These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fixing Technetium

First post
Author
SetrakDark
Doomheim
#81 - 2012-06-15 14:53:34 UTC  |  Edited by: SetrakDark
Moons are an excellent conflict driver. The only problem is you guys keep bottlenecking them, and this time you bottlenecked a regional r32. It's silly to say the fundamental concept of moons might need a revamp when they have generally driven conflict for many years (and have only recently led to 2 months of stagnation (2 months oh noes eve is dying)) despite the fact that the value distribution is bunged up. This just shows how successful the fundamental concept actually is.

The three lessons to take away from moons are:

1) A sensible distribution of moons values on a sliding scale to rarity. You should be aiming for brackets of value. For example, 2-8b per month for r64s, 500m-2b for r32s, etc, etc. Just like security, you want there to be multiple regions that are excellent, multiple regions that are awful, and a huge spectrum in between.

2) When somebody perfectly and accessibly lays out a demonstration of why your proposed system is going to bottleneck again, listen to them. The corollary to this is just fiddle with it until you get it right. Hire a mathematician if you have to.

3) Have a dynamic release system in place to adjust moon values into said value brackets on the fly, whether that is ring-mining or whatever. When a raw material is moving too far out of its bracket, assuming you did the initial component requirements reasonably well, then it will become profitable to seek out dynamic and depleting alternate sources of said material.
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#82 - 2012-06-15 14:54:05 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:

Yes. Unlimited pockets = bad. More importantly, are you THINKING about removing all moon goo income with Ring mining or just reducing it? I think the economy of moon goo will become bad quickly when you consider the cost of running a moon vs profits and it will probably die off in the face of ring mining. just throwing that out there. I'd be totally cool with removing almost all moon goo to ring mining. But I guess that's a tough answer from an economic stand point.


Just to quickly grab this one: I haven't entirely decided yet, but I'd like to take out all the moon mining and move it into ring mining. I'm not sure having a tower that basically mines money is a good idea compared to having a group of people doing an activity that the alliance then has some tools to tax.

That's another issue, making sure your alliances health/money is linked to your members. Right now it really isn't and I think EVE would be a better game if alliances would benefit more directly from their members actions, rather than a tower sitting somewhere.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#83 - 2012-06-15 14:56:17 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:

Yes. Unlimited pockets = bad. More importantly, are you THINKING about removing all moon goo income with Ring mining or just reducing it? I think the economy of moon goo will become bad quickly when you consider the cost of running a moon vs profits and it will probably die off in the face of ring mining. just throwing that out there. I'd be totally cool with removing almost all moon goo to ring mining. But I guess that's a tough answer from an economic stand point.


Just to quickly grab this one: I haven't entirely decided yet, but I'd like to take out all the moon mining and move it into ring mining. I'm not sure having a tower that basically mines money is a good idea compared to having a group of people doing an activity that the alliance then has some tools to tax.

That's another issue, making sure your alliances health/money is linked to your members. Right now it really isn't and I think EVE would be a better game if alliances would benefit more directly from their members actions, rather than a tower sitting somewhere.


I completely agree. As does the entire finance wing of GSF. Make alliance membership get the income, alliances tax it. How you do that has many solutions. I would just encourage you guys to repeat the success of PI in some way.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#84 - 2012-06-15 14:57:49 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:

Yes. Unlimited pockets = bad. More importantly, are you THINKING about removing all moon goo income with Ring mining or just reducing it? I think the economy of moon goo will become bad quickly when you consider the cost of running a moon vs profits and it will probably die off in the face of ring mining. just throwing that out there. I'd be totally cool with removing almost all moon goo to ring mining. But I guess that's a tough answer from an economic stand point.


Just to quickly grab this one: I haven't entirely decided yet, but I'd like to take out all the moon mining and move it into ring mining. I'm not sure having a tower that basically mines money is a good idea compared to having a group of people doing an activity that the alliance then has some tools to tax.

That's another issue, making sure your alliances health/money is linked to your members. Right now it really isn't and I think EVE would be a better game if alliances would benefit more directly from their members actions, rather than a tower sitting somewhere.

The problem with this is that if a tax can be evaded it probably will be. We don't set refinery taxes anymore because they only penalize the small guy: the major miners will just compress and export. If you can make seamless taxation work, thats great but I don't know that you can.

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

Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#85 - 2012-06-15 14:57:55 UTC
I really liked the idea of POCOs being the conflict drivers, but unfortunately they are a bit too distributed. Their hitpoints are too high to have a small gang come through and mess with them, and nobody likes repping that much armor/shields either. They are poor substitute to having moons to fight over.

I like the idea of resources moving about to a certain degree, but it cannot be via moons (which take forever to scan), or pocos (which are designed with being 'static' in mind!), or truesec, cause who cares now. I thought maybe ring mining might be some sort of solution for that, but that will just get the industrialists happy.

Allowing stations to be destroyed though? That might drive some conflict. Who needs more of a reason to attack someone else more than 'We will burn down your entire territory.'
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#86 - 2012-06-15 14:59:05 UTC
Kismeteer wrote:
I really liked the idea of POCOs being the conflict drivers, but unfortunately they are a bit too distributed. Their hitpoints are too high to have a small gang come through and mess with them, and nobody likes repping that much armor/shields either. They are poor substitute to having moons to fight over.

I like the idea of resources moving about to a certain degree, but it cannot be via moons (which take forever to scan), or pocos (which are designed with being 'static' in mind!), or truesec, cause who cares now. I thought maybe ring mining might be some sort of solution for that, but that will just get the industrialists happy.

Allowing stations to be destroyed though? That might drive some conflict. Who needs more of a reason to attack someone else more than 'We will burn down your entire territory.'


I think POCOs require a certain minimum traffic to be interesting. If we let them be taken over in High Sec (which I desperately want to do), they'd become a lot more interesting.

Edit: Yes, stations should be destroyable.
Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#87 - 2012-06-15 14:59:25 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:

Yes. Unlimited pockets = bad. More importantly, are you THINKING about removing all moon goo income with Ring mining or just reducing it? I think the economy of moon goo will become bad quickly when you consider the cost of running a moon vs profits and it will probably die off in the face of ring mining. just throwing that out there. I'd be totally cool with removing almost all moon goo to ring mining. But I guess that's a tough answer from an economic stand point.


Just to quickly grab this one: I haven't entirely decided yet, but I'd like to take out all the moon mining and move it into ring mining. I'm not sure having a tower that basically mines money is a good idea compared to having a group of people doing an activity that the alliance then has some tools to tax.

That's another issue, making sure your alliances health/money is linked to your members. Right now it really isn't and I think EVE would be a better game if alliances would benefit more directly from their members actions, rather than a tower sitting somewhere.


If you do this, please consider making the nearby POCO get a 'percentage' of the materials. This way, alliances can still support themselves. And maybe consider allowing POCOs to go up in high sec as well?
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#88 - 2012-06-15 14:59:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
I think what would be interesting is a tiered tax system.


Whatever/however it works.


We have 2 groups.

Alliance A and Alliance B.


Alliance A controls a small constellation of systems and gathers about 1,000 players in the constellation able to maintain activities (dreaming here).

Alliance B sees this and decides that they want some of the action. So they move in and "attack" the system. They win the battles over the structures but they don't take over the stations/outpots/i-hubs. When they "win" the fight, they opt to instead of taking over the outpost to add their own taxation to the systems activities.

So Alliance A is now being taxed by Alliance B to own the system and live there. They can stay or leave, but the station is taxed by them, and by alliance A on their players.

So, now there's a tough call. Is it worth moving away from the conquered stations to avoid the taxation? (Was taxation unreasonable?) or do they stay and not hassle with moving away.

Also, how do you get that taxation removed is another question.

There is still the issue of "planting the flag", and this is a lot like "renters", but the idea is to allow conquest without domination. Anyways, just an interesting thought bubble that I really liked from the perspective of dynamic sov control. Eventually a group can take over large sections to tax them, and "own" them. Eventually you get rebellious activity of course, and you can make more enemies than you like, but you do get a source of income from large swathes of population, promote population retention in null sec systems without forcing total evac scenarios, and can say "I OWN YOU ****". :)

Where I am.

Vokanic
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#89 - 2012-06-15 15:00:53 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:

Yes. Unlimited pockets = bad. More importantly, are you THINKING about removing all moon goo income with Ring mining or just reducing it? I think the economy of moon goo will become bad quickly when you consider the cost of running a moon vs profits and it will probably die off in the face of ring mining. just throwing that out there. I'd be totally cool with removing almost all moon goo to ring mining. But I guess that's a tough answer from an economic stand point.


Just to quickly grab this one: I haven't entirely decided yet, but I'd like to take out all the moon mining and move it into ring mining. I'm not sure having a tower that basically mines money is a good idea compared to having a group of people doing an activity that the alliance then has some tools to tax.

That's another issue, making sure your alliances health/money is linked to your members. Right now it really isn't and I think EVE would be a better game if alliances would benefit more directly from their members actions, rather than a tower sitting somewhere.


You'd better make this ring mining the single most exciting thing to do in EvE, else it will kill off nullsec. As it stands, moon mining pays for space that alliances hold. It frees the members to log in and do what they want. Shackles etc. Granted tech lets stuff like burn jita and hulkageddon happen at zero cost to the aggressors, but that's not the point.

If you change that to: 'Mine X hours per member to keep your space'.. well it won't end well. (either they stop logging in, or sreegs gets to go on an all new bot banning rampage)
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#90 - 2012-06-15 15:05:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
Vokanic wrote:


You'd better make this ring mining the single most exciting thing to do in EvE, else it will kill off nullsec. As it stands, moon mining pays for space that alliances hold. It frees the members to log in and do what they want. Shackles etc. Granted tech lets stuff like burn jita and hulkageddon happen at zero cost to the aggressors, but that's not the point.

If you change that to: 'Mine X hours per member to keep your space'.. well it won't end well. (either they stop logging in, or sreegs gets to go on an all new bot banning rampage)



I do have to agree with this. Turning PVPers into Miners isn't going to turn too well.

But, you see, what you're missing is that there are WHOLE ARMIES OF MINERS IN HISEC. You just need to convince them that you are more profitable than that can ever be. Then, you take their taxes, and you build your army and fund it.

This goes back to the idea I have of population retention. Instead of kicking all the miners out when you take a null sec over, you can keep population retention in a null sec location, (miners in your case), use them as taxation, and then it becomes a matter of who controls the most miners mining the most stuff, gets the most taxes can build the biggest army that can own EVE.

Yes, some people really love mining, JUST THAT MUCH.

Local has to change (because miners are afraid of local channels, it's true, I deal with it everyday). Out of sight out of mind.

The coalition that we run is actually not too dissimilar from this situation.

Where I am.

Kismeteer
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#91 - 2012-06-15 15:05:17 UTC
Bloodpetal wrote:
So Alliance A is now being taxed by Alliance B to own the system and live there. They can stay or leave, but the station is taxed by them, and by alliance A on their players.


This is a full sov revamp you're asking for, basically. A declared fealty system, or allied system, or some sort of way to have public/private treaties.

Personally, I'd favor a move away from the current corporation/alliance system, and have individual pilots declare their support for individual groups.

In real life, you don't walk around with the badge of your corporation on your shoulder. You walk around as yourself, and support different lists of organizations and goals. What if we made standings based on who you support/supports you, etc. And everyone are individuals that can support multiple organizations. It might be VERY chaotic at first, but I think it might be pretty interesting in the long run to see how the system stabilizes.

In the end, the current corp/alliance system is broken to a degree. You need to be in the same corp to access resources, same alliance to have default standings for things like repairing and getting inside shield bubbles, and most major fights involve multiple coalitions, not just a few corps.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#92 - 2012-06-15 15:09:12 UTC
Quote:
: is territorial conquest based on a certain resource, or are there other factors in play?


the main factor for taking space should be the planets and thier strategic reasource being crew members on planets...

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.

Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#93 - 2012-06-15 15:09:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Bloodpetal
Kismeteer wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:
So Alliance A is now being taxed by Alliance B to own the system and live there. They can stay or leave, but the station is taxed by them, and by alliance A on their players.


This is a full sov revamp you're asking for, basically. A declared fealty system, or allied system, or some sort of way to have public/private treaties.

Personally, I'd favor a move away from the current corporation/alliance system, and have individual pilots declare their support for individual groups.

In real life, you don't walk around with the badge of your corporation on your shoulder. You walk around as yourself, and support different lists of organizations and goals. What if we made standings based on who you support/supports you, etc. And everyone are individuals that can support multiple organizations. It might be VERY chaotic at first, but I think it might be pretty interesting in the long run to see how the system stabilizes.

In the end, the current corp/alliance system is broken to a degree. You need to be in the same corp to access resources, same alliance to have default standings for things like repairing and getting inside shield bubbles, and most major fights involve multiple coalitions, not just a few corps.



I think this is a cool idea, and I would think it'd be fun, but that's not just a null sec remap, that's an EVE Remap! lol.

I think the idea I listed is actually not too dissimilar from what you're saying. It might seem like it's centralizing on the organizational parts, but as I've come up with the idea of player retention as part of the conquest dynamic, the issue really DOES become "well, I'm in a corp that is not liked by xyz, so they're going to want to kick me out." It would be a lot simpler if miners could be unaffiliated, or even affiliated with the station or something that makes it a lot less "awkward" to retain players in a system. This idea is just a whole level above what is currently even on the radar for game mechanics, so I don't know what to say other than, player retention in null sec is going to rely on "detaching" standings and corporations from people that want to stay and live there on some level. Either on the social gameplay level, or on the game mechanics level.

Where I am.

Denidil
Cascades Mountain Operatives
#94 - 2012-06-15 15:11:37 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Bloodpetal wrote:

Yes. Unlimited pockets = bad. More importantly, are you THINKING about removing all moon goo income with Ring mining or just reducing it? I think the economy of moon goo will become bad quickly when you consider the cost of running a moon vs profits and it will probably die off in the face of ring mining. just throwing that out there. I'd be totally cool with removing almost all moon goo to ring mining. But I guess that's a tough answer from an economic stand point.


Just to quickly grab this one: I haven't entirely decided yet, but I'd like to take out all the moon mining and move it into ring mining. I'm not sure having a tower that basically mines money is a good idea compared to having a group of people doing an activity that the alliance then has some tools to tax.

That's another issue, making sure your alliances health/money is linked to your members. Right now it really isn't and I think EVE would be a better game if alliances would benefit more directly from their members actions, rather than a tower sitting somewhere.


yes.. wipe moon mining from existence when ring mining is implemented. more ISK into individual pockets, less into alliance. deep pocketed alliances are part of the reason of stagnation.

also there is less incentive for market manipulation at an alliance level without moon goo.

Tedium and difficulty are not the same thing, if you don't realize this then STFU about game design.

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#95 - 2012-06-15 15:15:17 UTC
Vokanic wrote:
You'd better make this ring mining the single most exciting thing to do in EvE, else it will kill off nullsec. As it stands, moon mining pays for space that alliances hold.

Funny that alliances without tech are able to hold space.
Bloodpetal
Tir Capital Management Group
#96 - 2012-06-15 15:15:34 UTC

At Ring Mining ::

I think an interesting idea would be instead of requiring to "dock" and deposit ring mining goodies, that you can drop them off at a station attachment that would be designed like a POCO hangar (bear with me).

The Moon Mining Deposit Bay would let you drop your ores into the station and it would be taxed and then taken to the appropriate hangar (corp/personal). This would avoid the need for constant docking and undocking when full up on materials and would let miners get taxed as they go, providing a service and a convenience and a method of taxation.

Just exploring here on forward thinking mechanics.



Where I am.

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#97 - 2012-06-15 15:16:54 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:

I think there are a lot of questions to be answered and I'm not sure EVE is a game that would benefit from dynamic resources. I'd much rather invest in a system where we encourage conflict through social dynamics. Where you go to war because you dislike someone and want to e-stab them with your ship.

While this is true, nothing creates the sort of social dynamics that break up powerblocs and encourage bad feelings like how to divide up valuble resources - just think PL's "for funsies" fights over prom/dyspro with the old NC that basically fomented a permanent split. There was also severe tensions in the NC over tech distribution - you can point to Goonswarm's hatred of Stella Polaris that started over a dispute over a tech moon.

You can't rely on people just hating people for no reason, you've got to ferment the hatred.



The trouble is you can't have mittens trumpeting the power of OTEC in one breath and claiming that tech moons are conflict drivers in another.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#98 - 2012-06-15 15:18:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
Malcanis wrote:

The trouble is you can't have mittens trumpeting the power of OTEC in one breath and claiming that tech moons are conflict drivers in another.

I basically addressed this earlier: the reason why tech is no longer a successful conflict driver is it's expensive to take, and the moons are going to be nerfed in the near future. Tech isn't a good conflict driver as well because it's too strongly regional. Tech should be nerfed, making a different moon (an r64) the valuable moon, then look at replacing it as a conflict driver.

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

Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2012-06-15 15:18:31 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:

I think there are a lot of questions to be answered and I'm not sure EVE is a game that would benefit from dynamic resources. I'd much rather invest in a system where we encourage conflict through social dynamics. Where you go to war because you dislike someone and want to e-stab them with your ship.

While this is true, nothing creates the sort of social dynamics that break up powerblocs and encourage bad feelings like how to divide up valuble resources - just think PL's "for funsies" fights over prom/dyspro with the old NC that basically fomented a permanent split. There was also severe tensions in the NC over tech distribution - you can point to Goonswarm's hatred of Stella Polaris that started over a dispute over a tech moon.

You can't rely on people just hating people for no reason, you've got to ferment the hatred.



The trouble is you can't have mittens trumpeting the power of OTEC in one breath and claiming that tech moons are conflict drivers in another.


OTEC only works because a tech nerf is coming "soon". If they were to announce tech won't change for 2 years. You would see us invade a region by the weekend.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Simetraz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#100 - 2012-06-15 15:20:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Simetraz
Just cause I am thinking about it and dpending on how far you want to go.


First POS's serve a purpose but they were based on a time when there was no cycno Jammers and Jump Bridges.
For items like that and SOV mechanics they serve there purpose.

But for moon mining they are overkill.

You need to make a platform for moon mining and moon material production.
The shields on it need to be small if any.
IT needs to be more akin to a ship.
It can have POS weapons but give the platform slots for them so they can be limited and tweaked if need be.
They also need to be destroyed as target points.

Then you can add all the other items for moon mining in slots as well also destoryable or with enough damage that it will take them off line.

All the above should be able to be taken out with a small group and some time.

The platform itself should require Capitals or a large group and TONS of time.

The object is to find a sweet spot where something can be taken offline with a wondering gang.
And even stolen from (REWARD) if offline

But can't be destroyed without some serious effert.

Repair - 2 ways
One you provide some raw materials and it will repair itself over time and come back online providing knowone is shooting it.
THe repair materials can be stored in the stucker itself.
Second - direct repping.

This will provide some method for those that don't want to mind it but you can't just ignore it like we do now with POS's.

Something like that, small scale raiding and disruption of industry is the goal without having to pull out the capitals.

I know this is alot but I think it would be easier then reworking POS's and then try and balance them.

Better to phase them out entirely (if need be) over time then try to replace them in one go.