Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Zyress
The Fabulous Thunderbirds
124
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 15:49:00 -
[121] - Quote
Retmas wrote:too damn cute that cobalt replaces tech, and is primarily found in the regions the CFC just roflstomped.
and this is surprising how? throw tinfoil at me if you must but if it looks like a duck quacks like a duck and gets in my way when I'm fishing, its a duck |
Kosmoto Gothwen
Frenemy Logicians
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 15:50:00 -
[122] - Quote
Rivver wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:OTEC in roo-ins.
Decent first step, more interested in the long term plans to change the way moon mining / resource gathering in general is fixed... because it needs fixing.
This really changes nothing. It simply introduces a price cap. You won't see much of a difference. How many people do you know actually do Alchemy?
Very few do alchemy, because you can't make money at with the current calculations. |
papamike
Precipice Industries Voodoo Groove
71
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 15:50:00 -
[123] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Quoting myself on this topic from before: Abdiel Kavash wrote:I appreciate the CCP responses to this thread, as well as its mostly constructive discussion so far. I have one question for the CCP game design team:
What do you think about what I'd call the "traditional model" of a 0.0 alliance? Now, I can't speak for how things work in the south or east, but pretty much every alliance in the north works in a similar fashion. The alliance holds strategic assets (moons being by far the most important, then also POCOs and stations), which produce income to the alliance wallet. This wallet then funds ship replacement / ship sponsorship / capital / supercapital programs.
This means that the regular member in a reasonably well-run alliance will get their ship losses in PvP replaced by this alliance income. This means that I, as a member of an alliance, don't have to spend my time grinding NPCs or rocks for money, I can instead spend it fighting for my alliance - which is what I came to 0.0 to do.
If alliance-level income is nerfed to the point that it can't afford the ships needed to keep the alliance alive, the burden of making ISK falls down to the common grunts. I, as a busy person out of game, definitely don't have the time to spend shooting NPCs or shooting rocks or doing industry or whatnot to afford my ships. Neither I want to, I consider the vast majority of PvE content in EVE dull and repetitive. I prefer shooting other people in the face and taking their stuff.
Forcing alliances to tax their members and then use the taxes to buy ships doesn't solve the problem. It only means that the alliance will be redistributing the burden of the grind. If the "PvPer" in an alliance is to survive, someone else (or likely several people) will have to pay for their losses. I don't see a fair way of managing this that wouldn't result in a group of alliance members being exploited for their ISK.
And before anyone accuses me of wanting effort-free income, this is very far from the truth. Alliance (moongoo) income is by no means effort-free. Even now, in what I would consider peacetime, there is not a week without us having to fight to defend our moons. In an active war, moons are being attacked daily and frequently change owners. I would say that on average I spend as much time fighting for moons (and for sovereignty, and for CSAAs, and to just deter enemy fleets) as I would need to grind for money to afford my ships. The only difference is that I don't spend this time shooting NPCs, but shooting other people.
This aspect of EVE is what kept me attracted to it for the past three years. The fact that you can have a fully functional game without any of the background and content being provided by NPCs. As it stands now, the vast majority of my interaction with the game is player-driven. Our income as an alliance - which funds my ships - comes from bashing other players' towers, not from grinding NPCs. After a blanket moongoo removal with no comparable replacement for an alliance-level income, I don't see a way in which this type of gameplay could survive.
So here stands my question, is CCP aware of this "traditional model" of a 0.0 alliance? Do you want to support it, abolish it, or is it not a deciding factor in the process?
Thanks for any replies.
This system you mention is not the 'traditional' system of alliance management. It is a product of the moon and sov changes of the last 3-4 years.
'Traditional' alliance structures were far more fuedalistic in nature where your right to access the wealth of a region, blue standings and infrastructure was gained by essentially declaring feality towards your corp ceo and upwards to alliance leadership through your corp leadership. The right to access the wealth (traditionally 0.0 ratting, mining and 10/10 plexes) was gained by ensuring that you arrived to fight to defend it when the banners are called.
Good examples of these types of alliances still exist in the majority of 0.0 alliances that dont hold tech moon cartels but the originals were the likes of Stain Alliance and Stain Empire.
The second evolution IMO was the introduction of a slave system where alliances began incorporating renters or pets to help finance supercapital programs.
Therefore the system of alliances owning moon goo cartels is by no means the 'traditional' allaince structure, nor is it the only way alliances can generate wealth to help subsidise pvp ventures. What you will probably see is a return to renter alliances and the need for larger pvp focused alliances to protect industrially based corps or renters incorporated into their space.
It wont mean you cant keep on pvping and getting paid for it through ship replacements. What it does mean is that large fleet losses will be far more painful to an alliance, and far less sustainable. I dont see a problem with this. |
Adrenalinemax
Perkone Caldari State
23
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 15:51:00 -
[124] - Quote
mercuryyy wrote:If the numbers in the blog are real
-- 100 Cobalt and 100 Platinum reacts into 1 Unrefined Platinum Technite refines into 10 Platinum Technite and 95 Platinum -
you basically use 100 Cobalt and 5 Platinum to get just 10 Platinum Technite per reaction cycle (= POS Cycle = 1 hour, i take it). At current values, you would be loosing money not only on the pure reaction, but also on the fuel needed for that reactor/refineries bzw refining taxes etc. To break even, the Tech Price (and with that the Platinum Technite price) would have to at least rise by 500% to make it worthwile to do this alchemy reaction.. This surely isnt a way to force prices down, if thats at all necessary.
This
You are basically pricing tech on nothing more than Tower fuel costs at this point
|
Lord Zim
1030
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 15:51:00 -
[125] - Quote
Zyress wrote:Retmas wrote:too damn cute that cobalt replaces tech, and is primarily found in the regions the CFC just roflstomped. and this is surprising how? throw tinfoil at me if you must but if it looks like a duck quacks like a duck and gets in my way when I'm fishing, its a duck Have a trip up mount tinfoil, I'm sure Jade'd love to have someone to talk to. |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
163
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 15:52:00 -
[126] - Quote
Retmas wrote:too damn cute that cobalt replaces tech, and is primarily found in the regions the CFC just roflstomped. we stomp a lot of regions |
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
283
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 15:53:00 -
[127] - Quote
Maximus Stuu wrote:/me puts on tinfoil hat
How suprising that the market was brought out of Cobalt 2 months ago....probably the only way this new Dev was allowed to start playing with Tech, giving Goons the heads up before.... Funny how the CSM had their Newcastle, UK reach-around with CCP Unifex and friends ~2 months ago... call it a conspiracy or the delusions of the paranoid, but the CSM and Devs are only human. One thing leads to another, a hand-job is given and sekret game design information is the reward...
284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284286 |
Kingston Black
Hostile. PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
30
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 15:54:00 -
[128] - Quote
THANKYOU!
If i ever get to fanfest ima gonna buy you a crate of beer for this one |
Fiberton
StarFleet Enterprises Red Alliance
18
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 15:55:00 -
[129] - Quote
Wait so head of CSM would not give his Alliance an edge by accepting certain persons who use to work for said maker of game into into his alliance for full future intels ? Of course he would not he is TOP legit guy.
wallenbergaren wrote:Nevigrofnu Mrots wrote:cobalt moons: Period Basis 163 Querious 358 its like we had a vision... so we just conquered the new tec lands, lol thanks CPP PS: Catch 434... NEXT A clueless goon nbs
GÇ£Out of clutter, find simplicity. From discord, find harmony. In the middle of difficulty lies opportunity.GÇ¥ -- -áAlbert -áEinstein-á |
Aprudena Gist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 15:56:00 -
[130] - Quote
This changes nothing in realistic terms tech is still by far the cheapest way at current market prices to make Platinum Technite by a huge margin. |
|
Rivver
Legions Ltd
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 15:56:00 -
[131] - Quote
Fiberton wrote:Wait so head of CSM would not give his Alliance an edge by accepting certain persons who use to work for said maker of game into into his alliance for full future intels ? Of course he would not he is TOP legit guy.
What is this CSM that you speak of? There's a CSM this year? Is that what you call them? |
Wrayeth
We Reach Around Situation: Normal
27
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 15:59:00 -
[132] - Quote
Interesting stuff. I'm looking forward to seeing what the fallout of this change will be.
"CCP Fozzie" wrote: EVE Online: A Progressively Improving Game
EVE Online: A Progressively Improving Game
EVE Online: A PIG
Um...interesting. I feel like I should post a walking-in-stations screenshot with Miss Piggy photoshopped into it. Too bad I don't have photoshop. |
Zimmy Zeta
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
1171
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:00:00 -
[133] - Quote
Rivver wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:OTEC in roo-ins.
Decent first step, more interested in the long term plans to change the way moon mining / resource gathering in general is fixed... because it needs fixing.
This really changes nothing. It simply introduces a price cap. You won't see much of a difference.
And those pricecaps are awesome, because the put certain restraints on the economy, very similar to scrapmetal reprocessing, wich guarantees that no larger number of items will be sold below their raw mineral value for an extended time. It's restraints like those that keep the player generated markets in eve online working- something that our RL governments fail continuously...
-.- |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
163
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:01:00 -
[134] - Quote
Fiberton wrote:Wait so head of CSM would not give his Alliance an edge by accepting certain persons who use to work for said maker of game into into his alliance for full future intels ? Of course he would not he is TOP legit guy.
yeah we got the inside scoop on this weeks ago
you know, when soundwave posted it on these forums |
EvilweaselSA
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
163
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:01:00 -
[135] - Quote
granted so did everyone else but details details |
Fuujin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
173
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:02:00 -
[136] - Quote
Nooooo!! My Macherial reimbursement! :negative:
I'm going to have to slum it in a Nightmare or a Bhaalgorn or...downgrade fully to cynabals and vigilants. Damn you CCP! :mad: |
Rivver
Legions Ltd
0
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:02:00 -
[137] - Quote
Zimmy Zeta wrote:Rivver wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:OTEC in roo-ins.
Decent first step, more interested in the long term plans to change the way moon mining / resource gathering in general is fixed... because it needs fixing.
This really changes nothing. It simply introduces a price cap. You won't see much of a difference. And those pricecaps are awesome, because they put certain restraints on the economy, very similar to scrapmetal reprocessing, wich guarantees that no larger number of items will be sold below their raw mineral value for an extended time. It's regulations like those that keep the player generated markets in eve online working- something that our RL governments fail continuously...
And you realize that the cap is higher than the current price of Tech? |
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
2049
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:04:00 -
[138] - Quote
Hakaru Ishiwara wrote:Maximus Stuu wrote:/me puts on tinfoil hat
How suprising that the market was brought out of Cobalt 2 months ago....probably the only way this new Dev was allowed to start playing with Tech, giving Goons the heads up before.... Funny how the CSM had their Newcastle, UK reach-around with CCP Unifex and friends ~2 months ago... call it a conspiracy or the delusions of the paranoid, but the CSM and Devs are only human. One thing leads to another, a hand-job is given and sekret game design information is the reward...
Huh? The CSM summit was in Reykjavik, there was a player meet (open to the public) in Newcastle, UK a month or so ago. The CSM hasn't even known about this change for longer than a month, and only got the specific changes in the last few weeks, so perhaps your tinfoil hats need adjusting?
Also, I would also like to point out that just like CCP devs, the CSM is monitored by CCP's Internal Affairs department. I know for a fact that some CSM members had piles of tech that they were unable to sell before this blog went public because of this policy.
If you have a specific complaint, by all means post it here or send it to [email protected]. CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
|
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
158
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:05:00 -
[139] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Quoting myself on this topic from before: Abdiel Kavash wrote:I appreciate the CCP responses to this thread, as well as its mostly constructive discussion so far. I have one question for the CCP game design team:
What do you think about what I'd call the "traditional model" of a 0.0 alliance? Now, I can't speak for how things work in the south or east, but pretty much every alliance in the north works in a similar fashion. The alliance holds strategic assets (moons being by far the most important, then also POCOs and stations), which produce income to the alliance wallet. This wallet then funds ship replacement / ship sponsorship / capital / supercapital programs.
This means that the regular member in a reasonably well-run alliance will get their ship losses in PvP replaced by this alliance income. This means that I, as a member of an alliance, don't have to spend my time grinding NPCs or rocks for money, I can instead spend it fighting for my alliance - which is what I came to 0.0 to do.
If alliance-level income is nerfed to the point that it can't afford the ships needed to keep the alliance alive, the burden of making ISK falls down to the common grunts. I, as a busy person out of game, definitely don't have the time to spend shooting NPCs or shooting rocks or doing industry or whatnot to afford my ships. Neither I want to, I consider the vast majority of PvE content in EVE dull and repetitive. I prefer shooting other people in the face and taking their stuff.
Forcing alliances to tax their members and then use the taxes to buy ships doesn't solve the problem. It only means that the alliance will be redistributing the burden of the grind. If the "PvPer" in an alliance is to survive, someone else (or likely several people) will have to pay for their losses. I don't see a fair way of managing this that wouldn't result in a group of alliance members being exploited for their ISK.
And before anyone accuses me of wanting effort-free income, this is very far from the truth. Alliance (moongoo) income is by no means effort-free. Even now, in what I would consider peacetime, there is not a week without us having to fight to defend our moons. In an active war, moons are being attacked daily and frequently change owners. I would say that on average I spend as much time fighting for moons (and for sovereignty, and for CSAAs, and to just deter enemy fleets) as I would need to grind for money to afford my ships. The only difference is that I don't spend this time shooting NPCs, but shooting other people.
This aspect of EVE is what kept me attracted to it for the past three years. The fact that you can have a fully functional game without any of the background and content being provided by NPCs. As it stands now, the vast majority of my interaction with the game is player-driven. Our income as an alliance - which funds my ships - comes from bashing other players' towers, not from grinding NPCs. After a blanket moongoo removal with no comparable replacement for an alliance-level income, I don't see a way in which this type of gameplay could survive.
So here stands my question, is CCP aware of this "traditional model" of a 0.0 alliance? Do you want to support it, abolish it, or is it not a deciding factor in the process?
Thanks for any replies.
The "traditional model" you talk of a) isn't traditional and b) is awful. The idea that the alliances can passively make insane amounts of isk to the point where every member has access to essentially free ships to throw away is a perfect demonstration of how broke the current mechanics are.
The point of 0.0 is that it has greater rewards, but that you have to fight for them. It was never intended as your own personal basically-cost-free-pvp zone. A bloo bloo bloo, you might have to work for your isk rather than just being given replacement ships funded by broken mechanics. |
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
284
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:06:00 -
[140] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:Fiberton wrote:Wait so head of CSM would not give his Alliance an edge by accepting certain persons who use to work for said maker of game into into his alliance for full future intels ? Of course he would not he is TOP legit guy.
yeah we got the inside scoop on this weeks ago you know, when soundwaffe posted it on the goon high-command forums Fixed that for you.
284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284 Characters 284286 |
|
Rer Eirikr
SniggWaffe
156
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:07:00 -
[141] - Quote
If anyone's having any trouble here's a guide:
http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2011/10/tinfoil20hat.jpg |
wallenbergaren
University of Caille Gallente Federation
46
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:08:00 -
[142] - Quote
Rivver wrote:Zimmy Zeta wrote:Rivver wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:OTEC in roo-ins.
Decent first step, more interested in the long term plans to change the way moon mining / resource gathering in general is fixed... because it needs fixing.
This really changes nothing. It simply introduces a price cap. You won't see much of a difference. And those pricecaps are awesome, because they put certain restraints on the economy, very similar to scrapmetal reprocessing, wich guarantees that no larger number of items will be sold below their raw mineral value for an extended time. It's regulations like those that keep the player generated markets in eve online working- something that our RL governments fail continuously... And you realize that the cap is higher than the current price of Tech?
Only if you assume that people mine cobalt at a profit... Which they don't |
Snowflake Tem
The Order of Symbolic Measures
89
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:09:00 -
[143] - Quote
Really? beat up the biggest guy on the block? - suddenly Soundwaves' surviving Fozzy attacks (waka! waka!) spring into sharp focus.
It's always nice to have a new guy to hang catastrophic failures around the neck of tho. Fozzy is so much more brave than I.
I know little about the festering heap of offal that is the moon product market other than it stinks and I won't touch it until it has been cleansed with fire. Faffing with alchemy rates is not cleansing with fire.
Aside from that I genuinely wish you the warmest of welcomes. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
8628
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:09:00 -
[144] - Quote
EvilweaselSA wrote:yeah we got the inside scoop on this weeks ago
you know, when soundwave posted it on these forums HmmGǪ was that before or after he said it to everyone present (and watching the stream) at fanfest?
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
CONCORD spawns: quick enough to save you?
|
R0ot
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
22
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:09:00 -
[145] - Quote
So am I the only one around here that thinks it would just be infinitely easier to randomize the moons again and spread Tech moons around all regions instead of limited to one particular "area".
Good Idea / Bad Idea? |
Zimmy Zeta
Paramount Commerce Masters of Flying Objects
1172
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:10:00 -
[146] - Quote
Rivver wrote:Zimmy Zeta wrote:Rivver wrote:TheGunslinger42 wrote:OTEC in roo-ins.
Decent first step, more interested in the long term plans to change the way moon mining / resource gathering in general is fixed... because it needs fixing.
This really changes nothing. It simply introduces a price cap. You won't see much of a difference. And those pricecaps are awesome, because they put certain restraints on the economy, very similar to scrapmetal reprocessing, wich guarantees that no larger number of items will be sold below their raw mineral value for an extended time. It's regulations like those that keep the player generated markets in eve online working- something that our RL governments fail continuously... And you realize that the cap is higher than the current price of Tech?
Sure. Why not? OTEC put a lot of effort into monopolizing the tech market, so why shouldn't they be rewarded for that? But now there is a theoretical limit of how far they can raise their prices- and that sounds good to me.
-.- |
Soto ShinDo
HeroinPixelSpace
8
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:10:00 -
[147] - Quote
What would be the alchemy reaction for TINFOIL?
Reading the last few pages I could make a fortune in EVE be selling it |
TheGunslinger42
Bite Me inc Exhale.
158
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:11:00 -
[148] - Quote
Snowflake Tem wrote:Really? beat up the biggest guy on the block? - suddenly Soundwaves' surviving Fozzy attacks (waka! waka!) spring into sharp focus.
It's always nice to have a new guy to hang catastrophic failures around the neck of tho. Fozzy is so much more brave than I.
I know little about the festering heap of offal that is the moon product market other than it stinks and I won't touch it until it has been cleansed with fire. Faffing with alchemy rates is not cleansing with fire.
Aside from that I genuinely wish you the warmest of welcomes.
Clearly the solution is to add moon goo into wormhole space. There's hundreds of completely empty wormholes just waiting to poop out tech. Combine that with NOT listening to the terrible ideas about "stabilisers" and whatnot and you'd actually have some interesting mechanics imo. |
Aprudena Gist
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:11:00 -
[149] - Quote
R0ot wrote:So am I the only one around here that thinks it would just be infinitely easier to randomize the moons again and spread Tech moons around all regions instead of limited to one particular "area".
Good Idea / Bad Idea? Yes because scanning every single moon in the game again sounds like good gameplay design. |
Spurty
D00M. Northern Coalition.
366
|
Posted - 2012.07.19 16:13:00 -
[150] - Quote
Soto ShinDo wrote:Spurty wrote:Jarin Arenos wrote:Out of curiosity, when was the last time someone actually threatened CFC's tech sov? Like... legitimately, not just trolling. Would need to be : A) - Equal in size (Have a chance at success) B) - Not have space already (Have a need to fight) C) - Not be blue to them (or a pet, Merc) There is no such entity, nor will there be with zero barriers capping point C. Healthy for EVE? LOL - NCDot. member whining about OTEC. Hilarious!
I high-lighted the whiny part.
gees.. another day, another plonker ---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 34 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |