Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Wolodymyr
Mando'a Navy Controlled Chaos
46
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 21:00:00 -
[1] - Quote
OK I went through 5 pages of Features and Ideas as well as the commonly proposed ideas and didn't see this, so here goes.
Reduce the consumption of Technetium products in T2 component blueprints to reduce the market demand of Technetium, which will bring Technetium prices more in line with other R32 moon minerals. |
Katalci
D.I.R.T
27
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 02:17:00 -
[2] - Quote
Let's alter the game every time players do something that affects the world in a way that you don't like. |
Wolodymyr
Mando'a Navy Controlled Chaos
47
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 17:45:00 -
[3] - Quote
This is not some player created thing.
This isn't the Gellente ice interdiction. It's blowing up the incursion mothership with T1 cruisers. It's not the PLEX market going up to 500 mil each. It's not even that Mexalon speculation bubble from a few years back.
Tech moon goo prices are high because the Technetium consumption rate is way out of whack compared to other R32 moon minerals.
Yeah if this a tactical masterstroke by some sort of warrior economist who managed to gather up all the tech moons into a price fixing cartel while shouting, "He who controls the Technetium controls the universe!" Then I'd have a lot more respect for the price of Technetium.
But no this is a byproduct of game mechanics and it should be adjusted through game mechanics. |
Ceasar Agustus
Gun Runners Inc SOLAR WING
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 02:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Simple Fix.
Tie moo goo to IHUB's and Orbital Enhancers.
IHUB = Determains the volume for the entire solar system.
L1 = 10% L2 = 25% L3 = 40% L4 = 70% L5 = 100%
% Based on current cycle output of 100
Orbital Enhancer = Determines the desired moon goo
Much like a Custom Office works now a Orbital Enhancer would need to be built, transported, anchored and given the appropriate upgrade to determine what element is to be enhanced. (The harvesting and silos need not be changed)
This would remove the static location of high end moons, give alliances something new to fight over, stop the monopoly over these minerals from huge alliances and make industrial corporations who can accomplish this task more desirable.
Like PI it could be transitioned to so the big fat moon holders do not cry too loudly about losing income since they just need to upgrade what they already have if they wish to continue producing the material. |
King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
195
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 03:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
I have a better idea: delete moon mining and replace it with ladar sites with new roid types. AFK resource farming is and always has been poor game design. Yes, PI sucks too but it's less problematic to the rest of the game. |
Mfume Apocal
Origin. Black Legion.
289
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 04:58:00 -
[6] - Quote
As a holder of 2 personal tech moons, I dislike this idea. |
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
51
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 06:35:00 -
[7] - Quote
Ceasar Agustus wrote:IHUB = Determains the volume for the entire solar system.
L1 = 10% L2 = 25% L3 = 40% L4 = 70% L5 = 100% This would still leave tech moons with a disproportionately high consumption rate compared to other R32moons. Yes it would drive down the individual cost but all it would do is devalue lowsec and NPC null moon mining where you can't drop an IHUB.
King Rothgar wrote:I have a better idea: delete moon mining and replace it with ladar sites with new roid types. AFK resource farming is and always has been poor game design. Yes, PI sucks too but it's less problematic to the rest of the game. Eh I kind of like PI. You can set up some planets and make a little bit of isk without having to grind. Granted passive income means less jumping random dudes mining and ratting.
You might be right though. I can't decide if passive income is a good or bad thing.
Mfume Apocal wrote:As a holder of 2 personal tech moons, I dislike this idea. Well thanks for your honesty. |
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
51
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 06:50:00 -
[8] - Quote
double post |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
188
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 15:40:00 -
[9] - Quote
Ceasar Agustus wrote:Simple Fix.
Tie moo goo to IHUB's and Orbital Enhancers.
IHUB = Determains the volume for the entire solar system.
L1 = 10% L2 = 25% L3 = 40% L4 = 70% L5 = 100%
% Based on current cycle output of 100
Orbital Enhancer = Determines the desired moon goo
Much like a Custom Office works now a Orbital Enhancer would need to be built, transported, anchored and given the appropriate upgrade to determine what element is to be enhanced. (The harvesting and silos need not be changed)
This would remove the static location of high end moons, give alliances something new to fight over, stop the monopoly over these minerals from huge alliances and make industrial corporations who can accomplish this task more desirable.
Like PI it could be transitioned to so the big fat moon holders do not cry too loudly about losing income since they just need to upgrade what they already have if they wish to continue producing the material.
What about lowsec and NPC 0.0 tech moons? No ihubs there, so I assume 0%?
As for replacing ti with mining, I too would like to bot tech. |
King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 23:15:00 -
[10] - Quote
Wolodymyr wrote:Ceasar Agustus wrote:IHUB = Determains the volume for the entire solar system.
L1 = 10% L2 = 25% L3 = 40% L4 = 70% L5 = 100% This would still leave tech moons with a disproportionately high consumption rate compared to other R32moons. Yes it would drive down the individual cost but people would produce more volume and still have their high income. All it would do is devalue lowsec and NPC null moon mining where you can't drop an IHUB. King Rothgar wrote:I have a better idea: delete moon mining and replace it with ladar sites with new roid types. AFK resource farming is and always has been poor game design. Yes, PI sucks too but it's less problematic to the rest of the game. Eh I kind of like PI. You can set up some planets and make a little bit of isk without having to grind. Granted passive income means less jumping random dudes mining and ratting. You might be right though. I can't decide if passive income is a good or bad thing. Mfume Apocal wrote:As a holder of 2 personal tech moons, I dislike this idea. Well thanks for your honesty.
There is no question that if I had my way, hundreds if not thousands of players would suffer greatly economically, but it would level the playing field between sov holders and smaller groups. It would even allow genuinely new mining characters to get in on the action (bring back ninja mining!). It would make mining a viable non-bot profession once again. Moon mining has hard limits on it which we've long ago reached. It's time for a radical change in how it's done. I think active mining is the way to go no matter how many people hate the idea of actually having to undock a hulk in order to build a zealot.
I dislike PI from a philosophical game design standpoint, but I don't view it as a problem. It's basically an infinite super low end resource much like veldspar. People botting the hell out of it and afk mining it 24/7 just isn't significant to the rest to the game. As such, I may dislike it but I don't view it as an issue worthy of further discussion at this time.
Anyways, active mining falls right into your idea. An IHUB would determine ladar site spawn rate rather than yield from moons. So it's the same idea with different implementation. Obviously if I got my way and it was converted to ladar site spawns, it would be available in all of low/null sec (even w-space) just like other exploration sites. The IHUB would merely ensure a higher spawn chance than without one.
Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7 |
|
Mfume Apocal
Origin. Black Legion.
292
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 23:44:00 -
[11] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote:There is no question that if I had my way, hundreds if not thousands of players would suffer greatly economically, but it would level the playing field between sov holders and smaller groups. It would even allow genuinely new mining characters to get in on the action (bring back ninja mining!). It would make mining a viable non-bot profession once again. Moon mining has hard limits on it which we've long ago reached. It's time for a radical change in how it's done. I think active mining is the way to go no matter how many people hate the idea of actually having to undock a hulk in order to build a zealot.
I dislike PI from a philosophical game design standpoint, but I don't view it as a problem. It's basically an infinite super low end resource much like veldspar. People botting the hell out of it and afk mining it 24/7 just isn't significant to the rest to the game. As such, I may dislike it but I don't view it as an issue worthy of further discussion at this time.
Anyways, active mining falls right into your idea. An IHUB would determine ladar site spawn rate rather than yield from moons. So it's the same idea with different implementation. Obviously if I got my way and it was converted to ladar site spawns, it would be available in all of low/null sec (even w-space) just like other exploration sites. The IHUB would merely ensure a higher spawn chance than without one.
my dislike has nothing to do with it nerfing my personal income (because it wont). it's because it takes out one of the major drivers of current nullsec content. tech moons are one of the only things worth risking supercaps for.
also: managing mining bots is :effort: |
King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
203
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 03:55:00 -
[12] - Quote
Confirming POS bashing is the most fun you can have in eve. Also confirming that I would never attempt to kill a miner in low/null sec if they actually mined there. And finally I'd like to confirm that said miner's alliance would never attempt to stop me from doing so or attempt any sort of reprisal if I did.
Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7 |
Herping yourDerp
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
398
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 06:08:00 -
[13] - Quote
moons will need another purpose with this i thinks. but i like the idea. |
King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
203
|
Posted - 2012.02.13 06:52:00 -
[14] - Quote
I'm all for moons serving a purpose, but I think it should be shifted away from resource gathering and over to refining and production. I'm no expert on POS's (I shun them tbh) but it's my understanding they currently don't offer much in the way of manufacturing and refining advantages over stations. If that were to change, those who love POS warfare could still have it. Could even have different moons give different bonuses to production speed of different items for example. Could also have some moons grant reduced fuel usage to any POS anchored around it or enhanced defensive capabilities. This could maintain certain moons as high value assets without them actually creating any resources directly.
I haven't thought this through, just tossing out ideas.
Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7 |
Mfume Apocal
Origin. Black Legion.
294
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 03:11:00 -
[15] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote:Confirming POS bashing is the most fun you can have in eve. Also confirming that I would never attempt to kill a miner in low/null sec if they actually mined there. And finally I'd like to confirm that said miner's alliance would never attempt to stop me from doing so or attempt any sort of reprisal if I did.
I have no idea wtf you are trying to say here. If you're implying that Tech moons haven't driven conflict then I'm just going to point and laugh, because that's dumb and wrong.
King Rothgar wrote:I'm all for moons serving a purpose, but I think it should be shifted away from resource gathering and over to refining and production. I'm no expert on POS's (I shun them tbh) but it's my understanding they currently don't offer much in the way of manufacturing and refining advantages over stations.
Except building supercaps and harvesting moongoo, pretty much. |
King Rothgar
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
207
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 05:37:00 -
[16] - Quote
except moon mining is not manufacturing or refining now is it?
Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7 |
Mfume Apocal
Origin. Black Legion.
294
|
Posted - 2012.02.14 06:41:00 -
[17] - Quote
King Rothgar wrote:except moon mining is not manufacturing or refining now is it?
i guess that just leaves supercap production!
|
Ceasar Agustus
Gun Runners Inc SOLAR WING
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 09:22:00 -
[18] - Quote
Danika Princip
What about lowsec and NPC 0.0 tech moons? No ihubs there, so I assume 0%?
As for replacing ti with mining, I too would like to bot tech.
You know Danika after a great deal of thought I think its about time the low sec guys got some love....
The big alliances already have their huge isk machine in the form of rent, valuable ore's, high end ratting and station taxes.
So here is a thought... Why not just shift all those high end moons to low sec period.
I have been playing for 4 years and in the beginning of my eve career I lived in low sec for awhile and the residents there not only have to deal with nasty sec hits for fighting for the little turf they claim but the mechanics are quite different, like having to deal with gate guns and station guns.
There really is no good reason to live in low sec other than controlling a choke point or a jumping off point to null sec.
Null has no sec hits, no gate or station fire and the large alliances really would rather not deal with the turf battles since they cannot place their name on the sov.
That said why not give those guys some love :)
The idea of using IHUB's could still apply in SOV claimable space just make it NPC based upgrades at a ridiculously high price so if you really want to make T2 products at home it will make your solar system a high value target to coincide with your high value return.
As far as NPC space, nah they already get all the really good stuff mentioned above with no risk of losing sov or station docking rights. If you live in sov space you realize there is always a risk your valuables will get stuck in a station somewhere and if you undock your jump clone you cant get back easily.
NPC space guarantees certain protections like living in High Sec.
But its been a very very long time since Low Sec got any love at all !
I am sure this would make CCP happy too considering the POS bashing would no doubt create a nice sized ISK sink and if the big boys wanted to control those areas it will cost them dearly in sec hits dealing with the reinforce timers and neutrals coming in not only from Null but HS as well :) |
Mfume Apocal
Origin. Black Legion.
297
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 09:41:00 -
[19] - Quote
Ceasar Agustus wrote:words
there are quite a few tech moons located in black rise and other lowsec areas. they are mostly not owned by lowsec residents.
|
Ceasar Agustus
Gun Runners Inc SOLAR WING
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 10:16:00 -
[20] - Quote
My point exactly.
Risk vs. Reward
Sov controlled space, very little risk for the moon miner with a large alliance surrounding him and so deep into enemy territory it is hard (not impossible) to get a good fleet in to capture the area.
So why bother with low sec? Why try to moon mine and defend a POS so close to High Sec when there are far better options.
However: If after generations of mining these valuable moons in deep space they was to dry up, tap out and become utterly useless then the need for rarely mined moons rich in T2 materials from generations of neglect would now get a second look
The reward is obviously great or the powers that be would not be constantly fighting over the isk faucet
So now if the tables turned those wishing to control those valued assets would now need to reconsider their warfare tactics, security rating and decide if the reward is worth the risk.
And if it was the only game in town I am quite certain even if the large alliances turned their noses up to it smaller entities would emerge, coalitions would form and war would escalate in these remote low sec pockets to bring the goods to market.
In the simplest terms it would be a gold rush!
And the low sec guys would now have even more reason to draw their swords and rally together around the new gold mine :) |
|
Mfume Apocal
Origin. Black Legion.
305
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 06:22:00 -
[21] - Quote
Ceasar Agustus wrote:My point exactly. Risk vs. Reward Sov controlled space, very little risk for the moon miner with a large alliance surrounding him and so deep into enemy territory it is hard (not impossible) to get a good fleet in to capture the area. So why bother with low sec? Why try to moon mine and defend a POS so close to High Sec when there are far better options. However: If after generations of mining these valuable moons in deep space they was to dry up, tap out and become utterly useless then the need for rarely mined moons rich in T2 materials from generations of neglect would now get a second look The reward is obviously great or the powers that be would not be constantly fighting over the isk faucet So now if the tables turned those wishing to control those valued assets would now need to reconsider their warfare tactics, security rating and decide if the reward is worth the risk. And if it was the only game in town I am quite certain even if the large alliances turned their noses up to it smaller entities would emerge, coalitions would form and war would escalate in these remote low sec pockets to bring the goods to market. In the simplest terms it would be a gold rush! And the low sec guys would now have even more reason to draw their swords and rally together around the new gold mine :)
hey, if that was going ot happen, it would've happened when tech become the new gold. it didn't happen that way because most lowsec entities are either unwilling or unable to hold money moons.
nothing you suggest would change the reality of sov alliances being flat out better at doing sov alliance **** (like helicopter-dicking POSes)
|
Ceasar Agustus
Gun Runners Inc SOLAR WING
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.19 03:07:00 -
[22] - Quote
Because you (As a self professed Tech Moon holder) have a somewhat biased outlook toward this topic...
I think it tells me more that it could be a viable option than the likely hood it isn't possible or viable.
But hey no foul mate...
I can see why anyone holding such a gold mine would like to talk down any idea that would close your liquid gold faucet.
I maintain the belief that if the only place to get it was in low sec vs. null sec it would be a improvement to the game.
I also maintain my belief that it would not hurt Null Sov Alliances because they already reap plenty of isk from the renters and resources already at hand.
The majority of the benefit would go to the smaller less organized alliances should they decide to fight for it and redistribute some wealth to the smaller entities in Low Sec. Regardless of how you twist this you know that this would be true...
And as a Null Sec inhabitant I can say without question that most moon miners are lazy and looking for passive isk and would really hate getting sec hits for defending their POS. If anything it would increase the use of merc contracts (those guys like being orange/red) but ultimately it would encourage fighting for the passive income and be harder to fight for with stations in systems that can be docked at vs. stations that have restricted docking.
Now would CCP implement this ? Who knows, but being it would be a isk sink from increased combat and POS warfare in Low maybe. Unless of course some of the people making the decisions are also players holding these nice fat incomes
|
Mfume Apocal
Origin. Black Legion.
306
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 09:12:00 -
[23] - Quote
Ceasar Agustus wrote:words
what part of "there are tech moons in lowsec right now that are held by nullsec alliances" is hard to understand?
you could shift every tech and R64 in the game into lowsec right now and im willing to bet 95% would be held by nullsec alliances inside of a month. |
Bubanni
SniggWaffe EVE Corporation 123566322353
84
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 11:28:00 -
[24] - Quote
or easier way to fix it... make the tech moons produce more tech :) and also spread out the moons more, making them available more places, that will decrease the value by supply and demand (also considering the cost of mining the moons because of POS fuel price compensation) |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
667
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 14:18:00 -
[25] - Quote
Mfume Apocal wrote:my dislike has nothing to do with it nerfing my personal income (because it wont). it's because it takes out one of the major drivers of current nullsec content. tech moons are one of the only things worth risking supercaps for. Supercaps will get 'risked' for whatever is earning the alliances the most isk - that could be anything, but i'd prefer that an alliances income was tied to its SOV claims, not a moon that needs no SOV.
|
Ticarus Hellbrandt
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 16:34:00 -
[26] - Quote
The current farce with technetium makes the dysprosium, Promethium system look great.
I wish ccp would get their head out of their ass and address either the types of materials used in t2 production or just move the moons away from all being in the north controlled by a cartel of players.
Heck, it might make being in 0.0 space more interesting. |
Tidurious
The Dirty Rejects Scelus Sceleris.
89
|
Posted - 2012.02.20 20:30:00 -
[27] - Quote
Posting in an "I don't like that Goons are so awesome and rich" thread... |
Ceasar Agustus
Gun Runners Inc SOLAR WING
2
|
Posted - 2012.02.21 05:26:00 -
[28] - Quote
Mfume Apocal
Personally I understood your statement, what part of large alliances have a fairly risk free isk faucet and it is unbalanced at the time did you not understand ?
The valuable materials offered by R64 moons should be redistributed and with that in mind the reward should have a risk involved. So even if the big boys flexed their muscles and controlled the low sec moons that provided these nice fat passive incomes they would need to do it without cyno jamming protection, without station docking restrictions, without the ability to bubble gates or be protected deep in their own comfy little pockets of SOV guarded by their members who live, build and work right there at their side.
Personally my own experience says it wouldn't be worth the trouble in most cases and they already get fat enough off renting, minerals, ratting, planetary interaction and other fine incentives to live in Null.
As I said, I live there and I make a awesome living doing so. My point is simple, so simple you should get it.
The moon placement is imbalanced, the isk faucet is counter productive and if there is a good way to fix it why not make it a pain in the assets to get it. Not safe and cushy in a bubbled cyno jammed haven.
And as I also pointed out the low sec guys don't get much love so why not give them something to fight for while at the same time line their pockets with enough gold to challenge the big boys.
You can blow yellow smoke up the retro rockets of a few here but the mass majority I am sure would see the logic in it. |
Mfume Apocal
Origin. Black Legion.
312
|
Posted - 2012.02.21 07:10:00 -
[29] - Quote
Ceasar Agustus wrote:Personally I understood your statement, what part of large alliances have a fairly risk free isk faucet and it is unbalanced at the time did you not understand ?
-my alliance is around 100 real people -moongoo isn't an isk-faucet
Quote:And as I also pointed out the low sec guys don't get much love so why not give them something to fight for while at the same time line their pockets with enough gold to challenge the big boys
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/region/Black_Rise/moons
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
135
|
Posted - 2012.02.21 11:25:00 -
[30] - Quote
Mfume Apocal wrote:As a holder of 2 personal tech moons, I dislike this idea.
whose c*ck you got to suck for those 2 moons? Just for the interest. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |