open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Greyscale Blog: Alchemy
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8

Author Topic

Vio Geraci
Amarr
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.10.27 15:58:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: CCP Fallout
*pokes her head in*

Guys, let's keep this discussion civil and on topic please. This is an interesting change to our economy, so let's focus on that rather than name calling and such.

Thanks :)


You made a boring, uninspired change, and you're surprised at the lukewarm reception?

Keter 325
Ripshitz and Killit LLC
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:02:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: Keter 325 on 27/10/2008 16:03:17
Nerf the promo and dyspro, nerf it i say!!

Daelin Blackleaf
White Rose Society
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:05:00 - [33]
 

I have some doubt as to whether these reactions will produce enough profit to make them worthwhile, they may not even cover POS fuel costs.

Worse, it's simply another temporary solution. Supply is still limited while demand is not.

Vio Geraci
Amarr
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:13:00 - [34]
 

I hope this is only a stop gap measure to buy time for wider changes in the future, because otherwise you might want to seriously consider finding a new economist.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:17:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Vio Geraci
I hope this is only a stop gap measure to buy time for wider changes in the future, because otherwise you might want to seriously consider finding a new economist.

I agree with the former part. It *must* be.

ChaosOne
Caldari
Lux Vitae
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:19:00 - [36]
 

Edited by: ChaosOne on 27/10/2008 16:20:56
Originally by: CCP Fallout
*pokes her head in*

Guys, let's keep this discussion civil and on topic please. This is an interesting change to our economy, so let's focus on that rather than name calling and such.

Thanks :)


The problem is the changes are ill thought out.

A simpler solution would be a new reaction to make the higher end moon minerals

e.g (not neccesarily in this order)
atmospheric gases + cadmium + caesium = Dysprosium
evaporite + chromium + hafnium = Promethium
hydrocarbons + platinum + mercury = neodryium
silicates + vanadium + technium = thulium

ineffect 1 of each of the lower tiers moon materials to make a high end material




Mr Horizontal
Gallente
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:22:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Manfred Rickenbocker
So, effectively, you are pinning the price ratio of the four parings such that they wont vary? Doesn't this defeat the purpose of what Dr. EyjoG was pointing out? The fact that you are locking the price ratios together removes some of the innovation involved in trying to regulate the economy. For example, if the price of Cadmium falls or Dysprosium increases, its likely any excess Cadmium will be converted into Dysprosium (functionally) keeping its price level. "Why should we sell it at a loss when we can make a profit elsewhere?" However, if Cadmium increases, not only will the reactions stop but the price of Dysprosium will increase. "No more competition from Cadmium, lets hike our prices more!" Now we've created a new price equilibrium with still nothing left to bring down cost. Sounds like a form of inflation to me. Since Dysprosium is the lynch pin in this scenario, while it has the potential to fix the issue with its rising cost, it also gives it the ability to bring up the price on another moon material: Cadmium.

Extreme scenario: Dysprosium is no longer produced/sold. Bottleneck now becomes Cadmium. All Cadmium moons become occupied. Maximum potential supply reached. Back to where we started.

Tl;dr: If the intent is to remove the bottleneck, all you are doing is shifting the bottleneck somewhere else.

An alternative suggestion would be to introduce a new material type that can be converted into all moon minerals. This provides a fixed ratio independent of current moon materials but still gives suppliers the advantage if the conversion/production/replacement costs are high enough.


You speak a lot of truth. All this does is shift the bottleneck to another aspect. Short term fix, Long term this solves absolutely nothing.

While this will have the desired effect that Dysp and Prom will be effectively price-capped to 10x Platinum/ Chromium values, those very minerals are also used as the expensive part for Carbide reactions. Net effect: Ferrogel and expensive composites are price capped, and the Carbides will skyrocket. The middle composites will just have a shuffle but largely largely stay the same.

Hafnium, Vanadium, Chromium and Cadmium moons will suddenly become massively sought after and 0.0 space that was previously not particularly at risk will suddenly be at risk.

0.0 in general on a larger scale gets yet another nerf to it's ISK making ability. The alliance maps will change in consequence to protect valuable cartels. The Dysp/Prom income is a lifeline to 0.0 alliances, the complexes being replaced by exploration hasn't really changed anything, but in 0.0 where things have to be farmed to survive, all you did there is just cause even more boredom and pain for those who have to do it it. Finally since Morphite dropped through the floor (and has somewhat regained in value thankfully), the effect the Drone Regions had on Megacyte hardly any of the high-value ores or 0.0 'wealth' is particularly worthwhile. So the only thing for alliances to do is build supercaps, which adds to the 'Capital Online' problem EVE has. CCP, you need to really have a good long think about whether it is beginning to be particularly worthwhile to go to 0.0 at all...

My suggestion: you can fix a heck of a lot of problems by making EVE bigger. EVE is suffering from a lot of problems of overcrowding now. In line with overcrowding, boost the amount of space and consequent resources (both Empire and 0.0 in proportion) and make EVE bigger. Bigger sandbox = happier players. Small sandbox = grumpy players.

Karina Bellac
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:22:00 - [38]
 

So I think I understand what's going on here. You're providing an alternative for all four r64 moon minerals via "alchemy", because two of them are r64 and in high demand.

Yet the other two are r64 and in low demand. Amazing.

Abrazzar
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:24:00 - [39]
 

Another way to solve this issue would be to increase the supply by introducing new sources for the moon materials. One example would be the concept of the Moon Prospecting Post.

Binah 369
Multiverse Corporation
Cosmic Anomalies
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:26:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Binah 369 on 27/10/2008 16:26:48
yay!....even more complexity to moon mining

Rawthorm
Gallente
The Establishment
Establishment.
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:28:00 - [41]
 

First you introduce a huge abundance of faction loot via the LP store, making 0.0 gained loot plummet in price.
Now you take minerals like Dyspro and give people a work around for that.

Where the hell is the incentive to go to 0.0 and to fight over space? Pretty much everything you can get in 0.0, you can now get in empire in shocking abundance. Crying or Very sad

ChaosOne
Caldari
Lux Vitae
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:29:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: ChaosOne
could a dev please reply and state how the unrefined reaction to make Fluxed condensates is going to work??

It uses both Neodymium and thulium...



i see dev replys here. Can one of you explain the above.....

Keter 325
Ripshitz and Killit LLC
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:33:00 - [43]
 

I've got an idea....why not cut down on the fuel bay and silo capacity on the towers, so we have to go back to how it was and care-take the towers every couple of days. That way the promo and dypro moons get used by the people who actually live in the space where they are found. Not only will it balance out the economy, but it will reallocate and balance out the number of Titans in the game. Woot!! Titans for everyone!!

Evileene
Evil Conservative Industries
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:34:00 - [44]
 

This is a good thing and very much overdue, and should bring to a close the "Moon Wars" of 2008.

It also should reduce the cost of T2 items and ships. Which is about damn time, especially for T2 BS's.

The people who will cry about this of course are BOB, Goons, AAA/"Ze Russians" who have spent the last year muscling smaller alliances out of the high end moons in their regions, taking space they have no intention of using except for moon mining.

However, I still believe this is an imperfect solution. I think that moon minerals should spawn in varying values and quantities, deplete, and respwawn. This way ANY mineral could at any time come from any moon.

Machine Delta
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:43:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Evileene
This is a good thing and very much overdue, and should bring to a close the "Moon Wars" of 2008.

It also should reduce the cost of T2 items and ships. Which is about damn time, especially for T2 BS's.

The people who will cry about this of course are BOB, Goons, AAA/"Ze Russians" who have spent the last year muscling smaller alliances out of the high end moons in their regions, taking space they have no intention of using except for moon mining.

However, I still believe this is an imperfect solution. I think that moon minerals should spawn in varying values and quantities, deplete, and respwawn. This way ANY mineral could at any time come from any moon.



The people who will cry about this of course are the ones with a vested interest in holding true 0.0 space. Yeah I guess we can ignore that facet of the game. Every other major development has. The endgame of EVE will be comparing macro hauling bots in jita whilst your alts do afk courier missions.

Ryuga VonRhaiden
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:45:00 - [46]
 

This maybe is a bit off-topic as a question, but it would allow better control over the amount of resources without making it too artificial:

Would EVE engine support dynamic resources? I have in mind the old SWG crafting system...

A dyspro (or whatever) moon has a limited amount of a given resource (say, enough for 3 to 6 months extraction, at random). Each time it is exhausted (or very near to exhaustion, say 3-7 days worth of minerals), another resource of the same kind and a random amount spawns elsewhere in the region. It will also simulate the natural exhaustion of resources, and discovery of new deposits, as in real economy.

CCP would then have a better direct control over the resource, adding more resources as the playerbase grows, at pre-fixed intervals (it could be N rare minerals, N*Y uncommon, N*Z common per 20.000 active subscribers, automatically adding or removing respawns as the playerbase changes, so the amount of resources would automatically adjoust in a 3 to 6 months span.

Also, prospecting would be a viable profession (so you could be able to sell information), as there would always be possibilities to find rare resources (now AFAIK there are no undiscovered rare mineral moons).

At present, you are attempting to patch a demand on limited resources with other limited resources. It will work for some time, but it isn't a solution, it only delays the problem to a later date.

What I proposed, if EVE engine is capable enough, would solve the problem definitely (obviously, with the introduction of new BPOs that would unbalance the demand, you should modify the resource-per-subscribers amount accordingly, but that would be done occasionally, in case of big content expansions).

The transition should be handled giving all the current moons full 6 months worth of minerals (for equity), then, gradually, as existing deposits are exhausted, random resources system kicks in and goes on.

Fulber
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:45:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Evileene
The people who will cry about this of course are BOB, Goons, AAA/"Ze Russians" who have spent the last year muscling smaller alliances out of the high end moons in their regions, taking space they have no intention of using except for moon mining.



If only every 0.0 system was as valuable as Motsu.

Vio Geraci
Amarr
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:47:00 - [48]
 

I realize that a lot of this looks like reactionary nerd raging that you get in response to almost any change, but this really isn't an effective long term solution to the bottleneck problem. You sprung this on us without discussion, so this is where you're going to get your feedback on the idea.

It is a good way to let more people get involved with moon mining, but prima facie worsens the risk-reward problems in 0.0, if not in lowsec, and does not actually allow players to convert labor into moon minerals --which is the only way to eliminate the bottleneck. It might ameliorate this problem for a brief time, but not in the long run.

Keter 325
Ripshitz and Killit LLC
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:47:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Machine Delta
The endgame of EVE will be comparing macro hauling bots in jita whilst your alts do afk courier missions.


Sad, but very true.

Kekzanid
Sicarri Covenant
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:48:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Kekzanid on 27/10/2008 16:49:34
To me it's not at all "sounding remarkably similar" to the T2 BPO problem.

There's a fundamental difference in the two mechanics, moons can be forcibly taken, T2 BPOs can't. Once a producer has a T2 BPO he can always maintain that advantage over the rest of the plebs.

T2 BPO scarcity was/is a mistake, mineral scarcity is not. Doing away with mineral scarcity by allowing the use of other minerals to produce rare ones will cause totally different side-effects than the invention changes.

Moon mineral problem - Growing demand, non-growing resources (similar to Oil). However, this market can be penetrated by force (e.g. RK kicked out of Gem, Tri taking new ground after reforming, Atlas fighting GS for dyspro moons).

T2 BPO - More akin to an everlasting copyright problem, people could form totally risk-free cartels. Was impossible for new players to penetrate, couldn't take over a market by any sort of pvp, only pure luck/being a corp thief (which doesn't appeal to 99% of players).

The T2 BPO mechanic had to be fixed, the lotteries were a stupid idea in the first place.

With some commentators actually calling the present conflicts the Dyspro Wars (e.g. Tri's comments in the tribune and SHC), is it wise to dabble with one of the few reasons for alliances to fight for space in 0.0? Why not just increase the production of the existing moons to keep supply up until you fix the achingly dull POS/0.0 sov mechanics? Or even seed a few extra moons around or something similar (and tell everyone where they are the day of releasing them, just for lulz and some fun fights).

And all this at the same time as you're about to take a big gamble with nano mechanics.

Patripassion
Posted - 2008.10.27 16:55:00 - [51]
 

I'm not even sure why CCP decided that this bottleneck is an undesirable one. Ever heard of "peak oil?"

In real life, there is a bottleneck around petroleum products very similar to the dysprosium one, in that there are only a finite amount of them available and that there is only a finite amount of output possible, with only a few new sources being every now and then. Do some research on "peak oil" and you will see a lot of similarities.

I'm not sure why CCP decided that scarcity or a finite amount of product in this case was a bad thing.

Falkrich Swifthand
Caldari
eNinjas Incorporated
Posted - 2008.10.27 17:08:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Patripassion
I'm not even sure why CCP decided that this bottleneck is an undesirable one. Ever heard of "peak oil?"

In real life, there is a bottleneck around petroleum products very similar to the dysprosium one, in that there are only a finite amount of them available and that there is only a finite amount of output possible, with only a few new sources being every now and then. Do some research on "peak oil" and you will see a lot of similarities.

I'm not sure why CCP decided that scarcity or a finite amount of product in this case was a bad thing.

Do you WANT T2 stuff to get even more expensive?

This change will increase the demand for the more common moon minerals. Eventually they may even be profitable to moon mine! At the same time the crazy-valuable moons will come down in price, the cost of T2 ship-building will go down, and the prices of T2 ships will go down. Despite the price reductions, the only people who will lose profit will be the super-high-end moon owners, and they will still be more profitable than the lower moons.

Shadowsword
The Rough Riders
Ares Protectiva
Posted - 2008.10.27 17:10:00 - [53]
 

CCP, after some thinking, I think your idea doesn't follow the KISS principle.

Instead of creating new products that need to be refined into a small amount of valuables, why don't you just create a reaction with the wanted amount of necessary raws?

Your idea make your ratio dependant of having a way to do perfect refining, or you lose at least one unit of the finished product, which is at least 10% loss.

Is this intended? If yes, why? To concentrate "alchemy" in the hands of hardcore empire mission-runners and the few 0.0 players who don't have bad standings with the NPC stations they live in?


Why don't you just create some reaction requiring 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium = 200 ferrofluid? The T2 production cycle is already complex enough as it is without having to add some new unrefined reactions.

Ryuga VonRhaiden
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.10.27 17:10:00 - [54]
 

Edited by: Ryuga VonRhaiden on 27/10/2008 17:12:04
Originally by: Patripassion
I'm not even sure why CCP decided that this bottleneck is an undesirable one. Ever heard of "peak oil?"

In real life, there is a bottleneck around petroleum products very similar to the dysprosium one


actually, in real life there is a workaround (though still inefficient), as you can burn coal instead of oil, use solar, wind or nuclear energy for most tasks oil is normally used for.

CCP is just adding this kind of things in Eve. though in real life we are not reverting to coal, but trying renewable sources, while CCP is only adding the "coal alternative" as for now.

Patripassion
Posted - 2008.10.27 17:16:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Falkrich Swifthand
Do you WANT T2 stuff to get even more expensive?

This change will increase the demand for the more common moon minerals. Eventually they may even be profitable to moon mine! At the same time the crazy-valuable moons will come down in price, the cost of T2 ship-building will go down, and the prices of T2 ships will go down. Despite the price reductions, the only people who will lose profit will be the super-high-end moon owners, and they will still be more profitable than the lower moons.



T2 stuff is cheap, compared to two years ago, and isk is massively inflated since that date, as well. Despite the low cost of t2 goods, the kind of pvp that I consider most enjoyable (sub-fifty fleets engaging each other) has declined in frequency, and to my mind players have become ~more~ cautious with their ships, instead of the opposite. And the profitability of successful small scale pvp has decreased over time, as well.

Granted, the people that control these moons will possibly lose some profit from this -this may not even be the case, I've seen some interesting maths that seemed to indicate the opposite, counter-intuitively enough- it's bad game design because it devalues one of the chief benefits of controlling 0.0 space while not actually removing a bottleneck. The bottleneck will still be there, just slightly ameliorated. Maybe this is all CCP wanted to do, but this change leaves me frowning.

Vio Geraci
Amarr
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.10.27 17:19:00 - [56]
 

This is hardly the kind of change that is going to make anybody walk away from the game, but it is very lazy game design.

If running POS was an interesting mechanic, or a good experience for players, I would like this change a lot more. But as it is, running POS is one of the least enjoyable processes in this game, and incentivizing it is a cruel joke on lowsec players (and mid-level 0.0 players).

One less thing to fight over in 0.0, one less thing to distinguish different areas of 0.0 from each other, one less thing that makes 0.0 space as valuable as running missions in Motsu.

Karina Bellac
Posted - 2008.10.27 17:20:00 - [57]
 

Edited by: Karina Bellac on 27/10/2008 17:21:06
Originally by: Shadowsword

Why don't you just create some reaction requiring 100 Hafnium + 2000 Cadmium = 200 ferrofluid? The T2 production cycle is already complex enough as it is without having to add some new unrefined reactions.



A product cannot be manufactured from two different blueprints with differing material requirements. I would hazard a guess that reactions suffer from the same piece of awful design*. The workaround, instead of actually fixing things, is to react something that can then use refining definitions to create a product that has an existing reaction/blueprint defined.

(* Materials needed to build item <x> using blueprint <y> are indexed under item <x> itself. Common sense would say you would index the Bill of Materials by <y>, the blueprint being used.)

Patripassion
Posted - 2008.10.27 17:38:00 - [58]
 

Originally by: Ryuga VonRhaiden
actually, in real life there is a workaround (though still inefficient), as you can burn coal instead of oil, use solar, wind or nuclear energy for most tasks oil is normally used for.

CCP is just adding this kind of things in Eve. though in real life we are not reverting to coal, but trying renewable sources, while CCP is only adding the "coal alternative" as for now.


I was mostly joking about peak oil. This is interesting in that CCP is allowing alternative sources for valuable goods, but it's still sub-par game design if they expect the change to be effective for more than six months. Maybe their mining changes will affect the market, and this is just to help the market until then, I dunno, but it certainly isn't a long term solution to the bottleneck, and it certainly isn't helping the problems with the "0.0 vs Motsu" risk:reward comparison.

Olorin O'Maiar
Caldari
Covenant of Swords
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:05:00 - [59]
 

Way to screw up the Cadmium market with all kinds of speculators, since it is now the Dyspro 'substitute'. It was around 900 a week ago and now you cannot find anyone selling for under 4500. You should have allowed for multiple different cheap minerals to pair with the higher end minerals to distribute the pressure.

RedMage
Native Freshfood
Posted - 2008.10.27 18:07:00 - [60]
 

Edited by: RedMage on 27/10/2008 18:09:38
Well, this can bring the prices lower, hoever it will also require more reactions to produce the same. Just as a note:
(hq = high quality)

If 1 HQ = 20 LQ, then remember it will take 20 posses popping out the LQ reactions 23 hrs a day to compete with 1 HQ pos reaction.

With this being said, i would not expect the high end reactions that are being effected to drop in price too much maybe 5-6%.

Also, for every 1% increase in HQ reactions, it will require a 20% increase in posses doing HQ reactions.

Most likely the pos parts for reactions will slowly start to creep before the HQ reactions creep down.

Additional, smaller pos corps will prolly jump on the bandwagon thinking that the money will be flowing in. Most likely by setting up moon posses not death starts, and little roaming geddon gangs will joyfully shoot at some of the largest targets in eve.

My complete outlook:
-T2 mod/ship prices will remain the same.
-Pos toweres and parts will start to sell off market (so pay attention to your sell orders and local markets)
-More less experienced builder corps will jump into moon mining.
-The low end materials will prolly go up in price as ppl try to create new supply lines for themselves of HQ reactions. This will happen disproportionately to the reduction in HQ reaction prices initialy.
-Long term: P(LQ) up
-Long term: P(HQ) unchanged/up

T2 Output: UP

RedMage



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

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