These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Science & Industry

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Details and update on the Ice Anomaly design

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#281 - 2013-05-19 20:56:17 UTC
Logit Probit wrote:
Danni stark wrote:
Logit Probit wrote:
Okay now that's like comparing apples and oranges...it doesn't work.

I tell you what...how about all the havens and sanctums that currently have a 5 min spawn timer, goes to a 4 hour respawn time....now lets not stop there...lets add in all ratting anoms.


pot, meet kettle.


Hi kettle!

In all seriousness tho, the orginial argument wasn't valid, as 10/10 are spawned from Ratting Anoms, which are respawned after completion and allow a chance to spawn a 10/10. The ratting anoms, which are pretty much instant repop after completion, allow for multiple chances to get the 10/10. Now if all anoms were set to the 4 hour respawn, then the comparsion would be valid.

However if that is the only troll I get off my rant....well I consider it time well spent.

wrong

this is so mind-numbingly wrong its really difficult to pick a starting point to explain why it's so dumb because picking any one piece implies the rest is not as dumb as that one piece which is simply not true

but lets start with that 10/10s are exploration complexes, found primarily through exploration and found through ratting anoms only rarely, mostly as a replacement for officer spawns and the like. even then, they're chance based but the chance is so tiny you would never try to get a 10/10 through anoming, it is a bonus for people who are anoming much like an officer or faction spawn to shake up the dreariness
Danni stark
#282 - 2013-05-19 20:58:37 UTC
Logit Probit wrote:
Danni stark wrote:
Logit Probit wrote:
Okay now that's like comparing apples and oranges...it doesn't work.

I tell you what...how about all the havens and sanctums that currently have a 5 min spawn timer, goes to a 4 hour respawn time....now lets not stop there...lets add in all ratting anoms.


pot, meet kettle.


Hi kettle!

In all seriousness tho, the orginial argument wasn't valid, as 10/10 are spawned from Ratting Anoms, which are respawned after completion and allow a chance to spawn a 10/10. The ratting anoms, which are pretty much instant repop after completion, allow for multiple chances to get the 10/10. Now if all anoms were set to the 4 hour respawn, then the comparsion would be valid.

However if that is the only troll I get off my rant....well I consider it time well spent.


your argument was just as invalid. all rating anoms being moved to 4hr respawns is like ALL mining sites being moved to 4hr respawns which is obviously not true.

i'm not trolling, i'm just pointing out you countered apples vs oranges, with apples vs oranges which was just as pointless and terrible.

Ice Mining Skill Plan.
Logit Probit
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#283 - 2013-05-19 22:28:08 UTC
Danni and Evilweasel....

Putting the comparing of game mechanics aside....answer me these questions....

1. Do you believe that installing a limiting game mechanic into the Universe that will exclude a person's ability to participate in that activity based solely on the time that they enter the game is a good idea? If so, why?

2. Do you think that installing this limited game mechanic that decreases game content will make that content more enriching to those that do have the ability to participate in it?

I can honestly answer no to the first question, because I think that game content shouldn't be based off what time you log into the game. The second question while I would like to say yes, I'm still not buying into it, because its going too far without really adding anything to it.

The changes are being made to stop afk ice botting and ISboxer using 50+ accts, increase the value of ice, and to move more ice miners to null and low sec.

They are successful in the first two, just by turning the belts into anom. However the third reason I am totally against. Call me carebear....whatever...I don't have the time, desire, nor the drive to move back into null. I think we all agree that mining in low sec is just not worth it, and these changes are making low sec ice mining even worse off.

AFK ice mining will be gone, since the belts will despawn once they have been mined out. Gone are the unlimited ice blocks that botters could set a program to warp to, mine for a specific time frame, redock, clear the ore hold, repeat. The limiting of the amount of ice in the blocks available in these belts also add into this because the whole belt can be mined out in 30 mins. ISBoxers will be effected by the limited amount of ice in each roid. You not going to need to undock 70 mackinaws to mine a roid with 25-50 cycles in it.

These factors will massively effect the first goal. The second goal is accomplished due to the first change when the amount of ice mined per day is decreased, increasing the value of isotopes/HW/LO.

So if those both goals are going to be successful.....why go any further?

I'm not saying that all these changes are a bad thing, what I am saying is that the changes go too far.....with the addition of the 4 hour respawn timer being the eyesore out of the changes. Keep the rest yes, but massively reduce or completely do away with the timer.
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#284 - 2013-05-19 22:43:41 UTC
Logit Probit wrote:

1. Do you believe that installing a limiting game mechanic into the Universe that will exclude a person's ability to participate in that activity based solely on the time that they enter the game is a good idea? If so, why?

it doesn't
Logit Probit wrote:

2. Do you think that installing this limited game mechanic that decreases game content will make that content more enriching to those that do have the ability to participate in it?

see above
Logit Probit wrote:

The changes are being made to stop afk ice botting and ISboxer using 50+ accts,

nope, this is not why the changes are in and that's a dumb
Logit Probit wrote:

increase the value of ice, and to move more ice miners to null and low sec.

1 not really, it is intended to cause more mining in null which will naturally do this , 2 no: it is generally assumed that the worthless highsec-only carebears won't move. it is to increase the value of mining in null so that more nullsec people mine in nullsec

basically you have no idea what you're talking about
Logit Probit
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#285 - 2013-05-19 23:48:19 UTC
EvilweaselSA wrote:
it doesn't


How does it not? It removes game content from the game for 4 hours....

EvilweaselSA wrote:
see above


see above

EvilweaselSA wrote:
nope, this is not why the changes are in and that's a dumb


Really? Dumb to find a way to combat botters without having to track down and ban accounts? I think it was fairly smart of them to change the game content to a system that doesn't allow for a program to be used like this....rather then wasting time by banning accts only to have them reopen a new acct and start the cycle all over again...

EvilweaselSA wrote:
1 not really, it is intended to cause more mining in null which will naturally do this


I think it will increase the value of the ice prices in high sec....your seeming to lean this way as well. Will it cause more mining in null sec? I think so yes, great another bonus to the change, however its not the only intent.

EvilweaselSA wrote:
2 no: it is generally assumed that the worthless highsec-only carebears won't move. it is to increase the value of mining in null so that more nullsec people mine in nullsec


Oh come off the worthless high-sec carebear soapbox....what effects them will in turn effect you, that's why its called a sandbox. Again the value increase is a good thing, but the prices will increase in both areas...again we are in agreement.

The last part about not knowing what I am talking about....

Absolutely! So since we seem to agree on so many things....here's my number...call me maybe? /sarcasm off...I think I have proven from above that I do know a bit about what I am talking about. But not here to get into chest-beating competition so going to ignore this part...
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#286 - 2013-05-20 00:52:01 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselSA
Logit Probit wrote:

How does it not? It removes game content from the game for 4 hours....


content is recurring and will be around all day, just not in the same spot at all times so you have to either put work into finding sites currently around, or figure out when a spawn will be returning and get ready for it

your ability to mine ice is not dictated by when you log in. it is dictated by when and where you log in, the actions of the people in EVE that day, and the individual level of effort or ingenuity you will be putting in to get some ice

since the supply is being artificially restricted to below what highsec miners wish to supply (a good and desired outcome) any solution will result in some highsec miners being shut out and whining. currently, it is those who wish to expend zero effort and intelligence.

Logit Probit wrote:

Really? Dumb to find a way to combat botters without having to track down and ban accounts? I think it was fairly smart of them to change the game content to a system that doesn't allow for a program to be used like this....rather then wasting time by banning accts only to have them reopen a new acct and start the cycle all over again...


it doesn't stop botting, it wasn't intended to stop botting, and ccp is aware it is a dumb to design game features around being hard to bot instead of being fun and interesting, and so no part of the discussion about if it's a good feature or not should revolve around that

Logit Probit wrote:

Oh come off the worthless high-sec carebear soapbox....what effects them will in turn effect you, that's why its called a sandbox. Again the value increase is a good thing, but the prices will increase in both areas...again we are in agreement.

this appears to be word salad, mixed in with the standard highsec "sandbox means whatever I chose to define it as today" line and does not appear to have a point besides stating a known truism, that ice prices will increase
Lyza Kimbo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#287 - 2013-05-20 03:43:16 UTC
Aryth wrote:
Jita Bloodtear wrote:
EvilweaselSA wrote:
To the extent highsec production is not 80% of all ice mining and we need higher numbers of null miners, that weakens your argument: null mining produces much greater volumes of LO for each isotope mined. The more miners are forced into null, the less likely it is that LO becomes undersupplied and the more likely it is that it actually becomes oversupplied.

If you're arguing null mining just won't pick up as much as desired, then it's odd to focus on LO: it's going to be a general ice problem.

This is true. When I get home I wanted to take a look at how many nullsec miners will be expected to have to fill the gap to compensate for the lack of isotopes. And then to examine how much ozone that will produce compared to the current estimated supply. But you're right that the more nullsec miners there are, the better the ozone supply will be. So moving this direction will likely hurt my case for an ozone shortage, assuming nullsec adequately compensates with an increase in miners. When I do the post I'll explain every assumption and you can help me refine the analysis.


Let me save you the effort. We had already run those numbers weeks ago. Null can easily supply it.


Mmmmm, in the interests of self-protection, I think I'd decline to take your word for something like this, given who and what you are. Look at your own sig, and then ask yourself why anyone would believe you about anything.
El 1974
Green Visstick High
#288 - 2013-05-20 06:59:03 UTC  |  Edited by: El 1974
EvilweaselSA wrote:
1 not really, it is intended to cause more mining in null which will naturally do this , 2 no: it is generally assumed that the worthless highsec-only carebears won't move. it is to increase the value of mining in null so that more nullsec people mine in nullsec

I agree for the most part, but there is more to it than this. If CCP just wanted to make mining in nullsec more rewarding, they could have picked other solutions. I mentioned fixing the scarcity of strontium as a possible alternative earlier, but there is a problem with that as well: too much strontium already stocked up in hangars all around Eve. But there's loads of other things they could have done. They could have done the same as they did with the high-end ores: make the improved racial ice contain double the amount of isotopes the normal variant has. That would have much less impact on the hisec community.
The problem with the current solution is that it forces CCP to constantly monitor the market and tweak the system. Isotope consumption may change over time to the point where their nerf is either ineffective or too effective. We don't know how miners will respond to the current change exactly, but I wouldn't be surprised if CCP was forced to tweak the system within weeks of Odyssey's release.
CCP already decided to change the contents of Krystallos after nullbears complained about there being too little LO and having to mine worhtless ice ores to cycle the anomalies in nullsec.
Danni stark
#289 - 2013-05-20 08:53:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Danni stark
Logit Probit wrote:
1. Do you believe that installing a limiting game mechanic into the Universe that will exclude a person's ability to participate in that activity based solely on the time that they enter the game is a good idea? If so, why?
works fine with normal asteroids, and this new system is more friendly than the current way asteroids work and regular asteroids seem to work perfectly fine. in short, people are just crying because they might have to put some effort in and totally ignore the fact that ice mining is now the most lucrative activity you can do sitting in a mining ship sans venture.

Logit Probit wrote:
2. Do you think that installing this limited game mechanic that decreases game content will make that content more enriching to those that do have the ability to participate in it?
it's not a limited game mechanic, and yes ice prices will go up, it already has.

Logit Probit wrote:
The changes are being made to stop afk ice botting
wrong. this entire post reads like an en24 article. sensationalised crap based on incorrect assumptions.

Logit Probit wrote:
AFK ice mining will be gone,
no it won't, as i pointed out several posts ago.

also, your name gives me nightmares. statistical link functions still give me sleepless nights even after i've graduated.

Ice Mining Skill Plan.
Sir Marksalot
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#290 - 2013-05-20 19:32:43 UTC
But guys this means I might actually have to move around to make vastly superior money compared to I used to make WHERE DID MY CONTENT GO CCP??
Logit Probit
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#291 - 2013-05-21 04:06:18 UTC
above post is great...lol.

Not even worth my time trying to argue with these 2. Any opinion that differs from their own is met with cries of "your dumb, you don't have any clue what your talking about, or your opinions don't matter"....

I am against a mechanic that creates a limited game play environment....call me crazy, I just don't like to see a game that I enjoy playing going into that type of an area like several other MMORPGs that I have played in the past.

Enjoy the alarm clocking game....

CCP wants to install a limiting game mechanic like this, go for it, just like SOE...they have done so well with every other game they have gotten their hands into.
Katz Meow
Mindless Drones
#292 - 2013-05-21 09:08:59 UTC
I really wish that you plan to decress the time it takes to compress ice with the rorqual, because laying there for 4 hours extra just to compress isn't really a 'fun' game mechanic
Danni stark
#293 - 2013-05-21 09:10:36 UTC
Logit Probit wrote:
Enjoy the alarm clocking game....


this assumes 2 things that are both terribly wrong.

1) there is only one ice belt, and you know when it will respawn
2) you have to mine the ice.

and these terrible and incorrect assumptions are why nobody is taking you seriously.

Ice Mining Skill Plan.
Loney
CyberDyne R-D
Artificial Intellagence
#294 - 2013-05-21 09:40:28 UTC
Katz Meow wrote:
I really wish that you plan to decress the time it takes to compress ice with the rorqual, because laying there for 4 hours extra just to compress isn't really a 'fun' game mechanic


https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=229506&find=unread

+ Monthly Meetup - DC / VA / MD Area - Pass The Word +

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=508844
Logit Probit
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#295 - 2013-05-21 12:11:05 UTC
Danni stark wrote:
Logit Probit wrote:
Enjoy the alarm clocking game....


this assumes 2 things that are both terribly wrong.

1) there is only one ice belt, and you know when it will respawn
2) you have to mine the ice.

and these terrible and incorrect assumptions are why nobody is taking you seriously.


Well I stated what I think about the change, wrong or right. Time will tell. Like with Evilweasel thoughts, I agree on a lot of the things he is saying, but I think its just too much, and will end up with a lot of patches to fix it, and cause some hard feelings for those that can possibly be shut out from this activity.

Its like Ice Mining is this huge marble block that CCP wants to make more valuable by turning into a beautiful statue. However, rather then coming in with a hammer and chisel and slowly revamp the block into a statue, they are coming in with a sledgehammer and if they if they take off too much....well they can patch it back up with glue.

Both end results are the same....just one way seem to make more sense to me then the other.
Lyza Kimbo
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#296 - 2013-05-21 15:26:03 UTC
Logit Probit wrote:
Danni stark wrote:
Logit Probit wrote:
Enjoy the alarm clocking game....


this assumes 2 things that are both terribly wrong.

1) there is only one ice belt, and you know when it will respawn
2) you have to mine the ice.

and these terrible and incorrect assumptions are why nobody is taking you seriously.


Well I stated what I think about the change, wrong or right. Time will tell. Like with Evilweasel thoughts, I agree on a lot of the things he is saying, but I think its just too much, and will end up with a lot of patches to fix it, and cause some hard feelings for those that can possibly be shut out from this activity.

Its like Ice Mining is this huge marble block that CCP wants to make more valuable by turning into a beautiful statue. However, rather then coming in with a hammer and chisel and slowly revamp the block into a statue, they are coming in with a sledgehammer and if they if they take off too much....well they can patch it back up with glue.

Both end results are the same....just one way seem to make more sense to me then the other.


Logit, you and Jita Bloodtear are the ones making sense. I have followed this whole wretched 15-page DQ-fest for the last 3 days, and you two are the ones who make sense to me.

As far as the position of the goons, let's play a little game of Cui Bono? (meaning, who profits?)

1) We are dealing with the self-identified head of goons' economic warfare unit.

2) Goons are well-known for using psy-ops in support of their market manipulations.

3) If we postulate that goons have taken a long position on Ice and Ice Products, then obviously their investment will only show profits if the price of ice and ice products do in fact rise substantially.

4) Given the law of supply and demand, the more other people hoard Ice and Ice Products, the less the prices will rise, and the less profit goons will make.

5) Therefore, in this scenario, it is absolutely in the goons' best interest to convince everyone that Ice prices are not going to go up. In fact, the success or failure of their entire project could hinge on how successfully they convince others not to take a long position on Ice.
EvilweaselSA
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#297 - 2013-05-21 18:01:10 UTC  |  Edited by: EvilweaselSA
oh god i'm too tired i completely misread the post
Sir Marksalot
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#298 - 2013-05-21 21:47:23 UTC
Lyza Kimbo wrote:
Logit Probit wrote:
Danni stark wrote:
Logit Probit wrote:
Enjoy the alarm clocking game....


this assumes 2 things that are both terribly wrong.

1) there is only one ice belt, and you know when it will respawn
2) you have to mine the ice.

and these terrible and incorrect assumptions are why nobody is taking you seriously.


Well I stated what I think about the change, wrong or right. Time will tell. Like with Evilweasel thoughts, I agree on a lot of the things he is saying, but I think its just too much, and will end up with a lot of patches to fix it, and cause some hard feelings for those that can possibly be shut out from this activity.

Its like Ice Mining is this huge marble block that CCP wants to make more valuable by turning into a beautiful statue. However, rather then coming in with a hammer and chisel and slowly revamp the block into a statue, they are coming in with a sledgehammer and if they if they take off too much....well they can patch it back up with glue.

Both end results are the same....just one way seem to make more sense to me then the other.


Logit, you and Jita Bloodtear are the ones making sense. I have followed this whole wretched 15-page DQ-fest for the last 3 days, and you two are the ones who make sense to me.

As far as the position of the goons, let's play a little game of Cui Bono? (meaning, who profits?)

1) We are dealing with the self-identified head of goons' economic warfare unit.

2) Goons are well-known for using psy-ops in support of their market manipulations.

3) If we postulate that goons have taken a long position on Ice and Ice Products, then obviously their investment will only show profits if the price of ice and ice products do in fact rise substantially.

4) Given the law of supply and demand, the more other people hoard Ice and Ice Products, the less the prices will rise, and the less profit goons will make.

5) Therefore, in this scenario, it is absolutely in the goons' best interest to convince everyone that Ice prices are not going to go up. In fact, the success or failure of their entire project could hinge on how successfully they convince others not to take a long position on Ice.



The solution to there being a very large stockpile of a potentially more valuable resource is to just hold onto it for slightly longer.




fakeedit: Sorry to kill the whole "goons are ruining everything look at me use latin" thing you had going on there.
Sir Marksalot
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#299 - 2013-05-21 21:48:00 UTC
everyone with enough money to be relevant already bought into ice when it was cheap anyways
Robert Saint
The Grumpy Dogs
#300 - 2013-05-22 00:29:41 UTC
So to bring the Fun back in to this topic...... I was looking at historic prices on ICE and about a year ago (Blue ICE) went to 400k a block.....

So based on the proposed changes that ICE is getting, I would enjoy opinions on where you all think the price is going (although I know it's hard to judge until the change hits). Yet, some of you old player folks have some similar experience with these types of variables.

From my simple logic understanding that if something is much more difficult to do it will be a more expensive item. Seeing if I have a choice to jump in an ORE belt and make say 10m an hour with my Hulk, or I have to fight the ICE belt spawn for a similar profit or less (as it has been), I wouldn't touch ICE based on Profit ISK/Hour ratios.

So would you speculate a 400k block price again or will you keep your secrets?