open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked The Second Economy Dev Blog, by Dr.EyjoG
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 : last (10)

Author Topic

Lincoln Armm
Posted - 2007.10.03 16:57:00 - [181]
 

Risk vs reward simply means that if you take greater risks the potential reward in general needs to be greater. In the case of 0.0, there needs to be sources of income to cover the various costs of doing business, formost of which is ship losses.

To keep the discussion to mining, if a corp can run 20 miners and those miners can make more isk worth of minerals in high sec at no risk then they can in 0.0 then they will. Of course there are some individuals who will mine in high sec anyway, but we are not concerned here with outliers.

The base issue is that recnet changes to the game have led to a explosion in construction but at the same time have lead to a even bigger explosion in high end mineral production. Therefore high end minerals have gone down in price and trit has hit a ingame cap.

If the cap is removed trit will go up which will tend to depress both construction and high end collection. Of the two the effect on construction will be greater however and the overall effect will lead to less construction and higher finished goods prices.

THis may be fine with CCP in which case they're done. If they don't want to see this effect then they will need to look at ways to fix the original issue of imbalance between high end and low end ore sources.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2007.10.03 18:26:00 - [182]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Tutomech
Originally by: Goumindong

The cap ensures that people mine high ends by keeping it profitable. Without the cap there is no difference in mining in 0.0 as mining in empire.


1) Have you seen price changes for high ends in the last 6 months?



Caused by...

1. Huge Supply increase in high ends from drone regions

2. a raise in the low end price caps

Quote:

3) When will people realize it is about supply & demand and not about risk & reward? If you don't want to do something, pay someone else. It is that simple... With higher risk, there will be less supply of course.


Well, i dont want to do it, and have been paying NPCs and refiners to do it for me for quite some time.[well, actually, i havent, but others have]


1 - granted

2- not true, the high in tritanium started well before the reprocessing nerf for coupling array

Paying people to do it:
-not really what 0.0 alliances seem to be doing. My esperience in friendly 0.0 is low, but it was interesting to notice the tritanium prices and buy/sell restrictions by the owning alliance in friendly 0.0:

No buy order for minerals, no sell orders for minerals - you can only buy or sell to existing orders of the alliance

Refining tax of 15%

Both fine, it is their outpost, it is logic I pay to use it.

But then I look tritanium prices: sell orders 8 isk, buy order 1 isk.

That should motivate me to sell tritanium to the alliance?

I will mine and use it to build my stuff, sell some of the build stuff. But I will not sell tritanium (and probably the other minerals too, I haven't looked the prices). The alliance will still get the 15% of the tritanium I am mining, but the difference in prices seem a bit excessive.





Jakiri
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.03 19:39:00 - [183]
 

Edited by: Jakiri on 03/10/2007 19:55:17
Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby

As for the "Risk vs. Reward" that everyone keeps brining up: 0.0 has the BIGGEST reward of all, the ability to determine your own rules and destiny. CCP has never to my knowledge claimed that just because you live in 0.0 you will be richer than everyone else.....


You need some incentive to go out and fight, especially when PoS wars are quite so dull. That's also ignoring the enormous opportunity cost of being in 0.0 - actually being able to conquer the space, and to protect it from other alliances, and the large time and isk sink that are towers.

I'd also like it if you pointed out how people are supposed to build empires if all the space has already been claimed. I find it quite interesting that you used (very nearly) the term "Empire Building", which in many ways is a euphemism for war, or at least an invasion.

You're championing stagnation, and a stagnant game is a dead game. In many ways, with the sov levels, CCP have gone too far towards this already, but that's another topic.

Quote:
By removing the cap and hindering transport (mineral compression in items), they are forcing those that want to control territory or take someone else's territory to actually be concerned about logistics.


I take it you've never had to fuel poses (or engaged in an offensive or defensive pos war, or run a capital fleet) if you consider the role of logistics to be marginalised in 0.0. The logistics of holding 0.0 space is one of the major issues that dictates that 0.0 space needs to be more "valuable" in isk terms than Empire, because you have to have a lot of people doing a very boring job so that everyone else can get on with things.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2007.10.03 20:28:00 - [184]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
...




The prices are such for a reason. It is there because people who refine typically do so from rat loot and get excess. So producers put very low buy orders up because they know those folks cant move the trit back to empire.

The high sells are exactly the same reason. If someone needs trit fast, they cant import it.

Lincoln Armm
Posted - 2007.10.03 20:36:00 - [185]
 

Removing the trit cap will, if no other adjustments are made, make it some amount more difficult to operate in 0.0 space. How much more difficult will vary depending on the indivdual corporation or alliance. I would suspect that capital construction programs would be the most obviously effected as they use very large amounts of trit.

Its unlikely that this alone would cause any truly dire effects. For one thing most 0.0 corps have "deep pockets' and multiple revenue streams. Still increasing the barrier to entry of 0.0 is not something that CCP would like to see happening.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2007.10.03 21:02:00 - [186]
 

Originally by: Jakiri

I'd also like it if you pointed out how people are supposed to build empires if all the space has already been claimed. I find it quite interesting that you used (very nearly) the term "Empire Building", which in many ways is a euphemism for war, or at least an invasion.

You're championing stagnation, and a stagnant game is a dead game. In many ways, with the sov levels, CCP have gone too far towards this already, but that's another topic.



I think there is a serious dicotomy (and almost insanable) between two playstiles.

One is the "Age of empires" stile with relatively easy resource acquisition and fast production, where overhelming the enemy is the more important thing.

The other is the "Civilization" stile where resource acquisition is more complex, you need a complex transport and industrial infrastructure and a long developement of your empire to get to the victory.

One playstile is not necessarly better than the other, but they require and support different game strategies.

So we are supporting what playstile we prefer and it is very difficult to get to a compromise acceptable to both factions.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2007.10.03 21:12:00 - [187]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Venkul Mul
...




The prices are such for a reason. It is there because people who refine typically do so from rat loot and get excess. So producers put very low buy orders up because they know those folks cant move the trit back to empire.

The high sells are exactly the same reason. If someone needs trit fast, they cant import it.


I think you are missing part of my meaning.

From a player buyer what you say is logic he will operate only for his best profit.

From a Alliance point of view, if they want to support low end acquisitions to lessen the logistic burden and added costs and infrastructures, offering a buy price so much lower than high sec don't seem so effective.

For example I am mining an assorted set of minerals in 0.0 to build my BP (20+ jumps in 0.0 through different alliances to get tritanium don't have much appeal). Even if I had an excess of tritanium I will never sell it at that price. I will keep it in station forever for the next big personal project.

And I think most people will do the same, even the hardened PvPer that will never build anything will be most prone to gift the tritanium to a corpmate or friend than sell it for a pittance.

Liv Dawn
PPN United
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.10.03 21:35:00 - [188]
 

Thanks for the recent blog. Not 100 percent of what i expect so far but I think you re on the right way. I m really looking forward to the upcoming blogs, mebbe with more math used on the numbers to squeeze more information out of them?


Jakiri
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.03 22:03:00 - [189]
 

Edited by: Jakiri on 03/10/2007 22:03:19
Be careful what you ask for Liv Dawn, the guy can't identify exponential increases, so what hope do we have for the rest of it?

Originally by: Venkul Mul

I think there is a serious dicotomy (and almost insanable) between two playstiles.


And it's a false one. You can't have any significant amount of 0.0 space without having a large amount of logistical infrastructure. So: there is a dichotomy, albeit one in which one of the choices doesn't exist.

If there's a sustainable "overwhelming the enemy" style of play in the game, if it's based in deep 0.0 you'll find a set of dedicated logistics guys behind it.

CCP Wrangler

Posted - 2007.10.03 22:05:00 - [190]
 

I think there are a few things you guys need to realise here. First of all, Dr.EyjoG doesn't put "Dr" in front of his name because it looks cool, he really is a doctor in economics.

These reports are not something our doctor sits and makes up, they are based on pretty much all information we have about the EVE economy. They are also reviewed by 25 EVE players and developers.

It is also unfortunate that the doctor is being blamed for the tritanium cap removal, which is probably because his Dev Blog brought it up. This has actually been discussed by others at CCP as well, and we feel that we want the market to be as free as possible in a game such as EVE, which means removing artificial barriers. You should also keep in mind that shuttles aren't limiting the price right now, they could be in the future, which would be one of those artificial barriers I just mentioned.

Last but not least, we appreciate all your opinions, and if you disagree with anything in this report, feel free to speak your mind. The only thing we really ask is that you'll be constructive when you do it, and show some respect for us. Trolling and flaming is not ok just because it's done to a developer and not a player. Wink

Jakiri
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.03 22:29:00 - [191]
 

Edited by: Jakiri on 03/10/2007 23:17:59
Edited by: Jakiri on 03/10/2007 22:36:40
Edited by: Jakiri on 03/10/2007 22:30:28
Edited by: Jakiri on 03/10/2007 22:29:59
Edited by: Jakiri on 03/10/2007 22:29:20
Noone (except maybe capital ship producers) is defending the artificial trit cap per se, but right now Veldspar - the basic, most basic, of ores that you mine in the tutorial - is one of the more valuable ores in the game, and removal of the trit cap (which is certainly being utilised by all the capital ship producers I know, because getting a few billion isk worth of trit right there and then is more useful than putting up buy orders and having to deal with 0.01 isk margins every time someone else looks at the market information - and this keeps trit below the cap artificially) could cause it to spike above every other ore in the game with a relatively small difference in isk/unit of tritanium. Lowsec is already badly off compared to highsec, will 0.0 mining be marginalised in the same way?

I understand that this isn't supposed to be a particularly in-depth analysis or commentary upon Eve markets, but I, for one, hope that the QEN contains a much greater detailing of his methodology and the justification for his statements. The doctor needs to build up something of an aura of correctness around him, as many would be much more willing to take his arguments at face value if some of the analysis he performed (on the relative popularity of T2 ships, for example) didn't seem so off-kilter.

An example of something I'd like to ask is whether the trit trading figures we saw in the blog were for unique instances of the mineral. To give an example, lets say that I have one tritanium. I sell it to Steve, he sells it to Joe. Joe then builds something out of it.

How much tritanium has been used up? Well, all of it. We started with one, we ended with one being used in production.

But if we looked at the amount of tritanium traded vs the amount of tritanium used, we see that there's been 2 trades of a single unit, and one production using a single unit. Half the trit is still in the system according to this metric!

I have no doubt that what the doctor said in the blog was true to some extent (that minerals are being stockpiled), but without further information about his methodology it's difficult to say if the level to which he is implicitly suggesting is taking place.

A certain level of rigour in the analysis would not go amiss so that our worries can be either justified, with the possibility of argument and discussion, or proven unfounded.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.10.04 12:30:00 - [192]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 04/10/2007 12:34:42
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
It is also unfortunate that the doctor is being blamed for the tritanium cap removal, which is probably because his Dev Blog brought it up. This has actually been discussed by others at CCP as well, and we feel that we want the market to be as free as possible in a game such as EVE, which means removing artificial barriers.


Well, if you discussed it internally, I would have expected that the issues so fervently disputed in here to at least have been mentioned in your brainstormings... mainly, the FACT that a removal of the tritanium cap (and hence of a source of tritanium entering the economy, even if at higher price, and also a hefty ISK sink) is very likely to cause a severe "flattening" of potential highsec (Veldspar) mining revenues compared to 0.0 mining revenues, not to speak of the other side-effects that would have short-term (very nasty) and long-term (hello risk and reward, bye bye risk and reward) consequences.
Starting with the assumption you are NOT stupid, concluding that this WAS indeed discussed, at least to some degree, it strikes me as odd that so far not even a HINT of the other changes that would accompany a trit cap removal was posted by any of the devs.

Do you plan on letting the market run amok, stabilize, THEN change something, and don't want to disturb (and just observe) the ripple effects ? Is this some kind of experiment ?
Are you not yet sure what the needed changes would be in the first place, so you're delaying that cap removal until you figure it out ?
If so, have you seen at least one interesting idea in here so far regarding possible solutions that you haven't already circulated internally before ?
Will you keep it "behind close doors" as usual until the last minute, or will you get involved at least this time in open chat with the public at large regarding the issue ?
How about the possibility you might just ended up considering mining to be almost equally risky regardless of system security, and therefore deserving to be almost equally rewarded regardless of system security ?
Or is it simply that none of you actually believes this would be the effect we will see in the end ?

So, which one is it ? Some of the above ? None of the above ? Or not at liberty to comment on any of that ?

Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2007.10.04 14:18:00 - [193]
 

Oil and Trit...

I remember about 25 to 30 years ago, the panic reports that the world would run out of oil in about 10 years... They reported how many barrels of Oil existed in the ground around the world and that there was no more... We were destined to use up all the oil reserves known and unknown...

Today, the known Oil Reserves amount to more then was conceived a few years ago, which was more then was conceived a few years before that and with our current technology, we are able to recover only about 35% of the crude in any find... as the value raises, the recovering technology improves, more oil will be recovered… welcome to the economy of the world.

Trit is Eve's Oil, if the caps are removed, Veldspar will be mined, Trit will be sold, and the economy will do fine... it may just cost a bit more... but that is why it will be mined, it will be worth the effort to mine it.

Tutomech
Posted - 2007.10.04 15:06:00 - [194]
 

Edited by: Tutomech on 04/10/2007 15:29:36

Originally by: Jakiri

Lowsec is already badly off compared to highsec, will 0.0 mining be marginalised in the same way?



Low-sec is heavily underused in many areas, not only mining.

My guess is, that mineral compression and shuttle mining nerf will create more local supplay and demand. So even if ther will be plenty of miners in high-sec, it should be more reasonable to mine in 0.0. And in 0.0 mining ops can be protected by bubbles and cyno jammers...

Local market is good imo: less logistics, less (over)supply, more tactical gameplay (smaller gank squads busting mining ops), miners knowing that they are contributing to the empire, competing with other pilots and not NPCs...

The only side being s****** is the 0.0 alliances not wanting to mine for themselfs.

I am all for free market. However I wouldn't have anything against higher yields.

From this thread: BLAST MINING!!!

Originally by: CCP Chronotis

Low sec 'low end' ore mining we will very much want to make more attractive so trit and pyerite can be obtained locally and personally I have been looking at some possibilities that may be even a little fun like 'blast mining' which like dynamite fishing is a highly illegal and dangerous activity not allowed by the empires but leaving such jotted down ideas (that are far from anything but high level concept in chronotis's head to spam the internal wiki with) aside, the most likely solution is some bonus to the skiff or mackinaw that will increase the mining rate in some way.

But if any of you have ideas of your own, feel free to add in the features and ideas forum, we all pretty much read everything posted there.



I 'd love to place a HUGE BOMB next to an asteroid, start the 5 min timer, run away atleast 50km then return and collect the ore. Even if it would be a very wasteful way of mining (high % of waste - veld 50%, omber 75%, ...) - the size of low-ends in 0.0 could make it a viable alternative to miners. More explosions, more yield / hour.

\o/ \o/ \o/ ME WANTS BLAST MINING! ME WANTS BLAST MINING! \o/ \o/ \o/
\o/ \o/ \o/ GO Chronotis !!! \o/ \o/ \o/

Jakiri
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.04 15:26:00 - [195]
 

Originally by: Hamfast
Oil and Trit...

I remember about 25 to 30 years ago, the panic reports that the world would run out of oil in about 10 years... They reported how many barrels of Oil existed in the ground around the world and that there was no more... We were destined to use up all the oil reserves known and unknown...

Today, the known Oil Reserves amount to more then was conceived a few years ago, which was more then was conceived a few years before that and with our current technology, we are able to recover only about 35% of the crude in any find... as the value raises, the recovering technology improves, more oil will be recovered… welcome to the economy of the world.

Trit is Eve's Oil, if the caps are removed, Veldspar will be mined, Trit will be sold, and the economy will do fine... it may just cost a bit more... but that is why it will be mined, it will be worth the effort to mine it.


Yes, this is what we call a bad analogy. The two situations are only alike because they involve some kind of resource you have to extract.

Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
Posted - 2007.10.04 15:38:00 - [196]
 

I fail to see why everyone is harping the loss of "risk vs reward" in this move. Basically it is because they are lazy?

Simply put, if the Trit is worth 3.6 in Empire, it is worth that much or more in 0.0 due to the logistics of moving it. This does nothing but provide incentive for the 0.0 area holders to actually MINE and not import everything they want. As for the other ores, simply because it is only located in one area does not mean it is guarenteed to be more expensive OR in greater demand due to the mineral needs of various components. Think of water, the most prevelant compound on earth and dirt cheap. Unless you don't have enough to fit your needs and have to "import" it from somewhere else. The Alliances need to start going out to their own river instead of buying crates of Dasani....

Jakiri
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.04 16:06:00 - [197]
 

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
I fail to see why everyone is harping the loss of "risk vs reward" in this move. Basically it is because they are lazy?

Simply put, if the Trit is worth 3.6 in Empire, it is worth that much or more in 0.0 due to the logistics of moving it. This does nothing but provide incentive for the 0.0 area holders to actually MINE and not import everything they want. As for the other ores, simply because it is only located in one area does not mean it is guarenteed to be more expensive OR in greater demand due to the mineral needs of various components. Think of water, the most prevelant compound on earth and dirt cheap. Unless you don't have enough to fit your needs and have to "import" it from somewhere else. The Alliances need to start going out to their own river instead of buying crates of Dasani....


So the reward in return for the higher risk of living in 0.0 compared to empire is... what, exactly? (Although it would be helpful if you would read and understand the thread, this has been gone over several times)

Tutomech
Posted - 2007.10.04 16:50:00 - [198]
 

Originally by: Jakiri

So the reward in return for the higher risk of living in 0.0 compared to empire is... what, exactly? (Although it would be helpful if you would read and understand the thread, this has been gone over several times)


Hmmm i lived in Tenerife warzone region for a few weeks. In my perception it was actualy safer then high-sec... No war decs, only a few hostile visitors per week and plenty of blues to chase them around. The bad thing was that my corp didn't have enough logistics support to make it a living out there... On the other hand my corp mates were sloughtered in not to high-trafic deadend hig-sec system by wardecing corps and suecide ganks.

1) So where is your risk-reward argument when 0.0 can be safer then high-sec?

2) Any comments on post 194? I 'd realy love to know what you guys think about the comment from Chronotis.

Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
Posted - 2007.10.04 16:52:00 - [199]
 

Originally by: Jakiri

So the reward in return for the higher risk of living in 0.0 compared to empire is... what, exactly? (Although it would be helpful if you would read and understand the thread, this has been gone over several times)


1) Physical access to minerals you can't get in Higher Security systems.
2) Nearly unlimited access to minerals you can get in higher security systems. (I doubt Empire belts can handle 1/10th of the trit needed for 0.0 Alliance needs)
3) Same or higher prices for those minerals
4) Access to other resources (moon materials, etc)
5) Ability to claim your own space and BUILD your own empires. (Notice the emphasis on BUILD. CCP even calls it BUILDING)
6) Ability to tear down someone else's empire.
7) Ability to build anything you want, from ships to POSs, to outposts, etc.
8) Access to higher-quality spawns
9) Access to higher-quality Complexes
10) Access to higher-quality Exploration sites

The list goes on.

If CCP decides that you shouldn't be able to get unlimited resources from NPC sources and need to increase your logistics' capabilities you have little sympathy from me. Maybe this is CCP's method of telling you to BUILD your empire instead of assaulting everyone else's? Maybe its their method of saying that 900 players shouldn't be able to "control" 1,000 systems and to concentrate on your home areas?

War should be something that you enter into with caution, when YOUR alliances says "no big deal, they will be replaced next week" when you lose 50+ capital ships in one fight something is wrong. The whole "I don't care if everything gets blown up because I can replace it in a snap" is wrong. Empire BUILDING, not running amok and destroying everything knowing you can sell several hundred GTCs to replace your losses.

You need Trit? Mine it. It is worth MORE where you are than in Empire due to Logistics. With your huge capital and standard fleets I fail to see how mining in your area is more dangerous than in Empire where you cannot protect your miners/minerals since you can't shoot first. If you fleets can't protect your space and as such it is dangerous, then maybe you are over-stretched and need to protect less space.

Being greedy and claiming more than you could hold has been the end of many "empires" throughout history, regardless of how rich they were.

Jakiri
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.04 17:18:00 - [200]
 

You have clearly never been to 0.0, or been in a space holding alliance.

I'm sorry it comes down to this, but most of your arguments just don't hold water.

In other news, hurray for CCP and super-veld.

Tutomech
Posted - 2007.10.04 17:36:00 - [201]
 

Originally by: Jakiri
You have clearly never been to 0.0, or been in a space holding alliance.

I'm sorry it comes down to this, but most of your arguments just don't hold water.


Spam.

Originally by: Jakiri

In other news, hurray for CCP and super-veld.


Can you please provide a link to the super veld thingie?

Jakiri
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.10.04 17:47:00 - [202]
 

It's not really spam, as that is the answer to the arguments presented, sadly. I would go into more detail but I've done that already several times in this thread and it doesn't seem to change anything.

Originally by: Tutomech

Can you please provide a link to the super veld thingie?


It's coming from the test server, asteroids called Banidine and Augumene that are described to be rarer versions of Veldspare and Pyroxes respectively. It'll be all over the place soon.

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2007.10.04 20:19:00 - [203]
 

Originally by: Tutomech
Hmmm i lived in Tenerife warzone region for a few weeks. In my perception it was actualy safer then high-sec... No war decs, only a few hostile visitors per week and plenty of blues to chase them around. The bad thing was that my corp didn't have enough logistics support to make it a living out there... On the other hand my corp mates were sloughtered in not to high-trafic deadend hig-sec system by wardecing corps and suecide ganks.

1) So where is your risk-reward argument when 0.0 can be safer then high-sec?


How vulnerable would you have been to the wardecs and suicide ganks if you had the same army of blues backing you up there as you did in Tenerife? The only reason you were so safe out there was because of the presence and maintenance of that army of blues that were doing the fighting and dying on your behalf. Even if guarding you was not their primary motivation, you benefited from their actions. If you were not contributing to the cost of upkeep of that blue army, then they were effectively subsidizing your level of safety. That cost has to be accounted for when discussing game balance, even if someone other than you chose to bear it in your particular experience.

Yes, with proper organisation, you can make 0.0 safe. But only at the cost of large expenditure in terms of both manpower and equipment. It is that extra cost that means 0.0 incomes have to be higher, otherwise there would be a significant disincentive for anyone to go to 0.0, and the sort of activity that is being promoted out there would be completely impractical.

Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
Posted - 2007.10.04 20:31:00 - [204]
 

Originally by: Jakiri
You have clearly never been to 0.0, or been in a space holding alliance.

I'm sorry it comes down to this, but most of your arguments just don't hold water

Then explain again where I'm wrong, because I don't see things logistically the same as you do. I see it as you can't provide your own logistics to keep your war efforts and over-stretched infrastructure intact and are relying on the NPC markets to bolster your own weaknesses and imbalance between combat and support.

You have been relying on NPC-sources of your minerals and their forced low prices. Why? Can you not mine enough on your own? Is it just "easier" and why? If the answer is #1 or #2 maybe you have to alter your strategy? MAYBE you have to have smaller bites and hold onto those?

How much of 0.0 is not "claimed" by someone? Where can a new starting alliance or corp grab a piece of space without paying rent or being destroyed immediately by you, BoB or one of the others?

I see this as a shift in times for those that would control the entirety of 0.0. CCP is saying "You have to do it on your own, not ride the backs of the NPC corps to do it". If you want to fund and build a war machine, you have to work at it, not just buy your supplies from a face-less neutral party. If you don't want to manage the pain of dragging 100 of thousands of EXPENSIVE Trit from Empire then you have to get your miners in your own belts and use your own resources to do it. If you can't keep up with your own needs, hey guess what? Its a logistics problem, maybe you have to cut back on having 100s of ships destroyed because you don't like someone. And guess what? THEY will have to cut back too. MAYBE there will be less "OMFG!!!! I think they cheated so I'm going to go blow up everything and fight forever because I can shoot rats for 4 days to buy another BS" and actually have to think about losing a ship and where you are going to get the minerals from.

And guess what? If you have to pull back and provide your own logistics, so will others. Guess who will move into those gaps? The rest of the players of EvE. Time to recruit mining corps, actually provide cover, select the systems you want to defend and alter your plans for domination of the universe.

Yes, this is a nerf for the territory holding ability of the large alliances and incentive for them to negotiate and allow others into "their" space because if they don't they might not be able to keep claim to it.

My take, obviously. I see it as a freeing of Eve and putting more sand in the sandbox. You view it as killing your way of life.

Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
Posted - 2007.10.04 20:40:00 - [205]
 

Originally by: Matthew
Even if guarding you was not their primary motivation, you benefited from their actions. If you were not contributing to the cost of upkeep of that blue army, then they were effectively subsidizing your level of safety. That cost has to be accounted for when discussing game balance, even if someone other than you chose to bear it in your particular experience.

Just think, if all players and alliances had to consider working together because they relied on each other, would Eve be a better game or not? If there was actual MOTIVATION to get mining corps into their systems and protect them, and provide logistics support and purchase minerals, would all potential players and play-styles be more respected and needed? From my reading had that corp been assisted in the logistics aspect there would have still been a valuable tenant in that system, mining ore the alliance needed to live and helping in its defense.

There would still be war, there would still be pirates, there would still be those that wanted to take their place in Eve's history through force of arms. And the game itself would reward those that were organized and acted intelligently rather than those that were closest to the nearest NPC station with unlimited couplings and who had GTCs for sale.

Eve is risk and reward. Shouldn't sending several 100 capital ships into a war knowing that they are going to die be something that you dreaded and only did if there was no other option?

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2007.10.04 21:10:00 - [206]
 

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Just think, if all players and alliances had to consider working together because they relied on each other, would Eve be a better game or not? If there was actual MOTIVATION to get mining corps into their systems and protect them, and provide logistics support and purchase minerals, would all potential players and play-styles be more respected and needed? From my reading had that corp been assisted in the logistics aspect there would have still been a valuable tenant in that system, mining ore the alliance needed to live and helping in its defense.


Maybe they didn't because it's more logistics people they needed, not more miners? Or maybe because the big, successful alliances already have all their logistics and mining built into their own organization, rather than relying on external organizations for this vital tactical function. Eve history is already littered with dead alliances that failed to establish a balance between all aspects of their organisations.

Even if you get rid of the NPC trit sources, if you change nothing else, it still makes more sense to mine your veld in empire and haul it out than it does to mine it in 0.0. Because mining veld does not give a reward commensurate with the cost of 0.0 operations, or with other economic activities in 0.0. Even if you increase the reward for mining veld by increasing trit prices, you still increase the reward in empire along with 0.0. Unless you find a way to increase the relative reward between the two territories, it will always be preferable to haul it in than mine it out there, because of the relative costs of operating in the two areas.

Originally by: Anaalys Fluuterby
Eve is risk and reward. Shouldn't sending several 100 capital ships into a war knowing that they are going to die be something that you dreaded and only did if there was no other option?


Yes, it should. But by the same token, if you're talking about an alliance of 2000+ members, working together to sustain the war effort, what sounds a large fleet of 100 capital ships, becomes 1 capital ship per 20 players. If they can't, then they probably couldn't even sustain a battleship fleet. A 20-man corp should easily be able to operate 1 capital ship, and replace it at reasonable intervals, so it should really be no surprise that a large alliance, with their economies of scale, can support large capital fleets.

Don't get me wrong, I'm completely in favor of removing the NPC trit supply. But the issue of relative incomes between empire and 0.0 goes far deeper than just the "work harder for your capital ships" argument.

Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2007.10.04 22:20:00 - [207]
 

Matthew and Anaalys Fluuterby,

I think you are both correct, but missing a power of a totally free market...

Matthew, as you said, alliances have come and gone, this will continue, it's natural in a free market... Alliances adapt or fail...

The power of the totally free market is that the Trit will arrive where it's needed as long as it's profitable to get it there, when the profit drops below the cost, it will stop getting there... as the need rises, the price goes up, the profit returns, the trit arrives...

As the need for trit goes up, miners and ratters will find it profitable to make it available... the reward for mining Veldspar will become profitable...

If your 0.0 corp needs Trit, you will find it local or ship it in... And your corp will have to figure out how to acquire the trit it needs or your corp will become another memory... and another will take its place...

If the cost to ship it in from empire gets to be higher then the cost to protect your local miners, you will protect your local miners and mine it local... if the cost to mine it local is too high, you will find a way to ship it in…

You will adapt or fail... Knowledge and intellect will win out over brawn…

Basic Economics...

I look at the deregulation of the Trit Value a step to enhance the non-combat PvP portion of Eve... you will no longer have to just jump in and shoot your enemies ships to wipe them out, instead you cut their access to Trit and wipe them out by attrition... it will add a whole new dimension to wars, because jumping in to another system en-mass to lay waste to your enemies will have to be tempered with the knowledge that the replacement of ships lost will have to have its cost factored in.

Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
Posted - 2007.10.04 22:28:00 - [208]
 

Originally by: Matthew


Maybe they didn't because it's more logistics people they needed, not more miners? Or maybe because the big, successful alliances already have all their logistics and mining built into their own organization, rather than relying on external organizations for this vital tactical function. Eve history is already littered with dead alliances that failed to establish a balance between all aspects of their organisations.


Valid points. And the Alliances that will adapt and continue their balancing of the organizations will continue to thrive, and maybe even get stronger, with this change. Those that can't adapt will be severely hurt and maybe fail without the NPC support structures.
Quote:

Because mining veld does not give a reward commensurate with the cost of 0.0 operations, or with other economic activities in 0.0. Even if you increase the reward for mining veld by increasing trit prices, you still increase the reward in empire along with 0.0.


Here is where we disagree. The "reward" is you HAVE to have it. There are no economic factors, whether it is not "valuable" enough to mine, etc. You either mine it where you live, or you haul it out of Empire after mining it there. Technically this change will make it "worth" mining it because it is cheaper to mine in your own systems in large Ops doing compression with a Rorq on virtually unlimited asteroids than it is attempting to sc**** it out of Empire belts and finding they are stripped bare the day after they respawn. And at 3.5 isk per unit, Trit is definately WORTH mining in 0.0 as yield-wise it is more valuable than most other ores.

In the American West lumber was as valuable as Gold in many places even though trees were everywhere. Because you HAD to have it and not everyone was capable of cutting and shaping their own. Veld is like that now; everywhere, but expensive because it has a high demand since there aren't enough players WILLING to mine it. And it is purely a willing to do so issue, as evidenced by most of this thread.
Quote:


//---snip excellent points about organization and support---//



And those alliances that are organized, work together and monitor their resource needs will live and thrive. The ones you are describing will "win" Eve and make tonnes of ISK and control their territories. Those that don't follow this principal and expect to be able to buy everything they need at low prices from NPC sources will either adapt and get close to your described alliance or they will die. Simply, this will help weed out the weaker alliances and allow others to step into their places.
Quote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm completely in favor of removing the NPC trit supply. But the issue of relative incomes between empire and 0.0 goes far deeper than just the "work harder for your capital ships" argument.

The "value" of owning and controlling 0.0 is beyond just how much ISK is in your wallet. If that is a player's sole definition of success so be it; eve is a sandbox, you can accommodate as much wealth as you can squeeze out of your surroundings. I'm not saying "work harder" for your ships, I'm saying that perhaps CCP never intended for everything to be a "shoot it all all the time" funded by "owning" huge amounts of territory you can't actually hold onto on your own.

There will always be limited numbers of systems in Eve, perhaps this is part of CCP's method of making sure that everyone that works hard can have their own slice? Give players more control over the systems they directly control, but making it harder to glomp huge amounts of space and hold it

Anaalys Fluuterby
Caldari
Posted - 2007.10.04 22:30:00 - [209]
 

Originally by: Hamfast

I look at the deregulation of the Trit Value a step to enhance the non-combat PvP portion of Eve... you will no longer have to just jump in and shoot your enemies ships to wipe them out, instead you cut their access to Trit and wipe them out by attrition... it will add a whole new dimension to wars, because jumping in to another system en-mass to lay waste to your enemies will have to be tempered with the knowledge that the replacement of ships lost will have to have its cost factored in.

That is the point that I was (very poorly) trying to bring forward. Logistics now is more than "where is the cheapest price".

Altaree
The Graduates
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.10.05 02:51:00 - [210]
 

Originally by: CCP Wrangler
I think there are a few things you guys need to realise here. First of all, Dr.EyjoG doesn't put "Dr" in front of his name because it looks cool, he really is a doctor in economics.


I think people are calling him Doctor for two reasons. 1) the rest of his name is too hard to remember and 2) we have seen WAY too much Dr Who. :)

Originally by: CCP Wrangler

These reports are not something our doctor sits and makes up, they are based on pretty much all information we have about the EVE economy. They are also reviewed by 25 EVE players and developers.


Are these players PVP combat experts or PVP market experts. It makes a HUGE difference!

Also, why is Dr.EyjoG not involved in the market forum? The market PVP player need some proof that this guy knows what he is talking about when it comes to eve.


Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 : last (10)

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