These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Move R64 & R32 Moons
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Velicitia
XS Tech
#21 - 2012-01-01 20:58:26 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Don't worry, I wasn't talking about your post.


Cool

I'be been badpoasting all day today ... I think I'm starting to go cross-eyed Oops

I wouldn't mind seeing more alchemy reactions though (there are, to my knowledge, only 4 or 5). Granted that means finding a nice backwater 0.3/2/1 system, which will take :effort: to find people who won't just sell me out to the FOTM "bad guys".

One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia
Lord Aliventi
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2012-01-01 21:54:47 UTC
Fire Stone wrote:
Lord Aliventi, the problem I see is that the bottleneck is too large right now giving the holding alliances too much defending power. You mention ship replacement programs, well there is so much isk being made, every super capital ship destroyed defending can be replaced the same day with cash and no hardship on the alliance at all.

They have trillions of isk saved up in their entrenched positions and even the damage caused by PL which is massive is not enough to remove these mega alliances who own these moons.

#5 - This is a bad idea imo because as you said the current owners would not release more than they do today. If CCP added more moons by a random number of 10% to a different region these mega alliances don't own, the new owners would reap the profits and the market would have a smaller bottleneck lowering prices, therefor mega alliance income by a few hundred billion per month to benefit the economy as a whole vs the small % that live in null.

The thing you don't seem to understand is it's not the moons that are the problem. You aren't having any bottleneck because of the moons. There are 4 R32 and 4 R64 goos. 7 of those there aren't any major problems. The prices reflect their rarity. Tech is the only exception. But you know why prices are so high? Because the players themselves have made it so. Changing the moons won't change the players. The players have a benefit of making Tech worth more. So they do and reap the rewards. And if you change things around they will follow the moons and continue their player created monopoly.

And dont give me any of that "SOV players have so much isk from their Tech moons that it is almost impossible to remove them from their 'entrenched position'. " That's pure BS. If that were true IT., the NC, BoB, and a whole host of other large SOV alliances would still hold SOV.

And your reply to my #5 shows how little you understand of where these moons are. You are in Flatline.? There is a Tech moon 4 jumps from where your alliance lives in Syndicate. The moon is in an lowsec system that is 2 jumps from highsec. It was owned for the longest time by Rooks and Kings who aren't a major SOV holding alliance. Of course RnK had to fight off several large alliances who wanted the moon, and they eventually lost it so some alliance I don't recognize. But putting the new moons in systems where the SOV alliances don't own will just cause them to seek them out and take control of them. The Venal Tech moons are a great example. NPC space but owned by SOV alliances. So again adding more or re-balancing the moons is not going to solve the player created monopoly.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#23 - 2012-01-01 23:34:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Scatim Helicon
Lord Aliventi wrote:

The thing you don't seem to understand is it's not the moons that are the problem. You aren't having any bottleneck because of the moons. There are 4 R32 and 4 R64 goos. 7 of those there aren't any major problems. The prices reflect their rarity. Tech is the only exception. But you know why prices are so high? Because the players themselves have made it so.


Umm, tech prices are so high because the demand for it is high and rising, as Crucible seems to have dragged back a lot of old players who had let their subs expire and as more newer players gain skills and money and start purchasing T2 items, whilst the supply is fixed. Its pretty explicitly a result of simple market forces caused by a supply bottleneck and the limited availability of the material.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Lord Aliventi
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2012-01-02 00:31:53 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Lord Aliventi wrote:

The thing you don't seem to understand is it's not the moons that are the problem. You aren't having any bottleneck because of the moons. There are 4 R32 and 4 R64 goos. 7 of those there aren't any major problems. The prices reflect their rarity. Tech is the only exception. But you know why prices are so high? Because the players themselves have made it so.


Umm, tech prices are so high because the demand for it is high and rising, as Crucible seems to have dragged back a lot of old players who had let their subs expire and as more newer players gain skills and money and start purchasing T2 items, whilst the supply is fixed. Its pretty explicitly a result of simple market forces caused by a supply bottleneck and the limited availability of the material.


Tech was high prior to Crucible. And there are a roughly equal number of tech moons as any other R32 moon. The only reason why Tech is worth more than any of the other R32 and R64 goo is because the players are releasing less Tech to the market. Therefore Tech being 100k isk a unit where all of the other R32 goos are 10k or less a unit is not a result of natural supply and demand as you are attempting to point out. It is a result of the players releasing less Tech to the market. Which means you are wrong.

This is not going to be solved by re-distibuting the moons or changing how the moons are mined. Of course people coming back because of Crucible have made these bottlenecks worse. That is what people call supply and demand. Tech is feeling the same market forces that are hitting all the minerals and t2 components. But Tech being 100k a unit while Caesium (Another R32 moon goo) is 5k a unit is not a result of natural supply and demand. It is the result of low supply and equal demand as any other R32 goo.

Let's do some math:
Caesium: normal supply + normal demand = low price
Tech: player created lower supply + normal demand = high price
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2012-01-02 00:56:22 UTC
Um. Let me help you: You're being dumb. The reason tech is so high, is because it's being used in higher quantities than the other R32s.

You say "let's do some math". Well, do them, instead of pulling incorrect assumptions out your ass.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#26 - 2012-01-02 12:02:17 UTC
Lord Aliventi wrote:
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Lord Aliventi wrote:

The thing you don't seem to understand is it's not the moons that are the problem. You aren't having any bottleneck because of the moons. There are 4 R32 and 4 R64 goos. 7 of those there aren't any major problems. The prices reflect their rarity. Tech is the only exception. But you know why prices are so high? Because the players themselves have made it so.


Umm, tech prices are so high because the demand for it is high and rising, as Crucible seems to have dragged back a lot of old players who had let their subs expire and as more newer players gain skills and money and start purchasing T2 items, whilst the supply is fixed. Its pretty explicitly a result of simple market forces caused by a supply bottleneck and the limited availability of the material.


Tech was high prior to Crucible. And there are a roughly equal number of tech moons as any other R32 moon. The only reason why Tech is worth more than any of the other R32 and R64 goo is because the players are releasing less Tech to the market. Therefore Tech being 100k isk a unit where all of the other R32 goos are 10k or less a unit is not a result of natural supply and demand as you are attempting to point out. It is a result of the players releasing less Tech to the market. Which means you are wrong.


lawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwl

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#27 - 2012-01-02 15:50:56 UTC
Its a thing of beauty when an idiot makes such a definitively incorrect statement with such certainty.

Guys guys guys the only reason tech is so expensive is because the players just aren't selling it, nothing to do with high demand at all!

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Elindreal
Planetary Interactors
#28 - 2012-01-05 01:49:00 UTC
what, it's goonswarm's fault moongoo is so expensive?!?!
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2012-01-05 08:08:23 UTC
If in danger or in doubt, blame goonswarm, scream and shout.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Fire Stone
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2012-01-06 22:42:17 UTC
I do not think anyone other than a DEV or someone causing a supply shortage really knows if its a supply bottleneck or a player created one. My idea revolves around a supply shortage due to higher demand, more players etc. If this idea gets reviewed by CCP they can answer the question and we can all move on.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion on the matter even if others do not agree with it. The only other ideas I have come up with lately on this topic is to change how much Tech is used in the supply chain. 20% less Tech and 5% more of the other 4 in its class. I do not personally favor this idea over others thou as I would need to update my spreadsheets yet again for every product that uses it.

A CCP reply would be nice as well :-)

Thoughts?
Abdiel Kavash
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#31 - 2012-01-06 23:02:38 UTC
Fire Stone wrote:
I do not think anyone other than a DEV or someone causing a supply shortage really knows if its a supply bottleneck or a player created one.


Nobody knows, except for people who knew before the moon mineral rebalance expansion was even released.
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
#32 - 2012-01-06 23:55:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Messoroz
Keep moons the same in null(need some reason to hold sov), make moons in lowsec dynamic. Makes it slightly more difficult for null alliances to hold valuable moons indefinitely. Opens positions for smaller corps invested in finding moons. Creates another "feature" of lowsec living to the emptyness there currently is.
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#33 - 2012-01-07 00:05:08 UTC
Fire Stone wrote:
I do not think anyone other than a DEV or someone causing a supply shortage really knows if its a supply bottleneck or a player created one.

Entire alliances and coalitions go to war over the ownership of technetium moons. Are you really suggesting that we take space off each other so we can ... just not bother to sell the technetium we mine and let it rot in our corp hangars?

Quote:
The only other ideas I have come up with lately on this topic is to change how much Tech is used in the supply chain. 20% less Tech and 5% more of the other 4 in its class. I do not personally favor this idea over others thou as I would need to update my spreadsheets yet again for every product that uses it.

Reducing demand for Tech relative to other r32s by tweaking the moon material requirements for T2 construction is a much more sensible solution than rotating moons around the galaxy every month with the various (mostly negative) butterfly effects that would accompany it, even if people would have to rewrite their spreadsheets.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#34 - 2012-01-07 10:34:44 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Entire alliances and coalitions go to war over the ownership of technetium moons. Are you really suggesting that we take space off each other so we can ... just not bother to sell the technetium we mine and let it rot in our corp hangars?

Yes. We're all in a literal tech cartel, even if we hate each other.

Oh wait, no, what I meant was that the people who actually believe there's an eve-wide tech cartel are dumb as rocks.
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Reducing demand for Tech relative to other r32s by tweaking the moon material requirements for T2 construction is a much more sensible solution than rotating moons around the galaxy every month with the various (mostly negative) butterfly effects that would accompany it, even if people would have to rewrite their spreadsheets.

See, this idea is just too sensible and won't make nullsec ****** enough, it'll never fly. The way to make nullsec rampant with gleeful PVP is to rotate moons every week, no local, and certainly no jumpbridges. Everyone knows local makes nullsec safer than hisec, and jumpbridges project power like mad.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Akrasjel Lanate
Immemorial Coalescence Administration
Immemorial Coalescence
#35 - 2012-01-07 15:28:35 UTC
Quote:
Move R64 & R32 Moons


They should do something with moon mining

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#36 - 2012-01-07 20:44:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Wolodymyr
Just make PI able to produce end level products of PI goo, but with much less volume.

if there is a trickle of R32 and R64 finished moon products coming out of PI it would bring the price down a bit and make moon goo a lot less all important for large power blocks.

Scatim Helicon wrote:
Reducing demand for Tech relative to other r32s by tweaking the moon material requirements for T2 construction is a much more sensible solution than rotating moons around the galaxy every month with the various (mostly negative) butterfly effects that would accompany it, even if people would have to rewrite their spreadsheets.

This would also be a good idea

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544
Hrodgar Ortal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2012-01-08 19:32:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Hrodgar Ortal
Tech is more expensive since it is used in larger quantities compared to the supply, just as was the case with dysp/prom before tech.

The solution is not to kill people IRL (forcing them to probe some 10-30k moons, or whatever there are, even if it would be a isk sink due to the probes....) The first solution is to actually make the value of moons have more to do with rarity so r64>r32 etc (by tweaking the requirements to build) Then to give a more flexible supply you create reasonable alchemy reaction from the bottom up, that is from r8->r16 and r16->r32 etc

That small alliances aren't taking on large or taking "unclaimed space" (please find some unclaimed space?) has more to do with the sov mechanics not promoting living in space but just holding it and also supercapitals. Moons are not that important really and different regions should have different values. If one region is worth twice another so what, get a large enough alliance and kick the holders out if you want it.
Killstealing
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2012-01-09 00:32:23 UTC
itt people who don't know jack about null proposing changes to null
Fire Stone
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2012-01-09 22:43:53 UTC
Hrodgar Ortal wrote:
Tech is more expensive since it is used in larger quantities compared to the supply, just as was the case with dysp/prom before tech.

The solution is not to kill people IRL (forcing them to probe some 10-30k moons, or whatever there are, even if it would be a isk sink due to the probes....) The first solution is to actually make the value of moons have more to do with rarity so r64>r32 etc (by tweaking the requirements to build) Then to give a more flexible supply you create reasonable alchemy reaction from the bottom up, that is from r8->r16 and r16->r32 etc

That small alliances aren't taking on large or taking "unclaimed space" (please find some unclaimed space?) has more to do with the sov mechanics not promoting living in space but just holding it and also supercapitals. Moons are not that important really and different regions should have different values. If one region is worth twice another so what, get a large enough alliance and kick the holders out if you want it.


After reading everyone's replies and thinking about it further I agree having people/moons move around wont change much and cause more frustration with null in general. I am leaning more towards the value being more in line with rarity and of course lowering quantity used so all 4 R64, R32 etc are mostly even give or take 15% in their needed usage on the market. Since this has been up for a quite some time now I am surprised there is no DEV or CSM replies yet.
Hrodgar Ortal
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#40 - 2012-01-10 09:11:41 UTC
Fire Stone wrote:


After reading everyone's replies and thinking about it further I agree having people/moons move around wont change much and cause more frustration with null in general. I am leaning more towards the value being more in line with rarity and of course lowering quantity used so all 4 R64, R32 etc are mostly even give or take 15% in their needed usage on the market. Since this has been up for a quite some time now I am surprised there is no DEV or CSM replies yet.


They didn't respond to the fairly accurate predictions about tech spiking like mad either before the changes and that thread had 80 pages or something.
Previous page123Next page