:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Brainless Bimbo on 14/06/2008 01:22:38
Originally by: Pang Grohl
Particularly the alternate composition blueprints for T2 components (not sure about T1 needing this treatment). Done right this kind of change could be added as top-end industrialist content.

This is the best and probally only peice of inspiration i've seen in 12 pages.

Meta lvl T2 BPC chances when Inventing could be a way to acheive alternative composition/attribute blueprints and thereby broarden the material requirements of both roid and moon derived materials and minerals. It could be tied into faction warfare rewards,lvl 5 R&D agent datacores, lots of things over and above basic skill books which would broadern players opportunities for fun and profit. It also is something that newer players can strive for and older players can expliot until there caught up to, reduces T2 prices and creates premium Meta lvl items that Tech 2 BPO holders have no advantage over.

All addition server load with this idea actually adds new content too at every stage, its not the same stuff but diffferent but not different stuff idea of the OP.

Verite Rendition
Caldari
F.R.E.E. Explorer
EVE Animal Control
Posted - 2008.06.14 01:29:00 - [28]
 

/signed

Frecator Dementa
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2008.06.14 08:43:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Frecator Dementa on 14/06/2008 08:47:10
Originally by: Brainless Bimbo
slow the server down

slow a database down a by significant amount by adding a FEW more rows to a table? (he didn't say he wanted to duplicate every BPO in existance, just T2 components)
you might as well argue that CCP should not accept new players since they will slow the servers down...
true to your name, as always

also, you don't actually have to duplicate DB entries, just have a universally applicable procedure like "turn 50% of trit requirements into pyerite for this particular manufacture job"

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.06.14 12:51:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 14/06/2008 13:33:18
Originally by: Brainless Bimbo
NO I do actually understand that version of your reasoning, but its a waste of database as i said

Waste of database space ? As in, out of the multiple TB of data the game has, adding a couple of hundred (or even thousands, for that matter) static data types of blueprints/reactions, that would actually make a diffeence ? Don' make me laugh.

Quote:
it just makes miners make slightly different choices, or mission runers do differnt stuff with thier drops, or market players hedge different commodities.

And that would be a bad thing because ? Yeah. Right. You don't have an explanation to that.

Quote:
Look face reality, Insurance will be nerfed long before CCP would entertain your perceived problem and its cure

Insurance has nothing to do with those ratios. Insurance only has something to do with absolute price levels. Even if you completely remove insurance, things won't get better, they'd only get WORSE, as in, lowends will become increasingly more profitable, and highends decreasingly less profitable.

Quote:
why? well its a overall reduction in server load whilst your idea increaces server load as it requires lots of code to implement and space to store etc.

You have zero idea of what you're talking about. Lots of code to implement ? How about next to zero code to implement ? And how about negligible space to store ?

Quote:
An Insurance nerf also would render all you say invalid as the alledged base price would cease to exist like its cap which went when NPC reprocessable goods began dissappearing.

No, the base price would become ZERO, that's what would happen. The only remaining things will be just how low everybody is willing to go in regards of ISK/hour mining or missioning compared to how high they're willing to go for ships. All T1 item prices will crash quite nasty, but not enough to stop it from rendering PvP a lot less attractive.

Quote:
The free market would take over and the real value of minerals would be shown and maybe the roid belts and drop ratios/items will be tweaked by DR E and CCP to restore time / risk / reward balance in all 3 sec lvl's to whats apporiate.

The "free market" will do next to squat. You know what will happen ? VELDSPAR will become the MOST valuable ore to mine in terms of ISK/hour, even in deep 0.0, as prices of minerals obtainable from drone loot drops and mission-running loot reprocessing (especially zydrine and megacyte) take a huge drop, alongside pyerite (heavily featured in mission loot too), with tritanium being the most overrated minerall overall.
THAT is the "real" value of minerals, in terms of "where is it cheapest to get from".
____

There needs to be some form, any form of "negative feedback" for each mineral/material pair, so that as soon as one gets too much more (or less) valuable than the intended ratios, there is some kind of backward pressure to restore the initial ratio.

This does not eliminate absolute price fluctuations, it doesn't eliminate relative price fluctuations either, it just makes it increasingly difficult for prices to get past a certain relative level, no matter what other conditions we might have in the game world.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (11)

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