These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Dev blog: Building better Worlds

First post First post First post
Author
Zeera Tomb-Raider
Vega Farscape
#1301 - 2014-04-18 17:25:59 UTC
Althanaslas Imhari wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Althanaslas Imhari wrote:

That was not necessarily my point. My point was about the devaluation of the time spent on the grind. More towers and more labs means good things for the economy, I agree wholeheartedly. The way this change seems , to use an example, would be say a kickstarter where the original investors get the same product that is later given away for free. That's life, yes, but it is certainly going to upset the people who invested.

this is akin to how i paid like a thousand dollars for my computer three years ago and i could build a better one for $500 now

sure i spent $500 more but i got the computer three years ago


You do indeed have a point there. I withdraw my argument :)

hmm no his wrong.if not way dont we just remowe al rec from the game like sp LP,so the only thing you need is to gett monny for titan,O yes bay plex insta titan pilot sounds cool but not sure for howe longe,
Dramaticus
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1302 - 2014-04-18 17:29:30 UTC
Zeera Tomb-Raider wrote:
Althanaslas Imhari wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Althanaslas Imhari wrote:

That was not necessarily my point. My point was about the devaluation of the time spent on the grind. More towers and more labs means good things for the economy, I agree wholeheartedly. The way this change seems , to use an example, would be say a kickstarter where the original investors get the same product that is later given away for free. That's life, yes, but it is certainly going to upset the people who invested.

this is akin to how i paid like a thousand dollars for my computer three years ago and i could build a better one for $500 now

sure i spent $500 more but i got the computer three years ago


You do indeed have a point there. I withdraw my argument :)

hmm no his wrong.if not way dont we just remowe al rec from the game like sp LP,so the only thing you need is to gett monny for titan,O yes bay plex insta titan pilot sounds cool but not sure for howe longe,


Yes

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them

Cygnet Lythanea
World Welfare Works Association
#1303 - 2014-04-18 17:32:04 UTC
ergherhdfgh wrote:
In my previous list of activities that I feel this expansion will increase I left out high sec PoS bashing. As we all know throwing **** at towers in sub caps for hours on end is everyone's favorite activity.



Assuming it's not a large dickstar and you throw subcaps at it and do nothing for hours. The 'Tar Baby'' variant can be particularly aggravating that way: webbed, scramed, and unable to target a damn thing until eventually the three missile launchers get pointed at you. And, yes, larges can do that to a very large number of people at once.
Strot Harn
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1304 - 2014-04-18 17:39:16 UTC
Given the interest in rationalizing "Extra Materials", I wonder (or hope) if a similar rationalization will take place in the DB with the location of Tech I items needed to Manufacture Tech II items.

For instance, the usual location to find the underlying Tech I item is at "BLD Tech 1 Item". For instance, To make a vulture, query "BLD Tech 1 item" and the return is a Ferox.

However, if you do this for say a Veldspar Mining Crystal II, the return value is null, since for some reason "Veldspar Mining Crystal I" is stored as "BLD Component 2" (after Hypersynaptics Fibers, BLD component 1).

This make it difficult to write code to check for the underlying Tech I item.


Any hints if this will be addressed in the future?
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#1305 - 2014-04-18 19:02:12 UTC
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
Gospadin wrote:
What is your plan for T2 BPOs?

T2 BPO's should be removed from the game. It would make the game simpler and easier to balance - all T2 stuff will come from T2 BPCs and invention. No more endless and tedious arguments about how a change here or there to invention will screw over either the T2 BPC inventors or the T2 BPO owners.

And, I should think that the same argument that many players have against "reimbursement for the standings grind" should really apply here:

The owners of T2 BPO's have enjoyed the benefits and profit for years. They have been long since fully compensated for their investment.

However, to help reduce the sting, I don't mind suggesting to convert each T2 BPO to a number of limited run BPCs (say, 100 copies or so).

Do people suggesting T2 BPOs be removed even realize what they're suggesting? It's not some kind of a privilege system that only old players are allowed to use. They're an item like any other which has been traded and changed hands many times since they were seeded to the game. Quit your whining and be happy there is an invention system. T2 BPOs aren't all that what people make them out to be.

lol... this is always the same defence made by T2 BPO owners... over and over again. But, only a small handful of the T2 BPOs which were seeded by the lottery have ever been made publicly available for trade over the years; most of them remain a perk of the original owners and/or their friends.

And, if the T2 BPO's "aren't all that what people make them out to be", then why always the objection to removing them from the game?

Accept that you have already received full value for the use of T2 BPOs over the years, and accept that certain old features should be removed, when long past their time of productively contributing to the game. And, please stop your whining. You should be grateful that you have been able to milk this feature for so many years.
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#1306 - 2014-04-18 19:19:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Mara Pahrdi
Querns wrote:
ergherhdfgh wrote:
in the past three years or so I've seen a trend of the CCP devs moving away from customer focused development and towards a forced predetermined play style. I can't help but think that this has something to do with taking on venture capital.

With each expansion it seem I keep reading dev blogs that say something along the lines of " so we noticed that players are doing XY and Z but we want them to do AB and C so here is our plan to force them to play their game our way"

This is not at all what's going on. What you are describing is a situation in which the status quo is always preferable; that no change is possible because players have settled into niches that exploit and lubricate an antiquated system, at the expense of others.

The proposed changes open up industry significantly and reward clever industrialists who are willing to perform research and endure risk to drive down their costs. Congestion-based fees make the margins more malleable; more fluid. The status quo rewards a static grind for standings, which, upon completion, open up the whole oyster at once. The only other advantage is proximity to a market hub, and with dirt-cheap couriers, even this is not particularly an advantage.

Consider me -- I live primarily in nullsec. However, for certain items which I require, it makes sense to manufacture them myself. Despite the fact that the highsec arm of GBS LOGISTICS AND FIVES SUPPORT [MY 5S] is a skeleton crew at best, I am able to produce at the same level that a grizzled, ten-year veteran of industry can, because the advantages are so binary and so easy to reach. I just courier things to a station very close to Jita, produce, and courier them back.

Post-change, things are not so easy for me. Congestion charges will drive the margins of what I want to make to unfeasibility in the market hub in which I am based. I am then forced to make a choice -- do I search for my own highsec fiefdom? Do I attempt to produce what I need to produce back in the nullsec fields, where costs are different? Do I give up and let others who have carved out their own fiefdoms produce items for me, allowing them to profit from my need? These decisions are good for Eve, and the only tragedy here is that the proposed changes weren't invented sooner.

+1 for a good post.

Personally I'm not really delighted by the changes, because they will likely make industry require more time, than I can invest in the game in the predictable future. So Im probably going to just unsub my indy ccounts for the time being.

I got into industry last year, but looking at my time budget, I certainly wouldn't have, if these informations had been available a year from now. Still it was fun for the time it lasted.

Remove standings and insurance.

Aeonidis
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1307 - 2014-04-18 19:34:57 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:
Niko Lorenzio wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:
Gospadin wrote:
What is your plan for T2 BPOs?

T2 BPO's should be removed from the game. It would make the game simpler and easier to balance - all T2 stuff will come from T2 BPCs and invention. No more endless and tedious arguments about how a change here or there to invention will screw over either the T2 BPC inventors or the T2 BPO owners.

And, I should think that the same argument that many players have against "reimbursement for the standings grind" should really apply here:

The owners of T2 BPO's have enjoyed the benefits and profit for years. They have been long since fully compensated for their investment.

However, to help reduce the sting, I don't mind suggesting to convert each T2 BPO to a number of limited run BPCs (say, 100 copies or so).

Do people suggesting T2 BPOs be removed even realize what they're suggesting? It's not some kind of a privilege system that only old players are allowed to use. They're an item like any other which has been traded and changed hands many times since they were seeded to the game. Quit your whining and be happy there is an invention system. T2 BPOs aren't all that what people make them out to be.

lol... this is always the same defence made by T2 BPO owners... over and over again. But, only a small handful of the T2 BPOs which were seeded by the lottery have ever been made publicly available for trade over the years; most of them remain a perk of the original owners and/or their friends.

And, if the T2 BPO's "aren't all that what people make them out to be", then why always the objection to removing them from the game?

Accept that you have already received full value for the use of T2 BPOs over the years, and accept that certain old features should be removed, when long past their time of productively contributing to the game. And, please stop your whining. You should be grateful that you have been able to milk this feature for so many years.


I give that having 1 T2BPO is not really an advantage. It will be post patch if the copy speed is reduced to below the manufacturing time. (though not by much, but still really CCP) Their main advantage is when pools of owners congregate(you know what I'm talking about) and use them to control the low volume markets. Low volume markets are where new players and low SP indy players need to get into the game. not in the high volume side of things. and thats where the true unfair advantage to them come in.


What really bothers me is the confusion of not having them seeded to the market like T1's. For a new player that is just getting into industry they think ok I can make this T1 now and later I'll get the T2BPO for it and start making that. they train manufacturing skills to be able to produce those T2 items only to find out down the road that there are no T2BPOs attainable at their level. that really they should have become inventors if they really wanted to make a profit. Lets face it Eve industry is hard enough as it is with getting the bpo's, getting the mats, finding a market, playing both the buy and sell markets for both your building mats and your finished goods and thats not even getting into researched copy side of things if you really want to up your profits.

What CCP has created is 2 systems that dont work together that leads to lots of confusion about how things are built at that level of the game. The best solution that I can think to resolve this now is simply turn them into T2BPC's with the invention flag turned on. Where ever they've been researched to is where they'll be at forever. Whether that can be coded I dont know, but it would force them to have to be invented to be copied. they could then take all that useless crap like r.db's out of the game and just move on.
Sizeof Void
Ninja Suicide Squadron
#1308 - 2014-04-18 19:38:54 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Sizeof Void wrote:

Sure, but how would you feel if you bought the computer last month for $1,000 and the company announced yesterday that the price was now $500, for a better model?

Would you still feel that you got full value for your $1,000?

There are quite a few newer players who have been painfully doing the standings grind, and have not yet been able to benefit substantially from it.

i would say that it had been on sale for ten years at $1,000 and a price cut and better products is an unalloyed good thing so if i can't return it i shouldn't want everyone else to be worse off just because i am

any player who did the standings grind has their standings character which retains significant value and have lost nothing

How does reimbursing all players for the standings grind make anyone "worse off"? Whether you are an older player or a newer player, a reimbursement of some sort would benefit everyone. Just as when the learning skills were removed from the game - everyone got back the invested SP, regardless of how much each individual player benefited from having those skills trained up for years, or only days. No one lost; everyone won.

And, I am curious as to what "significant value" the standings grind will still have for the average high-sec industrialist player. I think that this is the reason why these players are a bit upset about this particular change - they do not perceive the value of which you spoke. I know that you know quite a bit about the economics side of the game, so can you please list the remaining value in high faction standings?
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1309 - 2014-04-18 19:45:46 UTC
Sizeof Void wrote:

How does reimbursing all players for the standings grind make anyone "worse off"? Whether you are an older player or a newer player, a reimbursement of some sort would benefit everyone. Just as when the learning skills were removed from the game - everyone got back the invested SP, regardless of how much each individual player benefited from having those skills trained up for years, or only days. No one lost; everyone won.

And, I am curious as to what "significant value" the standings grind will still have for the average high-sec industrialist player. I think that this is the reason why these players are a bit upset about this particular change - they do not perceive the value of which you spoke. I know that you know quite a bit about the economics side of the game, so can you please list the remaining value in high faction standings?

high faction standings are necessary for any trader for cutting broker fees and taxes in jita (or their preferred station) as those fees eat up huge parts of their margin

since bots, once caught, can't be sold standings characters for sale are now rare and they're extremely valuable because there's a lot more traders who want a standings character but don't want to grind than there are characters for sale

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1310 - 2014-04-18 20:00:33 UTC
I wonder how many people in this thread didn't even know that trading incurred taxes, and that they could be ameliorated by having high standings.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1311 - 2014-04-18 20:14:29 UTC
Querns wrote:

The status quo rewards a static grind for standings, which, upon completion, open up the whole oyster at once.


Yea, noone ever bought the participation of a high standing character in his corp to deploy a pos, no interaction or gameplay to find here folks, move along.

I mean the way you are arging you could be arguing in favor of abolishing skill requirements on t2 mods or the prohibitive cost of capships...

Not everything that makes the game more streamlined is good, especially if its combined "we want players to do XYZ".

I mean what is the bottom line here, are you really interested in null being nerfed for the carebears a few years from now?

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1312 - 2014-04-18 20:31:21 UTC
Barton Breau wrote:

Yea, noone ever bought the participation of a high standing character in his corp to deploy a pos, no interaction or gameplay to find here folks, move along.

hiring someone to sit in a corp for seven days is not gameplay, it is a workaround for a terrible system

just because people have found ways around terrible systems is no reason to keep them in existence

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1313 - 2014-04-18 20:38:44 UTC
Barton Breau wrote:
Querns wrote:

The status quo rewards a static grind for standings, which, upon completion, open up the whole oyster at once.


Yea, noone ever bought the participation of a high standing character in his corp to deploy a pos, no interaction or gameplay to find here folks, move along.

I mean the way you are arging you could be arguing in favor of abolishing skill requirements on t2 mods or the prohibitive cost of capships...

Not everything that makes the game more streamlined is good, especially if its combined "we want players to do XYZ".

I mean what is the bottom line here, are you really interested in null being nerfed for the carebears a few years from now?



If you had bothered to read the entire post, you would have happened upon the part where I said:

Quote:

players have settled into niches that exploit and lubricate an antiquated system, at the expense of others.


Character sales and corp sales for standings for the purpose of anchoring highsec pos are an example of a niche lubricating an antiquated system. Furthermore, the benefits are STILL binary -- you spend some isk to shortcut the standings grind, and you have the whole oyster.

A better use of standings is, as we'd been talking about, market taxes. I possess a character with decent Caldari State standings; somewhere around the 6 or 7 area, I forget exactly. However, this isn't as good as it could be -- I can reap greater rewards by either running missions to increase my standings (barftastic!) or purchasing a character with higher standings (WTB caldari state 9.0+ character).

Attempting to equate this with abolishing skill requirements or ship costs is a false equivalency. Neither of these are binary benefits; skills (in most cases) continue to benefit the thing for which they are required, and costs are obviously a non-binary barrier to entry.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Nlex
Domini Canium
#1314 - 2014-04-18 21:25:14 UTC
Standings required for anchoring a POS are as much RP and lore item as they are a gameplay mechanic. Removing them would mean that suddenly, Empires let just about anyone plunk a POS at their moons. Why would they do that, especially when CCP's recent plot developments hint at Empires being oh so afraid of capsuleers' rising power?
Firvain
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
#1315 - 2014-04-18 21:52:55 UTC
Nlex wrote:
Standings required for anchoring a POS are as much RP and lore item as they are a gameplay mechanic. Removing them would mean that suddenly, Empires let just about anyone plunk a POS at their moons. Why would they do that, especially when CCP's recent plot developments hint at Empires being oh so afraid of capsuleers' rising power?


Maybe thats the whole point. Our rising power means we dont need permission of the empire's to anchor a tower. See we got this lore thing sorted!
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1316 - 2014-04-18 22:15:51 UTC
Querns wrote:

Attempting to equate this with abolishing skill requirements or ship costs is a false equivalency. Neither of these are binary benefits; skills (in most cases) continue to benefit the thing for which they are required, and costs are obviously a non-binary barrier to entry.


Where do you see the big difference between skill requirement and standing mechanics?
A player with standing still benefits from the ability to set up another pos, moreover he can loose them ==> gameplay!

That they are antiquated in a bad sense is just your opninion, atm more an appeal to authority.
And dont start with niche, how many players fly a titan compared to all players?
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1317 - 2014-04-18 22:25:49 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Barton Breau wrote:

Yea, noone ever bought the participation of a high standing character in his corp to deploy a pos, no interaction or gameplay to find here folks, move along.

hiring someone to sit in a corp for seven days is not gameplay, it is a workaround for a terrible system

just because people have found ways around terrible systems is no reason to keep them in existence


Ones workaround is another ones gameplay as the classic says, quoted loosely.

I do think we should finally learn that lesson after 5 years of mmos tanking.
Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1318 - 2014-04-18 22:32:05 UTC
Barton Breau wrote:
Querns wrote:

Attempting to equate this with abolishing skill requirements or ship costs is a false equivalency. Neither of these are binary benefits; skills (in most cases) continue to benefit the thing for which they are required, and costs are obviously a non-binary barrier to entry.


Where do you see the big difference between skill requirement and standing mechanics?
A player with standing still benefits from the ability to set up another pos, moreover he can loose them ==> gameplay!

And when the proposed changes take effect, even more people can put up a POS, and then possibly lose them. That's a heck of a lot more of your vaunted GAMEPLAY than there would be if only standingshavers can erect POS.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Querns
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1319 - 2014-04-18 22:33:27 UTC
Or is "gameplay" only supposed to be available to those who meet the stringent requirements of "have rubbed their face against the cheese grater of Eve: Online standings for a sufficient amount of time?"

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1320 - 2014-04-18 22:41:19 UTC
Querns wrote:
Barton Breau wrote:
Querns wrote:

Attempting to equate this with abolishing skill requirements or ship costs is a false equivalency. Neither of these are binary benefits; skills (in most cases) continue to benefit the thing for which they are required, and costs are obviously a non-binary barrier to entry.


Where do you see the big difference between skill requirement and standing mechanics?
A player with standing still benefits from the ability to set up another pos, moreover he can loose them ==> gameplay!

And when the proposed changes take effect, even more people can put up a POS, and then possibly lose them. That's a heck of a lot more of your vaunted GAMEPLAY than there would be if only standingshavers can erect POS.


Didnt you just repeat the same assumption on what is the right gameplay in your opinion without adding anything new?

Way of avoiding the question...