open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Dominion, making space more available not going to happen afterall?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]

Author Topic

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.11.12 18:43:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Malcanis
Originally by: Venkul Mul
Seeing how no PvE upgrade will ever appease PvPers


Right, because it's the nasty, dirty, "PvPers" who are at issue here. Shoooting NPCs is PvP c/d? Rolling Eyes Proposing an industry bonus for sov is a "PvP" issue, right?

Changing the subject because you totally lost an argument... No, you're not going to get away with that one.





Lost an argument?

Sorry but you haven't won.

It is still open.

Interesting vision you have and very little patience when your point of view is the subject to a joke.

But you are ready to support the jokes when they are at the expense of other points of view. (Dominion upgrades to high sec thread in assembly hall).

Very one sided sense of humor.

To return to the argument:

- I have showed that the (if it work as CCP say) the anomaly upgrade is a good upgrade. Your reply: "Which may be good for the ratters. Eventually. After the alliance has paid a lot to upgrade. While paying a lot for their systems while waiting for the upgrades."

Full of whine seeing that the cost of the upgrades are:

TCU: 6m ISK / day
Hub: 0m ISK / day

So a grand total of 6 million day to keep the upgrades running (no data about the cost of production, but even if it was high it is a one time expense unless you lose the system).

That 180 million month will really put a hole in the wallet of your alliance Rolling Eyes.

- industrial upgrade, your request: let's us pay less mineral.

My position: I think it is a bad idea, it will reduce the need for miners, while allowing more people to mine with the gravimetric sites upgrade will increase the miners.

Your position: no it is great, we will produce more (with the same minerals, and so not getting more people in 0.0).

Both opinions.

- mining:
My point: the mining upgrades will allow your alliance to mine the high level minerals even in system where they aren't available now.
Your reply: mineral value is too low.

Unrelated unless you want CCP to introduce some new mineral for your convenience.
Mining get a boost by the upgrades.

As strange as it can seem to you the joke was most about posts requiring huge increases in personal revenue with no costs for upgrades (not only in this thread but all around the forum), especially from people that still hasn't got the current cost of the basic sovereignty.

But it is your position too, I am right?

You want more mineral while mining less,
more production while using less minerals
more income but dislike ratting or doing plexes




Your argument that I was referring to was that you were against the industry boost because it would hurt miners. Ratting income is a tangential issue. I pointed out that that was simply untrue, because mineral prices are based on insurance values (even if there isn't enough demand for all the ships, then can be destroyed for insurance - and T1 ships are already selling at net insurance value now), and decreasing the mineral requirement to build a ship would increase mineral value, thus boosting miner income.

Since it is trivially obvious that a 0.0 industry boost from sov would in fact benefit miners (and of course industrialists), I presume you withdraw your objection to it on that basis. Given that, what's left to object to? Miners and Industrialists in hi-sec get a huge benefit from free concord protection, superior refining, free stations that dont need defending, greater population density and so forth. Why the objection to 0.0 miners and industrialists getting a small compensating boost - requiring sov, with all the ISK and time investment that implies - to at least allow them a chance to compete with ships jumped up from hi-sec?

I want more industrialists, researchers and miners in 0.0. I always have done. This would materially help that, and it would give alliances a good reason to want it too.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2009.11.12 20:01:00 - [122]
 

Originally by: Malcanis

Your argument that I was referring to was that you were against the industry boost because it would hurt miners. Ratting income is a tangential issue. I pointed out that that was simply untrue, because mineral prices are based on insurance values (even if there isn't enough demand for all the ships, then can be destroyed for insurance - and T1 ships are already selling at net insurance value now), and decreasing the mineral requirement to build a ship would increase mineral value, thus boosting miner income.

Since it is trivially obvious that a 0.0 industry boost from sov would in fact benefit miners (and of course industrialists), I presume you withdraw your objection to it on that basis. Given that, what's left to object to? Miners and Industrialists in hi-sec get a huge benefit from free concord protection, superior refining, free stations that dont need defending, greater population density and so forth. Why the objection to 0.0 miners and industrialists getting a small compensating boost - requiring sov, with all the ISK and time investment that implies - to at least allow them a chance to compete with ships jumped up from hi-sec?

I want more industrialists, researchers and miners in 0.0. I always have done. This would materially help that, and it would give alliances a good reason to want it too.


"My position: I think it is a bad idea, it will reduce the need for miners, while allowing more people to mine with the gravimetric sites upgrade will increase the miners."

It is sufficiently clear?

We are speaking of 0.0. A reduction of mineral use to produce the same ship in 0.0 will mean less mineral used in 0.0, so less miners in 0.0, so damaging miners in 0.0.

Or, in alternative, it will increase the use of the insurance scam with a big isk inflow from nothing.

Instead adding more high quality gravimetric sites will allow more miners to mine good ores, leading to more production if more miners move in 0.0, so it give an incentive for corps to recruit miners and get the refining tax.

If the goal of getting more people in 0.0 my version is better, if the goal is a better life for 0.0 corporations your version is better.

Different goals, so different opinions.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.11.12 20:28:00 - [123]
 

Edited by: Malcanis on 12/11/2009 20:35:37
Originally by: Venkul Mul


If the goal of getting more people in 0.0 my version is better, if the goal is a better life for 0.0 corporations your version is better.

Different goals, so different opinions.


0.0 corporations will use as many ships as they can easily obtain, provided they are of the appropriate types. Especially if they are effectively free. As things stand, there is still no particular reason to manufacture anything but supercaps in 0.0. Manufacturing in hi-sec has every advantage. Increasing the amount of ore available wont really help; most 0.0 ore goes unmined anyway.

And you're trying to have it both ways: if there is sufficient demand to soak up extra minerals mined from additional ore, then there is sufficient demand to use the same amount with lower requirements. And of course at current prices there is infinite demand anyway because of insurance.

In any case, there isn't an ABC ore shortage, what with the drone regions being stable again and W-space containing hugely rich mining sites. Effectively increasing the value of all minerals will encourage the mining of the unused low/mid ends in 0.0.

This once again comes back to the width vs depth argument for 0.0: Being able to support more miners under conditions that they dont find attractive isn't very useful when trying to tempt more miners to come out.

Lastly: Why is ISK created from infinitely respawning anomalies good ISK but ISK created from insurance fraud bad ISK? You're not making any sense here. Assuming - and it's a big assumption that I'm far from convinced of - for the sake of argument that these anomalies will give enough people enough income to make ratting worthwhile, why are you against industrialists getting a boost? I dont see how you can argue the basic maths that reducing the amount of minerals to create a ship of given value makes the minerals more valuable, and I dont understand why you dont want manufacturing to be boosted.

Do you make T1 ships in Empire...?

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2009.11.12 21:29:00 - [124]
 

Originally by: Malcanis

Lastly: Why is ISK created from infinitely respawning anomalies good ISK but ISK created from insurance fraud bad ISK? You're not making any sense here. Assuming - and it's a big assumption that I'm far from convinced of - for the sake of argument that these anomalies will give enough people enough income to make ratting worthwhile, why are you against industrialists getting a boost? I dont see how you can argue the basic maths that reducing the amount of minerals to create a ship of given value makes the minerals more valuable, and I dont understand why you dont want manufacturing to be boosted.



Ratting+looting
missionrunning+looting

Both introduce isk and material at the same time, keeping them in a approximative balance and having a limited inflationary effect.

insurance isk inflow
remove items add isk. Isk inflow unbalanced adding inflationary pressure. (double strength as you both remove items increasing demand and add isk increasing wallett)

mining item faucet
add items without removing anything. deflationary pressure.

But mostly I disagree with the proposal because it reduce demand for miners.

You can spin it as much as you want, but most 0.0 corporations don't want miners, and reducing the mineral cost of ships will not increase the request for miners.

Originally by: Malcanis

Do you make T1 ships in Empire...?


Strawman argument.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.11.12 22:46:00 - [125]
 

The 0.0 corps that dont want miners are the ones that aren't making stuff in 0.0 anyway. Man, for someone who claims to stay in empire, you sure "know" a lot about what 0.0 corps want Rolling Eyes

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2009.11.12 22:54:00 - [126]
 

Originally by: Malcanis
The 0.0 corps that dont want miners are the ones that aren't making stuff in 0.0 anyway. Man, for someone who claims to stay in empire, you sure "know" a lot about what 0.0 corps want Rolling Eyes



I know what I experienced in 2 0.0 alliances and what people write in forum.

The "I don't want carebears" and "I don't want to protect stupid miners" posts greatly outnumber the "miners wanted" posts.


Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.11.13 07:00:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Malcanis
The 0.0 corps that dont want miners are the ones that aren't making stuff in 0.0 anyway. Man, for someone who claims to stay in empire, you sure "know" a lot about what 0.0 corps want Rolling Eyes



I know what I experienced in 2 0.0 alliances and what people write in forum.

The "I don't want carebears" and "I don't want to protect stupid miners" posts greatly outnumber the "miners wanted" posts.




2 whole alliances! WOW!

Anyway... Thanks for reminding me. I must tell my CEO to immediately cancel our efforts to recruit miners as we dont want them. We thought we did, but now your crushing logic and overwhelming experience is hard to argue with.

CommmanderInChief
Posted - 2009.11.13 11:11:00 - [128]
 

For small corps and alliances its just not worth it tbh.

20 mill per system per day - if get sov in just 10 systems which isnt alot really thats gonna cost 20 x 31 = 6.2 billion a month! just to keep sov no small alliance will afford that i mean even just 5 systems anything smaller whats the point eh - thats still 3 billion a month!
then of course your going to have posses to add to this..

then any upgrades so lets say for arguments sakes for 5 systems could cost 4.5 billion a month thats a ****load of cash smaller alliance and corps just dont have!

So the big alliances win again, they already have the moons, the stations etc, yes ok moon prices may come down but it still a significant income.

All i see here is big alliances keeping only station and high end moon systems and rest of 0.0 being empty..

theres nothing stopping small alliances taking sov now, but they dont because firstly they dont have a station to base from, you need to have friends in 0.0 to really survive and the big alliances will just constantly blob them..

have CCP really thought about this?? Seems small alliances even more screwed big alliances win as they no longer have to anchor **** load of poses! infact they problem save a **** load of cash!! win win eh!

Titan Pilot
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2009.11.13 11:27:00 - [129]
 

IMHO this patch WILL NOT get more corps into 0.0 for the reasons CCP thinks. It will make corps already there more selective of SOV based systems and look for ways to save costs, but they will not open the flood gates to new members to carebear it up. Ain't gonna happen. 0.0 is a nasty place will terrible people like me.

Bottom line is PVPers are not going to go ratting, mining and exploring while hostiles are in system or nearby. Thats it, SIMPLE.

And any system that is upgraded, word will get out and cloakers will arrive en masse to kill the carebears. AFK cloakers will sit in upgraded systems effectively killing those systems from being used alot more.

Unless CCP provides us with ability to scan down cloaked ships and/or T3 ships (which can be made unprobable) the advantage will lie with the invaders / attackers. Its too easy to have a few cloakers sit in system and harrass the locals with little impunity.

Upgraded systems just became the daily quest in EVE. PVPrs enjoy your new targets.Twisted Evil

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.11.13 11:45:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: Titan Pilot
IMHO this patch WILL NOT get more corps into 0.0 for the reasons CCP thinks. It will make corps already there more selective of SOV based systems and look for ways to save costs, but they will not open the flood gates to new members to carebear it up. Ain't gonna happen. 0.0 is a nasty place will terrible people like me.

Bottom line is PVPers are not going to go ratting, mining and exploring while hostiles are in system or nearby. Thats it, SIMPLE.

And any system that is upgraded, word will get out and cloakers will arrive en masse to kill the carebears. AFK cloakers will sit in upgraded systems effectively killing those systems from being used alot more.

Unless CCP provides us with ability to scan down cloaked ships and/or T3 ships (which can be made unprobable) the advantage will lie with the invaders / attackers. Its too easy to have a few cloakers sit in system and harrass the locals with little impunity.

Upgraded systems just became the daily quest in EVE. PVPrs enjoy your new targets.Twisted Evil



Oh, seriously, that's the least of the problems. 1-2 cloakies aren't a threat when you have 10-12 guys in system. If they uncloak, kill them ffs. Cloaky ships are tissue-thin, especially when facing more than opponent.

I mean assuming you're all in an alliance, and remotely competent. If you're in some terrible carebear alliance where people in trouble are just left to die, then yeah. In that case, cloakies aren't your biggest problem anyway.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2009.11.13 12:39:00 - [131]
 

Originally by: CommmanderInChief
For small corps and alliances its just not worth it tbh.

20 mill per system per day


6 millions/day

Quote:

- if get sov in just 10 systems which isnt alot really thats gonna cost 20 x 31 = 6.2 billion a month! just to keep sov no small alliance will afford that i mean even just 5 systems anything smaller whats the point eh - thats still 3 billion a month!



6*31= 186 millions month

*10 systems = 1.86 billions

Quote:

then any upgrades so lets say for arguments sakes for 5 systems could cost 4.5 billion a month thats a ****load of cash smaller alliance and corps just dont have!



cinojammer 20 mil/day

20*31*5 = 3.1 billions to jam 5 systems

Jump bridge 10 mil/day

10*31*5 = 1.55 bil

total to own 10 system, jam 5 of them and get a bridge in 5 of them

6.51 billlions

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course):

TCU: 1m ISK / day
Hub: 5m ISK / day
Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day
Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day
Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day
CSAA: 1m ISK / day


This is correct for the current version on sisi. The only upcoming change as of today was shifting all the upkeep onto the TCU from the hub (TCU will be 6mill per day, hub will have no upkeep cost).

There may well be more changes to come in the days ahead and we are writing another blog which publicises the more updated figures and hoovers up lots of other important issues like specifics on transition between old and new to ensure everyone is clear on what will happen for example and any significant changes to the conquest mechanics which we need to detail if necessary.


the price change was already announced after the first 30 pages of protesters and now is implemented in Sisi.

Lrrp
Minmatar
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2009.11.13 13:25:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: Tippia
Edited by: Tippia on 12/11/2009 17:00:50
Originally by: Venkul Mul
A single top level anomaly pay 25-30 millions in bounties alone (look some post above for the link to the relevant page of the EVElopedia), it require little effort to find it (1 scan with a single probe set to max range) and can be done as fast as a mission or even faster.

[]

So where you get that "better return"?
Per the descriptions given by CCP: in highsec, doing L4s, because that's what these additional, instantly respawning anomalies will be worth when fully upgraded.


Not really.

Lvl 4's you have to change fittings for missions

Lvl4's may send you 1,2 or 3 jumps

some lvl 4's are junk or affect your faction standing

Anomalies on the other hand

are all the same faction npcs so no having to change fittings

are all in the same system

No concern about faction standing

Very good chance for faction loot


For a comparison, lvl 4 Attack of the Drones will get you 20 mil in mins and salvage. There is a drone anomaly that gets you 40 mil in mins and salvage. So tell me again how hi sec lvl 4's are more profitable than anomaly's?


Tippia
Caldari
Sunshine and Lollipops
Posted - 2009.11.13 13:34:00 - [133]
 

Edited by: Tippia on 13/11/2009 13:48:16
Originally by: Lrrp
Not really.
Yes, really. That's the comparison CCP themselves made.
Quote:
[L4↔Anomaly comparison]
Sure (apart from the details you missed about actually making ISK out of the two), but you're assuming — and trying to disprove — a comparison that is 1:1, i.e. one anomaly ≡ one L4. That's not the argument, though. They're saying that the income level is the same, which means that all the listed downsides and variance in the missions are accounted for, as are the upsides and guarantees of the anomalies.
Quote:
So tell me again how hi sec lvl 4's are more profitable than anomaly's?
Again: anomalies will give you the same level of income as an L4, except in unsafe space and without immediate access to the markets that let you cash in on the goods you collect. In addition, while infinitely respawning, there is a limited amount of anomalies, which means that you can be left out — with L4s, you can always get a new one. Anomalies = same income + more downtime = less profitable.

Brugar
Posted - 2009.11.13 15:41:00 - [134]
 

Who is this ISK being paid to?

Titan Pilot
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2009.11.13 16:06:00 - [135]
 

Originally by: Malcanis


Oh, seriously, that's the least of the problems. 1-2 cloakies aren't a threat when you have 10-12 guys in system. If they uncloak, kill them ffs. Cloaky ships are tissue-thin, especially when facing more than opponent.

I mean assuming you're all in an alliance, and remotely competent. If you're in some terrible carebear alliance where people in trouble are just left to die, then yeah. In that case, cloakies aren't your biggest problem anyway.


10-12 guys in system being forced to fleet up to wait for 3-4 cloakers to engage. lol, good luck with that.

My point was simple and don't confuse it. These cost changes with the promise of upgrades is really a change to POS warfare with a faulty carrot (system upgrades).

Big alliances will look for cost savings, smaller ones will try to move in and get curbstopped. POS warfare will change, blobs will remain. People will continue to ***** about LVL4s being better. Thats what will happen in December.

Like I said good luck with the system upgrades. More bears in the belts makes me want to play more.

Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2009.11.13 16:44:00 - [136]
 

Originally by: Titan Pilot
Originally by: Malcanis


Oh, seriously, that's the least of the problems. 1-2 cloakies aren't a threat when you have 10-12 guys in system. If they uncloak, kill them ffs. Cloaky ships are tissue-thin, especially when facing more than opponent.

I mean assuming you're all in an alliance, and remotely competent. If you're in some terrible carebear alliance where people in trouble are just left to die, then yeah. In that case, cloakies aren't your biggest problem anyway.


10-12 guys in system being forced to fleet up to wait for 3-4 cloakers to engage. lol, good luck with that.

My point was simple and don't confuse it. These cost changes with the promise of upgrades is really a change to POS warfare with a faulty carrot (system upgrades).

Big alliances will look for cost savings, smaller ones will try to move in and get curbstopped. POS warfare will change, blobs will remain. People will continue to ***** about LVL4s being better. Thats what will happen in December.

Like I said good luck with the system upgrades. More bears in the belts makes me want to play more.


If your alliance - I assume you're not posting with you main - would leave someone to die when friendlies outnumber hostiles 3-4:1 then you deserve to die for staying with such a bunch of losers.

Titan Pilot
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2009.11.13 18:07:00 - [137]
 

Edited by: Titan Pilot on 13/11/2009 18:27:33
Originally by: Malcanis


If your alliance - I assume you're not posting with you main - would leave someone to die when friendlies outnumber hostiles 3-4:1 then you deserve to die for staying with such a bunch of losers.


You seem like an intelligent and reasonable person, so lets just agree to disagree.

Say hi to Sister Bliss.

CommmanderInChief
Posted - 2009.11.13 19:17:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: CommmanderInChief
For small corps and alliances its just not worth it tbh.

20 mill per system per day


6 millions/day

Quote:

- if get sov in just 10 systems which isnt alot really thats gonna cost 20 x 31 = 6.2 billion a month! just to keep sov no small alliance will afford that i mean even just 5 systems anything smaller whats the point eh - thats still 3 billion a month!



6*31= 186 millions month

*10 systems = 1.86 billions

Quote:

then any upgrades so lets say for arguments sakes for 5 systems could cost 4.5 billion a month thats a ****load of cash smaller alliance and corps just dont have!



cinojammer 20 mil/day

20*31*5 = 3.1 billions to jam 5 systems

Jump bridge 10 mil/day

10*31*5 = 1.55 bil

total to own 10 system, jam 5 of them and get a bridge in 5 of them

6.51 billlions

Originally by: CCP Chronotis
Originally by: Arkady Sadik
For those who missed it, current SiSi prices (which can change still, of course):

TCU: 1m ISK / day
Hub: 5m ISK / day
Jump bridge: 10m ISK / day
Cyno gen: 2m ISK / day
Cyno jammer: 20m ISK / day
CSAA: 1m ISK / day


This is correct for the current version on sisi. The only upcoming change as of today was shifting all the upkeep onto the TCU from the hub (TCU will be 6mill per day, hub will have no upkeep cost).

There may well be more changes to come in the days ahead and we are writing another blog which publicises the more updated figures and hoovers up lots of other important issues like specifics on transition between old and new to ensure everyone is clear on what will happen for example and any significant changes to the conquest mechanics which we need to detail if necessary.


the price change was already announced after the first 30 pages of protesters and now is implemented in Sisi.


apologies if i missed the change from 20 to 6 sounds a little better . 6 bill still out of reach for alot of corps and alliances tho mate..thats just maintenance fees!!

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2009.11.13 19:29:00 - [139]
 

Originally by: Tippia

Originally by: Lrrp
Not really.
Yes, really. That's the comparison CCP themselves made.
Quote:
[L4↔Anomaly comparison]
Sure (apart from the details you missed about actually making ISK out of the two), but you're assuming and trying to disprove a comparison that is 1:1, i.e. one anomaly ≡ one L4. That's not the argument, though. They're saying that the income level is the same, which means that all the listed downsides and variance in the missions are accounted for, as are the upsides and guarantees of the anomalies.
Quote:
So tell me again how hi sec lvl 4's are more profitable than anomaly's?
Again: anomalies will give you the same level of income as an L4, except in unsafe space and without immediate access to the markets that let you cash in on the goods you collect. In addition, while infinitely respawning, there is a limited amount of anomalies, which means that you can be left out with L4s, you can always get a new one. Anomalies = same income + more downtime = less profitable.


1) "on par" don't mean exactly equal, but "about the same order of magnitude", i.e. they will not be x5 or 1/5, but x1,5 or 0,75.

2) "In addition, while infinitely respawning, there is a limited amount of anomalies". No those spawned by the upgrades are over and above the normal number of anomalies in EVE (unless they are bugged, but that is the intention by the Dev replies).

It is not an "attract to me the anomalies spawning in the univeres", it is a "spawn extra anomalies" upgrade.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5]

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