open All Channels
seplocked Science and Industry
blankseplocked Removing loots T1
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

Author Topic

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.07.11 05:58:00 - [91]
 

Originally by: Matthew

At it's most extreme, this would mean that you have one generic meta-x build item, which can be used to build any item type at that meta level. In practice, I suspect some differentiation between the pirate factions would be maintained, along similar lines to the faction split seen in invention.



Another good post, trying to see all or at least most of the interconnected pieces.

I have quoted the piece above because it is the only part that need to be done another way.

Using "generic" meta-x build items will have the same effect on pricing for them as using the same decryptors for all the invention jobs has on pricing decryptors, i.e. the meta-x build items will be priced on the most rewarding job, making the others not economically convenient.

Let's make 2 examples:

More extreme example: to build a Prototype model of a railgun, any size, you need the meta-prototype component.

A 425mm prototype rail sell at 14 millions, a T1 at 1 million, so the meta-prototype component could easily sell at 12 millions.
A 75mm rail prototype sell at 1,8 millions, a 75mm T1 at 4.000. Using a meta-prototype component to build the 75 mm prototype it should be priced at 12.004.00 to cover teh meta-prototype component cost.

Less extreme: meta-prototype component are limited to size too, so we have meta-prototype large component.
Dual 250mm prototype sell at 1,8 millions, T1 at 160.000
350mm prototype at 4 millions, t1 at 800.000
425mm prototype rail sell at 14 millions, a T1 at 1 million

So the pricing of the meta-prototype large component would be at 12 millions unless they are so common that they can be used for the less rewarding productions. But then if they are so common the first thing that will happen is the reduction of the return from building 425mm prototype till the point where it has the same return of the 350mm production.

So, even if it can be a database burden, I think that each meta-x component should be for a specific item, i.e. meta-component rail 425mm prototype.



Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.07.11 06:06:00 - [92]
 

Originally by: Yon Krum

As for "scavenger" modules in my post, I do think they would make a more interesting solution than just taking more yield onto the salvager module. Currently I would compare salvaging to be (loosely) akin to ice-mining, in that the result is a specialty component used by a limited number of manufacturers. A parallel "scavenge" path--with the skills CCP loves to add--would fill the role of the usual ore-mining done against belts, and flesh the role of the salvage character out into a more-complete profession.

As a side-note, such a module would probably want to be either medium or low-power, and represent some kind of specialized housing for an exploration (mini-drone?) team looking at a given wreck.

This is merely my opinion and the picture in my head, seeing some potential here to expand the universe in interesting ways.

--Krum


Doing that, especially for low sec/0.0, would require a specialist ship for the salvager/scavenger mini profession, I think.

Something with a decent resistance, cargo space and capability of avoiding players attacks. A scavenger with several non combat module fitted would be an easy prey for any PvPers and will be hindered by NPC too (in 0.0 I salvage with a domi as the respawn is too fast and my catalyst can't tank the NPC spawn well enough).

The proble of adding a "scavenger" module as a requirement to recover the meta-item components is that it will require a mandatory skill. Not a problem for the experienced players, but very annoying for new players that will see a source of isk beyond their grasp at the start of the career and another mandatory skill to train before doing anything.

Clansworth
Good Rock Materials
Posted - 2008.07.11 09:15:00 - [93]
 

I do like the meta-object idea, and I do see the problems with largely varied meta-item values. This is something that could either be implemented with a large variety of meta-objects, such as a META-1 small turret block, or a META-3 med turret block (names obviously to be determined with a lot more creativity), or by simply requiring more meta-objects on larger items. (A large turret would say, require 15 META-1 blocks, while a small turret would require 3.

Another alternative, that I particularily like, would involve pirate loot drops consisting of META-BPC's, and meta-objects. Those BPC's require the META-0 item, along with some meta-objects. This would result in an increase in production levels, because the META-0 would have to be produced, and then modified with the META-1 BPC. I like my industy in layers. It encourages trade, and spreads the manufacturing across multiple skill levels. (Small timers would focus on the META-0 production, which more experienced could buy those META-0's and do the 'aftermarket performance mods'.

Oh yeah.. and this makes me dream of META-1 frigates... hehe

Nick Domani
Posted - 2008.07.11 12:56:00 - [94]
 

Originally by: Yon Krum
However, if all potential minerals are removed from NPC wrecks, then some changes need to be made to mining to make lowsec and 0.0 operations much more competitive.


Lowsec has its own problems that won't be fixed with anything here. However, there's plenty of ore, common and rare, in both lowsec and 0.0, so there doesn't need to be any additional special ores to entice people to mine there. Right now, many (not all) alliances don't really run the 0.0 space they control...they're too infatuated with PvP to do what they need to do to support the mining operations they're perfectly capable of running, and instead wind up importing minerals from belts that are stripped weekly to systems where the veldspar rocks are so big you can warp from one to another in the same belt. Importing low-end minerals to 0.0 is like bringing sand to the beach.

This is because most alliances (again, not all) don't recruit miners...they allow miner alts of PvP players to join in case they have an occasional mining op. Miners are mocked and/or booted because 'they don't contribute enough to defense ops' or 'they're just carebears and don't belong in 0.0 space.' In the three 0.0 alliances my main character has belonged to over the past two years, there were exactly two alliance-wide mining operations in 0.0 space. Yeah, mining or providing security for miners isn't fun for most people...but nobody ever said the administration of a vast territory was supposed to be all fun and games.

The ore is there...they just need to go all zero jumps to go get it.

Alex Redwidth
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.07.11 13:43:00 - [95]
 

This thread is so much fail...

T1 loot remains the primary source of high-ends for a lot of empire carebears. Removing it is going to drastically effect empire shipbuilding, elevating the bar to entry through both price and accessibilty of high end minerals and making it that much harder for new bears to get involved.

The comments about mission runners singlehandedly ruining the economy just blows my mind. Who do you think totals more ships in a month, a miner or a runner?

Removing T1 loot and bounties would cripple mission running. Why would you do it for a few LPs and the mission reward? Yes, mission runners can make more ISK and more minerals than a miner but they are taking a greater risk.

One can practically mine with one eye on the screen while watching TV, reading, etc.. why shouldn't mission runners get better rewards for a more intensive activity?

A much better idea would for drops of 'refinables' like with drones, that can then be turned into minerals. It solves the problem of having a hangar full of the same modules that never need to be manufactured, without crippling the mineral market or mission running.

Yon Krum
The Knights Templar
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2008.07.11 14:03:00 - [96]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul

Doing that, especially for low sec/0.0, would require a specialist ship for the salvager/scavenger mini profession, I think.

Something with a decent resistance, cargo space and capability of avoiding players attacks. A scavenger with several non combat module fitted would be an easy prey for any PvPers and will be hindered by NPC too (in 0.0 I salvage with a domi as the respawn is too fast and my catalyst can't tank the NPC spawn well enough).

The proble of adding a "scavenger" module as a requirement to recover the meta-item components is that it will require a mandatory skill. Not a problem for the experienced players, but very annoying for new players that will see a source of isk beyond their grasp at the start of the career and another mandatory skill to train before doing anything.


Eventually, yes, a specialty recovery ship would be logical--just like some are batting around the idea of a specialty exploration ship.

And yes, it would require a skill. I thought about that as a hurdle for new players, or those who want to "get back" their earnings after the kind of "mission nerf" that we're debating here. This could be avoided by making lower-tier (high volume demand) meta items recoverable from wrecks using the existing loot mechanic. Think things like "tritanium plating" and the like. Then, module use could extract more exotic components, but that would probably demand the destruction of the wreck--like salvaging it does now.

While I'd thought it would be nice to be able to both scavenge AND salvage a given wreck, that might actually result in out-of-bound income results, depending on the economy, so perhaps a choice of which to do would be more viable.

To the poster concerned that these ideas remove mineral income from mission-runners, inflating prices: I don't think you've read the full thread, or understand the idea that at least some of us are discussion. That is, to replace the normal loot drops with something else that would serve as a source of income, without deflating mineral prices as much as they are now. And, if it turns out that the knock-on price effects are too much, the replacement items could be reprocessed for minerals.

--Krum

Haradgrim
Systematic Mercantilism
Posted - 2008.07.11 14:44:00 - [97]
 

Originally by: Alex Redwidth
This thread is so much fail...

T1 loot remains the primary source of high-ends for a lot of empire carebears. Removing it is going to drastically effect empire shipbuilding, elevating the bar to entry through both price and accessibilty of high end minerals and making it that much harder for new bears to get involved.

The comments about mission runners singlehandedly ruining the economy just blows my mind. Who do you think totals more ships in a month, a miner or a runner?

Removing T1 loot and bounties would cripple mission running. Why would you do it for a few LPs and the mission reward? Yes, mission runners can make more ISK and more minerals than a miner but they are taking a greater risk.

One can practically mine with one eye on the screen while watching TV, reading, etc.. why shouldn't mission runners get better rewards for a more intensive activity?

A much better idea would for drops of 'refinables' like with drones, that can then be turned into minerals. It solves the problem of having a hangar full of the same modules that never need to be manufactured, without crippling the mineral market or mission running.


First of all, mission runners and ratters are ruining the economy. I make more than 5 times as much in an hour ratting in 0.0 as I do mining veldspar in a hulk with pretty good skills. Meaning I can just buy the minerals with less time spent.... not to mention the minerals gained by reprocessing loot....

Second of all, we all saw what happened last time CCP added more refinable. Miners should be the primary source of high end minerals (and low too) not some NPC dropped refinable. As it stands, lvl 4 missions are more than profitable enough with just the ISK reward, LP, and salvage.

Jethro Amar
Posted - 2008.07.11 15:05:00 - [98]
 

Meta production: make rats drop 'parts', that combined with plain T1 items can be manufactured into meta. This way we keep loot for 'missionnaires', keep jobs in industry and increase demand for t1.

Example:
Instead of a rat dropping Arbalest launcher it drops a 'damaged improved launcher'. Take a number of those, t1 launcher and start production. It could be bpo-like (1 part for meta-1, 2 parts for meta-2 for predictable output) or invention-like (put X 'damaged launchers' and T1 and you get a random meta item, with the chance of success (success being highest meta Arbalest) a bit random but connected to the number of parts used (say, 10x parts - 80% arbalest 15% limos, 5% other; 1 part - 80% malkuth, 15% next, 5% other). Whatever you get is mostly sellable, if you're not happy - reprocess it.

The obvious way to avoid minerals prices skyrocketing is to expand salvage. We can pick a few damaged items out of a wreck.. but what about the whole wreck itself? it's tons and tons of high-quality alloys, that could be gathered and reprocessed. New Scavenger class ship could gather the whole wrecks and take it to station for reprocessing. 5% of BS-sized wrecks minerals make a nice chunk of isk. Too nice I'd say, but if the ship could gather only 1 BS at a time and was very slow - it would take a while to earn it.

As a side note: I'm always wondering why can't i sell my wrecks? I'd rather shoot other rats in next mission than bother myself with salvaging. The salvage isk income is too rewarding though.
I could team with a salvager (NOT my alt), but that is a risky process. I want to make money on it, so the guy must pay for my wrecks. There is no way to achieve this now. 1st: once i give him bookmark for my wrecks he can salvage them with or without my consent (so the moment he sees the wrecks i'll get convo 'thanks sucker, you were scammed !!!!11!!'). If I want payment before i'll get convo 'No way you f..... scammer !!1111!'. AND if I want to go further and gang with the guy I might be shot at. This is ridiculous situation...
A simple solution is a sale of wrecks. Say, i'm in the middle of mission pocket, the sales system looks around, prepares the list of all wrecks, asks for price and sends the sale offer to the potential buyer (list of shipwrecks by size and price). If he agrees the wrecks are his and I can't touch them without CONCORD playing soccer with my balls. Obviously, it doesn't work with any hostiles around.

As a side note for anyone who wants to get rid of bounties: WHERE do you think ALL the isk come from? mission rewards? Without isk you can't but nor sell, all you can do is exchange items..

Alex Redwidth
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.07.11 15:09:00 - [99]
 

Edited by: Alex Redwidth on 11/07/2008 15:09:32
Edited by: Alex Redwidth on 11/07/2008 15:08:56
Originally by: Haradgrim
First of all, mission runners and ratters are ruining the economy. I make more than 5 times as much in an hour ratting in 0.0 as I do mining veldspar in a hulk with pretty good skills. Meaning I can just buy the minerals with less time spent.... not to mention the minerals gained by reprocessing loot....

As it stands, lvl 4 missions are more than profitable enough with just the ISK reward, LP, and salvage.


Miner and mission runner both go buy their 100mil(ish) ships, a hulk for mining, a BS for mission running.

Who spends more outfiting that ship?
Who spends more on charges for those ships, per week?
Who runs the greater risk of loosing that ship and having to buy another? (outside of suicide ganks, when is a hulk ever lost in a 1.0 mining veld?)

All that stimulates the economy, not the guy who kicks back and pulls in 10s of millions of ISK a week for little more than a few T2 crystals.

Haradgrim
Systematic Mercantilism
Posted - 2008.07.11 16:11:00 - [100]
 

Originally by: Alex Redwidth
Edited by: Alex Redwidth on 11/07/2008 15:09:32
Edited by: Alex Redwidth on 11/07/2008 15:08:56
Originally by: Haradgrim
First of all, mission runners and ratters are ruining the economy. I make more than 5 times as much in an hour ratting in 0.0 as I do mining veldspar in a hulk with pretty good skills. Meaning I can just buy the minerals with less time spent.... not to mention the minerals gained by reprocessing loot....

As it stands, lvl 4 missions are more than profitable enough with just the ISK reward, LP, and salvage.


Miner and mission runner both go buy their 100mil(ish) ships, a hulk for mining, a BS for mission running.

Who spends more outfiting that ship?
Who spends more on charges for those ships, per week?
Who runs the greater risk of loosing that ship and having to buy another? (outside of suicide ganks, when is a hulk ever lost in a 1.0 mining veld?)

All that stimulates the economy, not the guy who kicks back and pulls in 10s of millions of ISK a week for little more than a few T2 crystals.


I'd like some of what your smoking.

A hulk with a decent tank costs 200mil+ (gistii shield booster, etc). Raven + cloak in a friendly region in 0.0 is way less risk. Hostile comes into system, I safespot and cloak.... hulk does what?

Hulks being suicided in empire borders on a pandemic.

My cruise missile costs are not that far above t2 mining crystal costs.

And last but not least, mining helps bring down the cost of the well overinflated low-end ores, whereas missions causes depreciation of the high end ones.

Pwett
QUANT Corp.
QUANT Hegemony
Posted - 2008.07.11 17:43:00 - [101]
 

Originally by: Alex Redwidth

Miner and mission runner both go buy their 100mil(ish) ships, a hulk for mining, a BS for mission running.


Which ship is designed for mining minerals and which one is not?
Which ship can bring in more minerals than the other?

See the disconnect?

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:53:00 - [102]
 

Originally by: rain9441
Nobody wants the garbage, and nobody has been buying it since.. forever ago. The only T1 worth producing is Ammo, Ships, select few non-npc dropped modules that are common in pvp (mwd, etc), those that lack meta-1 equivalents, and maybe certain drones.


No, the only ones worth producing are those where the volume consumed is large compared to the volume supplied by loot drops.

The reason the garbage is garbage is because loot drops provide far more than people want. It's a problem with the rate the loot drops, not with manufacturing.

Originally by: rain9441
Vanilla T1 is dead. Allowing manufacturers to make meta1-4 would be invasion of the traders' market.


Not if it's done properly. Allowing manufacturers to make meta1-4, but requiring meta build items that are dropped by loot, means that manufacturer's cannot flood the market with meta items, and cannot magic meta1-4 items out of other things.

Under that manufacturing model, there will be no more meta items than there are now, and the drops will still occur in the same parts of space. If anything it would boost traders, as they would now have two trading points in the chain (the meta build item drops, and the meta modules themselves).

Originally by: rain9441
Besides, all the crappy T1 stuff that floods the market from NPCs is crap nobody wants to make because theres no money in it anyway. (300k ISK investments won't get you very far).


There's only no money in it because loot is flooding the market with so much quantity. There are plenty of newer players for whom a 300k investment in a low-volume item is an ideal way into manufacturing. And the lower demand items may become more premium items simply because of the lack of economies of scale. This would be entirely normal and expected in a working market system.

Originally by: Venkul Mul
A 425mm prototype rail sell at 14 millions, a T1 at 1 million, so the meta-prototype component could easily sell at 12 millions.
A 75mm rail prototype sell at 1,8 millions, a 75mm T1 at 4.000. Using a meta-prototype component to build the 75 mm prototype it should be priced at 12.004.00 to cover teh meta-prototype component cost.


The theory behind the generic proposal is exactly so that the market can balance supply. As people built more 425mm prototypes, the 425mm price falls, and thus the "top" price of the component falls. At the same time, the sale price of the 75mm rail rises. In isolation, a balance would be found such that both were produced.

However, with the substitute goods available, the practical effect of this will have limits. In this extreme example, I would be inclined to agree that it wouldn't work properly.

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Less extreme: meta-prototype component are limited to size too, so we have meta-prototype large component.
Dual 250mm prototype sell at 1,8 millions, T1 at 160.000
350mm prototype at 4 millions, t1 at 800.000
425mm prototype rail sell at 14 millions, a T1 at 1 million

So the pricing of the meta-prototype large component would be at 12 millions unless they are so common that they can be used for the less rewarding productions. But then if they are so common the first thing that will happen is the reduction of the return from building 425mm prototype till the point where it has the same return of the 350mm production.


But if more go into the 425mm, less will go into the 350mm and dual 250mm. this will bring up the price of these modules. So the return on the others will be rising, as well as the 425mm falling. Ideally finding a balance between the three.

Originally by: Venkul Mul
So, even if it can be a database burden, I think that each meta-x component should be for a specific item, i.e. meta-component rail 425mm prototype.


While I think you've raised a valid point, I think going that far would be too far the other way and lose the advantages aimed for with the generic system. However, I do have an idea...

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2008.07.11 18:59:00 - [103]
 

Taking your less extreme option pricing, and convert the meta price into a percent of base price, we get:

Dual 250mm - 1125%
350mm - 500%
425mm - 1400%

So while the 350mm is still a bit of an outlier, the other two aren't really that far apart.

What this suggests to me is that we change it from a fixed 1-per-item generic "decryptor" to a material-style requirement. Clearly the drop rate would need to be increased to ensure the same overall number of meta items can be produced. While I'm not going to pretend I'll come up with balanced figures right off, lets say we do the following (based on the ratio of the T1 costs):

Dual 250mm - 1 metabuild item - 1.64mill per metabuild item
350mm takes 5 metabuild items - 0.64mill per metabuild item
425mm takes 7 metabuild items - 1.85mill per metabuild item

I would suggest that the Dual 250mm and the 425mm will balance each other in this situation with very little trouble. The 350mm is an outlier, but I would suggest that the current price of the 350mm is disproportionately low when you look at the relative price of the 350mm and 450mm at the T1 and T2 levels, and is probably due to the current loot drop rates not recognizing that the 350mm is a less popular module. Which is exactly the sort of discrepancy the generic system is designed to resolve.

Originally by: Clansworth
Another alternative, that I particularily like, would involve pirate loot drops consisting of META-BPC's, and meta-objects. Those BPC's require the META-0 item, along with some meta-objects. This would result in an increase in production levels, because the META-0 would have to be produced, and then modified with the META-1 BPC.


My initial idea (back a few months ago) did have meta-BPC drops instead of meta component drops. I changed it because BPC's cannot be put onto the market, making trading them a massive additional annoyance.

If you want to require that two-stage build process, rather than the "intergrated" approach where the meta-0 mineral requirement is in the meta1-4 job anyway, then that could be done. As the meta component is modifying the output of the job, there's no reason why it couldn't affect the inputs required too (i.e. you would use a standard meta-0 BP, and the use of the meta component would give you -100% mineral need, but +1 meta-0 item need).

I'm not sure if that wouldn't be too much extra manufacturing need though, as you're already adding the need for one factory job per meta1-4 item, where there wasn't one required before.

Originally by: Nick Domani
Lowsec has its own problems that won't be fixed with anything here. However, there's plenty of ore, common and rare, in both lowsec and 0.0, so there doesn't need to be any additional special ores to entice people to mine there.


The problem isn't that there aren't ores out there. The problem is what those ores produce. If you want to do "high-end" mining, your only option is to produce "high-end" minerals. This perversely encourages the miners most capable of mining large volumes away from the very ores that the market needs to be mined in large volumes.

This is shown very well by the current isk/m3 of the various ores. Using my local prices, I get 97.1 isk/m3 for veldspar. The low-sec ores, which are supposed to offer more reward for the additional risk of low-sec, are coming out at 56.48 for Jaspet, 79.24 for Hemorphite and 102.40 for Hedbergite. Why would anyone want to mine in low-sec with prices like this?

That's happening because the market needs a certain supply of trit, and will increase the price to whatever it takes to get it, even if that breaks the reward balance between sec statuses.

The only way to maintain the balance between sec statuses is to ensure that there is a sec-status-appropriate way to mine the whole range of minerals. That way any shifts in demand for minerals shift mining between ores in the same sec status, not between ores in different sec statuses.

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2008.07.11 19:03:00 - [104]
 

Originally by: Alex Redwidth
Miner and mission runner both go buy their 100mil(ish) ships, a hulk for mining, a BS for mission running.

Who spends more outfiting that ship?
Who spends more on charges for those ships, per week?
Who runs the greater risk of loosing that ship and having to buy another? (outside of suicide ganks, when is a hulk ever lost in a 1.0 mining veld?)


This all comes down to raw vs "profit" income, and the form that income takes.

Yes, if Joe Average is going to lose 500mill a week of ships running missions, but only lose 100mill a week mining, then mission running needs an extra 400mill of raw income to make the "profit" income comparable. I don't think anyone here is disputing that.

What is in dispute is what form that income should take. The problem with topping up the mission runner income with ready-made modules and minerals to cover that gap is that it distorts the reward models for the professions for which these are the core income. If your loot spams a market and halves the price, but the loot only forms half of the mission runner income and all a manufacturer's income, it's a much larger proportional hit to the manufacturer than the mission runner. And it's this reason why the market cannot effectively control supply of modules and minerals from mission runners.

It does really boil down to this:

Originally by: Pwett
Which ship is designed for mining minerals and which one is not?
Which ship can bring in more minerals than the other?

See the disconnect?


If this change means mission rewards need revisiting, then fine, lets do that too. As I said, everything is interconnected, and it's going to need a comprehensive approach to fix all the inter-related issues.

Abraham Mosby
Posted - 2008.07.11 19:55:00 - [105]
 

As I understand this thread, you want to eliminate T1 modules from loot drops so that manufacturers can make a profit on sales of T1 modules.

Two things I think you need to answer before you can implement this plan.

1) Is there a demand for T1 modules beyond the players that reprocess the modules for the raw materials?

2) Are you going to be able to stop/control players from selling T1 modules for less than the cost of raw materials?

Both of these issues are I believe key to the success of this plan.

Iamid Ichabod
Posted - 2008.07.11 20:27:00 - [106]
 

Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: rain9441
Nobody wants the garbage, and nobody has been buying it since.. forever ago. The only T1 worth producing is Ammo, Ships, select few non-npc dropped modules that are common in pvp (mwd, etc), those that lack meta-1 equivalents, and maybe certain drones.


Originally by: Matthew
No, the only ones worth producing are those where the volume consumed is large compared to the volume supplied by loot drops.

The reason the garbage is garbage is because loot drops provide far more than people want. It's a problem with the rate the loot drops, not with manufacturing.


I beg to differ. The reason most T1 items are garbage is there are better named items people can use on their ships. Basic T1 items are generally good for reprocessing, turning into LP store for faction items, and T2 production/invention.

Further the reason the market is flooded is the same reason the datacore market is flooded, and exploration items are generally down. It's players having more then 1 account (which personally I don't mind at all).

Asking for specialties within a field is a good thing, but it has nothing to do with basic T1 mission drops as people will just switch there alt professions to match the best means of gathering isk/resources.

Haradgrim
Systematic Mercantilism
Posted - 2008.07.11 22:18:00 - [107]
 

Edited by: Haradgrim on 11/07/2008 22:19:28
Edited by: Haradgrim on 11/07/2008 22:19:01
Originally by: Abraham Mosby
As I understand this thread, you want to eliminate T1 modules from loot drops so that manufacturers can make a profit on sales of T1 modules.

Two things I think you need to answer before you can implement this plan.

1) Is there a demand for T1 modules beyond the players that reprocess the modules for the raw materials?

2) Are you going to be able to stop/control players from selling T1 modules for less than the cost of raw materials?

Both of these issues are I believe key to the success of this plan.


1) Yes, there is. 0.0 space being the best example; you can't always use tech 2 for cost, fitting or skill req reasons, and you can't really control the market for named goods as well as you can with t1 manufactured goods (since they have to be hauled, where as ore mined locally can be used for t1) If loot were removed from missions and rats it would only improve this (and it is a good thing, local 0.0 markets provide some of the best opporunities for those that they are available to).

2) No, you can't stop them, but they will learn or you can buy them and resell

Vigilant
Gallente
Vigilant's Vigilante's
Posted - 2008.07.12 02:18:00 - [108]
 

Sorry can't see it...

LP is not enough for any dedicated mission runner. The ISK from the mission and bounties make it worth while. The loot is a bonus for building your own ammo to support your mission running.

Removing t1 items and giving the ability to make "named" items will turn this game more and more into a WoW "like" EVE universe. Sorry I had to say that evil word Crying or Very sad

But, if you have ever played, you would understand that building stuff in other games is major pain, compared to EVE. EVE building is not hard, minus t2 rigs, cause some the items are hard to find due to there sources being low compared to t1 salvage items.

Removing t1 items from loot will NOT benefit a dedicated industrialist.

1) The blueprints are readly avaiable to anyone
2) The minerals are easly available with market / mining
3) Only people that buy t1 "non named" are new players or players fitting ships they intend to loose quickly in a gank or someone needs a quick ship with minimal modules to do a minor job (example Salvage, run a item from point to point, etc.) Other than that, you will see t2 builder buy a stack modules for decent price, once in a blue moon, if they don't want to sacrfice slots for building t1 items.

Removal of t1 drops will only help one group IMHO. The low / null sec. mining group of players. Zyd / Meg / Merc will rise in price due to less drops of t1 items in level 3/4/5's.

The average miner will who lives and breathes high sec. will not benefit at all from such a change. ZERO gain will be achieved, without massive changes to EVE.

I have read 99 percen of these posts, and I can see that many points are valid, but just removing t1 loots without many other drastic changes will only hurt, more than help.

Anyone remember mission rewards prior to LP ? Email offers and prior to that straight rewards (everything from t2 comp's to dirt Exclamation) Compensate the mission runners with t2 comps or advance materials might supplement the ISK fountain from bounties, but will "tick" off the POS folks. So where is the balance with removing loot ?

Once again LP is not it... Building Meta Items, is not it also. Arb's are already cheap as hell compared to 2 years ago, and you want to drive the price to t1 launcher prices when everyone and there brother is building them.
LP rewards, such as ships and blueprints, will soon be not worth much due people constantly undercutting each other, cuase its the only "other" source of income minus mission rewards themselves.

Balance has to be maintained and thus far I don't see it in any post.

My 2 isk... (put on flame ******ent suit Laughing)

Yon Krum
The Knights Templar
R.A.G.E
Posted - 2008.07.12 03:33:00 - [109]
 

Originally by: Vigilant

LP is not enough for any dedicated mission runner. The ISK from the mission and bounties make it worth while. The loot is a bonus for building your own ammo to support your mission running.

Removing t1 items from loot will NOT benefit a dedicated industrialist.

Removal of t1 drops will only help one group IMHO. The low / null sec. mining group of players. Zyd / Meg / Merc will rise in price due to less drops of t1 items in level 3/4/5's.

The average miner will who lives and breathes high sec. will not benefit at all from such a change. ZERO gain will be achieved, without massive changes to EVE.

I have read 99 percen of these posts, and I can see that many points are valid, but just removing t1 loots without many other drastic changes will only hurt, more than help.


Loot drops. Minerals. ISK.... The system is so interconnected that you cannot just hammer down one nail at a time. As I and others have said repeatedly, "here are SOME of the other levers that need pulling" (paraphrase). It very, very well might be that some 'rats would need their rewards looked at. I'm quite certain that CCP has a picture for what the total reward for, say, an 800k battleship should be--including loot drops--and if you remove loot drops, then yeah an adjustment MIGHT be in order. We lack the data to do the kind of detailed analysis that this demands... so we speculate, and Chronotis watches from the CCP Station Omega in high orbit. (Sorry. Rolling Eyes)

I think we've established in discussion that just removing T1 meta0 drops will affect industrialist income very little. It will effect mineral demand some, but I think based on the normal reprocessing outputs that it will have a greater impact on trit prices than on the higher-end minerals. Higher-end minerals are impacted more by large quantities of drone alloys. These alloys could also be reduced and partially replaced by specific meta component drops, which might help that balance.

--Krum

Clansworth
Good Rock Materials
Posted - 2008.07.12 11:02:00 - [110]
 

Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Clansworth
Another alternative, that I particularily like, would involve pirate loot drops consisting of META-BPC's, and meta-objects. Those BPC's require the META-0 item, along with some meta-objects. This would result in an increase in production levels, because the META-0 would have to be produced, and then modified with the META-1 BPC.


My initial idea (back a few months ago) did have meta-BPC drops instead of meta component drops. I changed it because BPC's cannot be put onto the market, making trading them a massive additional annoyance.

If you want to require that two-stage build process, rather than the "intergrated" approach where the meta-0 mineral requirement is in the meta1-4 job anyway, then that could be done. As the meta component is modifying the output of the job, there's no reason why it couldn't affect the inputs required too (i.e. you would use a standard meta-0 BP, and the use of the meta component would give you -100% mineral need, but +1 meta-0 item need).

I'm not sure if that wouldn't be too much extra manufacturing need though, as you're already adding the need for one factory job per meta1-4 item, where there wasn't one required before.



The reason I would want a seperate BPC for the named modules is that I want to still have a reason for producing unnamed tech 1 modules. In your scenario, they would never be built, as you just build the named from the mins. I like multiple steps in manufacturing, because those steps can be performed by seperate parties.

I see your concern about the BPC's being market tradable, though if CCP is going to go through the game changes already, they could make a non-singleton bpc item type. As the stats for any given BP would be the same, there is no reason to singleton them out like current BPC's. If that is the case, then they COULD be market tradable.

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2008.07.12 16:54:00 - [111]
 

Originally by: Iamid Ichabod
I beg to differ. The reason most T1 items are garbage is there are better named items people can use on their ships. Basic T1 items are generally good for reprocessing, turning into LP store for faction items, and T2 production/invention.


I see several people stating this, but providing no evidence to support it.

If this really was the case, then there would never be any profit to be made in making T1 items at all. I'm currently looking at over a year's worth of transaction logs which show that this is not the case for many T1 items.

Loot only becomes a serious problem to the manufacturing sector when it comprises a significant portion of the total demand for that item. The garbage items are garbage because the loot drops provide significantly more quantity than is demanded. The only way to sink the extra supply is to reprocess it, which is why prices crash to the reprocess value.

Now, if the meta1-4 drops are still enough to supply the entire demand for a given item, then yes, just removing meta0 loot will not have the desired effect, loot drops still supply the market, bypassing manufacturers completely.

The specific meta build component proposal won't change that everyone would use meta1-4 in that situation. What it would change is that every module would still need a manufacturer. It may not be a meat-0 build job, but it's still a build job.

The generic meta build component proposal would change the "meta1-4 only" situation, because in that situation, it would likely be more profitable to use the generic components to build a different meta item, allowing supply to re-balance to take into account the lower demand of this specific item.

Originally by: Iamid Ichabod
Asking for specialties within a field is a good thing, but it has nothing to do with basic T1 mission drops as people will just switch there alt professions to match the best means of gathering isk/resources.


Yes, players will always follow the best means of gathering isk. Which is why we need professions that are properly balanced, and properly responsive to market forces. If done correctly, the market will balance the earning potential of the different professions correctly without the need for constant balance tweaks.

The current state of mission rewards breaks this. Taking the example of producing a specific item. For the manufacturer, their income is determined by the margin the item sells for above mineral cost. For the mission runner, their income is determined by the total value of the item. For the manufacturer, the entire income of their work is dependent on the price of that module. For the mission runner, it is only one part of their income.

Now lets say for some reason the demand for this module is cut in half. In a well functioning economy, the price will fall. The falling price will signal suppliers to reduce their supply. Supply reduces until it matches demand again, at which point the price recovers to the point where the remaining supply is at least nominally profitable.

The problem comes in because the mission runner and the manufacturer will respond very differently to the falling price. The manufacturer is hit harder, because it's his whole income, and because it's not worth supplying any at all if the market price drops below mineral cost. The mission runner is much better off - it's only a part of his income anyway, so the hit is less severe. Also, he doesn't care how low the market clearing price goes, because he can always refine and sell at mineral cost.

What this means is that the manufacturers will be driven out of the market completely, and the mission runners are likely to supply pretty much the same quantity as they did before. That is not a recipe for a well-functioning market, and is not a balanced relationship between mission runners and manufacturers.

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2008.07.12 16:56:00 - [112]
 

Originally by: Vigilant
Removing t1 items and giving the ability to make "named" items will turn this game more and more into a WoW "like" EVE universe. Sorry I had to say that evil word Crying or Very sad


The meta build item proposal does not move us towards a WoW universe. It doesn't actually change the rarity or geographical availability of named modules at all.

Yes, you now need a manufacturer in the chain, rather than a combat pilot being able to act as miner, manufacturer and fighter all in one. But the quantities of named items they can produce is limited to how many meta build items drop. There would be no flood of named items.

Originally by: Vigilant
But, if you have ever played, you would understand that building stuff in other games is major pain, compared to EVE.


You would also know that building stuff in other games is generally an afterthought of game design, and usually unnecessary as their economies are largely loot-driven anyway (heck, in some of them you're physically prevented from trading named items at all).

Eve's economy is supposed to be different to other games, and is supposed to be driven by a viable player-driven economy at all levels. It's not supposed to be fueled by stuff dispensed from NPC pinatas.

Originally by: Vigilant
Anyone remember mission rewards prior to LP ? Email offers and prior to that straight rewards (everything from t2 comp's to dirt Exclamation) Compensate the mission runners with t2 comps or advance materials might supplement the ISK fountain from bounties, but will "tick" off the POS folks. So where is the balance with removing loot ?


Do you remember why t2 comps were removed from mission rewards? (Hint: I've already mentioned it earlier in this thread). The situation back then with T2 components is pretty much exactly the same issue as we're now looking at with loot drops. That only reason that T2 comp rewards got addressed but normal loot didn't is because T2 comp rewards broke the entire POS mechanic, whereas normal loot drops are only breaking parts of the rest of the economy.

Originally by: Vigilant
Arb's are already cheap as hell compared to 2 years ago, and you want to drive the price to t1 launcher prices when everyone and there brother is building them.


Please, please actually read what's being proposed. How exactly is everyone and their brother going to build them when you need meta build components to build them, and the quantities available are still limited by the loot drop rate?

Yes, the generic version of the proposal would allow some redistribution of supply towards the named modules with more extreme demand, but it will also ensure that named modules are by definition more expensive than their t1 counterparts.

Originally by: Clansworth
The reason I would want a seperate BPC for the named modules is that I want to still have a reason for producing unnamed tech 1 modules. In your scenario, they would never be built, as you just build the named from the mins. I like multiple steps in manufacturing, because those steps can be performed by seperate parties.


They would be built, because there wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) be enough meta build components dropping to let all demand be filled by named modules.

But even if that is the case, does it really matter whether you're doing a meta-0 build job or a meta-1 job? Note that I'm not proposing that the meta-1 job need extra skills like a T2 job, just an extra item to put into the job. You'll still be having a manufacturing job for every module, which is a big improvement on the current situation.

I can see where you're coming from with the idea, I just think that it's a step further than is necessary, given the drawbacks.

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2008.07.12 16:58:00 - [113]
 

Originally by: Clansworth
I see your concern about the BPC's being market tradable, though if CCP is going to go through the game changes already, they could make a non-singleton bpc item type. As the stats for any given BP would be the same, there is no reason to singleton them out like current BPC's. If that is the case, then they COULD be market tradable.


The problem with a non-singleton BPC is that you would have to make them 1-run - otherwise you would have to keep them as singletons to record how many runs had been used.

The problem with everything being 1-run BPCs is that it would make building them massively inefficient (1-run BPC means 1 run per job, leading to long downtime in your factories unless you're playing 23/7).

Yes, you could fix that by making 1 run yield a whole pile of named modules (in the same way that 1 run of an ammo BP currently yields 100 rounds). But you would then have to reduce the drop rate by the same factor, making loot rewards much more hit-and-miss.

Aiko Intaki
Lodizal Shield Tek
Lodizal Conglomerate
Posted - 2008.07.12 18:47:00 - [114]
 

1. Get rid of T1 (meta 0 & 4) drops on mission wrecks.
2. Keep T1 (meta 1-3) drops on mission wrecks at their current drop rate.
3. Add 'T1 invention' component drops to some of the mission wrecks which already have a T1 (meta 1-3) module drop.
4. Don't make T1 (meta 0) manufacturing any more complex than it currently is.
5. Add a T1 invention process to produce T1 (meta 1-4) items.
6. Don't F-ng touch mission rat bounties unless it's compensated for in the end reward or bonus reward.

The elimination of T1 (meta 0) dropped items would revive that market and positively impact the mineral markets from a T1 module supply reduction. Keeping the T1 (meta 1-3) drops in missions at their current rate rewards players with potentially useable components they can acquire while running missions, which is an important part of the reward to missions early on in a character's EvE experience. Keeping them at the current drop rate will reduce the overall amount of looting a character has to do at the end of a mission to feel like they've benefitted completely from the mission they've run. The addition of components that would be used in inventing T1 named modules (meta 1-4) to mission wrecks with pre-existing loot wouldn't add to this 'post mission loot burden' at all. It would also allow some compensation to partially make up for the loss of T1 (meta 0 & 4) drops.

T1 (meta 0) manufacturing shouldn't become any more complicated than it currently is, as the barrier to entry should probably be analogous to L1 missions as an entry point to mission-running. T1 (meta 1-4) invention would allow for more complicated manufacturing of T1 components, but should definitely be more accessible than T2 invention. Preferably, all the components involved in T1 (meta 1-4) invention should drop from missions. Additionally, T1 (meta 1-4) invention should not be an all or nothing invention process like T2 invention is, but an invention process of 'variable success', with meta 4 items being rarer end results of the invention process than meta 3, meta 3 rarer than meta 2 and so on.

Finally, replacing mission rat bounties with LP rewards is a bad idea. Mission rat bounties are a form of instant gratification, while LP rewards are something that takes rather longer to see any tangible benefit from. Eliminating the instant gratification by moving it into a longer term reward does not, in any way, make the game more enjoyable. If mission rat bounties have to be done away with, increase the end reward or bonus reward to compensate for that. Like mission rats bounties, the end reward and bonus reward are forms of compensation that offer instant gratification.

Iamid Ichabod
Posted - 2008.07.12 18:50:00 - [115]
 

Originally by: Matthew
I see several people stating this, but providing no evidence to support it.


Res ipsa loquitur (it speaks for itself). Most basic T1 items have better fitting, same skill requirements, better output Meta 1-4 counterparts. This is why basic T1 items are garbage.

Originally by: Matthew
If this really was the case, then there would never be any profit to be made in making T1 items at all. I'm currently looking at over a year's worth of transaction logs which show that this is not the case for many T1 items.


It's not of question of profit, it's a question of better profit potential in other areas for a manufacturer. Though there are some practical uses which I've previously stated (none of which were to actually fit on a ship).


Originally by: Matthew
Loot only becomes a serious problem to the manufacturing sector when it comprises a significant portion of the total demand for that item ... Now, if the meta1-4 drops are still enough to supply the entire demand for a given item, then yes, just removing meta0 loot will not have the desired effect, loot drops still supply the market, bypassing manufacturers completely ... The specific meta build component proposal won't change that everyone would use meta1-4 in that situation. What it would change is that every module would still need a manufacturer. It may not be a meat-0 build job, but it's still a build job.


My comments have been in reference to basic T1 item drops within the current manufacturing system. In the current system named items cannot be manufactured. Imo, the invention and manufacturing professions need serious overhaul, but that is another discussion.

As for the manufacturer vs mission runner professions, they are apples and oranges. The skills required to build basic T1 items are not even close to being the same as those needed by a mission runner to run level 4 missions which are the mission levels required to have any significant impact on the resource markets.

The risk/sp curves are different as well. With mission runners assuming high risks w/lower sp characters when 1st starting out, then little risk as sp rises.

Those who manufacture basic T1 items assume very little risk, as they never even have to undock. In fact a character who only manufactures never needs to undock in order to do his or her work.

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2008.07.12 21:00:00 - [116]
 

Originally by: Iamid Ichabod
Originally by: Matthew
I see several people stating this, but providing no evidence to support it.


Res ipsa loquitur (it speaks for itself). Most basic T1 items have better fitting, same skill requirements, better output Meta 1-4 counterparts. This is why basic T1 items are garbage.


And the Meta 1-4 are higher cost to compensate for it. Yes, a lot don't have large enough price increments, but that's because the loot drops are giving way more than the market would demand at prices representative of their additional benefits. But then we're straight back to the core problem that the rate of production through loot does not respond to market signals properly.

To take a crass example, why do people buy skodas when there are ferrari's available? In a proper market, it's because the ferrari is too expensive. But if you got a magical pinata that produced a ferarri from nothing every time you hit it hard enough, the ferrari would be devalued, and it would then be entirely expected that no-one would buy a skoda.

Originally by: Iamid Ichabod
Originally by: Matthew
If this really was the case, then there would never be any profit to be made in making T1 items at all. I'm currently looking at over a year's worth of transaction logs which show that this is not the case for many T1 items.


It's not of question of profit, it's a question of better profit potential in other areas for a manufacturer. Though there are some practical uses which I've previously stated (none of which were to actually fit on a ship).


Well, first to look at your reasons:

1) Reprocessing If you're producing and selling at a price that warrants reprocessing, you shouldn't be manufacturing anyway.
2) Turn in for a Faction Item This is actually fine. For every faction item supplied, a T1 item is consumed. Choosing to use it for this rather than use as a T1 item directly does not affect the overall demand level at all.
3) T2 Production As for the faction item, whether it's consumed via direct use, or via the use of the T2 module it produces, the T1 demand level is unaffected.
4) T2 Invention Potentially an extra consumption path, but in practice the benefit of using a meta-0 in invention is negligible, so it's generally not done.

I would at this point contrast the implementation of faction and T2 production with that of the normal named items. The former are specifically designed supplement, not nerf, their associated T1 markets. Normal named items are the exact opposite. What I want to do is bring them in line with the principle already used for faction and T2 items.

Originally by: Iamid Ichabod
My comments have been in reference to basic T1 item drops within the current manufacturing system. In the current system named items cannot be manufactured.


No, but as you yourself have pointed out, named items compete with basic T1 for customers. The drop rates of named items are just as important for T1 manufacturing as the drop rates of basic T1 items. Any solution has to address both parts.

Originally by: Iamid Ichabod
As for the manufacturer vs mission runner professions, they are apples and oranges. The skills required to build basic T1 items are not even close to being the same as those needed by a mission runner to run level 4 missions which are the mission levels required to have any significant impact on the resource markets.


Of course the mission rewards should reflect the risks taken by the mission runner. Nowhere have I disputed that. I am not disputing the amount, just the form the rewards take.

Iamid Ichabod
Posted - 2008.07.12 21:48:00 - [117]
 

Matthew,

I had been trying to keep my posts related to the op's concerns of the impact of loot drops on miners. To readdress this and you're concerns of the impact of loot drops on T1 markets from a manufacturer's perspective.

The requirements for mining the ores and using bps used to make T1 items are very low. Those whose goal it is to make lots of isk in these markets are off base. The reason being is many players have multiple accounts and are willing to have characters specialize in fields which will help their mains pvp. So, there'd be less mission running and more mining/T1 producing alts.

Those who have mains looking to make large amount of isk in mining/T1 production would be competing with a lot more alts and the price points wouldn't shift anywhere but down. See those who farmed datacores prior to the large influx of alt accounts, M.E. datacores are approx 1/10th of what they used to be.

As for player production of meta T1 items, I see nothing wrong with this. In fact if anything I'd prefer the ability to make unique items, but this again goes off the op topic.

Clansworth
Good Rock Materials
Posted - 2008.07.13 13:52:00 - [118]
 

Originally by: Matthew
They would be built, because there wouldn't (or at least shouldn't) be enough meta build components dropping to let all demand be filled by named modules.

As stated multiple times in this thread, there are module types that ARE oversupplied by loot drops. If the named module components are dropped at the same relative rate as the current loot drops, those markets will still be over supplied, and vanila T-1 will still be profitless.
Originally by: Matthew

But even if that is the case, does it really matter whether you're doing a meta-0 build job or a meta-1 job? Note that I'm not proposing that the meta-1 job need extra skills like a T2 job, just an extra item to put into the job. You'll still be having a manufacturing job for every module, which is a big improvement on the current situation.

Actually, with my proposal, you do end up with 1 production job/item to make vanila t1 items, but TWO jobs for named modules. I had even thought about having to do multiple passes for each meta level, but thought THAT would be too much. It would, however, help to ensure higher meta = higher cost, and give a market for vanila T1 items.

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2008.07.13 15:12:00 - [119]
 

Originally by: Iamid Ichabod
The requirements for mining the ores and using bps used to make T1 items are very low. Those whose goal it is to make lots of isk in these markets are off base.


Yes, T1 manufacturing is never going to be the most amazingly profitable thing out there. But that doesn't mean another profession should be allowed to nerf it into complete unprofitability.

Just because mercoxit mining exists, doesn't mean it's ok to break veldspar mining.

Just because Level 4 missions exist, doesn't mean it's ok to break level 1 missions.

Just because T2 manufacturing exists, doesn't mean it's ok to break T1 manufacturing.

Originally by: Iamid Ichabod
Those who have mains looking to make large amount of isk in mining/T1 production would be competing with a lot more alts and the price points wouldn't shift anywhere but down.


Except people won't run isk-making alts in professions that aren't profitable anyway. Because of this, the effect of alt accounts will never reduce a profession below the point of profitability, because if that happened, the alts would flood out to a profession that did make isk.

Originally by: Iamid Ichabod
See those who farmed datacores prior to the large influx of alt accounts, M.E. datacores are approx 1/10th of what they used to be.


The datacore market is a different situation. Once you've made the initial investment of getting standings, there is minimal time investment (even less than manufacturing). There is also no profitability floor, unlike manufacturing where mineral cost imposes a minimal profitable level. No-matter how low datacore prices go, farming them will still give some isk.

There's also a special case around M.E datacores, as M.E was added as a specialty to quite a few agents, which made that specific core easier to get standings for and thus much more widely farmed.

Originally by: Clansworth
As stated multiple times in this thread, there are module types that ARE oversupplied by loot drops. If the named module components are dropped at the same relative rate as the current loot drops, those markets will still be over supplied, and vanila T-1 will still be profitless.


And the generic meta build component idea is designed to allow supply to re-distribute from these low-demand items towards those with higher demand.

Even if we stayed with item-specific meta build items, and these items remained meta-oversupplied, this still isn't a problem. Yes, you won't be building vanilla T1, but you will be building something, which is a distinct improvement on the current situation.

To bring it right out to the most generic level, from the manufacturing point of view, as long as we don't go down the road of loads of extra skills for meta building, it's largely irrelevant which level of item is being built, as long as that item does require a build job.

Again, go back to the faction and T2 item processes. Both consume a T1 item in their creation, so the overall proportion of final consumption that is filled by faction or T2 items is completely irrelevant to the T1 market. 1 T1 item still needs to be produced whether it's used as a T1 item directly, or converted into a T2 item.

Meta items dropped as ready-made items don't follow that system currently - 1 meta item dropped is 1 less T1 item demanded. Moving to meta build item drops changes that to be like the faction and T2 processes - it wouldn't matter how much of the market was filled by meta drops, because those meta jobs would still require a T1 build job (either integrated as a T1+meta component all-in-one, or as a 2-stage process).

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2008.07.13 15:16:00 - [120]
 

Originally by: Clansworth
Actually, with my proposal, you do end up with 1 production job/item to make vanila t1 items, but TWO jobs for named modules. I had even thought about having to do multiple passes for each meta level, but thought THAT would be too much. It would, however, help to ensure higher meta = higher cost, and give a market for vanila T1 items.


I can see where you're going, and I really don't think what we're looking for is that far apart.

2 jobs for named modules is as high as I'd want to go, otherwise it could get a bit excessive compared to T2 manufacturing. The higher meta = higher cost should be maintained by the drop ratios of the different meta level components. If it doesn't because of oversupply of drops, that shouldn't be any different to how it is now, and the generic component idea should stop that from happening.

Personally I'd say a 1-job meta level process as the same number of jobs as T1, but an additional material requirement puts it nicely in between T1 and T2 manufacturing. But I'm not fundamentally opposed to it being a 2-job process, it's just the use of BPC to make it 2-job that I think is problematic. As I mentioned before, having the meta build item modify the material requirements of the job (-100% mineral requirements +1 T1 item requirement) would achieve the same effect without the trading problems BPC's cause.


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6

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