These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Tech is fine l2p

First post First post
Author
Patrick Baboli
Mad Science Union Local 42
#601 - 2012-07-21 15:00:38 UTC
you do know that Technetium is named such because it was the first synthazized element just take Molybdenum and put it in a reactor and boom Technetium just put it and uranium in a reactor and you get tech by the bucket loadjavascript:insertsmiley('Big smile','/Images/Emoticons/ccp_smile-big.png')
marly cortez
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#602 - 2012-07-21 15:01:42 UTC  |  Edited by: marly cortez
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Wocka Wocka!

Remember that if you like this change you should hit the "like" button on this post. I need to know if this is the kind of work the community is looking for. ;)



Hmmm, bit of selective weighting to your blog here chum, if your going to poll then do so fairly and don,t sit there counting up your likes as if it was some sort of score.

Seen a lotta folk over the past sixty years manipulate the balance in there own favor then publicly pat themselves on the back and claim there was no constructive opposition to there rule, With a broad smile I can assure you that most of them ended up truly in the public cross hairs and the results for them were not favorable.

So far to date reading this blog the general consensus appears to be in the negative camp, this being a bad idea like so many coming from CCP's Devs of late who repeatedly fail to listen to the community at all who's experience of 'Playing' EVE they seem to discount as irrelevant.

Leaves one wondering why they are so blatant in this, the players ask that CCP fix the massive list of little things that 'ARE' broken but instead get a new and utterly broken UI forced down there throats to name but one and are instantly told to 'Go F*** yourself. ' when they object to this cavalier treatment by CCP.

That High ends have been broken since day one is not in dispute here how best to mediate this is the issue, the currently proposed dribble of fixes seems to be the root cause of the objection as players cannot see were the muppets are going with this one and are rightly nervous about seeing there hard work kicked into touch by further arrogant action by CCP Dev's.,

Alchemy is by far the oddest of approaches unless it is a cover for something not yet revealed as on the face of things not only is it fundamentally unprofitable to pursue as proposed even if made so would not serve as anything other than a very slow method of implementing a minor change in P/T prices on a very localized scale.

Possibly a wild stab in the dark but could it be that CCP have brought in this DEV to implement further the slow drift of EVE into the clutches of DUST by rooting high ends into PI opening EVE to further infestation by that wretched parasite SONY, and before you comment I ran out of tin foil many years ago.

It is to be hoped that like the his counterparts from the Muppets this dev provides a little more comedy, to date his contribution seems to be rather lacking in substance more giving the appearance of demanding of adulation, if so he should remind himself daily that failure does not bring anything other than flames in the game.

Humanity is the thin veneer that remains after you remove the baffled chimp.

Inspiration
#603 - 2012-07-21 15:06:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Inspiration
Lord Zim wrote:
That word, "communist", I don't think you know what it means.


Well it is not exactly the same, but the the tendency is there and that is what counts. This is not balancing, this is an attempt to set prices top-down. And that my friend, happens in communist systems as there is no method of valuing anything correctly as there is no free choice that evaluates what the price for an item should be.

Now, if they were to redistribute moon minerals for example, that would be another matter at all!

I am serious!

MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#604 - 2012-07-21 18:30:56 UTC
Inspiration wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
That word, "communist", I don't think you know what it means.


Well it is not exactly the same, but the the tendency is there and that is what counts. This is not balancing, this is an attempt to set prices top-down. And that my friend, happens in communist systems as there is no method of valuing anything correctly as there is no free choice that evaluates what the price for an item should be.

Now, if they were to redistribute moon minerals for example, that would be another matter at all!



fyp

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Egoz Acai
#605 - 2012-07-21 19:11:48 UTC
Inspiration wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
That word, "communist", I don't think you know what it means.


Well it is not exactly the same, but the the tendency is there and that is what counts. This is not balancing, this is an attempt to set prices top-down. And that my friend, happens in communist systems as there is no method of valuing anything correctly as there is no free choice that evaluates what the price for an item should be.

Now, if they were to redistribute moon minerals for example, that would be another matter at all!



It creates a release valve for hyperinflation, and the central-banks for any wise Western state do so as well.
Tulips anyone ?

Gunner
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#606 - 2012-07-21 19:51:16 UTC
LOL only 3 years too late, well done!
Zeruma
Tsukaga Industries
#607 - 2012-07-21 22:43:58 UTC
But what happens if i try and bring my brother back from the dead?
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#608 - 2012-07-21 22:54:30 UTC
Inspiration wrote:
Now, if they were to redistribute moon minerals for example, that would be another matter at all!


redistributing moon minerals is dumb when there's 180k moons in the game that can potentially be mined

if your idea of a balanced game is "the game rolls 1d20 for me every x months and i might get a personal tech moon in the process!" well it's not

npc alts have no opinions worth consideration

Hatsumi Kobayashi
Perkone
Caldari State
#609 - 2012-07-22 00:59:51 UTC
If I can offer CCP one piece of advice ITT, it's to take the time and listen to Akita T's opinion on this rebalancing.

No sig.

Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#610 - 2012-07-22 01:22:28 UTC
Akita T wrote:
Quick calc, "initial draft" tech alchemy is 10 Plat Tech = 100 cobalt + (100-95=)5 platinum + 1h of fuel for 3000+tf (which would be 20 fuel blocs or around 350k ISK).
So that's 1 PT = 10 cobalt + 0.5 plat + 35k ISK for fuel (the old alchemy 20:1 tech:cobalt replacement ratios)
Plat Tech used to sell for around 92k ISK lately, but it will almost certainly be falling.

Cobalt used to sell for ~500 but it recently spiked to over 3k, Platinum was around 2.5k and now it's around 4.5k, so that's 30k from Cobalt, barely over 2k from Platinum, 35k from fuel, making PT cost 67k to manufacture.
Add in at least 100m ISK/mo per reactor profit to make it start worth bothering with (7,200 units/reactor/month), so another 14k minimum, and you're looking at a 81k price for PT down from the previous 92k trade level.
Not a lot less, but still noteworthy.
That would cap tech price at around 145k-155k or thereabouts. Assuming Cobalt/Platinum or fuel block prices would not spike, and assuming people would be willing to accept a mere 100m per month from a reactor. So, maybe, tech price won't be going down much in the long run, but it won't go up more as it could have if there was no tech alchemy at all.
Depends how long they'd keep the reactions at that level.

And of course, they could bring the replacement ratios further down from 10 Cobalt and 20 fuel blocks more in line with other current alchemy numbers (2.5 Cobalt and 5 fuel blocs and just 3.5k minimum added expected minimum profit, so the new 5:1 alchemy), which would make it much cheaper (assuming cobalt and platinum would NOT spike even further in price, to a mere 22k per unit of PT). That would cap tech to a negligible price compared to the current level, probably below 40k per unit.
Of course, in that case, I expect both cobalt and platinum to go up more, and I also expect people to want more monthly profit from reactors than a measly 100m/mo/reactor, so before any further changes, we might as well still see tech over 60k per unit (or even a bit higher) even with the VASTLY buffed alchemy reactions.
Depends how much it takes them to implement OTHER changes on top of just alchemy.

This is kind of the point and the alchemy addresses the issue.

It's not designed to nerf the tech, only to give players the ability to capitalize on it and set a soft limit on how high it should go. If the people who mine cobalt wish to drive the value of tech down, they may but that the cost of effort.

This proposal serves it's purpose, but it doesn't fix the bottleneck and until that's addressed, tech will still remain a high end resource in EVE.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement

Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#611 - 2012-07-22 03:30:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Abdiel Kavash
Inspiration wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
That word, "communist", I don't think you know what it means.


Well it is not exactly the same, but the the tendency is there and that is what counts. This is not balancing, this is an attempt to set prices top-down. And that my friend, happens in communist systems as there is no method of valuing anything correctly as there is no free choice that evaluates what the price for an item should be.


No, that would be if CCP decided to set a fixed NPC buy/sell price on moongoo to put hard limits on it. Even with alchemy you are still free to try to buy/sell tech at any price you want.

Alchemy is more comparable to R&D in the real world - expensive materials are being replaced by cheaper and more efficient ones, in order to be able to produce the same stuff cheaper and thus stay competitive. Which is one of the foundations of capitalism.
Kaycerra
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#612 - 2012-07-22 07:44:46 UTC
Gunner wrote:
LOL only 3 years too late, well done!


It's not done yet. We all know alchemy is going to have prettymuch zero impact on the value of tech. For a temporary bandaid solution, its like putting a bleeding man into a pool of water, and saying "Once you are bleeding fast enough, the water pressure of the pool will equalize blood loss, and you won't bleed 'any faster' "

Also, a little upset to see Fozzy having the nerve to ask for likes, in the face of the fact that there is no dislike button, for all of us to express our dislike for the way the situation is being handled, or the extremely vague nature of the blog, or the fact that alchemy isn't going to do anything.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#613 - 2012-07-22 08:11:53 UTC
Kaycerra wrote:
[quote=Gunner]

Also, a little upset to see Fozzy having the nerve to ask for likes, in the face of the fact that there is no dislike button, for all of us to express our dislike for the way the situation is being handled, or the extremely vague nature of the blog, or the fact that alchemy isn't going to do anything.


Yea i guess it was better when they weren't doing anything at all right?

I mean damn him for even bothering to put out the effort and try and do anything at all right?

He probably should have just sat around doing nothing about it like it has been for the last 3 years until he had a detailed explanation written just for you that had bullet points and exact time tables for completion.


Maybe they'll put a dislike button in and people can hammer it enough times to stop people like you from ever posting again.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.

olan2005
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#614 - 2012-07-22 09:38:22 UTC
they should just bring in planetary ring mining and spawn the tech randomly in null sec all over that would make industry a neccesaty in null sec and break any1 allainces attempt at a mnoply. also goons were given heads up it seems as they conquered the area with the most cobalt moons so nothing has changed
Kamuria
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#615 - 2012-07-22 11:28:54 UTC
So basically you'll introduce another form of boring micro management PI thingy to moon minerals. Seems very boring to me.

You could have taken a solution closer to reality. Moons and planets are formed from asteroids... the so call moon minerals should come from asteroids and you should find it on moons and planets...
CeNedra
Blood Angels Company
#616 - 2012-07-22 11:51:26 UTC
Hi,

sorry for my english.

Why not give wh, the possibility of undermining the moons?
The wh are locked to everywhere, we can not put the station, we can not produce supercaps, we can not claim in the Exploration and is limited
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#617 - 2012-07-22 12:01:15 UTC
CeNedra wrote:
Hi,

sorry for my english.

Why not give wh, the possibility of undermining the moons?
The wh are locked to everywhere, we can not put the station, we can not produce supercaps, we can not claim in the Exploration and is limited


Hey guys don't balance tech just give it to me instead of those other dudes thanks.
MR DEMOS
DKL Fringe Division
3 Jackals
#618 - 2012-07-22 13:20:34 UTC
As Normal To little to late CCP hang on let me get the data......... FACEPALM ............ I find this very similar to a man sitting inside a burning house and asking if someone smells smoke..... Brilliant ......

Staples made it easy why can't CCP!!!!
Inspiration
#619 - 2012-07-22 16:18:25 UTC
Richard Desturned wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
Now, if they were to redistribute moon minerals for example, that would be another matter at all!


redistributing moon minerals is dumb when there's 180k moons in the game that can potentially be mined

if your idea of a balanced game is "the game rolls 1d20 for me every x months and i might get a personal tech moon in the process!" well it's not


How does that differ from changing the materials needed in T2 production, like they did before?
Which costed me around 25b in reaction input stock i had at the time?
If that was is legitimate change, then redistributing moon minerals once so that not all stuff sits in one particular place, certainly is too!

I am serious!

Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#620 - 2012-07-22 16:20:12 UTC
Inspiration wrote:
Richard Desturned wrote:
Inspiration wrote:
Now, if they were to redistribute moon minerals for example, that would be another matter at all!


redistributing moon minerals is dumb when there's 180k moons in the game that can potentially be mined

if your idea of a balanced game is "the game rolls 1d20 for me every x months and i might get a personal tech moon in the process!" well it's not


How does that differ from changing the materials needed in T2 production, like they did before?
Which costed me around 25b in reaction input stock i had at the time?
If that was is legitimate change, then redistributing moon minerals once so that not all stuff sits in one particular place, certainly is too!


How do you not understand how much moon scanning sucks?

What language does that need to be put in for you?

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.