These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mortimer Civeri
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#221 - 2012-06-16 01:07:13 UTC
kannilaw wrote:
***massive wall of sperg***

TL;DR It's CCPs fault for nerfing 0.0, for not understanding war, for putting tech only in the north, with bonus dig at Goons ganking miners.

"I don't know which is worse, ...that everyone has his price, or that the price is always so low." Calvin
kannilaw
henry hill corp
#222 - 2012-06-16 01:10:43 UTC
Mortimer Civeri wrote:
kannilaw wrote:
***massive wall of sperg***

TL;DR It's CCPs fault for nerfing 0.0, for not understanding war, for putting tech only in the north, with bonus dig at Goons ganking miners.


yeah basically and everything they do to drive the conflict is only making it harder for the grand conflict to happen

thanks for summing up my long whined spill
kannilaw
henry hill corp
#223 - 2012-06-16 01:24:23 UTC
were the goon-swarm VS band of brothers fights about resources or about principles ?
when MC and Bob fought what was that over ?

sorry i guess my long winded spill earlier was that CCP should study a bit of eves history to see what motives people to fight in the first place Odd to say since they made the sandbox in the first place ,but maybe they were so busy making the game
they never looked to see what drove it
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#224 - 2012-06-16 01:37:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Marlona Sky wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:

yeah just some badass OTEC member who spends his day probing one of the 100,000+ moons in 0.0/low that take 40 minutes per probe is going to stumble upon your sweet brand new tech moon

sounds like something to worry about

tl;dr - "rotating moon goo deposits" is an idea invariably suggested by people who have never probed a single moon ever


You are assuming the moon probing process would have to remain as boring and a PITA as it is now.

Yes I have done moon probing. Why don't you make a **** ton more assumptions about people on the forums you obviously have zero ******* clue what they have done in this game. You shoot down ideas from the sideline all the time and give reasoning solely based on who the poster is, instead of whatever they are suggesting.

Do everyone a favor and judge the content of the post/idea instead of just looking at the cover of a book and proclaiming, "Looks boring, pass." ******* moron.


moments later

Marlona Sky;480898 wrote:
KathDougans;480893 wrote:
Marlona Sky;480891 wrote:
I told a guy today he was a moron for judging ideas based on the author instead of the post/idea itself. Result was me being banned for "Personal Attack". lol, this game.


This post? [url]http://www.eve-search.com/thread/121591-1/page/5#131[/url] ?

You got a permanent ban for that ?

That's the one. Oh well. GG CCP.

EDIT: I will admit my post was on the spicy side, but in an ocean of posters who say far worse like subbing the wod Jew out and replacing it with 'high sec miner' from a hitler speech and that posters walks away clean, that's ****** up.

So remember guys, calling someone a moron gets all your accounts permma nuked.


lol
Gevlin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#225 - 2012-06-16 02:33:20 UTC
What would it be like that players were able to use a different produce than Technidium in the construction of their space ship, but as a result there may be a less of a bonus or have a negative.

I know that today in Electrical we use a lot of aluminum, it is cheaper than copper but does not hold a current as well so be have to increase the size cable to carry the same load.

So lets say following that idea. I use a Technidium substituted on any ship I make and the Sig radius is 50% larger
and may require additional skill to build.

Hulls like this could not be sold on the Market as they are comodities that are all the same. and only done though contracts as each one is specific.

Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships
Marconus Orion
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#226 - 2012-06-16 03:33:20 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
lol


Heh. Nothing like selective enforcement ehh?
Shukuzen Kiraa
F4G Wild Weasel
#227 - 2012-06-16 03:42:19 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).


Really? Neglecting mining? No way, I just don't believe it.
Alia Gon'die
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
#228 - 2012-06-16 03:47:14 UTC
Shukuzen Kiraa 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).


Really? Neglecting mining? No way, I just don't believe it.


Dude, it's not like he didn't give a good reason why. Trust me, even Goons would like to see ring mining. And not just because of more targets to shoot.

Soundwave said that the same team that is working on Ring Mining is also working on Dead Horse POS rewrite, and they prioritized POSes. I mean, it's not like they aren't in serious need of work or anything.

Self-appointed forums hallway monitor Ask me about La Maison and what it means for you! http://bit.ly/LTW5gW These wardec rules are not in place for our protection. They're in place for yours.
SetrakDark
Doomheim
#229 - 2012-06-16 03:58:19 UTC  |  Edited by: SetrakDark
Again, technetium is actually not that big of a deal. Those in the know, including goons, have been calling for a t2 material fix for two years. Nullsec will survive, t2 will survive, eve will survive. Compared to other pressing issues, like hisec wardecs or turning lowsec away from a complete wasteland for example, a moon revamp is small potatoes.
Salient Soldier
#230 - 2012-06-16 04:24:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Salient Soldier
Over the near decade I've played this game, CCP has always made the same mistake when it comes to 'fixing' eve: misguided overcompensation. Instead of fixing an issue directly, you tend to overcompensate for the mistake by adding unneeded or unwanted features. Why? Fear of losing your whiny player base i would suspect, or maybe it's just an Icelandic thing.

The fix to the moon goo situation is already in the game, upgradable 0.0. Just add a new category alongside grav/military/strat that increases the likely hood for a special ladar site that can appear containing the moon goo equivalent. Replace moon harvesters with expensive upgrades to live inside of poses to keep it at level 5. Make the spawns truly random, so that any upgraded system has a chance of getting the 'good' stuff. Toss in a little extra processing, to make sure there's a lot of player involvement in the getting and making of the 'good' stuff. Problem solved.

That way all of 0.0 is valuable, the motivation is there to continue to fight and expand ones borders, without the current unfair advantages.

Might as well keep ranting. here's another related issue: t2 bpos. Now that we have invention, all t2 bpos should be deleted. Suffers from the same problems as moon goo, its just a license to print isk. Actually its safer than harvesting moon goo, safely tucked away in jita you can just grind out infinite isk with no risk of ever losing your source of income. It was a poorly thought out idea to begin with, the t2 bpo lottery, and once you corrected it with invention, you failed to have the guts to finish the job by deleting the prior mistake. Its time for that unfair advantage to go away as well.

I have more rants, but CCP would have to start paying me to fix their game at that point.
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#231 - 2012-06-16 04:46:16 UTC
corestwo wrote:

VFK is a large enough hub that it lands in the top 20 (14th to be exact) for market hubs by size & volume and nonetheless, the taxes and broker fees (if we get to collect them at all) amount to something like 4-5b per month. Those fees are by no means a replacement for moon income, so, no, you're wrong - ring mining needs to be taxable in some non-evadable way.


Well, we can't have our cake and eat it too. We can't spread around tech and come up with ways to put it into the hands of individual players, and maintain the exact same revenue from when all tech was funneled through a cartel.

The only sure way to collect those taxes is with a moon poco. Have the player fork over the isk before before they can put the goo in their cargo hold. Over all, it probably is best to just move moon mining and reacting into a PI like system.
SetrakDark
Doomheim
#232 - 2012-06-16 04:54:14 UTC
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Well, we can't have our cake and eat it too. We can't spread around tech and come up with ways to put it into the hands of individual players, and maintain the exact same revenue from when all tech was funneled through a cartel.

The only sure way to collect those taxes is with a moon poco. Have the player fork over the isk before before they can put the goo in their cargo hold. Over all, it probably is best to just move moon mining and reacting into a PI like system.


No, the point is maintaining the incentive to drive organizational development and conflict. As fantastic as roaming bands of warrior-miners sounds, removing organizational rewards removes five years of organically developed eve gameplay, and the very guts of nullsec political dynamics. For the fifth, or so, time: the fundamentals of the moon system actually work very, very well. All that is necessary is to, for the first time, balance the moon system properly.
Jimmy Gunsmythe
Sebiestor Tribe
#233 - 2012-06-16 05:00:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Jimmy Gunsmythe
Umega wrote:
I like hamburgers.

Sometimes I want my hamburgers prepared a certain way, as a lot of places will cook and dress them up differently. So I'll go to the different places for what I want, I do not sit at home and get angry that the nearest places doesn't prepare them how I want.

I have a choice, sit at home and do nothing about my hamburger craving..

Or go to the place for the hamburger I want.

Thank god I have the choice to either sit around and be angry, or actually get off my ass and go get what I want.

People should have a choice, as it motivates us a species to get things accomplished.

Take that away.. life gets boring.


Boring like it is now, yeah? Cause people really don't have a choice. Not realisitcally anyways.

I like the idea, if anything, I would slow the cycle down even further to a 2-3 year cycle.

John Hancock
corestwo
Goonfleet Investment Banking
#234 - 2012-06-16 05:10:27 UTC
SetrakDark wrote:
Shepard Wong Ogeko wrote:
Well, we can't have our cake and eat it too. We can't spread around tech and come up with ways to put it into the hands of individual players, and maintain the exact same revenue from when all tech was funneled through a cartel.

The only sure way to collect those taxes is with a moon poco. Have the player fork over the isk before before they can put the goo in their cargo hold. Over all, it probably is best to just move moon mining and reacting into a PI like system.


No, the point is maintaining the incentive to drive organizational development and conflict. As fantastic as roaming bands of warrior-miners sounds, removing organizational rewards removes five years of organically developed eve gameplay, and the very guts of nullsec political dynamics. For the fifth, or so, time: the fundamentals of the moon system actually work very, very well. All that is necessary is to, for the first time, balance the moon system properly.


You're absolutely right about the incentive and whatnot - also CCP should probably realize that deep alliance pockets are what drives the massive battles that get them attention. At the same time, Shepard Wong is right that we can't really expect the trillion isk a month incomes that we have now...which is fine, no one really does. There's a happy medium somewhere.

That said, keeping moon mining as is is inconsistent with CCP's vision of emphasizing taxable player income. Also I'm not really sure that "just balance it properly" is as easy as you make it out to be. The fact that CCP has tried twice now suggests quite the opposite.

This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

fofofo
SetrakDark
Doomheim
#235 - 2012-06-16 05:21:20 UTC
corestwo wrote:
You're absolutely right about the incentive and whatnot - also CCP should probably realize that deep alliance pockets are what drives the massive battles that get them attention. At the same time, Shepard Wong is right that we can't really expect the trillion isk a month incomes that we have now...which is fine, no one really does. There's a happy medium somewhere.

That said, keeping moon mining as is is inconsistent with CCP's vision of emphasizing taxable player income. Also I'm not really sure that "just balance it properly" is as easy as you make it out to be. The fact that CCP has tried twice now suggests quite the opposite.


Two points in response:

1) I`ve noticed a worrying willingness in this thread from Soundwave and commentators to cavalierly do away with an absolutely key element of nullsec gameplay.

2) The original bottleneck was a product of underestimating the mathematical complexity of a system they created, which is actually perfectly excusable. The second bottleneck was a product of a farcical arrogance that some gaming expert neckbeard could solve said mathematical problem. There is no key element of the moon material system that prevents it from being properly organized, only the unwillingness to hire the proper qualified professionals and make the corresponding organizational effort.
Sephiroth Clone VII
Brothers of Tyr
Goonswarm Federation
#236 - 2012-06-16 05:27:57 UTC
Ring mining, or actual mining for moon mins could not just be a way for balancing materials, but to make moon mining a actual active activity that could be stopped by motivated hostiles. Not a passive money maker for one person running a POS.
Shepard Wong Ogeko
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#237 - 2012-06-16 05:53:55 UTC
SetrakDark wrote:

No, the point is maintaining the incentive to drive organizational development and conflict. As fantastic as roaming bands of warrior-miners sounds, removing organizational rewards removes five years of organically developed eve gameplay, and the very guts of nullsec political dynamics. For the fifth, or so, time: the fundamentals of the moon system actually work very, very well. All that is necessary is to, for the first time, balance the moon system properly.


I think you read me wrong. I'm not really a fan of the ring mining idea because it just has a vaporware sound to it, and news of the devs delaying it reinforces that opinion. And I agree with the idea that trying to enforce tax collecting on such an activity is more likely to create drama than revenue.

Moon pocos would still mean there would be alliance assets involved, and it would still mean structure shooting. You can go ahead and keep moons regional as a conflict driver. But it moves the alliance from the sole holder of moon goo to providing infrastructure to get moon goo and then collecting taxes at that point.

Everything can be as is, it just moves the alliance from doing the actual moon mining to just collecting taxes from moon miners.
RAP ACTION HERO
#238 - 2012-06-16 07:08:01 UTC
lol everybody thinks the goons are invincible forever

vitoc erryday
Endeavour Starfleet
#239 - 2012-06-16 09:45:27 UTC
CCP Soundwave wrote:
Denidil 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).


So what exactly is Ring mining? and while i think OP's idea for creating shifting environment in nullsec to prevent stagnation won't work, i think the concept of something to prevent stagnation is a good idea.

something needs to keep huge regions of nullsec from becoming huge mutually blue blocks


Ring mining would be getting moon minerals through collaborative PVE. It would take it out of the hands of the alliances and into the players hands. Realistically, the same people making ring mining are working on POSs, so doing them both at the same time seems to not be viable.

I'm not entirely sure I trust a system of dynamic resources in a game that's so built around settling down and carving your own piece of space. I think we could do it, but my issues are 1: is moving around fun gameplay? Does a 3000 man alliance want to ferry their stuff around every few months? 2: Is there any reason to invest in space if you know you have to move? Will territorial conquests become "seasonal" if players know a resource will move shortly? 3: is territorial conquest based on a certain resource, or are there other factors in play? (like do you choose where to invade because it's possible for an alliance of your size, do you choose your enemy because you don't like them etc).

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.



The issue is soundwave the current way encourages huge blue blocs to completely lock down a resource and use it to strangle any competition. While some say "Ya the sandbox" the issue is it goes from sandbox play to "I captured most tech moons so I just won EVE"

The groups forming OTEC have effectively locked down the space. To take it you will need to buy stuff that costs tech. So they get money from the invasion attempt.

Also it helps remove the player influence on the alliance. If the tech brings in the cash the only thing you should care about is if Joe player #4564254 goes for his daily PVP. Utterly broken.


Ring mining puts power back into the hands of players and helps return EVE back to amount of territory which makes it harder to defend instead of small and easy to defend.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#240 - 2012-06-16 11:19:58 UTC
SetrakDark wrote:



2) The original bottleneck was a product of underestimating the mathematical complexity of a system they created, which is actually perfectly excusable. The second bottleneck was a product of a farcical arrogance that some gaming expert neckbeard could solve said mathematical problem. There is no key element of the moon material system that prevents it from being properly organized, only the unwillingness to hire the proper qualified professionals and make the corresponding organizational effort.


I want to quote this. CCP quite often gets the economic side wrong, because they don't have any economic dudes. While they have an economist, knowing EVE is the #1 thing. I am hopeful that with this system they get it right. Would hate to see them get completely outmaneuvered again by a handful of market wizards.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

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