These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

New dev blog: Tech is fine l2p

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Louis deGuerre
The Dark Tribe
#61 - 2012-07-19 14:52:23 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Louis deGuerre wrote:
If this ensure that prices drop so I can afford to PVP again in something other than T1 frigs I love it.

But I just don't get it. It is such a strange solution.

Why not use your PI system (flaws and all) to produce vital moon minerals instead ?
That would ensure that minerals are distributed more evenly over the galaxy, are dynamic resources, and give DUST bunnies something meaningful to fight over.


This is the first step in our plan to revamp tech 2 production. Changes to how the minerals are obtained will be coming before we're done (although probably not from PI).


Thanks for your response, looking forward to future changes.
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions
#62 - 2012-07-19 14:53:01 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
mercuryyy wrote:
If the numbers in the blog are real

--
100 Cobalt and 100 Platinum
reacts into
1 Unrefined Platinum Technite
refines into
10 Platinum Technite
and
95 Platinum
-

you basically use 100 Cobalt and 5 Platinum to get just 10 Platinum Technite per reaction cycle (= POS Cycle = 1 hour, i take it).
At current values, you would be loosing money not only on the pure reaction, but also on the fuel needed for that reactor/refineries bzw refining taxes etc.
To break even, the Tech Price (and with that the Platinum Technite price) would have to at least rise by 500% to make it worthwile to do this alchemy reaction.. This surely isnt a way to force prices down, if thats at all necessary.


From the blog:
Quote:
You will notice that we are starting these reactions at the same conversion rate as the original alchemy instead of the conversion rate of current boosted alchemy. These ratios can and likely will change over subsequent releases as we adjust the system.


We have a lot of data about what happens when you release 20/1 alchemy, so we started there.


Jesus Christ, a Dev that is doing sensible things...

QFT
Quote:
We have a lot of data about what happens when you release 20/1 alchemy, so we started there.


I look forward to more sensible ideas from this new guy.
Lukas Rox
Aideron Technologies
#63 - 2012-07-19 14:54:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Lukas Rox
@CCP Fozzie: The change sounds logical and will result in cheap Tech based goo.

If alchemy was not profitable, people would not run it, would they?

+1 for tackling an overdue problem

The only problem is I think you just made yourself Goonswarm's enemy No1 ;-)
(unless Mittani created OTEC purely for Trolling purposes in which case he has succeeded again).

Proud developer of LMeve: Industry Contribution and Mass Production Tracker: https://github.com/roxlukas/lmeve | Blogging about EVE on http://pozniak.pl/wp/
Jarin Arenos
Card Shark Industries
#64 - 2012-07-19 14:54:36 UTC
Elecktra Blue wrote:
"The end goal is for the materials for tech two production to come from player activities that require group gameplay and risk taking, and that provide appropriate rewards."

Yes not like a group of players took the time to grind sov, place towers, keep up the logistics of said towers, and defended them.

Out of curiosity, when was the last time someone actually threatened CFC's tech sov? Like... legitimately, not just trolling.

But I'm not CCP Soundwave, so what do I know?
Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2012-07-19 14:54:40 UTC
This will end well.

Prepare for an even more stagnant EVE :)

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#66 - 2012-07-19 14:54:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Nevigrofnu Mrots wrote:
its like we had a vision...

so we just conquered the new tec lands, lol
Called it!Lol

Lukas Rox wrote:
The only problem is I think you just made yourself Goonswarm's enemy No1 ;-)
(unless Mittani created OTEC purely for Trolling purposes in which case he has succeeded again).
Nah. He was always pretty vocal about how the current tech situation was silly. OTEC was just a way of both milking it before the inevitable change and highlighting how much a change was needed. So, semi-troll, I'd say.
wallenbergaren
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2012-07-19 14:54:59 UTC
Nevigrofnu Mrots wrote:
cobalt moons:

Period Basis 163
Querious 358

its like we had a vision...

so we just conquered the new tec lands, lol

thanks CPP

PS: Catch 434... NEXT

Big smile


A clueless goon

nbs
Mikron Alexarr
New Age Solutions
#68 - 2012-07-19 14:55:01 UTC
Elecktra Blue wrote:
"The end goal is for the materials for tech two production to come from player activities that require group gameplay and risk taking, and that provide appropriate rewards."

Yes not like a group of players took the time to grind sov, place towers, keep up the logistics of said towers, and defended them.


That stuff is exclusive to an alliance. I'm hoping these other steps are the precursors to planetary ring mining or something similar so that smaller groups can have some crumbs from the table.
Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2012-07-19 14:55:33 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Nevigrofnu Mrots wrote:
its like we had a vision...

so we just conquered the new tec lands, lol
Called it!Lol



all hail prophet Tippia
Sister Bliss
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#70 - 2012-07-19 14:55:46 UTC
Congratulations on finally getting round to fixing one of the most cirtically game-breaking SNAFU's after over 2 and half years of doing God knows what.

Here is the original dev blog for anyone looking for the link on what was intended vs. what was delivered:

http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=703

XavierVE
No Corporation for Old Spacemen
#71 - 2012-07-19 14:56:42 UTC
Zagdul wrote:
This will end well.

Prepare for an even more stagnant EVE :)


Yes, removing the only real reason Evoke, NC., PL and Blueswarm had to be blue to one another will certainly make EVE more stagnant.

Great change, hopefully it's iterated on and is just the first step to unfucking EVE's economy.
Hakaru Ishiwara
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2012-07-19 14:57:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Hakaru Ishiwara
Since it hasn't been said yet....

Soz, CCP waited over two and a half years and hired a new guy to fix a majorly imbalanced design decision from '09. Congratulations? Roll

That said, alchemy looks promising.

LOL. Sister Bliss beat me by two posts!

Sister Bliss wrote:
Congratulations on finally getting round to fixing one of the most cirtically game-breaking SNAFU's after over 2 and half years of doing God knows what.

Here is the original dev blog for anyone looking for the link on what was intended vs. what was delivered:

http://community.eveonline.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=703

+++++++ I have never shed a tear for a fellow EVE player until now. Mark “Seleene” Heard's Blog Honoring Sean "Vile Rat" Smith.
Vilnius Zar
SDC Multi Ten
#73 - 2012-07-19 14:57:59 UTC
Lukas Rox wrote:
@CCP Fozzie: The change sounds logical and will result in cheap Tech based goo.

If alchemy was not profitable, people would not run it, would they?

+1 for tackling an overdue problem

The only problem is I think you just made yourself Goonswarm's enemy No1 ;-)
(unless Mittani created OTEC purely for Trolling purposes in which case he has succeeded again).


I'm sure he'll spin it that way, and many ppl will gobble it up.
CCP Omen
C C P
C C P Alliance
#74 - 2012-07-19 14:58:38 UTC
Elecktra Blue wrote:
"The end goal is for the materials for tech two production to come from player activities that require group gameplay and risk taking, and that provide appropriate rewards."

Yes not like a group of players took the time to grind sov, place towers, keep up the logistics of said towers, and defended them.


I think this is a good point and you should applaud yourself. It doesn't change the fact that nudges can be required for the benefit of the EVE universe. Like it or not but we did the same with PI taxes. I am sure that was a great benefit to some and a huge problem for others.

You'll bounce back I'm sure for the same reasons you climbed to power in the first place; being excellent at EVE!

Kudos
Omen

Senior Game Designer Team True Grit EVE/DUST Gameplay Liaison
Dramaticus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#75 - 2012-07-19 14:58:57 UTC
Hakaru Ishiwara wrote:
Since it hasn't been said yet....

Soz, CCP waited over two and a half years and hired a new guy to fix a majorly imbalanced design decision from '09. Congratulations? Roll

That said, alchemy looks promising.


Alchemy is a pretty terrible band-aid. The entire T2 process needs to be revamped, not space-magik'd away.

The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them
Commander Spurty
#76 - 2012-07-19 14:59:47 UTC
Nevigrofnu Mrots wrote:
cobalt moons:

Period Basis 163
Querious 358

its like we had a vision...

so we just conquered the new tec lands, lol

thanks CPP

PS: Catch 434... NEXT

Big smile


http://evemaps.dotlan.net/region/moons

Lol

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
BeanBagKing
The Order of Atlas
#77 - 2012-07-19 15:00:17 UTC
Abdiel Kavash wrote:
Quote:
The end goal is for the materials for tech two production to come from player activities that require group gameplay and risk taking, and that provide appropriate rewards. This will eventually involve changes to both resource collection and the build requirements for construction of tech two materials and items.


Does this mean you are trying to eliminate sources of alliance-level income? Or is there something being planned to replace moon mining on an alliance level?


I seem to remember when CCP previously discussed this they mentioned that they didn't like the idea that an alliance can hold a few moons and be rich, but hold absolutely no space, nor even live in the area with the moons. The idea CCP seemed to have here is that alliance income should be tied to how active an alliance is in their own space (As far as living there, defending it, upgrading it, mining, ratting, etc).

Hopefully the moon mining fix also ties in with this larger scheme of alliance income and they'll fix that. The current alliance/corp income mechanics are pretty broken. Ratting can be taxed by a corp, but not mining or market trading. Mining can be taxed via station refinery taxes, but many times these are either a) skipped when people refine at POS's, or b) held by alliance holding corps, resulting in a mining tax that goes to alliance instead of corp. Here again market operations and building don't get taxed (by the corp/alliance anyway, what is CONCORD doing taxing markets in player run 0.0?).

If CCP wants alliance to gain income via member actions the entire tax/income mechanics need to be overhauled as well. Corp leaders need to be able to directly (and somewhat evenly) tax all members of a corp no matter what their activity in a corp. It would also be great if they could tax them based on relative activity (kind of like ratting now) and not just a flat tax of XX mil isk/week or whatever, i.e. the more flexability here, the better. Let us run our own operations, but give us the tools to do it.

Alliances need similar power to chose who they tax (the corps directly, or the players directly) and how they tax them (flat tax, per member tax, tax against activities such as ratting, mining, marketing, etc). Again, they need to be able to make this fairly even across all activities.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#78 - 2012-07-19 15:01:16 UTC
Great blog!! This is a long overdue change, it's great to see it finally actualized.

CCP Fozzie is good people, folks. Buy him a beer next Fan Fest for his work at making Tech 2 more affordable for all!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
AdmiralJohn
The Unknown Bar and Pub
#79 - 2012-07-19 15:01:57 UTC
CCP Omen wrote:


You'll bounce back I'm sure for the same reasons you climbed to power in the first place; being excellent at EVE!

Kudos
Omen


But what about us at TEST who are not good at Eve? What?
Crunchmeister
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#80 - 2012-07-19 15:02:39 UTC
Sister Bliss wrote:
Congratulations on finally getting round to fixing one of the most cirtically game-breaking SNAFU's after over 2 and half years of doing God knows what.


Seconded.

I'm glad to see this being addressed finally, although I'm skeptical to how much of an effect it will have. It's going to take a hell of a lot more than this change to fix the damage already done to the game. One way or another, I don't think it'll change much of anything, because they who control the Tech that currently is the "problem item" also happen to control the vast majority of the other moons that can be used as alternatives to Tech moons. In the end, it's just the status quo and I don't see this doing much of anything except be a nerf to some of the smaller entities that happen to hold a Tech moon or two.

People were constantly telling me I was crazy. For a long time I didn't believe them, but after a while, I started to think they might be right.

But it turns out that they were all wrong. One of the voices in my head is a psychiatrist and he says I'm perfectly sane.