These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2012-06-15 15:20:26 UTC
Stations should be destroyable.
Stations should have much better upgrades.
There should be more than 1 station allowed per system.

CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#102 - 2012-06-15 15:21:52 UTC
Aryth wrote:
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.

As proven by activity in 2011 and 2009...

oh wait.
Vincent Athena
Photosynth
#103 - 2012-06-15 15:22:23 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Ring mining might have to move back in favor or re-doing POSs.

In the meantime, I'd really just like to alchemy every single tier of moons (like it was done with 64s).


If you are thinking about opening up alchemy, you might want to actually look at the periodic table and use it to find reactions that are physically possible. For example Hafnium is element #72, Technetium is element#73. If you took Hafnium and fused it with Hydrogen (actually to get the Neutron count right, Deuterium, but that is a Hydrogen isotope) you would get Technetium.

Tungsten + 2 Helium = Platinum

Platinum + Helium = Mercury

Cadmium + 2 Carbon = Neodymium

And so on.

Know a Frozen fan? Check this out

Frozen fanfiction
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#104 - 2012-06-15 15:24:15 UTC
I would sincerely hope game balance of minerals that were basically assigned random names isn't based on those names.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#105 - 2012-06-15 15:24:46 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Aryth wrote:
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.

As proven by activity in 2011 and 2009...

oh wait.


Funny, I wasn't aware OTEC existed in 2009 or 2011.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Torneach
Doomheim
#106 - 2012-06-15 15:26:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Torneach
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Yes, stations should be destroyable.


YESSSSSSSSS!

Protect thy assets, lest they fall into the fiery chasm of nothingness!


Vincent Athena wrote:
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Ring mining might have to move back in favor or re-doing POSs.

In the meantime, I'd really just like to alchemy every single tier of moons (like it was done with 64s).


If you are thinking about opening up alchemy, you might want to actually look at the periodic table and use it to find reactions that are physically possible. For example Hafnium is element #72, Technetium is element#73. If you took Hafnium and fused it with Hydrogen (actually to get the Neutron count right, Deuterium, but that is a Hydrogen isotope) you would get Technetium.

Tungsten + 2 Helium = Platinum

Platinum + Helium = Mercury

Cadmium + 2 Carbon = Neodymium

And so on.


More science in our science fiction game? I like.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#107 - 2012-06-15 15:27:54 UTC
Again, nobody is saying that tech is a good conflict driver: it's not, because it's too strongly regional. It needs to be a mineral thats more weakly regional.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#108 - 2012-06-15 15:29:12 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.



correct me if i am wrong but if you are doing the pos thing first is that not a waiste of time making new moon mining mods that will fit in the new pos?

like you spend a month working on the moon mining aspects of the modular pos just to delete them from the game a few months later?

I think both new pos and new mining mechanics are important enough to borrow devs from other teams to work on it...

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
StuRyan
Space Wolves ind.
Solyaris Chtonium
#109 - 2012-06-15 15:29:31 UTC
Give the game a new dimension that allows people to determine their path and differentiate themselves.

e.g. technetium mining requires a skill and of said skill allows so many moon reactors to be deployed, perhaps even make it so you can only train for 1 type of material.

I dunno... but this technetium Bull crap is making the game very stagnant with every carebear and its dog sat VFK... No wonder they are like dogs around scraps when intel channels blink with "1 in 2-r NV".
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#110 - 2012-06-15 15:30:03 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
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.



If CFC wants you to leave that space all they have to do is continuously harass you and there's absolutely nothing you can do to keep your sov because at some point you will miss isk.
At the end of the day they had great fun and are still doing gazillions of isk to cover all ship losses, pay Concord bills, and ready to go on and on continuously.

Tech moons provide far too much isk this is a fact. How to change it and make people fight over something else, welp, I guess we'll need Tech moons version 1.2
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#111 - 2012-06-15 15:30:36 UTC
Fix Lag wrote:
Stations should be destroyable.
Stations should have much better upgrades.
There should be more than 1 station allowed per system.



how about making titans intergrate with destructable stations?

make them into some sorty of uber outpost?

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#112 - 2012-06-15 15:31:57 UTC
Aryth wrote:
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.


In which case, what then? CFC have all the tech and we're supposed to wait for you guys to start squabbling about it?

"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
#113 - 2012-06-15 15:33:37 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

In which case, what then? CFC have all the tech and we're supposed to wait for you guys to start squabbling about it?

Tech would be a better conflict driver in that case, but still inferior to using an r64 instead.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
CCP Soundwave
C C P
C C P Alliance
#114 - 2012-06-15 15:33:59 UTC
Vokanic wrote:
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)


Might also force people to only hold as much space as they actually need :)
TweedIe Dum
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#115 - 2012-06-15 15:34:42 UTC
Bring on ring mining faster and nerf the crap out of the moons as they are purely passive income.

No corp/alliance should be able to sit their and watch hundreds of billions fall in their wallet every month.

Their has been a lot of complaints over the years about mining being afk and profitable this is worse as their is very little input required compared to even afk mining
Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#116 - 2012-06-15 15:36:33 UTC
TweedIe Dum wrote:
No corp/alliance should be able to sit their and watch hundreds of billions fall in their wallet every month.


Moon minerals do not magically find their way into an alliance's wallet. It takes a helluva logistic effort to keep everything moving.

CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2012-06-15 15:36:45 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Aryth wrote:
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.


In which case, what then? CFC have all the tech and we're supposed to wait for you guys to start squabbling about it?


No, ring mining was the solution. Tech was a problem solved in 6-8 months was the expectation. Now CCP is saying they do not have the resources to do it. Our point is, if you are going to fix moongoo, fix it once and for all. Do not simply bandaid it again for a few months. 0.0 is going to stagnate until the null revamp. No one has any interest in launching some massive new war while we do not even know the scope or mechanics of the winter patch yet. This is especially true if you do not even know what the conflict drivers of the future are. (Even CCP Doesn't yet, so how can we)

This isn't a OTEC or tech issue. This is a CCP has not given us a future direction issue. We thought we had it with ring mining, but now that does not seem to be the case. So there is nothing to fight over while we think a tech nerf is impending (why take something about to be nerfed), and no new conquest goal to aim for. The current player behavior is driven BECAUSE CCP annouced a nerf. If that wasn't on the horizon we woulda taken far more moons than we did to further facility another economy wide plot we are current conducting.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#118 - 2012-06-15 15:37:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Krell Kroenen
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 Just wanted voice my support of this concept. The more activities that people can take part in, day in and day out the better in my opinion. From either the stand point of the people doing the mining or the people defending to the people hunting them. This level of activity would be more common and wide spread than the more rare cursade of going after someone's tech moons.
Cutout Man
Doomheim
#119 - 2012-06-15 15:38:52 UTC
I'm not clear on what ring mining is exactly as a game mechanic or how that factors into soundwave's other concerns. I'm hoping its something like this:
1. Alliance takes space
2. Alliance begins upgrade process (activity based)
3. Adds "goo" upgrade, which causes "mini moons" or "rogue moons" with a random amount and type of goo to spawn in random alliance controlled system, in a random location within the system (think really big asteroid floating around)
4. To mine the goo, you need miners but also some sort of temporarily anchored structure (mobile POCO?) that a 20 to 40 man subcap fleet could take down in 3 or 4 hrs.
5. The mini-moon depletes after X units are mined. Y hours later, a new mini-moon is spawned.

Benefits: any size alliance can get a piece of the moon goo pie. Alliances need to be active to get into the process. They need to stay active to keep it going. This means that the largest alliances have to spend some of their human resource capital keeping things running, rather than just fueling a POS. No more controlling moons/goo but not space; however, non-space holders can still ninja mine or destroy the structure and keep the alliance from mining (fields and farms goals). Alliances are also in a position to offer “goo mining rights” to interested parties. Perhaps the structure would allow the alliance to take a cut of the money or goo, not unlike a POCO.
Fix Lag
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2012-06-15 15:39:21 UTC
The question you have to ask yourself, Soundwave, is do you want industry done in nullsec or do you want industry done in highsec? The way things are, it's easier to do it in highsec and transport products to nullsec.

CCP mostly sucks at their job, but Veritas is a pretty cool dude.