These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Test Server Feedback

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Drug Booster Balancing issues

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#161 - 2011-11-23 15:35:25 UTC
Dr Halberstam wrote:


I know. But there is a difference between secure and reliable sources, and insecure and less reliable sources. In a high demand market the original constellations will have a huge edge in profitability, due to certain respawns and so on. I agree, the difference is not entirely black and white, but it is still significant.


If I remember right, only one site is static to the constellation. It is a fairly large cloud and hard to probe down but I guess you do have a point; simply having a POS in each system would make that constellation have a huge advantage over the rest of the region.

As for everything else you said, I agree with your prediction. And I think that will be a stupid world to live in.

Standard pills will be the new faction ammo for null sec.
Cailais
The Red Pill Taker Group
#162 - 2011-11-23 15:36:01 UTC
Emperor Salazar wrote:


All this boils down to: a lot needs to be done with boosters. Simply removing side effects is not the answer. Boosters are not one of the "thousand little papercuts" as that dev referred to them.


Id agree with that as a broad statement - when I heard boosters were under review I was expecting something much more than just removing the "disadvantages". If I were to bullet the key elements Id like to see changed they would be:

Addiction mechanics (in some form, delayed penalties, something that means you need to keep up the habit of taking them - although their is some merit to the idea that players would become accustomed to having the bonuses)

Revamped smuggling mechanics (player orientated not NPC driven)

C.
Dr Halberstam
Nine Eyes Medical
#163 - 2011-11-23 15:38:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Dr Halberstam
Simc0m wrote:
The alliance that holds sov in the gas region has NO INFLUENCE on the price of the gas because individual people harvest it and will do as they choose with it.


Ok, I havent thought of it like that. Still, if I were an alliance sitting on a gold mine such as that, I would be sure to monopolize it somehow - even if that meant one or more plucky individuals doing it on their own. The bottlenecks are the bpcs, and its easy enough for several dedicated ppl to put a chokehold on that - and why wouldnt they, after all, as it would mean more money to them.

Might be I expect too much of the sov holders - let it be so
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#164 - 2011-11-23 15:43:16 UTC
Dr Halberstam wrote:
Simc0m wrote:
The alliance that holds sov in the gas region has NO INFLUENCE on the price of the gas because individual people harvest it and will do as they choose with it.


Ok, I havent thought of it like that. Still, if I were an alliance sitting on a gold mine such as that, I would be sure to monopolize it somehow - even if that meant one more plucky individual doing it on his own. The bottlenecks are the bpcs, and its easy enough for several dedicated ppl to put a chokehold on that - and why wouldnt they, after all, as it would mean more money to them.

Might be I expect too much of the sov holders - let it be so


The bottlenecks are the bpcs for strong only, and improved to some degree.

After about a week of exploring (not sure how many sites), I have something like enough bpc runs for a few thousand standard pills. I'll get numbers when I get home. But really, just look at contracts for these bpcs and you'll see based on their price that they are not a bottleneck (at least not for standard).

And yeah, I highly doubt any alliance will collectively monopolize boosters unless demand really gets out of control. More likely we will simply get more industrialists that invest in the production/sale of boosters.
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#165 - 2011-11-23 15:44:18 UTC
Cailais wrote:
Emperor Salazar wrote:


All this boils down to: a lot needs to be done with boosters. Simply removing side effects is not the answer. Boosters are not one of the "thousand little papercuts" as that dev referred to them.


Id agree with that as a broad statement - when I heard boosters were under review I was expecting something much more than just removing the "disadvantages". If I were to bullet the key elements Id like to see changed they would be:

Addiction mechanics (in some form, delayed penalties, something that means you need to keep up the habit of taking them - although their is some merit to the idea that players would become accustomed to having the bonuses)

Revamped smuggling mechanics (player orientated not NPC driven)

C.



I want this. I want all of this. I want a full rework. I want some actual thought put into this by the devs. I am willing to wait for this, as I'm sure others are as well.

Right now, we have not received this. We are receiving an instant gratification change akin to WoW. That is simply terrible.
Dr Halberstam
Nine Eyes Medical
#166 - 2011-11-23 15:58:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Dr Halberstam
Emperor Salazar wrote:
After about a week of exploring (not sure how many sites), I have something like enough bpc runs for a few thousand standard pills. I'll get numbers when I get home. But really, just look at contracts for these bpcs and you'll see based on their price that they are not a bottleneck (at least not for standard).

And yeah, I highly doubt any alliance will collectively monopolize boosters unless demand really gets out of control. More likely we will simply get more industrialists that invest in the production/sale of boosters.


I have this occupational hazard that I tend to assume everyone else is cooking only strongs too like me - so yeah, you are right, I should have specified.

At this point, after digesting what I read here (lot of eye-opening moments, and I have nine) I now think that if this will go through, we will have new faction ammo in standards, and super-scarce improveds and strongs. I do not think this is a good thing.

So to jump on the summarization bandwagon (i got thoroughly ninjaed), We need:

  • proper deterrents, be it side-effects or addiction or w/e to avoid the faction ammo scenario and leave room for intellect

  • a free market where improved and strong are also available, and healthy competition can arise from ample and geographically more diverse bpc and gas supply.

  • a way to reliably and easily move product, both in the gas stage (smaller /compressible gases) and the final stage (some clarification or rework on customs)
CCP Ytterbium
C C P
C C P Alliance
#167 - 2011-11-23 16:35:22 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Ytterbium
We hear you.

This has been a long day in the office, but after chasing various people here and discussing this internally based on your feedback, we have decided not to change boosters for Crucible.


Why so?


  • Forced consumption to stay competitive: as you stated, previous approach was flawed as it was turning boosters into mandatory combat consumables (nicknamed here the "potion" problem). Barrier of entry and competition in PvP is quite high already, between rigs, hardwiring implants, faction ammunition and gang links, adding yet another layer on top should be avoided. While side-effects do need to be looked into, blanket removing them may not be the best option as it removes risk value from it.

  • Does not make them more available : removal of side-effects does not address the real bottleneck here, which, as you pointed out, is tied with the production. For boosters to be more used, we need to look into their convoluted reaction and manufacturing process. Treating their possible illegality status is another topic altogether, and one that needs to be done carefully, as we would like to use it for future smuggling and contraband features.

  • Boosters need more thought and changes as a whole: tied with points above, removing side-effects but not looking into their production dramatically affect their prices, which is in direct opposition of the intended goals. In general, we acknowledge boosters need more work to be made viable, and the attempt to push this for Crucible was too premature.



We do know that is a total reversal from the previous post, but we honestly recognize previous approach was far from ideal and should not have been planned for Crucible release, at least not without proper feedback first. Simply put, we do not want to release something that has not been given enough time and that is almost unanimously considered as degrading game play.

Due for these reasons, we will freeze that booster change for now, go back to the drawing board and keep you in the loop when we iterate on this to make sure we are not repeating the same mistakes again.


Many thanks for your time and feedback on this matter.


Note: we also do know this may ruin some market speculation, but as we stated before, Singularity changes are there to be publicly tested and should not be considered as final until reaching Tranquility (stuff may even change when getting there). As such, we urge you to understand that betting on such changes to actually happen is a risk that is accepted when ISK is committed into it.
Emperor Salazar
Remote Soviet Industries
Insidious Empire
#168 - 2011-11-23 16:39:20 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
We hear you.

This has been a long day in the office, but after chasing various people here and discussing this internally based on your feedback, we have decided not to change boosters for Crucible.




Thank you.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#169 - 2011-11-23 16:44:56 UTC
Thanks for listening to feedback here CCPers!

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Dr Halberstam
Nine Eyes Medical
#170 - 2011-11-23 16:46:03 UTC
Forum ate my previous thank you, but still: Thank you for both the decision, and for preserving our newfound hope in CCP
Madner Kami
Durendal Ascending
#171 - 2011-11-23 16:50:02 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:
*Good Stuff*


Thank you for postponing the changes. We're definitly looking forward to the next iteration of the general idea, though! Keep up the good work and interaction with your dreaded customers Blink
pmchem
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#172 - 2011-11-23 17:01:39 UTC
CCP Ytterbium wrote:


[list]
  • Forced consumption to stay competitive: as you stated, previous approach was flawed as it was turning boosters into mandatory combat consumables (nicknamed here the "potion" problem). Barrier of entry and competition in PvP is quite high already, between rigs, hardwiring implants, faction ammunition and gang links, adding yet another layer on top should be avoided. While side-effects do need to be looked into, blanket removing them may not be the best option as it removes risk value from it.

  • Does not make them more available : removal of side-effects does not address the real bottleneck here, which, as you pointed out, is tied with the production. For boosters to be more used, we need to look into their convoluted reaction and manufacturing process. Treating their possible illegality status is another topic altogether, and one that needs to be done carefully, as we would like to use it for future smuggling and contraband features.

    • Due for these reasons, we will freeze that booster change for now, go back to the drawing board and keep you in the loop when we iterate on this to make sure we are not repeating the same mistakes again.


    Supply and demand.

    Right now if you observe nullsec, the ladar gas sites are ignored 99% of the time by explorers/probers. This is because it's not worth mining the gas and then making boosters: too much effort for too little profit.

    If you actually made a change which encouraged usage of more boosters, increasing demand, then maybe people would run the ladar sites. Supply would increase. Granted, it'd still be nice to be able to market/move everything related to them through Jita (an easy central market also increases demand) -- but your first two reasons for not going through with booster changes are essentially contradictory.

    https://twitter.com/pmchem/ || http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/community-spotlight-garpa/ || Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
    Caulk H0lster
    Kazakh Ministry of Wealth Redistribution
    #173 - 2011-11-23 17:06:16 UTC
    Glad to see this put back on the drawing board. I also can't complain about making over 6b off speculators buying my ridiculously priced drugs.
    Neo Agricola
    Gallente Federation
    #174 - 2011-11-23 17:09:01 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    We hear you.

    ....


    See, nobody is screaming at you, because you didn't put that in this release.

    You made the right decision: We can't make it right, we have to pospone it.
    And I think that is the best think CCP can do. Talk to your customer and make things right the first time.

    Thank you very much for that!

    DISSONANCE is recruiting Members: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=706442#post706442 Black-Mark Alliance Recruitment: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=6710
    Zarnak Wulf
    Task Force 641
    Empyrean Edict
    #175 - 2011-11-23 17:09:25 UTC
    I understand the reasons behind not revamping boosters for Crucible. I just hope they are still on the short list of things to do and won't be tossed aside like the assault frigates were after the abortive attempt to fix them.
    Zendoren
    Aktaeon Industries
    #176 - 2011-11-23 17:10:06 UTC
    Emperor Salazar wrote:
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    We hear you.

    This has been a long day in the office, but after chasing various people here and discussing this internally based on your feedback, we have decided not to change boosters for Crucible.




    Thank you.


    QFT

    ❒ Single ❒ Taken ✔ Playing EVE Online

    CCP Guard > Where's the shoot button on this thing?

    CCP Space Cadet > What's this "offline guns" button do?
    Swearte Widfarend
    Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
    #177 - 2011-11-23 17:19:05 UTC
    CCP Ytterbium wrote:
    We hear you.

    This has been a long day in the office, but after chasing various people here and discussing this internally based on your feedback, we have decided not to change boosters for Crucible.



    Thank you.

    I really want boosters to be more awesome. Not doing anything right now is the right thing.

    Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth.
    Swearte Widfarend
    Ever Vigilant Fountain Defenders
    #178 - 2011-11-23 17:21:03 UTC
    Zarnak Wulf wrote:
    I understand the reasons behind not revamping boosters for Crucible. I just hope they are still on the short list of things to do and won't be tossed aside like the assault frigates were after the abortive attempt to fix them.



    Sorry, I was under the impression that AFs were set aside because it was more complex than they had time to do in the Crucible span. How is this different than what they have said about Boosters?

    Both are still on the table. I'd expect both to be addresses in a post-crucible patch or the next expansion. I firmly believe CCP is doing the right thing (with both).

    Democracy is only as good as the despot managing the voting booth.
    Didona Carpenito
    DUST Expeditionary Team
    Good Sax
    #179 - 2011-11-23 17:27:21 UTC
    Thank god no changes yet.

    Thank you to the well versed players who gave feedback!
    Zarnak Wulf
    Task Force 641
    Empyrean Edict
    #180 - 2011-11-23 17:28:35 UTC
    Swearte Widfarend wrote:
    Zarnak Wulf wrote:
    I understand the reasons behind not revamping boosters for Crucible. I just hope they are still on the short list of things to do and won't be tossed aside like the assault frigates were after the abortive attempt to fix them.



    Sorry, I was under the impression that AFs were set aside because it was more complex than they had time to do in the Crucible span. How is this different than what they have said about Boosters?

    Both are still on the table. I'd expect both to be addresses in a post-crucible patch or the next expansion. I firmly believe CCP is doing the right thing (with both).


    18 months(?) ago CCP put AF on SISSI with a 75% AB bonus. There was overwhelming feedback that it was OP. It never got implemented. Or revisited.