These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Confused on incoming NPC loot changes

Author
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#21 - 2012-04-05 05:16:53 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Could be that the meta 0 items are removed from the loot table, but it may not mean that as a result something else wont drop in it's place as loot.


Tags perhaps? So people can buy security status, as was described in Crimewatch.


No, read above about mineral concerns, e.g. meta 0 replaced with meta 1+. Can't effectively remove the mineral content especially high end sources without it effecting regional supply characteristics.

If anything the intriduction of more meta 1+ could help to curb their prices, whilst retain the balance for some mineral sources. Simply removing a vast majority of meta 0 mineral content could cause a bigger impact to some industrial capabilities. It would potentially be a shock to the system. Low end mineral losses could be made up by mining, but the high ends where sources are not avialable from mining in certain regeions would have that distribution simply lost. So if other regions then have moer control over that supply they can enact more market control of those goods and services, which includes most Ships and large spectrum of goods to some extent.
Adunh Slavy
#22 - 2012-04-05 05:34:21 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:

If anything the intriduction of more meta 1+ could help to curb their prices, whilst retain the balance for some mineral sources. Simply removing a vast majority of meta 0 mineral content could cause a bigger impact to some industrial capabilities. It would potentially be a shock to the system. Low end mineral losses could be made up by mining, but the high ends where sources are not avialable from mining in certain regeions would have that distribution simply lost. So if other regions then have moer control over that supply they can enact more market control of those goods and services, which includes most Ships and large spectrum of goods to some extent.


What is "balance"? Risk reward, or constantly decreasing prices in an environment of 1300% more money?

I do not see the reduction of minerals from loot as a problem, instead a solution to fixing the imbalance created by over supply, and no I am not in some huge alliance that can mine mercoxit all day. The distribution isn't regional, it is based on security level of the system. I suppose if you want to define regions as high low and null, we can do that. Let's just be sure what it is we are talking about.

If you want nocx and zyd, even some mega if you want to probe, go grab a covetor, two lasers a cloak, some drones and find a quiet 0.4 system one jump in from high sec. Mine the crap out of it, with nocx at 800 a unit, you can loose a ship now and then and still profit. If you keep your eye on local, and not the TV, set up a few safe spots and use the map, no one will ever catch you.

I would argue that it is the over supply of minerals that has created the imbalance. Eve is not supposed to be a cake walk, I should not have 200 ships sitting in a can that I rarely open. Perhaps I will reprocess them and build a covetor or two.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2012-04-05 05:52:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:

If anything the intriduction of more meta 1+ could help to curb their prices, whilst retain the balance for some mineral sources. Simply removing a vast majority of meta 0 mineral content could cause a bigger impact to some industrial capabilities. It would potentially be a shock to the system. Low end mineral losses could be made up by mining, but the high ends where sources are not avialable from mining in certain regeions would have that distribution simply lost. So if other regions then have moer control over that supply they can enact more market control of those goods and services, which includes most Ships and large spectrum of goods to some extent.


What is "balance"? Risk reward, or constantly decreasing prices in an environment of 1300% more money?

I do not see the reduction of minerals from loot as a problem, instead a solution to fixing the imbalance created by over supply, and no I am not in some huge alliance that can mine mercoxit all day. The distribution isn't regional, it is based on security level of the system. I suppose if you want to define regions as high low and null, we can do that. Let's just be sure what it is we are talking about.

If you want nocx and zyd, even some mega if you want to probe, go grab a covetor, two lasers a cloak, some drones and find a quiet 0.4 system one jump in from high sec. Mine the crap out of it, with nocx at 800 a unit, you can loose a ship now and then and still profit. If you keep your eye on local, and not the TV, set up a few safe spots and use the map, no one will ever catch you.

I would argue that it is the over supply of minerals that has created the imbalance. Eve is not supposed to be a cake walk, I should not have 200 ships sitting in a can that I rarely open. Perhaps I will reprocess them and build a covetor or two.


Yes the risk/rewards is inherent in the mineral composition already. That is why lower securities have better mineral compositions, the risk/reward element is already inherent in the system. As such regional bias is apparent, null has more ABC than low etc etc. So there are regional distinctions. E.g. where in high sec can you mine morphite? If there weren;t regional distinctions it would have its own source.

I'm sorry but all I see is more being taken away with regional bias and it enforcing more exclusivity based on regional boundaries.

And what over supply of minerals? Why do you think prices have recently sky rocketed both in minerals and goods?
Adunh Slavy
#24 - 2012-04-05 06:15:48 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:

Yes the risk/rewards is inherent in the mineral composition already. That is why lower securities have better mineral compositions, the risk/reward element is already inherent in the system. As such regional bias is apparent, null has more ABC than low etc etc. So there are regional distinctions. E.g. where in high sec can you mine morphite? If there weren;t regional distinctions it would have its own source.


You can't mine morphite any place in high sec. That's the point. Be willing to take the risk, train the skills and put in the effort to go get it. It grants considerable advantage to those who will go get it versus those who will not. Make the investment in gaining a comparative advantage and profit from it.

Grumpy Owly wrote:

I'm sorry but all I see is more being taken away with regional bias and it enforcing more exclusivity based on regional boundaries.


We'll simply have to disagree on this. I consider these areas of exclusivity, as you call it, based on security level, as a good thing.

Grumpy Owly wrote:

And what over supply of minerals? Why do you think prices have recently sky rocketed both in minerals and goods?


Because they are going to reduce all these extra sources of minerals that come from activities other than mining. Though it has not happened yet, speculation rules the markets right now.

I do not see these price increases as a bad thing. Perhaps, when prices are high enough, people will go out and mine again instead of shoot rats. When that happens, the prices will come down and the speculation will find a new sector of the economy with which to play.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2012-04-05 06:50:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Grumpy Owly
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:

Yes the risk/rewards is inherent in the mineral composition already. That is why lower securities have better mineral compositions, the risk/reward element is already inherent in the system. As such regional bias is apparent, null has more ABC than low etc etc. So there are regional distinctions. E.g. where in high sec can you mine morphite? If there weren;t regional distinctions it would have its own source.


You can't mine morphite any place in high sec. That's the point. Be willing to take the risk, train the skills and put in the effort to go get it. It grants considerable advantage to those who will go get it versus those who will not. Make the investment in gaining a comparative advantage and profit from it.

Grumpy Owly wrote:

I'm sorry but all I see is more being taken away with regional bias and it enforcing more exclusivity based on regional boundaries.


We'll simply have to disagree on this. I consider these areas of exclusivity, as you call it, based on security level, as a good thing.

Grumpy Owly wrote:

And what over supply of minerals? Why do you think prices have recently sky rocketed both in minerals and goods?


Because they are going to reduce all these extra sources of minerals that come from activities other than mining. Though it has not happened yet, speculation rules the markets right now.

I do not see these price increases as a bad thing. Perhaps, when prices are high enough, people will go out and mine again instead of shoot rats. When that happens, the prices will come down and the speculation will find a new sector of the economy with which to play.


So we are at least agreeing then, the distributions are different and waylaid according to risk and reward.

Yes mining will improve. But where minerals don't exist as a mining source it doesn't improve industrial capabilites does it as there literally is no source.

What it does allow is more manipulation by regional influence to effect different economies. For instance lets take the situation where politically all morphite is sourced from null/wh. If they then decided to stop supplying HS it would ultimatley mean all T2 production in HS would stop. Extreme situation perhaps, but possible none the less.

Likeiwse they would then ultimatley control T2 production and potentially pricing in markets. Again extreme examples but plausable as an intent. When you consider the incentive for null to push high sec pilots into null for personal gain why would they not begin to manipulate the markets to encourage such. Why like their farms and fields intiatives would they not see to influence CCP to make these decsions in favour of these positions.

Whilst I sympathise with null for wanting to make things more attractive, they are doing this with drone poo removal, the idea to incentivise mining in null, this was/is the main reason behind it. But I have a prediction it will literally do bugger all for mining, as people wont get off their arses to do it, either due to lack of interest or due to risk aversion for the rewards that are already staring at them in the face in the asteroid belts. Meanwhile this shifting of economic bias effects all other economies as a result. So i predict it will be more likley an economic **** up by certain CSM6 politicians as a result.

So when this model may end up with a further bias in the distribution of high end sources (like megacyte which is even needed for most of T1 ship production) which effect certain regions more than others why shouldn't i be concerned? It has the potential to be an economic disaster for your regular pilot who wants to buy his gear and get on with things.

Ultimatley I don't mind for myself personally, as price hikes due to mineral supply shortages I can capatalise on, but if things were to ever dry out so as to conflict with actual capabilities for production due to exclusive rights or access to sources then it doesnt really matter about all the other manufacturing materials related to production and how much there is, any loss in the chain will mean an inability to produce.

As such I'm usnure wether the argument of incentivise null should be at the expense of shut down high, and whilst might be an extreme view is still a valid concern as th slow chipping away at capabilities effects more people. And I won't except the view that people should be moving towards null as and end game choice or that they should be lackeys in a big game of alliances. The idea pf personal choice should be apparent and as such those choices shouldn't be restricted by more game mechnics that introduce an "exclusion" of options.

One question I will ask CCP other than wether than can clarify loot drop mechnics, is if drone poo doesn't incentivise mining in null as was suggested it will do so, will they continue this process of economic pressure until they find the straw that breaks the camels back? Assuming they get to that point before unrest and then the loss of customers/pilots?
ivar R'dhak
Deus est Mechanicus
#26 - 2012-04-05 08:18:46 UTC
Oh my, CCP is sure shaking things up. Shocked

Not sure if I´m happy with it as the minerals from loot drops where greatly nerfed anyway.
And what little we earn now is at least somewhat offsetting the mindnumbing boredom of ratting. Ugh

So yeah, looks like is gona be back to the times of precious, precious Morphite.

Meh, looks like Goons will really pump the crap out of that Hulk BPO. TwistedP
Samillian
Angry Mustellid
#27 - 2012-04-05 08:21:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Samillian
Kurai Okala wrote:
Wow, thanks for the quick replies!

...and everyone says the eve community is made up of nothing but jerks and sociopaths.


It is but that doesn't mean we can't be helpful when weak and erratic impulse strikes us.

NBSI shall be the whole of the Law

gfldex
#28 - 2012-04-05 09:18:46 UTC
Skydell wrote:
Neither is really used in PvE or PvP but the Beam just on reproc goes for 400K. The Cruise Launcher, 80K


Cruise launcher used to be fitable to frigs. They changed that fairly quickly but never updated the mineral requirements.

250mm Rail I
I 8220
P 2683
M 3239
I 2
N 16

250mm Carbide Rail I
T 4111
P 1341
M 1619
I 1
N 8

As you can see that's pretty much twice the mins. It's basicly the same change we had with nerfing BS loot in mission rats a while back, applied to all rats including belt NPCs in 0.0 . The effect will be the same. T1 loot will still be coupled to mineral prices 1:1 because a player needs very little capital and SP to make them. Any player that left his trial is right in that market (given he finds the BPO trade channel).

It's a massive nerf to 0.0 tho. Belt mining used to give you quite some nice extra bugs when you killed all the rats that spawn. And any activation of any mining laser is triggering a roll to move a spawn. You will still get the bounty but with less loot. So belt NPCs get nerfed and as such mining in 0.0 .

Named large guns are worth *beep* all. That did not be the case before the loot nerf. The same will happen now with any loot from missions, given the T1 stuff just get's removed from the loot table and drop chances for the rest stay the same.

I can't really see what this is good for. Belt ratting is right now better then Incursions if you know what you are doing (most players don't). That will change. Miners may or may not get anything out of it. That depends if there are changes to covert cynos. If there are no changes the whining will be ENDLESS.

Dear Mr CCP Soundwave, I hope you are going to enjoy your tasty big can of worms. You will learn the function (there is one) of gun mining soon enough. :)

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.

Adunh Slavy
#29 - 2012-04-05 09:24:23 UTC
Grumpy Owly wrote:

Monopoly and Manipulation


This will not happen unless all of null sec comes under one alliance, and even then, someone will cheat the cartel. Morphite is spread around null sec, it's distribution is not like some of the moon goo. Let's suppose someone did try to make a cartel for morphite, the price will go up due to the shortage, this will increase the incentive for someone to cheat, and cheat first. Competition will ensure the materials get to market.

Also, if you're worried about price manipulation, trust me, it's not coming from the big alliances, it comes from well, people like me in one and two man corps loosely organized with other manipulative greedy capitalist pigs.

Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.  - William Pitt

gfldex
#30 - 2012-04-05 09:39:55 UTC
Adunh Slavy wrote:
Because they are going to reduce all these extra sources of minerals that come from activities other than mining. Though it has not happened yet, speculation rules the markets right now.


I don't think so. The price hike we see right now could very well come from all those banned botters. They may have some mins left when the 14 day ban drops but have to fix the negative wallet. If you watch the sell orders of mins in jita right now, you will see that folk actually buy mins and those mins leave the market (much to my profit :).

It may very well be that the loot drop never was a problem in the first place. What legit miner can compete with a 22 hulk bot operation? It takes about 4 month to become effective as a miner. So at best we will see mineral prices start dropping in 4 month.

Ohh, CCP what have you done! Two big cans of worms at the same time? The whining will be ENDLESS.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.

Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#31 - 2012-04-05 10:18:53 UTC
gfldex wrote:
It may very well be that the loot drop never was a problem in the first place. What legit miner can compete with a 22 hulk bot operation? It takes about 4 month to become effective as a miner. So at best we will see mineral prices start dropping in 4 month.


LOL!

There are a great many mission-runners out there who could switch over to flying perfect Hulk + Orca fleets tomorrow if mining became more profitable than mission-running or Incursions. There will be no 4-month ramp up time, there will be at most 24 hours that it takes to jump to the mining clone.

Supply of minerals will not stop. There is no monopoly. The only thing that will change is the prices of those minerals, and those changes will apply to everyone: speculative traders will make sure of that.
gfldex
#32 - 2012-04-05 10:43:45 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
There are a great many mission-runners out there who could switch over to flying perfect Hulk + Orca fleets tomorrow if mining became more profitable than mission-running or Incursions. There will be no 4-month ramp up time, there will be at most 24 hours that it takes to jump to the mining clone.


I can run 3 hulks and got a orca pilot with maxed leadership skills. But I could never run 22 accounts. Can you?

There is another problem I see that could actually create a shock for the economy. When you do industry in planet Earth and you see component/raw material prices go up while at the same time end product prices rise as well you would quickly talk to your bank to get a short term lone with low interest. We don't got credit in EVE. As a result increasing prices lead to lower capacity of producers if the rise in price overtakes the increase of capital of those who make all the stuffz.

That might even be the cause of the 8 million gold problem.

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.

Tobiaz
Spacerats
#33 - 2012-04-05 11:23:17 UTC
Virgil Travis wrote:
This is a good move for the newer players, starting industrialists can now manufacture and sell those meta 0 items and not have to compete with the stuff that mission runners don't melt, which I've been waiting to see since I started. I'd rather see new players benefitting from selling those items than mission runners melting or selling them.


IT... WON'T... CHANGE... A... SINGLE... THING

The T1 market has been healthy already for quite a while, easily making a 25% profit on sales as long as you don't sell in Jita.

But just look at the market for meta1 and meta2 and you'll see how insignificant the input of mods on the market by the mission-runners truly is. They mostly reprocesses everything for much easier sold minerals, except the meta3 and meta4 because those are worth enough to sell because of the T2 invention and some very tight ship-fits.

Operation WRITE DOWN ALL THE THINGS!!!  Check out the list at http://bit.ly/wdatt Collecting and compiling all fixes and ideas for EVE. Looking for more editors!

Scrapyard Bob
EVE University
Ivy League
#34 - 2012-04-05 11:33:27 UTC
Ghoest wrote:
I havent run any mission lately but i was under the impression this had occurred a year or 2 ago.


They had turned down the amount of loot dropped by rats a year or two ago.

Now, they're turning it down another notch or three.
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#35 - 2012-04-05 11:33:47 UTC
gfldex wrote:
I can run 3 hulks and got a orca pilot with maxed leadership skills. But I could never run 22 accounts. Can you


Every botting account that is banned is at least three more actual player accounts that get to make ISK from mining instead. No one player needs to fill the gap, since there will be a half dozen players willing to fill that hole in the economy.
bldyannoyed
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2012-04-05 11:56:00 UTC  |  Edited by: bldyannoyed
Mara Rinn wrote:
gfldex wrote:
I can run 3 hulks and got a orca pilot with maxed leadership skills. But I could never run 22 accounts. Can you


Every botting account that is banned is at least three more actual player accounts that get to make ISK from mining instead. No one player needs to fill the gap, since there will be a half dozen players willing to fill that hole in the economy.


So what happens when all these mission runners or incursion bears or so forth that are supposed to leap into hulks the second trit hits 7 isk or whatever the **** it is DON'T because in actual fact mining is so crushingly horribly dull that they would actually literally rather quit than do it?

The market won't stabilise until the mineral supply starts to increase but the assumption that more people will mine as it becomes more profitable is false.

Sense does not rule in game activities. Just because mining becomes more profitable does not mean more people will do it.
gfldex
#37 - 2012-04-05 12:11:12 UTC
Btw. buy Zydrine!

If you take all the sand out of the box, only the cat poo will remain.

Onchas
EL Bernays School of Strategic Communication
#38 - 2012-04-05 13:17:24 UTC
gfldex wrote:
It may very well be that the loot drop never was a problem in the first place. What legit miner can compete with a 22 hulk bot operation? It takes about 4 month to become effective as a miner. So at best we will see mineral prices start dropping in 4 month.


There are a lot of old school players who have hangers full of mining barges and lasers ready to hit the belts once mining becomes worth it again.

People constantly under-estimate the excess capacity for production in the Eve economy.

Quote:
Ohh, CCP what have you done! Two big cans of worms at the same time? The whining will be ENDLESS.


Who cares. Seriously. Who really cares? In 9 years of Eve there's never been an ebb in the flow of tears. The whining has already been endless.
Previous page12