Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Tippia
Caldari Raddick Explorations BlackWater.
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 20:26:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus This argument is dynamic vs static. Think about it long and hard, what kind of EVE do you want?
One where the dynamics are determined by the players.
No sig for me, thankyouverymuch. |
Berious
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 20:27:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
This argument is dynamic vs static. Think about it long and hard, what kind of EVE do you want?
The argument is space worth fighting over vs "meh"
|
Mr Manufacture
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 20:33:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Berious
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
This argument is dynamic vs static. Think about it long and hard, what kind of EVE do you want?
The argument is space worth fighting over vs "meh"
but you wont get the fights
because you have all those moons and don't give a **** how many dreads you lose defending them, since you can instantly replace them
the only people who can take them from you are other people with lots of moons (NC/BOB in your case being the only viable threats within 100 jumps)
the attacking force without moons has to stop fighting if they lose a capfleet, wheras the moon owners simply write a cheque
its encouraging a static world of powerblocs, and vast swathes of empty 0.0 space owned by powerblocs purely for the high ends with the rest of it left desolate and unused
and to the person who said they want a world controlled by the players - so do I, and how is a dymanic and more realistic world of finite resources going to change that?
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 20:39:00 -
[34]
You sidestep two important factors, people are generally greedy and cowards. It's a bad combo for static moons but it would still mean people would want more even if 'everyone' had it, which is by no means what anyone is advocating anyways...
People flocking to the few fat holders now is making for a rather stagnant gameplay. Sure you can argue that there is different colors on the influence map out there but it's most of the same people changing socks, blue sock to red sock, it doesn't really allow for new people to enter the scene, to the extent that would be good for the game. More and smaller conflicts and less cowards blobbing to keep their **** they cannot live without.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Sebea
Bottomfeeders Science and Research
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 20:58:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Mr Manufacture Edited by: Mr Manufacture on 09/12/2008 20:16:27
Originally by: Sebea
Originally by: Amy Wang
2) well nobody says you have to put a large deathstar on it to mine stuff, use a small tower with a miner, a bit over 1hour to set up, so not a valid point really, makes it more attackable indeed especially with smaller forces but that means more fun no?
Your really not this silly are you?
The moon generates billions a month, and you want to put a small tower on it?
Why not just give the money away, cause its basically what your saying.
The large tower is the only thing that really protects the moon now when your fleet isn't around, unless you expect alliances to baby sit the moons 23/7 with a fleet.
oh noes, a fight! how is that a bad thing?
by adding a changing and dynamic element to the game, you add to the fun factor, you don't take it away
the industrial alts of large static powerblocs such as NC/GBC may dislike this idea... organisations with a solid grip on local high end moons like PL might also dislike this idea
I see that as a ringing endorsement of the idea
space holding alliances are MORE LIKELY to find the good minerals, but lowsec corps have a chance too, hell the whole system suddendly becomes more equitable and accessible
its frankly ridiculous that a few powerblocs can churn out capblob after capblob, losing hundreds of dreads without blinking, simply because they hold some static moons of infitite high-end supply which miraculously never deplete
this way, fledgling alliances could 'farm' lowsec to help build up resources prior to a move to 0.0 and a challenge to an established space holder
its not the whole solution to the static powerbloc problem, but its part of a possible solution
it makes sense
If you notice, I didn't actually reply to your thread directly, because I'm not really opposed to the idea (although this could submarine one of your other statements knowing that).
I would love to see the wealth bled from the big blocs (though its a bit late for that) and the little guys to have a chance to grab some big money too.
My statement was direct at the guy who was saying you should put a small tower on your multi billion isk generating moon, which, even if they were finite, and mobile, would be an incredibly stupid idea, as its a significant source of income for WHOEVER holds it, for HOWEVER long they hold it, and it would want a strong protection regardless, which a small tower DOES NOT DO.
|
Protheroe
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 21:31:00 -
[36]
Originally by: HankMurphy Hell, with new exploration, these minerals could be obtainable not just through moon mining, but through rare asteroid mining (of course requiring a new type of laser/crystal/whatever. just throwing stuff out there.) That would offset the supply drop at least somewhat?
I think there should be an option to refine all minerals into certain moon materials. Moon materials are almost all elements (Dysprosium/Technetium/Platinum etc), so it makes sense to me that minerals should be reducible to them. Perhaps new Starbase structures could be introduced for refining minerals into their base elements.
I also agree that altering the demand for T2 materials is a better approach than altering the supply. If a popular product becomes very costly to create in real economies due to limited supply of a certain material, there is an incentive to invest in research to find less expensive ways of producing it. New mechanics could be added to invention to make it possible to create T2 Component BPCs with rebalanced material requirements.
I think it benefits the game that there are very valuable resources worth fighting over, but I don't think it should be limited to the two current best materials, which are found everywhere. Having some materials like dysprosium and promethium which are essential for the production of all T2 items is fine, but there should be more than just the two. Equally valuable materials should exist which are only used in certain equipment types or by certain races, and their price should be tied to the popularity of that equipment or race.
The few race-specific moon materials which already exist do not contribute enough to the production cost of T2 ships and equipment to make where they come from who controls the resource a significant factor in their price, and I think that's a shame. |
Issler Dainze
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 01:52:00 -
[37]
So I understand the initial poster's intentions with the suggestion. Making things more fluid in terms of locations of valuable resources might make some "interesting" times.
In the spirit of wild ideas, what about this. The question is why is it that moons are the only place these minerals exist? We have had a recent mechanism added to allow an alternative process for some of the rarer materials. What about this? Comets! Moving bodies in space found through exploration that would produce the same materials. Some new comet mining process could be created. Personally, I think this would an exciting new feature in Eve.
Thoughts?
Issler
|
Protheroe
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 03:01:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Issler Dainze So I understand the initial poster's intentions with the suggestion. Making things more fluid in terms of locations of valuable resources might make some "interesting" times.
In the spirit of wild ideas, what about this. The question is why is it that moons are the only place these minerals exist? We have had a recent mechanism added to allow an alternative process for some of the rarer materials. What about this? Comets! Moving bodies in space found through exploration that would produce the same materials. Some new comet mining process could be created. Personally, I think this would an exciting new feature in Eve.
Thoughts?
I think introducing new asteroid types, or allowing existing minerals to be refined into moon materials, would achieve the same effect. |
HankMurphy
Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 04:47:00 -
[39]
Edited by: HankMurphy on 10/12/2008 04:47:53 a lot of people saying op is silly/moron/etc and stating how this could NEVER possibly work. I like the one statement: IT WOULD RUIN X (supply) BECAUSE OF Y (demand). Easy with the algebra professor, not all of us have PHDs.
it is a pretty simple argument. there have been plenty just like it and it involves the argument of static resources vs dynamic resources.
i'm not saying there aren't good reasons just to leave the system the way it is (because there are). however, the trolling and 'its would ruin eve' mentality is nothing new... we get it everytime someone discusses changing a profitable eve mechanic. either genuine lack of understanding/imagination or someone crying because they personally would have something to loose
oh, and...
Originally by: Sebea
Originally by: HankMurphy LOOK MA, IVE NEVER HAD TO SET UP A DEATHSTAR BEFORE!
---------- Seasons Greetings and have a Happy Alvis Time |
An Anarchyyt
Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 04:50:00 -
[40]
If I could think of a single thing that would make Eve much more fun.....
...it would most certainly be having to re-scan moons all the time.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
|
HankMurphy
Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 05:37:00 -
[41]
Originally by: An Anarchyyt If I could think of a single thing that would make Eve much more fun.....
...it would most certainly be having to re-scan moons all the time.
no one says you have to. you can /ragequit or go suicide miners in empire ---------- Seasons Greetings and have a Happy Alvis Time |
An Anarchyyt
Gallente Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 05:40:00 -
[42]
What an insightful point you raise. You have truly opened my eyes as to what an amazing idea this is.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler Second, a gentile is a non jewish person
|
HankMurphy
Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 05:44:00 -
[43]
/just saying.
the added work is pretty much inherent to the idea and part of the reason for it.
of course no one will like the added work. everyone also enjoyed having static plexes to warp to w/o probing after downtime. just as everyone enjoys static asteriod belts which will also be going bye bye ---------- Seasons Greetings and have a Happy Alvis Time |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 05:56:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
Originally by: Berious Space socialism
It's a game, it's meant to promote fun, pre-determined factors doesn't do that very well and no-one probing moons anymore 'cause they've all already been done once and never ever needs to be probed again is a wasted piece of the game.
Fighting over moons is fun. Scanning down moons and putting up towers is not fun.
Static resources mean more fighting over them and less constant work finding them and setting up towers.
Egro, the static resources are more fun.
|
Merull
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 06:22:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Merull on 10/12/2008 06:24:37 I'd be fine with finite quantities, but only if the resource lasted for a very long time (1 year+).
TBH though, it seems like more of a time sink than a solution to high prices. Especially with Alchemy.
/Edit: I may be more open to this suggestion if the new moon spawned before the current moon was depleted. That would both increase supply (at times) and make the hunt for resources more exciting. Just make sure probes reveal how long until a moon is depleted.
|
HankMurphy
Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 06:25:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Goumindong Fighting over moons is fun.
sure, ok.
Originally by: Goumindong Static resources mean more fighting over them
how so? argument can be made that dynamic would lead to more fighting.
it would require both an offensive and def. stance (vs pure def for those already established at prime moons) to maintain control of the resource in a given region/constellation/whatever. Vs waiting for someone to siege your tower, you might have to go knock one down when a good moon 'spawns' or what have you.
Originally by: Goumindong less constant work finding them and setting up towers.
yes, i think we've covered that.
Originally by: Goumindong Egro, the static resources are more fun.
Of course it is... whats your point? If you already established and have blob to defend your deathstar with if someone tries to get in on your business. Of course its fun taking your money.
The fun involved (especially for people who have already secured resources) isn't even part of the argument.
Besides, you and I both know you WILL still get the good moons. But the opportunity will be more open for others to butt in without blobbing your deathstar. You would have to work harder at it, there is no question you might find that not as fun. Then again, no one is going to cry for people that have to work a bit more for (how many billions a month w/ a prom or dyspro moon?) ---------- Seasons Greetings and have a Happy Alvis Time |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 07:11:00 -
[47]
With a "dynamic" system no one will be interested in attacking to get a high end moon as they could spend a cap fleet to get something that could lose his value the next day.
So it will become "expand our border more" so the alliance has a better chance of getting the next high end moon when it spawn.
|
Illiya
Caldari GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 07:15:00 -
[48]
exploration is a pretty big personal time sink for no guarantee of any decent... anything. just saying.
HELL YEAH ANOTHER INDEPENDENCE PLEX Sig removed, inappropriate content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal |
OK USA
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 07:33:00 -
[49]
Alliances would just spam every moon in the region they own.
|
Irongut
M'8'S Frontal Impact
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 07:47:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Blastil
Will altering the dysprosium/promethium moon make up hike up capital and T2 ship prices? HELL YES.
Hell no. Dysprosium and Promethium are not used in capital ship production. Altering moon makeup will not change capital ship prices.
Originally by: Blastil
Its to the point where I can finance my capital ship investment by spending 30 dollars and selling ONE 30 day GTC. This is a SERIOUS problem!
A 30d GTC costs about 300m. An unfitted carrier costs about 850m and an unfitted dread about 1.5b. You can't buy any capital ship by selling one 30d GTC. Hell you can't even buy the carrier skillbook.
Originally by: Blastil
Capital ships should be more expensive than they are. When a cap ship gets into the fight, everyone BS sized and lower is going to insta-pop. Its that simple.
You don't own any capital ships do you? You don't even know anyone that does. When you manage to sell enough GTC for your first please let me know where you're keeping it so I can come and kill it with a small gang of conventional ships.
Originally by: Blastil
Making T2 expensive, and reducing capital ships will give 0.0 space to breath again. It will open up territory, and make large alliances like BoB actually have to worry about their power bloc, instead of claiming sov 5, and mining the **** out of moons untill cash flows out of their eyeballs.
Making it more difficult to afford capital ships (not that this would) will not give small alliances a better chance. The large alliances already have thousands of billions of isk stockpiled and will still be able to afford huge capital ships for a long time to come making it easy for them to defeat small alliances who can't afford large capital fleets.
--
* Brace for Impact! * |
|
|
CCP Applebabe
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 08:46:00 -
[51]
Moved to " Features & Ideas Discussion " forum.
Applebabe Community Representative CCP Games, EVE Online Email / Netfang |
|
Mr Manufacture
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 10:03:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
Originally by: Berious Space socialism
It's a game, it's meant to promote fun, pre-determined factors doesn't do that very well and no-one probing moons anymore 'cause they've all already been done once and never ever needs to be probed again is a wasted piece of the game.
Fighting over moons is fun. Scanning down moons and putting up towers is not fun.
Static resources mean more fighting over them and less constant work finding them and setting up towers.
Egro, the static resources are more fun.
And fighting over moons would still exist. The system is dynamic, amounts can vary... you could strike lucky and find a Prom moon with 6 months supply for example. That can be decided by the system itself and the parameters which are set within it.
Thats the beauty of a dynamic system - it can respond to price bubbles, supply bottlenecks, etc, in a way which a static system simply cannot.
Also, under the current system, who is it actually fun for? The only people who can afford to attack another major moon-holding powerbloc are other moon-holding powerblock. No-one else can afford to lose hundreds of dreads without even caring.
The current static system is tipping gameplay balance and risk/reward to a ridiculous degree. No rational person can claim that is good for the game, or good for fledgling alliances, or indeed good for anything than perpetuating existing powerblocs and ultimately leading to a situation where the 20 titan/50 mothership/250 dread moon-holding powerbloc cannot be touched or moved by anything other than another moon-holding powerbloc.
Its not just the moons which are then static - the whole game becomes so. Thats not good for anyone, including the powerblocs.
|
Mr Manufacture
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 10:08:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Venkul Mul With a "dynamic" system no one will be interested in attacking to get a high end moon as they could spend a cap fleet to get something that could lose his value the next day.
So it will become "expand our border more" so the alliance has a better chance of getting the next high end moon when it spawn.
Wrong. The system is dynamic. Amounts can vary from insignificant to huge (6 months + supply). You can scan the moons and see how much remains before deciding if you want to attack it or not.
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 13:59:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Danton Marcellus on 10/12/2008 13:59:16
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
Originally by: Berious Space socialism
It's a game, it's meant to promote fun, pre-determined factors doesn't do that very well and no-one probing moons anymore 'cause they've all already been done once and never ever needs to be probed again is a wasted piece of the game.
Fighting over moons is fun. Scanning down moons and putting up towers is not fun.
Static resources mean more fighting over them and less constant work finding them and setting up towers.
Egro, the static resources are more fun.
Fighting over static moons may be fun if you're the main holder and have an endless supply of cap ships to do so in, I certainly don't think so but I understand the psyche of the 'must be on the winning team' personality.
Scanning down moons would be fun if you could find the motherload and everything wasn't already found and tapped, ruined for all times.
As for putting up towers being boring, again that's just you being too large, complacent and not thinking about how it would be for someone not you doing this in a much more dynamic system than now.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
CrestoftheStars
Recreation Of The World
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 15:01:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Rob Eagle Edited by: Rob Eagle on 09/12/2008 17:49:12 You wouldn't find this a problem if you owned Dysprosium moons.
which kind of prove why there is a problem. balance and fairness is the key words. just like t2 bpo's it's something from the past that should be removed but ccp is too much of a chicken to do so. (it was their fault to introduce these, and they should fix it, not just by some half Ass way that doesn't really solve the problem of the extremely unfair advantage some people are handed). ___________________________________________ Whoever appeals to the law against his fellow man is either a fool or a coward. Whoever cannot take care of himself without that law is both. For a wounded |
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 15:16:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
As for putting up towers being boring, again that's just you being too large, complacent and not thinking about how it would be for someone not you doing this in a much more dynamic system than now.
Uhh, no. POSes are just ****ing boring, full stop.
|
Blancanieves
Increasing Success by Lowering Expectations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 15:18:00 -
[57]
About the "more work" thing:
Of course, scanning of moons has to be made easier, proportionally to how fast moon resources will be depleted. I.e., if moon resources change every month, you'd definitely need a coarser probe that for example determines what kind of moon minerals can be found in a system/constellation etc., much like the multi-frequency exploration probe. Because scanning all moons in EVER every month (probably each by multiple players) would be insane. In contrast, scanning all systems is very easy and already done much more often with exploration. To make "ninja" moon mining possible, a thing in between would probably be advisable. If scanning was too easy, you would probably loose your medium POS on a Dyspro moon very soon, while you could maybe make a few weeks' profit if you discovered it first and scanning is not too easy.
To encourage control of space, the same thing as with complexes could be implemented: Making rare moon mineral spawns more probably in regions/systems where they currently are.
I would support such a change, but I doubt CCP will do it. Especially regarding the newly introduced Alchemy. Which totally doesn't work yet, but I suppose it will be tweaked over time until it does, just like invention. And don't forget that, despite to invention working very nicely, T2 BPOs still exist. Which just makes it even harder to believe that CCP will remove static moon mins...
-
|
Mr Manufacture
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 20:28:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Dianeces
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
As for putting up towers being boring, again that's just you being too large, complacent and not thinking about how it would be for someone not you doing this in a much more dynamic system than now.
Uhh, no. POSes are just ****ing boring, full stop.
You know whats even more boring? Static powerblocs bloated on static moon income, impervious to any threat unless its from another powerbloc or alliance with lots of moons to replace cap losses.
No risk. Just farming the static moons and getting fat, causing 0.0 stagnation and creating an impossibly high barrier to entry to anyone who isnt able to replace endless caps thanks to their moons.
Now, thats dull.
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 21:47:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Danton Marcellus on 10/12/2008 21:49:30
Originally by: Dianeces
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
As for putting up towers being boring, again that's just you being too large, complacent and not thinking about how it would be for someone not you doing this in a much more dynamic system than now.
Uhh, no. POSes are just ****ing boring, full stop.
Then you have too many of them.
About time more and dynamic moon material caches are spawned given the recent exploit revelation and the soaring advanced material prices.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 23:53:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
Originally by: Dianeces
Uhh, no. POSes are just ****ing boring, full stop.
Then you have too many of them.
I own exactly zero POSes. Nor do I manage any for my corp or alliance for the reason listed above.
Originally by: Danton Marcellus
About time more and dynamic moon material caches are spawned given the recent exploit revelation and the soaring advanced material prices.
Because periodically disrupting the flow of high-ends is a great way to keep prices down.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |